Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 72

message: * From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Years, decades, and centuries: "10th century BC or 10th century BCE (or "tenth")"
* From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers in words: "Ordinal numbers should be spelled out in words using the same rules as for cardinal numbers."
* "Same rules as for cardinal numbers" means this, also from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers in words: "Whole numbers from zero to ten should be spelled out as words in the body of an article."
* So can it be 10th century or tenth century, as in "Years, decades, and centuries"? Or must it be tenth century, as in "Numbers in words"? Art LaPella 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *According to MLA and Chicago, centuries should always be spelled out (see here). There are different rules for dates. Awadewit | talk 05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nothing against (at least) allowing for centuries to be spelt out (note, however, that their corresponding article titles are not) but I see not reason that we need conform to either MLA or Chicago. Jɪmp 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I thought that we were aiming for "professional" writing standards. MLA or Chicago is one way to define them. Right now, the MOS is not really a MOS since so much of it simply says, "do what you want, within reason and consistently". It would really be best if wikipedia had an in-house style. MLA and Chicago are the most common. That is why I used those. They are also the two most cited in debates at FAC, etc. Awadewit | talk 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *We are "aiming for 'professional' writing standards."  I would agree.  "MLA or Chicago is one way to define them."  I would agree with this too (emphasis added).  I don't know that an MoS becomes more or less of an MoS by becoming more or less prescriptive but in this case perhaps stricter rules might help.  Yes, it would be best if Wikipedia had an in-house style ... that's what we're working on but it'll be Wikipedia's style not someone else's.  This should be arrived at through consensus of Wikipedians not simply by reference to some other style guide.  Quoting other style guides is all well and good as a step towards reaching such consensus but should not be used in place of it ... not that I'm accusing anyone of so doing (one way of gaining consensus it to throw something on a page and see how long it stays).  Note also that I'm not opposing your edit: I'd suggest where ordinals can be spelt out in one or two words they generally should be within text. Jɪmp 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A MoS is supposed to be prescriptive, by definition. Consensus usually does not achieve a prescriptive style (note wikipedia's current MOS and this discussion which seems to be drifting off topic slightly). It is helpful to rely on other style guides which ponder these questions much more deeply than we. Awadewit | talk 05:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I s'pose I meant to refer to how much detail the prescription contains.  Is it better for an MoS to be more detailed in its prescription?  Perhaps consensus does usually "not achieve a prescriptive style" but this is not to say that it cannot.  Where it does not succeed, though, you've got to ask why.  Is it that parties cannot agree, is it that no one could be bothered, is it that consensus is against a prescriptive approach?  For better or worse, though, this is how its done here.  It may be helpful to refer to other style guides which may indeed have a greater depth of ponderance but these are no substitute. We are getting off topic, yes, but I did mention I'm not against your edit itself.  I reckon that Art LaPella has a very strong argument: this page specifies spelling intergers from zero to ten out & doing the same for ordinals as for cardinals since century names from the tenth BC to tenth AD contain ordinals this entails their spelling out.  As for the likes of the twenty-first century, is this any worse than writing 21?  I would say that it isn't and so if we've got 21, then we'll have to cop 21st century.  My argument is, though, that we needn't have to have 21 either.  I fail to see any logic in stopping at ten.  It had been mentioned before that an alternative might be to spell out those numbers which can be written as one or two words.  Yes, there's an example of consensus' failing: the topic was archived and we're still stuck with ten.  It can, of course, be brought up again & I think I might ... Jɪmp 07:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't recoil in horror at either convention. I'm not convinced that there should be a rule at all, but since there is, how should I edit the Main Page to keep everybody happy? If your rule is that dates are treated differently, then say so in the rules. As it is, if I take your rules at face value I should sign this "July Ten". Art LaPella 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manuals of style are all about rules. Also, please look at the title of this section - it is a discussion about how to treat centuries. Days of the month have separate rules. The Chicago manual of style and MLA both say that days should not be spelled out (section 9.35 in Chicago (15th edition - online) and section 3.5.2 in MLA (sixth edition). I quote from Chicago: "When specific dates are expressed, cardinal numbers are used, although these may be pronounced as ordinals." Awadewit | talk 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, July Ten ... okay, dates probably should be considered separately from other numbers.  "... style guides ... define professional writing" (emphasis added) or do they describe it ... a well worn debate ... perhaps they do a bit of both ... but either way you've got a point.  If this is not how it's done in professional prose, let's not do it here.  All I'm saying is that User:Chris the speller is not wrong to have reverted you until the matter had been discussed.  For discussion takes precedance over appeal to some other style guide (though such an appeal is an absolutely valid part of such discussion).  And discussion is what we're having here and I don't see anyone's opposing the edits that Chris reverted (including Chris).  As for myself, I'd prefer centuries to be spelt out (at least those between the one hundredth BC & the one hundredth AD ... just about all that you'd normally want to mention) if only for æsthetics. Jɪmp 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether style guides "define" or "describe" professional writing is irrelevant. They, in some mysterious way, arbitrate what professional writing is, particularly research-based writing. I did not think that my change would cause a big brouhaha. I think that I was right - the only thing we seem to be really discussing is style manuals themselves. There is no real debate, yet, over the change. As we are all in agreement that centuries should be spelled out, can we make the change now? As much as I love my dog-eared copies of Chicago and MLA, I am not really interested in having an existential conversation about them right now. :) Awadewit | talk 04:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And can we also agree to something like "Whole numbers from zero to ten should be spelled out as words in the body of an article, excluding dates, times and measurements."? Art LaPella 07:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you exclude measurements, there isn't much left; just counts. I believe that it is customary to spell out whole numbers from zero to ten in general writing, even for measurements, but it is customary to always use numerals in scientific writing. --Gerry Ashton 07:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this discussion about? It began about centuries only (note heading "Centuries"). Are we talking about all uses of numbers and dates? Please note that the only changes I have proposed are related to the writing out of centuries discussed here. Can we keep the discussion focused on one thing at a time? It will be much easier, I promise. :) Let's decide the century problem and then move on to the next issue. One step at a time. Awadewit | talk 07:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right if we're to talk of other issues this should be done under another heading.  "Whether style guides 'define' or 'describe' professional writing is irrelevant." ... absolutely hence my "either way" bit.  You never know where the next brouhaha is going to pop up.  The point that it "might be easier for someone who is not fluent in English to understand 18th century than eighteenth century" has been brought up ... whilst this is true I'd suggest that for such readers there would exist far greater obstacles to comprehending Wikipedia than ordinals spelt out as words.  "can we make the change now?"  Why not?  But hasn't the existential conversation been fun? Jɪmp 19:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the MOS. Awadewit | talk 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the actual articles be moved as well then?  18th century→eighteenth century and so on?  Otherwise we'll be having a hard time trying to copyedit countless existing references to use the spelled-out version since the main articles are still using numbers in their titles.  What an article is titled is usually a clue to what a link should be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What a nightmare domino effect! This is why I usually try not to get involved in these things. The article titles should probably be changed, but since the rule is only about prose, I'm not sure that it is absolutely necessary. Isn't the redirect enough? What do others think? Awadewit | talk 12:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I would, however, suggest that it be pointed out that spelling out the century name applies to its appearance in prose.  Generally when the century name appears in a table, navigation box, info box or the like (such as  featured to the right), you'd not want it spelt out.  Then there is the question of what to do about titles (be they article names or subheadings).  I would not oppose the moving of century articles to spelt-out versions but would like to note that this would involve a lot of work.  Jɪmp 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said that centuries should be spelled out in prose in the MOS change that I made. Doesn't that address this concern? Should the table, etc. issue be made clearer? Awadewit | talk 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yeah, so you did ... but I reckon it might be helpful if it were pointed out that unspelt-out century names are generally preferred in (titles), tables, etc. Jɪmp 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say be bold and change that right away. Awadewit | talk 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: However

message: I'm late in joining this discussion, but I strongly prefer to see centuries written in numbers (no strong views on pre-10th centuries!).  Can I draw to your attention some statistics? If you search in Wikipedia you find usage as follows:
: "seventh century": 897
: "7th century": 3207
: "sixteenth century": 2,638
: "16th century": 11,433
: "twentieth century": 12,503
: "20th century": 41,221
So a large majority of editors (more than 3:1), whether addressing ancient or modern topics, have chosen to use numbers for their centuries.  That looks like near-consensus.
The Guardian newspaper's Style Guide, which many UK people accept as a useful handbook, specified "sixth century, 21st century, etc" .
I hope that we can reconsider this decision, as it seems to go against the majority view of active editors: a small group of people here are telling three-quarters of editors that they are wrong.  PamD 10:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit more research: Encyclopedia Britannica online: "Sixteenth century" 95 and "16th century" 4623.  Grove Dictionary of Music 51:500 for the same pair.  But Oxford Dictionary of National Biography seems to have a style guide specifying spelled-out centuries.  So, practice varies, though the online version of the other large encyclopedia goes for numbers.  I suggest that we should not start changing text in article away from the format in which a large majority of editors have written it.  PamD 11:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for these stats, which are I think very persuasive as to correct encyclopedic style.  I don't mind "ninth century", but only in articles that don't move on to the "11th century" etc.   Johnbod 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hold on, can we look at some stats?

message: The MoS page currently says:
*Do not put a comma or the word "of" between a month and year: 
**Incorrect: "December, 1945" and "December of 1945" 
**Correct: "December 1945" ''
Why is this? When relating a sequence of events in narrative text, not in a time line or a bulleted list or a table, i think the "of" form is bstter style. An invented example: "In December of 1985 there was a further development: Jones wrote to Smith, saying..."  Why is that IMO completely reasonable format conceded "incorrect" by the MoS? DES (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why it says that either. I already use "of" because it sounds better. I think the comma example is incorrect but not the "of" example. Awadewit | talk 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't sound better at all: it sounds clunky and is redundant, just as "outside of" is unacceptable in formal written registers. Tony 15:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a matter of opnion. I have certianly encounterd the usage "<month> of <year>" in formal written history. In any case "clunky" is not much of a reason for an MoS guideline. I maintain that this form emphasizes the sequence more than "In December 1985...". I would favor changing this section fo the MoS. What do others think? DES (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Month and year

message: Is this actually possible? --fullcourt 23:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the editor is just confused about the difference between bare years and full dates. A WikiProject can usefully make its own guidelines specific to its subject area, but they shouldn't contradict the encyclopaedia-wide guidelines. Stephen Turner (Talk) 00:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Projects adopting their own MOS

message: Pardon me for jumping in here.  I have not been following this discussion, and am unsure whether this is the proper forum for raising an objection to the current usage of coord.  Perhaps what I have to say will be relevant to the ongoing discussion & reevaluation.  I have found that the coordinates published in Wiki for many high-rise buildings are seriously incorrect, compared with NGS benchmarks, surveyor measurements, GPS measurements, and the FAA & FCC databases.  This is apparently because the "coord" information has been derived from Google Earth.  The latter has a notorious parallax problem with high-rise structures due to not looking straight down on these structures.  Centering on a rooftop will generally give a considerable error.  (Somewhat better accuracy is achievable using a building's footprint, when that is sufficiently visible).  The illusion of great accuracy is given when the coordinates are stated to the hundredth of an arcsecond, but what use is that when the error can be two full seconds or more?  If I substitute well-established NGS, FAA and/or FCC coordinates for the erroneous ones, will my edits only be reverted by a robot?  Am I misleading users of Google Earth who will expect the erroneous coordinates, in order to facilitate locating the structure?  That would seem a case of the tail wagging the dog.  Shouldn't we be providing the best available information, regardless of possible impact? Hertz1888 23:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is better discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates (feel free to move my comment). I agree with everything you said, though Google Earth certainly isn't the only source for our coordinate data. Perhaps the footprint part would actually be on topic in the Manual of Style as well? It would be best if any automatic changes would first compare the distance of the two points and put differences too long on the talk pages instead. Could there be a database rights issue with the use of the whole of such data though? Anyhow, please continue at the project talk page. --Para 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Note also that WikiProject Geographical coordinates has a section on issues of precision. Andy Mabbett 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On re-reading your original comment; I should also point out that the issue is not related to  and applies equally to the old coor * templates, and indeed any others which use coordinates. Andy Mabbett 14:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy of coordinates

message: Following the lenghty discussion above, please see a proposal for a section to be added to MoS at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Standardize names for coordinate variables in template namespace. -- User:Docu
:(previous comment by  There is no consensus for this change, which was not included in the proposal at the above link. Andy Mabbett 14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardize names for coordinate variables in template namespace 

message: Once again: are people now ready to begin deprecating and replacing the old coor * family of templates in favour of  ? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Regan123 points out above, people want to see the fruit of their work in the external services before they can be sure the changes here are properly supported. I still can't see any articles in Google Earth that have had coord coordinates only. --Para 09:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecating old coordinates templates 

message: I would love to remove the disputed tag I added to this section months ago. Now that User:Pigsonthewing (aka Andy Mabbett) is blocked perhaps we can have a discussion leading to consensus on the wording. Can someone suggest wording for this section? Thanks, Patleahy (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The standardized template parameters are already at the end of the section.  What other issues remain?  I suggest a new discussion with a list of remaining issues, if any.  (SEWilco 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I removed the disputed tag. I thought there was still an issues about whether Google maps and others supported  this yet. -- Patleahy (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we end the coordinates section dispute?