Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:40, 14 October 2013

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Misplaced Pages article titles policy and Manual of Style, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

General 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, vote, 6, 7, 8, 9 (AD/CE), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14a, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 49a, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 Binary prefixes B0, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, B15, B16, B17 Years and dates D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dates Misplaced Pages talk:Date debate Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates) Misplaced Pages talk:Timeline standards Misplaced Pages:Measurements Debate Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008) Dec. 2008 RfC on Date linking/autoformatting (three proposals) Dec. 2008 RfC on Date linking/autoformatting (detailed)

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Dates and numbers page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Imperial measurements

why are we still using archaic empiric measurements? only US and Burma are using them. How is it justified? thx 50.9.97.53 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean "imperial" units, although some US units are different (e.g. gallons). The answer is because the US uses them and the US has by the far the largest number of native English speakers, so of course the English Misplaced Pages should provide both systems of measurement. By the way, the UK still uses miles. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

see CIA factbook: only US, Burma and Liberia are officially using them. Is there any source for your claim? some statistics?

India would be the largest native English speaking country 50.9.97.53 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What proportion of Indians have English as their mother tongue? Peter coxhead (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

According to List of countries by English-speaking population, a little over 10%. India has about 125 million English speakers, compared to US at about 267 million. No other country comes close as far as total English speaking population. --RacerX Talk to me 23:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And the additional figure has only 226,449 Indians with English "as first language". Is that the same thing as "native English speakers"? If that's the criteria then it appears the majority of native English speaking people use imperial units. --RacerX Talk to me 23:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

your explanation of statistics has some serious flaws. India, unlike US, has English as one of the two official languages.

We are referring to internet users only. there is about 250 000 internet users in US.that is not majority of English speaking users worldwide. Also keep in mind that you dont have to be "native " English speaking to use wiki in English language 50.9.97.53 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

250,000 internet users in US?? Where on Earth did you get that figure from? Try more like 200,000,000+. --RacerX Talk to me 00:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

sorry I clearly missed some zeroes. it is, of course estimated 250 million internet users (2012). 50.9.97.53 (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Also using internet users only isn't going to help you much I'm afraid. US - 80% of population. India - 10%. --RacerX Talk to me 00:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians: "Most editors (20%) reside in the United States, followed by Germany (12%) and Russia (7%). The only country not in Europe or North America in the top 10, is India (3%)." —sroc 💬 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find that's for all Wikipedias. I think it's almost certain that the second largest number of Wikipedians on English Misplaced Pages reside in the United Kingdom, where we also commonly use and understand Imperial measurements (no matter what our official units may be). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

50.9.97.53. This is the best I could come up with. 2.4 billion internet users worldwide. Of which, 27% use English (not native speakers, this is first, second and third language English users and those who simply use the language on the internet). So that's 648 million English using, internet users. There are 267 million English speaking people in the US. Of which, 81% use the internet. That's about 216 million English speaking internet users in the US. So subtracting US from World (and ignoring the relatively few English speaking internet users in Burma and Liberia) we get: 432 million metric using, English using, internet users vs. 216 million imperial using, English speaking, internet users worldwide. After rounding it worked out to exactly a two to one ratio; or in other words, one third of the total English using internet users, also use imperial (if my calculations and sources are correct). I can't think of any way to skew it in your favor any more than that. --RacerX Talk to me 01:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

keep in mind, that English wiki editors does not have to be native English speaker. for our purpose we are looking for en:wiki editors. They are global editors, not just US, UK, Australia, India etc. I am pretty sure there must me some wiki statistics as mentioned here by someone. btw I agree with your calculations (2:1) 50.9.97.53 (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the 27% includes all English language users. Not just native speakers. That figure includes all first, second, third, etc. speakers and additionally anyone who can communicate with English on the Internet. The US figure of total English speakers in the US is however only including first and second language speakers because that was the only source I had at the time. Like I said, the above data is skewed, but mostly in the favor of the metric using, English using, internet using population. RacerX Talk to me 16:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case, note that imperial units are only preferred in "non-science US-related articles" (WP:UNITS), otherwise they are only given as a conversion, which is not unreasonable for the 20% or more of Wikipedians from countries that still use them. —sroc 💬 01:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes sroc, but to clarify, I think that 20% is US editors within the entirety of Misplaced Pages. Only English Misplaced Pages uses those conversions. I am sure the percentage of English Misplaced Pages editors who are from the US is much higher. --RacerX Talk to me 01:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I thought there were statistics somewhere on the "typical" user on the English WP, but I can't find it now. —sroc 💬 02:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question 50.9.97.53, it's a compromise. If you want the justifications, feel free to search the archives. SchreiberBike talk 02:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

thank you guys.can you point me to the right direction,to the archives of previous discussions about imperial units usage please?

You might start with this search which looks for the phrase "imperial units" in the archives of this talk page. Further searches for "units" or "SI units" would give more background. SchreiberBike talk 06:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@50.9.97.53, referring to your recent comment placed a few posts above about Wiki statistics on usage. You expressed interest in refining the sample group from internet users to WP editors. I think it would make more sense to refine the stats to include WP readers (and editors), rather than only WP editors, but if you're still interested I found this chart at the article English Misplaced Pages for en:WP edits by country and this chart for en:WP page views by country. --RacerX Talk to me 01:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The page views of English Misplaced Pages show that 39.9% of readers come from the United States and a further 16.7% come from the UK. (UK usage is a mixture of metric and Imperial.) This means that roughly half of our readers would be comfortable with Imperial/US Customary measures and about half would be comfortable with metric measures. The policy of providing both measures in general articles provides for all. Michael Glass (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Slight correction. 39.9% of edits come from the US. 42.9% of page views come from US. Lets be clear about what we are looking at. An individual edit is different than an editor or a reader. Same for a single page views. --RacerX Talk to me 02:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is interesting that the US has 42.9% of the page views but only 39.9% of the page edits while the UK has 11.2% of the page views but 16.7% of the page views. Australia also has 3.6% of the page views but 4.2% of the page edits and New Zealand has 0.7% of page views but 1% of edits but Canada has 6% of both views and edits to the English language Misplaced Pages. Overall, however, the split between imperial and metric usage would still be about 50-50 for both editors and readers. This reinforces the need to provide both metric and imperial measures for readers, even though this requires a lot more work. Michael Glass (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I think it would be safe to assume the percentage of readers and page views; editors and edits would be approximately the same. Then again, who would have guessed the statistical curiosities you have just pointed out? But overall, yes. The stats indeed support the consensus of display both units. It would be easier for uS editors (punny, yes even some American editors like myself wish that some things were simpler) to not ever have to worry about conversions and conversion templates and such if we went to metric units exclusively, but currently any serious attempt to rally the community in that direction would be WP:SNOWBALL --RacerX Talk to me 05:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the missing American readers are reading Conservapedia? It's well-known that Misplaced Pages is a hotbed of dangerous un-American liberals. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The UK uses both. For example petrol is bought in litres but distances are measured in miles. Beer has to be sold in quantities based on an imperial pints while spirits and wine are sold in millilitres (both by law). So not only the US but the UK still use imperial weights and measures, its just that the UK manges to have both on the supermarket shelves at the same time. -- PBS (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, note that the US doesn't use imperial measurements for volumes; US pints and gallons are different from imperial ones. So for volumes, at least three units are often needed: litres/liters, US gallons/pints, imperial gallons/pints. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This can bite in reverse and mean that conversions can be next to impossible, a classic one is the bomb weights used during World War II as secondary sources often use tons for raids flown in the Combined Bomber Offensive but don't specify whether it is short ton or long ton (I suspect that in a number of sources the authors do not know as they themselves are quoting secondary sources and not the original RAF and USAAF primary sources (which may not be clear on their own without researching further primary sources to find out what weight the USAAF used when stationed in Britain)). Another one I was surprised to find,--it came to my attention via some obscure (to me) measurements in the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (a Rhineland Ruthe)--that when reviewing old sources (particularly about international matters) there is no such thing as a standard mile, (or rod (unit), league (unit) etc) and that often like tons the secondary source reports the distance without noting a conversion to a standard contemporary unit, which makes including conversions in Misplaced Pages text a guess or original research. -- PBS (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

MilHist Coordinator says: The bomber offensive figures are in long tons; these were used by both the USAAF and RAF. The short ton was not used for this purpose. However, when dealing with logistics in World War II, you must always watch out for the more commonly used measurement ton, which was not a unit of weight at all. It is also worth noting that in SWPA US forces used imperial, not US gallons. I'm not sure if this was the case in the UK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, we in the US manage to have both on the shelves at the same time as well. Soda, fizzy drinks, or whatever you want to call them, are sold in 1-, 2-, and 3-liter bottles (the latter is not terribly common) and in 20-ounce bottles and 12-ounce cans. Beer is sold in ounces, but wine and spirits are sold in liters. Most drugs, including the illegal ones, are measured in metric units, with the exception of marijuana. Just about all foods and drinks (but not medications) are labeled in both measurements, though. -Rrius (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Funny I don't recall ever seeing a 3-liter bottle of soda. Must be very uncommon in my area. But yes, the liter is a fairly familiar unit in the US. Consider also its use in the US automobile industry (among the other metric uses and parts on US vehicles). My pickup truck was assembled 30 miles (48 km, heh:) from my house and it has a badge on the side displaying its engine displacement in liters; and the vast majority of Americans know exactly what a 5.7L engine is. Another example that comes to mind is the length of US cigarettes is given in millimeters: 72's, 100's etc. --RacerX Talk to me 23:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

May I put the Indian figures into perspective. About 250,000 Indians use English as their mother tongue, but the Times of India prints 7.6 million copies a day - more than double any UK or US newspaper. Martinvl (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Policy implications

I think most editors accept the necessity of providing imperial/US customary measures along with metric measures for general articles, as usage varies across the English-speaking world. In most cases this is fairly clear-cut, with metric measures being given priority throughout most of the world and US customary measures being given priority in US based non-scientific articles. In the case of UK articles the situation is more complex, with metric units being used in some contexts and imperial units being used in others and where usage is both divided and hotly contested between the fans of both metric and imperial units. MOSNUM reflects this situation.

I believe the present policy could be improved with some copy editing. For example, "imperial units are still used in some contexts" is clearer and shorter than "imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts". Are there any comments or suggestions about this proposed change? Michael Glass (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the current wording is more correct. Older people in the UK still use imperial units in their personal life, e.g. feet and inches during DIY, or stones and pounds for their weight (I still do this!). But the "main" units in each case, in these cases the ones used by shops and by the medical profession, are metric. This is different from driving distances or beer glasses where the "main" units are imperial. So I would expect the order in which the units are given in a UK-based article would be different. For lengths of wood, say, it should be metric with an imperial conversion; for distance between towns, say, it should be imperial with a metric conversion. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not assume good faith in the case of Michael Glass due to previous editing history. If the word "main" is removed Glass will use the new policy to present ONLY metric units and not give conversions to customary units at all. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't edit to remove customary units and have only metric units. I have argued consistently for the need to provide both measurements, and my editing history is consistent with this belief. Michael Glass (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Or he might use it as an excuse to argue that the policy doesn't say that they should be the main units, and that therefore that metric units should be the main units instead. We certainly cannot assume that this is a mere copy-edit as suggested. Kahastok talk 17:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong. It was just a suggested copy edit. The expression "main unit" would still be in the policy. However, as you object, I won't push it any further. Michael Glass (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a clarification of an ambiguity (potential clash between two points of guidance relating to units): the section relating to British articles states that "in some contexts" it is appropriate to give primacy to imperial units, e.g. miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon (although it does not stipulate exactly what these contexts are, I assume the advice relates primarily to road transport). Shortly afterwards, the stlye guide states that "Nominal and defined quantities should be given in the original units first" (which I do not contest). In my experience (I am British), the UK has very mixed measurement traditions on some of these points (many distances are typically given in metric, often with no imperial equivalent, in daily British life, e.g. on OS maps, athletic events, hiking trails, and engineering/construction projects such as Crossrail) and I propose that the official policy on units in articles relating to Britain should be clarified to the following: Given the mixture of different measurement systems in use in contemporary British society, the main unit used in a given context should be the unit which is given primacy in the relevant primary sources. I view this as merely placing more emphasis on the second point that I quote above, namely that precedence should always be given to the original units, with any conversions clearly displayed as such, i.e. secondary or supplementary pieces of information. To extend the argument: if I were important enough to deserve my own Misplaced Pages page, and I gave information on my own height/weight in metric units (because that's what I prefer), would these figures need to be amended to prioritise Imperial, just because I'm British? Would changing my nationality exempt me from this rule? My point is that, given the confusing mess of units in use in the UK today, it's impossible to say in such a broad-brushed way that "when talking about subject X (distances, body dimensions, etc.) always use Imperial" - British people will use both, inconsistently. My proposed amendment is the only way I can see to steer clear of conflicts like the one on (for example) Talk:Edinburgh_Trams, where some editors understood the standing policy to mean that imperial units are always correct for distances, regardless of primary sources. In this case the primary source gave a metric distance with a very approximate imperial equivalent, because British construction and engineering use the metric system exclusively, whereas the editors flipped the unit conversion so that the Wiki page showed the converted value first, with the source value displayed alongside it as though it were a conversion. My disagreement with this was that it was misleading to readers about which was the primary value and which was the conversion, and it's not appropriate for editors of a neutral reference work to "interpret" its sources in such a way, by deciding that they know better than the source what the appropriate units are. Their counterargument centred on the wording of the style guide as it stands, rather than on the substance of my argument, which they didn't care to contest, so for that reason I think this is quite an uncontroversial proposal (i.e. source units determine Misplaced Pages units). If there are no strenuous objections to it, I'll add the wording in bold above as a caveat in the section on units for British articles. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need something like this. Although miles are still used on road signs, most measurements are in metric as archon as explained. Even our highways have metric measures on them although not on the road signs. Petrol at the petrol pump is only in litres, so why would we give primacy to gallons? I know that Google search results are dicy, but p petrol "miles per liter" gives about 1,430,000 results while we get about half that when we search for "miles" per gallon. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, gallons are long-due for retirement - they've not been used for fuel in the UK since the early '90s (I think only a tiny number of Caribbean islands still sell fuel by the Imperial gallon, and maybe Liberia). Fuel economy/consumption units are already a real mess on Misplaced Pages because there are so many competing conventions, including miles per US gallon (which is not directly comparable to the Imperial measurement because the US gallon is much smaller). I'd be against introducing "miles per litre" measurements because it's a very nonstandard unit (mixing metric/imperial in a unit is bad practice) and it's not used in car adverts/dealerships in the UK (which is to my knowledge the only country that has this particular measurement confusion of selling fuel in metric and measuring driving distances in imperial), and adding one more measurement convention is just to contribute so much more clutter to an article. The legal measurement in the UK is actually the metric one, which by law must be given in the standard international form of L/100 km or km/L (the former is used almost universally outside the UK and USA; India prefers the latter). The imperial MPG value is actually considered supplementary information. My (British) car manual uses L/100 km exclusively for describing fuel consumption. Given all this, I'm not sure how useful it actually is for Misplaced Pages to retain the MPG(imp) measurements, when the metric ones are at least as meaningful to British people (it's at least as easy to relate 100 km to your typical driving distances as it is to relate the imperial gallon to the amount of fuel you buy at the pump, arguably more so since most British people under 30 have minimal experience of Imperial volume measures). Anyway, we are a confused society slowly migrating towards the metric system, so it makes sense for articles about us to reflect this fact, even if this means they can't be 100% consistent in their preference of units (because we, as a country, are not). Archon 2488 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a serious problem with the wording of the passage:

• In non-science UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units (44 kilograms (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including
  • miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon;
  • feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight;
  • imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.
  • hands for horses and most other equines

Perhaps something got accidentally edited out somewhere between "miles" and "fuel consumption"?

As it is, it seems to say that miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption should be measured in miles per imperial gallon, which is obvious nonsense and clearly not intended. The main reason for the linguistic problem is that the introduction to the list talks of the use of units in some contexts but while the other UK exceptions to metric give the unit and the context, no context is given for "miles" and "miles per hour", making it somewhat useless. "Miles are used in some contexts" is not very helpful. We know that miles are not used in all contexts; so we want to know what context calls for the use of miles.

This is what I mean:

So it looks as if

• for miles per hour we should add something like " for road vehicle speeds", and
• for miles we should add something like "for road distances (but not in a scientific, civil-engineering or similar context)".

Perhaps the information should actually be presented as a table.--Boson (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very good suggestion. Looking back over the passage I agree that it is far too ambiguous about which contexts to use Imperial units in, and this has clearly resulted in confusion and unnecessary "unit wars". I'd also preface the table with the general proviso that, in cases of ambiguity or confusion, the primary source should determine the preference that is given to the unit, and that a conversion should not be presented as if it were a primary value, because this is disingenuous and a violation of common sense editorial policy. I don't think a general piece of advice to prefer Imperial in certain British contexts over-rules something as basic as that. My own preference for metric would not lead me to write something like "The maximum speed limit on British motorways is 110 kilometres per hour (70 mph)" because this is obviously silly; it's no less silly to do it the other way around in an article that relates to something in Britain which is metric (such as modern tramways). So if, per my example, I gave my weight in kg (or quoted the weight of another British person from a source which gave kg), a conversion into st/lb might be appropriate, but it should certainly not be given primacy over the initial value. Misplaced Pages is not the British tabloid press, slavishly converting metric to Imperial, to the ludicrous extent of writing things like "1100 yards" instead of "1 km" - it's not unreasonable for us to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that. MPG is officially deprecated in the UK as I described above, so I don't see why it should ever be given primacy over metric; the relevant official/legal figures are all in metric anyway, and if a conversion is strongly desired then it can be provided as supplementary information. Articles such as List_of_UK_fuel_economy_ratings give L/100 km precedence over MPG, presumably for this reason. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The concept of listing the unit from the source first, followed by any necessary conversions, has been repeatedly rejected in discussions on this talk page. An encyclopedia assembles information from diverse sources to produce a coherent, easy-to-read article. Changing style from sentence to sentence, or word to word, is for ransom notes, not encyclopedias. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I am not suggesting anything so silly as changing units repeatedly within an article. I am saying that the context is framed largely by primary sources: in the case of the tramline, the Edinburgh Council website gave priority to metric, with a very rough imperial equivalent - I don't understand why this was acceptable for Edinburgh Council but not a Misplaced Pages article. If the policy is designed to reflect the units that are used in real-life Britain then that is what it should do, and in this case the unit that was used was metric. What I am saying is that, in cases such as this, where the primary unit is metric, in the context of an area of British society where metric units predominate, that should be reflected in the choice of the primary unit to be used consistently within the article. A 10 km race is a 10 km race, not a "6.2 mile race", even if it is run in Britain. Presenting a conversion as if it were a source value is dishonest, and bad academic practice, because a conversion and a quoted (nominal) value are not the same thing. The existing version of the style guide says as much: Nominal and defined quantities should be given in the original units first, even if this makes the article inconsistent (in the case of the tram, 14 km was the nominal length given by the Council). Archon 2488 (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that - though consistency may occasionally be more important - the primary source is very often the most important consideration (and sometimes outweighs all other considerations). For instance

• when quoting a person's statement or legislation verbatim, it is essential to use the original units; other units may be inserted in square brackets (indicating that they are not in the original source).
• when paraphrasing a person's statement or legislation or referring to it directly (e.g. "according to . . .") the same should apply, though parentheses may be used, rather than square brackets.
• Even within an article, mixed usage may sometimes be necessary in order to correctly document the facts. This may appear inconsistent, but is actually consistent application of a slightly more complex (or less oversimplified) rule. For instance, in an article on transport in the UK, there might be a (direct or indirect) reference to an EU regulation (which has direct effect) that specifies a minimum length of 100 km or or a maximum speed of 50 km/h . The primary unit in this case should be metric. The same article might also refer to a UK act of parliament that uses miles, in which case miles would be the primary unit.

On the other hand, Misplaced Pages style should not depend on which (non-primary) source happens to be used to support a particular statement, which might lead to stating that one county council built 50 kilometres (31 mi) of new road while another council built (only) 30 miles (48 km).--Boson (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be miles per hour for all speeds and miles for all geographical distance. Otherwise we end up in the absurd position where two towns are 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) away, but 8 miles (13 km) away by road, or comparing a 200 km/h (120 mph) train with a 70 mph (110 km/h) car.

We don't need to worry about engineering in that case because it refers to geographical distances.

We should not be just following sources in all circumstances for all the reasons provided on innumerable occasions in the past (as the same editor has proposed it repeatedly).

In all cases, regardless of circumstances, directly or indirectly quoted units, nominal units or defined units, should respect the original versions. That means that a 10km race is a 10km race. If a regulation is in metric units, we give it in metric units, and if it is imperial units, we give it in imperial units. That's standard anyway and is not affected by this rule. But simply using a source for a measurement that is not nominal or defined, does not qualify.

I would dispute Archon's assertions about miles per gallon, which remain overwhelmingly more common in normal usage, despite the fact that fuel is sold in litres.

I'd add that the current wording is based on the style guide for the Times - chosen as the UK's newspaper of record. Unfortunately, it has been moved behind the paywall, but the most recent version before the paywall went up is available through the Wayback Machine here Kahastok talk 19:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"We should not be just following sources in all circumstances" yes, I agree, but if the source is the primary one, containing the original measurement which secondary sources like newspapers then quote (with or without conversion), then it makes sense to follow that source unless there is a very good reason not to. Perhaps I should not have put so much emphasis on slavishly following sources; in particular, the example I gave (Edinburgh trams) relates to something in Britain which is already metric (modern light railways). If roads are to be described in Imperial units, it is not obvious why this rule applies to railways, which are governed by different regulations. The Misplaced Pages pages on Crossrail correctly give precedence to the 42 km figure for tunnel lengths (for example), because this is the figure that has been given by Crossrail itself (I have read some of the press releases from Crossrail, and they seem to use metric units exclusively, which reinforces my point; this category of thing is metric in real-life Britain, so I don't understand why Misplaced Pages should be expected to Bowdlerise this by putting Imperial first).

I'm not convinced how appropriate it is to tie Misplaced Pages's style to the style of one particular newspaper. I have noticed that the British media have lately got much better at quoting metric units without insisting on Imperial conversions everywhere: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24133410 is an example (supplementary use of Imperial speed in the accompanying text but not in video).

I didn't say MPG wasn't used informally, I said it was legally quite deprecated. The law says: "Fuel consumption shall be expressed either in litres per 100 kilometres (1/100km) or kilometres per litre (km/l), and quoted to one decimal place, or, to the extent compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 80/181/EEC(1) in miles per gallon." (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/3523/schedule/1/made) - the effect of the cited piece of EEC legislation is to relegate Imperial measures to supplementary status. Given that the Imperial gallon has not been authorised for use in commerce since 1995, it's something of an anomaly that MPG is still used at all.

The "absurd position" you refer to is exactly the absurd position we're in in modern Britain; if Misplaced Pages reflects this, its only crime is being true to reality. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, modern usage would not normally put the distance between two settlements in kilometres in any circumstance. And if someone did, they wouldn't switch to miles depending on whether it measured was along a road or a footpath, or depending on whether it measured was along a road or a the crow flies. Whether it is along roads or not makes no difference. Britain uses a mixture of unit systems, but I can't think of a context where the distinctions are that fine.

If the source is primary, and the original measurement is nominal or defined, or quoted (either directly or indirectly), then we should respect the original measurement. I have not seen the Edinburgh trams article and don't intend to look, but it is difficult to imagine that it was designed deliberately to be exactly 12 kilometres long (for the sake of argument). At that stage, we are no longer dealing with a nominal or defined unit but can make our own choice. Your own suggestion seems to be that it is 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) long, all 7.5 miles (12 km) of which is along roads.

Trying to determine BBC usage is not really useful, since they tend to be entirely inconsistent. For every usage of kilometres you can cite, others can cite miles. Unless you can actually cite a BBC style guide, there's not a lot we can reasonably deduce.

In terms of miles per gallon, the standard means of doing this is based on usage, not legislation. This is as applied all over Misplaced Pages. There are several newspapers out there, some primarily using metric, others primarily using imperial. The Times is most appropriate because it is newspaper of record. It is also a useful source (so we're not basing this on our own opinions and prejudices) that actively tries to document modern usage rather than dogmatically insisting upon one system or the other. Kahastok talk 20:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"We don't need to worry about engineering in that case because it refers to geographical distances"

That's OK if everybody makes the same distinction between civil engineering and geography. It's one thing to talk about the distance between two locations in miles; that's the sort of thing you expect on road signs for the public. Similarly, you might talk about a river being a mile wide. However, once you start building bridges and railways, or even roads, you are talking civil engineering. So you expect the longest span of a bridge, the length of a bridge, the cost per unit of building a railway, distances along a motorway for maintenance purposes, and other civil engineering entities to be measured using metric units, rather than yards or miles. To me, this appears unclear in the current wording of the guideline. --Boson (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what I am suggesting. With British civil engineering projects such as Crossrail, which are entirely metric, it's jarring to start talking about miles and yards, simply because these are the units that, in their wisdom, the DfT has decreed that we shall see on our national road system. I question the rationale behind preferring a certain unit because it "sounds" more British - this is like Americans talking about engine displacement in the "all-American" unit of cu. in., when the reality is that their car industry metricated in the 1980s and uses cm like everywhere else. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you pull out the "sounds more British" nonsense. No one here or anywhere else has said any such nationalist tosh. Nevertheless, I don't give a damn if metric takes priority, as long as an Imperial conversion is given. RGloucester — 📬 23:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Archon and Boson are putting sensible arguments for updating. WP should not be behind the changing usage in the UK, nor in front of it. And what elderly people do is really a weak argument—many elderly people will never change, and that's too bad. We have a conversion article, don't we? I don't see temperatures mentioned in this thread. Tony (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Archon may have plenty of sense, but he also has plenty of nonsense. I don't disagree with his argument, other than his repeated assertions about "sounds more British" and "ye olde englyshe units" (this was at the Edinburgh Trams article). It hurts his position, and I don't know why he insists on repeating it. Metric can take priority, except for road speeds, road distances, personal heights and personal weights, and I doubt anyone would care. But some people prefer Imperial, so an Imperial conversion should always be given alongside metric units. As long are both are there consistently, I'm sure there will not be a problem. All the MOS needs to do is clarify when to use miles. That's easy: road speeds and road distances. RGloucester — 📬 00:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was trying to give an idea of the impression that Imperial units create when they intrude in contexts where they are simply not appropriate (like modern civil engineering in the UK). If it's in the USA and the original units are actually pound-feet per second and whatnot, then fair enough. My point was that translating primary measurements into a language you think is more "contextually appropriate" is pretentious in the specific sense that it tries to emulate a certain perception of "standard practice" within a culture, without actually reflecting what that practice is, in the real world (e.g. maintaining the pretense that Americans will always describe things in US Customary units, even if the American industry in question is actually metric). I am sorry for paraphrasing like this, but I'm trying to convey a rather abstract point; it's the disparity between real-world use and descriptions on e.g. Misplaced Pages that I am calling pretentious (for want of a better word, and I understand that my choice of word is open to objection). This is also what I call trying to "sound" British (again, for want of a better way of putting it), because it's the way a hypothetical British person would presumably express it. RGloucester also said (again, on the Edinburgh tram page) that a reason to prefer the converted Imperial was that "it reads better to the ear" - this is a prime example of what I am rightly or wrongly calling "pretentious" and "trying to sound British". I don't understand why a converted value in decimal miles "reads better to the ear" than a round number in kilometres.

Why should Imperial always take priority for personal heights and weights (this is what I understand you to mean)? Like I say, I've always measured my own body using the metric system, and this is what any healthcare professional in modern Britain will do (try to calculate your BMI directly from Imperial height/weight if you want to see why). Do I fail to meet the arbitrary criteria of Britishness set by the Misplaced Pages manual of style? If I became a naturalised Australian citizen (for the sake of example) would I then be entitled to have my weight and bodily dimensions expressed primarily in the units that are most meaningful to me? I'm trying to illustrate the shortcomings of such a blunt policy.

I'm not sure what Tony1 expects us to discuss about temperature; it's one of the less controversial cases. In my experience, everyone in the UK talks about the weather in Celsius, and any modern British oven will use Celsius temperature markings. Fahrenheit is extremely deprecated in modern British life, and in the world today it's used near-exclusively by Americans. Archon 2488 (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Sounds better to the ear" merely means that it will automatically register more clearly in the mind. That is because road distances are primary use of long distance measurements for a layman, and for those we use Imperial. So, to a layman, wouldn't it make more sense to use Imperial, wouldn't they be more familiar? Never once would I question your Britishness, whatever that may mean. I don't even consider myself British, but that's another story entirely.

As far as weights are concerned, we need some kind of standard to hold to for sake encyclopedic consistency. I don't think you can doubt that personal weights are usually done in stone/pounds. We can't bend to desires of everyone who happens to be described in article, one which way, and then have a mess all over the place. You'd choose to list your weight in kilos, and I'd choose 斤 (Kin). That's not how it works. We have to have a standard, whether it be metric or imperial. That standard needs to be understandable and familiar to Joe Bloggs, as I said before. Not the elite up in an ivory tower. I don't care, to be honest, which one it is. But you're not making sense, and you are being bombastic. RGloucester — 📬 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the basic reasoning for using non-metric units first on topics that have strong ties to certain English-speaking countries is that residents of those countries are presumed to be more likely to read the articles than other people. So the hypothesis is that a story about Catherine Ashton or Samuel Pepys is more likely to be read by British people than others, so if the height or weight of these subjects is mentioned, the first units should be those that British people most often use for personal heights and weights. The preferences of the subject of the article are irrelevant. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be geographic distances excluding articles related to civil engineering FWIW.

I was otherwise just going to point out that we don't need to deal with the whole "sounds more British" bit because we have the Times style guide, which we can base this on, and that while distance along roads may be "primary use of long distance measurements for a layman", it's not the primary use of long distance measurements in Misplaced Pages, and we're better dealing with the latter. People don't change systems depending on whether the distance is measured along a road or not - it's miles regardless. Kahastok talk 06:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If we are to refer to the Times Guide we should bear in mind this quotation from it:

"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."

It is all very well to quote the letter of the Times guide to say we shouldn't put metric measures for this or that while ignoring the spirit of the Times, which is to keep abreast with the gradual change towards metric use in the UK. I believe that it is a mistake to use the Times Guide as a diktat to tell editors what they should and shouldn't do. Other style guides are both more metric and less than the Times, so using the Times guide to forbid other usages that are accepted by these other bodies, is, frankly, a nonsense. No-one is making a fuss because an area of land is described in acres or hectares so why not allow the same freedom with regard to people's heights and weights, especially when the BBC and many sporting organisations give metric heights and weights for their players? This could be achieved by simply changing a few words in the present policy from this:

• imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including....

to this:

• imperial units can still be used as the main units in some contexts, including....

I believe that this small change in wording would address the concerns that have been raised by Archon 2488 and Boson here. It would not stop editors from putting consistency first in cases where different sources use different units. Michael Glass (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is my point exactly. Given that British people are not consistent in the real world, I question the wisdom of a Misplaced Pages policy that would lead us to Bowdlerise this fact by imposing a facade of Imperial use to cover up the creeping advance of metrication. As Michael Glass points out, heights and weights are consistently given in metric by the BBC in relation to sport - does this fall foul of our hypothetical "British style"? I fear that imposing a hard Imperial-always-first rule will actually lead to Misplaced Pages falling behind the trend towards increasing metric use in British society; in such a case, where the real world is not consistent, I don't see how an encyclopedia can easily reconcile the objectives of being true to real life and being internally consistent; my argument is that the former objective should generally trump the latter, within reason (internal consistency is hardly irrelevant and I am not trying to imply that).

As for mph vs. km/h, it's not "miles regardless" because there are cases of inconsistent use in the UK such as this beautiful example: http://citytransport.info/Digi/P1020084.jpg - this is a sign from the Tyne & Wear Metro, where it shares track with mainline trains. The speed limit signs in the circle are mph for mainline trains, whereas the metric speed limit in the hexagonal lozenge is for the metro trains (because, like other modern rail projects in the UK such as Crossrail, it's metric through and through). Insisting on Imperial-first would create a veneer of uniform and consistent Imperial use at the expense of fidelity to the real world; I am unconvinced that this is a price worth paying in any work of reference.

Regarding distances, it's not about "the distance between A and B" expressed variously in miles or km depending on how you travel; the total length of track in a rail system is a fact about a civil engineering project, not a distance between two points in Britain. The total length of London Underground track, as well as Tyne & Wear Metro track, is given in metric first for exactly this reason. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The BBC is far more complicated than that. When was the last time you heard a sports commentator give a player's dimensions in metric units? They don't. It's always in imperial.

My point about distances is that a lot of our distances are not measured along roads, they're measured point to point. Nothing to do with engineering at all. The distance from London to Edinburgh is 330 miles - as the crow flies. The distance from Scotland to Northern Ireland is 13 miles - there's no road. The Isle of Wight is about 25 miles from east to west. You would not expect these measurements to be in kilometres in normal usage. You would not drive 405 miles to cover the 535 kilometres from London to Edinburgh. Kahastok talk 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea of using "source based units" as an idea has been rejected out of hand for as long as I've been a wikipedia editor. There is a very good reason why we don't use it, it leads to an inconsistent article. A rather obvious example for some time was Munro, specifically this earlier draft . If we take the earlier draft as an example, it shows all of the worst excesses that such a policy would result in. First of all it starts by giving the definition of a Munro as a Scottish mountain with a height greater than 3000 ft (914.4 m). It then switched half way through to for example "Ben Lomond, 974 m (3,196 ft)" and then switched back to 449,000 ft (137,000 m). There are also other problems with the earlier version for example the excessive precision in some of the conversions. We have had a policy for sometime on UK specific articles reflecting local usage. The majority of measurements given the metric system preference, with the exception of a few common measures that are still predominantly in imperial first. We ask editors to edit to this style guide so there is a consistent look and feel to wikipedia's articles. However, there are a number of editors who simply don't like this policy and have consistently edited counter to it and have exploited any ambiguity in the policy to justify their edits. Hence, specifically I would oppose this change in wording, because long and bitter experience of clearing up edits like Munro leads me to conclude that those editors would exploit any such flexibility in wording in a disruptive manner. Often it seems that people forget why wikipedia exists, it exists to present information to our readers in a clear and consistent manner (which is why we have a style guide). And hence the community decided sometime ago the units policy would be to follow local usage. We also give a unit conversion so that the data is also relevant to non-natives. I personally believe this to be a more than reasonable compromise and I can fully understand the community's impatience when the subject of a policy suggestion repeatedly rejected is raised yet again. If there is to be an exception for say civil engineering, then I am quite happy for the guidelines to add this to the list of exceptions rather than watering down the guideline as suggested. Simply because where consistency is key requirement for a policy such ambiguity is unhelpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"The idea of using "source based units" as an idea has been rejected out of hand" - yes, my position has evolved a lot on this, as you can see if you follow the thread above. I now understand that I should not have put so much emphasis on sources when there are other important considerations, especially the subject matter of the article. Your example illustrates this very well: in an article on Munros it is desirable to emphasise feet for elevation measure, because the current definition of a Munro (3000 ft) dates from a time when elevations of terrain in Britain were measured in feet. In this case it's less important that modern British sources will reflect the current practice of measuring elevations in metres. I certainly have no intention of disrupting articles by starting "unit wars" and the like, and I stopped editing as soon as I became aware that this touched on a controversial point. My only proposal is that the wording be clarified in some way (the suggestion of a table is a good one, I feel), so that confusions like this over the interpretation of the style guide are less likely to arise. The volume of comments here is a testament to how controversial and confusing the standing version is.

For the exact same reason as one would talk about Munros in feet, however, it follows that in the context of a modern civil engineering project which is metric (as, I daresay, all modern British engineering projects are), it makes sense to emphasise metric units to be consistent with the subject matter of the article, even if this departs from a more general provision that miles be preferred for measurement of long distances (such as geographical distances) in British contexts. If we're talking about a modern road bridge designed in metric units, I am saying that it makes sense to give its length and main span firstly in metres or km rather than decimal miles, yards or feet (this is the convention correctly used at, for example, Forth_Road_Bridge and Queensferry_Crossing). Likewise track lengths in metres or kilometres, rather than miles or feet - I think that measuring track length is much more analogous with measuring a bridge's length (or the dimensions of any other engineering project - Superconducting_supercollider gives the planned tunnel dimensions in metric first, even though it was an American project, because the metric value was the design specification) than with measuring, say, the distance between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that We Curry Monster has raised the issue of the Munro article. Yes, his edits have attempted to remedy the issue of having different units in different places. However, his efforts have created their own problems. One sentence contained this before WCM worked on it:

Beinn a' Chlaidheimh was found to be 914 metres (2,998 ft 8.3 in), 40 centimetres (1 ft 4 in) short of the Munro mark.

WCM flipped the display and lessened the precision of the conversion, so we got this:

Beinn a' Chlaidheimh was found to be 2,999 feet (914 m), 1 foot (40 cm) short of the Munro mark.

Then another editor, annoyed at the obvious mismatch between 40cm and 1 foot, amended this so it read:

Beinn a' Chlaidheimh was found to be 2,999 feet (914 m), 1 foot (30 cm) short of the Munro mark.

Perhaps the first version was over-precise, but the other versions became less and less true to the source. In this case the measuring was done in metric terms and it would make more sense to base the text on the actual measures that were made.

WCM says that style should be clear and consistent, yet WCM's edits to Munro make that article less compliant with MOSNUM, for feet for heights are not amongst the exceptions to the metric general rule. My point is that if MOSNUM is to be used as a straitjacket, it applies in both directions. So if all UK heights and weights must be Imperial first because MOSNUM says so, then UK acres and square miles must take second place to hectares and square kilometres, because neither are mentioned in MOSNUM as exceptions. I believe that we would be better to leave it to the good sense of editors to decide when the units should be put first, because UK usage is divided.

Once again, my proposal is to change the wording so that it reads:

• imperial units can still be used as the main units in some contexts, including....

This is not source based units. It's just a way of getting a policy straitjacket off the backs of editors like - dare I say it - WCM? Michael Glass (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am simply going to make the generic comment that focusing on individual editors and personalising matters is deepy unhelpful. A matter of a few inches may mean a lot in some circumstances but in the context of a 3000 ft mountain the obsession with such precision is perhaps misplaced.

Returning to the matter at hand, the volume of comment is not indicative of the controversy over the policy but perhaps more indicative of a certain zealotry in the advocacy of the metric system. I remain bemused by the obsession about unit order that leads some editors to return time and again with the same suggestion. Such persistence is not helpful and it has entrenched attitudes, which probably goes further in explaining the volume of comment. Hence, for some time I've avoided WT:MOSNUM as the heat and light simply isn't worth it.

As a professional enginer, my personal preference would be to favour the metric system in engineering articles. I tend to agree with the suggestion that engineering articles should follow the lines suggested; especially in a modern context. However, as with all guidelines the devil will be in the detail. For example Brunel worked in the imperial system, so for examples such as the Clifton Suspension Bridge the guidance suggested may be inappropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

To add, if Archon could suggest some improvements to policy I think some fresh input would valuable but having said my piece my intention is to step aside and allow others to comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That's just going for the "can is not must" argument again. That as the rule would say that imperial units can be the main units rather than that they are the main units you can then go around mass-metricating.

As to the point at hand, need we point out that 3000 feet in Munro falls under nominal or defined units (in that a Munro is defined as a mountain taller than 3000 feet in Scotland), and therefore that this rule does not apply at all? Practically else in the article is being compared with that height - 3000 feet. Kahastok talk 16:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So, if I'm to understand this correctly...it is proposed that for modern civil engineering projects which were drawn up in metric, these should always display metric units as primary. However, for historical projects done in Imperial, those should display Imperial as primary. In other words, the style guide should have an addendum to its existing policy with regards to civil engineering in the UK. I would not be opposed to this. RGloucester — 📬 15:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we shouldn't single out individual editors and edits, especially since the existing policy has managed to cause a considerable amount of confusion across the board. A high volume of comments is par for the course in any discussion of metrication in Britian (in my own experience), maybe because of "zealotry", but also in no small measure because of frustration at the absolutely glacial pace of our country's metrication, which leads to unnecessary silliness like the railway speed limit signs I posted above, as well as absurd road signs like http://www.bwmaonline.com/383%20yards.jpg which exist because the outdated DfT regulations consider that to be more meaningful to the UK public than the equivalent "350 m" sign you would see almost anywhere else on Earth. It is precisely this "measurement muddle" that makes it so hard for us to agree on a coherent units policy for British articles.

This is also the country where, as recently as ten years ago, the Active Resistance to Metrication folks were going around vandalising public signs that they deemed to be "un-British" because they displayed metres instead of yards, so they put up extremely unhelpful signs in their place which gave distances (at least occasionally) in furlongs. Clearly there is no small amount of "zealotry" among those who favour the status quo, to say nothing of journalists who are content to cause further mischief by misinforming the public about the metric system, like "we'll be forced to ask for 0.568 litres of beer", "Shylock didn't ask for 454 grams of flesh" and "the EU is forcing it on us" (all in recent history, but the hysteria seems to have died down a lot now, except perhaps in the minds of certain sectors of the British tabloid press, who remain convinced that centimetres cause cancer). My point is that, in this cultural climate, it's unsurprising that any discussion about metrication can quickly become heated. I wish we could have transitioned quickly and painlessly in the '70s like Australia, SA and NZ, but that sadly never happened.

Regarding older engineering projects, I agree that the primary dimensions can be given in Imperial if the original design was Imperial; this is in keeping with the theme and feel of the article (e.g. talking about pre-1960s British trams primarily in feet, inches, miles, long tons and so on, is acceptable by my proposed criterion). My main concern was with articles that relate to things in contemporary Britain, where metric units predominate for virtually all engineering purposes (including, in this case, modern tramways and light railways). I would also like to emphasise that I have withdrawn my support for "source based units" as such; my concern with the source in the case I cited was secondary, because the source reflected the custom, in this part of British life, of using metric units (this was actually my primary concern, and I realise that I have not always explained it very well). So if we were to clarify the existing list by making a table, it might say something like "miles, mph - for geographical distances, road journeys and road vehicle speeds; other vehicle speeds where contextually appropriate (e.g. an older train system which uses imperial speed limits)". Archon 2488 (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If we are making proposals, I would suggest that the first bullet point be changed to:

• Miles for geographic distance, miles per hour for speed, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon; articles on civil engineering projects that were conceived in metric should use metric units

Alternatively to replace with table format (with context first):

with a footnote appended to the first two: "except in articles concerning civil engineering projects conceived in metric units". Kahastok talk 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd add that if the agreement above is that we're doing miles for all appropriate distances (i.e. without the "geographical" qualifier) that aren't in civil engineering articles, that's fine with me. Kahastok talk 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the tabular format. The problem lies with wording for UK articles that can be read as a diktat to use this unit or that, regardless of context. Because UK usage is mixed, orders to use this unit or that are simply unworkable. The discussion above concentrated on exceptions to a proposed rule about engineering articles. We need wording that can not be read as an order to use a particular unit. There will always be exceptions. Simply changing the wording from "are still used" to "can still be used" or "can be used" would achieve this aim. With a tabular form it would look like this:

• In non-science UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units (44 kilograms (97 lb)), but imperial units can still be used as the main units in some contexts, including:

I believe that this wording would work for all, whatever their views on units of measure. Michael Glass (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Now, as I said, I don't care myself. But that won't work it all, because it gives justification for someone with metric tendencies to go around and make everything metric. I think we should leave the existing wording, merely adding a civil engineering caveat, whereby those projects done in metric are given in metric. This makes the most sense given the complaints here. Of course, we should also make clear that there are exceptions to rules, and that is not a hard and fast rule in every case. RGloucester — 📬 22:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Metric tendencies? I love it! But never fear: Misplaced Pages also has those with Imperial tendencies, who go round disp flipping displays so that their beloved measures come first. The present wording plays into the hands of those who want to force Imperial units on articles even when all the sources use metric measures. It is also open to being used to force the use of metric units despite Imperial sources of information. There is, however, a provision in the present wording to stop these silly games. It's a footnote that says:

If there is disagreement about the main units used in a UK-related article, discuss the matter on the article talk-page, at MOSNUM talk, or both. If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the main units. Note the style guides of British publications such as Times Online (under "Metric")

Perhaps this should be given more prominence instead of being confined to a footnote. However, what we don't need is a diktat to force metric (or Imperial) measures to go first when they are not appropriate. Michael Glass (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come off it Michael. Let's remember which editor it was here who is responsible for these particular metric POV pushes: . And you're still going through article converting imperial units to metric - this was three days ago (albeit in a context where metric is accepted by MOSNUM).

When it comes down to it, when you say "this wording would work for all", what you mean is that it would work for you, in that it would allow you to insist "can is not must" and continue your campaign of mass-metrication. If there are people wanting to "force" any kind of units, it's generally you forcing metric. There is a reason why we've already got people saying they "do not assume good faith in the case of Michael Glass due to previous editing history", a sentiment I endorse.

There is nothing wrong with flipping units as WP:UNITS requires. We don't have source-based units - as you well know - so the fact that the system chosen in the sources don't always match the units in the articles is entirely irrelevant. I oppose your proposal entirely. Kahastok talk 07:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, Even when I put cited information into Misplaced Pages in a context when metric is accepted by MOSNUM you still attack me for doing so. Other editors here will note what this reveals about you. Michael Glass (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that said other editors look at all the diffs as provided, compare the changes made with WP:UNITS (which I note was has not substantively changed in the intervening period) and come to their own conclusions. Kahastok talk 12:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In general I have to say I would be willing to see the original proposal broadened significantly. In the UK, modern engineering uses SI units and has for some time. Hence, in a modern context I would suggest a broader definition to cover engineering in general; provided there was a caveat to cover the historical context identified earlier. Noting the science exemption, engineering is in the same context.

That said, any amendment loosening the language where the refrain "can is not must" can be used I would oppose. Sadly I have to observe that experience has demonstrated that any such loosening of the wording would be exploited by editors to edit in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of the policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

IIRC there always used to be a separate rule saying that articles on science and engineering would use the units prevalent in those fields. That would put Spitfire design in imperial and modern British engineering in metric. To be clear I remain happy with my original proposal or similar, without Michael's rewording, and with RGloucester's proposal to simply add the engineering caveat.

We could resolve this by simply adding engineering related topics, and saying to use the units of original design (where known). This is as recommended for example by WikiProject Aviation.

It should be restricted to articles rather than contexts, the same as the rule on scientific topics. This avoids the faff of people turning up on topics not about engineering at all and insisting that anything that was originally engineered must be metric (the geography-is-a-science-so-miles-are-banned argument). Kahastok talk 09:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Since geography is science and in many UK-oriented geographical-type articles use metric units followed by imperial units in brackets, the use of the word "geographical" should be used with extreme caution. Martinvl (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that a "modern engineering in general" caveat is in order, just as it already is for science. As long as Imperial is used for historical projects done in Imperial, this should be the way it is set up. With regards to "geographic distances", I think we should leave the present exceptions alone, except for to add the engineering caveat. That gives us more flexibility. I also suggest moving the footnote about consensus, which should instead be placed right next to these guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 13:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an important point. The original purpose of the word "geographical" was to emphasise "not including lengths of track, etc." because things like the total track length in the London Underground, or the total length of tunnels in Crossrail, are not distances between points in Britain. Miles might be the norm for giving distances between settlements in the UK in most contexts, however in an article of a more formal geographical nature there might well be a legitimate reason to prioritise metric units. In such a case, there could be a danger of further unit wars because of editors who insist on sticking to the letter of the units policy.

Criticising Michael Glass for the hectare edit is odd - he improved the accuracy of the figure used in the article, and hectares are officially used in the UK, widely used in modern British media, and completely permitted in all contexts by this style guide, so I don't see why this is a problem.

Anyway, to criticise his proposal because of his history is leaning towards a genetic fallacy, if not actually committing it. The point he's making is that creating too inflexible a policy can end up causing unreasonable results, like forcing editors to prefer Imperial when most or all real-life sources would prefer metric (I mean in cases where metric is used almost universally in real life, not "source-based units" which, I reiterate, I now see to be a bad idea). My assumption is that newspaper style guides (such as the Times's) would allow enough wiggle room in their interpretation to avoid this sort of problem. I would also assume and hope that editors would have the sense to determine what is a "non-science related" article, and apply these rules only to such articles. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the point I was raising when I said "geographical" was to avoid telling people that the length of a table should be 0.001 miles. Kahastok talk 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No one is criticising him for that reason. I've already said that the footnote that already exists which makes it clear that these are not hard and fast rules should be given more prominence. The problem is that his wording would allow editors to make Imperial secondary in every case, even in those when Imperial makes more sense. Instead, the existing guideline outside engineering should remain. Miles are normally used for distances (not "geographical" distances) and so on. Geography special-cases would be covered by the "science exception" already. Perhaps a note about that could be added. Engineering can be added as an addendum to the science exception, whereby for UK engineering projects done in metric, the units are listed in metric. If it was historically done in Imperial, it should be in Imperial. This seems to make the most sense. Can we add this in without controversy? RGloucester — ☎ 14:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I should make it clear that it is not my intention to force metric units in every UK article. The only time I think it can be justified is when metric units are used by local British sources of information. My experience has been that UK articles frequently have information that is not cited and which may be at variance with an authoritative source of information. In that case I think it is perfectly in order to put in a citation and align the information in the text with the source. I can't see how saying that Imperial units can be used in certain contexts means the opposite. Finally, I can't see that source based units are a threat. If we don't base our units on reliable sources, what do we base them on? Michael Glass (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you are going to continue to push your POV using a principle that has been rejected on innumerable occasions when you have proposed it here? Kahastok talk 15:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Your "other words" are yours, not mine. I repeat: it is not my intention to force metric units in every UK article. If you want to blame me for edits I did two years ago, (and which still stand) so be it, but attacking me for editing in accordance with MOSNUM is not acceptable. Michael Glass (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the controversy that this causes, a certain degree of prescription is beneficial as it removes some of the scope for argument over the rules. All Misplaced Pages rules are subject to consensus if there is a good reason to ignore them.

Cases of scientific articles are already covered, but the problem arises when an editor shows up and announces that it means miles are outright not allowed to be first in any circumstance that is even vaguely geographical. That argument is against both the spirit and letter of the rule ("science-related articles") but that doesn't stop them. We should be careful to avoid leaving too much scope for such spurious arguments.

As I note in the message I've put above, the point behind calling it "geographical" distance is to exclude distances such as the lengths of extension cables or similar cases where miles are clearly inappropriate.

I think we should add a general exception like the science one for all modern engineering-related articles - whatever the country - based on the units actually used by the engineers. What constitutes "modern" can probably be left to common sense. Kahastok talk 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we're starting to say much the same thing - make the footnote more prominent, and expand the scope of the exemption from prioritising Imperial in British articles to include modern engineering as well as science. In practice this would cover pretty much anything engineered in Britain since the 1960s (such as the Sheffield_Supertram - I note that this article currently uses miles for track length, and it also uses the Imperial convention for gauge width, which would have made sense in talking about Brunel, but is horribly anachronistic for something designed and built in the 1990s). The table design adds clarity and I like it. The word "geographical" is likely to cause confusion and objection so I propose rephrasing to make its meaning more explicit: something like "distances between points/settlements in Britain and distances travelled on road/rail" with the explicit proviso that this would apply only to non-science/engineering articles, of course. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should make the footnote more prominent (I'm not keen on giving too much wiggle-room because I want to avoid dispute over what the rule means) and I am not happy with "distances between points/settlements in Britain and distances travelled on road/rail". We should use miles for all distances where miles are appropriate in terms of magnitude (including, but not limited to, distances between points/settlements in Britain and distances travelled on road/rail) except in science- or engineering-related articles as discussed.

I'm also saying that the "exemption" should not be saying use SI or metric, but that it should be saying to use whatever units the engineers used. If an engineer in Britain in the 1990s was using feet, we should use feet. I'm also saying that that point should be being made worldwide. It should apply equally to American, Australian, Canadian or Indian engineering - if the engineers used non-metric units (because it was before their country switched to metric, or, shoot, because the engineers were in the mood), Misplaced Pages should use non-metric units. If the engineers used metric units, we should use metric units. Kahastok talk 15:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Nice to see you're speaking up for source based units, Kahastok. Michael Glass (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not. The fact that you can find a source that gives the wingspan of a Supermarine Spitfire in metres would not change the fact that we would be giving it in feet. Kahastok talk 15:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Googling "supermarine spitfire specs" brings up imperial measurements first. I have no problem with putting imperial measurements first in this instance. This is a straw man argument. Michael Glass (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it pretty much sums your conduct in the past, where you would always choose a metric-based source over an imperial source, regardless of circumstance. If you think your own arguments are weak enough to be straw men, perhaps you should stop making them. Kahastok talk 14:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, yours was the straw man argument. Inferior sources are soon detected and removed; it's the metric sources that get you going. If you find a better source of information than I do, please provide it. Michael Glass (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we are agreed that basing the units on sources should not mean that different (primary) units are used for the same purpose in the same article; so - except in exceptional circumstances - we should not have an article giving the height of one mountain in feet and another in metres. But I don't think this necessarily precludes the use of different units for different purposes - in the same article. For this reason, I think we need to refer to the purpose or "context" where the unit is used rather than the topic of the article (as I understand Kahastok's comments). I understand the desire to have things set in stone, to avoid what is sometimes perceived as gaming the system and I agree that consistency is an important goal, but I think sometimes apparent inconsistency is appropriate and editorial judgement is necessary. For instance an article on a civil engineering project such as the Forth Road Bridge should give the total length as "2,512 metres (8,241 ft)" but the speed limit for driving on the bridge should be given in mph, and there is an argument for allowing statements like "the bridge shortens the road journey from A to B by x miles"; the same applies the other way round. This may partly reflect a (sometimes subtle) difference between the concepts of length and distance. So I think basing the primary unit on the article topic is taking it a bit too far. Personally, I think the word "context" achieves the right balance, but perhaps some other wording can be found to take account of articles that deal with both civil engineering topics (such as bridges or motorways)and non-engineering topics (such as the surrounding country or journeys). The Times style guide also says try not to mix the two systems in a single article", i.e consistency within an article is one goal, but it may not always be possible. --Boson (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If the footnote is there already, I'm not sure what substantive changes to policy would be introduced simply by moving it without changing its content. If Kahastok's fear is that people will be more likely to see the footnote when it's placed more prominently, then the problem is with its content and not its position. I am content with "use miles where order of magnitude is appropriate".

The "exemption" would effectively mean that the article is governed by more general rules on unit choice, rather than the specifically-British rules. This would, strictly speaking, take the article out of the scope of this conversation - all we are debating here is whether or not articles that relate to modern British engineering are exempt from the provisions of the style guide that relate to unit choice in British articles. Given that modern British science and engineering don't use feet, foot-pounds, slugs etc., Kahastok's point about using the engineers' units first is technically correct but quite academic. In the real world, the units will be SI in (I daresay) every case. We've already agreed (I think...) that it's OK for older engineering to be discussed primarily in the original units, with metric conversions secondary. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I can see your point and I'd agree in principle with the unit choice in the descriptions provided. My concern is people turning around and saying, ah, this single engineering-related context in an otherwise non-engineering-related article means that we have to go with what I want rather than following the general rule. I speak from experience with the science exception - we've had an editor in one of the topic areas I edit repeatedly insisting that geography is scientific and therefore that all measurements of geographical features (including point-to-point distances on non-scientific UK-related articles) must be not just metric-first but metric-only.

That said, it seems to me that we are actually talking about something different that we would not phrase in the same way as the science exception, and that we would still need conversions. We might start with:

General rules

• In science-related articles: generally use only SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, and specialized units that are used in some sciences. US Customary and imperial units are not required.
• When discussing modern engineering projects, generally put the units used by the original engineers first, followed by conversions into SI, US customary or imperial units as normal.

In the case of roads, I think it would seem odd - even if the road was originally designed in metric units - to put kilometres first when the the most visible indications of the length of the road and the distances along the road (the road signs) are all in miles. The same could equally apply the other way around in countries like Australia or Canada. We are likely to also have cases where a single road may have been designed in one system originally, but additions were added in another system. So we might say something like,

• For lengths of roads or distances along roads, put the primary units used on the road signs first, followed by conversions as normal.

Thoughts? Kahastok talk 15:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see that the criteria for science articles are understandably somewhat stricter than would be desirable for engineering articles. For things like roads and railways that require ongoing engineering work (maintenance, expansion, etc.) it generally makes sense to prioritise the current units rather than the original ones (so the London Underground track length is described in km because it's the unit that modern engineers would use, even though the system obviously predates metrication by a very long time). Similarly, it would not make sense to describe pre-metric roads in Australia using primarily the original units, since nobody in modern Australia (engineer or layperson) would do that. If it's always been metric (e.g. Sheffield Supertram, Tyne & Wear Metro) I see no compelling argument for giving imperial priority. The primary source of technical information aimed at the public gives metric units only (http://www.supertram.com/technical.html) so I don't think it's appropriate for the relevant Misplaced Pages article to lean so heavily towards imperial (the Supertram article actually uses converted imperial values as primary for track lengths, and shows the metric as a conversion, even in the source, which I think is very bad practice).

British roads are the hardest case here, and might even merit a special category of their own, because as you say they are described differently by engineers and laypeople, perhaps the only road system in the world with this complication. I don't think it would do harm to make British people more aware of this divide, given that a common counterargument against metrication of the road system is that it would involve extensive and expensive redesigns, which is obviously not the case when the technical descriptions are all metric anyway. I'm saying that I'd like there to be some way of drawing attention to the fact that the metric figures are actually primary, without insisting that they have to go first, if people find this objectionable. I realise this is a tall order, and I'd like to focus on getting a consensus on trams/light railways for now, because I feel it's much less controversial. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think it is relatively simple. We merely add the following addendum.

• In UK engineering-related articles, generally use the system of units that the system was devised in, whether it be metric or Imperial. Provide conversions where appropriate.
• Road distances and speeds are an exception to this, and should always be given in Imperial units.
• Bridges and tunnels should be given in the system of units that they were drawn up in, even if they are used by a road.

I am concerned that people are talking about extending this past UK articles. This guideline should only be for the UK. Not for Australia, or whatever else. It would be housed in the British part of the MoS as the present exceptions are. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree OK, this seems like a reasonable consensus position. I am content to draw a line here, as it seems that everything to be said on the subject has already been said.

UK guidelines are for the UK only, correct. Nonetheless it's sensible to compare the general principles at work with those that would be used to write articles that relate to other countries, just to ensure basic commonsense consistency on the fundamental principles. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for this very stimulating discussion. I have been having trouble sleeping at night, but a quick scroll through this and I am out like a light. You people really need to get out more.176.12.107.140 (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've put a sample of how I think the revised style guide section should look in my sandbox. RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

May I make a few suggestions:

• The section on science-related articles should give explicit rules for geographical articles - namely metric units followed optionally by imperial units in parenthesis.
• The section on road signs should make explicit exceptions for situations where metric units that are displayed on road signs are cited - weight limits for example are cited in tonnes, not long tons, while driver location signs explicitly cite distances in kilometres.

I have misgivings about overview articles that extend beyond the limits of science and engineering defaulting to "non-sciences" or "non-engineering" usage of units where the section concerned has a "Main" hat note. Martinvl (talk) 10:37 pm, Today (UTC+1)

That's fine, but what you are proposing is separate. I did not change anything other than to add an engineering exception. Your changes would alter the original wording of the section, which is something different. If you'd like to do this I suggest you make a new section here and start a new proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 21:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain what I'm doing here. I'm not proposing that we change the existing non-science criteria, which you will note that I left alone. Merely expanding the science caveat to engineering. I'd like to take things one at a time. To start with, this will address the initial concerns of Archon, and is relatively uncontroversial. Your proposed would require a separate debate, and is more controversial. Can we at least agree on the engineering caveat, bar any changes to the original non-science criteria? RGloucester — ☎ 21:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)I

Alright, I've added the revised version of the engineering caveat in. Now we can tackle bigger matters, if people would like. RGloucester — ☎ 12:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've made a slight change. If there is ever any need to quote a driver location sign, that's already covered by the rule that says that we preserve quotes. The fact that a road has driver location signs on it does not mean that the primary distance information provided to the road user is not provided in miles. I suggest the reference to tonnes is also superfluous as the rule refers to "road distances and speeds". Kahastok talk 14:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and shall remove it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree Looks fine to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I have extended the definition to include Ireland. British and Irish engineering histories are closely intertwined and many concepts used in Northern Ireland are, for historic reasons! more in line with those found south of the border, for example the use of try 5'3" (now 1600 mm) rail gauge. The wording has also been amended to take the situation in Gibraltar into account. Martinvl (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree, and I have reverted your changes. This discussion was about UK articles, and it isn't wise to make unilateral changes to the MoS. In the Republic, since they are totally metricated, I'm not sure how to go about it. They might just want everything in metric. I don't think what we discussed necessarily applies there, and I don't think it should be expanded to cover the Republic on a whim. RGloucester — ☎ 12:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Driver Location Signs

Driver location signs are a definite exception that should be mentioned in MOSNUM's UK engineering-related articles.

• They are part of the motorway system.
• They are clearly about distances on motorways.
• They are clearly related to the design of motorways
• The distances given are clearly metric.
• "The fact that a road has driver location signs on it does not mean that the primary distance information provided to the road user is not provided in miles." I agree, so pointing out this exception does not undermine that fact.
• "The figure on the bottom of the sign gives the distance in kilometres from the beginning of the motorway." This statement is strictly factual but is not a direct quote. Therefore it is not "covered by any rule about preserving quotes." Stating or implying that you have to use direct quotes when referring to driver location signs is not a logical requirement on editors.

I have therefore been bold and restored the reference to the text. Michael Glass (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the agreed rule saying that we cannot make the statement you suggest, if it is accurate. Your text does not even contain a measurement.

In fact, the statement you give is not accurate in general. For example, on the M69, the driver location signs give numbers well over 100, and on the M18 they are well over 200. Even though the roads themselves are far shorter than this would imply. And what do you think is going to happen if a motorway is realigned at part-distance? Do you really think they're going to spend all that money reorganising all the driver location signs for the rest of the road? They don't need to. It's not exactly common knowledge that those numbers are distances, let alone distances in kilometres, let alone where they are measured from. Kahastok talk 17:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I can confirm that isn't common knowledge, that was new to me and I've had a UK driving license for nearly 30 years. Thanks Michael I finally figured what the signs are for, seen 'em and could never figure them out. Just for information, there is also an indicator on each emergency telephone on the motorway which is simply a number with no meaning. They are also used to give Driver Location.

What amendment do you propose? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed the revert. To add, those signs are a newish feature on the road network, they haven't been around for long and they would be covered by the exemption already agreed in the policy. I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of your addition was? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Driver location signs only appear on English motorways. I believe that WCM is a Scot (at least that this the impression that he gave from the signature that he used a few years ago). Martinvl (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• You guys might want to remember the 1RR prescribed here by the Arbitration fellows. Discuss what you're doing before reverting. As far as my opinion on the matter: I don't see the point including a reference to the signs that would not already be covered, but nevertheless it doesn't really harm the policy to have it listed there. RGloucester — ☎ 18:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, apparently those sanctions finished ages ago…regardless, still a good idea to discuss before reverting. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A revert is a standard part of WP:BRD FWIW, and my comment above was my implementing the "D" (for discuss) of that principle. Kahastok talk 19:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I know, that was meant to be a polite reminder and not an admonishment. RGloucester — ☎ 22:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all I would like to thank the three editors who commented. It was an interesting exchange of views. Here are my comments on them.

• My proposed amendment was to add the bolded words to this sentence:

• "Road distances and speeds are an exception to this: use imperial units with a metric conversion, except for references to driver location signs."

• My edit didn't contain a measurement because it added to a sentence which already referred to units of measure. A second reference would have been redundant.
• A second objection was "It's not exactly common knowledge that those numbers are distances, let alone distances in kilometres, let alone where they are measured from." I agree, but even mentioning the signs served an educative purpose.
• WCM said, "Thanks Michael I finally figured what the signs are for, seen 'em and could never figure them out." This demonstrates the usefulness of referring to the signs.
• RGloucester said, that though the reference did not harm, he couldn't see the point of it. I agree that mentioning the signs does no harm, and I think that WCM demonstrated its usefulness.
• Kahastok has disputed the accuracy of one statement. The UK Government document said The distance in kilometres from the start of the motorway. My statement said, "The figure on the bottom of the sign gives the distance in kilometres from the beginning of the motorway. The bolded words are identical. I think any fair-minded person would agree that my statement accurately reflects my source of information.

I therefore put it to editors that a reference to the driver location signs in MOSNUM:

• does no harm
• is interesting
• is informative
• draws attention to a significant safety feature on British motorways
• draws attention to a safety feature that is too little known among the general public
• draws attention to a legitimate exception to the general rule to put miles first on British motorways

The reference therefore clarifies a point of usage while drawing attention to a significant safety feature on British motorways that is too little known. Therefore I recommend it. Michael Glass (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the question that should be asked is whether WP:MOSNUM is a suitable place to bring attention to a safety feature on British motorways? Whether it does no harm, is interesting or is informative, does it really warrant inclusion in a policy (emphasis added)? There is already an exception in the policy that gives primacy to metric units in this case. Wee Curry Monster talk 06:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If the only effect of including this reference was to draw attention to this safety feature you could say that was a fair, but perhaps narrow-minded, call. I don't see the problem of having something interesting and informative in the policy. I certainly don't see the problem of having something harmless in the policy. More to the point, the clause draws attention to a legitimate exception to the general rule to put miles first on British motorways. I am not aware that this specific point is covered elsewhere.

Mentioning the driver location signs does no collateral damage and could do some collateral good: this would be a point in its favour. After all, if its brief inclusion benefited you, perhaps its permanent inclusion could benefit others. However, I do accept that the main point is that the signs are a legitimate exception to a general rule. Michael Glass (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought: almost all the comments in this thread have been by three editors who are known for their strong opinions on units of measurement. Perhaps it might be better for the three of us to step back and let others comment on this proposal. Michael Glass (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's been several decades since I drove on a UK motorway, but the discussion suggests UK drivers don'k know what the signs mean, just that they should mention the number on the sign when reporting a motor vehicle incident. Since MOSNUM isn't intended to teach about the underlying facts being expressed by numbers, but rather what style to use when writing numbers, the only significant MOSNUM audience that already understands the substance would be UK emergency responders, dispatchers, and wrecker drivers. It seems to me the number of people coming to this guide seeking style advice about how to express UK road location markers would be miniscule, so there is no need to mention them. I mean, we don't provide advice on how to express pump gauge readings on UK fire appliances, do we? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Tidying up

Following the addition of the section on UK engineering articles, the somewhat garbled bullet point pertaining to "miles", "miles per gallon" and "miles per hour" in the subsequent section is redundant. I propose that the bullet point in question be removed. Martinvl (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would we remove it? It isn't redundant if one is referring to the distance between, say, Orkney and Penzance. Would we not quote that in miles? And yet, that is not a "road distance". Furthermore, mpg were not mentioned in the engineering point…so we'd have to state that some place as well. Unless you propose removing mpg all together in favor of mpl or kpl. RGloucester — ☎ 21:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The point is in no sense redundant as it applies equally to non-road distance and non-road speed. Far from being "tidying up", this would represent a major change in policy.

It may be useful to put "for distance" after "miles" and "for speed" after "miles per hour" (or similar, as discussed above) OTOH. Kahastok talk 07:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@RGloucester - The example of the distance between Orkney and Penzance is an artificial example. About a year ago, I check the units used on the following sets of articles:

• All the articles related to British overseas dependencies
• All the articles related to the major islands off the British Coast
• The articles United Kingdom' England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Apart from the articles Falkland Islands and Isle of Wight, metric units were either used exclusively or were the dominant unit of measure. Yesterday I rechecked them and found that the Isles of Wight article had been changed to reflect metric rather than imperial units as the dominant unit of measure. I then started checking the British counties, leaving the Falkland Islands as the odd man out.

After checking Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Hampshire, West Sussex, East Sussex and Kent, I found that the pattern was the same. This tells me that WP:UNITS does not reflect consensus, at any rate as far as geographical articles are concerned. Would somebody please reconcile the current text in WP:UNITS with these articles or give me some other good reason why the sentence mentioned above should stay.

On the point of "mpg", the normal way of measuring fuel consumption using metric units is litres per 100 kilometres. Martinvl (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because these articles use metric doesn't mean that that's the consensus. Someone coiuld well have gone along and changed the lot. I don't think we can change the units policy on a whim. RGloucester — ☎ 13:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, it doesn't say that Imperial "must" be the the main units, just that they can be used in these cases. See the footnote. RGloucester — ☎ 13:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't get fooled into "can is not must". We need a good reason to go against the recommendations here - favouring miles - and Martin doesn't have one other than his own POV.

When you say, "omeone could well have gone along and changed the lot", chances are good that that's exactly what happened. Chances are good you're actually talking to the editor who did it - he certainly enforces it. It wasn't necessarily him. But chances are good.

Oh, and worth pointing out that I think the point Martin makes is highly misleading. Note that Martin did not say that kilometres were generally primarily used. He said metric units. Metric units should be the primary units in all non-scientific UK-related articles, except where dealing with the specific exceptions listed:

• distance, speed and fuel consumption
• personal heights and weights
• draught beer and cider
• horses
• engineering originally designed in imperial units

plus any units covered by other parts of WP:UNITS. Isle of Wight for example, is primarily metric-first, but for distance is primarily miles-first - exactly as it should be. Kahastok talk 16:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I was merely stating that the footnote specifies that in some instances there may be exceptions to the guideline favouring Imperial, and these can be determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis. I wasn't saying I was in favour of the current state of things with regard to the articles Martin has mentioned. Now, I'm not in favour either of attacks on editors, and I haven't seen evidence that he's done what you've said. Regardless, I hold by my point that articles should be brought into line with the MoS, and not the other way around. These current guidelines were derived through a consensus bases process. Unless someone can contrive a good reason why an article might be an exception, that's what should happen. Or someone can propose a change to the MoS. RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Example of Martin enforcing metrication against the MOS, FWIW. Note that consensus on this matter has not substantially changed in the intervening period, so the removal of miles was inappropriate. I can refer you to more of the background to my comment - there's plenty of it - but I suggest it's probably better that I leave it at that for all of our sakes.

Other than that, I believe we are in agreement. I would note in passing that there may be some hangover from the major change to this rule that occurred some years ago (2009?). The previous rule was to choose either imperial or metric and stick to it religiously; it was changed as it imposed consistency where it did not exist in practice. Kahastok talk 16:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok's knows perfectly well that in the example given by him, every single unit of measurement quoted was taken from a source that used metric units and that Wee Curry Monster (who added the "dispute=flip" qualifiers to the convert templates) was indiscriminate in doing so (for example in clippings areas and mountain heights) and in failing to note that the citations concerned used metric units. He also knows perfectly well that in so doing, Wee Curry Monster was using replacing neutral terminology with terminology that might be provocative towards Argentina, thereby violating Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality. As I have explained earlier in this thread, the use of metric units in not provocative towards the British point of view, but then Kahastok fail to note that (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). In short, it is Kahastok who is manipulating WP:MOS to promote a non-neutral point of view. Martinvl (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Editors, on reading the above, may wish review the history of the article in question. They will easily be able to judge how well- or ill-founded Martin's flurry of accusations against User:Wee Curry Monster and myself are.

They may also wish to review whether Martin's arguments for metrication of that article are in accordance with WP:UNITS. Does WP:UNITS endorse source-based units as overriding the rule that we follow British usage in UK-related articles? Does it require that the units in the source be cited in a footnote? Is Argentina likely to be provoked by the use of non-metric units, and if so, do we care? Does the principle in WP:UNITS that we follow British usage on UK-related articles inherently violate WP:NPOV? Kahastok talk 20:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I really have no wish to be drawn into a long discussion on a subject that seems to occupy an unwarranted obsession in certain quarters and is decidedly WP:LAME, so I am simply going to state my current position. I see no merit in discussing the short comings of other editors.

Looking at my car on the way into work this morning, like all UK cars fuel consumption is still displayed in mpg (its a 2009 model for information), I drove on roads with the road signs displaying miles, with the speed limit in mph. Were I to wander into my local supermarket I would buy milk in pints and in the local pub, beer. If I were to have any interest in horses they still measure them in hands, which was anachronistic when imperial was a dominant unit system. This is because whilst the metric system has pervaded much of UK life it is not wholly universal. Hence, on wikipedia we have a manual of style to guide editors in the manner in which to write articles to make them easier for the reader to comprehend. This suggests for a limited series of units where the imperial unit is still predominant, we put that first reflecting UK usage, with the metric conversion in parentheses. This is nothing more than a sensible compromise, which puts the needs of our readers first, and follows current practise in the UK.

As a professional engineer, I have a natural preference to work in SI units. The metric system is not universal, so I would always support the use of conversions. I don't always write in SI units because guided by WP:MOSNUM where warranted I give precedence to the imperial unit in the manner prescribed. Editing against WP:MOSNUM, then claiming that there is no consensus for an established policy is a bankrupt argument with no merit. Neither do I see any merit in the proposed amendment to the policy, which does not serve a useful purpose in making wikipedia of use to readers but is actually counter to it. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Now, I don't know if there is some kind of long-running dispute between some of you, but I think what WCM has said is essentially how I feel. The current policy, as it stands, is simple. Metric is predominant for UK articles, except certain circumstances, such as miles for distances, miles per hour for speeds, miles per gallon for fuel consumption, pints for beer, and so on. It makes sense, and it holds to the general manner in which units are used in the UK.

As far as your concerns, Martin, I think they are not well warranted. We don't use source units, so it doesn't really matter that the source gave metric. As far as offending the Argentine, I tend to doubt that it would offend anyone. And regardless, the Falkland Islands are most likely a special case that we should not get bogged down in here. I don't know anything about what units they use there, or if they differ from the units used on the "mainland" UK. That is something to discuss in a different forum, probably the Falkland Islands working group. RGloucester — ☎ 16:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Having looked about, it seems you all have a long history of "discussion" on this matter with regard to the Falklands. Can we not bring that into here, please? It isn't needed. RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I was trying to avoid bringing up the Falklands here (note that the article I referred to was United Kingdom). A new consensus position on the Falklands was recently found and that should be the end of it. On the matter as a whole I endorse Curry Monster's position. Kahastok talk 17:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster's description of part of his daily life is a prime example of cherry-picking to promote his POV.

• his petrol was sold to him in litres. In my view it is absolutely daft to use mpg when you buy petrol in litres.
• If he had the misfortune to break down on a motorway, he would relay his position to the emergency services in kilometre (the digits on the location marker posts indicate kilometres).
• At his local supermarket he would notice that soft drinks, all other dairy products such as yoghurt, cream, goats milk and the like are sold in metric units.
• If at the pub he preferred a glass of wine or a shot of whiskey, metric units units would be used.

Yes, imperial units are still widely used in the UK, but they are far from exclusive. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopeadia, not a tabloid newspaper, so maybe he should wander into his local bookshop and look at the study guide used by school children for geography - it is all metric. Now that it a very good reason to use metric units in geographical articles, or would he prefer "Nelson's columns", "Elephants" or "multiples of Wales", so beloved of the press. If he looks at his road atlas, he might notice a 5 kilometre or a 10 kilometre grid - some road atlases have such a grid, while the A-Z series of county level maps have kilometre or 500 metre grids. OS maps have had kilometre grids since before the war. Using WCM's argument therefore, geographic articles should use metric units. Martinvl (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of straw men in that comment. Nobody is saying we should not give quantities of petrol in litres. Nobody is saying that we would not quote the contents of a driver location sign in kilometres (only that the motorway should be measured in miles as is standard on all other road signs). Nobody is saying that quantities of soft drinks, wine, whisky and dairy products other than bottled milk should not be given in metric units first. Nobody is suggesting that we should measure areas by comparison with Wales or height by comparison with Nelson's Column. The vast majority of the argument above addresses issues that are simply not in dispute.

The argument for kilometres itself fails on Martin's claim against Curry Monster - one might indeed call it "a prime example of cherry-picking to promote his POV". Fact is, distances, including point-to-point distances, are overwhelmingly in miles in modern British usage. You don't have to like it or agree with it. It is what it is. The fact that the effect of the comment and of the proposal is to suggest that British people use one unit to measure distance along roads and a completely different unit to measure distance along footpaths or point-to-point demonstrates its absurdity.

Now, at this stage, it is clear that there is no consensus in favour of the change Martin proposes, and it seems fair to suggest that there is consensus against it, that the underlying assumptions made are not in line with the spirit of the rule. The same result has been found by consensus when it has come up elsewhere. I suggest we end this discussion at this stage with that result. Kahastok talk 21:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. There is clearly no consensus, and nothing is coming of this debate other than clear disdain. RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is nothing to be gained from further discussion. A prime example, why some UK articles do not conform to WP:MOSNUM. It really does irk me to have to point this but its precisely because User:Martinvl will edit counter to policy as noted earlier by User:Kahastok. This is such a (frankly) ludicrous argument I refuse to continue with it. This edit does of course does demonstrate also why this behaviour is counter productive. We have WP:MOSNUM to ensure articles have a consistent look and feel and its really about article quality. Having an article switch unit order part of the way through is not the hallmark of a quality article. I know from past experience that Martin is looking to edit war but I don't intend to indulge him in that. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@All - you might do well to look at Template talk:Infobox England county#units & motto in Somerset (dated 2007). If you look at the article Somerset, you will see that is is now metric-first (as are almost all English counties). Clearly Wee Curry Monster was out of order in making the changes that he described above, so maybe the wording in WP:UNITS need to be made crystal clear that the use of miles only applies to some but not all UK articles,otherwise people like Wee Curry Monster will misinterpret the page and make unnecessary changes. Martinvl (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Policy states in the lede Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. Changes that bring a small number of additions back into line with the rest of the article are clearly within the guidelines of policy, this is why disp=flip is in the conversion template. Changes were made previously for reasons of article quality and were done on the basis of policy which is crystal clear in this respect. The UK is not 100% metric and that is why policy guidelines are written as they are. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The case Martin points out, FWIW, was in 2007. I also think at this stage it would be useful to all if Martin could supply diffs to substantiate his accusations of misconduct against Curry Monster and myself on the article United Kingdom. If he cannot (as I would expect) he should stop making such accusations. Kahastok talk 17:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, WP:MOSNUM on UK articles is not always followed because it is unworkable. Instructions to put metric first clash with information that is available only in imperial measures; imperial exceptions clash with metric information and reliable sources are often inconsistent. Style guides |differ on significant details.. I believe the best we can do is to give general guidelines and trust editors to cope with inconsistencies as best they can. And if the result is inconsistent, well that simply reflects the messy reality of British usage. Edit wars over the order of units, however, should be stopped. The Times Style Guide says that the UK is gradually transitioning to the metric system. Whether or not this is so, it's something for the British to work out. Misplaced Pages doesn't need rigid instructions that will inevitably be flouted on all sides. Michael Glass (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

When we have a topic that is as controversial as this one - or more precisely, that so frequently has the same people trying to read something into the rules to favour their own POV, a degree of instruction is beneficial. The style guide we have is useful partly because it is Britain's newspaper of record and partly because it is one of the few that actively tries to keep up with British usage.

I do not accept the premise of your point. The rules are perfectly workable if they are followed. The reason why there are sometimes discrepancies are partly because of disinterest on the part of many editors (bearing in mind that many high-profile articles were created at a time when the old one-system-or-the-other rule was in place) - but has a lot to do with the fact that we have a few hard-core pro-metric editors who go around mass-converting topics according to their POV and enforcing their POV on articles. Like you, for example.

All that said, I suggest that this is not going anywhere and that we finish this here. Consensus certainly does not favour any change, and I see no prospect of that changing if this discussion continues. Kahastok talk 17:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're exaggerating the influence of your dreaded "hard-core pro-metric editors". I think it could be part of the gradual shift towards metric usage that the Times noted in its style guide. It could also be influenced by the fact that so many sources of information give data in metric dimensions, including Buckingham Palace. Certainly there are articles where there are discrepancies between MOSNUM and some articles, Munro being one of them, only in this case the discrepancies were introduced by, shall we say, hard-core pro-Imperial editors? Personally, I think the problem with articles is not whether they are metric or imperial first, but whether they have information from reliable sources. And that last point is something I hope that we can both agree on. Michael Glass (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I hope that we're all agreed on the need for reliable sources. You do well, Michael, to point us at royal.gov.uk, as that site is a good demonstration that in current UK usage the units depend on the context (broadly as explained in WP:UNITS). The Royal Family website refers to tonnes of compost, but "miles of hedges". The royal car lengths are given in metres and their engine capacity in litres, but their speeds in "miles per hour". Even though the Channel Isles are not part of the UK, the Royal Family describe their distance from France in miles. The royal public finances discuss distance travelled (whether by air or by rail) in miles. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Good reason to take note of the usage of reliable sources. Michael Glass (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

We do not use source-based units for all the reasons that you have been given so many times in the past. Kahastok talk 17:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be of interest to note that at Talk:United Kingdom there is broad support for the current consensus on WP:UNITS to continue to reflect common usage in the UK. There has been a consistent consensus for this position and opposition to the changes in policy proposed. I would also suggest some Sassenach's learn how to spell whisky before lecturing a Scotsman in how to measure it. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In the UK there are things that still use imperial measurements, things that use both, and some that use metric. It is terribly confusing, and metric is superior and the future, however imperial still exists. Where these apply have been already been listed above so no need to repeat them here, however I do notice that whilst proposing removing the examples from the exceptions include list, Martinvl at the UK talk page tried to claim that WCM "mis-interpreted" this guideline by putting miles before km for distance despite the fact it does and states so in the exceptions include section that they proposed above we remove. They are also now stating that nowhere puts square miles before square km despite Encyclopedia Britannica online doing so. So what should the policy be in regards to area?

Also in regards to "imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.", should we not also mention half-pints? Mabuska 23:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe half pints are implied by pints, in the same way that distances of two miles are implied by "miles".

The Times Style Guide (on which this guidance is based) says for area:

Similarly , for areas prefer hectares and square metres to acres and square yards, but do not use square kilometres in the UK and the US where distances are measured in miles.

This would seem to suggest that square miles are in order for land areas of appropriate magnitude.

We use the Times because it actively tries to reflect modern UK usage rather than dogmatically following one system or the other, and because it is the UK's newspaper of record. (Note that the BBC style guide does not address the point at all.) Kahastok talk 17:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

On the point of areas ("This would seem to suggest that square miles are in order for land areas of appropriate magnitude"), we should note that "where distances are measured in miles" is not preceded by a comma, which makes it a restrictive or defining relative clause, not a supplementary clause. In other words, square kilometres should be avoided only where miles are used for distance, which seems logical in order to avoid apparent inconsistency within an article. Of course, we still need to specify explicitly in which contexts miles are used for distance, as discussed elsewhere. --Boson (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Most people seem to understand the rule perfectly well as currently written. Miles have been applied to all distances of an appropriate magnitude at both Talk:Falkland Islands and Talk:United Kingdom when editors have been invited to see the rule and have seen the arguments for both. That also seems to be the general consensus in this discussion. Given that the alternative is to create inconsistency where none exists in the real world, this is understandable.

While clarification of this point may be useful, it would not be a change to policy.

I have no problem with a rule that says that we use square miles in cases where we also use miles, and square kilometres otherwise. Kahastok talk 20:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Distances in miles/kilometres

As I understand it, the discussion is primarily about kilometres and other units as a measure of distance, not about derived units, such as units of area (hectares, square kilometres, etc.). Perhaps an explicit statement about areas (primary unit: hectares or square kilometres) should be added to avoid further disagreements down the road. There is still no statement on the contexts in which miles (as opposed to kilometres) should be used as the primary units. This means that there is still contention concerning

• the rule on when to use miles as the primary unit (including its interpretation and the permitted latitude).

As I understand the discussion so far, there seems to be broad agreement that

• kilometres should be used as the primary unit in science-related articles
• miles should generally be used as the primary units for road distances (with the already discussed exceptions for distances of an engineering nature).

There seems to be disagreement on

• whether use of miles should be extended to all "geographical" distances.

There may be disagreement on

• whether kilometres should be used in a scientific context (e.g. the speed of light) in a non-scientific article.

As I understand it, some of the contexts where some editors would prefer kilometres to be the primary units are:

• encyclopedic contexts of a geographic nature (where geography can be seen as a science), such as
  • the distance between two points (e.g. as the crow flies) in the physical geography section of a country article (as opposed to the distance by road as information for a driver);
  • the length or width of a stretch of land (e.g. in a section on agriculture or economic geographym in a country article).

I understand the arguments for miles as follows:

• miles are generally used in the UK for distances.

I understand the arguments for kilometres as follows:

• Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopaedia, should adopt the same usage as similar types of texts, such as learned articles and educational or academic books on geographic topics, and these generally use kilometres;
• the UK has largely converted to metric measurement; exceptions are provided only where they are necessary; therefore use of imperial measures by sources where they may be deemed necessary, e.g. for reasons of cost or safety, should not be interpreted as general use based on the wider topic. --Boson (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite see what the point of this post is.

The present rule has stood for several years in this or similar guises. Using miles for all geographical distances would not be a matter of extending the rule. Far from it: miles for all distances of appropriate magnitude in non-science UK-related articles has been the rule for years now. As I note above, it is consensus here and when the arguments have been raised on articles that's the conclusion that has been reached.

There is only one editor who disputes this. Understandably: the alternative, to suggest that we should invent a split in usage meaning that roads should be measured in one unit but footpaths (or point-to-point distances) should be measured in a completely different unit - in other words, artificially creating inconsistency where none exists in the real world - is patently absurd.

I do not accept the claim that imperial is only used where "necessary". It's not difficult to think of counterexamples - pints of beer and milk are a reasonably obvious one. In any case it doesn't matter - we have always determined these matters and matters like them by usage. We have a source that describes usage and should be using it.

For scientific contexts in non-scientific articles, the point has been obfuscated by the insistence by a single editor that this includes all distances (not just in geography sections in articles), which clearly runs counter to the spirit of the guideline. This is a different question, but for the sake of consistency in general we shouldn't be treating sections that deal with scientific contexts as equivalent to scientific articles.

For the record I would suggest that scientists are no more likely to describe the speed of light in kilometres per hour than they are miles per hour, since the standard scientific unit is metres per second. Kahastok talk 20:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Boson. Kahastok's rationale about beer and milk is wrong - pints are used for beer and milk because the law explicitly permits pints to be used for bottled milk and requires that pints be used for draught beer. Kahastok is quite right that it is absurd that we use miles for roads and kilometres for geographic distances, but this is not the place to remedy this absurdity, the correct procedure is for Kahastok to lobby his MP. Martinvl (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the ambiguity surrounding the issues of physical geography, I think that WP:UNITS should explicitly state that metric units should be used for purposes of UK-oriented physical geography. Martinvl (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If the law says it's permitted, that's not a matter of necessity.

As to the claim "Kahastok is quite right that it is absurd that we use miles for roads and kilometres for geographic distances": as a rule British people don't "use miles for roads and kilometres for geographic distances". Martin might, but if he does he is very much the exception. For the most part British people use miles for both. As evidenced by the style guide that we base this entire guidance from, and multiple editors above who have made the same point. As to the claimed ambiguity, the fact is that editors reading this do not see any ambiguity, as evidenced above and on pages like Talk:Falkland Islands and Talk:United Kingdom. The rule is clear that we use miles in UK-related articles for distance - quite rightly based on British usage.

The claimed distinction in UK usage has been entirely invented by Martin. It does not exist anywhere other than in Martin's own POV push. And if he doesn't like that fact, that's his problem. Kahastok talk 22:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The point of my post was to attempt to identify where the remaining differences lie, since there appear to be different interpretations, and challenges seem to quickly turn into discussions of what might or might not have been agreed at some time in the past, instead of directly addressing and settling what the current consensus is. As I wrote above, the current text specifies a number of imperial measures and states explicitly in which contexts they are to be used. However, it does not do this for miles and kilometres, and I suspect this is a major reason for the acrimony and endless discussions that do not achieve a clearly stated consensus.

As I understand it, the state of the discusson on miles/kilometres is at present as follows:

• One participant suggested making the context explicit by adding "for geographic distances" for miles. However the text has not been changed to reflect this clarification.
• Another agreed with "for geographic distances" but with the text changed to

". . . imperial units can still be used as the main units in some contexts

However the text has not been changed to reflect this interpretation either.

Two participants object to the use or implication of "can not must".

At least one participant has expressed the view that "can not must" is implicit in the current text.

I'm not sure if we are at the stage where a straw poll on individual components would be useful, but it appears to me that there are at least the following (approximate) views:

1. Geography is a science; geographic distances should be primarily expressed in metric units (there may be exceptions, probably most road distances in the UK).
2. The use of imperial units (as primary units) is (always?) optional ("can still be used" + footnote).
3. Imperial distances should always be used (as primary units) for all geographic distances (excluding engineering).

• There is a footnote about retaining historically stable versions. It can be interpreted as supporting "can not must", but this does not seem to be universally accepted.

As regards the "present rule", I don't think we should expect editors to know the history of the discussion and share the same interpretation. The question is: What is now the consensus view, as expressed by the participants in this discussion? At the moment, I don't think I could name two participants who agree with (a common interpretation of) the current text. --Boson (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here is a rule that is too inflexible. There is so much dispute over whether something should read 8 kilometres (5 mi) or 5 miles (8 km). This is as futile as disputing whether eggs should be opened at the big or little end. There are two ways of sorting out this problem:

• the dreaded "follow the sources" idea. This, we all have been warned, would cause the downfall of Misplaced Pages while editors futilely search for sources that pander to their prejudices.
• the dreaded "imperial units can still be used in some contexts." This, we have been assured, will unleash the fanatic hordes of metricationists to sweep down and mass-metricate all our beloved British articles.

If we follow this nonsense there is no solution to this problem. Either we have endless disputes about which units go first or loosen up the rules enough to allow the good sense of ordinary editors to determine these questions on a case-by-case basis, based on common sense guidelines in MOSNUM. Michael Glass (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that to follow what sources are used would be a nightmare. Allowing both metric and imperial in the same article, whether "kilometre and miles" or a mix-and-match "kilometre and pound" or "grams and pints", seems like nonsense to me also. The "case-by-case basis" also often leads to pitch battles. I'm not saying I would necessarily support it, but a third possibility (apparently omitted from the above) is that, for our own purposes, we would define WP:TIES to determine that all British articles should adopt imperial measures (just like how we have embraced British spelling per WP:ENGVAR) notwithstanding what might be practised elsewhere in the published world. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 04:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kahastok, and the point on consistency raised by Ohconfucius is quite good. Imperial is used for distance etc., and it makes sense to use imperial first to maintain consistency where it is required, for example at present in the UK article's Geography section, we have imperial for distance and metric for area which looks odd. Seeing as Kahastok made the extremely relevant point of The Times as newspaper of record, and that it dictates: Similarly , for areas prefer hectares and square metres to acres and square yards, but do not use square kilometres in the UK and the US where distances are measured in miles - so for consistency it should also be explicitly stated that for UK articles, area should be preferentially square miles. Mabuska 10:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I see discussions are needlessly descending into childishness yet again, could I issue my usual refrain for editors to focus on content rather than each other.

We've been over this before, the rules are not "inflexible", they are prescriptive for the very reason that editors who disagree choose to interpret the policy creatively to impose their own views having failed to achieve a policy change. The suggestion that geography is "science" and hence articles should be metric only is a perfect example as to why the policy is needed. Hence, any suggestion that the rules should be loosened is unworkable. It simply would lead to further disruption.

To be blunt, the whole business boils down to the fact that some editors don't like to put the imperial unit first in some circumstances and this is utterly WP:LAME. I would suggest those editors learn to compromise as I and others do in the interests of our readers. Misplaced Pages exists for its readers, not to pander to the egoes and bizarre pecadilloes of its editors.

As to a way forward, Ohconfucius makes an excellent suggestion, we should link this to WP:TIES so that it is clear the consensus is to follow local usage. I also tend to agree with Mabuska's suggestion that square miles should take precdence over square km but really no longer have the energy for the effort it would take to amend the policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that you would open a can of worms if you tried to enforce a rule of square miles for articles because so many UK articles have been stable for years with square kilometres. Personally, I think it would be better to live with this inconsistency. It can be annoying to see a variation in usage, but the provision of imperial/metric conversions helps to soften this. I'll take Ohconfucius!'s word for pitched battles over individual articles, so I think that part of the solution might be strengthened rules against fighting over which unit comes first. However, the use of WP:TIES to enforce usage would only make matters worse, because British usage really is inconsistent. Try getting information on areas of parks and you will soon encounter an array of acres as well as hectares. Look for the height of hills and mountains and there will still be a fair sprinkling of feet amongst the metres. Heights and weights of sportspeople are similarly divided. Even with miles vs kilometres, where miles should be ahead by a country mile, kilometres are encountered with a fair degree of regularity in some contexts. Of course, there is always the possibility of war over whether a particular usage is scientific or engineering or general in nature and whether a geographical article is essentially scientific or general.

I believe that a bit of flexibility is vital. If we say that metric units should generally be used in UK articles then we should also say that imperial units can be used in certain contexts. Having said that I would be amenable to a rule that said that miles are more common in British usage, because that is clearly the case, but I don't think that proviso should be presented in a way that could be used to start a war to weed out every last kilometre that dares come first in any UK article. I think it is much more important to go through articles and verify the figures that they present. In my experience, the figures in undocumented articles can be inconsistent with reliable sources. Michael Glass (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Its precisely because of the fact that sources can be inconsistent in the way units are used that requires Misplaced Pages to have a policy on how to present information to ensure consistency in wikipedias articles. Editors have achieved a consensus that this should in general follow the Times style guide. The assertion geography is a science is simply a red herring and WP:WIKILAWYERing. Certain editors need to realise they have to stop this behaviour or editors will simply make the policy even more prescriptive in response. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that WCM has presented us with a clear picture of what we can choose between: a strict "Do this or else!" approach or a more flexible approach that allows for variation. I believe that the second approach is more appropriate for a situation where people have different ideas. It often doesn't matter that much what order things are presented in, provided that the source information is reliable. The world really isn't going to come to an end if the order of units in Misplaced Pages does not follow the letter of the Times Guide. The Guardian doesn't follow the Times Guide. Neither does the Daily Mail. Or the BBC. Why then should UK Misplaced Pages articles be shackled in a straitjacket designed for another publication entirely? English people value variation. The rules make provision for those who prefer Oxford spelling as well as the great majority who prefer . The same applies to the order of units. It might be a bit messy, but, hell, that's the nature of things in the UK (and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the world). Michael Glass (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

My dear fellow, I think, as you said previously, it is best that we live with this slight inconsistency. The present guideline is just that, a guideline. As it says in the footnote, exceptions can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is not at all a straitjacket. In most cases, miles should be used for distances. I don't think anyone would say otherwise. In those cases where it makes sense to use metric, outside of science/engineering articles, that can be discussed on that page's talk page. The present standard already allows this. There is no reason to muck it up and muddle it more by altering anything. RGloucester — ☎ 15:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure - WP:IAR always applies. If there is a good reason that is not considered by the guidelines to use some other rule, then we should use some other rule. Michael will recall that this is precisely my argument at Talk:Munro, where I suggest that fact that a Munro is defined in feet means that the definition should be given in feet (as per another part of this guideline) and that it is absurd to then put all the other mountain heights in the article in metres. Michael rejects this effectively on the grounds that this rule should be a straitjacket.

But in the general case, where there is no good reason to deviate, we should follow the rules set out. And the fact that some editors do not like imperial units is not a good reason not to use them.

The reason to use the Times style guide is because it is the UK's newspaper of record and because unlike the other publications Michael names the Times style guide actively tries to mirror common UK usage. (The exception is the BBC, which has, to our knowledge, no in-house style for units at all.) Delegating the point to the Times style guide means precisely that we don't have to keep on having this discussion.

In answer to Boson's point, I suggest you should reread the discussion. Most editors here have agreed here that the current wording provides for miles for point-to-point distance. Consensus at recent discussions at Talk:United Kingdom and Talk:Falkland Islands have found exactly the same thing. This is what "geographic distance" means, so far as I am concerned (and I was the one who came up with the wording in the first place). Adding the words "for all distance" or "for distance" or "for geographic distance" to the guideline would not change the meaning of the guideline in any way. Kahastok talk 16:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• The great thing about having our own style guide is that we can define what rules we want to follow, and under what circumstances. That, as I understand it, is how WP:ENGVAR came about. I hate its divisiveness, but the positive side is that it has contributed enormously to peace and style stability – just imagine if we were still stuck arguing and battling whether we want to apply "color" or "colour"? Why do we care that the UK is itself an inconsistent mess as to application. Even though the UK is inconsistent, WP doesn't have to be. We can apply metric to all, none, or any part of our articles if we want. Consistency is the most important, and If we please, we can stay in that time warp until such time as the UK has fully embraced metric. We can roll back time here and adopt Imperial throughout as it once was in the UK. Or we can be deliciously inconsistent in a consistent way – WP:ENGVAR is that, if that's what keeps order and harmony. In the meantime, we can apply and execute some of the alignment work by script or bot. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 16:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I have seen what happened at Munro: a straitjacket so tight that saying that a particular mountain was 40 centimetres (16 in) short of the Munro mark was too much! It seems that in practice the flexibility is all one way: include imperial measures at will but flip the display of metric measures. No prior checking of sources, just flip, flip, flip. Michael Glass (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That was merely false precision, and you would be one of the very few who would be reading it as an "error". You fixed it, didn't you? and nobody reverted. So I fail to see the problem. In any event, the "Munro" was defined before metrication. It seems the crux is that you prefer metres to feet – I've noticed your attempts to dredge sources for their metric measures. The appropriate degree of precision is good, but I think it's time to get out of anally-stuck on laboriously following sources to the nth degree as if there were no inherent imprecisions there. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 04:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that was after quite a lot of discussion, which fortunately did not descend into objectionable analogies. Mountains are now measured in metres, and it seems quite daft to me to mass convert modern measures to Imperial just because Sir Hugh Munro defined the heights at 3,000 feet in 1891. As 914.4 metres is an exact equivalent, there are other ways to achieve consistency and accuracy (and consistency with MOSNUM), but for that change to come about it would depend on support from other editors. Michael Glass (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's a run called the "100 metres", but nobody would think of changing the "100 yard dash" to "91.44 metre dash", and it's quite logical for everything to be stated (or re-stated, if needs be) to Imperial in the latter case. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 14:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

True, but sometimes things are restated in other units. The earliest railway gauges were stated in feet and inches, but today they are now compared in millimetres. Now I'm not insisting that this should automatically apply to the Munro article. This, I believe, is a matter for editors of that particular article to determine, Michael Glass (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The Times style guide link

The link to the Times Style Guide is no longer accessible which means that one should question whether or not it is an appropriate link in a section of MOS. Various editors have quoted from the style guide, but unless the guide is freely available to all editors, such quotes should be viewed with skepticism as they may be used out of context (maybe inadvertently). We need to verify that The Times themselves have not modified the guide. As a Times reader, I noticed that after the News International phone hacking scandal, Times editors seemed less inclined to convert everything to imperial units. (For the record, Rupert Murdoch was chairman of News International, the company that owned both papers). My own view is that the reference to The Times Style Guide needs to be written out of the MOS. Martinvl (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Times Style Guide is the basis for the advice we have here. Getting rid of any reference to it would disguise this fact - which I imagine is why you want it removed. I note that I have provided a link to the guide already, and I would suggest that your anecdotal evidence on a point that is not even relevant (unless you're seriously suggesting we shouldn't even convert into imperial?) is not evidence of anything much.

If you have evidence that the Times Style guide has changed, by all means raise it. If there is none, we should assume that they have not. I see no reason to assume that they have. Kahastok talk 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kahastok has missed completely missed the point - the main question being "how can I get hold of the text of the Time Style Guide?". Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As with other advice in WP:MOS, I think it is appropriate to take various style guides into account in forming an opinion, and it may therefore be appropriate to quote this and other style guides on this talk page. However, I do not think we should defer to someone else's house style in matters of house style. For this reason, I think we should remove references to the the Times Online Style Guide on the project page. In an article on the topic, it might be appropriate to cite the Times Online Style Guide to document one view on the subject, though even in article space I would prefer to use sources that are freely available. Since this is a matter of principle affecting WP:MOS, this should perhaps be discussed WT:MOS, rather than on this sub-page. To be clear: I am not suggesting disguising anything; I am suggesting that we should decide as editors on our own house style and merely take this particular style guide (and possibly others) into account. Having done that we should remove the reference to this publisher's house style. I think the deference to someone else's style guide is another issue that is part of the problem rather part of the solution and we should address the problem directly. This project page should state unambiguously what our rules are (as from now) and what latitude is permitted. Until we do that, I fear conflict and implicit accusations of bad faith will continue. Do we defer to any one style guide on any other matter of Misplaced Pages house style?--Boson (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this post so that it does not break mine up.

We do not defer to another style guide here. The entire premise of your point is wrong. There are several matters where we differ from the Times (an obvious one being that the Times calls for miles only - with no conversion - whereas we call for miles first and kilometres second).

But there is nothing wrong with basing our advice on the style guide of a respected external publication that has the same aim as us - to reflect British usage on this matter of style. Far from it - this is eminently sensible as it means that we don't have to have continual debates on what the normal British usage is. We can just look up what the Times says and accept that.

And so far as practically everyone is concerned - including consensus at Talk:Falkland Islands and at Talk:United Kingdom where this has been discussed by a good number of outside editors recently - there is no significant ambiguity in the current wording. We could add "for distance" after "miles" or "for speed" after "miles per hour", but no editor other than you two seems to need them.

FWIW the last version of the Times style guide from before the paywall is available through the Wayback Machine here. There is no reason to assume that it has changed. Kahastok talk 21:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As I understand the discussion here, there are differences as to the interpretation or the proposed consensus view. I have listed many of these above, with quotations from several participants. The question of ambiguity is not solved by adding "for distance", since everybody seems to be agreed that imperial units "can sometimes be used for distances". The differing interpretations seem to be about whether this means

• must be used
• for all distances,
• including scientific and engineering contexts in articles that are not substantially about scientific or engineering topics.

which seems (to me) to be the interpretation implied by your objections above. If you feel that this misrepresents your interpretation, perhaps you could state explicitly how you would rephrase my clarification of the individual elements of your interpretation. --Boson (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains that everyone but you two seems to find the point pretty unambiguous. Consensus at Talk:Falkland Islands and Talk:United Kingdom have both found the same thing as well.

There's a major straw man being raised here, that this rule is somehow an exception to WP:IAR. Let us be clear that the only people in this discussion who have implied, argued, or otherwise suggested that there is even a possibility that this rule can have no exceptions at all are you, Michael Glass, and Martin. And Michael Glass and Martin both have a long history of using that argument to try to water down these rules so that they can switch articles to their personal preference of metric first in all cases.

It's not difficult:

• Miles must be used for all distances on non-scientific US-related articles, subject to the exceptions outlined elsewhere in the guideline and subject to common sense exceptions where special circumstances (beyond personal preference) apply.
• Miles must be used for all distances on non-scientific UK-related articles, subject to the exceptions outlined elsewhere in the guideline and subject to common sense exceptions where special circumstances (beyond personal preference) apply.
• Kilometres must be used for all distances on non-scientific Australia-related articles, subject to the exceptions outlined elsewhere in the guideline and subject to common sense exceptions where special circumstances (beyond personal preference) apply.

The parallel is exact. Kahastok talk 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, this is not a strawman. We are talking about the UK., not the Falklands or Australia, so they are irrelevant. We are also talking about this guideline, not consensus at one specific article, one of thousands about some aspect of the U.K. If any consensus agreed there is intended to apply to other articles, the discussion belongs here. I would appreciate it if we could confine the discussion about this project page to this talk page (and possibly its parent page). it is difficult enough without introducing extraneous discussions. I am not trying to suggest that you want to use imperial measures as a primary unit in these cases. And, of course, WP:IAR always applies (in very constrained situations; it should not be invoked lightly). However, I don't think there is general agreement with how you have stated it:

1. You seem to be of the opinion that metric units should not be used in scientific or engineering contexts in generally non-scientific articles. I disagree, and do not recall anyone else supporting this position. Everyone has an opportunity to do so now.
2. You insist on retaining the reference to the Times Online Style Guide on the project page. I don't recall anyone else in this discussion supporting that. Now is the opportunity for people to come forward after reading the arguments above. I have seen no evidence that this is still Times Online policy. If the publisher has removed the document from the Web site, I would see that as, at least, lack of evidence that it is still their position. Its removal could possibly be taken as evidence that they no longer intend it to be applied.
3. There is a view that in additional contexts related to the UK, metric units should be primary. There seems to be agreement that miles are appropriate for road distances. I do not see evidence (in this discussion) of consensus that miles should be used for all other distances (except in scientific articles). You write "Let us be clear that the only people in this discussion who have implied, argued, or otherwise suggested that there is even a possibility that this rule can have no exceptions at all are you, Michael Glass, and Martin. " So you have named 3 people who appear to disagree with you. Others have also used the phrase "for road distances" or have referred to "official" Ordnance Survey maps using kilometres; so we seem to be talking about at least 5 people who do not support your position. Some may not have very strong opinions on this relatively trivial subject and are more interested in stopping the constant disruption by arriving at an unambiguous consensus, but it might be helpful if you could name substantially more than 5 editors who support your version in this discussion. In my view, wording the guideline based on the suspected motives of other participants is not the way to go. Limiting the usage to road distances may be overly restrictive, but extending it to all distances (outside of articles where this part of the guideline does not apply) may not be restrictive enough. I would welcome middle-of-the-road suggestions. --Boson (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that in any circumstance where there local context means that there is a good reason - beyond personal preference - to ignore the rule, it can be ignored. Just like every other rule on Misplaced Pages.

Let us be clear that you are talking about measures in a genuinely scientific context in a non-scientific UK-related article (engineering is already dealt with). This is quite a specific point and it's unlikely to be common. Certainly not common enough to need a specific rule other than WP:IAR. But on the other hand, if we did add a specific rule it would be certain to be abused as all measures would suddenly be declared scientific. By editors involved in this discussion.

It is a complete straw man to suggest that this rule has to cover every imaginable situation. I reject your claim that this is restricted to the UK because I see nothing about the concept of scientific contexts in non-science related articles that is specific to the UK. There is no reason why it has to be made clear in UK-related situations but not in US- or Australian-related situations, and the fact that you insist that this is only UK-related is very telling.

I note that the point we're dealing with is not what the article should say, but what it in fact does say. The way that this is interpreted both here and at articles such as Talk:Falkland Islands and Talk:United Kingdom is of clear relevance to that. It is clear from this discussion and from those discussions that the rule currently calls for miles in all circumstances except where WP:IAR applies.

I reject your suggestion that we're likely to get much in the way of outside comment at this stage in a discussion resulting from long comment in the middle of a massive length of text. I reject your speculation that the Times does not apply the style guide, but even if they did not, it would not remove the guide's usefulness as an outside basis for our advice.

You're listing people citing arguments about what it should say, not on what it does say. Not only that, your five people appear be to yourself, Michael Glass, Martinvl, Martinvl and Martinvl - which is not five people by any normal measure. The first three instances are included because they seem to believe that WP:IAR does not apply to this rule - an argument that I believe would be given close to zero weight by any admin. Kahastok talk 17:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• To your point about WP:IAR: I think WP:IAR is best reserved for unforeseen or exceptional circumstances, not as a general excuse for sloppy formulation of guidelines that can easily be improved.
• To your point about scientific articles: I think this should apply to engineering as well. My point is that whether imperial units are appropriate depends on the immediate context rather than the topic of the article. For instance, if a distance is in a section about an engineering or scientific topic, the title of the article is less important.
• I haven't a clue what you mean by "very telling" and I don't know what you mean by the rest of that paragraph.
• To your point that I am talking about what the "article" (I presume you mean the guideline/project page) should say (when talking about participants' opinions): Yes, that is true in some cases. If there is a consensus on how the text should read, it is rather pointless to try and reach a consensus on what the text currently says or means. That might be appropriate on the talk page of an article (where it is a case of applying the guideline) but is less useful on the guideline talk page (where the discussion is about how that text should read).
• To your interpretation of my comment " your five people appear be to yourself, Michael Glass, Martinvl, Martinvl and Martinvl". No that is not correct. I prefer not to mention people by name as I believe it helps to keep the discussion objective and impersonal. Also, they may prefer not to be drawn into these endless discussions of what should be quickly settled minor issues. If you look at my quotations and use the search function in you browser, you should find at least two other users.
• To your point that you reject my " speculation that the Times does not apply the style guide". There was no argument of mine dependent on any speculation. I was indicating that there is no basis for assuming the present relevance of this style guide. If you wish to refer to this style guide, which implies that it is still relevant, the burden is on you to show that it is relevant.
• To your point about the unlikelihood of outside comment at this stage "in a discussion resulting from long comment in the middle of a massive length of text": Well, the people who have already commented in this discussion (in particular the 5 people mentioned directly or indirectly) may still be reading this, so they might want to clarify whether they support your opinion, but you may be right. A formal RFC is probably the way to go. I had hoped we could clarify some more issues first, but if that is not possible, so be it. --Boson (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

So you want a formal RFC to tells us whether we should have a specific rule to cover - and let's be clear about this:

Distance, speed, fuel consumption, quantity of draught beer or cider, quantity of bottled milk, personal height, personal weight and dimensions of equines, in scientific contexts on non-scientific UK-related topics.

Frankly, I can't think of an instance of a genuinely scientific measure on a non-scientific UK-related article that falls into these categories, nor any reason why one would want to use one. This is a solution in need of a problem - WP:CREEP comes to mind. If we find that there is such a measure, we can ignore the rule under WP:IAR. On the other hand, there is no doubt whatsoever that the rule you propose would be rampantly abused.

And before you start talking about engineering, I suggest you reread the advice: engineering topics are already dealt with. Kahastok talk 08:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No. I want a couple of simple changes to the current text that would probably reduce its length. It would make the guideline better reflect curent (2013) British usage and remove dead links to documents that may no longer exist, instead of introducing imprecise or incorrect distinctions that continually give rise to dissent. If it were a matter of keeping the guideline simple, it would be easier to just decide to use metric primary units throughout; it is the complicated nature of British practice and the apparent decision to adopt everyday usage in the encyclopaedia that are making the text somewhat complex. It shouldn't really require an RfC, just a clear formulation of the amendment, but if one person constantly refuses to countenance any change to the existing text in this respect (as you point out, engineering has been dealt with elsewhere), it might be the most efficient way of putting this to bed and save countless hours of circular discussions. The advantage of a straw poll or RfC, in my opinion, is that it can be formulated to present a clear choice and separate the clear choices from the long discussions that tend to go astray and become repetitive. The advantage of a "global" RfC would be that it brings the discussion on this topic to one time and place, and helps bring in others who are interested in settling the problem without getting bogged down in interminable discussions with little chance of resolving the problem. A topic of this nature should not be creating this amount of work spread over so many venues. My hope is that a couple of RfCs would settle the matter within a few weeks and that the solution would hold for a couple of years. --Boson (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I note with interest that you have failed to cite any circumstance in which your proposed change would have any effect. I think it fair to assume that what the change you propose is a specific get-out for a tiny number of instances: an extra rule that would legitimately apply almost nowhere but would be abused almost everywhere.

FWIW I have no idea what you're talking about when you say you propose "a couple of simple changes to the current text that would probably reduce its length" - I do not recall having seen such a proposal.

I note that you refer to "imprecise or incorrect distinctions that continually give rise to dissent". It does continually give rise to dissent, but the dissent always comes from the same two editors and their push for Misplaced Pages to allow them to promote their POV over units of measure. It's hardly a measure that the current rules are problematic, only that a couple of people don't like modern British usage.

That two editors have repeated the same bad arguments over and over again for the best part of half a decade does not make those arguments good. And that same half decade's experience demonstrates that no RFC is going to stop those two editors from continuing the POV push. Kahastok talk 14:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone with a subscription confirm that this is still documented as Times Online house style? --Boson (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a TimesPlus subscription and prior to posting my statement last night, I could not find any reference to their house style on their website. (Of course I might have missed it). In yesterday's Times I did however notice that the weight of a massive Halloween pumpkin was given as 275 kg with no imperial equivalent - this is the sort of change that I have noticed since Murdoch stepped down. (Posted by User:Martinvl at 04:38, 10 October 2013‎Signature was omitted in error)

@Martinvl, can you supply a link for that pumpkin story? I looked in The Times for it, but found only this one, from October 1st, which uses imperial only for size, and imperial (metric) for weight thus: "It is 16ft in circumference and estimated to weigh 1,500lbs (680kg). The British record is 1,504lb (682kg), set by identical twin brothers..." FWIW, I have noticed an increased tendency to use imperial only recently. R.stickler (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It was in the paper edition of the newspaper. Unfortunately out local paper collection took place today and I am afraid that my copy of the newspaper is now in a recycling plant somewhere. If you live in the UK, you should be able to check it out at your local library. Martinvl (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The version on the Wayback Machine is dated "July 10, 2009", which is over 4 years ago; so I don't think we can use that version. We have no particular reason to assume that the style recommended there is still relevant. In the interests of efficiency, I would suggest that we wait till 17 October 2013, 12:00 UTC to see if anyone can produce a current version of the Times Online Style Guide before making a formal proposal to remove the reference to that style guide from the project page.I think we need to take the improvement of the guideline one step at a time. --Boson (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the date it was updated on the website, not the date it was accessed or the date it was archived. I see no reason to remove all reference to the style guide on which this advice is based from the guideline, and very good reason to keep it. Kahastok talk 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@Kahastok - it is inappropriate to rely on the Wayback machine to second-guess current policy. Martinvl (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not. OTOH, it is inappropriate for you to insist that we act on your speculation that something might have changed when you have no evidence that it has. Kahastok talk 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kahastok. Martinvl's concerns is simply speculation with no evidence, and frankly after recent events I don't trust a single word they type. No doubt removing a link to this guide is a step to arguing against it being used in the future to backup use of Imperial for certain UK measurements - something that appears to be a never-ending campaign by Martinvl. Does this carousel ever stop? Mabuska 14:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No - though it does pause sometimes. Martinvl's horse died several years ago. Kahastok talk 17:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's stop speculating whether or not the Wayback version of the Times Style guide is up-to-date or not. A more relevant question is whether MOSNUM is up-to-date. We don't need to depend on the Times Style Guide to tell us that the British still use miles on their roads, and that some milk and beer is sold by the pint. There are other - official - sources to confirm this. However, we are on less sure ground about personal heights and weights. Certainly the usage is mixed in regards to sporting teams, and the National Health Service uses kilos and metres. In a non sporting context this might not matter too much, but when it comes to sporting teams it may be time to consider following the usage of the Premier League and other national codes. Michael Glass (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

So what's the big deal if we state all UK units as imperial or metric or a mixture? It matters not that the MOS is not fully up-to-the-minute or does not conform to the exact usage in the UK at any point in time. This is already causing a lot of circuitous and unnecessary arguments between the 'imperial' and 'metric' camps, but it's of no interest to improving the project that this discussion resurfaces every other month. The transition of usage in the UK seems slow and gradual but staunchly imperial in the US, and it will be impossible to determine the Rubicon of when/if the UK passes to wholly metric for any given measure, so we ought not to waste time on trying to crystallise it. Let's just adopt a style and get on with life. Equally, I feel that there is absolutely no need to review any given rule or facet each time a new style guide appears, or an existing style guide is updated. There won't be any "revolution" to the MOS driven by external style guides. However, we should periodically and not too often, probably every few years, review all the rules and "top and tail" them, adding established 'new' rules and replacing those that are determined to be absolutely archaic. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 02:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to see this rule dragged up every couple of months. I think it would be much better for all concerned if those who insist on dragging it up every couple of months ceased to do so. But given that they've been doing it for years and years I don't see any sign of that.

I think it is worth noting that several of those who people put in the "imperial" camp have mentioned that they are scientists or engineers who use metric units routinely at work. One of the ironies is that there's a good chance that most of us - including those who you put in the "imperial" camp - use metric units more than the average Brit. Someone pushing as part of an "imperial" camp would be pushing for imperial mountain heights (mixed in RL, we say metric) or weights in general (mixed in RL, we say metric).

In fact, the objection is to being forced to use metric units even in cases where usage is overwhelmingly imperial, or to applying rules to produce ridiculous inconsistency such as saying that the distance from London to Edinburgh is 500 kilometres point-to-point but 400 miles by road - even where no such distinction in usage exists in RL. The issue here is at least partly the use of Misplaced Pages to campaign for a political position (in favour of metrication).

In terms of the scripts, if you want to apply them, all of the imperial bits are pretty limited in scope except distance, speed and fuel consumption. If you can script it to do personal height and weight but not other weights, then that would work, but you won't use it often. Draught beer and cider, bottled milk and horses are probably rare enough and specific enough to make it worth being aware of them but not worth scripting them. Kahastok talk 08:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Date formats and British spelling keep me busy enough. It's regrettable that the UK had to start on the road to metrification so that the situation today is neither fish nor fowl, and likely to stay that way indefinitely. Yes, I'm interested in achieving format consistency across the 'pedia, but only on an intellectually coherent level. Trying to mirror or apply the current RL chimera is of little interest to me. What's more, I don't want to get sandwiched in between Imperialists and the Metrifiers.

My position is that we should use either all imperial or all metric. While I was working on the English variants script, I created a few regexes that would allow me to flip {{convert}} templates to display Imperial first, as it was in the old days in Britain. But a significant proportion of units of measure are not captured within conversion templates, so a lot of extra work will be needed for instances the script will miss. In terms of scope, it will be far too complicated to do weights and avoid personal weights, and do building heights but not distance, speed and fuel consumption. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 14:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Britain has generally "gone metric". Metric units are used for practically everything, and even the exceptions are mixed and dependent on specific context. Children use metric units in schools and metric units are used in most professional contexts, with a few measurements being converted when dealing colloquially with the "general public. So I don't think general use of imperial measures is viable. If we want to standardize it has to be metric, I think. That would make everything a lot simpler. --Boson (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If we look at the introduction to the Times Style Guide we see:

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. The main aim is to avoid confusing the reader, so try not to mix the two systems in a single article. In general, we should prefer the metric, with imperial conversions in brackets at first mention.

Note that The Times emphasizes the move towards all-metric use. Note furthermore that The Times is concerned about all it's readers. They median age of Times readers is 44.5 years, that of Misplaced Pages readers is 34.5 years. If we add on another four years (at least) due to The Times style guide being at least four years old, that that the target audience for The Times style guide is at least 14 years older than the current Misplaced Pages audience. Given this difference, it is difficult to justify using The Times style guide apart from the rationale in the opening paragraph. Martinvl (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence - not instances of usage but actual evidence - that usage has actually moved toward metrication from that described by the Times? I doubt it: if you did, you would have brought it up in the last five years. The statistic is ridiculous given the different bases for the comparison, your extrapolation doubly so. We might note, FWIW, that the age group most likely to read the Times are actually those aged 25-34.

As to Boson's point, we already are metric, except in specific circumstances where imperial units are overwhelmingly more common in British usage. Children use metric units in school - but it is folly to assume that children learn nothing outside school, and children will learn those imperial contexts outside school. The principle exception for our purposes - miles - is not mixed or particularly context-dependent. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot reflect British usage and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. Kahastok talk 19:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe Britain has "gone metric". Britain, as far as metrification goes, is stuck in the rather unsatisfactory situation like someone in the middle of the road, with people on both sides dragging him towards them. Nothing will crystallise for decades, if ever. Nationalist sentiment is on the rise all over Europe, and there is an increasing backlash over the Eurocratic push for metric system to be adopted in Britain, minority languages like Welsh has been on the resurgence for a number of years. The pound (both weight and currency) and pint have become anthemic. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 00:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Times Style and Usage Guide, which was clearly still being used by The Times in February 2012 given that it is mentioned in this Times article of that date, is available as a book - ISBN 13: 9780007145058. R.stickler (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That's The Times Style and Usage Guide, published in 2003; it appears to be out of print. Was it the same as the referenced Times Online Style Guide? --Boson (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the idea of having separate conventions for articles about different countries is bizarre and illogical in itself (why do we not treat articles about Sierra Leone differently from articles about Nigeria? What are MOSNUM's recommendations for articles specifically about Liechtenstein?). The much-touted Times Style Guide also seems rather impotent to resolve this question (and I am dubious about the merits of tying the policy of an encyclopedia to the content of a newspaper style guide) especially when it apparently recommends such ludicrous practices as giving smaller areas in square metres and hectares, then arbitrarily switching to square miles at some unspecified cutoff point. Relating square miles to acres and square yards/feet is hard enough (using the imperial system properly is hard, and regardless of what some here might say, few British people today really know the imperial system), but relating sq mi to hectares and square metres is well-nigh impossible without a calculator. Is it one of the objectives of Misplaced Pages to promote confusion and inconsistency, or is this the pit we've dug for ourselves? Archon 2488 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This reference provides interesting information about British newspaper readership profiles. The median age of readers of the various quality newspapers as per the data on page 20 are:

• Daily Telegraph - 57 years
• Times - 44.5 years
• Independent - 41 years
• Guardian - 40.5 years.

The median age of Misplaced Pages readers is 36 years. This information suggests to me that if we want to take the lead from the quality press, we shoudl be looking towardsThe Guardian rather than The Times.

Martinvl (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Metric for everything

Would anyone support the idea that all articles (non-scientific and non-engineering) related to the UK should use metric units as the primary units? That would make things much simpler and save work in the future. I thought it might be worth a try. Just wanted a show of hands to see if it is at all worth pursuing. --Boson (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Biasing Misplaced Pages by pandering to the POV push of two editors is the very last thing we should be considering. The United Kingdom should not be the only country that is not allowed to use the units of measure in use locally, and Misplaced Pages should not be taking a political position in favour of metrication. That is the effect of your proposal. British people do not just put miles on the road signs to confuse foreigners. Kahastok talk 19:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Misplaced Pages should not be being used as part of the, so far failed, campaign of the UK Metric Association (UKMA) to metricate the UK. Today in the UK, although industry largely voluntarily metricated in the 1960s and 70s because it helped it in the international market place, and certain disciplines of retail trading have metricated because they were forced to by weights and measures regulation, common and everyday usage outside of the workplace, even by the younger generations, is still overwhelmingly imperial. One consequence of shoppers rejecting the metric measures that certain shops have been forced to use is that shops (such as greengrocers) now price most product by unit rather than my weight. This is why UKMA exist, because the majority of the UK people have not yet embraced the metric system other than where they have been forced to at work and at school. R.stickler (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Britain uses, for example, miles for distance and pints for beer. Misplaced Pages should not be giving preference to different units from those in common use. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Let's make it clear that we're not talking about removing imperial units of measure. We are just talking about ordering (in other words, which one we put first). I'm ambivalent, but am more concerned with consistency of not seeing a mish-mash of imperial and metric in first place in any article. But the only way to stop the argument and any potential tug of war is definitively to come down on one or other. Right now, even with the MOS mandating displaying both units, it's become a zero-sum game. Articles are a mess and the reader is a loser. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 00:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I support Ohc's initial comment. This discussion is only about which units should be put first. I agree that consistency of presentation is important, and it would be more consistent to have a "metric first" rule. However, as others have stated, this does not coincide with British usage. The answer to this has been to have a general rule for metric first with stated exceptions. This causes problems because the stated exceptions don't exactly coincide with British usage, especially when usage is split. Also these exceptions mandate inconsistencies if taken literally. We could have a rule to follow the sources if this resolves the inconsistencies. Another would be to permit editors to deal with inconsistencies as they choose. We could also trim the exceptions to those that are mandated by law. Other editors may have other ideas for dealing with anomalous results and messy articles. These ideas may help to resolves many of the difficulties caused by the inconsistent use of measures in the UK context. It is not the fault of Misplaced Pages or its editors that UK inconsistencies are a challenge to deal with. However, by pooling our ideas we may come up with better ways of dealing with this challenge. Michael Glass (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The answer is to have a simple rule, as we currently have. There is no reason to dogmatically declare that the fact that we use miles for distance means we have to use Fahrenheit for temperature. Using miles for distance and Celsius for temperature is not intrinsically inconsistent and there is no reason why we cannot mix them.

Much of the rest of the message seems to be a recipe for arguments. Given how many times source-based units have been rejected there's no point in discussing them further. The use-the-law message has generally been interpreted to require far greater inconsistency than we have presently through the insistence on hair-splitting distinctions that do not exist in usage (i.e. that London to Edinburgh is 500 kilometres point-to-point but 400 miles by road). And "permit editors to deal with inconsistencies as they choose" is at best a recipe for arguments and at worst an excuse for bringing in full-metrication or source-based units by the back door by your old "can is not must" argument. I note that the whole point still assumes the non-existence of WP:IAR.

When it comes down to it, this is not a major Misplaced Pages-wide or even large-scale dispute. All this is is two editors with a chronic inability to drop the stick. There is no good reason to change the meaning of the current rule, so we should not change it. Kahastok talk 08:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an important issue and don’t think it should be dropped. Irrespective of metric vs imperial, there are important principles of clarity (units should be familiar and unambiguous) and self-consistency (units should be used consistently throughout an article; don’t switch half way through) that should be up front but I do not see them stated clearly. Have I missed them? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No: - The word "Everything" means just that "everything". It also means that whoever wrote the rule claims to have foreseen every possible situation - something that I will always dispute. Beer is sold by the pint in British pubs and any Misplaced Pages text that describes this should use pints as the primary unit of measure. It is of course appropriate to qualify that it is sold by the imperial pint, not the US pint. On the other hand, glasses of wine are specified in metric units - 125 ml, 175 ml and 250 ml. On the other hand, we should recognize that the metric system is the reference point for most, if not all, the world's systems of measure - the official definition of the yard is "0.9144 metres exactly". Similarly, the imperial pound is defined in terms of the kilogram. In line with this, the default should be to use metric units unless there is justifiable reason to the contrary.

@Dondervogel - I agree with your observations.

Martinvl (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but good luck persuading the others - The idea of "biasing" Misplaced Pages by preferring standard international measurements is bizarre and incoherent. Metrology is not politics, regardless of what those who like to imagine that the British Empire never ended might believe. The fact that we've gone so far into angels-on-pinheads territory that we consider it OK for dogs, kangaroos and whales to be measured in metres and kilograms, but not humans or horses, is a fitting statement of how silly, arbitrary and untenable this position is. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Having seen the progress of metrification, it seems clear that metric is progressing in the UK. Beer will always be sold in pints (although probably in 600 ml pints) but how many ounces that is will be forgotten... It seems to be a waste of time setting things in stone here when the UK is in the process of migrating to metric. If we give it a few years, metric might seem quite natural. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Imperial for everything

I've just come across another interesting, and very recent, article - this time from the BBC. In December 2011 they published an article titled "Will British people ever think in metric?". The most significant paragraph is this one: "Call it a proud expression of national identity or a stubborn refusal to engage with the neighbours. Either way, the persistent British preference for imperial over metric is particularly noteworthy at a time when its links with Europe are under greater scrutiny than ever." Clearly the writer of that article believes that the common usage in the UK is still predominantly imperial units.

Here is another piece providing more evidence that the UK people have not yet embraced metric.

And here (from January 2013) it seems that UK schools are to be asked to put more focus on teaching pupils imperial measures to prepare them for life in the still largely imperial UK. R.stickler (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

In the light of those: would anyone support the idea that all articles (non-scientific and non-engineering) related to the UK should use imperial units as the primary units? R.stickler (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• No. All Imperial won't work. Too much information is in metric, and as the Times policy recognises, the trend is for the gradual increase in metric use. Even if the Times opinion is mistaken, a huge amount of information is already in metric measures. This includes such things as the heights of hills and mountains, the area of parks, fields such as science and engineering and even information about heights and weights of footballers (though not of jockeys) is in metric terms. The idea that most or all of this can or will be rolled back is fanciful. The only thing that Misplaced Pages can do is to have a policy that tries to reflect actual usage. There are two ways of doing this: specify which units are to be put first in which context, or follow the most authoritative local sources as a general rule. Those favouring the continued use of imperial measures like to specify which units can be used and where, because it puts a brake on metric use. The other method, of following the sources as a general rule, has been attacked as a stalking horse for full metrication. In fact, it has the advantage of reflecting actual usage. Most editors of UK articles don't give a toss which unit comes first (except, perhaps, for miles for distances). Michael Glass (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases where imperial units come first under the current rules, it is miles for distances.

Source-based units have been repeatedly rejected for any number of reasons - including your habit of choosing the sources because they have metric units, and including the fact that if used in the spirit of the rule they would create rampant inconsistency - as demonstrated by the fact that you're saying that footballers should be described in metric units but jockeys should be described in imperial units. A "stalking horse for full metrication" is not a neutral description, except inasmuch as the rule is far too open to the extreme levels of abuse that we have seen from you over the past few years.

The claim "hose favouring the continued use of imperial measures like to specify which units can be used and where, because it puts a brake on metric use" implies a political agenda that does not exist. If people like me wanted to put a "brake on metric use", I would be arguing for mountains to be feet-first always and to put pounds first always before kilograms. The only places where the current rule puts imperial units first are places where usage is overwhelmingly more commonly imperial. Anything less than overwhelming imperial use is metric-first by the current guidelines. Kahastok talk 08:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Khastok, in 2010, you refused to budge even on Fahrenheit temperatures when there was overwhelming support for this to be changed in Falkland Island articles. It was you who objected to my putting information on parks in hectares, even though this is fully in line with MOSNUM policy. It is you who continues to scream blue murder about my documenting of footballers' heights and weights from the national leagues, even though these edits have remained in place for more than two years. Your agenda of opposing metrication is crystal clear and of long standing. Your tactics appear to come from the British Weights and Measures Association. I have suggested this on more than one occasion. You have never denied it.

I repeat: I do not put metric measures first in any article without documentary evidence. Inconsistency in any article can be a good reason for reconsidering the order of units. That is why I have not contested your flipping the display of the measurements of the mountains in the Munro article. The fact that you flipped the displays rather than seeking other sources shows just how empty your accusation of source shopping is. Michael Glass (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you've got no arguments so you start on the ad hominem.

I did - and do - strongly object to your mass-converting thousands of articles from a MOSNUM-favoured style to a MOSNUM-disfavoured style in flagrant and knowing violation of Misplaced Pages norms.

You say, "he fact that you flipped the displays rather than seeking other sources shows just how empty your accusation of source shopping is" - based on the premise that we already have source-based units. Which we don't. And in the context of source-based units, you're telling me I should be going "source shopping". Which says a lot.

On the Fahrenheit point, given the background (which I won't go into), and your already long-history of gaming this rule on Falklands articles, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I and other editors wanted to go by the book and not allow you shortcuts to undermine the wider consensus.

Ultimately, if I were the person you claim I am, I would be supporting this proposal. If my position did indeed "come from the British Weights and Measures Association" I would be supporting this proposal. If I had an "agenda of opposing metrication" I would be supporting this proposal. I am opposing this proposal. Kahastok talk 11:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

1. You started the ad hominem.
2. The fact that you accepted the sources I found showed either that they were OK or that you were too lazy to find better sources.
3. If we don't base our information on reliable sources, what do we base it on? Imagination?
4. Have a look at the link I provided. You were the holdout on using Celsius on the Falkland Islands.
5. I note your statement that implies that you are not associated with the British Weights and Measures Association. Michael Glass (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No - there is no reason why we should be required to use imperial first in contexts where metric is far more common, such as temperature. But I will say that the contexts (such as temperature) that are primarily metric-first tend to be more mixed than those that are overwhelmingly imperial-first (like distance), so a rule favouring imperial in case of significant inconsistency may be appropriate. Alternatively, we might simplify the rule by requiring all mile-derived units to come before kilometre-derived units, except as per standard exceptions and per WP:IAR. Kahastok talk 08:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No to the idea of reverting to all imperial. I agree with Kahastok on that point, and I welcome his support for temperatures to be Celsius first. However, I would also say no to Kahastok's suggestion that the present compromise should be rolled back. This is Misplaced Pages. Policy should not be determined by the dictates of the British Weights and Measures Association. Michael Glass (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As I note above, if I were arguing that policy should be determined by the dictates of the British Weights and Measures Association I would have supported this proposal. Policy should equally not be determined by the UK Metric Association as some would have it. I should be clear that I am happy with the present compromise, but pointing out avenues by which the alleged inconsistency that you continually bemoan might be fairly addressed. Kahastok talk 11:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am glad that you are happy with the present compromise. I hope that you won't push for it to be watered down. Michael Glass (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No: If you go into a supermarket, you will notice that almost every commodity on the shelves have their quantities expressed in metric units - the only product that supermarkets sell where metric units are not required in milk in returnable containers (plastic bottles must be labeled in metric units, even if it is "568 ml"). On the other hand, a sign showing a "50 limit" is a 50 mph limit, not a 50 km/h limit (except on certain tram lines). Given this disparity (maybe the word "mess" might be better), one cannot make cast-iron rules that cover all situations. Martinvl (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Farenheit is being used as ad hominem and nothing else. The unit is only used in the USA, so it's irrelevant for all but US articles anyhow. Current usage in the UK of a mixed bag of units of measurement is relevant to and a preoccupation of British editors. But it seems these editors will continue to argue and battle over which should prevail until the cows come home. I would be prepared to wager that that battle will continue to be waged even if the real life situation on the ground has been resolved. But we must never lose sight of the fact that we are here to serve the reader. From the perspective of the average reader, who isn't British and doesn't care about the ongoing debate in the UK, which units of measurement appear first is of little importance or relevance. Both are mandated to be displayed by MOSNUM, and one or the other can be easily parsed.

  If we use all imperial first, readers might think it quaint or quirky but will accept it. Equally, it will not cause problems to readers if we consistently use all metric first. My plea and hope is not to mix imperial and metric units even though the real life is otherwise in the UK. To continue to argue and bicker over this is to just be self-absorbed and parochial. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Farenheit is not only used in the USA, it is in common usage in the UK too, particularly for high summer temperatures. Most UK weather websites give the reader the option of using C or F and newspapers will give a mix. Outside of a scientific environment, the UK public would use F and C in equal measure - C usually for low temperatures and F more commonly for high ones. R.stickler (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"Common" among the over-60s perhaps. In my experience, everyone talks about the weather in Celsius, all remotely modern devices like ovens and washing machines are Celsius-only, thermometers are Celsius-only or dual-units (Fahrenheit-only thermometers are extremely rare). If only one temperature unit is given, it will invariably be Celsius (e.g. TV weather forecasts, British websites and newspapers). Archon 2488 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No unless articles on Scotland also use Scots miles, falls, ells, etc. and articles on China use Chinese customary measurements, etc. This is exactly the sort of confusion that the metric system was invented to get rid of. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This is absurd

I don't understand why this is being taken so far, to the point of absurdity. "Imperial for everything", "metric for everything"? This is a nuanced issue. I understand that uniformity would be preferable, but usage is not uniform, and nor can we be without favoring a point of view. It is that simple. All this talk is nothing more than a pointless debate. Neither of these options are worthwhile and neither are even worth discussing. The present system, however messy, does its best to replicate the mess that is the use of units in the UK. That is all we can hope for, and all we can do. Is it possible, then, that we can stop this madness? RGloucester — ☎ 21:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's absurd, but so is the idea that a system of measurement is a "point of view". The metric system is no more a point of view than the English language is a point of view; arguably even less so, since it was designed to be shared by people irrespective of their languages or cultures. I'd say the metric system is a point of view in the way that Arabic numerals vs. Roman numerals is a point of view. This entire debate was really settled long before any of us were born, when the primary physical definitions of the imperial units were abolished, and they were redefined in terms of metric units (this was in the 19th century). Traditionalists will moan that a pound is not "0.45359237 kg", although this is precisely what it is defined to be. Given that the units are long-redundant, they're not used by the overwhelming majority of people on Earth, and they don't have any natural relationship to one another (I was recently in an old lift with three weight-restriction signs that said "3 tons", "60 cwt" and "6720 lb" - of course, all the same quantity!), it's just a matter of waiting. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the questions themselves are absurd. It is the way the argument progresses that is frustrating. There is a fairly simple decision tree. We have already limited the discussion to non-scientific, non-engineering, UK-related articles and decided that both imperial and metric units should be displayed. So we are currently talking about the primary units (what goes first). We can also exclude exceptional cases where everybody agrees that WP:IAR applies. There are four logical alternatives:

• all metric
• all imperial
• try to reproduce real-life usage in the UK
• something else.

The next question where no decision seems to have been documented is: "Which usage (register) should we reflect?

• colloquial usage,
• educational usage,
• journalistic usage
• scholarly usage
• something different
• dependent on the topic (remember that we have excluded only scientific and engineering articles from the start).

--Boson (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

However, I would first ask:

Who supports/opposes leaving the current text exactly as it is? --Boson (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Unenthusiastic yes, it's a consensus position, as unsatisfactory as it might be. If others were to support a more progressive position I'd be happy to agree with them, but I see no evidence that they could ever be persuaded by any amount of argumentation. So long as the Peter Hitchens mentality persists in Britain, the dreaded "foreign kilometres" will never be welcome. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Who supports/opposes closing the discussion on "all imperial" and "all metric" as both rejected?--Boson (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion I'd propose discussing separate points separately, so rather than "all metric" etc. we could talk about heights/weights and distances separately, but I don't see those discussions progressing very far, when we seem to have people still pining for Fahrenheit. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It's only absurd when people going around stirring up hornets' nests, deliberately putting British footballers' heights and weights into metric first in violation of the guideline, usually justified by the "follow the sources" argument. If people can't respect what's already a ridiculous fudge in the guideline by doing taking this sort of course, there's little hope for peace. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 01:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Archon2488's suggestion above. I think almost everyone realises that we cannot have an all-metric or all-imperial rule at this stage. That means we are stuck with a compromise, and this means that there will be inconsistencies. i do believe that the present compromise could be tweaked. The general rule in the UK may be that heights and weights are given in imperial, but there are exceptions:

• BBC Sport player profiles: metric only.
• Premier League player profiles: metric only
• Rugby League player profiles: metric only.
• Rugby Union player profiles: metric first

I think it would be in order either to ignore MOSNUM per IAR and follow the codes or change MOSNUM to recognise player profiles as an exception to the general rule to put imperial measures first for UK heights and weights. Michael Glass (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I too agree with @Archon2488:, and I think @Boson: has posted a useful analysis above. I don’t know about the UK, but have observed the mixed, transitional, or confused situation here in Canada for some time. Register and context are both significant. Most anglophone Canadians talk about personal dimensions in traditional units (we use the “short” measures for weight, never stones) but official documents like drivers’ licences give them in metric. Road signs are exclusively metric (everywhere I’ve been, anyway), and dashboard instruments are metric-first or metric-only, while colloquial discussion of road distances & speeds is pretty evenly mixed. I haven’t heard anyone for decades using Fahrenheit in the context of weather, unless e.g. describing a visit to the USA, but it still prevails, almost exclusively, for ovens, cookbooks, and related conversations. (Many more examples could be adduced.)

Ultimately it’s the reader we should be considering, and the principle of least astonishment. I must say, though, as long as this whole question is about which comes first, as opposed to which to include, it’s not worth a fraction of the time, electrons, & server-kittens that have been sacrificed to it.—Odysseus1479 03:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've requested an admin close this frankly ridiculous discussion and hope that whoever does it sees fit to enact my suggestion of a moratorium on this ridiculous argument. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The danger of a moratorium is that it would become impossible for anyone to have a discussion about this issue should there be any substantial change in the primary units used for certain things in the future (e.g. the acre was officially deprecated in 2010, so what if miles are officially deprecated by 2020?). It's an important stylistic point in the sense that people care about it (evidently!) and there are cases where hard-and-fast regulations are too much of a straitjacket, and editors will be (and are) upset by being forced to conform to a MOS that is tied to a certain rather conservative perception of common British usage circa 2013. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

I've noticed that the words metre/meter and kilometre/kilometer are spelt both ways in the policy. Should we make the spelling consistent or let sleeping dogs lie? Michael Glass (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The find function reveals the following:

• metre, 12 matches; meter, 5 matches
• kilometre, 4 matches; kilometer 1 match Michael Glass (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
• favour 1 match

As "consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise" I propose to change the other spellings to metre and kilometre. Please let me know if this raises any concern. Michael Glass (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure AmEng was the traditional variety for MOSNUM. -re might have crept in. I do think it should be regularised to -er. A note about the different spellings would be in order at the top of the units section, yes? Tony (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked the earliest versions of MOSNUM - the American spelling "meter" was used. However care should be taken in making a blanket conversion to US spelling-

• The text "the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long" should remain as it is because it is an Australian example
• The text "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth" should use the spelling of the article and if it is agreed that the default spelling should be American, then this item should be changed.

However before making any changes, lets see what the consensus is and once that consensus has been reached, write it to the Talk Page and, as suggested by Tony, a note at the top of the page. For my part, I am not going to oppose this page using US spelling as the default, but I am not going to do any of the work of the conversion. Martinvl (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem in principle if we regularise the spelling one way or the other. However, Martin has pointed out one case where there would be a break in style if we regularise on US spellings. I know that the manual of style uses mainly US spellings and I don't see any harm in MOS having US spellings and MOSNUM with the alternative. In fact it would demonstrate that Misplaced Pages does not take sides in matters of spelling. I think we need to get consensus before making a change. If consensus cannot be reached, then I guess we would have to let sleeping dogs lie. Michael Glass (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long"—I'd choose another example if it grates. But the clause could come from an article written in AmEng on river lengths worldwide. Tony (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This guide covers an encyclopedia that accepts various national varieties of English on an article-by-article basis. So we could decide upon American or British spelling. But even if we did, any example, even a made-up example, could be imagined as an example from an American English article, or a British English article. So if we decide on a variety of English for this article, I think we should leave all examples as they are. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The idea that this guideline should be "consistent" in its selection of ENGVAR seems to hinge on viewing it as an "article", which it clearly is not. There might be an case for explicitly noting which ENGVAR is illustrated in each example used. I notice also that template:convert/doc indicates that both variants are supported by that template. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Murray River ... rethink ... it's a quote, isn't it. So there's no need for it to be in any other variety than AusEng. Tony (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there appears to be no consensus on what to do about the inconsistency in spelling I've pointed out. I've suggested British spelling, two others have suggested American spelling, one has said that the examples of usage can use any spelling and one has argued that the policy on consistency doesn't apply as this isn't an article. (I think that was the intended meaning.) At this point I'm not sure what to do. I don't feel that it's appropriate to leave the article as it is but I certainly don't feel that if I regularised it to either British or American spelling that this would satisfy all. Perhaps someone else could come up with a proposal that might gain support. Michael Glass (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the body text should be consistent with the rest of the MoS, but I‘d just as soon leave the heterogenous examples; for one thing, they serve as a reminder that the guidance is applicable to both/all varieties of English.—Odysseus1479 07:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like an opinion in support of applying American spelling. Is that right? Michael Glass (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes concerning the body text, presuming that’s normal for MoS pages in general and despite my personal preference; not necessarily in examples, especially if they’re drawn from Br/Can/AusE articles, as if they were quotations; No in the table where SI unit names are presented in both international and US spellings.—Odysseus1479 01:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Revised proposal

In the light of the discussion above, would it be acceptable to regularise MOSNUM to American spellings (except for examples of other usage) or would editors prefer leaving the spelling as it is (a mixture of spellings, predominantly non-US)? Michael Glass (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not worth the trouble to have and enforce a dialect guideline/policy for the page. Maybe it would work if there was a guideline/policy for all MOS pages, but I'm certain that proposing such a guideline wouldn't go over especially well in the wider community. Besides, particularly with respect to metre/meter & litre/liter, American usage is deviant compared to everywhere else, in English and in general. That's probably the worst instance from which to craft a general rule. TheFeds 04:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Leave it be. RGloucester — ☎ 12:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD (ISO 8601) in All Scopes

I'd like to suggest allowing this date format in all scopes, rather than limiting it to "references, tables, lists or areas where conciseness is needed."

• It's arguably the most unambiguous format (by virtue of starting with the year, it can't be misread as "American" MM-DD-YYYY when it's actually "European" DD-MM-YYYY, or vice versa).
• Its big-endian format mirrors decimal numbering.
• Its worldwide adoption keeps increasing, thanks perhaps to its use by computers, the military, and the ISO.

I'm not suggesting it be listed as preferred, only as acceptable. Thank you. Startswithj (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There has been no end of discussion on the matter. Please check talk archives. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 02:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

When Startswithj wrote "'American' MM-DD-YYYY when it's actually 'European' DD-MM-YYYY" I wonder if the editor meant all numeric dates, for example, 9-5-2013 or 5-9-2013. If so, these are already forbidden, so the reason for the change does not exist. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of adoption increasing? I'd love to see it happen, as I'm a big supporter – I just haven't seen any increase in usage. —— 07:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

MusicBrainz use YYYY-MM-DD see (top right in desktop mode) . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The simplest reasons to avoid ISO dates in running prose is that it breaks the reading process with an unnatural format. I realize not everyone reads "verbally", but even having the ISO date requires one to pause to flip around. There are times where dates are being presented inter-sentence as data, but more often than not, dates as process lead off a sentence ("On January 1, 2013, this happened...") or used in other adverb-like phrasing, and there just make the ISO inclusion needlessly complicating the sentence. Hence why preferable to avoid the format in running process. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree that the majority of English speakers read and speak dates primarily as either "on January one, twenty thirteen" or "on one January twenty thirteen" (perhaps swap "first" for "one," and/or add "the" and/or "of" around the day). But I have heard (and I personally read and speak) "on twenty thirteen January one" (or "…first"). Being US-born, the little-endian model gives the slightest pause to my reading…and being a traveler and sometime programmer, the middle-endian ("American") model gives the slightest confusion to my comprehension.

I realize no single person's preference nor any anecdote counts for much, and we can't serve every reader perfectly. The manual does say "acceptable" however, not "preferable." Startswithj (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Too much choice is dangerous. It's like the proverbial genie. Let it out of the bottle, and although most people will not use it, it will end up running our lives. Once it's made optional, it's one more format to manage and maintain. There will always be those who insist it is de rigeur on articles they work on. Then will begin the edit warring and never-ending jostling for the validity of the format. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 18:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that it ends up with "only those choices preferred by ". However, I do agree that the best compromise is the current one: allow its use in tables and "bare" lists but not in running text. However, this is a compromise that needs to be respected by both "sides" (am I ever hopeful!). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

May I add URL access-dates to that list. Using YYYY-MM-DD consistently in an article allows the reader to quickly differentiate between access-dates and publication dates. Martinvl (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Being a proponent of YMD everywhere, I for one obviously would not object to what I think you propose. Startswithj (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a natural format for most English speakers. I'd rather it not be used at all on WP. Jimp 10:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Being a proponent of the ISO 8601 format as well, I would, of course, support a change to allow the yyyy-mm-dd format everywhere. However, previous discussions have shown that some people are attempting to overturn even the long established consensus which allows the yyyy-mm-dd format to be used in lists, tables and references. I don't think it would be a good idea trying to defeat one extreme position by another, therefore I think the current consensus to allow the yyyy-mm-dd format in list, tables and references, but not in prose (except for if the article must use this format for some reason), is a good and working consensus. The number of people accustomed to ISO 8601 is constantly increasing, and there will be no turning back the more we get interconnected, so, in the long run the English Misplaced Pages will have to allow the yyyy-mm-dd format in prose as well for simple reasons of practicability, but apparently it is still too early for this to happen now. I think, it will happen naturally and noone will have reasons to object any more in a couple of years, so there is no reason to push it, IMHO. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

YYYY-MMM-DD Format

I'd like to suggest adding year-month-day format—with the month spelled as its three-letter abbreviation—to the list of acceptable, non-prose usages. This option has an advantage of being even less ambiguous than using numbers for months. It also aligns well if listing dates, due to the uniform length of abbreviations and digits. Its listing might also prevent a confusion I myself had earlier in the conversation above.

Cursorily I can point to:

• Calendar_date's listing of the YYYY-MMM-D format and its partial use in Canada and Eastern Asia.
• A paper by Dr Markus Kuhn of Cambridge (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html) citing partial usage in Eastern Asia and Northern Europe.
• A paper by Ian Galpin of MIT (http://web.mit.edu/jmorzins/www/iso8601/y2kiso.htm) citing usage by astronomers and occasionally other scientists.

Thank you, Startswithj (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not support additional formats for dates that are not part of citations; we have enough, and the ones we have are the most natural for English-speaking people.

However, WP:CITE allows one to follow printed style guides, several of which are named. Some of these call for other date formats in particular situations, including APA Style's endorsement of "2013, September 7" for publication date; I am unaware of any citation style guide that would call for the format suggested by Startswithj. I believe following established style guides should be allowed to facilitate the use of citation management software that supports these styles. (An RfC trying to determine whether date format in citations is controlled by WP:CITE or WP:MOSDATE was inconclusive.) Jc3s5h (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Such a format would be very rare in Canada. East Asia is irrelevant. I would not support allowing this format. Jimp 10:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Falklands units

Kindly take note that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 09:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a similar discussion on the Falkland Islands talk page. Michael Glass (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

kB (or kbit/s) or KB is not ambigious

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages style and naming Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

For purposes of writing English Misplaced Pages articles, does ambiguity exist about whether kB means 1000 bytes and KB means 1024 bytes? 16:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See recent revert of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AManual_of_Style%2FDates_and_numbers&diff=573344515&oldid=573336953 "BINARY PREFIXES ARE CONTROVERSIAL; I DEMAND RFC BEFORE THIS IS CHANGED"

I think I'm following protocol, not sure if there is another one for WP namespace. If he means RFC=Request for Comments then feel free to share your opinion. If people take a deep breath and read the section as I changed it, and Kilobyte and maybe the discussion on my talk-page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Comp.arch#kB_vs_KB

They will see that it is a good change. I know kilobyte is ambigious and megabyte, but written down, just as kbit/s = 1,000 b/s, and KB = 1024 B and the recent change to decimal kilobytes mandated kB=1000 B. The binary prefixes are only "controversial" for MB and up. comp.arch (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I consider kB and KB to be ambiguous because the main standard that serious, academically-oriented organizations refer to, IEC 60027, has not been widely accepted by the popular media, popular software, or manufacturers. Thus there is a vacuum for authoritative statements on this matter.

Also, when statements are made concerning disk files, sometimes base 10 is used and other times binary-related sizes are used, making it hard to tell from context which is intended.

I have not found a quality source that has performed a survey of current use of these terms and can make a definite statement about how these terms are generally used. I must say I discount all positive statements made by editors who have not provided impressive sources to back them up. Measurements are fraught with ambiguity. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering kB to be ambiguous is rather contrived, but KB most definitely is ambiguous. So changing kB to KB where 1024 B is meant seems justified, but changing the MOS as proposed is not. −Woodstone (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't use a should and mentioned "They are however sometimes mixed up but need not be." But if I know 1000 bytes is meant or 1024 bytes is meant, what should I you do? I see nothing wrong with pointing people to kB and KB (or KiB, it's just not recommented) - if they are not ambigious, as I thought. I think all OSs have changed to kB and decimal now (or use KB for binary). No one officially mixes this up right? comp.arch (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

k/K is ambiguous. Enough said.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See, Kilobyte, I and DrSeehas (thanks) recently edited it, and I tried to make it clear that people mix it up (especially when it always meant KB (1024), but just as people mix up mHz and MHz and are wrong, we should not say that it is ambigious when people are just wrong (and the JEDEC standard and IEC never use k with binary or K with decimal). WP:COMPUNIT should use a should in my opinion, but I didn't even dare to go there only not mislead people into thinking they are ambigious, see the edit. comp.arch (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"statements are made concerning disk files", I don't worry to much about accuracy there. I just hate seeing kB in hardware context, such as CPU cache sizes. It is just wrong there and nothing wrong with using kB only in decimal context. comp.arch (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

At present, the MOS explicitly recommends to use a capital "K" prefix for binary units (1024), as this is what is meant most of the time when someone writes "KB" (probably because this is what is typically used in operating system messages dealing with memory or file sizes rather than speeds). It is also standardized in JEDEC. (Alternatively, the IEC "Ki" prefix can be used for binary units, but since this form is not widely used outside sciences we allow it only in certain rather specific scenarios as detailed in the MOS.) So far, so good.

What is still missing - and we should therefore add it - is the opposite recommendation to use a lower-case "k" prefix when the decimal unit (1000) is meant. While this won't solve the potential ambiguity and we cannot enforce it, it would at least provide some guidance to editors running into the problem and having to make a decision. They may implicitly make this decision already given that we recommend a capital "K" for 1024, but I think it would be better, if we'd recommend it explicitly.

In the long run, this would help reduce the number of occurances where "kB" was used for binary units and "KB" for decimal units and the correct type cannot be determined out of the context of the article.

Such a recommendation wouldn't help the case for "M", "G", "T" etc (unless we would allow the IEC prefixes to be used for binary units more often), but since it wouldn't introduce any new inconsistencies either, let's at least improve the situation for "k"/"K" somewhat.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not advocationg changing anything about the other SI prefixes (binary prefixes in general), and agree to everything you say. I'm not sure what to do there or recommend. Maybe this is just a lost cause and I should not correct kB->KB where I think appropriate. People have reverted (or commented) and pointed to COMPUNITS. comp.arch (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The MOS currently states:

Follow these recommendations when using these prefixes in Misplaced Pages articles:

• Specify if the binary or decimal meanings of K, M, G, etc. are intended as the primary meaning. Consistency within each article is desirable, but the need for consistency may be balanced with other considerations.

• A capital K can be used for "kilo-" when it means 1024 in computing contexts.

What, if we make this the first item in the list and change it as follows:

Follow these recommendations when using these prefixes in Misplaced Pages articles:

• Following the SI standard, a lower-case k should be used for "kilo-" whenever it means 1000 in computing contexts, whereas a capital K should be used instead to indicate the binary prefix for 1024 according to JEDEC. (If, under the exceptions detailed further below, the article otherwise uses IEC prefixes for binary units, use Ki instead).
• Do not assume that the binary or decimal meaning of prefixes will be obvious to everyone, therefore explicitly specify the meaning of k and K as well as the primary meaning of M, G, etc. in an article. Consistency within each article is desirable, but the need for consistency may be balanced with other considerations.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I can live with this suggestion since the MoS is supposed to be "best practices" but I think we all know that "therefore explicitly specify the meaning of k and K as well".. will not be followed be people, however I see no good solution. In articles like Apple A7 and similar I see KB signaling binary kilobyte (the kibibyte) and I even liked to kibibyte and not kilobyte. See edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Apple_A7&diff=574076414&oldid=574041777 I linked MB to Mebibyte (and similar for GB) also to signify that I do not mean 1,000,000 bytes. Maybe you view these links as fulfilling the MoS guidelines. For people in the know they already know that binary must be intended in this context anyway but for others they can click KB if they find it peculiar that kB is not used.. This is the first time I'm involved in (MoS) vote. Should it happen soon? The discussion seems to have died. comp.arch (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Since this is just a minor refinement or clarification of what was already stated in the MOS implicitly and it does not negate anything previously stated there (and therefore it won't have any huge impact on existing articles, hopefully just give slightly better directions for future edits), I just edited it accordingly. Nothing is hammered in stone, and if someone objects, we'll further refine it, seeking for the best-most possible solution as we always do. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

* Comment Some things justify a fixed standard only on the principle of "voteffer iss not specifically permitted iss verboten; voteffer is specifically permitted iss compulsory." A healthy dose of common sense commonly proves fatal to uninured constitutions. There decidedly should be no standard here:

• partly because there is no universal standard,
• partly because if there were such a standard and it were widely observed it would be confusing and a source of error,
• partly because it hardly ever makes a material difference in everyday usage (error of less than one part in 40, too little to matter in typical calculations of disk space etc), and
• partly because in the rare circumstances where it does matter, its justification would require that it must matter enough to justify explicitly and conspicuously stating the convention being observed, as well as its application. If it does not matter even that much, it is decidedly better not to waste reader time and bandwidth on such trivialities.

The whole thing in any case is not worth MoS wars on such pseudoconcerns. Any sane standard would require that if omission of an explicit standard is practical, it should be omitted accordingly, and that where in exceptional cases some explicit convention proves desirable, the convention be stated in context. JonRichfield (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment It will always technically be ambiguous, and that's ok. People understand what is needed from context. If I send someone out to get "4 gig of parity memory for a PC", they come back with memory totaling 2 × 9 bits. If I'm getting "33.75 Mbps download speed on my internet connection", it means I'm receiving at a rate of 33,750,000 bits (4,218,750 bytes) per second. If I order "a key of sugar" for a baking party, I'll be expecting a 1000 g brick. If you happen to want, specifically, the disk drive with a capacity of 40,000,000,000 bytes, and not the one that's 10 × 2 bytes (for some reason), then you had better spell that out, and not rely on anyone to interpret the nuance of letter-case or strange new prefix names.

I tried to find the date of this "K for 1024" JEDEC standard and was unable to, but I know that the only prefix near 1000 when I went to school 30 years ago was emphatically lower-case "k". The only place it meant 1024 was in the computer realm, when speaking of memory and disk space. An upper-case K attracted the more nit-picky instructor's red pen. In practice, when I've seen someone write KB instead of kB (or even Kb or kb in a context where bits don't make sense), I just assume it's a mistake, not an attempt to mean KiB. Until/unless a whole generation of students is taught and uses the K=1024 standard (and figures out what to do with the more important M, G, and T), it's hard to imagine it will be widespread enough to be unambiguous. —— 23:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Problematic binary prefix paragraph

While editing Kilobyte user Comp.arch has misinterpreted this paragraph:

Misplaced Pages follows common practice regarding bytes and other data traditionally quantified using binary prefixes (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 2 and 2 respectively) and their unit symbols (e.g. MB and KB). Despite the IEC's 1998 guideline creating several new binary prefixes (e.g. mebi-, kibi-) to distinguish the meaning of the decimal SI prefixes (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 10 and 10 respectively) from the binary ones, consensus on Misplaced Pages currently favours the retention of the binary prefixes in computing-related contexts. Use 256 MB of RAM, not 256 MiB of RAM.

It's no wonder the paragraph was misunderstood; it's a long-winded way of saying we don't normally use the IEC symbols such as "Mi". But the paragraph can be read to mean that when combined with byte or bit, kilo- and mega- always have their binary meaning and never have their decimal meaning, which is just wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What I actually put in Kilobyte (that you reverted along with more that I hadn't put in):

Misplaced Pages standard uses kilobyte to mean KB = 1024 bytes unless 'kB' or 'KB', or other method is used is used to state intended meaning. It also recommends kilobyte over kibibyte.

I'm referring to the Misplaced Pages standard and although not usually a reliable source, isn't it reliable as it's own guidelines? Anyway I can say this in Kilobyte article without getting reverted, for citing Misplaced Pages or for not citing anything? comp.arch (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The word "kilobyte" might mean 1000 bytes, or 1024 bytes. If the former, the usual symbol is kB; if the latter, the usual symbol is KB. I don't think there is any standard claiming that kilobyte means 1024 bytes unless otherwise indicated.

Misplaced Pages style conventions are not suitable as subject matter for articles. One reason is that a reader who has not participated as a Misplaced Pages editor might not realize that the style suggested in the Manual of Style and its various subpages is not consistently followed, and can not be relied upon to accurately interpret any ambiguous terminology that might be present in some of our articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

fractions and accessibility

How is the use of the Unicode precomposed characters (e.g. ¼, ½, ⅖) bad for accessibility? From the standpoint of readability, the improvement in typography is a win. The "½" character means "one half" just like the character "5" means "five". I don't see what's not accessible. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

When the rest of text the has been balanced between being readable while getting a reasonable amount of text on the screen, the Unicode fractions are too small to read. A different problem is that articles that use these fractions are also likely to need fractions for which no Unicode fraction is available, leading to inconsistent typography. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The former argument is font-dependent, but I concede the latter point. Unless it's an isolated use of a common fraction, it may make more sense to write them out oneself. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Migratory seasons

I was wondering why there is an exception to the WP:SEASON guideline: "Season names are preferable, however, when they refer to a phase of the natural yearly cycle (migration to higher latitudes typically starts in mid-spring)." To me this makes no sense at all for pelagic species, such as the Sooty Shearwater, which traverses both hemispheres during its migration. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 21:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just read more of B.d.mills' treatise on hemispheric bias, and in particular the section on the talk page about bird migration in which they mention that usage of season names is appropriate when taken from the perspective of the bird itself, not from the perspective of a human resident of either the northern or southern hemisphere. Perhaps this information should be added somehow to the guideline page, for clarification. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 22:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ordinals in dates

What is the reasoning behind this prohibition, and what is its history in this manual? — Scott • talk 08:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I had wondered about this too, so I searched the archives. I didn't find any record of an early decision not to use ordinals in dates, which made me think that the decision was made very early. In fact, I went to the 100th edit of this section of the MoS (back in 2004) and ordinals were not mentioned but dates without ordinals were used in the examples of how to properly write dates. There's nothing inherently wrong with ordinals in dates, and there have been occasional efforts to change the MoS to allow them, but there has never been a consensus to change. SchreiberBike talk 21:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's a rather archaic practice to use ordinal dates. Although people might employ the construction in vernacular, very very few people use it in written form these days. The usage declined massively in the 1960s. Of course, we still see them used in quotes, for example Victoria Cross citations. But then we don't change verbatim quotes to remove them. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 02:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe many professional style guides (such as the Chicago manual) share our MOS's recommendation not to add "-nth" to date's day numbers. Startswithj (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, let's go with the authoritative style guides in English—US, UK, Australian—in proscribing the messy little ordinal suffixes. It went the way of "the" and "of", years ago: "the 22nd of June", people wrote 50 years ago. Tony (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

and "the 22nd inst." in the preceding century.—

As I understand Chicago (not a current edition), '22 July' is the appropriate spelling of both "twenty-two" and "twenty-second" as spoken, so we should change so-called verbatim quotations in this respect. That is, when we do use numerals. --P64 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I for one would strongly object to changing the spelling of direct written quotes. If the quote is totally oral, there is perhaps a bit more flexibility, but Misplaced Pages is almost always going to depend on a text source for any quote. DES 15:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing quotes to remove archaic usage is a total nonsense. If we were to do what you proposed, then we'd have to change all instances of "thou" in Shakespeare to "you", because the use of pronoun thou is archaic in most modern English dialects. Does that make much sense? No. A written quote should not be changed. Especially in this instance, where it does not affect comprehension. RGloucester — ☎

However, this isn't what MOS:QUOTE#Typographic conformity says. It allows "alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud". This seems to me to apply to changing, for example, "July 22nd, 1934" in the original to "July 22, 1934" in Misplaced Pages. I would personally read both aloud as "July the twenty-second, ..."; others might read both as "July twenty-second". This is quite different from changing "thou" to "you". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually i would read "July 22, 1934" aloud as a cardinal "July twenty-two nineteen-thirty-four". DES 00:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Archaism is not the point, I agree. Just now I inserted a break in my preceding comment. --P64 (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't really that different from changing "thou" to "you", as the meaning doesn't change. It merely is a different way of speaking. I'm away of what the MOS says on the matter. I am, however, disagreeing. There isn't any reason to harm the integrity of the historical dialect present in a quote. It is essential that this remain, so that the reader understands how people spoke and wrote and the time the quote was produced. RGloucester — ☎ 21:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Who is advocating changing quotes to remove archaic usage? Not the MOS, certainly. End of story? -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 04:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, User:RGloucester is clearly wrong to equate changing "thou" to "you" with changing "22nd" to "22". The first change does alter meaning: "thou" carries distinctions not present in modern "you", such as singularity, being in the nominative case, and familiarity or condescension. The second change does not alter meaning. On the other hand, I suspect the root cause here is an issue which comes up over and over again on the various MoS talk pages: whether or not it's right to change the style of a source, coupled often with a lack of agreement on what counts as style. The MoS advocates changing quotes to remove archaic styles, but not to remove archaic usages. It's only the "end of story" if there is full agreement both on this principle and on what counts as style. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, dear fellow. But to the modern reader (which is who will be reading it), it does not change the meaning. That is because we now can use "you" with condescension and familiarity and because "you" could always function as either a singular or a plural, so that has not changed. We use "you" now in the way "thou" was originally used, and we all use "you" in the way "you" was originally used. The two have merged. I know the original T-V distinction, but even that began to fade by the time Shakespeare was around, when it became a muddle of pragmatism. This muddle ended-up with thou falling out of use.

Regardless, this is irrelevant. I don't think the MoS should remove archaic styles for the sake of it. Are they not an integral part of what locates said text in the era it is from? I suppose I shan't argue over this, as it matters little to me. But it sounds queer regardless. RGloucester — ☎ 13:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is "irrelevant", because, as I noted above, there is a recurring issue here; you are far from being the only editor not entirely happy with the view taken in the MoS that Misplaced Pages is free to change styles from those in the source. But to discuss this sensibly we need to be able to distinguish "style" from other issues. The fact that many modern readers don't know that "thou" and "you" at one time had different semantic and pragmatic features doesn't mean that one should be replaced by the other when quoting a source, because other modern readers (even if only a small minority) do know this, and the information should not be hidden from them. On the other hand, "October 10th" and "October 10" have precisely the same meaning; it's a pure style issue.

(Previous heated discussions involving the issue of what is purely a matter of style include: changing hyphens to en-dashes, the de-capitalization of the English names of species, and the use of logical quotation in articles in American English.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:STRONGNAT and international events hosted by the United States.

In specific regard to the article 1994 FIFA World Cup which is the single World Cup event hosted by the United States, one editor seems to have the opinion that all articles pertaining to association football (soccer) should use DMY and MDY is not appropriate, despite the event being held in the US. The article and all articles pertaining to this event should use MDY since it was hosted by the United States. JOJ 00:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not an issue which should be discussed here, in my view. Clearly a case can be made either way: soccer is not a sport associated with the US, so there's no "STRONGNAT"; this particular World Cup was held in the US, so there is. Editors need to reach consensus on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was hosted by the USA, but the vast majority of people who took part in it and watched it were not from the USA, and the MDY form seems to be pretty much exclusive to the USA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Vast majority, yes, but thats shouldn't be a factor. The deciding factor should be the country in which the event was held. And since this one World Cup was held in the US, this one World Cup should use the MDY associated with the US.--JOJ 12:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about an immovable object based in the US, or an individual that is/was a US national. Even the US military has, by our convention, adopted dmy dates per WP:TIES. So mdy is not the only American date format. I think the location where the footy tournament takes place can be regarded as accessory to the event. An American born of US parents in Britain is still American. Imagine if Michael Jackson were to have died in England during his last concert tour, I'm sure the Americanness of the deceased and the death would be strongly defended, as it would be argued that the primary subject was MJ. Similarly, this is a FIFA event, and should be dmy by the same argument that you have so strongly defended the Americanness of films (i.e. organised and funded by) which we have been heatedly arguing about. The USA doesn't own this like it owns basketball, baseball or the other type of football, and is only the host of one of the series of an organisation that seems to have adopted dmy as its format. -- Ohc _{¿que pasa?} 15:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Either way, there's no general principle involved here, so the issue should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well this is very disturbing trend indeed. I wouldn't say that any country owns any sport. The mere idea that since soccer (football) isn't as popular in the United States and therefore articles pertaining to tournaments held within its boundaries are not subject to WP:STRONGNAT is somewhat ludicrous. We are only talking about the articles related to a single tournament. I see no reason why the articles should not follow the standard date formats for the host nation. And this is not the same issue as with the films. JOJ 16:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with JOJ. If arranging the 1994 World Cup doesn't constitute strong national ties to it, I don't know what does. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Likewise – commenting on the "owning basketball, baseball", etc, sentence above – basketball tournaments such as the European championships, the Olympics (except when arranged in the USA) would use the international date format. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Roman numerals for centuries?

The manual says "Do not use Roman numerals, such as "MMXII" for "2012", to denote years." Much farther down, it also says "Centuries and millennia not in quotes or titles should be either spelled out (eighth century) or in Arabic numeral(s) (8th century)." It might be good to change the first instruction to "... to denote years or centuries.", or is it already obvious enough? I had to dig a little. Chris the speller  15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It would perhaps then better be reworded as 'Do not use Roman numerals to denote years or centuries, such as "MMXII" for "2012".' It seems a quite uncontroversial change to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That would shorten the MoS by a little bit, and that is good. There is a downside though. When I make corrections to uses of centuries, I link to WP:CENTURY because there is a good description of how centuries should be written there. That would become less clear. SchreiberBike talk 23:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Comma after the year in MDY format where the date is an adjective

This discussion has recently come up in WP:SEVERE, and it's probably best to have the discussion here, rather than there, for consistency. At issue is whether a comma has to be placed (specifically in a title) where the MDY date serves as an adjective describing a noun that immediately follows it (e.g. June 1, 2011 tornado outbreak). I was taught that it is permissible to omit the second comma, and I have found various Internet sources that support this; however, I have found some that disagree. The MOS does not explicitly address commas involving MDY dates acting as adjectives, so I figured I would bring the discussion here for some guidance. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don’t see that being adjectival makes any difference; the usual rationale for using both commas is that the year is a kind of parenthesis, and should not seem more closely connected to what follows than it is to the rest of the date. (That said, I think I would usually prefer paraphrasing to avoid the adjectival usage.)—Odysseus1479 05:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There has fairly recently been a similar lengthy discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) that hasn't led anywhere so far. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Some editors hold strong views for or against metrication in the UK. If there is disagreement about the main units used in a UK-related article, discuss the matter on the article talk-page, at MOSNUM talk, or both. If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the main units. Note the style guides of British publications such as Times Online (under "Metric").
2. http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/breakdown_advice/driver-location-signs.html
3. http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/ian93r1.pdf
4. http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_185820.pdf
5. Misplaced Pages:COMPUNITS

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment