Misplaced Pages

As far as the scientific bits at the end go, your version seems to add more vagueness than was there in the first place. What is a clear majority? Why the irrelevant examples for Hubble's constant and so forth and references to a particular pair of topics (relativistic and quantum physics)? It seems that you are just muddying the waters here rather than clearing them. That being said, "use familiar units" is worthwhile, but again we are back to physics with black hole evaporation, and Planck units (whatever they are, I have never heard of them in 20 years of doing sub-atomic physical science, perhaps I am just thick), that's just too specific and confusing. Cut that crap out, the exempli gratia in the opening para explains the principle and we don't have to lord it over the readership because we all know about black hole evaporation. You are hoist with your own petard there because you say use familiar units and then express in completely unfamiliar units. If your point was deliberately to confuse then you succeeded, but it is not the goal of MOSNUM to confuse, I think, but to clarify.

Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Simon, most of your proposed changes (above) are OK with me. Some of the wording (e.g. on scientific terms) you object to is unchanged from the previous version. They were just not noticed before. I agree with the idea of simplifying rather than complicating things. I would be happy to take up your revisions almost in full. I would insert is the words In general at the beginning and make a few other minor changes as shown below:

• In general, put the units first that are in the most widespread use in the world. Usually, they are the units of the International System of Units (SI) and non-SI units accepted for use with SI; but there are various exceptions for some measurements, such as for periods of time longer than an hour or nautical miles to describe the distances that aircraft travel.

• With topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. In US articles, this will usually be United States customary units; for the UK Imperial units for some topics and metric units for others, and a mixture of units for others (see, for example, the Times Online style guide under "Metric").
• Put the source value first and the converted value second. If there is no clear choice which value to put first, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses.
• Use units consistently: write a 10-kilogram (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 5 kg (11 lb) bag of carrots, not a 10-kilogram (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 11-pound (5 kg) bag of carrots.
• Give nominal and defined values in the source's units first, even if this makes the article inconsistent.
• Avoid ambiguous unit names (e.g., write imperial gallon or US gallon instead of gallon) but do not change units in quotations; place conversions in square brackets directly afterwards within the quotation if it is useful to do so.
• When some parts of the English-speaking world use different units from the one used in the article, place conversions afterwards in parentheses so that readers everywhere can understand it: for example, the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long. (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)

• In scientific articles, use the units used by the current scientific literature on that topic.
• Some disciplines use units not approved by the BIPM, or write them differently from the way that BIPM says they should be.
• Prefer familiar units over obscure ones.

Michael Glass (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this because it changes words couched in appropriate ambiguity into a self-contradictory set of rules that appear to have no exceptions beyond WP:IAR.

There will be situations where it is impossible to follow the rules given here as absolute:

• Use the most appropriate units in a given geographical or historical context
• Use the source value first
• Use units consistently
• Give nominal and defined units first, even where this is inconsistent

In a previous message I named an example - where we compare a hypothetical 2,000 feet (610 m) hill with a 650 metres (2,130 ft) hill. If those are the measures given in the sources, there's no way we can meet the guidelines we are given.

My proposal would be:

Generally speaking, you should determine what unit is the most appropriate primary unit in the context of the measurement you are using, and then proceed to convert this into all units that are in common use in the English-speaking world in that context, so that all can understand it.

To determine which units should be primary, the following guidelines should be considered:

• In general, the primary unit is that which is in the most widespread use in the world. Usually, they are the units of the International System of Units (SI) and non-SI units accepted for use with SI; but there are various exceptions for some measurements, such as for periods of time longer than an hour or nautical miles to describe the distances that aircraft travel.
• Where a topic is strongly associated with a given place, time or person, use the units most appropriate to them first. In US articles, this will usually be United States customary units; for the UK Imperial units for some topics and metric units for others, and a mixture of units for others (see, for example, the Times Online style guide under "Metric").
• Give nominal and defined values in the units in which they are defined first, even if this makes the article inconsistent. Otherwise, use units consistently: write a 10-kilogram (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 5 kg (11 lb) bag of carrots, not a 10-kilogram (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 11-pound (5 kg) bag of carrots.
• In scientific articles, use the units used by the current scientific literature on that topic.
• Where a given discipline uses units not approved by the BIPM, or writes them differently from the way that BIPM says they should be written, use the units as commonly used in that discipline.
• Prefer familiar units over obscure ones.
• If there is no clear choice as to which unit is primary, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice is arbitrary, use the SI unit.

You should avoid using ambiguous unit names (e.g., write imperial gallon or US gallon instead of gallon), but do not change units in quotations. Place conversions in square brackets directly afterwards within the quotation if it is useful to do so.

Sourcing is my last bullet, because so far as I can see most of this is listing cases that overrule the sources-first rule. Even if a given source puts energies in foot-poundals, we still probably want it put in Joules - unless the second bullet (to use units appropriate to a time period or person) applies. Pfainuk talk 17:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pfainuk, you make some telling comments about the proposed wording. You are quite right in noting the inconsistency in trying to balance competing requirements of both consistency of presentation and accuracy reflecting the sources. These differences became far more obvious in the revised version because the language was so much clearer, as clear wording makes any defect in logic far more obvious.

However, there are problems with your proposed solution.

• "Put first" is less POV than "primary unit". "Primary unit" is also ambiguous, because it could also mean the unit used in the source of information. Therefore I believe "put first" is better wording.
• Because different English-speaking countries use different units of measure, talk of "units that are in common use in the English-speaking world" is problematic.
• Putting the the point about source value last is not helpful. One good way of establishing usage is to find out what the sources use. Otherwise the choice of units would be essentially arbitrary.

The proposal below makes the language less prescriptive. I have also made other changes, including omitting the point about nominal and defined values. Without the example the point is quite obscure; with the example it belabours the point. I have also removed the bolding and added the introduction from the policy as it is at the moment (in italics).

Units of measurement

The use of units of measurement is based on the following principles:

• Avoid ambiguity: Aim to write so you cannot be misunderstood.
• Familiarity: The less readers have to look up definitions, the easier it is to be understood.
• International scope: Misplaced Pages is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question.''

If there is trouble balancing these bullets, consult other editors through the talk page and try to reach consensus.

Which units to use and how to present them

• Apart from the exceptions listed below, put the units first that are in the most widespread use in the world. Usually, they are the units of the International System of Units (SI) and non-SI units accepted for use with SI; but there are various exceptions for some measurements, such as for periods of time longer than an hour or nautical miles to describe the distances that aircraft travel.

• With topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units first that are most appropriate to them. In US articles, this will usually be United States customary units; for the UK, Imperial units for some topics, metric units for others, and a mixture of units for others (see, for example, the Times Online style guide under "Metric").
• In general, put the source values first and the converted values second. If the choice is not clear, put the SI units first, with the other units in parentheses.
• Avoid inconsistent usage: write a 600 metres (2000 ft) hill with a 650 metres (2,130 ft) hill., not a 2,000 feet (610 m) hill with a 650 metres (2,130 ft) hill. If the source value is not put first, the source value should be recorded in a note to the text.
• Avoid ambiguous unit names (e.g., write imperial gallon or US gallon instead of gallon) but do not change units in quotations; place conversions in square brackets directly afterwards within the quotation if it is useful to do so.
• When some parts of the English-speaking world use different units from the one used in an article, place conversions afterwards in parentheses so that readers everywhere can understand it: so, the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long in an article about the US; and the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long in an article about Australia. However, in a general article about the length of rivers, put SI units first. (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)

• In scientific articles, use the units used by the current scientific literature on that topic.
• Some disciplines use units not approved by the BIPM, or write them differently from the way that BIPM says they should be.
• Prefer familiar units over obscure ones.

Comment from Pfainuk

I have edited the above so that these are level 3 and level 4 headers, so that it's more obviously the same conversation. This is not intended to affect the proposal, but rather for convenience on talk. The first time I looked at this, I didn't notice the proposal because it was under a level 2 heading.

I notice that this proposal fails to take account of A di M's point that we're talking about which units to put first before we mention that we're supposed to be putting more than one unit. This was the intention of the opening paragraph in my version: start with the basic principle that we choose a unit to put first and then convert that unit into all the relevant alternatives, and then go into detail as to decide which unit to put first.

My other thought structure-wise was that all of the bullet points except the one on ambiguous unit names deal with which units should go first in the text. As such, it makes a bit more sense just to treat it as one list rather than two. The three bullets at the bottom would go below the point about consistency.

On the point on consistency, I would suggest that it is not necessary for a source value to be placed in a footnote. It may be appropriate to ensure that it is clear when the sourced value is not placed first - but use footnotes throughout and we'll potentially end up with articles littered with useless footnotes - thereby devaluing the useful ones.

On defined units - for the most part this should be common sense, and it is mostly covered by the people-times-and-places rule. I think it's best off going in, but I would hope that editors don't need to be told.

I would also point out that your proposal advises us to put the most widespread units in use in the world first, except that in general they should use the source unit, regardless of system. This is self-contradictory in a way that the current text is not. It may be a good idea to ditch the sources point entirely, and instead integrate it into the first paragraph or to place it, with the note on ambiguous units, in a separate paragraph at the end:

If it is unclear as to which units are most appropriate, put the units preferred by the source for the unit first. If the choice is arbitrary, put SI units first.

Placing this in a separate paragraph perhaps makes it clearer that this is an extension to, and not an exception to, the basic international-units-first rule (whereas the other points are exceptions to it). Sources-first is most appropriate when the other rules are not applicable since it inherently has the potential to introduce intra- and inter-article inconsistency when dealing with similar measurements in similar contexts. Pfainuk talk 10:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Glass's point about source units is valid, in that if an editor doesn't know which unit is the appropriate one for the height of a hill in Great Britain, they can figure out by looking at what sources do. OTOH his wording is somewhat unclear about that. I would use something like: With topics ... (... under "Metric"). When in doubt, use the unit which most sources use for that type of measurement in that geographical context: it will be likely to be the most appropriate one. --___A. di M. 14:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides being entirely unnecessary instruction creep, it will almost always be possible to find sources that use whichever units you prefer, and there are some editors who may use this kind of wording in MOS to justify changing the priority (order) of units within articles to suit their agenda. _wjemather 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to take account of the fact that different English-speaking people use different units; that is why we need to supply both traditional and metric measures in many contexts. The question is which unit should come first. Mostly it is clear-cut, because most of the world uses metric units and there is a clear rule about US-based articles. With UK based articles it may not be clear and this is where it is useful to go by the sources.

Now for specific comments:

• If source-shopping is the game, someone will soon come along and put that right by quoting a better source. A more common problem is that sources are not provided.
• While in theory the guidelines may sound contradictory, in practice the best sources will agree with the other guidelines and there will be no contradiction.

If people are satisfied with the present wording it might be better to leave it be. I will try once more to see if I can improve on the wording, but if that doesn't work I'll let the matter rest. Michael Glass (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

After giving the matter some further consideration I feel it is best to proceed step by step with any changes of wording. The first change I would make is to change this:

• Generally, use units consistently (e.g., write a 10-kilogram (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 5 kg (11 lb) bag of carrots, not a 10-kilogram (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 11-pound (5 kg) bag of carrots).

to this:

• Avoid inconsistent usage: write a 600 metres (2000 ft) hill with a 650 metres (2,130 ft) hill., not a 2,000 feet (610 m) hill with a 650 metres (2,130 ft) hill.}}. If the source value is not put first, the source value should be recorded in a note to the text.

The reasons are as follows:

• The example is more realistic. We are not telling people how to write shopping lists for vegetables.
• It shows editors what to do if the sources of information are inconsistent.
• It is important to note what the original says.

What do others think? Michael Glass (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't agree that we should put in a footnote every time the unit we use isn't the same as the unit the cited source uses. Such a rule is likely to mean that many articles, where the units used are those that are most appropriate for the context and not necessarily the units preferred by the sources, are likely to be filled with unnecessary footnotes. Putting in lots of useless footnotes detracts from the useful footnotes in the same way that having lots of useless links detracts from the useful links.

I would note on your first message, you say that in practice the best sources will agree with the other guidelines and there will be no contradiction. If we're assuming that the sources will follow the other guidelines, then there's no need for us to specifically mention sources - this is instruction creep. Either the point on sourcing is unnecessary, or it contradicts the other points. And both are a problem. Pfainuk talk 14:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the first point, the measurement should cite its source anyway per WP:V, and it'd be no great deal if the citation instead of reading John Doe (1987). "Bla bla bla", in Blaology. it reads John Doe (1987). "Bla bla bla", in Blaology. (Measurements reported in inches in the original.); OTOH I don't think it is always necessary; but it definitely doesn't hurt. --___A. di M. 15:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• My "solution" for identifying source units is to include a comment like <!--source: 42 in-->. (Maybe identifying the source in the comment by its ref name would be even better.) At least that way, a future editor will know what was intended, without having to refer back to the original document cited. If you've got Imperial and SI sources contributing to an article, I'd recommend sticking to one set of units (parenthesizing alternatives as necessary), unless the choice of units is critical to the understanding of the text. On the other hand, if it's necessary to alert the reader of the source unit, a footnote would be a good way to do it, but I don't think that it's important enough to mention for most situations. TheFeds 20:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that all the comments have been on footnoting changes between the text and the source. I will let that matter rest for the moment and note something else. Nothing has been said about replacing the present shopping list with a more appropriate example.

From this:

• Generally, use units consistently (e.g., write a 10-kilogram (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 5 kg (11 lb) bag of carrots, not a 10-kilogram (22 lb) bag of potatoes and a 11-pound (5 kg) bag of carrots).

to this:

• Avoid inconsistent usage: (e.g., write a 600 metres (2000 ft) hill with a 650 metres (2,130 ft) hill., not a 2,000 feet (610 m) hill with a 650 metres (2,130 ft) hill.).

Any problems? If there are none, I will make this change to the text. Michael Glass (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to this change, other than that I think |adj=on should be added to the convert template, for purposes of grammar (a 600-metre hill). Pfainuk talk 20:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, though not with the conversion templates. Michael Glass (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal

At present the policy reads:

When different parts of the English-speaking world use different units for the same measurement, the "primary" unit should be followed by a conversion in parentheses. This will enable readers from all over the world to understand the measurement: for example, the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long. (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)

This could be more clearly expressed to explain that the different measures would be used in different articles. Here is my proposal:

When some parts of the English-speaking world use different units from the one used in an article, place conversions afterwards in parentheses so that readers everywhere can understand it: so, the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long in an article about the US; and the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long in an article about Australia. However, in a general article about the length of rivers, put SI units first. (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)

Any comments, suggestions or objections? Michael Glass (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In an earlier discussion, it seemed unclear how many ordinary readers were in the U.S., how many in purely-metric countries (Anglophone and non-Anglophone) and how many in hybrid countries like Britain or Canada where both metric and non-metric units are sometimes used (regardless of official or technical usages, but rather how ordinary people think of quantities). Only if it's clear that a significant majority of Misplaced Pages readers think of the units in question in purely metric terms would I think that "put metric units first" in articles with no clear association with any one country would be justified. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Entirely unnecessary as clarification follows immediately in the next paragraphs. _wjemather 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This point as it stands does not significantly deal with which unit comes first - it merely demonstrates conversion. Better to leave the explanation about which unit should come first to the bullet points directly after. We don't have to make every point everywhere. Pfainuk talk 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to work out exactly how many readers come from which countries, let alone what units they might prefer. This wording might be better:

When some parts of the English-speaking world use different units from the one used in an article, place conversions afterwards in parentheses so that readers everywhere can understand it: so, the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long in an article about the US, and the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long in an article about Australia. (See {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing below.)

• It makes it clear that we are talking about different articles.
• It is shorter than the present wording.
• It avoids the use of "primary" unit, which could be mistaken for the source unit.

Any problems or objections to this change? Michael Glass (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm paying closer attention, I'm really confused. "Some parts of the English-speaking world" will always use different units from the one used in an article. One of the generally-accepted points (though not a formal consensus or conclusion) in the earlier discussion (which might have been about units or about WP:ENGVAR) is that one can't make assumptions about who wants to read about Canberra, Stephen Leacock, Manhattan or the Tower of London. There might be more interest among outsiders who know nearly nothing but want to learn more, than among compatriots of the article's subject.

So, for example, I gave metric conversions for feet and yards in the articles about Yankee Stadium (1923) and Yankee Stadium almost everywhere that didn't have them. (I think there was one table where it just wasn't practical.) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not always. Units of time are generally the same all over the world, for example - so seconds do not generally need to be converted into any other unit.

My comments on this proposal are:

When some parts of the English-speaking world use different units from the one used in an article, place conversions afterwards in parentheses so that readers everywhere can understand it:

We haven't got as far as putting a unit in the article yet because we haven't decided which one we need. Further, there may be several units used in a single article - which one are you referring to? The current wording is a whole lot clearer.

You argue that "primary unit" can be misconstrued as meaning the source unit. I don't doubt it can be: in the past I've seen an editor who managed to construe "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a... source" from WP:V to mean that the person challenging the material could not remove it without providing a source to back up the removal. But I think such an argument would be difficult to sustain, particularly given that we proceed to give a long list of guidelines as to how to determine which units are "primary". The term "primary" is not exactly badly defined here.

The remainder of your proposal goes on - essentially - to repeat the guidance directly below it. Why do we need to do that? Where is the benefit? I don't see any benefit, and I think that it's better to keep these trimmed and simple. We're not trying to demonstrate which units to use here - we're only trying to demonstrate how to present units. So, how about we replace both with the River Nile is 6,650 kilometres (4,130 mi) long?

Finally, I note you argue that your version is shorter than the present wording. It's actually two words longer. Pfainuk talk 16:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it takes up less space, that's for sure. The problem with giving only one example, as you propose, is that it could suggest that only articles with metric measurements first should have conversions. That's why the two examples are helpful here.

As we can't agree on what changes would be acceptable it is better to leave it at this time. Michael Glass (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Choice of units

The present guidelines state:

If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses.

I think it would be preferable to express this as:

In general, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses.

It would seem to me to be a good general rule to follow the sources. However, the guidelines should provide guidance rather than a straitjacket. What do others think of this? Michael Glass (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing "if editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first" to "in general, put the source value first" contradicts the rest of the section. Putting source values first leads to choppy articles unless the article only uses one source. Putting source values first should be a last resort, except for direct quotes. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jc3s5h. As I argued before regarding this proposal, the rule becomes effectively:

Put the units first that are in the most widespread use in the world, except that in general you should put the source value first and the converted value second.

The general rule is simultaneously to put the most widely used units first and to put the source units first. If they're the same, then the sources point is redundant. If they're different, then the two points directly contradict one another. Both are a problem.

Better, in my view, only to fall back on source values in cases where none of the other rules apply - where it is not clear which is the most widespread unit and there is no guidance from the other rules. Pfainuk talk 07:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I note the complaints that the proposed rule contradicts the rule to be consistent. No it doesn't, unless the sources are inconsistent, and if they are inconsistent the guideline explains what to do if the choice of units is arbitrary. This problem is unlikely to arise in most of the world, because most of the world uses the metric system for most ordinary measures, In the USA, the US customary measures are used, so it is not so likely to arise there. That only leaves Britain where there is likely to be any real confusion, and this is where the rule would be most useful. If most authoritative sources are Imperial, that's the way to go. However, if they are closer to the usage of the Times Guide then that would be OK, too. If metric, then go metric. Or, if the authoritative sources were really at sixes and sevens, then metric would also be the way to go. The rule of following the sources is helpful for British articles because it's more objective than simply relying on the editors to make this decision without reference to the sources of information. Michael Glass (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A few points here:

The proposed rule does contradict the rule that units should be consistent. If the sources are not consistent, then we cannot have source-based units and consistent units. That is a contradiction. That the sources are inconsistent does not imply that the choice of units is arbitrary, and there may be a unit appropriate in the context of the article that is not SI.

As it happens, though, that's not what I argued. I argued that your proposed wording simultaneously tells people that, in general, they should use the unit used the source and the unit in most widespread use internationally, and that this is contradictory.

You argue there is likely to be no difference between these two rules. On the contrary, it's reasonably easy to think of examples where this could be an problem.

If a source for the distance between the Earth and the Moon is US- or UK- based, it may well give that distance in miles. In that case, there is a contradiction between the sources rule and the widespread-usage rule. A source describing the weight of a hare might well express a value in pounds if it was written in the US or UK. In that case, there is a contradiction between the sources rule and the widespread-usage rule. The muzzle velocity of an AK-47 is likely to be expressed in feet per second in an American source. In that case, there is a contradiction between the sources rule and the widespread-usage rule. In any case where this new rule makes a difference, it contradicts the widespread-usage rule.

Even if there is no difference (as you argue and I dispute) then there is no good reason to be adding a new rule, and instruction creep is a good reason not to. Either this rule is contradictory or it is instruction creep - and in either case it's a bad idea.

Finally, I would note that nowhere does your proposal state that the guideline should only apply to UK-related articles. It does not - it applies to all articles. If it did apply only to UK-related articles I would oppose it. UK-related articles should be treated as other articles, bearing in mind that the guideline says that appropriate units are to be used as primary when dealing with any topic that is strongly associated with a certain place, time or person. Pfainuk talk 16:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither the present wording nor the proposed wording state that the guidelines should only apply to UK-related articles. If the widespread usage rule applies as you have stated, then all articles should be metric first, as is the case with your examples. If this rule is to be tempered by an appeal to time, place or person, then how is this to be tested but by looking at the sources? The kind of thing that i would question is when an article is in Imperial units when most or all of the sources are metric. Michael Glass (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You say: If the widespread usage rule applies as you have stated, then all articles should be metric first, as is the case with your examples.

Unfortunately for your position, that's not what your suggested rule says. On the contrary, your suggested rule says both that imperial units and that metric units should be used as primary units in these cases. The widespread-usage rule says one thing and the use-sources rule says the other, and both apply. Which leaves the editor none the wiser.

You say that you would question a case where an article is imperial-first using sources that are metric-first. I have no doubt that this is not uncommon among US-related articles, where the imperial-first rule is well-established. That it sometimes happens on British-related articles, equally, is not entirely surprising.

Not all sources follow Misplaced Pages's MOS, and it seems particularly fair to assume that not all sources - particularly those used in UK-related articles - will follow it when we make an exception based on person, time or place. Sources are not the be-all and end-all. The British are well aware that imperial units are not used by most outside the UK and will commonly use metric units only in texts intended for a non-British audience (such as tourist guides) - including in circumstances where imperial units are actually more appropriate in a British context. But on Misplaced Pages we're not specifically writing for a non-British audience, and the source may well not use the most appropriate unit in the circumstances. Better, IMO to use the units that consensus deems to be appropriate, falling back on the sources if necessary as per the current wording. Pfainuk talk 08:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The problems I see with your position are two assumptions that underlie them.

1. That when the British use metric units it is for the sake of tourists and people outside the UK.
2. That the consensus of editors is a superior guide to usage than the sources of information.

It's more accurate to say that usage in the UK is contested, with some actively campaigning for the full adoption of metric units and some others fighting tooth and nail for the retention of the older units . Somewhere in the middle is the Times Style Guide which acknowledges "The Times should keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use, but given the wide age range and geographical distribution of our readers, some continuing use of imperial measurements is necessary."

Dismissing the use of metric units as simply an attempt to cater for tourists is not in accordance with the reality of the situation.

I think you will find that there is a similarly gradual movement towards metric measures on Misplaced Pages and most editors will be untroubled by this development. However, a few will resist this even when the sources of information are predominantly or even exclusively metric. In this situation a suggestion to follow the sources will offer some commonsense guidance when the question arises.

Michael Glass (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your first point is not my point. It may not have been as clear as one would have liked, but my point was not that British people use metric units for the sake of foreign tourists and no-one else. If it had been I would be arguing for full imperial units in British contexts - and I made it very clear in the last discussion that this is not something I think would be a good idea. My point was that, in literature for foreign tourists, the British will tend to use metric units in circumstances where imperial units would be more appropriate in a British context. This might, for example, include the speed someone is driving. Most Britons don't have a clear idea of what speeds in kilometres per hour mean in practical terms. The only circumstances under which one might think to use them would be when one's words are intended for a foreign audience. Using it in other contexts would appear to be the RL equivalent of being POINTy. But I'm sure you can find sources giving speeds in a UK context in metric measures.

Living in the UK, as I do, I am well aware that metric units are in use in some circumstances. But imperial measures are also used in some circumstances, and given that sources are not perfect, generally speaking - given that they do not always reflect Misplaced Pages's style guidelines - they not always the best guide to the most appropriate usage. Better to rely on a consensus of editors: we trust them to be able to choose which wording is most appropriate, why can't we trust them to choose which units are appropriate - falling back on source units where necessary as per the current wording?

All that said, I notice with interest that you fail to address the core issue with this wording. This wording clearly is not intended apply only in British contexts (indeed it's not clear that it's intended to apply in British contexts at all: they're an exception to one general rule, why not the other?) - it is intended to apply "in general". You have not adequately addressed the fact that, if we were to accept this rule, we would, in general, call upon users both to use most widely used units in a given context as primary and to use sourced units as primary - and that this is contradictory when the source uses a unit other than that which is most widely used in a given context. Pfainuk talk 16:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be worrying excessively about what units the British would use. There are, after all, only 60 million of them, they are part of the European Union now, and they are officially under the metric system. There are a few hold-outs, of course, but they'll eventually die out. The only real holdout to metric is the United States, and Americans are at least theoretically using the metric system as well. We cater to Americans because there are 300 million of them, but I'm not sure how long our forbearance will last, at least not mine. The rest of the English-speaking world understands metric, so the default units for articles should be metric, and exceptions only made for the U.S.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. There are contexts in which imperial units are used overwhelmingly in the UK, and in these contexts it would be inappropriate to use metric units first. Most British people understand metric in theory, but do not understand it in practice - they know that a vehicle travelling at 70km/h will travel 70,000m in every hour, but they won't have a clear idea of how far 70km is in practical terms or whether 70km/h is fast, slow, or the right speed to be driving through a town, or down a motorway. Roads are signposted in miles and yards, speed limits are posted in miles per hour, and car speedometers give speeds in miles per hour (there is generally a km/h dial but it's generally far too small to be of any practical use).

I would note that the extent to which the UK adopts metric units is a political issue here, and systematically prescribing metric units in UK contexts regardless of whether they are the most appropriate unit in the context or not would imply that Misplaced Pages holds a POV on the matter.

That said, the current wording doesn't actually treat the US or UK as exceptions - rather, any context that is strongly tied to a person, place or time is an exception to the most-widely-used-internationally rule. It may be appropriate to use imperial first for all measures on an article about the Blitz, or mesures usuelles on an article about some aspect of the ancien régime of France (though these might equally come under the "obscure units" rule). Pfainuk talk 06:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I really can't see how you can say that the current wording doesn't actually treat the US or UK as exceptions. Look at the wording:

Except in the cases mentioned below... ...In US articles... ...for the UK ...

Of course the wording treats both the UK and the US as exceptions to the general policy.

The policy for the UK gives the following latitude:

Imperial units for some topics and

metric units for others, and

a mixture of units for others (see, for example, the Times Online style guide under "Metric").

How is is possible to deny that this is so? Michael Glass (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The exception is about all "topics strongly associated with places, times or people"; the UK and the US are just examples of that. (They are the most relevant ones because the units most appropriate to, e.g., present-day continental Europe topics will almost always be the same units most appropriate for non-regional topics. But they are by no means the only cases to which the exception applies.) --___A. di M. 13:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions are exceptions are exceptions. There are general exceptions of course, but there are also specific exceptions for both the US and the UK. Read the policy and you can see that there is also a huge difference between what is allowed for the US and what is allowed for the UK. Can the UK have Metrics? Yes they can! Can the UK have Imperial? Yes they can! Can the UK have a mixture? Yes they can! That is quite exceptional, and it applies to no other country. And no amount of obfuscation and chop logic can hide it. Michael Glass (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The United States can have a mixture of metric and non-metric units too. Otherwise Americans would be unable to measure electricity. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Those about the US and the UK are not "policy", they are examples of what "the units most appropriate to them" are in those countries. In cases where the "units most appropriate" to a US topic are metric (e.g. some engineering topics in which Americans would use metric, too), there's nothing to forbid the use of metric units in an article about it. I've just changed the page to include "for example". --___A. di M. 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please abide by consensus

Jc3s5h, your edits were contrary to the results of the RfC you yourself conducted here on Archive 123. The {val} template was the result of very lenghty, months-long discussions by very many editors on both WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM.

{Val} (originally known as “Delimitnum”) had its functionality described here in WT:MOSNUM Archive 94…

…it was extensively discussed and voted upon here in WT:MOSNUM Archive 94…

…and was well received here on WT:MOS Archive 97…

…where its functionality was tweaked to achieve a compromise solution that made everyone happy on an issue regarding the look of scientific notation.

Then a number of developers and template authors worked on it.

Please don’t presume that you can come along and change it without a proper consensus. Greg L (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Greg L misinterprets the results of the RFC. While the Val template is generally acceptable in that it can be altered to accommodate almost any format for which there is consensus, Greg L is the only one who considers the commas-left, thin-spaces-right format to be the best choice. A few others considered it acceptable but not superior to other choices. The outcome of the discussion was to avoid the commas-left, thin-spaces-right format. Val should be modified accordingly.

I also call upon Greg L to abide by the argument he has often made with respect to binary prefixes (that is, follow external consensus rather than advocate formats that have not achieved external acceptance, and choose a format that has at least limited acceptance outside of Misplaced Pages to a format that has no acceptance at all outside Misplaced Pages. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• You must not have read the links I provided, above; they show widespread, overwhelming support for {val}. The consensus (not just me) on Misplaced Pages is that the techniques {val} uses for scientific notation and long strings is a good one that causes zero confusion. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. But please stop trying to delete mention of it or discourage its use. It serves a valuable purpose in technical articles. Greg L (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Delimiting numbers

• (no longer beating around the bush here): One source of periodic friction on MOSNUM is the delimiting of numbers. There are four or even five different ways of doing so. In Sweden, they teach school children three different methods (and two of them are “Swedish 1” and “Swedish 2”). To make a long story short: Misplaced Pages allows both British and American-dialect English (spelling) in its articles, so long as they are consistent within an article. However…

  This practice of “your way / my way… it’s all just six of one / half a dozen of the other” doesn’t apply to numbers. Why? Misplaced Pages has gone through all this before many times, and new editors who come here don’t have the benefit of all that history and discussion. But it comes down to this: English-speaking Europeans are familiar and comfortable with a many different ways of delimiting numbers and the American style causes them no confusion whatsoever. Comma-delimiting might not be the most common practice for English-speaking Europeans, but they recognize what it means and fully understand the numbers. However, Americans are familiar with one and only one method; as a group, they have had no exposure whatsoever to other ways of delimiting numbers. So, especially for general-interest articles, in order to cause the least confusion, the American method of using commas to the left of the decimal point is to be used on Misplaced Pages. Scientific articles; particularly ones directed to a professional readership, are the only exception.

  The argument that “Well, Misplaced Pages will just start using the Euro/BIPM method and dumb-ass Americans will simply learn” just doesn’t fly and it never will. Misplaced Pages doesn’t have that kind of influence; all that sort of attitude does is produce confusion. Our aborted attempt to push the world into the adoption of the IEC prefixes (kibibytes and KiB) amply demonstrated that. After three long years, the practice was no more well adopted throughout the world than before. All Misplaced Pages accomplished by letting itself by hijacked by a handful of editors who wanted to push the world into a new and brighter future with warp drive and membership in the United Federation of Planets™®© was to make our computer-related articles needlessly confusing. We follow the way the world works and can not presume to lead by example.

  We can’t have MOSNUM subtly edited in a fashion that tacitly allows numbers in articles, other than science-related ones, to be delimited with thinspaces in place of commas to the left of the decimal point; it is unnecessarily confusing to too many readers. This is the way it has long been done and there has been no decision to change the practice.

  As for delimiting with gaps to the right of the decimal point using {val} on high-precision numbers, particularly in engineering and scientific-related contexts where the distinction between numbers is important and the values actually have to be parsed and understood, that confuses absolutely no one—even “sheltered Americans”. A value like 1.6162523625×10 meters is no more confusing than the decidedly non-SI-compliant, five-digit delimiting used for mathematical constants (particularly in tables of constants), such as 3.141592653589793238462643383279...; everyone instantly “gets” it. It is a much-appreciated and much-needed touch that makes long strings of digits much easier to parse. Moreover, its technique of using thinspaces to the right is the only possible method that could be employed to solve the problem of long strings without upsetting the apple cart; it was either do nothing (and have absurdly long strings that can’t easily be parsed) or utilize the only logical available technique. Greg L (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• My position is that using thin spaces to both the left and right of the decimal when an article contains one or more numbers with 5 digits to the right of the decimal is preferable to Misplaced Pages making up its own format. It also my position that the practice of using thin spaces to the right and commas to the left looks especially asinine in the case of a number like 4,046.8564224. I will not change my position unless a reputable external source, such as a major style guide, which supports the 4,046.8564224 format, is cited. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• That’s perfectly fine, Jc3s5h. Don’t write it that way then. A number like 4046.8564224 is rare anyway. With that much precision, such numbers will often be in scientific articles where scientific notation might be more appropriate. Amongst all the above-cited discussions in the archives, there was another editor who felt as you do. We go with the consensus here on Misplaced Pages and the approval of {val} was (very) lopsided. The guideline advising editors that numbers like 1.6162523625 × 10 meters are hard to parse and they should consider using 1.6162523625×10 m is a sound one because it makes Misplaced Pages easier to read and understand. Greg L (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you; as long as this is phrased so as to be clear that the answer to "I don't like 4,046.8564224" is "Don't use it then", not "MOS breach! MOS breach! shun this start-class article", a recommendation backed by a lopsided majority should be fine, and harmless. The present use of may be seems to achieve that, but I would value Jc3s5h's opinion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) When Pmanderson asks whether the present use of may be, I surmise he is asking about this section:

• Numbers with more than four digits to the right of the decimal point, particularly those in engineering and science where distinctions between different values are important, may be separated (delimited) into groups using the {{val}} template, which uses character-positioning techniques rather than distinct characters to form groups. Per ISO convention (observed by the NIST and the BIPM), it is customary to not leave a single digit at the end, thus the last group comprises two, three, or four digits. Accordingly, the recommended progression on Misplaced Pages is as follows: 1.123, 1.1234, 1.12345, 1.123456, 1.1234567, 1.12345678, 1.123456789, etc. Note that {{val}} handles these grouping details automatically; e.g. {{val|1.1234567}} generates 1.1234567 (with a four-digit group at the end). The {{val}} template can parse no more than a total of 15 significant digits in the significand. For significands longer than this, editors should delimit high-precision values using the {{gaps}} template; e.g. {{gaps|1.234|567|890|123|45}} → 1.2345678901234567.

Let us set aside my objection to the 4046.8564224 format for the moment; whether my interpretation or Greg L's interpretation of consensus prevails will become apparent in due course. The present version of the guideline states, or at least strongly implies, that the Val template conforms to "ISO convention (observed by the NIST and the BIPM)", but the template at present does not conform to the ISO convention. Furthermore, every example in this section has exactly one digit to the left of the decimal, so the non-conformance is concealed.

This is a falsehood. I don't think it has been pointed out until now, so it is an innocent falsehood. But over time, as the falsehood becomes better understood among editors of this guideline, it could ripen into a lie. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is a question of fact (assertions of fact are generally undesirable on guideline pages, because it provokes exactly this sort of discussion), would both of you provide citations? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Alternatively, can Jc3c5h propose a text which supports the use of {{val}} - commonly but not without exception - but does not make those claims of fact?
• Is GregL willing to consider such a text? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• In response to Pmanderson's request for a citation, the BIPM brochure setting for the International System of Units states "for numbers with many digits the digits may be divided into groups of three by a thin space, in order to facilitate reading. Neither dots nor commas are inserted in the spaces between groups of three."

As for proposing a text supporting the use of {{val}}, I don't support that template at all until it is modified to not allow commas and thin spaces in the same number. (I have no objection to a version that provides a parameter to choose between the BIPM format and the customary American format.) --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that citation does address how to handle 4 digits (make a single group of 4); but one issue between you is how to handle 8 digits. {{Val}} divides them IIUC 3, 3, and 2; what would you do, and can you cite it as ISO? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, I suspect you are missing the point. Looking at 8 digit numbers, 1234.678 is fine. The format 12345678 is fine if the article does not contain any numbers with 5 or more digits to the right of the decimal. The formats 12345678 and 0.12345768 should not appear in the same article. The formats 12345678 and 0.12345768 in the same article are fine. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Either commas or gaps, not both. That still leaves several possibilities to object to. Do you object to

• The use of gaps and commas in the same article?
• The use of gaps and spaces in the same number?
• The claim that (which of the above?) is ISO?
• All three?

Are you willing to let Greg use his preferred format, if you can use yours? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: there's no problem if the lead of LHC reads "over 10,000 scientists and engineers" and a paragraph deep down inside it says, "At this energy the protons have a Lorentz factor of about 7500 and move at about 99.9999991% of the speed of light." They are different contexts: the former is something even my grandmother could read (if he spoke English), the latter is an advanced technical detail. But I'd prefer avoiding both styles in the same contexts: after all, contexts in which you want to use the traditional American style not to confuse American readers are very, very, very unlikely to contain any number with a large number of digits after the decimal point. (Personally, when I see a number with more than three significant figures I ask myself where the hell the last ones were taken from, and if I can find no answer, that confuses me much more than an unfamiliar format would.) These generally occur in scientific and engineering contexts, where using thinspaces is OK. Of course, these are generalizations and exceptions may occur. --___A. di M. 02:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to the items questioned by Septentrionalis,

• The use of gaps and commas in the same article? Object Neutral.
• The use of gaps and spaces in the same number? Strongly Object
• The claim that (which of the above?) is ISO? The claim that {{Val}} conforms to ISO/BIPM/NIST format is not compatible with the use of the comma as a separator at all. This wording will have to change if {{Val}} is capable of using commas as a separator.

I do not support the use of made-up formats when an acceptable format is already in use in non-Misplaced Pages publications. Gaps and spaces in the same number is certainly a made-up format. Mixing numbers with commas and numbers with spaces in the same article is, in my view, also a made-up format, but I suppose others could argue to the contrary. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Greg? The third bullet point above is a call for citation; please give one. I cannot help with this otherwise without proposing a compromise text, and I do not see one. If one of you bends to the breaking point, the other may see the result as marginally acceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting Jc3s5h: The present version of the guideline states, or at least strongly implies, that the Val template conforms to "ISO convention (observed by the NIST and the BIPM)". Fact: It does (and says) no such thing. Read the text. It says as follows:

Per ISO convention (observed by the NIST and the BIPM), it is customary to not leave a single digit at the end, thus the last group comprises two, three, or four digits.

It’s 1.2345678, not 1.2345678. That’s what it says. That’s all it says.

Following the logic of Jc3s5h, if there are any numbers in an article that have the right hand side delimited (for clarity of parsing), then that gives him carte blanche freedom to use spaces to the left of the decimal point. Perhaps. But only if the article is on a scientific subject. There is no reason for this majorly-conflicted dilemma. It seems Jc3s5h rather wants to expand the Euro-style way of delimiting and is exploiting the existence of {val} to push this view. That would be a mistake if it’s the case. But, if it’s just a matter of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, then don’t use it, because many others do like it.

Count the number of readers who are confused by the use of {val} on Kilogram. Zero. Zip. Count the number of readers who would be unnecessarily confused if we expanded the use of comma delimiting outside of the realm that it is currently limited to (science). How many American readers are going to be baffled if we started delimiting with thinspaces to the left of the decimal marker?? A metric butt load; that’s how many. It would be foolhardy to contemplate any such change. Like A. di M. wrote, above, …there's no problem if the lead of LHC reads "over 10,000 scientists and engineers" and a paragraph deep down inside it says, "At this energy the protons have a Lorentz factor of about 7500 and move at about 99.9999991% of the speed of light." Even his grandmother wouldn’t be confused.

And, Jc3s5h, don’t bother quoting how the BIPM says numbers ought to be delimited to the left of the decimal marker in documents for a world-wide audience. That isn’t the first advise from the BIPM that Misplaced Pages (and the rest of the world ignores) and it won’t be the last. Notably—perhaps very unfortunately—America ignores that advise. Perhaps you find that to be an unfortunate shame. I might agree with you. Perhaps you think we will Make the world a better place by leading by example.®™© No. That is not what Misplaced Pages can or should do. This flouting of standards applies to the IEC and many other standards bodies: sometimes proposals fly like a wet noodle. However, the good ones that solve a problem rapidly gain traction in the world. And when the rest of the world changes, Misplaced Pages will follow suit. Note also, en.Misplaced Pages is not intended to be read by all cultures throughout the world; just English-speaking ones (either first or second language). As I’ve patiently explained above, the rest of the English-speaking world “gets” the American-style way of delimting. However, Americans don’t “get” other ways of delimiting. Not… in… the… slightest. That’s why en.Misplaced Pages has adopted the comma to the left. Please accept that and stop seizing on {val} as a reason why thinspaces ought to be expanded. Greg L (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• The idea behind Misplaced Pages allowing the BIPM method of delimiting in its science-related articles was borne out of the fact that professional, peer-reviewed articles in science are typically written that way, as required by the manuals of style of the respective journals. They have an international audience and the journals try to make the papers as easy to digest for an extraordinarily wide, professional audience. The “science” exception has often been used as a window of opportunity to be exploited by some Wikipedians in an effort to expand the practice into just about anything (“well… water is a ‘sciency’ subject.”).

  IMHO, the objective on Misplaced Pages should always, always be about writing in a way that is clearest and causes the least confusion. There are many distasteful practices that come with that philosophy, including using feet and inches and pounds in American-related articles like Boston Red Sox. Too often, editors want to do things a certain way because… well… editors simply like doing it that way and always have done it that way. It ends up being more about writing to please the Wikipedian rather than do what is best for the readership. Greg L (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A break after the boxed sentence puts ISO and {{val}} into different and shorter paragraphs; that should remove any implication of connection where none is intended. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to think of something that would remove (or at least greatly reduce) the implication without being too bulky. This is an elegant change. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

To resolve the issue I offer a two part proposal:

Part 1: {{Val}} is altered so that by default, it produces commas to the left and no separation to the right of the decimal point (customary American style). A parameter is added, BIPM=y or yes which produces thin space separators on both sides of the decimal point.

Part 2: The "Delimiting (groups of digits)" be altered to read as follows:

• Numbers with five or more digits to the left of the decimal point; i.e. 10,000 or more, should be delimited (separated into groups so they can be easily parsed visually) using commas every three digits; e.g. 12,200 and 255,200 and 8,274,527 etc. Exception: articles containing numbers with five or more digits to the right of the decimal point, e.g. 3.141593 (as such articles should delimit numbers as for scientific articles—described below).
• Numbers with four digits to the left of the decimal point may be delimited with a comma; that is, there were 1250 head of cattle and there were 1,250 head of cattle are both acceptable. The same exception as for five digits to the left of the decimal point applies.
• Numbers are not delimited when they are part of mailing and shipping addresses, page numbers, and years with four or fewer digits. Years with five or more digits (e.g. 10,400 BC) shall use commas.
• In scientific articles, particularly those directed to an expert readership, numbers may be delimited with thin spaces using the {{gaps}} template. Coding {{gaps|8|274|527}} produces 8274527 (note: the thin space character and its HTML entity,  , do not render correctly on some browsers). Articles containing numbers with five or more digits to the left of the decimal point should delimit numbers with thin spaces.
• The style of delimiting numbers should be consistent throughout an article.
• Mathematical constants in math-oriented articles may be grouped into groups of five; e.g. 3.141592653589793238462643383279....
• Numbers with more than four digits to the right of the decimal point, particularly those in engineering and science where distinctions between different values are important, may be separated (delimited) into groups using the {{val}} template, with the BIPM parameter set to "y" or "yes"; {{val}} uses character-positioning techniques rather than distinct characters to form groups. Per ISO convention (observed by the NIST and the BIPM), it is customary to not leave a single digit at the end, thus the last group comprises two, three, or four digits. Accordingly, the recommended progression on Misplaced Pages is as follows: 1.123, 1.1234, 1.12345, 1.123456, 1.1234567, 1.12345678, 1.123456789, etc. Note that {{val}} handles these grouping details automatically; e.g. {{val|1.1234567}} generates 1.1234567 (with a four-digit group at the end). The {{val}} template can parse no more than a total of 15 significant digits in the significand. For significands longer than this, editors should delimit high-precision values using the {{gaps}} template; e.g. {{gaps|1.234|567|890|123|45}} → 1.2345678901234567. Also note that when the BIPM parameter is omitted, {{val}} does not conform to the ISO/NIST/BIPM format; instead it uses the customary American format of grouping digits to the left of the decimal with commas, and not grouping digits to the right of the decimal.

--Jc3s5h (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I said above, there is well established reason why en.Misplaced Pages uses commas to delimit numbers to the left of the decimal point: it results in the least confusion in our readership. Please stop using {val} as an excuse to advocate that we diverge from this well-entrenched principle. If you don’t like {val}, don’t use it. It solves a legitimate problem when you have really long, hard-to-parse strings of numbers to the right of the decimal point. It is not a vehicle to be used to try to use Misplaced Pages to enlighten Americans to the One True Way that numbers really ought to be delimited. Greg L (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I reject the claim, unsupported by any scientific survey or by adoption by any external publication, that commas to the left of the decimal point and thin spaces to the right are less confusing than a format that uses the grouping method, thin spaces, on both sides of the decimal. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you clearly aren’t familiar with America, are you? How many methods of delimiting numbers do you think American school children are taught? Just one. In Sweden, they teach elementary kids three different techniques, including the American method. You are certainly free to choose to believe what you want to believe. Greg L (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  P.S. I’ve been to England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Antigua, Moroco, Spain, Monaco, France, Italy, Austria, and Hungary—and Canada, if you can count that as not being part of the U.S. ;-). Notwithstanding that I am American, I do all my engineering in hard metric. Have you been to the U.S.A? If so, how long? Because, as an engineer, I can assure you I have keen insight into what causes confusion in Americans. The current practices of Misplaced Pages were no accident. Greg L (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have found that the current edition of the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, in rules 12.9e and 12.14, calls for the use of commas to the left of the decimal and thin spaces to the right. (Although the manual does not say "thin spaces", the spaces in their example look thin to me.) Therefore I withdraw my contention that this is a made-up format. This manual does not address the question of what to do when one number has 5 or more digits to the left of the decimal, and also 5 or more digits to the right of the decimal. In most cases this could be handled by putting the number in scientific notation. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Jeez! I didn’t know that. That was big of you. You did the homework and declared an “inconvenient truth” that I didn’t even know about. Damned big of you; I’ll remember that. Like the guideline says, editors may use {val}. If you think it is important for readers to be able to easily parse the digits to the right of the decimal point in a particular value, and if scientific notation doesn’t seem suitable for some reason, then use {val}. Otherwise, don’t. Cheers. I’m done for the evening. Greg L (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the proposed changes to {{val}} would be straightforward and reasonable.

  As for the proposal, it's on the right track—but let me raise some issues. I think the current text is a bit cumbersome, in that it has a lot of exceptions and places where the text diverges into subcases. I think we can state the exceptions a little more clearly, and make them general in application.

  There's also the question of whether to treat the U.S. and BIPM delimiting schemes as similarly-acceptable, or not. I don't buy the idea that Americans don't understand the BIPM format—any literate English speaker ought to be able to figure out the meaning of either the U.S. customary or BIPM formats (or for that matter the meaning of an undelimited number), with minimal effort. (And for subsequent occurances, zero effort.) It's not a significant issue of understanding at all—it is straightforwardly stylistic. And given that an English-speaking Canadian or European would probably default to the BIPM format, and would certainly understand it, it's not appropriate to direct those users to use an unfamiliar method despite the conventions of English-language style that are typically employed in their regions. (It's the same can of worms as telling them to spell it color instead of colour, or vice versa.)

  It also follows that there needs to be an exception for special regional contexts that would be unintelligible to the majority of English speakers, but which are still in widespread use. (This particular exception could use further discussion, and might be relevant in so few cases as to be omitted, but I'll suggest something below anyway.) For example: English is a second language of hundreds of millions of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, and they often use the Indian numbering system when communicating in English. For articles specifically about an Indian topic, if we're to be faithful to the idea of avoiding regional bias, we have to acknowledge that their method is widespread enough to consider in the MOS.

  There's also the matter of splitting the technical details out into their own subsection. I think things were getting a bit convoluted with the mixing of implementation details with stylistic concerns, so I think that we should separate them from the main text.

  So with that in mind, I've spliced portions of the various versions of this section (by Greg L, Jc3s5h and myself) together, and come up with this:

===Digit grouping===

• In numbers with many digits, digit grouping symbols (inserted at intervals from the decimal point) are used to subdivide the number into easily readable groups. The acceptable digit grouping schemes are:
  • Commas every three digits to the left of the decimal point, and thin, non-breaking spaces every three digits to the right of the decimal point (e.g. 8,274,527 or 0.12345). This is traditional usage in many English-language contexts, and recommended by the U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • Thin, non-breaking spaces every three digits (e.g. 8274527 or 0.12345). This format is suggested in BIPM and NIST style guides for scientific and engineering works, and is in common use in interlanguage contexts.
  • Mathematical constants in math-oriented articles may be grouped into groups of five digits on both sides of the decimal point; e.g. 3.141592653589793238462643383279....
  • Other traditional digit grouping schemes, when relevant to the subject matter of the article; e.g. 82,74,527 in the Indian numbering system. (An explanation of the digit grouping scheme should be provided, typically by way of a link or brief summary. Also or instead, parenthetical conversions to another acceptable scheme may be used.)
• The style of grouping digits within numbers should be consistent throughout an article.
• When grouping digits by threes, and a number has exactly four digits on any side of the decimal separator, those digits may optionally be expressed as a group of four instead of three; e.g. both 9876 and 9,876 are acceptable.
• Digits are not grouped when they are part of addresses, page numbers, and years with four or fewer digits. However, years with five or more digits (e.g. 10,400 BC) are delimited as any other large number.

====Technical implementation====

The {{gaps}} template uses CSS to output thin spaces (using the syntax {{gaps|8|274|527}}). Using HTML entities for this purpose (e.g.   or  ) may cause rendering problems in some browsers, and should be avoided when practical.

The {{val}} template handles digit grouping automatically, in the American style (by default) or in the BIPM style (by using the BIPM=y parameter). In both cases, CSS is used to output the thin spaces. For example, {{val|1.1234567}} generates 1.1234567 (with a four-digit group at the end). The {{val}} template can parse no more than a total of 15 significant digits in the significand. For significands longer than this, editors should manually delimit values using the {{gaps}} template; e.g. {{gaps|1.234|567|890|123|45}} → 1.2345678901234567.

TheFeds 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, except for a few points:

• To address Greg's concerns about the "BIPM" system, you might consider to add something like In some major English-speaking countries, this format is unfamiliar most persons without advanced scientific or engineering education, so avoid using it in general-interest topics.
• I'd replace "throughout an article" with "within a context": as I said above, the lead of LHC is a general-interest topic (as it made major appearances in the media last year), and so you'd want to use the "American" style; the sections about technical details are advanced scientific topics, and so you'd want to use the "BIPM" style. (Probably a better example than that could be found.) BTW, in the former type of contexts you'd seldom use numbers with more than three or four significant figures anyway (if you do, you're likely to be breaching the second bullet in "Large numbers"), so issues of long strings of digits won't occur; and laymen are unlikely to want to read stuff in the latter type of contexts.
• Don't see the point of making {{val}} use the "American" style by default. It is a template with facilities for scientific quantities and it is far more likely to be used for the mass or magnetic moment of the electron than for the population or GDP of the US: the latter type of numbers are normally hard-coded in articles without using templates. (BTW, look at the last example. I'm going to fix it in the actual MoS text where it's also found, but I don't generally edit other people's comments.) --___A. di M. 12:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't read that the "American" style does include spaces after the point. Given that, the "long string of digits" issue is moot, so the grounds for replacing "throughout an article" with "within a context" are weaker than I believed: 99.9999991% conforms to the "American" style, too. --___A. di M. 15:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) As one of the guys who take care of the {{val}} template, the sensible solution as far as the template is concerned is to leave the default behavior of {{val}} as-is, because otherwise you will screw up a million articles and remove the ease of using {{val}} in >90% of cases. Then for all those who hate gaps, or hate commas, two parameters can be added, |gaps=no (producing 1,232,345.0023234) and |commas=no (producing 1232345.0023234). You can then write exactly what you want, and you'll have the choice of picking whichever format is best suited for the article.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific articles; particularly ones directed to a professional readership, are the only exception."

• ... plus mathematical articles, articles about technology (computing, etc.), articles about measurement, etc.

I have to say that I've never really been a fan of the commas+gaps hybrid formatting that val uses. I'd rather have either gaps+gaps or commas+nogaps consistently throughout the article perhaps with a few exceptions based on context as mentioned above.

Rather than having the default behaviour of {{val}} produce 1,232,345.0023234, I'd have it produce 1232345.0023234 but that's my preference & would probably not be what many would consider appropriate in many cases.

However, I'd be happy with the suggestion by Headbomb. Between three and four thousand pages use the template, many maths/science/technology related, many not. It wouldn't be impossible to send a bot round adding |gaps=no and |commas=no where appropriate.

On the other hand, instead of a hybrid format that happens to turn out perfectly acceptable in 90 or so percent of cases (i.e. not too many numbers on WP are both greater than a thousand and have more than four digits after the decimal point), we might consider a hybrid default. For example, the template could produce gaps+gaps if there are more than four digits after a decimal point and commas+nogaps otherwise. That shouldn't screw up a million articles and it might even make the template a fraction easier to use. JIMp _talk·cont 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• That’s what {gaps} is for. Nothing is broken. This “dump on {val}” thing was just a vehicle to promote the point of view of an editor who wants to use gaps left and right—perhaps even outside the strict field of science. Now I see “engineering” being proposed to add into the mix, which is most unwise and unnecessary. And Jimp just described it as “maths/science/technology”—almost like “smart-like articles.” We often get that on Misplaced Pages—encroachment because it makes editors happy because they can edit in a fashion they are accustomed to in their country; the practice seems truly “right” in some way to them. That’s fine with dialect/spelling. It is a can of worms with numbers for the reasons I’ve stated above and unnecessarily creates confusion in our readership. The exception of using thinspaces to the left of the decimal marker is currently limited to “science” and needs to stay that way for good reason. Greg L (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I use {{gaps}} for but I'd rather use {{val}}. I'm not trying to water things down to "smart-like articles". Perhaps gaps is not appropriate for technology articles, I'm sure its not appropriate for all of them, it may be appropriate for some. I'm just suggesting that the scope is broader than just science articles. Here's a maths article using spaces both sides. It looks fine to me. JIMp _talk·cont 21:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, that math article ought to be conforming to the general rule of using commas to the left. Fortunately, it is an obscure enough of an article (only 700 hits per day). Was there ever a manual of style on Misplaced Pages saying that that math articles ought to to be delimiting numbers to the left of the decimal marker with gaps or did that article just happen that way? Just because there are math articles that have been done this way does not mean it is a wise idea. I can point to articles that have countless quantities of ending sentences with a preposition; that doesn’t mean we need to change WP:MOS. Greg L (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Go talk to WP:MOSMATH. But in context of the article, which depends on the contrast of long strings left and right of the decimal point, it seems a reasonable deviation for clarity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually that article is itself inconsistent, using sometimes commas and sometimes spaces. I'm going to fix it to all-commas before and all-spaces after, as I think it was intended for a lay readership. (I don't think they'll ever appear in the same number or even section, given the structure of the article.) --___A. di M. 18:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please change it to all gaps, which seems to predominate; that works better to my eye. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To me it seems that the powers of ten immediately below the section headers mostly have spaces, but the actual examples mostly have commas. --___A. di M. 18:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like that double rule is exactly true, except for the scientific notation and one glitch at 1 000, which I fixed. Let's leave it alone -unless there are other glitches. The gaps in the headers are what is useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It used normal space characters, which are too wide (at least with my font and in my eye), and it had a couple numbers with spaces within the actual lists, which I fixed until the 10^39 section. But there's another issue: the last sections have gargantuan exact integers, currently delimited with normal spaces. Using commas or {{gaps}} would blow up the line width, forcing horizontal scrollbars on any window of any reasonable width. --___A. di M. 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll go along with TheFeds proposal, once one technical issue is ironed out. This bullet:

• When grouping digits by threes, and a number has exactly four digits on any side of the decimal separator, those digits may optionally be expressed as a group of four instead of three; e.g. both 9876 and 9,876 are acceptable

is not compatible with the example 1.1234567 because the example has exactly seven digits to the right of the decimal, not four.

Also, the style implemented by {{Val}} should really be called the GPO (Government Printing Office) style, because the prevalent American style is to not group digits to the right of the decimal point. (The Chicago Manual of Style is one publicaton that advocates no separation to the right of the decimal outside the realm of science and technology). --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• And the Chicago Manual of Style probably gives the same guidance as the Associated Press’ Manual of Style; both wouldn’t delimit to the right for non-technical articles directed to a general-interest readership, now, would they? The {{val}} template probably isn’t a good fit for an article on Wham‑O’s Super Ball: Super Balls have amazing rebound kids! Yet it has a specific gravity of only 1.25864(16) g/ml (which is how much a fifth of a teaspoon of a Super Ball weighs). High-precision values will most frequently be found in technical articles, won’t they? The only noticeable legitimate exception that comes to my mind at the moment is high-precision numbers intended to impress, such as French scientists in 1799 measured the density of water to within 99.997495% of the currently accepted value. Wow!

  The current guideline reads, in part, as follows:

The whole section seems clear enough to me—even for editors who are disinclined to bring much common sense to the party. It reflects what we ought to be doing in order to communicate without confusion, and, after A. di M. got through with it, seems to be capturing the all the known exceptions to the general rule. Greg L (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the groups of four issue, recall that stemmed from an unclear recommendation from the BIPM manual. They said groups of four were the exception, but didn't explicitly provide for a group of four followed or preceded by a group of three on the same side of the decimal separator. (But gave examples in-text that seemed to support that style.) I don't think it's a huge deal, so I'd be fine with a revised version of that sentence. Do you want to suggest the wording? It would be good to consider whether a case like 9876543 is permissible or too ugly to let stand—contrast that with 9876543 (which is grouped 1/3/3 instead of 4/3). TheFeds 03:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Are we having a “consensus of two”-thing going here again? This issue of number delimiting, as I wrote (abundantly) above, was thoroughly discussed by a very wide group of participants. Moreover, A. di M. and I got deep into the ISO and BIPM recommendations and sorted out—and documented—why things are being done that way. The current MOSNUM guidelines reflect proper practice and there is no good reason to diverge from the practice, notwithstanding your musings as to what sorts of alternative delimiting strikes you as “too ugly to let stand.” Greg L (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  The problem with what BIPM say w.r.t. numbers with seven digit after the point is that it differs from what it does. They say that you should use 0.1234567, but their examples use 0.1234567. As for ISO, their standards aren't available for free; a 2008 draft of ISO 80000-1 I found somewhere on the Web explicitly forbids 0.1234567 in favour of either 0.1234567 or no delimiting at all, but judging at this I think it hasn't been accepted. So we'd better ditch the question of what they say and think about what is better. The IUPAP Red Book clearly says "Instead of a single final digit, the last four digits may be grouped." (But above it has unclear wording which doesn't seem to allow delimitation with four digits as in 1987 or 0.1234.) In actual usage, 0.1234567 seems to be more common than 0.1234567 (even because it's not clear how you'd use the latter with two digits uncertainty as in 0.1234567(89)). So I'd keep the convention as it is, but I wouldn't call it "ISO convention" unless someone has access to ISO 31-0 and can confirm that they say that, and is willing to buy ISO 80000-1 when it's officially published to check if it continues saying that. Let's just drop "According to ISO convention (observed by the NIST and the BIPM)"; most people won't even actually care. Also, is "to within 99.997495%" supposed to mean "to within 0.002505%"? BTW, you could impress the reader by writing "99.9975%" or "0.0025%" as well, and neither would have more than five digits after the point. --___A. di M. 10:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  BTW, I'd support this:

A. di M.'s proposal

===Digit grouping===

• In numbers with many digits, digit grouping symbols (inserted at intervals from the decimal point) are used to subdivide the number into easily readable groups. The acceptable digit grouping schemes are:
  • Commas every three digits to the left ofbefore the decimal point, and thin, non-breaking spaces every three digitsno delimiting to the right ofafter the decimal point (e.g. 8,274,527 or 0.123450.12345). This is traditional usage in many English-language contexts, and recommended by the U.S. Government Printing OfficeThe Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook for non-technical articles.
  • As above, but with thin, non-breaking spaces every three digits after the point (0.12345). This is recommended by by the United States Government Printing Office.
    • Usually there is no difference between the two styles above, because non-technical articles should avoid using excessively precise values: see the second point in {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing, below.
  • Thin, non-breaking spaces every three digits (e.g. 8274527 or 0.12345). This format is suggested in BIPM and NIST style guides for scientific and engineering works, and is in common use inand is in common use in scientific and engineering works and interlanguage contexts.
    • In some major English-speaking countries, this format is unfamiliar most persons without advanced scientific or engineering education, so avoid using it when discussing general-interest topics.
  • Mathematical constants in mathematics-oriented articles may be grouped into groups of five digits on both sides of the decimal point; e.g. 3.141592653589793238462643383279....
  • Other traditional digit grouping schemes, when relevant to the subject matter of the article; e.g. 82,74,527 in the Indian numbering system. (An explanation of the digit grouping scheme should be provided, typically by way of a link or brief summary. Also or instead, parenthetical conversions to another acceptable scheme may be used.)
• The style of grouping digits within numbers should be consistent throughout an article.
• When grouping digits by threes, and a number has exactly four digits on anyeither side of the decimal separator, those digits may optionally be expressed as a group of four instead of three; e.g. both 9876 and 9,876 are acceptable. Additionally, after the decimal point a final group of four digits can be grouped together, e.g. 0.1234567 or 0.1234567. The latter style is more common, and is recommended on Misplaced Pages.
• Digits are not grouped when they are part of addresses, page numbers, and years with four or fewer digits. However, years with five or more digits (e.g. 10,400 BC10,000 BC) are delimited as any other large number.

====Technical implementation====

The {{gaps}} template uses CSS to output thin spaces (using the syntax {{gaps|8|274|527}}). Using the thin space character or its HTML entities for this purpose (e.g.   or  ) may cause rendering problems in some browsers, and should be avoided when practical.

The {{val}} template handles digit grouping automatically, in the American style (by default) or in the BIPM style (by using the BIPM=y parameter)in the U.S. GPO style automatically. In both cases, CSS is used to output the thin spaces. For example, {{val|1.1234567}} generates 1.1234567 (with a four-digit group at the end). The {{val}} template can parse no more than a total of 15 significant digits in the significand. For significands longer than this, editors should manually delimit values using the {{gaps}} template; e.g. {{gaps|1.234|567|890|123|456}} → 1.234567890123456.

Differences from TheFeds' version are marked. --___A. di M. 11:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"This format is suggested in BIPM and NIST style guides for scientific and engineering works" misrepresents the position expressed in the BIPM brochure (and the NIST brochure is, with minor variations, just a translation). The brochure states on page 133

The practice of grouping digits in this way is a matter of choice; it is not always followed in certain specialized applications such as engineering drawings, financial statements, and scripts to be read by a computer.

So as far as NIST and BIPM are concerned, the thin space format should be used for everything except "certain specialized applications". --Jc3s5h (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Amended to reflect this. --___A. di M. 12:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• A. di M., thank you for stepping in here. Please insert, somewhere in your suggestion, something along the lines of this: “In technical articles such as engineering and science, where distinctions in the magnitude of numeric expressions are important, editors should consider using the {{Val}} template to delimit numbers that have many digits to the right of the decimal point in order to make them easier to parse.” Greg L (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I strenuously object to the clear objective of the proposed verbiage that reads

Thin, non-breaking spaces every three digits (e.g. 8274527 or 0.12345). This format is suggested in BIPM and NIST style guides and is in common use in scientific and engineering works and interlanguage contexts.

The current wording, (“scientific articles, particularly those directed to an expert audience”) is the proper limit. The clear objective with that proposed wording is to expand the “Europeanizing” of Misplaced Pages’s numbering into anything remotely ‘technical’ in nature. Unlike dialect (spelling), delimiting with gaps to the left of the decimal point is far too confusing to American readers who are not taught any other methods of number delimiting. Conversely , the typical Swedish school child is taught three different ways to format numbers and are not in the least bit confused when they come across numbers with the American-style of delimiting.

I’ve made this point numerous times, above, and the best counter-argument I’ve yet to see is a demand to see scientific proof or studies showing that alternative numbering formats would be confusing to Americans. Commons sense does not need to be legislated. This is hopeless. This is simply nothing more than an attempt by some Europeans, who are absolutely convinced that their BIPM-endorsed, European way is superior (perhaps it is) and should be adopted here on Misplaced Pages and dumb ol’ Americans will learn it here, if nowhere else. These editors need to drop this agenda to change what has long worked here. Misplaced Pages is not to be exploited as a vehicle to promote change by educating Americans to conventions with which they are entirely unfamiliar. The current guidelines are fine.

And, a final note: Just because something is endorsed by the BIPM doesn’t mean it enjoys world-wide adoption. The BIPM wants 75% written 75 %, but Americans (and as far as I know, no one else) don’t do it that way so Misplaced Pages goes with the flow and ignores the BIPM so we don’t confuse people for God’s sake. Greg L (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, having read this thread I am not at all persuaded by the BIPM-rules-all feeling that's about. What is being proposed here seems controversial and is unlikely to gain broad consensus. I see no reason to change the current guidelines, which have long been on MOSNUM and have served us well. Tony (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has lived in France for many years, I am familiar with that convention. It appeared bizarre to me when I first arrived there. Now it is pointed out that this is also adopted in some scientific contexts. Before this is imposed on the unwitting WP public, I would point out that it is a convention I have never seen before in the Anglo-Saxon world. Being able to understand it is one thing, but to insist that this professional technical standard be adopted in any form in a general knowledge encyclopaedia is quite another. - BTW, the French also use the comma in place of the period as the decimal delimiter. Even if we were not to adopt this last 'quirk', it is unlikely to find widespread acceptance. Implementation is likely to meet with bewilderment, and be universally reverted to the comma delimiter which all English-speakers are familiar with. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding Greg's oft-repeated assertion that Americans would be confused by the BIPM style, let me also reiterate my feelings. I don't believe that someone with a working comprehension of written English would be so hopelessly confused by that format as to fail to comprehend the meaning after a short pause to think about it. To me, the worst reasonable case is that someone will assume that a previous editor neglected the commas.

  To consider an analgous case, an American reading about a boot and a bonnet might picture articles of clothing, rather than car parts—yet we would not expect articles to generally defer to the American's preferred vocabulary, even though Britons are somewhat accustomed to American vocabulary (e.g. because of the pervasiveness of American culture and media in Britain, vs. the opposite), and would grudgingly understand "trunk" or "hood" in the context of an automobile. In fact, with numbers, at least there's a contextual clue to the meaning—the numerals are the same, after all. With "boot" vs. "trunk", we have to resort to things like linking the first occurrance, to avoid misunderstandings; the case of dialect is more, not less confusing than numbering style. Yet despite that slight inconvenience, the well-established principle is to accept such regional eccentricities as part of the language, and accomodate them in the interest of avoiding the imposition of one region's style over another. Just because the Swedes often understand either format—to recall Greg's example—does not mean that their preference ought to be be moot.

  And let me just point out that I was not the one who demanded a study or scientific proof of the alleged incapacity of Americans to use other formats—I simply expressed my doubt. My common sense appraisal doesn't agree with Greg's, and I suspect that when it's nothing but assertions of common sense on either side, there's nothing in particular to refute. (And of course, repeating something doesn't make it true; neither argument is any stronger upon retelling.)

  I've also got to take issue with the idea that Europeanization is the motive. ("This is simply nothing more than an attempt by some Europeans, who are absolutely convinced that their BIPM-endorsed, European way is superior (perhaps it is) and should be adopted here on Misplaced Pages and dumb ol’ Americans will learn it here, if nowhere else.") I doubt that it was an intentional strawman, but for the sake of keeping this discussion on track, let's drop the idea that there's any effort to force-feed Americans with foreign concepts, because there's no evidence that any editors presently commenting on this matter are attempting to engage in any such scheme.

  To me, the convention used by the BIPM is a necessary inclusion in the MOS because it is the dominant English-lanugage usage in some regions—not just in science or engineering, but in any English-language usage. That's the way things tend to work in Continental Europe (and maybe that's why this "Europeanization" allegation arose), where several states and languages have their own incompatible digit grouping schemes, and where English is the de facto language of international commerce and collaboration. There is no ulterior motive: it's simply an acknowledgment of European English style. Consider the European Commission English Style Guide, which calls for BIPM-style digit grouping. That guide is "intended primarily for English-language authors and translators" and "serve a wider readership as well" (speaking in terms of the EC and of EU institutions)

  The fact that things like scientific journals and engineering handbooks have also adopted the BIPM convention is a secondary component of the issue—when we say "in common use in scientific and engineering works", that's just an acknowledgment that scientific usage of this convention is worldwide, versus the regional adoption of the convention for general use. If we wanted to capture that reasoning in detail, we could say that BIPM style is limited to topics in the fields of science and engineering, plus topics dealing with Continental Europe and other regions that enjoy significant adoption of that style.

  But what's the point of being needlessly precise? It's much simpler to acknowledge that both the U.S. and the BIPM convention are in general use in large regions of the world, and each preferred by major fields of study (as evidenced by style manuals). On balance, the MOS is clearer by just allowing either one (though calling for consistency within an article), without complicating the issue with topic-related stipulations (and the consequent discussion of what belongs to which topic, or what dominates in which region). This is easier to understand, and easier to enforce—that's a useful thing, given the level of complexity of the MOS and Misplaced Pages policy in general. TheFeds 19:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you, TheFeds: I don't believe that someone with a working comprehension of written English would be so hopelessly confused by that format as to fail to comprehend the meaning after a short pause to think about it. You might well be right. After a moment of looking at the unfamiliar-looking number, many—perhaps most—Americans would eventually figure it out. So what? Do you think that is the litmus test the Associated Press uses in judging what to put into their manual of style(?): whether readers, who are initially confused by the written word, will for the most part eventually figure it out??? The point of all technical writing is to write with the least confusion. Your arguments of how the BIPM recommended this ‘n’ that so their recommended method of delimiting numbers has been anointed with holy oil and ought to be adopted here is entirely beside the point.

  Frankly, your arguments that we should follow whatever the BIPM says the world ought to do comes right out of the four-year-old playbook used by proponents of the IEC prefixes (see the B0–B16 archives, above). That whole stink (seventeen entire archives dedicated exclusively to that one fiasco) was because a small handful of editors banded together and decided to start using terms like “256 kibibyte (KiB)” instead of the “256 kilobyte (KB)” used by computer manufacturers and computer magazines throughout the rest of the planet. Then one of those editors ran around and changed hundreds of articles over a period of a few weeks and the group blocked anyone from reverting all those edits, citing “lack of consensus”. That this could have occurred that way, that such stupidity lasted for three years, and that it took three months of bickering to put an end to it speaks volumes to how broken MOSNUM can be at times. And all because it was a proposal by some vaunted standards organization. The end result(?): needles confusion in readers who had the misfortune for three long years to come here and read many of our computer articles. I’m sure there were a number of people read up on computers here on Misplaced Pages and then went into computer stores where they announced they were looking for a computer with “512 mebibytes of RAM.” They were no-doubt met with blank looks (at best) or snickers.

  Quoting you again: To me, the convention used by the BIPM is a necessary inclusion in the MOS because it is the dominant English-lanugage usage in some regions. Yeah, I got that much. I figured that bit out in the first four seconds after seeing what you were trying to do. And, as I’ve explained, it unfortunately isn’t a two-way street. There are many ways the Europeans format numbers. In Sweden, the “Swedish1” technique (there’s yet another) is to write the population of America as “285.865.855” so why don’t we just go ahead and let articles here use that system too(?), right along with the BIPM method (which Swedish school children are also taught)? That’s a rhetorical question, please don’t answer it. The answer is because Swedish school children are also taught to recognize the American-style of delimiting numbers. In fact, Europeans by and large are not in the least bit confused when they encounter numbers with American-style delimiting. The trouble is that American’s know of only one way; they’ve been taught no other. Your argument that Americans’ confusion will be short-lived because *Misplaced Pages* will just teach them using an “oh… didn’t-cha know?”-fashion (and only the galactically clueless and retarded will be left in the dust) is wholly uncompelling.

  With regard to how numbers are written here on Misplaced Pages, it doesn’t matter in the least what the proposal is or who proposed it. When the American style of delimiting numbers is no longer the dominant numbering format universally recognized throughout the English-speaking world, and when Americans have as much familiarity with alternative numbering styles (like “Swedish1” and “BIPM”) as Europeans do with the American style, then Misplaced Pages can change over. Misplaced Pages follows the way the world works and never, ever tries to promote change in the way the world works by presuming we can somehow lead by example. Misplaced Pages wisely decided to use American-style delimiting in our numbers so there is minimal confusion. Greg L (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• With regard to your first point, we're writing with a different set of rules than the AP (to use your example). They are free to insist that their writers use "truck" instead of "lorry", or group digits with commas rather than thin spaces, because they have no mandate to consider the issues summarized in WP:ENGVAR, and choose instead to cater to one region's preferences. Misplaced Pages is written for an international, English-reading audience. That means that we need to accept that occasionally, a user may encounter a term or convention from elsewhere, and be briefly confused. But this is not a critical flaw, because most readers don't just shut down at that point; they keep reading the sentence or paragraph. And the context generally makes clear what is meant, without loss of information. I submit that if we presented a number all alone in the BIPM format, there might be unacceptable confusion among Americans, but that if it was placed within prose or a table, the context would make the meaning accessible to all.

  Let me stress that there is no implication of "teach them using an “oh… didn’t-cha know?”-fashion". Readers are free to assume that the formatting was a stylistic error, rather than another valid convention, and be none the wiser. The content of the article still gets across. (In other words, I am absolutely not advocating some sort of patronizing policy that would educate the savages of the world about Europe's genteel ways.)

  My concern here that by mandating a convention that represents the preference of a subset of English speakers, we would imply that other accepted English-language usage is inappropriate. It would be like saying "because the British spelling of words like 'harbour' is recognized throughout the world"—despite the American spelling "harbor"—"this spelling convention is mandatory (unless quoting a source or explaining foreign usage)". Misplaced Pages has not gone this route, instead permitting either form.

  Regarding your Swedish example, I assume that Swedish-1 and Swedish-2 are used in Swedish-language works? This being the English Misplaced Pages, one would expect them to use the style that is typically used in their region for writing in English. (Which is most probably the BIPM style.) If the Swedes don't use their native styles when writing in English, then there's no need to deal with them here.

  When you say with certainty that "Misplaced Pages follows the way the world works and never, ever tries to promote change" by example, I think you're misinterpreting what's going on here. Maybe during the binary prefix debate, some editors advanced the idea of promoting IEC usage to the world. Nobody's said anything of the sort here. Furthermore, we usually follow bits and pieces of what influential parts of the world do, but only because consensus among editors often ends up settling upon that course of action. Sometimes that means following or ignoring a particular standard or widespread convention, but the key is that Misplaced Pages does what the editors agree upon. It's coincidence rather than design that consensus usually settles upon permitting what's popular in the world.

  Lastly: you're definitely mischaracterizing my motives. I'm not waging some promotional campaign that serves to advance the interests of the BIPM, or Europe, or any other entity. Specifically, despite your assertion above, I have not stated or implied that "we should follow whatever the BIPM says the world ought to do". (I have previously stated that I tend to use the BIPM style in my outside work—which is immaterial to your allegation.) TheFeds 00:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you: I am absolutely not advocating some sort of patronizing policy that would educate the savages of the world about Europe's genteel ways.) {{smiling, very amused emoticon}}. Perhaps you aren’t. But it seems you are mightily crossing your fingers that mixing things up here and allowing editors to use different types of numbering formatting if they feel like it won’t cause needless confusion with our readership. Better cross two fingers.

  I’m an American engineer. I do all my design in hard metric. In fact, only a half hour ago, I was busy calibrating a celsius-only thermostat that I’m going to retrofit into my otherwise-gaugeless, Italian-made Rancilio espresso maker. The boiling point of distilled water was 97.8 °C at that moment (barometric pressure) at my altitude (about three meters above the sewer cover outside my house). I’m also installing a pressure gauge calibrated only in bar. I am as “BIPM” as they come for an American. However, as an engineer who has done far more than his share of technical writing (owners manuals, white papers, etc.), I am fully aware of what Americans know and don’t know technically. I am also keenly aware of how utterly stupid it is to needlessly confuse readers.

  Here’s how to speed America’s adoption of all-things-BIPM (e.g., their SI (metric) system, their numbering system, etcetera): Just run for elected office while promising that if America adopts BIPM into their way of life, they’ll loose weight while they sleep and their taxes will go down due to less government waste. You’ll get into office. Moreover, you’d stay there; all you’d have to do is repeat the promise each election cycle; they’ll buy into your promise each time.

  America is big and homogenous; a drive that would take you clean across the whole of Luxemburg won’t even get you across Harris County, Texas. This is a source of strength and weakness. For one thing, we can drive across Harris County and not require a pocket-full of plug adapters to plug our iPhones into the outlets in the next county (or state for that matter). We could design a big-ass airplane in the late 60s and not get all confused because Californians can’t speak French whereas Oregonians right next door can’t speak German. But this homogeneity also means that Americans would be surprised to get into an elevator on the ground floor and see that they are at floor “0”.

  Indeed, Americans are certainly not as “genteel” and worldly as Europeans (that’s a friend of the guy who owns a tool & die shop I frequent); there’s this big-ass pond that shelters us from being exposed to other languages and other ways of doing things. Therefore, it’s a damned-seldom American indeed who is fluent in two or more languages and easily recognizes two—even three—ways that numbers can be delimited. Europeans “get” “285,564,125” in a nanosecond. The typical American would be needlessly confused by “285564125”. So, you Europeans have a leg up on Americans when it comes to understanding other cultures and practices.

  Please take note of the following three expressions. The first is “A civilized man can convincingly imitate a barbarian, but a barbarian can not convincingly imitate a civilized man.” The second is “Never try to teach a pig to sing; you only waste your time and annoy the pig.” The third is “The goal of all technical writing is communicate with minimal confusion.” What you are proposing handily ignores all three. Greg L (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, now that Greg and I have said plenty about our respective opinions, are there any comments from interested individuals? Did either of our statements change your opinions about the proposals? (Or did we bore you all with too many words?) TheFeds 03:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

…besides Greg L, A. di M., Tony, and Ohconfucius? Anyone else?… Anderson? Bueller? Greg L (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I just want to clarify once again that I have no view on what takes place after the decimal place. However, Greg has demonstrated that trying to get a minority European notation system is just too far from wide acceptance. The use of commas as delimiters is pretty much universal – the comma separator is not only American, it's Canadian, British, Australian, Irish, South African, Singaporean - which should take care of about 95% of the native English-speaking population. As this is English Misplaced Pages, I think that just about makes the case for not embracing BIPM with even tepid reception. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well put and succinct. Thanks, Ohconfucius.

  Those English-speaking Europeans who want to come to en.Misplaced Pages can, while they learn about the subject matter in our articles and brush up on their English-language skills, also get even more comfortable with the accompanying number delimiting technique whereby native speakers of English (U.K., America, Australia, and aothers) use commas to the left of the decimal point.

  That is all part of the “experience” for many visitors to en.Misplaced Pages for whom English is their second language: immersing themselves in the culture, including such nuances as idioms. That approach is much more realistic (when in Rome, do as the Romans do) than assuming that Misplaced Pages can somehow change the way the English-speaking world works.

  While it might be *pretty* to think that we wouldn’t be creating unnecessary confusion in our readership by using a wholly unfamiliar number formatting technique here, such a notion doesn’t seem grounded in reality. Nor is such a confusing change in the least bit necessary.

  TheFeds, I ask you to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. This issue has been flogged to death and your persistence is becoming tedious. There is clearly not the remotest chance that a consensus might form for adopting the BIPM method of delimiting numbers for use on en.Misplaced Pages or expanding its mixed use beyond the confines within which it is currently limited. Far from it; it seems the general consensus is to leave things the way they are. Greg L (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• My persistence is becoming tedious? Aren't you the one responsible for 53 of the last hundred edits to this talk page?

  Also, despite prior implementation and positive discussion of a similarly-worded edit to the MOS, you reverted it, and prompted this discussion in the first place. You can't just handwave away a discussion that you caused. How can you assert that "it seems the general consensus is to leave things the way they are", when the discussion on this point has largely been limited to you and I? If anything, the previous discussion about the MOS changes was more representative of consensus than our current conversation.

  I'm receptive to your ideas, and have constructively disagreed, but you need to quit mis-stating my position regarding "chang the way the English-speaking world works" as fodder for your argument.

  Given that the Romans use the BIPM convention (in English), why should they avoid using it when describing a Rome-related topic (in English)? As I stated previously, we have the option of writing a complicated regulation that takes into account WP:ENGVAR for articles dealing with regional issues that "belong" to places that recognize the BIPM style, and additionally acknowledges its prevalance in modern science and engineering. I think that my proposed language provides a less complicated policy statement with the same objectives, but it would essentially allow any user to choose to employ the BIPM style, even in new articles absent a topical or regional connection. That's a side effect, but given that that WP:ENGVAR cuts both ways (in that topics with a connection to a region that employs a non-BIPM convention could reasonably be changed to follow local style, even if the article style was initially BIPM), there's clearly nothing that would obstruct the ability of editors to choose an appropriate English-language convention for the article, or write neutrally when no regional or topical connection exists. TheFeds 17:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Many Romans would use even weirder things when writing English, but that's not a good reason to use them in articles about Rome in the English Misplaced Pages. WP:ENGVAR only applies to "English-speaking nation". Among the nine countries with most native English speakers, is there any where people use thin spaces in numbers such as 12345 in non-technical contexts in English? --___A. di M. 18:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• TheFeds: The change I reverted was nothing more than a tag-team effort comprising just you and Jc3s5h, who were feeding off each other (“say… that’s a campy idea of yours TheFeds, why not suggest some wording and I’ll put it in”–sorta stuff). That amounted to a stealth edit and did not enjoy a proper consensus that such an important change requires.

  You two’s change was to a long-standing guideline governing how something as fundamental as the formatting of our numbers are done on en.Misplaced Pages. It is utterly absurd to start mixing up our numbering style in an encyclopedia geared for our English-speaking readership. As A. di M. pointed out, WP:ENGVAR doesn’t and shouldn’t and can’t be applicable here. You are grasping at straws trying to make a case for what amounts to nothing more than “I like ta and wanna sanctify my practice in MOSNUM by changing MOSNUM.” Please stop. I couldn’t care less if some member of an African tribe that speaks using *!* tongue pops and counts in base-seven numbering system comes here because he or she also happens to know English as a second language. Those countries wherein English is the primary language delimit numbers to the left of the decimal point only with a comma. This practice is memorialized in the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual and is what is used here. So it doesn’t matter if the BIPM says it should be “75 %” and not “75%”, nor does it matter if the BIPM says it should be “a population of 285568654”. Why? Because in those countries where English is a primarily the first language, those two things aren’t done the BIPM way. It’s just that simple.

  If we headed down the path you and Jc3s5h wanted, which amounts to “let editors use either commas or thinspaces to the left of the decimal point whenever they want if the article is sorta ‘techie’ ”, then Misplaced Pages would once again be repeating the fiasco of our now-aborted experiment with the use of the IEC prefixes, where some articles said “256 kilobytes (KB)” and still others said “256 kibibytes (KiB)”. Given that readers were entirely unfamiliar with the latter, this accomplished nothing more than to confuse readers. It’s interesting to note that the proponents of the IEC prefixes used exactly the same arguments you two are using: “They’ll figure it out from context and… and, the (totally conjectured and unproven) confusion will be short lived, and… and, a *standards organization* has proposed it, and… and, it solves an ambiguity or shortcoming of some sort, so our use here on Misplaced Pages is nothing but goodliness and will make us look all futuristic and smart.” Uhm… no. All it did was unnecessarily confuse our readership.

  I appreciate your above candor. You’d like to see the use the Euro/BIPM method of delimiting numbers in an article on Rome, since—by your argument—Italian-speaking Romans who also speak English could visit the en.Misplaced Pages Rome article and feel all warm and fuzzy about seeing the BIPM method of number-delimiting here too. Except your argument falls somewhat flat because in Italy (at least it.Misplaced Pages), they format numbers like this: “Con i suoi 2.726.539 abitanti distribuiti su una superficie di 1.285 km², è il più popoloso e più esteso d'Italia.” A. di M. will no-doubt be able to flesh in some detail on this. But I have every faith that Italians recognize the method of delimiting seen on it.Misplaced Pages, and the BIPM method, and the English-speaking method.

  I will no longer waste my time arguing this point with you, TheFeds. Count how many editors, above, support what you are proposing. Do you see a consensus for what you desire? Or do you just hope that by not dropping the stick that we will all just come around? I’m going to leave this to Tony, A. di M., and Ohconfucius for a while. Don’t count my absence from this discussion as acquiescence; I simply tired of arguing with you.

  Frankly, if I had my way, the use of gap-delimited numbers to the left of the decimal point would be limited strictly to when text is being quoted directly from a scientific paper. The practice has no place in an article like Moon, for text like “The Moon is 384403 km away from the Earth” and MOSNUM should clearly reflect that. Greg L (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• A. di M., I've got to disagree with the idea that WP:ENGVAR applies strictly to nations where English is the dominant native language. Germany has around the same number of English speakers as England has people. France has tens of millions as well. (Not to mention that India has something like 100 million English speakers, and Nigeria probably has over 50 million.) I don't think it makes sense to assume that WP:ENGVAR can't apply to those English-speaking populations. When those people communicate in English, they often employ particular regional conventions—loan words in Indian and Nigerian English are perfect examples. (In other words, there's no good policy reason to believe that "English-speaking" in WP:ENGVAR means "natively-English-speaking".)

  If Misplaced Pages's policy was to always employ the most popular variety of English uniformly, perhaps it would minimize confusion. And then it might logically follow that the most popular numbering scheme should always be employed as well (despite regional eccentricities). But that's certainly not the way most similar cases were decided, and the policy guidelines reinforce the idea that regional preferences matter.

  Greg, I think you missed the point of the Roman example: this is about English-language usage, not Italian-language usage (as I clearly specified). I'll of course defer to A. di M.'s presumed experience with Romans, but in my experience, Continental Europeans writing formal English prose will employ the BIPM style, irrespective of the conventions used in their native language. (And with English being the dominant language for international communication in Europe, there's no shortage of usage.)

  With regard to Greg's paragraph citing the IEC prefix dispute, I'm accused of using their arguments ("They’ll figure it out from context", "a *standards organization* has proposed it" and "it solves an ambiguity or shortcoming").

  The first argument, as I noted earlier is logically equivalent to Greg's argument that many Americans will struggle to figure it out—both my assertion (that context will make most usage clear) and Greg's are conjecture, though both reasonably well founded. Absent actual evidence, you can't accept one and reject the other on a logical basis.

  The second is a strawman, as I reminded Greg prior to his reiteration of it. It's immaterial that the BIPM is a standards organization, just as it's immaterial that the U.S. Government Printing Office authored a standard that encapsulates Greg's preference. Regional usage is at issue.

  The third would be a fair point, if it weren't for the inflammatory corollary that Greg appended ("so our use here on Misplaced Pages is nothing but goodliness and will make us look all futuristic and smart"). Notwithstanding Greg's misrepresentation, it does address a shortcoming. As I noted above, Misplaced Pages could have solved the question of how to deal with variations in English usage by mandating a fixed house style (for numbers, spellings, synonyms, etc.)—but that was not adopted. Instead, consensus dictated that regional usage was permitted within an appropriate sphere of influence. MOSNUM ought to reflect the outcome of that high-level consensus. As I explained before, my proposal was more permissive than that—but the crux of the issue is that regional English-language styles are appropriate on the English Misplaced Pages. The additional permissiveness in my proposal reflects my belief that adoption of the BIPM style is sufficiently widespread that the effect of adding it on an equal footing with either of the comma-based styles would be essentially harmless. It's much the same as the difference between the two comma-based styles (listed at the top of A. di M.'s proposal)—readers will understand either one, even if they think one or the other is in error (because they have not been exposed to it).

  That additional permissiveness also has the effect of simplifying the MOS regulation—but if that prospect is so abhorrent, the formulation that permits the BIPM style only when regionally or topically appropriate (e.g. Continental Europe, Canada—especially French Canada, science, engineering, etc.) would minimally satisfy the existing guidelines, and would be acceptable. TheFeds 23:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Choosing a resolution

• Alright, it looks like Greg and I cannot agree on the specific details that we'd like to see in this section. We've both dropped the issue for about a week—I think out of some measure of frustration, rather than satisfaction.

  But there are still proposals on the table, and we have yet to see any conclusive resolution that approximates a consensus.

  So my suggested resolution is as follows:

  1. I'm willing to compromise by going along with A. di M.'s proposed text, with two changes: omit the first 3rd-level-bulleted sentence (redundant, though not objectionable), and omit the recommendation portion of the second 3rd-level-bulleted sentence "so avoid using it when discussing general-interest topics" (as described above, that's contrary to the principle of following topical English conventions in appropriate articles).
  2. If other editors feel it necessary, I would be (marginally) willing to support the insertion of a neutrally-worded sentence stating that BIPM style is recommended only when regionally or topically appropriate (but not the converse—I object to a statement prohibiting it except in specific cases).
  3. If we're uncomfortable with that compromise, we can get to the root of some of the objections by making a policy inquiry. I'll ask the contributors at Village Pump (policy) what they think of the proposal, what they think of the discussions we've had (now and previously), and what they think about the specific item of contention between Greg and I—namely confusion of some readers versus regional style preferences, and the broader history and implications of advocating for one or the other through the MOS.

TheFeds 06:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, having a RfC is the way to go. As well as WP:VPP, I'd advertise it at WP:VPR, WP:CENT and WP:PHYS (physicists are the ones most likely to ever use any number with more than four significant digits; maybe WP:MATH and WP:SCIENCE as well?). But someone has to summarize the points made so far so that a newcomer needn't reed hundreds of kilobytes of discussions. --___A. di M. 10:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting TheFeds: Alright, it looks like Greg and I cannot agree… You’ve notably truncated the list from “Greg L and A. di M. and Tony and Ohconfucius”, to just “Greg L.” Choice.

  Please don’t confuse my apparent willingness to engage you on this issue and the relative silence from the others, as signaling that they are somehow in major agreement with you. The words of Tony and Ohconfucius, above, are short and sweet and seem to convey their sentiments clearly enough (unsupportive) as to what you propose. However, I would be exceedingly pleased if you would start an RFC so we can be done with this and I don’t have to periodically check back here, only to discover that you have again reprised this issue.

  A consensus is not arrived at by seeing who harps the longest and mostest on a given subject. Nor does one get his or her way on Misplaced Pages by catching people sleeping, nor by changing the documentation on templates to convey something along the lines of “better not use this template because—boy—is it gonna change soon…” nor by changing templates without having had any real discussion beyond tag-teaming with one other editor where you both go “campy idea—cup of tea?” to each other.

  Judging from the reception of me and several others, above, turning Misplaced Pages into a mix of numbering styles by greatly expanding the use of a number format that isn’t even used by those general-interest readers for whom English is their first language, has pretty much no chance of being adopted. And it shouldn’t, for it ignores the most basic fundamentals of Technical Writing 101. If you have to prove this through an RFC rather than examine the reception your proposal has received so far, by all means.

  As for I'm willing to compromise… language, uhm… we all have to accept the consensus of the community—period; it doesn’t much matter what you are I are “willing to compromise” on.

  Someone please e-mail me if this goes to an RfC. I don’t make it a practice to keep following TheFeds wherever he goes on Misplaced Pages with this idea of his. Greg L (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Greg, do you seriously believe that I'm trying to imply that Tony and Ohconfucius are somehow in agreement with me?

  You might have noticed that while Tony and Ohconfucius both made short comments concerning portions of this discussion, you and I wrote at length—and my post addressed that conflict. You might also have noticed that I also excluded mention of Jc3s5h's comments in support, and did not state that A. di M. disagreed in part and agreed in part.

  And when you list several ways in which "A consensus is not arrived at", are you making an accusation, or just introducing examples that are irrelevant? I've repeatedly warned you during the course of this discussion not to jump to inaccurate conclusions about my motivations, and now I feel that I need to warn you to avoid baseless accusations of things like "catching people sleeping" and screwing up template documentation, and to avoid flippantly misrepresenting legitimate discussion as “campy idea—cup of tea?”.

  You said "uhm… we all have to accept the consensus of the community—period; it doesn’t much matter what you are I are 'willing to compromise' on"; but I don't see any basis for your objection. When we make proposals, we are free to discuss and make compromises among ourselves, in order to establish mutual support for a compromise proposal. (As an illustrative example, consider how a legislature generally works: mundane issues are discussed in committee, leading to one compromise bill, rather than by taking up-and-down votes on opposing ideologically extreme proposals.) Nothing of that process prevents a "consensus of the community" from existing. TheFeds 17:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you: Greg, do you seriously believe that I'm trying to imply that Tony and Ohconfucius are somehow in agreement with me? I’m trying to point out that it’s not just “you vs. me” and that, given the above reaction of others, it seems exceedingly improbable that what you propose will be well received by the community. It’s a hint that you are likely wasting your time by persisting at this.

  One sort of thing that has been the source of spectacular amounts of vitriol on Misplaced Pages (and the Misplaced Pages-equivalent of suicide bombers and Turkish butt-stabbings), has been the launching of RfCs by a lead advocate on one side of an issue. This resulted in RfCs that suffered from unconscious bias and were not respected by the other side. If you seriously think your proposal has a snowball’s chance of being accepted with a clear consensus (that’s a big “IF”), then the next step is an RfC. So the proper step, IMO, is to not launch an RfC, but to propose RfC wording, we all discuss the proposal and tweak it until everyone is clear on what is being proposed and how it would change things and are mutually satisfied the “package” wording is sufficiently neutral, and then we launch an RfC.

  I have zero interest in starting all that. It’s time-consuming and, ultimately, a waste of time if it goes as I expect. I suggest you seek some assistance from Headbomb and Ryan Postlethwaite (I have no idea if they might be interested) since they both have experience in RfCs.

  Perhaps, an even better course of action would be to privately contact an editor or two that you feel are relatively unbiased and whom you have a respect for their opinions. Just ask them if they think there is a fair chance of your succeeding at what you desire. I think that is much fairer given that your persistence at this means that everyone else has to *sigh* and start jumping through hoops once you start things rolling. Greg L (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've taken some time to follow Greg's suggestion, and conferred with another editor about this topic. They felt that going through the complete process for creating a formal RfC, with another round of proposals to determine the question itself, would be a little absurd and "pointlessly bureaucratic". I concur, and like Greg, don't really want to argue about meta-proposals.

  As for asking around (less formally), they thought that it could plausibly be well-received elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, with the main concern being that other venues might not be interested enough in minutiae of style to comment constructively. They figured that it would be harmless enough to just ask, rather than attempting to predict the outcome.

  So, we discussed what I had in mind, and through a couple of revisions, we pared the essential question down to something general ("On Misplaced Pages, should the selection of digit grouping styles depend upon regional and topical conventions used in the English language?"), with a neutrally-phrased explanation of context. The question is posed at WP:VPP, in the section Digit grouping style question (from WT:MOSNUM), and I'm placing notices on some other talk pages directing users to WP:VPP for comment. TheFeds 03:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

This is the proper place to further discuss matters pertaining to MOSNUM.

• TheFeds: What you call a “pointlessly bureaucratic” step is a valuable one to ensure the right thing is done on Misplaced Pages. You are now gaming the system by framing the nature of the problem and the nature of the solution on your own. Moreover, you did so by jumping over to an entirely different venue clearly hoping to drum up support with a different group (were you trying to drum up opposition there?). That is not how things are properly done on Misplaced Pages; it is venue-shopping.

  You clearly want your way, didn’t like what the others had to say, above, on this issue, and you now put us all in the position of having to chase you over to WP:VPP. No. I won’t chase you to some other venue as you hop-scotch across Misplaced Pages with this agenda to change MOSNUM. I even wrote above Someone please e-mail me if this goes to an RfC. I don’t make it a practice to keep following TheFeds wherever he goes on Misplaced Pages with this idea of his. Yet, you conveniently elected to not alert me to this “RfC” of yours; I had to do one of my periodic checks on this thread to see what you are up to. This sort of move deprives that RfC discussion from the input of the editors here who have already weighed in on this issue and are no longer paying attention to this thread nor following your every move. You can hop-scotch over to Jimbo’s page and pitch what you want there. But even he doesn’t determine what occurs here on WT:MOSNUM; he has an abiding respect that the “community consensus is always the right thing to do.”

  Discussions of how to change WP:MOSNUM must occur here on WT:MOSNUM. Period. Please drop this. You don’t win by being persistent to the point of a fault. When you have a consensus here to change WP:MOSNUM, then WP:MOSNUM will be changed. If you just want to get input from a new group that has less day-to-day familiarity with the goings-on here on MOSNUM and this talk page, then, be my guest. There is nothing wrong with that. But, please don’t commit the colossal error of running off to some other forum, obtaining a result you find favorable with a new audience, and then start making your edits to MOSNUM. Pages have their associated talk pages for a reason and you might well find yourself sanctioned if you try to change MOSNUM as a result of venue-shopping. What occurs over on the Village Pump may be interesting to you, but it is not binding on the content of MOSNUM.

  In the end, I think you are wasting your time. If you want to change MOSNUM, you must achieve a clear consensus here. Greg L (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• (inserting response) Greg, your accusations of abuse of process are utterly ridiculous.

  First, with regard to alerting you: presumably you watch this page and visit often, given your numerous contributions to this talk page? I notified everyone of my action, right where one would expect to see it—in the discussion thread. (Only absent my not-so-stealthy post and link, might you have had a reasonable cause for concern.)

  With regard to your concern about venue shopping, the discussion on WP:VPP is a simple and straightforward way to discuss one sticking point (among the many facets of the MOSNUM proposals), without attaching the trappings of our prior argument. The idea is to keep things on-topic, without having to saturate the discussion with refutations of alleged "Europeanization" or the like.

  It is also completely proper to ask relevant questions elsewhere, when the discussion here is deadlocked without consensus or compromise. I shouldn't have to explain that that is not a substitute for the detailed proposals at MOSNUM. Rather, it is a way to inform our discussion with the opinions of interested and relevant contributors (who frequent the policy- and science-related forums rather than MOSNUM). Unsurprisingly, that that's exactly the point of the Village Pump. This can lead to a viable consensus on an issue of mutual interest to VPP and MOSNUM, but that consensus would obviously only deal with the specifics of the VPP question, rather than forcing the adoption of a MOSNUM proposal.

  As for depriving others of input from this thread: no, I clearly linked to this thread, and advised readers that they could consult it for further information, or comment in it if desired.

  The words "pointlessly bureaucratic" were not mine—that's why they're in quotation marks. But I do sympathize with the sentiment. (I think it's overkill to make endless proposals about the question to pose—would you find that discussion particularly enlightening, and do you really foresee anything but a deadlock there as well?)

  If you object to the framing of the question, that's fair enough. I made a good faith effort to seek advice (per your suggestion) and work out a concise, neutral phrasing with an uninvolved party. You suggested having a round of discussion to decide the question for a formal RfC, but then stated that you had no interest in participating—you can't really have it both ways. TheFeds 04:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you, TheFeds: I don't believe that someone with a working comprehension of written English would be so hopelessly confused by that format as to fail to comprehend the meaning after a short pause to think about it. You might well be right. But, it doesn’t matter. The whole point of technical writing is to communicate with minimal confusion. What you are proposing is inconsistent with the teachings of Technical Writing 101.

  Quoting you again: To me, the convention used by the BIPM is a necessary inclusion in the MOS because it is the dominant English-lanugage usage in some regions. Yeah, I got that much. I figured that bit out in the first four seconds after seeing what you were trying to do. MOSNUM and the editors who comprise it simply don’t care about how things are done “in some regions.” What matters is how things are done for the vast majority of readers for whom English is their first language. Italians, for instance, have their own Misplaced Pages and en.Misplaced Pages needn’t be unnecessarily muddling things up for those English-speaking Italians that choose to visit an article here. The whole point of technical writing is to communicate with minimal confusion.

  Let’s touch upon why en.Misplaced Pages shouldn’t be kludged-up with multiple numbering systems in our general-interest articles in order to better accommodate readers for whom English is their second language. As I’ve previously explained, cross-Atlantic (or Pacific) recognition of alternative number-delimiting schemes unfortunately isn’t a two-way street. There are many ways the Europeans format numbers. In Sweden, the “Swedish1” technique (there’s yet another) is to write the population of America as “285.865.855” so why don’t we just go ahead and let articles here use that system too(?), right along with the BIPM method (which Swedish school children are also taught)? That’s a rhetorical question, please don’t answer it. The answer is because Swedish school children are also taught to recognize the American-style of delimiting numbers. In fact, Europeans by and large are not in the least bit confused when they encounter numbers with American-style delimiting. The trouble is that American’s know of only one way; they’ve been taught no other. That is why Misplaced Pages has long-used the most widely recognized method of delimiting numbers: it causes the least confusion (by far) over other methods that aren’t recognized by many English-speaking readers. The whole point of technical writing is to communicate with minimal confusion.

  Quoting you: WP:ENGVAR, and choose instead to cater to one region's preferences. Misplaced Pages is written for an international, English-reading audience. That means that we need to accept that occasionally, a user may encounter a term or convention from elsewhere, and be briefly confused. But this is not a critical flaw… I see you don’t seem to mind (you don’t see it as a “critical flaw”) that readers might be “briefly confused” with multiple numbering systems. I do. And, why would we cause this confusion? So that editors from all walks of life (perhaps some editor from Africa who speaks in *!* tongue pops and also speaks English as his second language) can merrily write The population of Congo in year so ‘n’ so was 66020000 because he was the first major contributor. Given that Misplaced Pages is has an all-volunteer contributing authorship, allowing “lorry” in some articles and “semi-truck” in another is a reasonable and necessary compromise to address how editors in England spell differently from those in the U.S. and use different words—notably for nouns. Note however, that these are differences within the English language for those editors for whom English is their first language. It is patently absurd to think that an article on the Democratic Republic of the Congo is going to have a different numbering technique that is foreign to many native-English speakers because the first major contributor to the Congo article uses that numbering technique. WP:ENGVAR does not, should not, and can not apply here. Believe it or not, Misplaced Pages is not about us, the editors of Misplaced Pages; we write for our readership. The whole point of technical writing is to communicate with minimal confusion.

  Even though you might not like to listen to others, please read comments from others, above, such as the words of Ohconfucius (04:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC) post), where he wrote The use of commas as delimiters is pretty much universal – the comma separator is not only American, it's Canadian, British, Australian, Irish, South African, Singaporean - which should take care of about 95% of the native English-speaking population. Things are done on the en.Misplaced Pages version of MOSNUM for a reason. Even if you don’t understand or agree with those reasons, you must accept the consensus view here. The whole point of technical writing is to communicate with minimal confusion. Is that sinking in yet? Your argument that “brief confusion” is “not a critical flaw” is bizarre and wholly uncompelling. Greg L (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• You're needlessly repeating your statements from above (almost verbatim in places). Repetition doesn't bolster your arguments.

  Your invocation of the Italian Misplaced Pages seems to me like a fundamental misunderstanding—nobody is proposing using Italian-language style here. As I pointed out above—and you overlooked again—English-language usage is at issue. (Do the Swedes use Swedish dots in English? Probably not. BIPM with spaces? Probably.) And you're stating that English as a first language is the determining factor. That's not what "English-speaking" means. (I've already presented several counterexamples, like India.) If you mean to advance that as a proposition, then do so, but avoid presenting it as axiomatic.

  When, in reference to things like "truck" and "lorry", you say "these are differences within the English language", you make a false distinction: consider digit grouping schemes mentioned in the European and American manuals of style—they are obviously both "within the English language". And that fact is not influenced by whether or not some editors have English as a first language, or otherwise.

  You're also implying that Misplaced Pages 101 = Technical Writing 101. Unfortunately, you're wrong. In short, technical writing can often be geared to a specific and generally well-educated audience with easily-ascertained expectations. Misplaced Pages, because of its diversity of readers and contributors, has chosen (by way of guidelines and precedents) to use regional (or other) styles in some instances. If you disagree with that, it's incumbent upon you to raise that discussion at an appropriate level.

  I will, however, grant that your opinions about minimal confusion are a convenient approximation, though not a well-formed universal solution to the issue of how to present text in a manner that is effective and appropriate. If "minimal confusion" was an obvious and infallible dictum, we wouldn't need to have discussions about much of the MoS. The fact that we disagree on certain points of style—just as others have disagreed before on other topics—is ample demonstration that your doctrine does not make conclusions about style self-evident.

  So what of the "brief confusion"? Although we both know what a lorry is, you must concede that an American reader might not—he might be briefly confused, until he clicks the wikilink, or figures out from the picture of a truck what is being referred to. That is more confusing than number formatting (a wholly-unfamiliar word vs. groups of digits that might be read as a number), and yet, for good reason, it is permitted on Misplaced Pages, even in an article that has nothing to do with Britain, but which speaks of lorries in some other context. Minimal confusion would dictate that we prescribe the most common form among our readership—which would probably be "truck" in deference to the plurality of American readers of Misplaced Pages. Because this is an unacceptable simplification to many readers and editors alike, regional and topical conventions that enjoy wide English-language adoption should likewise be accorded latitude despite the potential to briefly confuse whatever other group might be slightly disadvantaged.

  Furthermore, by exclusively requiring one region's style (even granting its greater adoption), you systematically disadvantage the significant set of English speakers who do not employ that convention in properly-constructed English-language usage. That can be construed as a bias, and has been the subject of many arguments. By having MoS guidelines that account for regional or topical conventions, we assure readers that they will receive an acceptable format for the subject of their inquiry, and for the editors, specify a reasonable link between the style and the content to minimize ambiguity. We therefore avoid controversy about why a British subject is described in American style. By extension, this implies that the most interested editors will have justification for employing the conventions that are most appropriate to their area of interest or expertise.

  To extend that principle, for the articles that do not have well-defined regional or topical links, one could perhaps prescribe a house style, and still present the topic in an appropriate format and avoid the potential for formatting disputes. (This seems to be what you're suggesting with your Congolese example.) But based on precedent, Misplaced Pages has specifically chosen not to do that—it instead falls to the first or major contributors to pick formatting conventions for the article. (That precedent and its associated consensus are clear and directly applicable to the present discussion.) This also has the side-effect of allocating bias in rough proportion to the number of major contributions by various groups, rather than biasing all such articles in favour of one popular style.

  I'm citing well-founded precedents like WP:ENGVAR, and describing a balance between the competing objectives that must necessarily be considered when policy is at stake. I think that this represents a fairer approach to Misplaced Pages policy than steadfast and singleminded advocacy for "minimal confusion" as the principal doctrine of the MoS. TheFeds 04:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fine. We’ve both had our say. Now, please convince the others here that using a numbering system that isn’t used by some 95% of readers for whom English is their first language is the right thing to do on en.Misplaced Pages. Your aren’t convincing me with your arguments, which I find to be shear nonsense. Moreover, your responses are revealing a colossal inability to absorb the simple basics of my points, such as Italians and English and readers for whom English is their first language. So it is quite clear that I am wasting my time by further arguing with you. If I or the others here don’t want to respond to you any more, please don’t consider that to mean that we concur with you; it just means we’ve tired of this. If you run off to some other venue and find three editors who will soon graduate from junior high school who agree with you, don’t confuse that with having achieved the necessary consensus; you need to obtain a consensus here on MOSNUM’s talk page. Merely because you demonstrate an uncanny willingness to flog a dead horse until the heat death of the universe isn’t going to give you a *win* here. The only clear consensus so far is for MOSNUM to stay as it currently is and long has been. Your persistence in the face of this simple reality is troubling. Greg L (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

← I believe TheFeds' question on VPP was way too vague to be of any use, and that discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, anyway. I'd go with a two-step schedule as was done on WP:DATEPOLL or WP:IECVOT: in step 1, we create a page (I'd use a subpage of this talk page) where an editor can make a proposal, discuss about other editors' proposals, and tweak his/her proposal to address the points made by other editors. In step 2, no further edit is allowed to the proposal, and editors will be allowed to vote for proposal using a decent voting system (I'd go with the Schulze method). The first step should be advertised here, on WT:MOS, on WP:CENT, on WP:VPP and WP:VPR; the second step should be advertised as widely as possible on Misplaced Pages, including a watchlist notice. As for the time schedule, I'd go with seven days for each step. After the second step is concluded, the proposal which wins according to the chosen voting system will be incorporated in WP:MOSNUM to stay unchanged for six months. Or something like that. --___A. di M. 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a little curious about your objection, because as I explained to Greg, the intention is not to mandate a particular style proposal through WP:VPP. The question is phrased that way because VPP is the most appropriate place to discuss policy implications that affect the site, and limited in scope because the specific proposals from above should not be discussed at VPP.

  As for the RfC mechanism you've outlined, that level of formality is—I think—inappropriate for the limited question asked at VPP. The RfC process you outlined tends to be used for votes on fully-formed proposals—and I could support that procedure if we were voting on entire MOSNUM proposals. But for a policy consultation, it's not a good fit. TheFeds 16:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, I think that discussing specific wordings would be more useful than discussing vague general principles. (Two persons might agree on a principle but disagree on the way to implement it, or they might agree in giving some recommendation of style but for different reasons.) --___A. di M. 17:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• (inserting response) That's a fair comment, and I accept the possibility of different interpretations arising from the policy consultation. However, I think that the comments on VPP are, despite their limited scope, valuable as a sanity check against the unsupported assertions made in this thread (especially the opposing common-sense interpretations that Greg and I have offered). Let me reiterate that the VPP process complements the MOSNUM process, but does not replace it. (Despite Greg's unjustified insistence that I subscribe to that theory.) TheFeds 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with A. di M. I told you this once, TheFeds, about how to properly conduct an RfC but you didn’t take the advise and ran off to the Village Pump to do your thing all by yourself. Ill-considered, biased RfCs are nothing but pure trouble on Misplaced Pages. You have two choices now. 1) drop it, or 2) do things the right way and begin the process of creating an RfC that both sides work on until it is fair, complete, clear, and balanced. And then the RfC, which must be conducted here if it the result is to be a change to MOSNUM, goes live and the editors who frequent MOSNUM (and anyone else who wants to come here) can register their opinion. As to why you would persist at this seems wholly unrealistic given the above reaction of many of the editors here. But if there is to be an RfC, then we should do what worked well with Ryan’s date-linking RfC:

1. A simple, unbiased preamble explaining the essence of what it’s about
2. Statement of the existing wording.
3. Statement of the proposed wording.
4. A 300-word “for” essay
5. A 300-word “against” essay
6. Room for editors to state how they feel about the proposal (you know, what the losing side calls “!votes”)

If you want to waste your time (and that of others), you can kick it all off and take care of points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. I’ll volunteer to be the lead shepherd with #5 (with help from others).

I suppose there is a third option for you: to endlessly keep on arguing this on the assumption others will come around to “see the light of your reasoning”. If that’s the case, then it might be time to just let you rant here all by yourself. There is no rule that says anyone has to respond to you. Greg L (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Greg, are you overlooking what I wrote above? I've already explained to you that I see a distinction between the RfC procedure above, and a policy reference question on VPP. You pretend to speak with authority about RfCs, when it appears that you're just substituting that procedure for a process you dislike. You had a perfectly good chance to express your opinions, and make constructive suggestions, and instead you expressed disinterest in further discussion and wanted this thread to go away without consensus or compromise. TheFeds 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Given all of the above, in lieu of the discussion and compromise on the MOSNUM proposals that I referred to in the previous subsection, is there now interest in conducting an RfC offering a choice between proposed changes to WP:MOSNUM? (Let me distinguish that from the question that I posed at VPP, which was clearly not a question about one proposal versus another, and was not intended as such.)

  To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure that there's strong enough interest to expect a meaningful RfC result (as in, a response from people other than those who have already clearly expressed their opinions).

  I am ambivalent about the need to go through all of that formality over a paragraph in the MOS: I would be weakly opposed on those grounds. But I'm also concerned because I believe it will become mired in meta-debate. And that meta-discussion, especially if conducted by Greg in the style he's employed to date in this thread, will probably be marked by the same incivility, unwillingness to compromise, and tritely-phrased misrepresentations that he employed above. If it's likely to end up like that, I would oppose it.

  There's also the broader question of whether we tacitly support a proliferation of RfCs to resolve simple changes that lack clear consensuses. I'd say that this debate is somewhat unique, in that it's lacked widespread input, is not of critical importance, and yet has consumed a lot of text. Are we saying that when mundane proposals go bad, we should proceed to an RfC, rather than first trying less formal tools for advancing the discussion? TheFeds 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Some issues with the Currency section

I have seen some recommendations in the "Currency" section which contradict other parts of the MoS and common sense:

• Conversions "rounding to the nearest whole unit": for large amounts of money that will be generally over-precise (considering also how wildly exchange rates can fluctuate), and it doesn't work for amounts which are less than one dollar (or one euro, or one pound). I'd rather say: "rounding to one or two significant figures, ... eg., 10,000 Swedish kronor (approx. €1000, US$1400, or £800 as of August 2009)".
• "When possible, always link the first occurrence of a symbol for lesser-known currencies": I'd say "spell out the first occurrence", as we do with other units of measurement. Having the reader needing to hover on a link in order to obtain information is contrary to WP:ACCESS; "some editors consider it unnecessary to link the symbols of well-known currencies, but doing so can often be helpful to readers, as many countries use dollars or pounds as their base currency": if it means what I think, it goes against WP:EGG; a reader seeing "$500" in an article about Australia won't even notice the figure isn't in Australian dollars unless they happen to hover on the piped link, and the information is completely lost when the article is printed. If it doesn't mean what I think, it should be made clearer. Also, linking to United States dollar in articles not specifically about economy would border on WP:OVERLINKing.

What d'y'all think? --___A. di M. 14:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree 100%. The precision in conversions of money should be governed by the same mathematical rules that govern any other conversion, which is properly a balancing act that ensures valid data is not lost and that false precision is not created.

  As for spelling out a first occurrence of a new monetary unit, I also agree. Experienced Wikipedians tend to fall victim to the phenomenon of assuming that the typical reader is nearly as familiar with “*basic common* knowledge” as we Wikipedians are. You can see this in our computer articles, where editors will often instantly launch into symbol‑itis in lead paragraphs (The Banana Jr. 9000 was the first consumer-grade computer to come stock with 1 MB of RAM). The saving grace does not lie in that we have provided a link to what is an unfamiliar term for someone who has no knowledge about computers and wants to read up on the subject; novices to a subject should not have to click back and forth from article to article to wade through and parse key sentences.

  Clearly, certain minimum skill sets and knowledge must be assumed in our readership; they should be familiar with the “United States” and “ice” and these terms need not generally be linked. Distinctions between US$400 and AU$475 when they are juxtaposed in the same sentence are exceedingly subtle, easily overlooked, and assume far too much familiarity with currency symbology than should be expected of novices to the subject. Currencies of countries that are not primarily English speaking, the currencies of primarily English-speaking countries that are less well known, and the currencies of English-speaking countries whose symbols can easily be confused within the same article should generally be spelled out on first occurrence and their symbols parenthetically introduced.

  As per your example, parenthetical conversions, such as 10,000 Swedish kronor (approx. €1000, US$1400, or £800 as of August 2009) are not spelled out in order to reduce wordiness. This broad principle is used for other units of measure on Misplaced Pages, such as The typical sack of sugar in the United States is sold in five-pound bags (2.3 kg) and the principle does not change just because the units of measure are currency.

  A notable exception, in my opinion, would be in articles that are clearly about the United States or England. Take the example of an article on the World Trade Center. It seems to me that it should be sufficiently non-confusing for the intended readership if we write New Jersey Governor Robert B. Meyner objected to New York getting a $335 million project or, in the London Bridge article, …it cost approximately £1,000,000 to build. The only other notable exception that comes to mind to this basic principle—that the first occurrence of the primary monetary unit should be spelled out—would be a highly advanced economics article directed to an obviously expert readership. Greg L (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  As for the first paragraph, the fact is that, unlike the number of millimetres in an inch, the number of Czeck crowns in a US dollars is not a constant; so what is "valid data" today will be nonsense tomorrow. We should convert a length of 34.5678 millimetres to 1.36094 inches to preserve the precision of the original; but converting the the exact value of the Nobel Prize in Physics from 10,000,000 Swedish kronor to $1,435,234 (I'm making these numbers up) will be meaninglesss as the last digits will vary wildly, unless we add "(as of 30 August 2009 at noon at the London Exchange)" or something. So I think it is saner to just chop the value off to one or two sigfigs and to notice the conversion as approximate. As for the second paragraph, I agree, but I'd have choosen a better example: someone who doesn't know what RAM is wouldn't be helped by "random access memory", and OTOH there are many people who have an idea of what RAM is but can't recall what the acronym stands for. It'd be like suggesting that we use "lysergic acid diethylamide" rather than "LSD". As for the last sentence, I don't think it's useful to mention that explicitly; an economy article using so many currencies that even spelling out the first occurrence of each one would be cumbersome would be something so rare that WP:IAR is sufficient to handle that. --___A. di M. 15:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Most of what you wrote are intricacies that need to be factored in, but shouldn’t throw tar at the basic principles. Rounding to one significant digit in a monetary conversion—particularly when it is accompanied with a “August 2007 exchange rate” clause— is far too imprecise might be too imprecise in some circumstances.

  As for justifying launching straight into symbol‑itis by citing the example of LSD, that’s not an appropriate example (although I now have a better appreciation for the hazards of arguing with you). It is simply common technical writing practice observed by everyone from Encyclopedia Britannica to the Associated Press to Aviation Week & Space Technology to write out “National Aeronautics and Space Administration” before using NASA. The same would apply in any encyclopedic treatment on a computer-related article: one spells out “megabyte” on first use as well as “random access memory”. However, for terms that are universally known by the general public only by their abbreviations, such as DNA and LSD, one flips this principle around; one uses the abbreviation first and then parenthetically spells it out.

  It’s important to not seize upon examples and use them to justify practices without really considering all the implications. You have an influential role on WT:MOSNUM and others put great credence in your opinions. We already have far too many editors launching straight into editing WP:MOSNUM without first properly discussing things on WT:MOSNUM, where they can learn about broader implications and nuances that muddy the waters.

  This reminds me of the king who would have people come up to him at social events and tell him this or that and he didn’t have a wise, kingly-sounding response. He asked his wise men to suggest a response that would be universally true and wise-sounding that would be suitable in nearly any circumstances. They came back and told him to respond “All things must come to an end.” I’ve recently discovered another phrase that will work for most any situation where someone is complaining about some right-wing practice or belief or some left-wing practice or belief, or any sort of issue that is imbalanced and extreme in some way. It goes “Well… when you dig down into the details, it’s a bit more complicated than that.” Try it yourself; it works exceedingly well. And that principle applies here, when it comes to diverging from the general practice of spelling things like “MB” out on their first occurrence and parenthetically introducing the acronym. Indeed, “LSD” is a flipped exception to the rule (as is “DNA”). So the same goes here: Well… when you dig down into the details, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Greg L (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  I wrote "to one or two significant figures" actually. Well, maybe that's too vague, but I don't think that you will ever need more than that. A reader reading about the value of the Nobel Prize in Physics (or whatever) won't particularly care whether it was closer to $1,403,000 or to $1,404,000 on a particular day at a particular location; telling him that it's roughly $1,4 million is enough for him to have an idea, and it won't need to be updated every week. (Exchange rates can vary in the third significant figure in much less than one month, and we don't want to have to note down the day a conversion was made.) This is my opinion, at least; what do other editors think? (As for "RAM", I guess that many more people know it by its acronym than by its full name, too; spelling out "megabyte" is fine, I was just pointing out that "RAM" is a bad example for the general principle—with which I agree—citing "LSD" as an even worse example. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Anyway, I didn't mean to start a discussion on how to refer to RAM, which wouldn't even belong here.) --___A. di M. 19:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Our views seem to be converging—notwithstanding that our writings seem to get in the way. It is always good to look to Encyclopedia Britannica when thinking about what is good, project-wide style. I aspire to own the EB set one day but currently have to drive to the library. It’s noteworthy that they never launch into “MB” and “KB” in their computer articles; they always keep on writing out “megabyte” and “kilobyte” from stem to stern. I haven’t looked at how they handle LSD, but I am quite confident they use “LSD” from stem to stern and mention “lysergic acid diethylamide” only in passing. I learned, long ago when writing business plans, to reinforce trade-specific terminology by spelling it out several times and to introduce the abbreviation parenthetically only when the term is being repeated often enough that it becomes nearly tedious and the reader is mentally prepared—even anxious—for the damned abbreviation. I think this compromise technique is superior to Encyclopedia Britannica’s practice of always writing it out clear to the end of the article.

  As for precision in monetary conversions, your proposal of two significant digits passes my initial *grin test* for what would be appropriate as a general guideline. To be sure, I suppose I would need to see some examples in context—perhaps even some conflicting examples where one practice seemed more appropriate in one case, and yet another practice seemed more suitable in another case. Sometimes the rule-set can be obscure until you, uhm… dig down into the details.

  Memorializing common sense into technical writing guidelines can be a tedious effort. Generally, my preference in these sort of matters is to not prescribe rigidity in guidelines and to instead provide a global proscription of what not to do and give examples of good practices and bad practices. For instance:

When showing a a conversion to another monetary unit, avoid excess or false precision. For instance, do not write The Manhattan Project cost the U.S. $2 billion at the time (equivalent to £14.1 billion in 2007).

To me, this allows a bit more freedom for editors to use common sense and affords experienced editors a bit more latitude to fix errors. Greg L (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, here's my proposal, with changes from the current version marked:

Currencies

Shortcuts

• WP:$
• WP:£
• WP:€
• MOS:CURRENCY

See also: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics/Style § Article titles

Which one to use

• In country-specific articles, such as Economy of Australia, use the currency of the country.
• In non-country-specific articles such as Wealth, use US dollars (US$123), the dominant reserve currency of the world. Some editors also like to provide euro and/or pound sterling equivalents, formatted as described in the next section.

Formatting

• Fully identifyUse the full name of a currency on its first appearance (AU$5252 Australian dollars); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification or currency article linkcan use the symbol of the currency (just $88), unless this would be unclear. The exception to this is in articles related entirely to US-, EU-, or UK-related topics, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened and not linked ($34, €26, and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear, and in places where space is limited such as tables, infoboxes, and parenthetical notes. Avoid over-identifying currencies that cannot be ambiguous; e.g., do not place EU or a similar prefix before the € sign.When there are different currencies using the same symbol, use the full abbreviation (e.g. US$ for the United States dollar and AU$ for the Australian dollar, rather than just $) unless the currency which is meant is clear from the context.
• Do not place a currency symbol after the value (123$, 123£, 123€), unless the symbol is normally written as such. Do not write $US123 or $123 (US).
• Currency abbreviations that come before the number are unspaced if they consist of or end in a symbol (£123, €123), and spaced if alphabetic (R 75).
• If there is no common English abbreviation or symbol, use the ISO 4217 standard.
• Ranges are preferably formatted with one rather than two currency signifiers ($250–300, not $250–$300).
• Conversions of less familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies, such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling. Conversions should be in parentheses after the original currency, rounding to the nearest whole unitone or two significant digit and noting the conversion as approximate, with at least the year given as a rough point of conversion rate reference; e.g., 1,000 Swiss francs (US$763 in 2005)10,000 Swedish kronor (approx. €1000, US$1400, or £800 as of August 2009).
• For obsolete currencies, provide if possible an equivalent, formatted as a conversion, in the modern replacement currency (e.g., decimal pounds for historical pre-decimal pounds-and-shillings figures), or at least a US-dollar equivalent as a default in cases where there is no modern equivalent.
• When possible, always link the first occurrence of a symbol for lesser-known currencies (₮146)(146 Mongolian togrogs); some editors consider it unnecessary to link the symbols of well-known currencies, but doing so can often be helpful to readers, as many countries use dollars or pounds as their base currency, and not all readers are familiar with the euro.
• The names of currencies, currency subdivisions, coins and banknotes should not be capitalised except where normal capitalisation rules require this (for example, at the start of a sentence).
• The pound sterling is represented by the £ symbol, with one horizontal bar. The double-barred ₤ symbol is ambiguous, as it has been used for Italian lire and other currencies as well as that of the British. For non-British currencies that use pounds or a pound symbol (e.g., the Irish pound, IR£) use the symbol conventionally preferred for that currency.

It seems to me that a modern equivalent (i.e. taking inflation into account) to an obsolete might be more useful than a straight conversion according to the rate at the time of transfer. Convert five pounds twelve shillings sixpence Australian, for example, not to $11.25 but to what five pounds twelve shillings sixpence is worth today. JIMp _talk·cont 01:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was what "an equivalent, formatted as a conversion, in the modern replacement currency" was supposed to mean; but now I see it's not clear enough and should be clarified. (BTW, in Italy I see amounts in euro converted to liras with the original exchange rate of 1,936.27 L/€ all the time all the time, as if there hadn't been seven years of inflation since the lira was last used. I've never understood the point of that. I know there are people still thinking in liras, but IMO it's high time they learned to think in euros, as they'll have to use them to the end of their life.) --___A. di M. 11:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

—— Shakescene (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dithering incomprehensibility?

MoS has just imported much of MOSNUM's Units of measurement section, since we had some pretty iffy stuff that hadn't been reviewed for a while. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Another_query. One import sticks out, though, concerning the old imperial versus metric units in UK-related articles:

... for the UK Imperial units for some topics and metric units for others, and a mixture of units for others (see, for example, the Times Online style guide under "Metric").

The Times online style guide says not to mix the systems within an article. Hmmmm. It strikes me as ludicrous that the primary and converted units should be switched here and there in the course of an article: heck, choose one as primary and stick to it, surely? To do otherwise is a really unprofessional look. MoS had this, until yesterday, which is much better, IMO:

UK-related topics may have either SI (generally preferred) or imperial units as the primary units.

Seems more professional and a lot simpler, don't you think? Can MOSNUM import MoS's previous point? I'm encouraging MoS to go back to it rather than to retain what we've just imported (on this matter alone—the rest is better). How about it? Tony (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Times says "try not to mix the two systems in a single article. In general, we should prefer the metric" and then goes on with a longish list of exceptions. There's no point in avoiding giving the distance between Oxford and London in miles only because that'd be inconsistent with the fact that mean temperatures in Oxford are given in Celsius degrees: they are different types of measurements, and people in Oxford do normally use miles for distances and Celsius degrees for temperatures. How 'bout: With topics strongly associated with places, times or people, put the units most appropriate to them first. In US articles, they usually are United States customary units; for the UK, they usually are metric units for most measurements, but imperial units for some measurements such as road distances and draught beer (see, for example, Metrication in the United Kingdom and the the Times Online style guide under "Metric"). --___A. di M. 12:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck!Michael Glass (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

ADM, are you really suggesting that miles (km) be swapped for kilometres (mi) within an article, higgledy-piggledy? Bit excessive, isn't it? If there are hard-line anti-metric editors on an article, I'd rather it were all imperial primary, metric converted. Tony (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that if one is measuring road distance, one would switch between "miles (km)" and "kilometres (mi)". But one might write Mr. Banks used 8 8 litres (1.8 imp gal) of petrol to drive 62 miles (100 km) since petrol is sold in litres. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While I grudgingly accept for the moment the line that UK articles may choose either system, I think an insistence that the real-life mess that country has made of metric conversion should not be paraded in a serious online publication such as WP. I say: normally choose one or the other as primary for the whole article, just as MoS said until yesterday. That in itself is a significant concession by many editors—UK and non-UK. Tony (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not. I'm saying that there's no reason to forbid, say, the use of degree Celsius and miles in the same article, if it is about a place where those are the units in most widespread units for temperatures and road distances. I still believe that "comparable" measurements should use the same unit in each article. But I can't see how the "miles and degrees Celsius" combination is any worse than the "miles and degrees Fahrenheit" combination. (By "comparable" I don't just mean "of the same physical dimension", I mean "which makes sense to compare in the given context": I can see no particular reason to avoid giving a road distance as 1.4 miles and a mountain height as 7,400 feet, even in the same sentence. And using two units whose ratio is 1,609.344 instead of 5,280 isn't inherently worse.) --___A. di M. 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony's positon means that any article mentioning a measured electrical quantity must list metric units first throughout, even if it is strongly associated with the United States (or, the article must be considered abnormal). An example of such an article is Hoover Dam. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC) modified 17:04 UT.

What about articles measuring time in seconds? :-) --___A. di M. 16:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know about electrical quantity, but road distances and draught beer seem to be just fine with the chosen system as primary, consistent with the rest of the article. Remember, this is just a debate about which one goes in parentheses. Switching them around for beer, but back again for milk, and then whirling back for building heights (or whatever the mess is) is likely to make the text slightly more difficult to read. Non-UK readers would be forgiven for thinking these were editing slips. In any case, I see no consensus to change what MoS had before. Tony (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  How is John had 1 imperial pint (0.57 L) of beer in a pub in a 97 metres (318 ft) building any harder to read than if the metres and the feet were swapped? The pint isn't defined as a "simple" number of cubic metres, but it isn't defined as a "simple" number of cubic feet, either; even if it did, I can't see how it matters here. --___A. di M. 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is the wording to be, if we must accept this unique inconsistency? And the other global point in that section about consistency in articles will have to be modified, yes? I do note that this is a change in MoS's advice from last week's. No one seemed to notice it until I brought it up. Tony (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not "unique inconsistency". I can't see how measuring heights of buildings in metres and volumes of beer in pints is any more or any less inconsistent than using feet and pints, or metres and litres. To be really consistent you'd have to use metres and cubic metres, or feet and cubic feet, and of course no-one would do that. (Using different units for measurements of the same type, such as John weighs 150 pounds (68 kg) and James weighs 79 kilograms (174 lb), would be serious inconsistency which I'd avoid unless necessary, but no-one's advocating that.) As for wording, I think the bullet present now (as of 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)) starting with "With topics strongly associated ..." is fine. --___A. di M. 15:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

nbsp for dates?

It was recently suggested to me at a FAC that dates should be given non-breaking spaces. Is that correct according to the MoS? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's on the "consider doing" side rather than the "you must" side of the scale; and I think I'm right in saying it only ever applied to month and day / day and month, not between them and the year. Tony (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I use a non-breaking space (or try to if I don’t forget) because…

The whiz-bang fanada-yadda-yadda later broke ground on 6
February and was finished in less than a year.

…looks better when it reads

The whiz-bang fanada-yadda-yadda later broke ground on
6 February and was finished in less than a year.

So a non-breaking space looks better. Requiring it in MOSNUM might not be all that practical since dates are written so often and because there are so many editors who wouldn’t want to bother (or be knowledgeable about such advanced techniques). However, permitting the practice so that more experienced editors can make it part of their clean-up seems OK. That’s my 2¢. Greg L (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

xt?

Wasn't there a proposal to do an uplift of the use of {{xt}} on the MOS/MOSNUM just a while ago? Did that die? Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• What does “uplift of the use of”… mean? Use it more extensively throughout the two style guides? I started to update MOSNUM with more of it, but it is damned slow and tedious. Greg L (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Greg, paste into Word and use a macro (comprising open finder, type " into the find box, search next, delete, type in the xt opening option-right-arrow, etc ...: so easy! MoS main needs the same treatment, but don't worry: all is in hand. I think an editorial note at the top reminding users of the xt thing would be desirable. Tony (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By "in hand" do you mean someone is doing it? If you want, I am happy to convert most "Do it like this." examples to "Do it like this." (using something better than Word). What about this existing text: There is no such ambiguity with recurring events, such as "January 1 is New Year's Day". Should the text in quotes be in an {{xt}}? Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Johnuniq: Fantabulous. I certainly don’t have “a problem” with volunteer efforts like that! Greg L (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a little besides the point, but I just find the existing shade of green rather ugly and hard to read on the existing default background color (a sort of very faint aquamarine or sky-blue) that most editors (and I) keep. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

short dates using slashes

I'm in the middle of a dispute at The Shells over the policy regarding dates formatted as MM/DD/YYYY. I was under the impression that this format is deprecated due to ambiguity issues and should be converted to YYYY-MM-DD (or spelled out) in every case. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at the current discussion and provide some guidance as to whether this is policy or not. Thank you. ~ Paul/_C 07:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it is discussed in MOSNUM, but I think it should to cover instances such as this. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• It is recommended that dates be written as 11 September 2009 or September 11, 2009 (to take today's date as an example) in order to avoid ambiguity. The use of DD/MM/YYYY (or MM/DD/YYYY) is ambiguous shouldn't be used. The use of 2009-09-11 is okay where concision is required (e.g. in tables), or where dates can be sorted. I'll have a look at the page you indicate and add $0.02-worth if appropriate.  HWV258  22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM needs to be merged into MoS

Dear colleagues

At MoS, we realised that the Units of measurement section was in a bad mess. Michael Glass and A. di M. have both assisted by pasting in the more up-to-date version from MOSNUM's Units of measurement.

This highlights the absurdity of having two different pages, when MoS main covers just about all of the scope of MOSNUM. There is insufficient difference in the two scopes of MoS main and MOSNUM to warrant the fragmentation of guidance, discussion and monitoring. More importantly, it is undesirable for the two talk pages to be fragmented.

The MoS pages as a whole are in an uncoordinated mess, and it would go some way towards serving the project better to merge MOSNUM into MoS main. All of the main sections (except, oddly, Currencies, which is a pretty important one for general editors), are there.

Why don't we make things easier for ourselves? Any highly specialised guidance in MOSNUM that is not here could easily be sequestered into either a separate subsection or—better IMO—an appendix, here. The merger should not add much text to MoS main (indeed, everything needs significant rationalisation on the micro-scale). Tony (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The main page of the MoS is already bloated enough without detailed guidance about "Scientific notation, engineering notation, and uncertainty" and whatnot, which more than 90% of editors will be very unlikely to care about. If anything, I'd do the reverse: I'd remove obscure items in the main MoS which are also found in MOSNUM (e.g. "Uncalibrated (bce) radiocarbon dates", the bit about units used in scientific literature, etc. IOW, I wish the second and third sentence of WP:MOS, "This main page contains basic principles. Additional subpages of the Manual of Style, listed and linked in the menu on the right-hand side of this page, explore some topics in more detail.", were true. --___A. di M. 13:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the current situation in which two small groups of editors are divided into two talk pages about scope that entirely overlaps is unconscionable. I believe the solution is to (1) audit the differences in wording and iron them out by negotiation; (2) sequester the more specialist information on numbers and dates in both pages into link-targeted appendices at MoS; and (3) delete MOSNUM.

This would probably reduce the size of MoS a little (aside from the appendices), which is a critical need. We need to make the style guides more accessible and less daunting to the majority of editors. The pages are gaining a bad reputation for bloat and inaccessibility.

In essence, I'm proposing that the binary structure (MoS vs MOSNUM) be changed so that it's main text vs appendix, in MoS alone. Tony (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The scope of WP:MOS and of its subpages is already clear enough: "This main page contains basic principles. Additional subpages of the Manual of Style, listed and linked in the menu on the right-hand side of this page, explore some topics in more detail." The real problem is that WP:MOS contains loads of stuff which isn't supposed to be there according to that. For example, WP:MOS could just say that conversions from metric to US/Imperial and vice versa are needed when using a unit which isn't used in some parts of the English-speaking world (one sentence), while pointing at WP:MOSNUM for more detailed info on how the present the conversions, etc. --___A. di M. 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting Tony: The MoS pages as a whole are in an uncoordinated mess. I couldn’t agree more. I also agree with A. di M. that detailed guidance on numbers is going to be hard to shoe-horn into one venue. The “mess” is going to be chronic, in my opinion, as long as MOS and MOSNUM are not locked down with gate-keepers and remain free for anyone to edit whenever they please. All it takes is some editor with a deep conviction that the BIPM will soon endorse esperanto and how words from this *universal language* should be permitted in our articles (citing WP:ENGVAR or some other inane argument) in order to thoroughly waste everyone’s time here and further mess up MOSNUM. (*sigh*). Greg L (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Shoehorn? But it's already in MoS. How much extra is there here that's not? Tony (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Another possibility is to retain only the specialist stuff here, still under the name MOSNUM. It would be much smaller. But I think an appendix at MoS would be a much better way to organise it. Tony (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

These topics are what I see as being too involved for MoS, and suitable for retaining in a specialised MOSNUM (linked to from MoS):

• Uncalibrated (bce) radiocarbon dates
• Some of the calendar section (?)
• Time zones (if retained at all)
• Delimiting (but a short summary to be inserted into MoS)
• Natural numbers
• Repeating decimals
• Non-base-10 notations
• Scientific notation, engineering notation, and uncertainty (but a short summary in MoS)
• Avoiding ambiguities (it's already in shortened form in MoS)
• Most of "Units and symbols often written incorrectly"
• Quantities of bytes and bits
• Adopting suggestions from standards bodies
• The table from "Common mathematical symbols" (?unsure)
• Geographical coordinates

It's quite large enough for a MoS subpage. What urgently needs to be removed is the common-person stuff that is already in MoS. Editors need to know a lot of stuff about numbers and dates, but the field crosses into engineering and science in a way that clutters the dummies' guide badly. Tony (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting Tony’s second post: Another possibility is to retain only the specialist stuff here. I think something along these lines makes sense. Upon reflection, I think I agree with Tony’s basic premiss that stripping out too much of the basic essentials of number and date-related stuff from MOS and putting into MOSNUM tends to keep the information away from all but the most diligent and thoughtful editors. So…

  Perhaps the thing to do is to harmonize MOSNUM into MOS, but instead of having a “MOSNUM” for the specialized stuff, we merely have sub-pages of MOS that expand upon lengthy topics (such as scientific notation). I suspect little (or even none) of this need to have “Click here for main article”-stuff would be required if there was a concerted effort to streamline MOS and MOSNUM, which suffers from bloat‑itis in many areas.

  I suspect one of the “yuck factors” for many of us is the unconscious realization that there is a somewhat different set of editors that frequent MOS and harmonizing will result in social chaos—similar to neanderthals and modern humans finding each other hunting the same game in France 80,000 years ago (“you funny looking”). Perhaps we can keep the dates and numbers section segregated below a border via transclusion so that MOSNUM can keep its discussions on a separate talk page. I think it would prove exceedingly unwieldily if we had an integrated talk page for all issues. Greg L (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've struck through some of my earlier comments. This does seem to be the way to go: two separate pages still, without the massive overlap. Tony (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Or transclusion, like how we handled RfCs, which occurred in their own articlespace but the results appeared in a unified page. We could still have entirely separate sub-pages for the particularly complicated and expansive topics. Greg L (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  Transclusion would miss the point (that main MoS should be a summary). --___A. di M. 17:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• A possible solution would be to centralize discussion on all MoS topics, but retain subpages for content. (Redirect sub-talk-pages to one location.) That way, you'd be able to avoid editors at MOSNUM operating under different principles and objectives than the editors at MOS, leading to inconsistent guidelines. There might be issues with the talk page getting filled too quickly, however.

  Nevertheless, I support simple guidance at MOS, with complicated guidance in main articles such as MOSNUM. TheFeds 16:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Common Era

I thought the Manual recommended CE notation, but I am obviously mistaken. I am probably opening a can of worms, and pardon any cluelessness, but why does the MoS take such an ambiguous stance about the use of the Common Era year notation? It is becoming overwhelmingly dominant in academia. Most popular periodicals mandate its use in their house styles. Even a large number of explicitly Christian publishers now make use of the CE notation. While I can appreciate the pragmatic impossibility of mandating the Common Era notation, should we not follow the real world example and prefer its use? Or am I completely missing something? Or am I just hopelessly naive that a consensus could be built for such? Vassyana (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• MOSNUM is “ambiguous” because there is such conviction on both sides of the issue. My preference is to write in a manner that reads most naturally for a given readership (article). Greg L (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Vassyana: the issue apparently caused a lot of grief a few years ago. I think the current line, which favours neither but insists on within-article consistency, is ideal. Tony (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clue in. If it was something that lead to that much strife, it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie. I'll dig through the archives myself, but does anyone know where the bulk of those discussions took place? Vassyana (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know where the main discussion took place, but I do have Common Era and Anno Domini on my watchlist. There is a constant stream of (usually IP) editors who stop by to alter those articles to favor one notation or the other.

• Also, for purposes of editing Misplaced Pages, I don't think academia should be equated to the real world. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia; it isn’t a religious publication and we therefore don’t automatically follow the practices of religious publications—even if God in Her infinite wisdom were to anoint it with holy oil. Nor do we follow what academic articles do because they are “academic” and are the product of smart people with leather patches on their elbows. And if the BIPM anointed one method and declared the other smelled like baby diapers, that doesn’t matter either.

  Often we can look to the AP Manual of Style and the practices of Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book to see what English-speaking peoples are routinely exposed to and what therefore seems most natural and encyclopedic. Too often, ninth-graders smitten with the “Forget what Encyclopedia Britannica does, I can change the WORLD by editing Misplaced Pages” are the source of unnecessary grief here.

  My preference, again, is to always use whatever writing style and words are most natural and interrupts the train of thought the least. I know: shocking. Greg L (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My preference is to follow the ISO 8601 standard and use positive numbers for years > 0, negative numbers for years < 0, and 0000 for year 0. However, that is too rational for much of the population here on Misplaced Pages, and they tend to have what my grandmother would have referred to as a conniption fit when the idea is suggested. It does have the advantage of completely ignoring the religious issues, which is always good.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• And your grandmother would be justified to have a conniption fit. The purpose in any good technical writing is to communicate with minimal confusion. If we adopted every keeno-sounding idea from every notable alphabet-soup standards organization (BIPM, ISO, IEC, NIST, etc.) just because it is logical and cool and all that; all we would be doing is trying to put Misplaced Pages in the forefront of the effort to Lead the way and show the world the path to a better and more logical future that is liberated from the many shortcomings and inconsistencies of English and gets the English-speaking world ready to join the United Federation of Planets.©™®. Under this banner, we could write stuff like how A 67 centiuno (67 cU) majority is required in the U.S. Senate to…. Fortunately, the IUPAP guy who proposed the “uno” had the courage to retract it after it flew like a wet noodle in the real world.

  Unfortunately, the IEC didn’t retract their proposal to say A memory chip with a capacity of 256 kibibytes and we had a pack of editors pushing that here on Misplaced Pages for three years. (*sigh*)

  The proper thing to do is not pretend that we are here to help change how the world communicates (our aborted effort with “kibibyte” showed Misplaced Pages doesn’t have that sort of influence), and simply *communicate* using good grammar, clear writing, and in a fashion that results in the least *!* brain interrupts and is most natural for the target readership.

  Misplaced Pages needs to follow the way the English-speaking world communicates. Sometimes, that means we can look towards the Associated Press Manual of Style, sometimes towards how magazines that are devoted to a particular discipline communicate to their readership (like computer magazines), and sometimes it means looking towards other encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Britannica and World Book to get a clue. Even the best of we Misplaced Pages editors could benefit from looking to these other sources for tips.

  Sometimes, arguing with persistent editors here on WT:MOSNUM seems exceedingly unwise of me. Greg L (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

RockyMtnGuy, would you like to share with us how you obtain consent from your data exchange partners whenever you use an ISO 8601 year that preceeds 1583. Of course you do that, because you have read the standard and saw that consent is required by the standard. I'm sure you also read the part about always using the Gregorian calendar, and always make sure you do so, even though the Julian calendar is increasingly likely to be found in ordinary writing in Europe and the Americas when writing about events before the 19th century. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• My read of his post is that he isn’t seriously proposing this—just that he’d “like-ta.” Greg L (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My reading of his post is that he isn't proposing it for Misplaced Pages but that he does use it, including for early and negative years, outside Misplaced Pages. So I'm curious how he handles gathering all the consent, and dealing with the confusion among the consumers of his early dates, about how come the dates arn't in the Julian calendar, just like they often are in history books. Alternatively, I'd like to get a sense of how may people know the correct name of the standard is indeed ISO 8601, but haven't actually read it.

I blame all the confusion on the ISO. They co-opted a format that was either already in fairly common use, or was so logical that it was bound to come into general use. Then they made a bunch of fussy rules when they should have known it was beyond their ability to inform the world of the rules. Finally they compounded the confusion by charging exorbitant fees for copies of the standard. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over date format

Can someone please guide me or help me here? I am using one date format in citations, only to have an editor edit war with me over it. Is my below analysis correct? If so, how can I address the matter.

The date format style of citation that I am using, specifically MM/DD/YYYY is not prohibited by Misplaced Pages from what I can see, but is not directly discussed.

"Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation."

"common or prescribed—particularly in military, academic, scientific, computing, industrial, or governmental contexts. See Date and time notation by country#United States."

"it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one to the other without substantial reason." Furthermore, "Edit warring over optional styles ... is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

"Retaining the existing format -- If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor"."

In this instance the article was stable in the MM/DD/YYYY format. I had created the article and was the major contributor. Another editor, with whom I had just disagreed on a separate issue, has spent the last few days wikistalking me to all my edits, and seeking to delete or revise dozens of them, including all of the date format edits, despite my pointing him to the language of the guidance.

He argues "The date format you are trying to use is ambiguous and does not present an international view of the information." With that, he reverts all of my edits.

Am I correct here that since this is an article with a strong tie to the US, it is appropriate for me to use the common date format for that nation, and that it is wrong for him to wikistalk me to edit war by constantly reverting the date format? If so, what recourse do I have? This of course is especially disturbing given the background I just described. Many thanks.--VMAsNYC (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)