Talk:International Bureau of Weights and Measures

message: From Pavilion de Breteuil: 
: Following an agreement signed on 25 April 1969 between the International Committee for Weights and Measures () (CIPM) and the French government, contrary to popular belief, the Pavilion de Breteuil does not enjoy extraterritoriality but only partial immunity.Rapport fait au nom de la commission des affaires étrangères sur le projet de loi autorisant l’approbation d’un accord relatif au siège du Bureau international des poids et mesures et à ses privilèges et immunités sur le territoire français et sur le projet de loi autorisant l’approbation de l’accord entre le Gouvernement de la République française et le Comité international des poids et mesures portant amendement de l’accord du 25 avril 1969 relatif au siège du Bureau international des poids et mesures et à ses privilèges et immunités sur le territoire françaisLoi n°2008-738 du 28 juillet 2008 autorisant l'approbation de l'accord entre le Gouvernement de la République française et le Comité international des poids et mesures portant amendement de l'accord du 25 avril 1969 relatif au siège du Bureau international des poids et mesures et à ses privilèges et immunités sur le territoire français
 Thnidu (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraterritoriality 

message: The infobox is incorrectly shown in the article, could anyone fix? Vlad5250 (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed now. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in {{tl|Infobox organization}} 

message: While you're right that the BIPM itself is not a nation, it is subject to extraterritoriality. As with any other international body like that (the UN, ISO, etc.), it's been customary to use the variant of English on their WP articles that the bodies themselves use, and basically every international body uses Oxford spelling. Unless you have significant qualms about this, I propose we change it to that to maintain consistency. (I should also add that by around 2006, consistent use of Oxford spelling had been established, but somebody went in and changed all the spellings to British spelling deliberately.) Getsnoopy (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:TIES seems clear to me that the ties required are to an "English-speaking nation". I see no imperative to change this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but see my point about MOS:RETAIN being violated early in the article's history. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  MOS:RETAIN applies to the consensual version, and I think it's fair to say that if, as you say, it has been British English since 2006, that this is very definitely the current consensual version per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't apply to the consensual version, it applies to the first instance of "consistent usage" being established. That usage had been established very early on (since about 2006), which is of Oxford spelling, not British spelling. The history of the article, as you'll notice, indicates many editors going in and changing the spelling to their preferred version. This violates MOS:RETAIN, which is why I'm saying it should be reverted. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  read the rest of the sentence you quoted from; it goes on to say "maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary". And that is the consensus I referred to. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "consensus" was incorrect, even as per the person making the change. The editor who added it thought the BIPM uses British spelling, so they added that tag in. This is incorrect, so I'm proposing correcting this mistake. As for WP:EDITCONSENSUS, it says consensus is only assumed to be reached for any edit "that is not disputed or reverted by another editor". This discussion is evidence enough that consensus has not been reached. Going off of what the original editor intended (using a variant of English that the BIPM itself uses), I'd agree with them (as would every editor before that one, given the consistent usage up until that point), so the current consensus is to use just that: Oxford spelling. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The diff in your comment points to an edit in 2013. Are you saying that the article has used a certain kind of spelling for six years and you are now going to force your preferred spelling because the article is wrong? That would be disruptive. Face the fact that anyone wanting to change an established article needs to proceed cautiously and engage in issues raised by others. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't my "preferred spelling", it is the spelling that was established early on through consistent use. Insofar as that edit is concerned, according to your logic, it was disruptive in unilaterally changing the spelling that's been used and established, and it violated MOS:RETAIN. I'm simply suggesting that we reverse this violation. And the fact that this discussion is occurring is enough evidence that I'm engaging in issues raised by others. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: As a followup to the two previous discussions... there is currently mention in the article's lede on the use of "IBWM" in English sources, but it is not elaborated on below. I've decided to boldly create a § Notes to explain this. My edit may need refinement, or revert back to the accepted version if disagreement arises. If we ignore the discussions, it just seems weird that "IBWM" would be mentioned in the lede without sources, nor any further explanation for readers. I've included a self-reference to MOS:ABBR#Use sourceable abbreviations. The "sources" mentioned are here on this talk page, but I haven't copied them over. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and commented out the self reference per MOS:SELFREF. Also, while BIPM is definitely the primary acronym, we shouldn't claim that the BIPM "hasn't adopted" the English acronym when a letter by the "director of the IBWM" exists. I don't know if they used that acronym in the past and stopped or if that particular director made a mistake (I'm heavily leaning towards the latter) but the fact is that someone speaking on behalf of the BIPM called it IBWM. In my opinion, removing the note and just citing an WP:RS that used IBWM should be enough. We don't need to get into the details since it's clearly not in use anymore. Nickps (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  English IBWM initialism