Talk:Kilowatt-hour

message: Please have a look at the International Electrotechnical Vocabular of IEC
   watt hour
   non-SI unit of active energy: 1 Wh ≔ 3 600 J
   Note 1 to entry: The multiple kilowatt hour, kWh, is commonly used for billing consumers of electric energy and is therefore indicated on electric energy meters.
ISO specifies in ISO 80000-1:2009 "Quantities and units -- Part 1: General":
   7.2.4 English names of compound units
   In the English language, the name of the product of two units 
   is the concatenation of the two names, separated by a space.
ISO and IEC are internationally the most relevant standard setting organisations, do you agree?
--Gunnar (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: en.wiki is an american/english project, not international. While unit symbols rules are to be followed as international consensus has agreed (but the continentals mostly don't, as stated just above, Note 1), instead, unit language naming, which has nothing to do with the mathematical notations, have to follow the natural and recognizable criteria of currently used language. --Robertiki (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Robert, I can't agree to your message. First, which continent do you mean (Africa, America, Asia, Australia, Europe)? Second, what do you mean with stated in the note? The note only explains the use of the k-factor (k means times 1000) for billing end consumers. Recently I have seen in Asia meters using kWh and not watt hours. Third, en.wiki is a language sign as written on the left hand side of this web page, not a country sign. Therefore, anybody who speaks and writes English can use the en.wiki part. If you prefer Chinese, use are allowed to use zh.wiki https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%83%E7%93%A6%C2%B7%E6%99%82 even if you are born in Japan. --Gunnar (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

text: As per WP:COMMONNAME. And beside the hyphen question was not discussed in 2008, when page was changed fromt watt-hour to kilowatt hour. So also page name should be moved to Kilowatt-hour. --Robertiki (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not give any weight to what ISO and IEC say. I stand by my comment from the last time we discussed this: Use the "name most typically used in reliable sources." At the time I was under the impression this meant no hyphen, but others disagreed.  Care to flog this horse again? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Avoid the specialized-style fallacy, outlined in WP:SPECIALSTYLE as "Wikipedia has its own set of guidelines for article layout and naming. Facts on a subject should be drawn from reliable sources, but how content is styled is a matter for the Wikipedia community." We don't have to bend hyphenation to please ISO and IEC. All major dictionaries hyphenate kilowatt-hour, and so should we. Chris the speller yack 15:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I would not give any weight to what ISO and IEC say." Ah, really? Did you ever try to change "watt hour" into "watt-hour"? It is rather easy, if you give a simple explanation that your suggestion is right and Electropedia's term is wrong. I did find and report a few spelling mistakes. --Gunnar (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing kilowatt-hour to kilowatt hour with no hypen 

message: I don't think this is always true: "The consumption of electric vehicles is expressed in kWh/100 km". For example, the US EPA several different units, including "kW·hrs per 100 miles", but not kWh/100 km, as can be seen on the window sticker. I would suggest changing "is" to "may be". Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say "The rate of energy consumption of electric vehicles is often expressed in kWh/100 km" on that web site? I can't find it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you have : website Spritmonitor. It is interesting, insn't it? --JeffMik1 (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to think this may be a case of WP:OR. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I'm not interested in your (or my) opinion as to whether you are right. I'm asking for verifiability, which is part of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The consumption of electric vehicles is expressed in kWh/100 km 

message: Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, say it as it is - it's closer to American English than Oxford English. And if you jumble a couple of minor, but uncontroversial changes into a long jumble of disruptive datever and Engvar changes then you shouldn't be surprised if they get reverted too. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's clearly just your opinion, and is easily contested given the discussion happening above. And no. You even reverted changes before the ones introducing Oxford & DMY; do better. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article changes 

message: Reference to reverted edit.--Robertiki (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for how-to guides on how to input unusual characters. On a related comment, the fact that the character is not present directly in the keyboard is probably the reason why nobody actually follows the SI recommendation. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You just proved me right. The missing keyboard character justifies what is a footnote and no more. I would understand opposition against content in the body of the article, but a simple footnote ? --Robertiki (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The interpunct, or center dot, is a common international symbol for multiplication. The majority of people worldwide probably recognize it as such, perhaps not so much in the US, but this not just a US publication. I agree with the consensus here that we should not markup symbols with explanations of how-to, particularly if that entails referral to a single subjectively selected technology. kbrose (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain the last part of your comment. I agree that '·' is internationally known. I don't agree the assumption that a majority of people (people and educated people are not the same) worldwide recognize it as such. Expert editors (like you) can be very valuable contributors to Wikipedia, but they sometimes have a difficult time realizing that Wikipedia is a different environment from scholarly and scientific publishing. Wikipedia is more a mom's encyclopedia than a scholarly high level publication (and I am referring also to your full rollback of my yesterday edits). I also have a Ph.D., for what it's worth. --Robertiki (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

text: You mean 0xC2B7 (mine) and 0xE28B85 (article). But to the naked eye they look the same. And anyway, my note linked to interpunct page section which explains better. If the problem is that I was too "Linux" specific, no problem, I may suggest the following generic note The centered dot '·' character may be available through various  interpunct key combinations. --Robertiki (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to centred dot in the "Unit representations" section. I think this should be enough for those wondering what that symbol is or how to input it. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of adding a reference how to place a recommended symbol as per article 

message: The section with the sole statement, "By definition of the units, a consumption of 1 kWh/100 km is exactly equivalent to a resistance force...", is completely out of context with no useful exposition whatsoever. I don't see how it helps the article. There are probably many equivalents that could be drawn from dimensional analysis. kbrose (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Resistance force

message: Dondervogel 2 added a "citation needed" template to the statement that "other use of terms such as "watts per hour" are likely to be errors. The edit summary was "are you sure?". Yes, I'm sure. I've done a Google search on "watts per hour" and nearly all of the instances I find are errors.
The problem is that reliable sources usually content to using terms correctly themselves. They seldom take the trouble to point out widespread misuse of terms. So I have not been able to find a reliable source that it is a widespread error to write "watts per hour" or similar phrases when "watts" is meant.
This topic was previously discussed in Talk:Kilowatt-hour/Archive 1 in several sections. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If we don't have an RS, doesn't that make the claim WP:OR? My point is that there can are other quantities with dimensions power/time, and such use would be legitimate. I would prefer to see a positive statement about the correct meaning of W/s over the unsourced claim about incorrect meanings. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Two sources added for "watts per hour" (usually) being nonsense. --Macrakis (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of watts per hour, again

message: I was just searching for the term watt second  assuming the SI units would be used rather than kilo-.
I eventually figured you had this under kilowatt hour. But, I was thinking if you had a search for watt second redirect to this page, it would be a lot easier to find the article if the user is unsure of what units to search for. VoidHalo (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Watt-second" redirects to "Joule", as it should. So does "Watt second". What did you type? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watt second should redirect here 

message: "The use of the correct symbols for SI units, and for units in general, as listed in the earlier chapters of this brochure, is mandatory. In this way ambiguities and misunderstandings in the values of quantities are avoided." -- you can't spell "kWh" for kilowatt hour, "Wb" for watt barn, "kat" for kiloannum tonne, "Gy" for gauss year, etc. This never should have had to be a discussion especially when new units and prefixes get added. 2600:4040:208F:2A00:3FA2:818A:B558:F2A4 (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the archive of the talk page to see if this has been discussed before. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  kWh is a typo 

message: Why are people removing W h multiples from disambig pages and hatnotes? 2600:4040:208F:2A00:D9B0:D4A:879E:D5C8 (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  W h multiples removed from disambig pages