Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 67

message: Second bullet point should be:
* Use digits rather than spelled-out numbers (e.g. "25 kilograms", not "twenty-five kilograms").
See also immediately-above discussions.  We may need to add text noting or even explaining that this is different from and not a contradiction of the upcoming recommendation to spell numbers out in cases like "number-one" and "first".  I don't feel strongly either way on whether that is necessary.  But anyway, it blows my mind that this was missing.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any take on whether it will need text differencing it from the "first"/"number one" issue? My rede of your feeling on this is "don't explicate unless there's a known major problem", and I think I can side with that, but remain a tiny bit concerned about conflicting-sounding advice; it might only need four words, like: (Text in another section explaining that we spell things out), except when giving measurements." — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this should be qualified with "... except at the start of a sentence." Askari Mark (Talk) 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't spell out digits

message: Original had this as a side note in the parens section, but as the new version of it isn't prescriptive and we need to be near-prescriptive here, it's a new bullet point:
* Abbreviating with unit symbols is strongly recommended when the measurements appear in a table or table-like list.
Note addition of "table-like list"; the vast majority of tables on Wikipedia begin their "life" as plain * or # lists until someone who knows table syntax comes along and improves them.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. —MJCdetroit 02:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Measurements in tables

message: Conforming edit for the passage immediately above, slight shortening, rm. unneeded parens, otherwise the same:
* Use standard abbreviations when using symbols. Examples: metre is m; kilogram is kg; inch is in (or in.; see below), not " or ″; foot is ft or ft., not ' or ′ and pound is lb or lb. (not #).
Copyedited to agree with the other revised sections better.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncontoversial copy edit. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do note that it introduces the period at the end of YankeeUnits; so it could be controversial if someone has a big objection to doing that, above. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do object to that.  We can and should have our consistent style here.  Gene Nygaard 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That view conflicts sharply with a lot of other long-settled consensuses (such as no editwarring over US vs. UK English, among others).  WP is simply tolerant of differing preferences with regard to how to write articles, despite the fact that the results are not robotically uniform. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, in both technical and general usage in the U.S., using #, ', or " is generally considered sloppy (except the latter pair when giving heights). It is not what is taught, but rather are "slang" abbreviations. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  So I'm proposing that MOSNUM not countenance them, even for human heights, because if there's that exception even MOSNUM regulars might forget where it "okay" and "not okay", and 99.9something% of WPians are not MOSNUM regulars. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have no problem deprecating the "tic marks" for all purposes except use in tables for heights (but not weights). Askari Mark (Talk) 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to throw a wrench into things, but I do see enough technical specs and other documents from "large" corporations that I can safely say that if ' and " are considered "sloppy", a significant portion of the engineering community is sloppy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, but once again no periods. —MJCdetroit 03:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point is, Dante? ;-) (BTW, I am an engineer.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that given the relative frequency with which I seem to encounter the usage, I doubt whether the perception of them as "sloppy" is truly widespread. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard abbreviations

message: Typo fix:
*In a direct quotation, if the text includes an obscure use of units (e.g., five million board-feet of lumber), annotate it with a footnote which provides metric units rather than changing the actual quotation.
I.e., hypenate board-feet just like we do with foot-pound, etc.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what a board-foot is, but I trust you. :-) Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I'm not sure either, I just know it is a compound noun here, which get hyphenated when not fused into a single word ("a checkup"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Direct quotation

message: Another completely missing point; intended to come immediately after the direct quotations point, since it is related:
*Except in quotations, do not use obscure or archaic units (drams, cubits, etc.) unless it is important in the context, and the usage is explained in more common units in the text or with a footnote or a wikilink to the unusual unit's article.
Note: borrows (and expands on, since wikilinking is relevant here) footnoting recommendation from the quotations line-item.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what fault this is trying to correct. How many people are writing articles with cubits in, outside specialist contexts where cubits are the appropriate measurement? Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Borderline :WP:CREEP.  I don't think it hurts anything, but won't argue very strongly to keep it.  Actually, I'll rescind it.  I think this concept is already covered under the general recommendations for what to wikilink and what not to. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there a whole lot of articles using rather obscure units from all around the world.  They should sometimes be retained as the best indicator of the actual precision of the original measurement.  Gene Nygaard 03:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you making in-yo'-face argument against propositions that have already been rescinded by the proponent?  Hint: :WP:TEA.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is a bad idea that needs to be killed.  And because "rescinding" is bad terminology in the first place, and something that is not within your power to do once the issue has been raised.  Yes, you can say that you are abandoning it as a proposal.  But that doesn't necessarily mean it is dean. It's out of your hands; that proposal isn't something you own. But let's just make damn sure that people understand that while it may have been well-intended, what you had proposed wouldn't be effective in achieving any improvement in the quality of our articles.  Gene Nygaard 00:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI, accusations of WP:OWNership are accusations of bad faith.  Anyway, I guess I can see your point, but it seems to be beating a dead horse, into jelly.  The fact that someone retracts a poor proposal is generally enough indication that it wasn't a good idea.  Wikipedia doesn't need you, personally, to act as Wikipedia Defender, Knight in Shining Armor (jousting with windmills, no less.)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this bit on obscure units should remain.  Gene Nygaard is right, but also I’ve seen quite a bit of obscure and obsolete units appear in articles.  Not long ago while doing some work in WP:DEAD, I came across a bunch of stub articles with South Asian units (mostly dry and liquid measures) that I hadn’t the foggiest about.  None of them offered a conversion to anything else and most drew a blank on Google (other than WP & mirrors).  At the very least, footnote the first use of the unit and offer a conversion to SI units. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should stay too.  —MJCdetroit 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obscure units

message: No text change except to the third (see next item), but move down in priority with each other, after the formatting points.  Many other points are far more important.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems uncontroversial to me. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  This is of primary importance; it should be emphasized more, not less, lest we just become another Britannica.  Gene Nygaard 13:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where would you put it then?  It's just kind of in the middle right now. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Level of precision/some units have more than one version/source's original units

message: Basic grammar fix:
*Following footnote or source citation conventions, add a reference for a measurement, identifying not only the source but also the source's original units.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncontroversial copy edit. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source's original units

message: Another major missing point:
*Just as one would reduce a fraction, such as "4/8" to the more readily understandable "1/2", reduce units to their most minimal sensible representation — the one that uses the fewest units or produces the roundest or most intuitive result — unless there is a strong reason not to do so in the context. Examples: Use "1 cm" not "100 mm", since the extra zeros just add unneccessary complexity. Use "10.33 m", not "1033 cm", because 10 and approx. 1/3 m is easier to grasp than the arbitrary 1033 cm. Use 798 m, not 0.798 km, because the distance truly is arbitrary, the 798 version uses whole numbers, and the decimal version will be near-meaningless to many readers. When the result is round, this applies equally to non-metric units (e.g. prefer "1 ft" over "12 in").
This could probably be shortened.  I'm better at giving examples and explaining them than reducing things to zen.  Copyedited to fix 103.3 for 1033 typo.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'm not really sure we need a guideline about this. I can certainly imagine people unfamiliar with the non-source unit getting it wrong sometimes; but the guideline wouldn't then help them, because it's not that they're trying to make it more obscure, it's that they don't know which position of the decimal place is less obscure. To put it another way, it's hard to codify which is the "minimal sensible representation" or "most intuitive result", and people who know which it is are going to write it the right way anyway without thinking about it. And if they don't, it's easy to fix on a case-by-case basis without causing an edit war. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can buy that.  Rescinded. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a bad idea.  The nonsense about centimeters is especially bad; centimeters are good for your hat size and for cubic centimeters, and that's about the extent of it.  The preference is for unit prefixes which are powers of 1000.  Millimeters are almost always preferable to centimeters, expecially for anything that would be expressed as fractinal parts of a centimeter.  Gene Nygaard 03:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? What is a bad idea?  What is "bad"?  "Always"? Where are you getting this from?!?  Ahem. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A spot of tea, Stanton? ;-) Definitely a bit of WP:CREEP with this one; in fact, there can be examples where the contrary of the given examples might be preferable or represent traditional usage (e.g., listing weapon calibers). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reduction

message: A major missing point, intended to follow the one immediately above since they are closely related:
*For non-metric units, it will often be preferable to use the shorter units than fractional longer ones (e.g. "25 in" vs. "2.17 ft"), because the smaller-unit figures may be both more accurate (the real foot measurement in the example is 2.1666...), and much easier to understand due to the nature of rulers, gauges and other measuring devices for such units.  For the same reason, fractional measurements in such units should use actual fractions (e.g. "3/8") where possible, not decimal representations.
This one is really crucial.  It's a fairly serious problem in articles already, and arises when someone used to the metric system uses a web- or desktop-based converter and produces results like "8.634 feet" which is useless gibberish.  I copy-edited this one to make the point better.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems sensible if you've found it's already causing problems (although again it's hard to codify exactly which is the correct choice of unit unless you're familiar with the unit you're converting into). Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one I would argue strongly to keep (though it may need a copy edit, since it was written to follow the one we both just agreed can be skipped.)  I do in fact see this frequently; it's a product of helpfully-intended but lazy or sometimes "decimal-addicted" conversion (I've actually seen someone go through an article and convert every fraction to decimals, where this generally made no sense at all). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various sorts of problems with precision in our articles; there is nothing in this notion that would reduce them or provide any reasonable guidance on avoiding them.  Gene Nygaard 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get your point.  I've already clearly idenified the problem this passage would solve.  That it wouldn't solve other problems is immaterial. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this belongs with a discussion of the use of significant figures.  The reason to eschew decimalization of English units of measure is because they are non-metric in origin and conversion to decimals can produce unfortunate illusions in the form of “over-precision”, as well as “over-precise” errors where the English units were estimates or rounded themselves – and heaven forefend that the units may undergo multiple cycles of “translation” between each system. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The danger of "false precision" is real. We should discourage decimalization of English units. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with keeping as fractions.  I guess if the source value is in fraction form; keep it in fractional form.  There are weird anomalies out there like the Mil Specs calling for 0.375"-16 fasteners when there are always called 3/8"-16 fasteners. —MJCdetroit 03:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't decimalize feet, quarts, etc.

message: Yet another important missing point, but probably the lowest-priority since it isn't overwhelmingly common (I have definitely encounted it in WP before though, again probably due to people carelessly using online converters to perfunctorily provide a conversion without any regard for whether it would be usable by those actually needing the conversion):
*Do not cross-compare unit types: "1 statute mile is approximately equivalent to 1.6 kilometers", not "to 1600 meters" — users who do not already intuitively understand the kilometer do not grasp the meter either, so equating a mile to meters is essentially meaningless (except in a special context, such as the article about the meter/metre unit). Misuses of this sort should be repaired, not deleted.
Copyedited to agree with the level-of-precision point.  Made a small wording twiddle, too.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing more irritating than people who get the confused notion that inches go to centimeters (as opposed ot meters or millimeters or micrometers or whatever), or that feet per minute go to meters per minute rather than meters per second, etc.  Gene Nygaard 04:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing more irritating than people who needlessly abuse hyperbole, especially in an uncalled-for condescending manner. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't actually understand what you're trying to say here. How is this different from #Reduction? It seems like you've got a specific fault in mind, but I haven't understood what it is. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind; I'll rescind this one as :WP:CREEP as well; like "4/8", it's just something any sensible later editor would correct when encountered, and no one would object, so it doesn't really need to be in here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think this is WP:CREEP at all.  Why generate more work for experienced editors later?  I rather be off reverting vandalisms and slaying other mighty dragons! Askari Mark (Talk) 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-comparing unit types

message: Desperately needs cleanup, probably just due to palimpsestuous editing over time.  Put all constructed examples (other than bare numeric ones like 10² = 100 and the long number) in "quotes" so they can be instantly discerned from instructional text (e.g., "A large number such as...").  Explain with an intro the exponent example, which will otherwise "be Greek" to non-mathematically inclined/experienced readers, not to mention those who don't know what this formatting code really means/is. Old:
* 10² = 100
New:
* Exponents can be handled with HTML character entities or with Unicode characters, e.g.: 10² = 100
(Yes I know one of those is a redlink; there are at least five potential articles for the link target.)
Also, a conforming edit with above changes about spelling out non-paren. units being optional, and periods with units like "in." being permissible:
* "The hippopotamus stands 1.5 metres (5 ft) at the shoulders and weighs between 2,700 and 4,500 kilograms (6,000–9,900 lb)." Or another acceptable variation: "The hippopotamus stands 1.5 m (5 ft.) at the shoulders and weighs between 2,700 and 4,500 kg (6,000–9,900 lb.)"
** The hippopotamus stands 1.5 metres (5 ft) at the shoulders and weighs between 2,700 and 4,500 kilograms (6,000–9,900 lb). (First variation.)
Note the parenthetical clarification at the end of the indented bullet point.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: kg rather than k, perhaps? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Silly typo. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The final form of the hippo example is pending decisions in some of the earlier sections whether units should be spelled out or abbreviated, and whether they should have periods after them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I made same observation about something else up there too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PS I love the word "palimpsestuous". Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Credit where due:  coined "palimpsestuous[ly]". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the OED, the correct adjective is "palimpsestic", but "palimpsestuous" is certainly funnier. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A delicious double-entendre indeed! Methinks Stanton has slipped from the tea to the sherry! Askari Mark (Talk) 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was last night, where my uproariously funny (to me, at that time) beer-fuelled editing wasn't helpful and seemed to tick off Gene seriously (so I apologized on his talk page directly).  Anyway, as much as I would love to claim credit for "palimpsestuous", see the "Credit where due" line.   came up with that one. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples section

message: I strongly recommend removal of "1 E0 m", "Orders of magnitude (mass)" (see hippo wikitext immediately above), and any other wild-'n'-wacky wikilinks of this sort.  No one actually does this, and I think many editors would agree that it is a confusing and nearly abusive use of wikilinking.  Personally I would revert that stuff on sight if I saw it in an article, unless the context were quite special and made such weird links actually make some kind of sense to the average encyclopedia reader.  It comes across as really inappropriate über-geeky promotion of the 1 E0 m, etc., articles becase they would otherwise be near-orphans; i.e., basically a borderline form of canvassing and/or wikispam.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason for its removal is that such wikilinking of units of measure only contributes to overlinking and its concomitant diminished readability. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I assume this is a relic of a time when people thought that linking in order to get all relevant articles into "what links here" was a good idea. We see the same thing in the old idea that all years should be linked too. I think most people now don't hold that view though: "what links here" is an expert feature, so doesn't help most readers; and the list you get from it is too long to be useful anyway; and excessive linking is now regarded as distracting. This is a long way of saying that I agree with the suggestion of removing them. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That brings up the unrelated problem of "What links here" having been rendered next to useless in many articles due to the proliferation of "navigation boxes" with hundreds of links, each of which appears in the what links here of every article in the box.  Gene Nygaard 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De-geeking