Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 78

message: Does anyone know where/how to doublecheck on this:
*either February 17, 1958 (US editors) or 17 February 1958 (others)</font color> will be rendered as either February 17, 1958 or 17 February 1958, according to a registered user's set preferences.
Once I came across a discussion that the comma is never needed, because the auto formatting inserts it automatically.  I don't know where to doublecheck that, but it fits with my experience, whether logged in or out (user preferences).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion above, "Omitting commas in Wiki-formatted dates", and there's an even earlier discussion in Archive D4. Chris the speller 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; this talk page got a bit out of hand :-)  So, the software does insert the commas, but tempest in a teapot.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the long and short of it is that yes, the software inserts the comma if you don't, but that we're not about to burden people with a ban on its manual insertion. All for the good, too. Tony 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doublecheck on comma in date format 

message: This stuff's been changing so much I'm not sure if this is even in there in any form.  I think it should be specified that when a dash is a stand-in for "to" or "versus", as in "McDougal lost to Yamamoto, 3-12", it is a hyphen (or what some call a "hypen-minus" for some reason), in contradistinction to the en-dash used in "fl. 205–162 BCE", where is stands for "through" or "up to".  En-dashes should emphatically not be used for sports statistics and the like, or the result will be misleading in many cases, implying a range rather than a 1:1 (or 1-1, but not 1–1 :-) comparison. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:DASH. — Aluvus t/c 23:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it emphatically should be an en dash; ranges are only one of that symbol's functions. Representing relationships and opposition are others. Sports scores should be presented with them, and not hyphens: 3–12, not the bunched-up 3-12. Tony 00:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll concede on this one, but only because Chicago 15th ed. recommends it.  I strenuously disagree with the logic of it, but I'm outgunned on this one.  I do have to note, however, that I've been editing sports articles here for a year and a half, and have never even once seen sports scores use an en-dash in this way.  Whether Chicago and MOSDASH advise it or not, it is not common usage, and getting people to use it is likely to prove essentially impossible.  I'll try to remember to do it myself, but I doubt this will have any effect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Endashes in sports scores has been the norm at WP:FAC for many months, and there's been no problem with acceptance.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup, I've encountered absolutely no resistance when insisting on it. People soon see that it's much more readable. Tony 00:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't meany anyone would fight it, they simply won't do it.  I've already seen ample evidence of that, if WP:MOSDASH has actually been around a while and saying what it says. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "To"/"versus" hyphen, and "through"/"up to" en-dash 

message: While we wait for a server-side update that makes date auto-formatting and date linking independent, I've put together a script that will separate date links from the rest and allow you to specify your own style for them. With this script, "January 1, 2008" and "100 AD" [for example–ed.] will render as black text in articles, or any other format you can apply with CSS.
See User talk:Outriggr/outdated.js for instructions. –Outriggr § 08:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea! Thanks. Maybe you could make it understand non-North American date order too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It will—the dates mentioned above are simply examples. –Outriggr § 09:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outriggr, if this works, you're a genius! Tony 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the dilemma, but someone's got to use the thing! With the script, you can reduce the visual impact of date links while still seeing that there are date links, if you so choose. Tony, do you know of any other talk pages related to the date linking problem where I could mention this tool? –Outriggr § 22:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, FAC, FAR, and some of the major, active Wikiprojects (don't know how to identify them, but they're there). Bill it as a new functionality for those who are sick of blue spattering all over WP's text from overlinking. I suppose you've seen my change-colour solution (Alvurus's, acutally). Tony 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  outdated.js — script for reformatting date links 

message: Concerning WP:MOSDATE#Autoformatting and linking - is the "2007-07-31" format no longer valid anymore?  How come it doesn't include an example of that, while the rest of the MOS uses that format as examples of correct format?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Dates" section says: "ISO 8601 dates (1976-05-12) are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison." The thrust of this point is unchanged in the overhauled policy. Tony 14:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autolinking dates? 

message: I'm adding this in hope it might start a productive discussion -- or at least not be ignored, as much of what I write seems to be -- but after the MoS reworked & all who have contributed are happy with it, how does it get implemented? 
If we allow the usual kinds of people to make these changes -- with or without bot help -- there will be an uproar. If you forgot the AD/CE wars, then have a peek at the battling over "Fair use images" war -- letting the MoS become a "license to edit without fear & win conflicts" will only serve to embitter many long-term productive Wikipedians & drive many other productive ones away. Yet if it is not somehow implemented, is there any purpose to all of this work? 
There must be some kind of soft, gradual process to implement this MoS that doesn't unnecessarily ruffle feathers. Education is one method: writing a regular column to the Signpost would be one way to do this. Engaging people is another: perhaps asking on Talk pages or at WikiProjects if the proposed changes could be made. This runs the risk that the more people who know about this work, the more likely much of what has been hammered out will go back to the furnace & a new consensus made. 
But some form of a gradual, soft strategy should be adopted, otherwise I suspect that there will be months of even more hostility than usual on Wikipedia. -- llywrch 21:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good advice. Those who participate in implementation are, of course, skilled diplomats, yes? Bad idea to continue with mass changes against significant local resistance. Bring it up here or at MOS-central. Tony 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementing the MoS 

message: See Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#Two different interpretations --Philip Baird Shearer 23:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Style and New Style dates 

message: I've copied over much of Sections 1–6. In the process, I realised that the stupidly named "Long short big small" at MOS-central belongs within the summary, and here (see vagueness), as does some of MOS-central's "Scientific style". All that remains of the old Scientific Style section at central is a short section on chemistry at the bottom of central.
I'm now adding an invisible note at the top of MOSNUM about the need to coordinate changes with MOS. In the next week, I'll change as many surface details as possible in the examples here, so that readers are forced to process the same guidelines anew; that will be good for both their understanding and the separate identity of this submanual. Tony 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now implemented at MOS-central 

message: The Autoformatting and linking section states how linking works and what it is for, it states what you should not link but it doesn't explicitly state that you should either link every date on a page or that you should only link certain dates. I've read through the discussion archives and they have left me non-the-wiser with some users saying link everything and some complaining about over linking. What is the MoS standpoint on linking dates? - X201 18:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about full dates, then? And by "link", I presume you mean "autoformat"? The wording indicates that you don't have to use the autoformatting facitility: people aren't forced to do this. Most people probably still will. Do you have a specific suggestion for additional text? Tony 00:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the above section "Too many large changes?", Stephen Turner and I question the removal of the requirement to link full dates. As of a few days ago, the guideline was clear that all full dates should be linked. My suggestion is to link them all until there is consensus to drop the requirement. Chris the speller 02:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Autoformatting and linking

message: MOSNUM says MYA, but the article is mya (unit); I've always thought it was mya.  Which is it?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To further complicate the question, Talk:mya (unit) says the international standard is Ma, not mya or MYA.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I have always seen Ma (which stands for Mega annum, with the "ago" being implicit) in academic literature, but find mya to be more intuitive. --JayHenry 23:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I always use "Ma" (or ka or Ga) when writing for the technical literature.  To the extent it does appear, I think "mya" (lowercase) is more common than uppercase.  Dragons flight 00:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the Ma article says mya is deprecated.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick search of google found this  page from the University of California.  Which isn't diffinitive, but does use mya.  --Rocksanddirt 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like MYA is out.  But there's a proposed merge of mya (unit) to Ma.  Does anyone know how to track down SI on this?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official SI standard of time is, of course, the second.  Dragons flight 00:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I much prefer Ma if it still matters at this point. Mya is kind of amateurish (trying not to sound snobby and failing). Sheep81 01:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, when it is used, I think I always see "mya" uncapitalized. Sheep81 01:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I first picked up mya and "million years ago" from a book back in my youth (1980s).  What it has going for it is the meaning is easier to grasp when written out.  In practical terms, I've never committed to one abbreviation on Wikipedia because of this very issue, preferring just to write out "million years ago". J. Spencer 02:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we should at least eliminate MYA from the MOS, since there is no consensus whatsoever for that one.  My issue with Ma or Ga is that the casual reader may miss what it means, whereas mya can be guessed at rather easily.  Never thought I'd participate in this type of discussion!  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the academic style is going towards MA that's fine with me (though i like mya).  --Rocksanddirt 04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's Ma, not MA, right?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I think I would count as a "casual reader", and I've never heard of any of these terms, nor do I think I could pick up the meaning of any of them purely from context.  "Mya" is easier to grasp after someone tells you what it means, but I can't imagine just guessing its meaning. — Aluvus t/c 05:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It implies that MYA is the common usage, when in fact mya and Ma are, while MYA doesn't appear endorsed by anyone (see OrangeMarlin's current FAC on Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I didn't read the foregoing discussion properly. How's that? Do we need BP? Both existing abbreviations, BTW, were unchanged in the recent overhaul: I didn't know any better. Tony 05:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just never abbreviated it nor seen any abbreviations before using WP, where I saw mya alot and now Ma. I don't care for any of them too much as I feel none is well known to the common reader, but my opinion is not too strong on this one. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to stick with mya in the article, since I think it's mostly clear.  I'd be concerned if I had to spell it out in this article, since it's used so many times, it might make it look pretty trite.  I still think MOSNUM needs a revision to remove MYA and move to either Ma or mya.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a geosciences student and I only ever see Ma, and occasionally Ga in my course texts (and one of them was published this year.)  saying that why not just write it as "X million years ago" as that is the least ambiguous way of all... no need for any interpretation then! --Vertilly 08:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heavily concur. These abbreviations are too specialist for use in a general-public encyclopedia, unless explained in context, e.g. "2.5 million years ago (Ma) ... Then, 1.4 Ma, ..." Abbreviation okay if both explained and linked to earlier. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MYA is not used in geological literature, it is always Ma, as it is Ga and Ka (Mega, Giga and Kilo Annum). In the Dutch wikipedia Ka, Ma, and Ga are used and explained in a lemma of their own, and if appropriate in the text where this is used. So I wonder why MYA has been here anyway. I assume that MYA is used by people who are ignorant of the geological literature. --Tom Meijer 09:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely a geological issue at all. Biology/zoology and anthropology use some form of this as well; I'd be curious what the current lit uses (I'm used to stuff from over a decade ago in my university days, so I can't really say for sure). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *What about ka/Ka? I've seen it spelled both ways in this discussion, but can't think of a reason that it would be "ka, Ma, Ga", given "KB, MB, GB", not "kB, MB, GB". Otherwise, no issues from my corner. Take that back, one issue: I'd change "Ga (billion years ago)" to "Ga (giga-annum or billion years ago)" — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 09:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: BP is absolutely standard for time periods less than a few thousand years, as comes up in paleoclimatology and carbon dating, and shouldn't be removed from the list of acceptable options.  Dragons flight 10:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but does this have to be a comprehensive list? Why not just mention one or two? It does, after all, say "such as"; it's proscribing nothing, is it? I was probably unwise to add more to my proposal. This whole point is about "prehistoric topics", which doesn't include less than a few thousand years ago. Now it's becoming chaotic. Tony 11:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I miss apparently the point of this entire discussion. Ga, Ma, Ka, BP and AD, all are standard abbreviations and normally used in literature (MYA is not), as far as I know not only geological (although, maybe not surprising, I consider geology as the most important user here). Shouldn't these conceptions be explained in an encyclopedia anyway? BP is before 1950 AD (so not before now) and is the common used expression in Carbon Fourteen dates, even if this is 30.000 year (I agree, this hardly makes sense, but it is an international standard), AD is after year zero from the Christian calender, etc. I don't understand why you shouldn't use these abbreviations that are already standard. As far as I am aware, the standard is also Ma, Ga, and Ka, and not MA, ma, mA, etc. There maybe not a proper 'reason' for this, it is just the standard (and that is apparently the reason)--Tom Meijer 12:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely with Tom Meijer. Ga, Ma, Ka are both widely used in geology and archaeology and are the official units/designations as approved by relevant professional societies, eg IUGS. Babakathy 12:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a bit late. Tony 13:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MYA or mya 

message: I've been bold and changed the autoformatting phrase from the current wording, which clearly had little support, to the wording that appears above (which did receive support from SMcCandlish, and is, is suspect, much closer to what Stephen et al. are comfortable with). Can we please continue discussion of this here, rather than threaten reverts? I'm keen that we keep the current text and work to address concerns one-by-one. Stephen has raised a problem with the ISO point. Let's gain consensus here. I've implemented the suggested changes to the "prehistoric abbreviations" point.
Another issue is that Crissov is unhappy with the amount of detail that has been transferred across to MOS. (See talk page there.) There's no reason that we can't negotiate the removal of a few points from that text, while retaining them here. I have a few in mind. Tony 00:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes and strategy 

message: *I've done a fairly quick job, and hope that it's accurate; please edit it you find omissions or commissions.
*Please add notes or comments in square brackets to the list, as I have in a few places, and sign. Important issues probably need to be raised below on this page.
*It's categorized broadly by section, in terms of "Removed", "Added" and "Changed", but the distinctions between them are blurred in places.
*I discovered that two mini-sections on numbers had been omitted (Natural and Non-base-10 numbers). I've copy-edited them and added here (but not at MOS). 
*"Magnitude prefixes" and the still-messy "Geographical coordinates" need to be filled in in the list. 
Tony 01:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice; it helps me, especially as a sanity check, is bound to help editors who have not been following closely for the last few weeks. Check my slight tweak. Thanks, Tony! Chris the speller 01:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I restored two items to MOSNUM (but not MOS) that were excised but which I believe are crucial (deprecate "17th Century", and "1700s" is a decade not a century in WP terminology). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm most concerned that many people take the 1700s to mean a century. Why is WP different? Tony 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of substantive changes to MOSNUM in recent overhaul 

message: I propose changing this:
:*Decades contain no apostrophe (the 1980s, not the 1980’s); the two-digit form is used only where the century is clear (the ’80s or the 80s).
to this:
:*Decades contain no apostrophe (the 1980s, not the 1980’s), and are not abbreviated except in contexts where the abbreviated form, with a leading apostrophe, is itself a culturally significant term, as in '60s counterculture and the Roaring '20s, but not '60s music or neo-conservatism of the '80s. 
:*Decades contain no apostrophe (the 1980s, not the 1980’s), and are not abbreviated except in contexts where the abbreviated form is itself a culturally significant term, as in 60s counterculture and the Roaring 20s, but not 60s music or neo-conservatism of the 80s. (A leading apostrophe, as in '60s, is superflous, as it would be in 'phone, and can interfere with quotation and bold/italic formatting.)
:[proposal revised per Tony1's objection below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you use a leading apostrophe for 'phone, still? Or 'plane? It's a particular problem when it starts a quote, too. The whole idea is that if the context is clear, it's very recognisable (preferably after a decade has already been spelled out in full. I hate the look of the leading apostrophe; again, it's not about sloppiness or laziness, but a smooth read for the public. I'm away until Saturday. Tony 00:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've convinced me completely, actually.  Revising proposal accordingly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the examples obscure proper usage.  They should preferably not express the decades as numbers, but rather as spelled-out words:  the Sixties counterculture or the Roaring Twenties.  Likewise, the counter-examples of 'phone and 'plane are obtuse; these are proper nouns in of themselves.  The reason for the leading apostrophe in abbreviated decade identities is that they are missing information, as are other forms of contraction – and contractions properly require an apostrophe.  Yes, a rendering of ’60s is ugly (especially in Arial font), but so is 60s (which normally is used to refer to an age range, not a calendar decade).  Since Wikipedia eschews the use of contractions (outside of quotations), we should discourage such use with decades as well – or punctuate them accordingly. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The '60s" change proposed 

message: This document is misusing italics rather massively.  Italics are a form of emphasis.  Example text should be given in "quotes", rather than emphasized.  Aside from simply being weird style, it makes it very difficult to actually emphasize anything without going bold (which is generally too heavy-handed), since everything italicized for emphasis just looks like more example text. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See "Words as words" in MOS. If you want to change it, propose at MOS talk. The only way I could see of interpreting that rule was to italicise nominal groups (nouns and noun phrases), but to treat larger chunks as quotes. I pleaded for advice at MOS talk several times, to no avail. Needs to be addressed globally, among all MOSs. Tony 01:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix misuse of italic emphasis