Talk:Kilometres per hour

message: Should we really include non-standard abbreviations in the intro of the article, and thereby encourage their use? (For example kph, kmph and km/hr). The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names and symbols says "only the slash or negative exponent notations are used with SI (and other metric) units., and has even listed kph as unacceptable. I suggest to only include km/h as an abbreviation in the intro of the article. Non standard abbreviations can instead be mentioned further down in the article, including k. p. h., km:h, km./hr., kms./hr., k.m.p.h., KMph., km ph, K.P.H., km. hr., km/hour, km.-hr., km. per hour, kms/hr., Kmph, KPH and kmph and others. Sauer202 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: that sounds like you want to use the article to promote the SI conventions above standard English usage, which goes against Wikipedia policy. They are not "non-standard abbreviations", they are just common abbreviations which are found in the literature, and only the most prevalent ones are covered in the lead anyway. And the manual of style for units is just that, the manual of "style" - a guide to how unit usage is standardised when used in articles, and not the manual of what real-world conventions and practices can and cannot be covered in articles. Also, the SI are not the arbiters of Wikipedia, let alone of the English language. They may offer a preferred "symbol" for units, but they do not (and cannot) offer a list of preferred abbreviations, or even of any abbreviations. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Reviving this thread given the recent revert: I somewhat agree with @Sauer202. We're not denying that there are abbreviations in use for kilometres per hour; we're just saying that they don't belong in the lead. They are covered in detail and comprehensively in their own section, which is sufficient for that case. I don't know what including the non-standard abbreviations in the lead achieves, other than lack of completeness and somehow condoning that the abbreviations are more official than they are. Many countries use other non-standard abbreviations (for various reasons) such as "kgs", "mts", etc., but those articles are not acknowledging those abbreviations (at least, not in the lead). I don't see why this article has to be any different. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Getsnoopy, what's your obsession with 'official' and 'standard'? And if you think there are abbreviations missing in other articles, why don't you go to those articles and add them? We shouldn't be 'condoning' either SI symbols or common abbreviations, we should be documenting them per due weight and without bias. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well...the SI is an international standard that is official in all the countries that adopt it. I'm getting a bit of deja vu with this discussion in relation to the other discussion about BIPM vs. IBWM. Again, the point isn't that they're not being documented; it's that they're being documented in the lead in bold as if they're official in some sense (and again, the lead is not for enumerating all possibilities, which the current lead doesn't do anyway). As for weight, having them in a section below is in fact the weight they deserve: km/h is indeed overwhelmingly the most commonly used representation because (unsurprisingly) it is the official SI symbol. That is what should be in the lead; any variants that are marginally used can be in the body. This pattern is used for practically any article you'll find on WP. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Getsnoopy, the bold does not suggest they are 'official', which is meaningless in common use anyway, it signifies that those redirects target this article (or a dab page where it will be found). Try them: kilometre per hour, km/h, kph, kmph, and km/hr. If you are going to ration the space in the lead it should be by weight, and not by whether the BIPM condone it anyway. But for now, I'd prefer to see them all in the lead as they are all in everyday and common use. That things happen differently in other articles may be because they need further development, but is irrelevant anyway. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not all redirects need to be highlighted in bold, let alone in the lead. Dab pages pointing here make no sense to be included in the lead since the reader gets a note about which page they might've been looking for anyway before clicking on it. And what sources are you using to measure if they're in "everyday and common use"? None of the sources I could find would place them anywhere near km/h in terms of prevalence or use. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Getsnoopy, there's no need not to use them though. Think of it as a courtesy to readers who have followed that path to the article - it helps them to know they've arrived. A couple of the least likely ones are on road signs, so in 'official' use too. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which is exactly the reason they should not be there. What about the courtesy to readers about every other possible permutation of abbreviations? And again, what are you sources? Because without substantial evidence that they're common, it doesn't make any sense to have them there. Again: if a reader has been redirected after typing something in, it's not necessary to have that redirect term in the body of the article. There are plenty of redirects which are just misspellings, capitalization errors, etc. The fact that they've landed on this page after being redirected is clear enough to anyone already looking for the page on "kilometres per hour" to realize that they're in the right place. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Getsnoopy, it sounds like you are on a crusade to rid Wiki of stuff that is not condoned by the bureaucrats responsible for the SI metric system. I know you've openly revealed on Wikipedia that you worked for the US Metric Association (USMA, a single-issue pressure group pushing for metrication in the US) and have worked with "the director of the BIPM" (the initialism of the French name for the International Bureau of Weights and Measures) so I suggest you read WP:COI, and refrain from making edits which might be seen to be pushing the USMA agenda, or that of the BIPM. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not a crusade in any way. In fact, given past experience, I would characterize it as your crusade to include obscure and esoteric variations which are uncommonly used by people in an effort to include them just because "they've been used before", which would make for WP:UNDUE. This is not a conflict of interest in any sense, given that this is an issue about WP policy of giving uncommon things undue weight and not the content of article itself. Like I already said, it is fine to have this content in the body of the article like it is already there, with the rest of the other abbreviations. Moreover, given that there have been numerous attempts to get rid of those abbreviations from the lead, this is hardly my idea. I'm merely supporting it based on the evidence and WP policy. Given the way the other similar issue went, I'd actually recommend you relent and reflect. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations in the introduction 

message: Until the RfC above resolves, I propose removing the abbreviations from the lead, which are giving them undue weight and is a separate topic anyway. Unless there is mass opposition to this, I will be doing this in 7 days. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Getsnoopy, they are abbreviations, and it is normal to put those in the lead. I oppose your suggestion. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the premise of this proposal is that those were added in by you without consensus, so it was more addressed to everyone else. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like they've been there at least 4 years. I'd say that qualifies as the log-term consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They've been in dispute since 2019, which is 4 years ago, with no resolution and you've been reverting people's reverts; that's not consensus. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing abbreviations from lead