Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 2 October 2006

Archives

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5a, 6, 7, 8, 9, 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

See also:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)
• Misplaced Pages talk:Timeline standards
• Misplaced Pages:Measurements Debate

Proposed Amendment to Section 1.2

Section 1.2 of Manual of Style (dates and numbers), concerns the linkage of dates that contain the months and the day in that month. I would like to propose amending this section to include the correct English day/date format.

I would like to point out that there is some major bias towards the US in this Manual of Style (as with many articles and other guides). It uses many examples of how the date is formally written or spoken, that are very rarely used in many English speaking countries other than the United States.

For Example:

• In the UK, Australia and New Zealand the majority of people say: The 5th of March, 2006. It is very rare to hear somone say 5 February 2006, as the later does not make any sense, it implies that there are 5 seperate Februarys. This also is the same for February 5, implying there was a February 4 and a February 3, etc, but this makes no sense either as there has been millions of Februarys since the begining of the Georgian callendar and there is no use in counting them all.

• The use of these other formats make no sense, are inapropriate to use to determine a date in time, and are somthing that is used primarily in the US. The majority of the English speaking world can speak English in a way that hasnt diviated from the English language enough to result in ambiguity or inaccurateness, so thats the way it should be in the English Misplaced Pages, the correct way.

The aim of this proposal is to change the way that the day and the month are written in articles, especially biographical articles. (The article on the late Steve Irwin, has a date format that hardly anyone here in Australia uses: 22 February. I changed it to 22nd of February, and someone changed it back to 22 February. My brother pronounces the word' mirror' as though he is saying 'merra', he watches alot of americanised TV. I personally, feel that I have a responsibility to ensure that 'American English' stays in the country that it originated from, just as 'Australian English' must stay in this country. I don't want American English infiltrating one of the worlds largest encyclopedias, because it is the English Misplaced Pages not the Polish Misplaced Pages, not the Japanese Misplaced Pages, not the American English Misplaced Pages, not the Australian English Misplaced Pages.

Proposed Changes:

• That 22 February and February 22 be changed to 22nd of February or the 22nd of February.

• This implies that it is the 22nd day in the month of February. There is no ambiguity, it is more universally accepted amongst english speaking countries, and maintains the English language in the English Misplaced Pages.

It should be noted that date formats such as dd/mm/yy, mm/dd/yy, yyyy/mmm/dd, etc, are a seperate issue and not included in this proposed amendment.

Thanks for reading and lets hope we can set things straight and do things the right way. Nick carson 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think this format should be allowed, as it is the way it is read and it is acceptable formal English. —Centrx→talk • 07:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But of course I am a transplant from the 18th century. —Centrx→talk • 03:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. It's acceptable only in formal (i.e., archaic) English in the UK, anyway. (We're tour guides for visitors from the UK and Germany at the moment, and that's their opinion.) If you can get the developers to accept that as a date format for wikilinking, and it really is commonly used in Australia, neutral. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I shouldn't have to get anyone to accept the fact that 22 February and February 22 don't make any sense, its insane. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. On the basis that the present system has the merit of brevity, that too much angst has already been caused over dates and introducing another is a bad idea. I also agree that it looks archaic. --Guinnog 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the current format looks childish. Angst felt in the past is no excuse to dismiss an issue. If you actually read my proposal you would have realised that I didn't propose to add another format. Now go and read it. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, for two reasons. First, I think you've failed to distinguish between spoken and written English; it's the normal spoken form, but not the normal written form. Secondly, such dates do not respond to users' date preferences, which is the whole point of this section. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your right, I should have distinguished between written and spoken. But what is written, I read, Reading somthing that is not written is just making things up. Written and spoken are, therefore should, be the same thing. As for user preferences, there is no option to display the correct '3rd of June' format, that is why I am proposing this amendment, same as above, make sure you read before you oppose somthing, go and see for yourself in your preferences. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I've never heard such rubbish. Tony 14:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Right back at you. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The proposal confuses spoken Australian English with written Australian English. Powers 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what your talking about. In Australia we write dates as dd/mm/yy, and we speak dates as '4th of September', it is inapropriate incorrect american english to write a date as '4 September' or 'September 4'. It is apropriate in an encyclopedia to write it the way it is spoken because it reads far far easier, neater, tidier and professional. It also makes sense. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between spoken and written English, which the proposal does not allow for. We say "the 22nd of February", but we normally write "22 February" (moreover, we (or rather, I) read "22 February" as "the 22nd of February". Neonumbers 05:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you or sombody you know writes '22 February' you or they have been influenced by American English. If you take time to think about it, the formats '4 May' and 'May 4' make no sense as they imply multiples of the month of May, not a day in the month of May. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop voting. The reasons are what counts. There is no point in just repeating what others have said. Stephen Turner's single comment is enough to prevent this proposal from being implemented. If I had made a vote and were looking back on it now, I would remove it. I really find this disgusting. —Centrx→talk • 05:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pitty is not required. And you are incorrect, a single comment is not enough to prevent any proposal from being implemented. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That one comment pointed out that at the moment your proposal is technically unworkable. It should be obvious that with this being the case, the proposal is pretty much dead until the technical barrier is overcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I apologise for my harsh comment. I, too, have been caught in the same way, where I started a vote (on the basis of misinformation), and it achieved nothing after the first comment. Tony 06:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I did not see it as a vote, but rather as a collection of reasoned views. I have therefore removed the word "Oppose" from my post. At least it seems like we're almost all in agreement. Neonumbers 06:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

People, you all must read through my proposal again, imploy sommon sense (if you can manage it) and do things the right way. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's rather conceited to refer to one's preferred style as "correct", especially when one clearly has no idea what correct English is. ("Inapropriate", "hasnt", "diviated", "inaccurateness", "thats", "word'", "imploy", and "sommon" are not English words. "Lets", "later", and "your" are, but are not used correctly. Apparently the irony of declaring "Thanks for reading and lets hope we can set things straight and do things the right way" was lost on Nick. Secondly, there is no "ambiguity" in what is meant. Everyone knows what "22 February" means. According to Nick's logic, the phrase "9:15" somehow implies that this it is the fifteenth nine. "22 February" means that this is the 22nd time that it's been February this year. "22 February 2006" means it's the 22nd time it was February 2006. If one imagines each day in February as being another instance of February, then "22 February 2006" does mean "the 22nd February 2006". Thirdly, it's rather hypocritical to claim that it's wrong to write less than one expects one's audience to say, and yet write "22nd". After all, if one expects one's audience to say "twenty-second", shouldn't one write "twenty-second? If someone reads "22nd" and says "twenty-second", isn't that "making things up"? And if one allows "twenty-second February" with the understanding that it should be interpreted as "twenty-second day of February", then it seems to me that one should be okay with just "22 February". If it's okay to leave one thing implicit, why is it not okay to leave the other? All language, to some extent or another, is metaphoric. There is one matter, however, on which we share a similar view. "Mirror" has two syllables, not one. Flarity 02:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Date linking

I just noticed this in an article: June 9 (Old Style)/June 19 (New Style), 1619. Is it really necessary to link dates when they are in this complex sort or format? Rmhermen 02:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's necessary so that they appear as "June 9" for Americans and "9 June" for Brits etc. The rule is "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work". Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone ever say 9 June (Old Style)? Old style would not have written it that way. Rmhermen 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how old style would have written it, but I would certainly write it that way. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Commas in dates that appear mid-sentence

When using an American-style date in the middle of a sentence, which would be correct:

"on May 10, 1815 at Fort McKay"

or "on May 10, 1815, at Fort McKay" ?

(The difference is the comma between the year and the subsequent word.) Omphaloscope talk 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe commas go after dates regardless of whether it's day-month-year or month-day-year. Powers 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a matter of common sense and context, rather than a hard and fast rule. Consider this sentence: Registering for our fitness programs before September 15, will save you thirty percent of the membership cost. This is an example from a style guide that labels its use here as incorrect. My own personal rule of thumb is that a comma indicates a pause and as such, putting a comma after every date is guaranteed to result in many awkward-sounding sentences. Many U.S. style guides make no mention of commas after dates at all, so it is obviously not a mandatory inclusion:

• University of South Florida
• The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, showing two examples of dates without commas

However, I find another guide (from something called the Capital Community College) mandates using a comma after a year in a full U.S. date, but not when the date is in international format. I note that some sentence constructions demand the use of a comma, regardless of date format. My own practice has been to get rid of non-essential commas, but lean heavily on the side of keeping them if there is any doubt. --Jumbo 17:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't even really a separate rule, it's just that for some reason, people don't seem to realize that dates, like other qualifying phrases, require commas. Take, for instance, the sentence "In 2006, John bowled a perfect game." Now replace "In 2006" with another phrase: "In Denver, John bowled a perfect game", "While wearing a clown suit, John bowled a perfect game", "Setting a new personal best, John bowled a perfect game", "On Tuesday, John bowled a perfect game". The need for a comma isn't really created by the date so much as the fact that it's a separate clause; any other separate clause would also need a comma.Flarity 02:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Using the metric system in Misplaced Pages

The discussion below was moved from Village Pump
I notice that most articles in Misplaced Pages still make use of the emperial standards. An example would be Carol Yager. For any persons unfamiliar to emperial standards, the article is useless.

Arguably, this is because the USA still retains the emperial system, being one of only 3 countries not adopting the system. See Metrication

All other countries use the metric system and as Misplaced Pages is targeted at the whole world, I believe it is important that only metric standards be used, at least in addition to the emperial standards.

I did not find any reference to this important aspects.

The standard is to use both metric and Imperial measurements. See WP:MOSNUM. Kusma (討論) 13:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM#Units of measurement User:Pedant 16:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Won't someone help implement the metric system in our country :( 24.126.199.129 19:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

When I was in grade school, we were taught that the United States would be metric by the time we graduated high school. At the time, the president's name was Lyndon Johnson. Don't hold your breath. Fan-1967 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A quite simple way of contenting both conventions lovers is the "hover" htlm feature. print metrics and let the hover be imperial. -- DLL 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"My car gets forty rods to a hog's head, and that's the way I likes it!" Kidding aside, I say simply remain consistent within a medium. If measurements for a subject are commonly given in imperial units, then that's what should be used. I like the "hover" idea, as well. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that to USan and British editors, road measurements are 'consistently' given in miles. To Candian and Australian readers, road measurements are 'consistently' given in kilometers.

Another issue is the rounding problem. As an example a road distance in an article source given in miles may have been originaly rounded, for instance 25.4556 miles becomes 25 miles. Now when you do a simple translation of this to kilometers, it becomes 40.2336km, and is rounded again to 40km. The original figure would have been converted to 40.9668171 and rounded to 41km. --Barberio 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not just treat this like we treat differences in British and American English. Either one is ok, and which one is used depends on who wrote the initial article, and on the "bias" of that author. --Frescard 20:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it could be a simple a solution as this really. For instance, if an US editor creates and article on a road that travels mostly in Canada but partialy in the US, should it remain as Miles even when the relevent sources all use km and a conversion would have to be made.

I'm actualy suprised we don't have a Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (measures and metrics) which would cover this, since it's a hugely important issue to an encylopedia. --Barberio 21:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Use both. In that specific case, I would say metric first makes the most sense, because that's the measurement that you say is the directly verifiable one. x km (y miles) --tjstrf 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This debate has been underway for some time (see Misplaced Pages:Measurements Debate) reaching the solution Pedant pointed out above (see Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (measures and metrics). And it matches tjstrf's recommendation. And yes, I did link Barberios Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (measures and metrics) above.

Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 19:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading the various comments more carefully, I see we don't cover the cyclic rounding error issue in the MOS. Perhaps the solution to avoid this is to provide the reference in a footnote by using <ref>The original source was XYZ which used metric units.</ref>. That way we avoid cyclic rounding induced errors. I'll make (propose) that change in our policy. Williamborg (Bill) 19:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above was moved from the Village pump

Actually, the issue is adressed quite nicely on the page:

• "Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.
• If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second."

In other words, cyclic rounding should never happen, because you use the sourced value as the primary. If the original was in metric, you will use the metric, with the imperial as a paranthetical converted unit. Reffing the measurements would be good, of course. --tjstrf 20:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Always reffing the sources of the measurements should be the rule. Sometimes that is the only way to explain otherwise anomalous measurements. Some sources for lighthouses list the light ranges in miles. As these ranges are over water, nautical miles would normally be used instead of statute miles, but the abbreviation for nautical mile is nm, and the sources use m. So, which type of mile do you assume when you convert to km? A real doozy is this, where the area of cities is given in square meters, and the population density is given without units being specified, but which turn out to be persons per square mile. -- Donald Albury 23:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My $.02: use both. What's so hard about that? jgp _C 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't thinkg that nm needs to be converted; I live in a metrics country, and nm is used. Tony 01:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nanometers are used in the U.S., too. It's angstroms we could do without, since they only involve a decimal point shift for someone who insists on using obsolete units. But if you are talking about the other "nm", including the conversions helps to identify what that ambiguous symbol is, without wondering why they are using nanometers in that particular context. That's only part of the reason for using them, of course. Gene Nygaard 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, "nautical miles", as abbreviated above. Tony 06:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The says:

• Nautical mile: As yet there is no internationally agreed symbol, but the symbols M, NM, Nm, and nmi are all used; in the table the symbol M is used.
• Knot: There is no internationally agreed symbol, but the symbol kn is commonly used.

Information provided for interest only, not as a suggestion.

bobblewik 11:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good reason to always give the measurement and unit from the source. -- Donald Albury 17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I like Williamborg (Bill)'s changes in the units of measurement section asking for citation and refs of source units. This would allow the unit order to stay consistant throughout an article. The example that comes to mind is in the article on France where every measurement is written metric (imperial) except one which compares France to Yeman and the state of Texas. In that case in appears (but is unclear) that the square miles are the sourced data and sq km are converted. Citing the source would clarify that and allow the units to be switched to maintain consistency in the article. For the sake of example, I think there should be an example in the section on how citing a source unit would look. — MJCdetroit 13:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case where one value comes from a source and other other is converted, the source value should be provided first since it is the most accurate. The converted value should be provided second, in parentheses, to indicate that it is not original information but is provided as a convenient aside to assist readers unfamiliar with the original units. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem in this discussion, MJCdetroit, is the ambiguity in the meaning of "source". It is only as a first approximation that the immediate source used by a Misplaced Pages editor to find the information matters, unless it is a direct quote. In fact, for most things, you can find some sources such as this which use SI units, some sources which use non-SI metric units, some sources which use English units, and some which use various combinations of units.

What really matters is the units in which a measurement was originally made, or more often the units in which something is designed with nice, rounded numbers. If it is a measurement has been made many time by different people in different units, then unless someone's particular measurement is relevant, it doesn't matter much which comes first.

Where it does matter, switching them doesn't improve clarity. Rather, it hides important information as to the actual precision of the measurement. It helps identify cases in which the conversion has been stated with way too much precision, or sometimes way too little precision.

In some long-archived discussion, I discussed how putting the original first might have helped discover a conversion error involving the use of gallons in Canada, where the value was given in a converted number of litres first, then expressed in gallons in parentheses--U.S. gallons, not Canadian gallons. As a result, people thought that the numbers were correct (as long as you realized that what looked like a conversion from litres went to U.S. gallons), but in fact the number of litres was wrong, because it was actually from an original in Canadian gallons but converted as if those gallons had been U.S. liquid gallons. Gene Nygaard 08:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm unaware that “the source value should be provided first since it is the most accurate” is a common convention. I see several reasons I’d prefer not to use it:

• It is unclear that this convention is common in general publications; most references generally select one (perhaps Metric) as the first and the other (perhaps English) as second. Misplaced Pages shouldn’t create new conventions.
• Using that convention leaves ambiguity and internal confusion. For example in a recent edit to Svalbard#Geography two references were cited: Encyclopædia Britannica and Web publication of Statistics Norway. The first provided English units but did not cover all islands in the archipelago. The latter used only Metric, but covered all islands. I chose to go with Statistics Norway for metric since it was more recent and comprehensive, but followed Encyclopædia Britannica when leaving the English units added by a previous editor. Both were citable—so which should go first?
• If one used that convention, then I could wind up with English cited first at one point in a paragraph and metric another. For example one could use Encyclopædia Britannica for island areas, but Statistics Norway for glacier field areas, with the unusual format of an island area of 500 mi² (1280 km²) which has an glacier field area of 1020 km² (400 mi²).
• All numbers should be referenced. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which is official policy, indicates “The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on that topic.” This most certainly applies to numbers. So capturing the original units is no big deal.
• A footnote advising which are the derived numbers is unambiguous. Footnotes are easy using the formatting of Misplaced Pages:Citing sources.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say capturing the original unit is no big deal; the original unit is the most accurate value we have. When you convert you are degrading the accuracy of the information in order to present it in another, possibly more convenient way. The reason we should present the converted value in parentheses is because it is worse information. Any editor who can comprehend the source value will want that more accurate figure. Generally, I would describe accuracy as the overriding concern. In the situation like you describe, for instance where you are consciously drawing a comparison between figures, they should be in the same unit. As you say, footnotes can be used to explain that the source value was converted to elucidate the comparison. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologize for lack of clarity. Of course capturing the "original unit" is a "big deal". All I'm suggesting is the appropriate way to capture it is already established by Misplaced Pages. Use references to capture which unit was used by the source. Williamborg (Bill) 05:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

For some amusing and instructive examples of what can go wrong when converting units, see this. Scroll down to the image of the kid holding the giant ruler. -- Donald Albury 11:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Those of us who learned engineering using sliderules have long been amused by the computer generations penchant to make conversions without being aware of the number of Significant figures. Donald Albury's joke above is a classic example of such nonsense... Thank for the laugh - Williamborg (Bill) 05:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot do much more than second what Gene Nygaard & Christopher Parham have written. Yes, "the source value should be provided first since it is the most accurate" if this leaves an article with inconsistancy as to which system appears first, so be it: this is the lesser of the two evils.

• If this is a new convention, it won't be the first Misplaced Pages has created. For those of us who care about accuracy it would be a convention worth adopting or even creating.
• I don't agree that "Using that convention leaves ambiguity and internal confusion." I don't see how Bill's Svalbard example shows ambiguity or confusion. This is just an instance where you have two sources using different units. In this case both systems are on equal footing. I'd suggest wherever we have more than one system on equal footing we choose the metric system unless we have good reason not to.
• "If one used that convention," Bill points out "then I could wind up with English cited first at one point in a paragraph and metric another." Yes, this is true but it's a small price to pay for accuracy.
• "All numbers should be referenced." Bill points out. Again, this is absolutely true. From this Bill concludes "So capturing the original units is no big deal." This conclusion is false. I don't happen to have a copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica on hand. I doubt that there even exists a copy within a 16.09344 kilometre radius. You can't expect readers to have easy access to any and every book quoted as a reference. External websites as references are not necessarily any better in this respect and are often worse seeing as they can change.
• "A footnote advising which are the derived numbers is unambiguous." Yes, this would be a good solution. However, making a footnote does take a little more work.

Indeed I'd even suggest the second recommendation be made stronger. At the moment it reads as follows.

If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.

I'd suggest it be strengthened to something more along the lines of the following.

Put the source value first and the converted value second unless there exists a compelling reason to choose another sequence of units.

Or perhaps something like this.

Put the source value first and the converted value second unless editors agree that there exists a compelling reason to choose another sequence of units.

Jimp 08:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

ft/lbf

I note a change from ft/lbs (foot pounds) in my Daimler Conquest article. I have no doubt that myself and many other car enthusiasts have never heard of ft/lbf. According to Google it is a US measurement, and isn't a Conquest a British car? Unless you can show that it is somehow Misplaced Pages policy that car articles are to conform to this measurement standard, I would like to revert it. As far as I am concerned, it makes it look like I cannot spell. (Unsigned comment by User:Seasalt)

Thanks for the feedback. You may wish to look at:

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Units
• Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement

Feel free to comment in their talk pages.

I use a 'unitformatter' tool. If you would like to use it, let me know.

Incidentally, the '/' symbol is misleading because it looks like division. The article looks great otherwise, keep up the good work. bobblewik 10:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have difficulties with an American system of notation being imposed that is not used in the automotive industry, and was not used for those vehicles. The talk pages look useless. One would never be heard above the typewriting of others thoughts. (Sheer volume of discussion) Have already searched those pages, and see no discussion whatsoever of adopting ft whatever lbf, just a declaration that that it is the standard. I know not entirely why it bothers me that much but it does. I am not going to bother bleating about it on the talk pages, as I suspect no one there would be bothered about such a detail. Pedantic scientific notation enforcement outside of scientific documentation is a deterrent to an antipodean automotive notation convention pedant. Seasalt 11:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You sound frustrated. Make it easy for yourself. Just copy this discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

bobblewik 11:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Order_of_components_of_torque_units there is a lofty debate about which way round the units go....the automotive industry has an established, accepted way of presenting these figures thats been in use for 100 years, while people into the professional jargon are still arguing which figure goes first. Only a well educated person would even know what an lbf was, and it didn't make any intuitive sense on first reading. I had vainly thought myself educated, but crashed at the first lbf barrier....not everyone is an engineer, and I suspect engineers have zero confusion over what car manufacturers and car fanatics mean by ft/lbs...

Is there any hope of allowing automobiles and motorcycles to keep the ft/lbs they were born with?

Certainly not. For one thing, there is no division involved here. There should be no slash whatsoever. It is a multiplication. It should be a centered dot, or alternatively a space (non-breaking is a lot more important in that case than in the silly, unconventional rule perhaps still stated here in the MoS that we should have a nonbreaking space between the number and the units).

Furthermore, no symbols for units of measure should be changed in the plural, so "lbs" is bad.

Then there is the need to distinguish pounds with the symbol "lb" from pounds-force with the symbol lbf. They are different units.

Furthermore, even within the automobile industry, the uniformity in the order of the units is a figment of your imagination. Yes, the notion of distinguishing torque from energy by using pound-feet for the former and foot-pounds for the latter may be more common outside the automotive industry, but it is not absent within that community.

In every case I have seen in Misplaced Pages, automobiles and motorcycles and whatever have kept the English units—often with a correction of silly notations such as the one you used. Even meter-kilograms occur in some cases where they are the original measurements. But all of them should have the value in newton meters. Gene Nygaard 13:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, just as some people distinguish the units of energy from the units of torque by using ft·lbf for the former and lbf·ft for the latter, the units are distinguished in SI by using joules (J) for the former and newton meters (N·m) for the latter. And no, I don't care how sloppy car magazines are with their "ft/lbs" and "Nm" and the like, I'll continue fixing them when I find those notations. Gene Nygaard 13:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no useful response to the "silly" description. The no, at least, is clear. (Unsigned comment by User:Seasalt)

Seasalt, if you use 4 tildas ~~~~, you will add a signature. Trying to help. bobblewik 19:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to add some more context... Many Misplaced Pages editors (including yourself) are working hard to ensure that Misplaced Pages is a high standard international resource. Part of this is trying to make units consistent, international, domain independent, and language independent. Since it is an encyclopedia, not a specialist/regional publication, Misplaced Pages may sometimes look odd to domain specialists. I agree that 'lbf' is not the most common form, but I got used to it very quickly. I agree with the conclusion that Misplaced Pages should use it to distinguish between lbf (N) and lb (kg). This is particularly useful when it comes to aviation articles.

If you actually look around (I am sure you will now), you will see that the vehicle publications are inconsistent. Petrol-heads cope with inconsistency because they know what the writer means, and they are likely to have the same first language as the writer. They know that '/' does not mean division in 'ft/lb' but it does in hp/lb. They know that the 's' in 'lbs' is not 'second' but it is in 'm/s'. English speaking car enthusiasts often use terms like 'kph' (I think you used it on Phelon & Moore), 'kmph', 'km/hr' 'kmh' and may regard any of them as acceptable. But the Misplaced Pages standard is 'km/h'. If you look on your speedometer, you will see that car manufacturers also use 'km/h' because of the international readership of speedos. You don't have to agree with any of this, of course. bobblewik 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Seasalt, I find it hard to beleive that as a 'car enthusiasts' you 'have never heard of ft/lbf' . I work in the automotive industry (tier 1) and deal with most of the American, German, and Japanese automakers. The SAE international publication that I am currently looking at gives all measurements in both SI and U.S. customary. The one exception being engine names that have a measurement in them, e.g. 6.1L hemi — but that has more to do with proper names than engine displacement; displacement is normaly given in both exact cm³ and cubic inches. The SAE publication that I am looking at gives torque in newton metres (Nm) and foot-pounds force (ft·lbf). As an engineer, I can tell you that many automotive specs are written using a mix of both systems. For example, the Ford ESS-M11P24-A1-A2 specifacation asks that all tests be performed at 23°C ± 2°C but then goes on to ask for torque of inch fasteners be given in inch-pounds force (a smaller unit of foot pound force) and metric fasteners reported in newton-meters. Furthermore, in our test laboratory, all torque measuring devices are set to read in inch-pounds force and in most cases that is the only option. If newtwon-meters are to be reported (as required per many specs) they must be converted. So to say that ft·lbf are not used in the automotive industry is just not correct. My 2¢. —MJCdetroit 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You can find it hard to believe if you like, but that notation had never registered on me, and I note that you are an engineer with access to associated publications, whereas I have no technical qualifications (other than in IT), so from my side, its embarrassingly believable. Anyway, as Bobblewick said, I only had to go and look, and I found. Temporarily disconcerting. Sorry for the bother. I'll use ft·lbf. Moving on. Thank you for your patience.Seasalt 11:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to link really common units in each article?

Discussion moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context. bobblewik 08:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To spell units out

I apologize for asking this here. I could find an example in an existing meritous Misplaced Pages article, but am unsure how to look for such an example. I came to read the Manual of Style for scientific units of measurement with the aim of standardizing (improving?) the solar system article. I have a few particular questions.

1. Must an editor "spell out units in the text" in every instance that they are used? Or at the first instance, may an editor add in parentheses the standard abbreviation for the unit, and then use the abbreviation for the rest of the article?
2. Also since astronomical units merit a contextual definition of their length in kilometres and in miles (i.e. that one AU is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun), may an editor define astronomical units in a footnote attached to the original introduction, and abbreviation, of the word?

Thank you.
--Iamunknown 03:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1. In general, unit should be spelled out; it is the professional, formal style warranted in an encyclopedia and more accessible to average readers—many readers, also, will not be reading from the beginning of the article, they might read only certain sections or skim or search to find certain information. There exist, however, scientific and technical uses that warrant abbreviation.
2. Using a footnote in this instance depends on whether you think readers should be overtly introduced to the term or whether it is not essential to understanding the other information in the article.

In some cases the manual of style can be open to the judgement of editors at a particular article. Many intelligent people knowledgeable in the language and such matters have devised this styleguide over the course of years, and there are good reasons for each recommendation, but nevertheless it is general to all cases in all Misplaced Pages articles; if a variation or a relaxation of a particular recommendation is necessary in order to make the article clearer and easier to read, then that should probably be done—keeping in mind that the styleguide recommendations have good reason behind them and should usually be followed. "AU" may be one such case. —Centrx→talk • 03:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The guidance Spell out units in the text is widely ignored. Just look at how many articles use: 'rpm', 'mph', 'BTU', 'kWh', 'GB', 'cc', 'psi', 'm/s²', 'kJ/kg' in text without spelling them out. bobblewik 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But I may end up spelling out 'AU' in every instance, because it is a unit less likely to be recognized by the lay-man. --Iamunknown 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the inflexible rule that all units should always be spelt out, and do not see why editors should not be given the option to abbreviate terms, at their discretion, after first appearance in an article. I propose that the manual be modified thus. Tony 01:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony that this should be handled case by case. It's no big deal if you write out "foot" every time, but something like "meters per second per second" should be abbreviated if it comes up frequently in the article. If the number is written out, though, the unit almost certainly should be as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think you'd need to spell out "AU" in that article all the time. It'd have to be explained somewhere, somehow, definitely... If you want to define it on the first occurance (and only there) then I'd say okay. People might want start reading halfway down the article, but part of reading skills is being able to skim upwards if you need something defined (okay, that was poorly explained but you get the idea... you've told readers what it is, and you're using it about two hundred times in the article... to be fair, spelling out all the time is too much to ask.) Neonumbers 10:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Date Links?!

is there any policy on linking dates?. if so could someone point me in the right direction. its absolutely rediculous that thousands of pages are littered with links to years and dates, when those days have very little to do with the page. so a PS3 is released on november 11th '06.. does that mean anyone viewing the page will find a link to information about all the stuff thats happened on november 11th throughout history? NO!. nor are they likely to be interested in a 2006 page. Its not like there isn't a search feature if you are really interested in it. IMO its link spamming and only serves as self promotion for the date pages and WP. link spamming is so prevelant in WP its just accepted, and it shouldn't be.</rant> ~ Bungalowbill

That is covered in the Dates section of this guideline. -- Donald Albury 14:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the techs who programmed the auto-formatting for dates thought it would be a great idea to use the same procedure and visual appearance as the general linking system in WP. That is one reason that the whole project suffers from linking disease, where trivial chronological links are made for no good reason at all, and with considerable disadvantage WRT readability, visual appearance, and the dilution of high-value links. I think that you're confusing the two functions. I'm now inclined not to use the autoformatting function for this reason. Tony 14:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Linking full dates to enable preference settings is a courtesy to other readers, and I heartily support it until a better solution is offered. There are been attempts to discourage linking of bare years (which I have also supported), but there are sufficient editors supporting such links to leave the guideline in a neutral position on the subject. You can always try again to change the guidelines, and I would be happy to see bare year links discouraged in the guideline, but I'm not going to take that fight on again so soon. I'm too busy with other things. -- Donald Albury 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See also: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582 --MattWright (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Date quality initiative

I was inspired by Jimbo's recent keynote speech at Wikimania 2006, especially his remarks on quality. One recurrent theme in Jimbo's address and indeed throughout Wikimania was that Misplaced Pages (and its related projects) is aimed at the whole world, not just at Americans.

There's always work to do on improving quality. A ton of work. Checking sources, spellings, fixing wikilinks and so on. There are projects aplenty for all these things, as any long-time regular here would know. I'm a nit-picking, trivia-obsessed kind of guy, and I'm happy to fix up spelling, check a fact, find a source, reword a sentence and so on. I've always done this, and it is rare for me to actually create a new article or add more than a paragraph to an existing one, though I'm happy to do this when I spot a niche.

Lately, I've been concentrating on date formats, mainly because it's so easy to find this work, and yet it is not easy enough that it could be done with a bot. You need to know the subject, know the guidelines, know to leave a direct quote alone and so on. I've made myself familiar with the Manual of Style and ArbCom decisions, and complied with these, seeking consultation and consensus when necessary. Much to my consternation, I find that I have attracted both strong support and strong opposition. Frankly, I am disappointed in this and when administrators hold contrary views, it is difficult to find the correct path. But found it must be, otherwise the overall quality of the project suffers.

As an example, I cannot see how these edits add to the quality of Misplaced Pages:

• Change 1 January to "1st of January"
• Likewise
• Change American Dating to International Dating for U.S. subject
• Change International Dating to American Dating for British subject

Clearly, changes like this are not helpful and seem to be made on a less than professional basis. I would have imagined that changing "1st of January" to 1 January would be non-controversial, though I see from recent discussion here that this form has its adherents. However, most comment has centred on my changing dates in International format to American format and vice versa, and it is this point I would like to address.

Looking at the relevant parts of the Manual of Style, I see the following:

1. If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country.
2. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Misplaced Pages account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed.
3. For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually ] ] (no comma and no "th").
4. In the United States, it is most commonly ], ].
5. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable.
6. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

I have divided the section into numbered sentences for ease of convenience. I see the first sentence as defining the guideline, the second sentence as explaining it, the third and fourth as providing examples, the fifth as an attempt to cover all other possibilities, and the sixth as a pointer to further guidance. On looking at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for further guidance, we see references to American English, Australian English, Canadian English, British English and so on. Clearly, in the English-speaking part of the world, when an article has a focus on a particular country, we use that country's variety of English, and we are to use the same principle in determining which date format to use in an article.

Not all countries use English as a preferred language, but every country has a preferred date format, as may be seen on official forms, in newspapers and so on. It seems logical to me that just as we choose the national variety of English to use in a relevant article about an English-speaking nation, so too should we use the national variety of date format.

Looking at the list of examples, we see that it is a poor sort of guide. I don't think anyone will disagree with the statement that In the United States, it is most commonly ], ]., but it is the preceding statement that is unsatisfactory. For a start, it is contradictory. It states For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations... But Ireland is not a member state of the Commonwealth (Ireland left in 1949, in what might best be described as strained circumstances), and how are we to determine what "most other member states" might mean? Canada, for example, is a member state of the Commonwealth, but uses both date formats. Clearly, we must examine each member state of the Commonwealth to determine what the correct national usage is. (Unless we are to rely on that "most" to make a guess, which seems like pretty shoddy practice to me.)

Luckily, we are blessed with a Misplaced Pages article listing the preferred formats of a good many nations. Furthermore, we have an external resource which lists even more.

I propose that we change the unsatisfactory example sentences to one in which we more definitively list or refer to the groups of nations which use either day-month-year or year-month-day dating, and where a nation either uses both formats or a third format such as year-month-day, we fall back on the "either format is acceptable" guideline.

I say this because I look at nations such as Ireland and France, both of which use day-month-year format. Ireland is included in the example list, even though it is not a member of the Commonwealth, yet France is not included, even though it uses day-month-year format. On the other side of the ledger, we have the Philippines, which uses month-day-year format, falling under the catch-all of "either format is acceptable".

I would like to see some informed discussion on this subject, based towards the twin objectives of increasing the quality of Misplaced Pages, and providing guidance for people like me who are merely trying to get on with the job and wish to have clear guidelines to follow. --Jumbo 01:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at (I think). I don't really know much about what's used in different countries, so I can't really say what I think of the initiative. Some parts of the manual kind of have to be vague (but this doesn't necessarily mean that this is one of them). For clarification, can I take it you refer only to English-speaking countries? This is, after all, the English Misplaced Pages; non-English speakers typically adhere to whatever English conventions when speaking English. Neonumbers 09:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to all countries. We use national varieties of English for those countries that use English as a primary language, but every country has a preferred date format. France, for instance, doesn't have English as a primary language, but their date format is day-month-year, even if they say "Quatorze Juillet" rather than "14 July". If we have to choose between day-month-year and month-day-year, it is best to use the format that is actually used by the country, in exactly the same way as we choose for (say) Ireland and the U.S.

However, Canada is an odd case, where the English-speaking part uses month-day-year, and the French-speakers use day-month-year, which is why we should either format. I think that this should be made explicit as one of the cases where either format is appropriate; as it stands an editor would read sentence three and use day-month-year because Canada is a member of the Commonwealth. --Jumbo 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

SuperJumbo's intepretation of the guideline is simply wrong, as number other editors have told him, and as the arbcom has. He attempts to change the guideline are a transparent attempt to justify his previously unacceptable editing. Raul654 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation is 100% correct, according to several other admins. I'm caught in an impossible position, one which should have been worked out long ago and at a higher level so that everyone is clear on what the situation is. My objective is to resolve the difficulty. Your intervention is welcome, and if you (or anyone else) can sort out the section so that its meaning is crystal clear and its effect fair and logical, then please do so.

I read sentence one as meaning exactly what it says: If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is in line with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and the use of units of measurement, where we use the variety of English or the units of measurement appropriate to the country. However, you follow a different course, one that disregards similar procedure and relies instead on a list of examples that is, as I have shown, flawed. Let us work together to find a consensus view that removes any doubt. --Jumbo 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Using the style of dating used in a particular country *is* acceptable; changing a perfectly acceptable style to the style used in that country *is not* acceptable, per the Sortan ruling. Raul654 21:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. The task is to reword the section quoted above so as to remove any future difficulty. I trust that you understand why I chose to rely on the clear first sentence and not the unclear third, especially given the strong support received from other administrators. --Jumbo 21:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You've been blocked once already for this behavior. Continuing it without already having established a changed consensus on the matter is likely to result in more of the same, especially as you've been told by three arbitration committee members that the behaviour is inappropriate. I trust you will stop it until such time as consensus is established. - Nunh-huh 21:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Do you have anything to say as to the wording? --Jumbo 21:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. 5 should read "Either format is acceptable. Do not change articles from one acceptable format to another." - Nunh-huh 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that regardless of article or national connection, we should allow either American Dating or International Dating, and not allow any change? --Jumbo 23:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for such changes. Changing from one format to another should only be done in the context of other, more important additions or corrections, if the author is unable to tolerate or adjust to a pre-existing date system, never within a large series of changes directed primarily or only at changing date formats, and ideally never for the sake of simply changing to bring into "compliance" with, what are, after all, guidelines and not directives. As you have demonstrated, such changes are disruptive, and there are a wide variety of differing opinions on which articles, if any, such changes might apply to. We have gotten by so far on a policy of leaving such things alone, and I see no compelling reason that that should be changed now. - Nunh-huh 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Officer! It's disgusting! Every day at this time, my neighbour takes off his clothes and lies naked in the sun, for all the world to see! That's why I've asked you over to arrest him."

"Very good, lady, but I can't see any naked man."

"No, you've got to get up on this ladder to see him. And you'll need these binoculars to make out any detail."

Beg pardon, but your outrage and disruption over format changes seems equally confected. If you have your date preference set, you won't see any difference at all. That's why we wikilink them - for preferences to work.

In fact, this is the argument you used, along with a warning that date format changes were not allowed at all, which turns out, on examination, not to be the case.

I refer you to sentences 1 and 2 above. Your interpretation goes beyond the existing guidelines. Raul has agreed that my changes are legal, so long as they are confined to the nations listed. I don't want to change any existing consensus, merely remove any grey areas. --Jumbo 05:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

All the sarcasm and wikilawyering don't change the fact that your interpretation is the opposite of that intended by the arbitration committee, and that they have so informed you. You also seem to be misstating Raul's position. He pointed out, in a post you deleted from your user page, that "Simply changing the dating style for the sake of changing the dating style is not OK." - Nunh-huh 05:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My intention is to operate within the guidelines, and when I have conflicting advice as to what the guidelines actually mean, then it's difficult. To correct you, I didn't remove Raul's comments from my talk page - I archived them, and I put a link to the archive page on my talk page. Yes, Raul said the words above (and as you were able to quote them verbatim, it seems as if you had no trouble finding my archive page), but he also said a sentence or two later, "I checked his second succession of edits, and they looked like they were exclusively American->British dating style changes to former Commonwealth nations, which under a strict interpretation, is acceptable.". As all I did in that second series of edits was change dating style, I suggest that your interpretation of Raul's interpretation may not be correct. The bottom line is that we can change date formats if we have a good reason, and those good reasons are laid out in sentences 1-4 above. The only remaining problem is the disruption I'm supposedly inciting, and I offer you the exact same advice you gave to me: set your dating preferences. You'll not see any changes. --Jumbo 05:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, of course that's not the "only remaining problem", which is why you remain on notice that you should not be changing dates, at the risk of being blocked yet again. - Nunh-huh 06:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything additional to contribute on the subject of changing the wording to make it clearer? I've addressed your proposed wording change from several days ago. Your "no changes allowed at all" position has been noted, but it does not reflect either consensus here or Raul's "strict interpretation". --Jumbo 06:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You have commented on it, but you have not addressed it. And once again you seem to have mischaracterized Rauls actual position by selectively ignoring parts of it. Once again, a reminder: If you get both strong support and strong opposition for something you are doing, then there is no consensus that you should be doing it, and you should stop. - Nunh-huh 06:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Jumbo, the problem is with your interpretation of the phrase "concerns a specific country". This guideline was created to solve the problem of multiple English-speaking countries having different date formats. I don't believe anyone would have a problem with you changing all the dates in the article United Kingdom to "international" format. And I don't think any editor has a problem with international format dates already existing in any "non-American" article. The problem is that you are mass-changing of dates on ANY article that in the slightest degree could have anything to do with ANYTHING non-American. For example, I was alerted to your edits while monitoring the Bono article. I don't see how that is a "non-American" article. Even if it is, your interpretation that it fits what the Manual of Style says ("concerns a specific country") is simply wrong. "Bono" does NOT concern any specific country. Narrow your interpretation of that phrase and I don't think anyone will have any problems. -- Renesis13 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never met Jumbo before, so whatever I say is based solely on the above comments.

Ideally, we want to avoid non-guidelines. This is not always possible. For instance, this guideline refers to article specific to countries, so an article not specific to any country — which, by my interpretation, includes any article about any person, group of people (unless the person or group of people's primary influence was in a certain country, for example, a politican in a country), technology, science, and essentially anything that isn't geographical and doesn't have a country name in the title (might have missed many examples, btw, please don't fuss over my list, I couldn't make it exhaustive) — does not have a preferred format. However, if we can have guidance, we prefer guidance to non-guidance.

The reason I say this should only concern English-speaking countries is because the date format is part of the language. Chinese, for example, uses a 2006年09月09日 format -- but if a Chinese person speaks English, they will use with "9 September 2006" or "September 9, 2006" when speaking English. What it comes down to is that the English Misplaced Pages isn't written for French or Chinese or Russian speakers — and therefore, preferences like the ones above should be invoked only for the purpose of avoiding making an Englishman or American read/write an article about themselves with a foreign date format.

Ideally, we'd just have one date format for all, but as we already know this isn't possible. My two cents. Neonumbers 10:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Corse they don’t ‘ave dates over there. Corse they don’t. Not proper ones like we do, any road. ‘Carthorse Joolie-ey’? What sort of date is that? They can’t even speak proper English, them what talks it, that is. Our ‘Erbert, ‘e was at some posh do, an’ ‘e asked if he could just nip down an’ ‘ave a quick fag in the foyer, and they looked at him funny-like. ‘E tried sign language, but that didn’t help. Two of the ladies fainted dead away. Aye, and one of the men, too. It were half past three in morning before they let him go. So he went an’ ‘ad one."

Joking aside, you've made two good points, Neonumbers, and I'd like to address them both. We use a few different date formats in WP, but ideally, only two in text. And those two are both used in English-speaking countries. So it isn't really a matter of what language is used. It's a matter of what the country uses. If we look at language issues, it's really just a matter of date name. Juillett or July, it's still the same month. Other calendars, such as the Hebrew Calendar) are out of synch to a greater or lesser degree with the Gregorian, with different year starting points, month lengths and so on, but we really need not concern ourselves with such things in general practice. The bottom line should be whether a nation uses day-month-year or month-day-year.

As to whether an article concerns a country or not, well that's something only a human can answer in any given case (a computer might jump to the wrong conclusion on the French fries article, for example) and we will therefore have different opinions. I think it is a matter of common sense and we should not be overly prescriptive. But where a person is born in, is a citizen of, and resides in a specific nation, I think that the connection is clear, even if they might also have a wider global image, such as being an international sports star. Where there are two strong connections, such as for Grace Kelly, then we should leave the format alone. --Jumbo 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh... Just read the guideline... I made an assumption about the guideline's purpose. Because the guideline refers to the "National varieties of English" part of the MoS, I assumed it was meant to be a language issue — and also, for the reasons I gave above, why (in my opinion) it should be just a language issue, and not a country one.

I'd therefore like to say, in the nicest possible way, that your intepretation of the guideline is very literal — though I would not say incorrect. My first instinct is that the guideline is intended to allow national varieties of English retain control over their own date formats, but here comes a point where I would like guidance on this matter.

With respect, the only person/people that could truly answer my question is/are the person/people that wrote the guideline themselves (and I don't know who they are). What is the principle behind this guideline?

With whether or not an article is country-specific, I agree that over-prescription is not the way to go. Though it could perhaps be useful to include some guidelines, that would (if nothing else) give some idea of what sorts of things are "country-specific" — maybe some similar to the notability criteria for articles (exceptions could be more for this purpose). Would this be an option? Neonumbers 10:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

We are the people who write the guidelines. But we must be guided by consensus past and present. Which is why I place a lot of value on those who have experience in past discussions.

National varieties of English, units of measurement, currencies, date formats and the like are all examples of style-related variations in articles. I quote from this article, "If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose SI units as the main unit, with other units in parentheses. For subjects dealing with the United States, it might be more appropriate to use U.S. measurements first, i.e. mile, foot, U.S. gallon."

Likewise, "In country-specific articles such as Economy of Australia use only the symbol specific to the country, in this case $, with an italicized note placed at the top of the article to make this clear."

The key point is that the style used is related to the country, not whether the nation uses English or not. Obviously there is some confusion here, with editors talking of British and American date formats, but it is not just English-speaking countries (with the exception of the U.S.) using the day-month-year format and non-English-speaking countries using some mix of styles. Each nation uses its own preferred format. --Jumbo 14:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"most member states"

Moving this thing forward, I'd like to talk about Sentence 3 above, which reads,

3.For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually ] ] (no comma and no "th").

OK, that phrase "most other member states" bothers me, because it is imprecise. So far as I know, the only member state of the Commonwealth which doesn't use day-month-year International Dating format is Canada, which mainly uses month-day-year American Dating in the English-speaking part, and day-month-year International Dating in the French-speaking part. Kind of appropriate, I guess; one half of the country turns towards their cousins over the border, and the other half looks to Europe for guidance. So Canada uses both formats. Does anybody know of any other Commonwealth nations which don't use day-month-year International Dating? We can then replace that imprecise "most" with a definitive list based on the facts. No guesswork involved! --Jumbo 19:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this sentence has always bothered me. Unless we have a complete list, the sentence "Elsewhere, either format is acceptable" is inaccurate. And so the list tends to accrete more and more countries, as users feel the need to distance themselves from the American date format. I wonder if we need a list at all. Can't we just omit everything apart from the first two sentences and the last sentence, leaving it as follows?

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Misplaced Pages account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That is pretty much my understanding of the paragraph. However, we still need access to some kind of list so that we know which countries use which format. Luckily, we are blessed with a Misplaced Pages article listing the preferred formats of a good many nations. Furthermore, we have an external resource which lists even more. --Jumbo 10:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A few years ago, when I collected Canadian first day covers, Canada Post got round the confusion by consistently using the format year-month-day in their postmarks. -- Arwel (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A very wise solution! The WP article I mentioned above says three different formats are used by Canada. A pity we can't do the same thing. MoS is one area where I don't think WP:BOLD is a wise path, so I'll make a small change in the wording:

3.For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, all member states of the Commonwealth of Nations except Canada, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually ] ] (no comma and no "th").

I trust that this change is non-controversial? If anybody knows of a British Commonwealth nation that doesn't use day-month-year International Dating, then we can add it to the list, but I can't find any except Canada. --Jumbo 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be confident that some of the Caribbean nations don't follow the American format without checking. Also, I don't like your formulation because the UK, Australia and New Zealand are all members of the Commonwealth, which the way it's phrased implies they're not. I still don't see why we need a list at all (in this paragraph, I mean). It's only likely to expand over time, and the principle is clear without listing several examples. I still like my version above. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we need a list either. I thought it was perfectly clear that the given examples were necessarily incomplete (as well as being vague and misleading) and that we should be guided by common sense. However, acting on some creative misdirection, a member of the Arbcom has taken a different interpretation, and I have accepted that even if one has the right of way, one does not argue with a semi-trailer approaching an intersection at speed. So I am doing my best to find a form of words that is clear to everyone, and doing it by making small changes that are non-controversial. I'd like to get rid of the list in the section entirely and refer editors to the list in the Misplaced Pages article. I'm not sure about the Bahamas and so on either, but I figure that if someone comes up with a source for the date formats used there, we can add them to the list one way or the other. -Jumbo 23:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wording as advised above, plus I've removed UK, Australia and New Zealand, as these nations are included in the British Commonwealth. I note that the Philippines is one of the few nations to use month-day-year American Dating as its preferred format. Perhaps I should add this in with the U.S.? --Jumbo 23:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As nobody has commented against this, I have added the Philippines to the U.S. as a nation using the month-day-year American Dating format. The list refers to Federated States of Micronesia and Palau as the other major users of the month-day-year format. --Jumbo 03:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding these two now. --Jumbo 17:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Year in subject

I've added a section explaining the use of "Year in subject" links, such as 1417 in art. As far as I know, there is no documentation on when to use these links, so I've just tried to explain how they are used. Feel free to update as needed. — Reinyday, 22:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are mentioned just above where you put them, as well as in WP:PIPE. I don't disagree with what you've said, but I'm not at all sure we need a whole section about it. I tend to feel that this page is too long already.

If we do have a section about it, I think it should mention the argument against such links, that they lead to "surprise" destinations, which is something piped links should avoid. Also that they break users' date preferences if used in a full date. Those are the most important things from a stylistic point of view.

But again, all this is already said at the two places I mentioned, and I doubt we need to say it again. What do other people think?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if this section stays, it should be changed to say that uses such as ] are encouraged, not just optional, and other uses are discouraged. Surprise links definitely need to be avoided. -- Renesis13 06:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Units in unremarkable quotes

I added metric units to Lake Wallenpaupack. Then I happened to notice that the piece of text was a quote. Since it was not particularly remarkable, I changed it from a quote to an attribution. Another editor User:Suoerh2 reverted it with the following comment on my talk page:

I don't know what you intent was with this edit, but you integrated a quote into the main prose, thus making it look like Misplaced Pages's own material, when in fact it was taken from another source (which would be a copyright violation). This is a very serious error hidden underneath a edit with the innocent sounding name "units", one would assume that all you did was fix up some units or something, so probably many users just skipped checking the edit. Please be more careful in the future, such a serious error is a high price to pay for the very minor (or even questionable) units edits that you make en masse. Suoerh2 09:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My intent was to make the units clear. Many Misplaced Pages readers have no idea what a board foot means. The addition of metric units meant that it was no longer a quote. So I changed it so that it did not mislead the reader into thinking that the added text was in the original source. To be honest, that amount of unremarkable text in a quote seems odd to me. I think that article needs attention. Perhaps I should have used square brackets or something. What do others think? bobblewik 09:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Suoerh2 is right here. I do not agree that adding conversions in brackets constitutes making quoted text "unquoted", just as adding a (sic) to spelling mistakes wouldn't also. I think the quote should remain inside blockquote tags with any conversions in brackets--Clawed 10:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't. Did you look at both diffs, Clawed? Essentially Bobblewik changed it from a direct quotation to paraphrased information, in order that he could then add metric conversions. I think this was a good solution. Although perhaps paraphrasing it a little more would avoid the possibility of a copyvio. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as copyright violation goes, I would think that copying one paragraph from a web site with much more than one paragraph of text is fair use, especially when the information is freely available on the web, and the copying does not appear to create any commercial disadvantage to the publisher. In a different case, where there was a copyright violiation, paraphrasing the text wouldn't make the violation worse, and might cure it if the paraphrasing was thorogh enough.

It is a widespread practice to place additional information into a quotation within square brackets, and still present the material as a quotation. --Gerry Ashton 18:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Suoerh2 is quoted by bobblewik as writing "I don't know what you intent was with this edit, but you integrated a quote into the main prose, thus making it look like Misplaced Pages's own material, when in fact it was taken from another source (which would be a copyright violation)." In the USA, where Misplaced Pages is hosted, I understand that while copyright protects authors against unauthorized copying and the creation of unauthorized derivative works, authors do not have a moral right of attribution. So a short quote or paraphrase that would be legal with attribution is still legal without attribution, so it would be plagiarism rather than a copyright violation. If any further discussion is required, it should occur on a more relevant page, such as Talk:Lake Wallenpaupack --Gerry Ashton 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So what you are basically saying is that I can take almost any informational paragraph from any website (as long as they are not charging for access to that paragraph) and cut-and-paste it directly into a relevant Misplaced Pages page so that it looks as though it is Misplaced Pages's own paragraph and not a quote and not even provide a source for it? That is absolutely at odds with several of Misplaced Pages's fundamental principles. If you are quoting something then make it clear that it is a quote and from where you are quoting it. If your obsession with units requires to to change the quote either 1) leave it as a quote and add your changes in square brackets 2) actually completely rewrite the material (and what Bobblewik did was not a rewrite, he changed a word here and there). Suoerh2 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that copying an amount of text that is allowed under the fair-use exception to the copyright law is not a violation of the copyright law. If it is not properly attributed, it is against Misplaced Pages policy and it makes Misplaced Pages editors look sloppy and uneducated. It is plagarism. It is bad. Any editor who notices it should fix it. But it isn't a violation of the copyright law, at least in the USA. --Gerry Ashton 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would leave the quote and use the —not (parethesis). MJCdetroit 03:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree now. This is an even better solution than bobblewik's. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I should have thought of that in the first place. Suoerh2 was right to challenge what I did and we have a good outcome. However, I would like to remark that terms such as 'innocent-sounding', 'questionable', 'obsession' are inherently negative and I was a little offended. Please can we try to be polite to each other. bobblewik 21:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

BC vs BCE and AD vs CE

Isn't it time we standardized the encyclopedia to use either BCE or BC? A Train 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If and only if you want to start a flame war. For some reason, people find it a very emotive topic. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it’s a bit stupid after all to call a dog a cat, then to pretend it really was a cat now. The year numbering of the Gregorian calendar, i.e. its epoch, is Christian-based (although the calendar itself has older, mostly Roman roots) and no additional E will change that. Like it or not. Anyhow, what if I wanted to standardise on the minus (and optional plus) sign, because that already is a standard? Better let’s not touch the issue and pretend it’ll go away some day magically. Christoph Päper 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

... case in point. Powers 21:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Date ranges

Based on a discussion at WP:ANI, I wonder about how ranges of wikdates can be handled. If we have (say) 1 – 10 October 2006, and we change it into wikidates, should we have:

• 1 – 10 October 2006 (which renders as 1 – October 10, 2006 if American Dating preferences are set)
• 1 October – 10, 2006 (which renders as 1 October – 10, 2006 if International Dating preferences are set)
• 1 October – 10 October 2006

There seems to be no easy way of doing this. --Jumbo 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The first two are clearly bad. The last would make sense if there were a comma, but then the comma would be removed because of date preferences. What is wrong with using words or "1st of"? —Centrx→talk • 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Try setting your preferences to American Dating - the comma is inserted automatically. --Jumbo 04:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The third one seems reasonable. It would then be 1 October – 10 October 2006 or October 1 – October 10, 2006, right? Using "1st of" wouldn't really work because it looks out-of-place in the standard that we've established... The first two wouldn't really work, because of preferences...

Personally, I think it's fine without the comma, but I wonder if you could force a comma by, say, using the & ; notation? Let's see... ,? Nope... I wonder if I can find the number for it... Let's try &#x2C;... →,← yay, it worked! Now let's see if it can bypass the date preferences: →1 October – 10 October, 2006← yay! How's that for a comma? ;-) Hehe... I still don't think it's necessary but if everyone else thinks it is, it's possible. :-) Neonumbers 12:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To me the 3rd form proposed above looks like "1 October – 2006-10-10". Not acceptable. So I guess the only good way is do away with contractions and write 2006-10-01 – 2006-10-10. −Woodstone 12:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What looks reasonable to readers without preferences set? bobblewik 18:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is for a range in day-month format, it should be "1 October through 10 October, 2006", with the comma. But that the date preferences would not show the comma for day-month format, despite it being appropriate in this case. —Centrx→talk • 20:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

For International Dating, a comma is not necessary. In the example that kicked this discussion off, the year did not form part of the date. The use of "through" in this case would also seem to be an Americanism. --Jumbo 20:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

tractive effort: 'lb' or 'lbf'?

Discussion below copied from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Trains A user is reverting edits to train articles. Please look at Rebecca's contributions list at least back to 23 September. I believe the original edits improve the articles and the reverts make the articles worse. I do not want to undo the reverts myself but other editors may wish to do so. bobblewik 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've wasted enough of my precious hours on earth reviewing the changes involved to wish, frankly, that both of you would keep your mitts off the railroading articles. But I would have to oppose the way you went through and systematically changed "tractive effort" units from "lb" to "lbf". The correct English units measure is "pounds". Period. I've looked at some of the other changes you've made (and some of the argument about them) and frankly I think Misplaced Pages would be a better place if you applied yourself to substantive copyediting and writing and eschewed your program of computer-amplified nitpicks. Mangoe 11:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A few of them were on my watchlist and I've taken care of those that I agree with (and added {{TrainsWikiProject}} as appropriate). Some of the changes that were reverted were only whether or not solitary years were linked. Since I have no substantive opinion in that debate, I have left those specific changes alone. It looks to me like Rebecca doesn't like any of your units edits (I see a lot of edits to ship articles, for example), and this dispute is better suited to another location. Slambo (Speak) 12:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing the reverts. As far as the other comments ('lb' v 'lbf' and formatting 'nitpicks') are concerned, I will copy the comments to wp:mosnum. That is probably the best place. See you there. bobblewik 18:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion above copied from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Trains

Can people comment on the appropriateness of unit format edits as an editor activity and the correct unit for tractive effort i.e. 'lb' or 'lbf'. bobblewik 18:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Using 'pound' (or for that matter 'kg') as a unit for force is plain wrong. Clearly in some fields, it common practice to use units in this sloppy way, but in a publication for the general public, more precision is definitely an improvement. −Woodstone 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The pound can be used either as a unit of mass or a unit of force. According to National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 811 page 59, "lbf" is the correct abbreviation for the pound, when used as a unit of force. Of course, the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) calls for all those units in all those train articles to be accompanied by metric equivalents. My personal opinion is that because the pound can be used both ways, it is a menace to society and should be banished, to be replaced with kilogram or newton as appropriate. --Gerry Ashton 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The changes (with respect to units) that bobblewik made to the train articles dealt with measuring tractive effort. The definition of tractive effort tells us that we are measuring a force. Therefore, to change lb to lbf would be correct. I'm sure when 'train enthusiasts' are discussing tractive effort they never say pounds-force. They just say pounds. However, when it is formally written —it should be done correctly. LONG LIVE the POUND! —MJCdetroit 01:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. They are the units of force; enthusiasts in their own discussions may just say pounds, but even they are probably oblivious to the facts that there are a couple of common units that go by that name, and it is important to maintain the distinction.

It is especially important since most train articles use both "lb" (and "kg" or "t" when these are expressed in metric units), and also "lbf" (and "N" or "kN" when expressed in metric units). Different units—use different symbols to keep them straight.

Some tractive effort articles express it only in newtons (e.g., maximum tractive effort). In English units, of course, these are most often converted to lbf.

Unlike some of the other measurements in other fields, I've never run across any of the "tractive effort" measurements expressed here on Misplaced Pages in kilograms-force. So that doesn't seem to be a problem; but if they are ever the original measurements, I think they should be kept because of their value in showing the precision of the original measurement, and converted both to newtons and pounds force. Gene Nygaard 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yearless dates

I propose an addition to MOS:DATE#Partial_dates to address the problem of yearless dates. This tends to arise when people write articles on current events. There is an understandable tendancy to refer to just the date and month, with an unspoken implication that the current year is being discussed (repeating "2006" after every date can reduce readability). The problem here is that the article needs to be written in such a way that it is clear which year is being referred to. If this is not done, then confusion will arise in later years. The example that prompted this is mentioned and discussed at Talk:Hurricane_Katrina#Dates_lacking_years. So, does anyone agree that this addition to the guideline is needed, and can anyone think of a good way to word this? Carcharoth 12:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd add something to the end of Partial dates to the effect of what you said above:

"Articles addressing recent events tend to omit the year, under the impression that "June 2" clearly refers to the recent past. However as time goes on, the context of timeliness will be reduced; therefore all full dates should include the year. See also Misplaced Pages:As of and Category:Current events."

-- nae'blis 20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces

Discussion below copied from User talk:Bobblewik I've noticed you changing a lot of units in automobile articles from "XXXhp" to "XXX hp". If you're going to do this, could you follow the WP:Autos conventions and use the non-breaking space ( ) to prevent automatic line wrapping? This would also apply to non-autombile articles where you're inserting a space between the value and the unit. Thanks. --DeLarge 22:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I like to ensure that the reader sees a space. In the past, I tried to go a step further and add nbsp but I ended up making too many mistakes and it is much more complicated and slow. So now I just concentrate on the main task of correcting the absence of a visible space. If you would like to convert the visible space from one type to another, I would be happy to assist you. I have helped other editors in that. I would also be happy to discuss formats in general in your project page if you want to copy this discussion there. Regards bobblewik 10:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what? You'd rather do a half-assed job because it's quicker and easier than doing it properly, but if I want to spend my time trawling around after you tidying up your goofs you'd be happy to assist? How noble of you. Do you realise what a selfish ass you just sounded like? --DeLarge 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion above copied from User talk:Bobblewik

I have copied the above comments from my talk page. The issues raised by DeLarge may be of wider interest. I do not want to address the issue of rudeness here, I have already expressed my views on his/her talk page. However, I would be interested in opinions on the substantive points.

As long as a visible space is there, the type of visible space is a very low priority for me. I regard nbsp as just another tool available to me and deploy it on rare occasions (e.g. if a table looks really really odd). I know that some people care a lot about it, just as other people care about horizontal lines a few pixels long (hyphens, dashes). My work does not prevent other editors from changing the type of space, type of line or anything else. Because of previous requests for me to work on adding non-breaking spaces, I went to some effort to create and debug a publically available tool for adding non-breaking spaces but I don't maintain, guarantee or use it myself.

I would be interested in the views of others. bobblewik 19:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

(response copied)

How ironic. I considered it rude of you to dismiss a constructive suggestion on the basis that doing things the right way was too difficult and slow for you. Like I said, you'd rather do a half-assed job because it's quicker and easier than doing it properly. In future, expect your edits to be rolled back summarily - your dismissive attitude deserves to be reciprocated. --DeLarge 19:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

B has no obligation to enter non-breaking spaces where you want him to. He replied politely to your request and offered to work together, and you responded by calling him an ass, just because he didn't follow your orders to the letter. Shame on you. —Michael Z. 2006-10-02 19:57 Z

Insertion of a non-breaking space would be the best way of doing it. Could you rewrite your monobook tool to insert the   between the value and the unit symbol? That way you could be fast and mistake free. —MJCdetroit 20:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I wrote a such a tool (back in June) for anyone to use. See:

User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/units nbsp.js

I know many arguments for it, but I prefer not to use it. bobblewik 20:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, you may wish to ask User:TomTheHand. He has modified my code for non-breaking spaces and produced a version for AWB (I think). bobblewik 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)