Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 149

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145 ← Archive 147 Archive 148 Archive 149 Archive 150 Archive 151 → Archive 155

What is the basis for the bias towards metric for UK related articles?

The discussion above on this got hijacked and sidetracked, so can we just keep it to the point here please. I asked if anyone could summarise the reasons why, in the face of the evidence clearly indicating that in the modern day UK the British people still favour (by a large majority) in both speech and the written word, the imperial units of measure. ProProbly (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's take this up after your SPI finishes. If you're still around I'm sure someone will give you an explanation. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The question is equally valid whether I'm "around" or not. The SPI activity seems to have stopped now, and as you have refused to supply any evidence at all to support your allegation, I presume that will be the end of it. Either way, let's not waste time waiting for what might never happen. ProProbly (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In reference to the above

  • I wonder, has anyone ever thought of opening a discussion at WP:AN to establish general community sanctions with regard to unit usage in the UK? The amount of disruption regarding this matter is disproportionate to its purpose, and continually disruptive here and elsewhere. Regardless of whether he is a sock-puppet or not, ProProbly's continued beating of what is essentially a dead horse should warrant sanction. To request such general sanctions in this area, I believe, would be worthwhile (including a 1RR restriction for unit changes, perhaps). I'm sure this could garner support. RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Here's a better idea: provide a summary of the reasons for the current wording (if there are any) for all to read and refer to, and maybe discuss further, then perhaps people will appreciate the reasoning and not need to keep questioning it and suffer the disruption caused by those who seem to resent the questions. ProProbly (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't resent questions. I resent having to deal with those who evoke WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, edit war over petty units, and refuse to take the initiative to read the tens of past discussions on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You don't want to help make it clearer then? You rather attack those who find it unbelievable. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a collaborative project. Please make it easier, rather than more difficult, for editors to understand the reasons why, if there are any. ProProbly (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It isn't hard to understand. RGloucester — ☎ 20:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It isn't just hard, it's impossible to understand, from the guidelines, why the bias is so heavily towards metric measures for articles related to a culture where the bias is overwhelmingly in favour of imperial measures. I assume that there is a rational explanation for the guidelines being that way, but it appears from your reaction that there may not be. If you think it's easy to see why, then please provide a quick summary here. ProProbly (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The talk page archives for this page are open to you. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The simple fact of the matter is there is no such alleged bias. This is an international project that uses internationally agreed units (SI) unless there is a clear reason, backed up by consensus, to depart from internationally agreed units. End of story. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yet the guidance for US related articles recommends US units. Why the exception for the US and not for the equally non-metric culture of the UK? It looks like bias, especially with no background in the guidance to attempt to justify it. ProProbly (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, yes. But as there are 146 pages of archive, I am still hoping someone a little less cagey, and who knows some of the background, can summarise here the reason for the glaring anomaly. ProProbly (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no "glaring anomaly" here. Kahastok talk 21:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The glaring anomaly is that the majority modern British usage is imperial, yet the guideline demands metric first. No big deal you might think, but a disturbing indicator of something not quite healthy methinks. ProProbly (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Reality is that this would never come up if it were not for a very few editors pushing their POV favouring metric or imperial, who wish to use Wikipedia to promote their favoured system. This actually doesn't come up very often among the community as a whole. I count two discussions started by people outside the usual suspects in the last year, and one of those was immediately prompted by the antics of a DeFacto sock. Even this mammoth discussion would have finished off pretty quickly if it hadn't been repeatedly resurrected by the usual suspects pushing their preferred system. And note that some of the main pushers are already blocked and banned, including Martinvl and DeFacto.
FTR there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that ProProbly is a DeFacto sock. Note that DeFacto was originally blocked for failing to drop the stick in his push for imperial units for months on end. Our best strategy is to close discussions started by DeFacto socks (and any other banned or blocked users), and to encourage non-blocked and non-banned regulars to choose not to start or continue discussions (and yes, on the latter point I do realise that I'm not always the best at practising what I preach.) Kahastok talk 21:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if it is "only a few users", these "few users" can cause disproportionate disruption, which is why I believe community sanctions might be the appropriate tool to fill the arsenal with. RGloucester — ☎ 22:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I, seeing the clear anomaly (I lived in the UK for years and still visit there regularly) decided to try to understand it and get it fixed. There is a clear bias against the UK here though, for some reason which I do not yet understand. Perhaps the conspiracy theorist is right, and Wikipedia has been infiltrated by the pro-metric lobby! ProProbly (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As much as I have disagreed with Kahastok in the past, I would echo his advice on how to deal with an obvious DeFacto sock: ignore it as much as possible, and when enough evidence has come to light, go straight to SPI. DeFacto has willingly and repeatedly flouted almost every policy that Wikipedia has, practically flaunting his misconduct in the face of others to upset them, and trying to reason with him is pointless and a waste of editors' time. His continued ravings about conspiracy theories mark him as a definite crackpot. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly Support any proposal that any editor whe either raises the subject of (A) Source based units or (B) edit wars over unit order on UK articles receives an immediate community sanction. Way too much time wasted by POV warriors in both camps and its draining for those of us on the sidelines. WCMemail 11:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. I'd warn new editors/socks and recommend reading WT:MOSNUM archives for explanations. Once. No supplementaries, no clarifications, lots of watchers biting their tongues while keeping the relevant bits of MOSNUM stable - even the bits you personally might not like so much. BTW, though the notice at the top of this page doesn't mention it, this talk page is already subject to sanctions. NebY (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Before such measures are considered, I think it would be wise to address the metric bias (compared to real-life modern Britain) in the guidance and then add a short paragraph into the guidance describing the rationale behind the weight applied to either metric or imperial units for each scenario. Without this, the guidance will obviously and predictably be ignored, flouted or gamed. To implement sanctions now could be interpreted as another tendentious attempt to mandate the use of metric units where they would typically not normally be used in the majority of modern-day British speech or written word. ProProbly (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Even if we mandated an imperial-only guideline, our guidance would be "ignored, flouted, and gamed" by those who favour metric, and the same would happen if we mandated all-metric. That is not a solution to the problem, which is why we've taken the "third way" of a Times-style mix between imperial and metric units on the basis of actual British usage. RGloucester — ☎ 12:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: the Times is an up-market establishment newspaper - is it not? Why on earth would we want to emulate that? Does the Wikipedia readership belong to the same socio-economic class as Times readers or is that the target readership of Wikipedia? If the recommendations given in the guidance were explained and supported by evidence (population survey results, usage in middle-market publications, even leaning towards the habits of the biggest selling newspapers periodicals, etc.) then, at least they would be supportable and there would be reasoned logic as to why they were the way they were. Currently the guidance is at such variance with reality that it lacks any credibility at all. ProProbly (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The feature of "actual British usage" that stymies everyone is its variation: stones for weights and yet the major football codes use metric measures exclusively (Premier League) or put metric measures first (Rugby Union and Rugby League). And of course we have milk sold in both pints and litres. I believe that MOSNUM could be tweaked to deal with this situation. However, as I stated elsewhere, this would not change the general preference for miles. Michael Glass (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@Michael Glass: this is about popular usage though, not niche usage. The guidance should be based on modern-day British usage - ie what the majority of the British population prefer to use in everyday life. Yes, some will prefer centimetres or metres for height and kilograms or grams for weight, and buy milk which the retailer has chosen to provide in litre containers rather than pint containers. But all the evidence tells us that the vast majority still prefer to use imperial units, even if buying stuff sold in metric units. Look at almost any grocer or greengrocer in the country, with the exception of the supermarket chains, and you will even see things are sold by imperial units, to satisfy customer demand. That the British do not generally wish to use metric may be an inconvenient truth for those who think they should be forced to use metric units, but Wikipedia should follow the example set by the EU a few years ago, and climb down from the push towards metric, and respect the British preference for imperial. ProProbly (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Mr Glass, as you are well aware, we have discussed the milk nonsense at length before. I believe the result of the discussion was to say that there are no cases where we are even writing about pints of milk. RGloucester — ☎ 14:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we should cross the milk "bridge" in the unlikely event that we come to it. As regards sports, if we continue referring editors to The Times style guide, we should perhaps note that it does specify:

. . . the overwhelming preference is sporting [...] stories to be metric . . . . [emphasis in original]

So if any changes are made after the sockpuppet issue has been cleared up, perhaps it would be prudent to tweak the guidleline to be clear about whether editors should or should not follow The Times style guide and the cited sports' organizations in that respect (and give personal weights and heights in imperial measures only in non-sports contexts). I don't recall us ever clearing that up properly. --Boson (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
One major issue with this proposal is that we end up with a more complicated guideline, and we already have people complaining that it's too complicated. A second is that it's difficult to judge what "the cited sports' organizations" means. Again, we're getting into the realm of source-based units, which have been rejected more times than I can count on these pages - when Michael has demanded them - in part because of the wide scope for abuse as editors choose their sources to match the unit system they prefer.
Michael's claim that the Premier League uses "metric measures exclusively" is based on his own interpretation of his single chosen source - the Premier League website. If you go to the club websites, you may well find imperial units listed or primary. If you go to independent sources, again, you may well find data listed in imperial units. There's nothing special about footballers that prefers metric units. And it would be entirely typical of Michael's style for the Premier League website to be the his chosen source because it uses metric units, and for him to make massive extrapolations based on his interpretation of the units used on that website. Kahastok talk 19:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
In principle it wouldn't be any more complicated than the style guide to which the guidelines currently refer. Everyone admits that the part of MOSNUM about milk is pretty much useless, so if unnecessary complication is a problem, why not start by getting rid of that? On the extremely rare (or most likely non-existent) occasions where milk becomes a topic of dispute in relation to units, it could be sorted out at the relevant article(s). Lest it be said that this is a pretext for gaming the system, I am unaware of any occasion where milk has served as the cause of such a dispute; this superfluous rule just seems like an extreme example of instruction creep, i.e. introducing a rule that is never actually applied, which clutters up the MOS and does not add anything substantive. Clarifying the status of sports-related articles would not necessarily be CREEPy, since such a rule could actually be applied in real articles. I also do not think that it is "source-based units" to require that articles about a sport should prefer the units used by that sport; I would call it common sense. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Used by the sport, those who participate, those who spectate, and those who read about in general, or as used in a cherry-picked source, selected because it uses metric? Ideally the guidance would be just one sentence: "The primary units should be those that would be used by the majority of a truly representative sample of the British population." Why make it more complicated than that, other than to engineer it to favour your POV? ProProbly (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no evidence that football as a whole in the UK has a policy or practice of dogmatically expressing the heights and weights of players in metric units. That's a supposition based on an extrapolation of the unit usage of a single website, and the reason it's that website that was used was because of its units choice. There are plenty of counterexamples - websites expressing heights and weights of players in imperial units, including many of the websites of the clubs in the league. The same would apply to most sports.
But do you really want to go around this yet again? The last discussion finished barely a couple of days ago. And it's not as though we haven't all done this to death several times. Let me remind you the only reason we're even here is because a DeFacto sock decided that he wants us to waste our time at this again. Why can we not say, no, we're not going to go round and round this just because somebody who shouldn't even be here has decided he wants us to. The rules we have are working. Let's get on with actually editing articles. Kahastok talk 21:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Association football is a bad example, I grant, because it's usually a bit of a measurement muddle of its own. But in the case of articles related to particular sports I suspect it would make more sense to follow the practices associated with that sport before national ties, such as they might be. In the case of e.g. competitive weightlifting in the UK, the categories are all defined in kilograms, so it makes sense to give competitors' weights primarily in that unit. That is mainly what I was talking about. The existing rule would seem to imply that the weight of someone competing in the 85 kg category should be given primarily in stones, which would not be helpful. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
What you describe is not UK-specific or sports-specific. The MOS recommends US customary units when dealing with strong national ties to the US - the same would apply to weightlifters there. The definition of a Munro is 3000 feet, so when comparing against that value you will want to measure the height of a Scottish mountain in feet. If you were comparing the distance of a marine incident from the coast with the edge of Australia's 12 (nautical-)mile-limit, you would want to express that distance in nautical miles. I have long argued that the rule both should be and is in fact flexible enough to allow you to compare a measured value with a defined value (given in its units of definition per the MOS) without having to have one measure in one system and the other in the other system - and this resolves your issue. Where there is a genuinely good reason in specific circumstances, we should be willing to accept that - same as we would for spelling, date format, number format or anything else.
Of course, the fact that an editor supposes that the website of an organisation connected to a sport prefers one particular measure - which is where this began - is not a genuinely good reason to vary from the letter of the rule here. Kahastok talk 16:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The proper place to discuss DeFacto's socking is elsewhere. --Boson (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC
Maybe. But the proper place to discuss how we respond to DeFacto's socking on this page? Kahastok talk 16:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, for any confusion caused by my wording! Nothing to do with source-based units! By "cited", I merely meant the sports organizations mentioned in this thread. --Boson (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of socking, the UK units guidelines do not reflect the views of the the man on the Clapham omnibus or even the educated British man (or woman). There is something wrong here, and it wrong to ignore it solely because its proponent is banned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what exactly you think isn't reflective of the views of "the man on the Clapham omnibus"? Secondly, I think it is important to note that our Manual of Style is just that: a manual of style. It doesn't need to reflect Joe Bloggs. We get to choose our own house style, as do newspapers and publications. If I had my way, we'd just choose either metric or imperial (I don't care which) and stick with it. I know that's not going to happen, but I think it is worth thinking about the fact that "common usage" in this case is not easily determined, and that the Manual of Style does not need to be based on empirical data in the way that articles do. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's remember that the advice isn't just plucked out of thin air. People keep complaining when I point out that this guide is broadly based on the style guide of a major British newspaper, because we adapted their recommendations to our needs rather than following them religiously (e.g. we require conversions, and we don't apply its advice in non-UK contexts). But that doesn't take away from the fact that we had a look, and found a suitable compromise in a source trying to do the same thing as we are trying to do - reflect the divided nature of unit use in modern Britain in a few simple and easy-to-follow rules. Kahastok talk 16:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean otherwise. I was merely saying that even if they were "plucked out of thin air", that wouldn't necessarily be a problem in this context. Manuals of Style are meant to illustrate the preferences of the publications that draw them up. RGloucester — ☎ 17:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
At least, in this case, the style guide was intended[original research?] to represent first what Joe Bloggs would find most familiar (not necessarily what he would use), followed by a conversion. Whatever the intent, discussion of what we are trying to represent seems appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your distinction between usage and familiarity. But in any case, both usage and familiarity vary a lot depending on who you're talking to. Most people in the UK are familiar with temperatures in Fahrenheit for instance, but it's not the scale that most people would use most of the time.
Especially considering that Wikipedia has a general preference for metric, I don't see why the UK guidance shouldn't lean towards metric. It makes little sense to suggest that the general rules shouldn't be applied to a country which does generally use the metric system a lot, especially in cases where real-life usage is so variable that it makes little sense to insist on a standard which goes against the general WP practice. I don't think extracting a solid, uncontroversial standard from a muddle of different personal preferences is a circle that can be squared. Archon 2488 (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Was it intentional on your part the you chose a mensuration metaphor? EEng (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I often read these seemingly endless ramblings about appropriate units in the UK. The views are so polarised that it is rare that I read anything that I completely agree with, but Archon 2488 has hit the nail on the head. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

A proposal to tweak the wording

I believe we need a sense of proportion in discussing units of measure. Wikipedia policy - rightly - insists that both measures be given. This means that the whole sorry business is a fight over which unit comes first. The UK units compromise is that metric should be preferred except, except and except. The most important exception is the general preference for miles over kilometres, and I don't think that any reasonable person could dispute that. However, the other two recommendations could be tweaked.

  • The recommendation that imperial measures should take precedence over metric with personal weights is appropriate as a general rule, but it becomes problematic when it is applied to sporting codes or individual teams that give preference to metric measures. I think we could have a general preference for imperial measures for personal heights and weights but relax that requirement on sporting teams where appropriate.
  • As milk is sold by the litre as well as the pint, I think it would be preferable either to remove the reference to milk altogether or to modify the advice to say that most milk is sold by the pint.

One way of wording the sporting exception might be to follow the general advice given to engineering articles. Perhaps the wording could be something like this:

  • UK sporting-related articles, including player profiles, may follow the usage of the local team or the national body, except that all heights and weights of players must supply both imperial and metric measures.

I don't believe that saying that most milk in the UK was sold by the pint or not mentioning milk at all could possibly upset any reasonable person. The second point may be more contentious, but at this point it would confirm rather than change present Wikipedia practice. Michael Glass (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. For approximately the millionth time, Michael Glass proposes source-based units. Quel surprise. Kahastok talk 12:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • How shocking! I proposed something that Kahastok disagrees with. Sorry about that. Michael Glass (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Moderate support I do not think this is actually source-based units. I support getting rid of the pointless rule about milk. I would also say that sports and engineering should be described as having a strong preference for metric (this is actually what The Times already says). Exemptions can be made for historical articles (e.g. about Victorian engineering) if that is the consensus of the editors working on those articles; this is probably more sensible wording than the current engineering rule. I also frankly don't understand the point of requiring imperial to be given before metric for weights; kilograms have been used for so long in the UK for so many things that it is difficult to claim that people don't have a good grasp of them. There are lots of contexts (esp. in sport and medicine) where people are invariably weighed in kilograms; pretty much everything else in the UK is weighed in kilograms; WP has a general preference for kilograms. Literally the only justification for stones is the personal preference of some people, and we are told repeatedly that the rules are not supposed to be based on personal preferences. Given all of this, I don't see why such a radical deviation from normal WP practice is justified in such a niche area.
Even for miles/kilometres, while it is true that road signs still use miles and yards, OS maps and many sports use kilometres, as increasingly do railways. It is not obvious that an argument based on road signs applies e.g. to the length of a lake, or other aspects of physical geography. It is wrong to imply that kilometres are unused in the UK because they are not used on road signs. Fundamentally I think the important thing is keeping practice simple and consistent across different WP articles, and I don't think modern UK practice is so vastly non-metric as to justify these rules. I would also point out that in other countries with mixed imperial/metric unit use, such as Ireland and Canada, the current MOS standard is to prefer metric, just to keep things consistent. Obviously there are exceptions, such as Canadian football generally using imperial units. As I see it, the only really significant difference between the UK and these two countries is the units on road signs (there are even areas such as construction and engineering in which Canada uses imperial far more than the UK). Archon 2488 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
No. The thing on sports cannot be described in any other terms. It is source-based units, in attempt to get retrospective justification for Michael's own past disruption - and he tries to use that disruption that a justification for the change! We've already seen that Michael is claiming "the usage of the local team or the national body" means whatever sources are most metric. He basically admitted as much above - chances are most (including those he's previously listed) don't have their own clear MOS and any claim of usage is based on his own extrapolation from individual instances of usage. We should not pander to this POV push.
Our guideline is based on the Times. Your case of "[l]iterally the only justification for stones is the personal preference of some people" is simply not accurate. The Times very clearly prefers imperial units for personal heights and weights. Any issues that arise with it re: comparing with defined units as you described above can be dealt with in the same way as with comparing against any other defined unit.
We already have people - most frequently Michael - complaining that this guideline is too complicated, and then they then propose or support proposals to make it more complicated! Right now we have a good compromise between simplicity and an accurate representation of British unit use and there is no good reason to change it.
The milk thing is an attempt to get a foot in the door for "can is not must". "Can is not must" is an argument that Michael has used before on articles, which holds that if the MOS expresses any form of doubt or option, Michael is entitled to mass-convert articles to metric. We've previously agreed to deal with milk if and when it comes up and I see no reason to change it.
But I repeat, we've gone through all this so many times. Why, in your view, do the same people have to go over the same arguments over and over again? One definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result and this is precisely what you seem to want to do here. Why can we not get on with actually improving articles for a change? Kahastok talk 15:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The milk rule is admitted by practically everyone to have no real purpose, so I don't understand how it could be a foot in the door for anything. Having rules that are not applied is the very definition of rule creep and it does make the rules unnecessarily complicated, albeit in a small way. Only if the subject of UK milk bottle volume (!) became a real issue should it even be mentioned in the MOS (as EEng and others have said in the past, if there is no need for a rule, there is a need for no rule). In relation to stones, I was talking about the measurement preferences of some members of the British public, which as we know are very mixed. You can point to a publication such as the Times which chooses to standardise on stones, and Michael can point to something else which standardises on kilograms. Other UK newspapers such as the Guardian express a general preference for metric which does not exempt stones. Likewise someone might point to a UK publication which gives temperatures in Fahrenheit. My point was, in the context of an encyclopedia which does strongly prefer the metric system already (at least, for non-US articles), it isn't obvious that there is a strong enough reason to deviate from that standard in this case. Sticking with the general WP standard makes more sense, in my view, than "source-based units", either cherry-picking from a multitude of sources, or picking just one (the Times) and sticking with it dogmatically. WP doesn't do anything like that for any other country in the world.
I think a large part of the reason why these discussions go in circles is that they tend to be derailed into casting aspersions on people who disagree with the consensus, and insinuating that any argument put forward by them is in bad faith. The discussion is supposed to be about unit choice, not the evils of Michael Glass or anyone else. This is why I recommended ignoring DeFacto as much as possible; so long as these discussions devolve into fights about the characters of certain editors, they are guaranteed to go nowhere. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's sensible to keep going around changing things based on the possibility that they might cause a minor problem in some unknown article in the future. Just about everyone accepts that the current point on milk isn't causing any issues at all, so there's no reason to change.
The reason for using the Times is pretty simple. Because otherwise we have people complaining that it has no basis at all and trying to pull it in one direction or the other. They try to do it anyway to some extent, but at present we can say no, it's based on this external source - the Times. If we didn't have this basis I'm entirely certain that these arguments would be a whole lot more frequent and that's the last thing we should want. I see no reason to switch away from this source, a highly respected UK newspaper, except to a more-respected source. The only argument for change seems to be to make the whole thing more metric, which is not a good reason.
Basing our consistent advice on a single source is quite different from source-based units. Major problems with source-based unit are the massive scope for inconsistency as different sources are used for different sentences, meaning we use stones in one sentence, kilograms in the next, and pounds in the next one after that, and the wide scope for gaming that is provided by simply choosing the source to match the desired units. Note that the sources in question generally do not actually express a preference - rather, one is inferred from individual instances of usage (which is WP:OR). Picking a source as the basis for the MOS does not have any of these problems - because it's a style guide because it clearly expresses a preference, does not allow gaming in the choice of sources and ensures consistency in usage. Of course we do not follow that source dogmatically - we adapt it to our purposes. That does not make it not a good idea.
I do not accept that Wikipedia has - or should have - a clear and institutionalised preference for metric units - except insofar as it mirrors usage in the real world as a whole, which in most countries is primarily metric. Favouring one system of units over the other in this way would be POV. It is clearly appropriate to use British-based units on UK-related articles, and not to intentionally bias those units toward the metric system in a way that RL usage does not. RL usage for personal height and weight prefers imperial units and the source we've chosen as a basis for this advice agrees. I think you could make a serious case that RL usage in other contexts also favours imperial units - mountain height and land area are the most obvious - but our source does not clearly agree so we do not include them. When in doubt it is best to follow the source that we have chosen as the basis for this guidance. Kahastok talk 17:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The edits I did on the player profiles were done more than three years ago. Since then I have not touched the player profiles. Now many of them are unreferenced so there is no straightforward way for the reader to check the accuracy of the information given. Basing the heights on the official bodies (either clubs or the national organisation) assures the reader that the player's height has not been plucked out of the air. My proposal is not one of enforced metrication, but to encourage the information to be referenced.
I have made two proposals about milk. The present wording could suggest that all milk is sold by the pint. This is no longer the case, so the present wording is both unnecessary and potentially misleading. There are two ways of dealing with this issue: removing the reference to milk or just stating that most milk is sold by the pint. I am utterly unconvinced that this small change is a threat to anyone. Michael Glass (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
First they metricated the milk, but I did not care because I drink whiskey. Then they put kilometers in the odometers, but I said nothing because I don't have a car. Then they kilogrammed the kickers, but I like cricket... EEng (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a fair point. If we conceded "can is not must" for milk, then Michael will prompt try to use milk as an example for everything else. This isn't somewhere we haven't been before. Kahastok talk 22:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, my post wasn't meant to support or oppose anyone's position. In fact, I have no idea what anyone's position is here nor, indeed, anything more than an extremely vague notion of what you all are arguing about. It's just that, coming on the heels of the Clapham omnibus (if the image may be pardoned) the idea that the Wikipedia Manual of Style needs not one but two proposals about milk, specifically, struck me as so unlikely that I felt I had to unburden myself. EEng (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a manual of style. It is not, and does not claim to be, a detailed documentation of the precise mix of units used by British people. Your proposal is effectively to remove the advice completely. To tell people nothing at all. When you have made exactly this argument before he's been rebuffed for precisely this reason. I see no reason not to rebuff it again. And in any case, if it is so unimportant then clearly there is no reason why change is needed.
If there is a problem with sourcing sports articles, find sources. There is no requirement that you accept the data directly without converting it. If it says 180 centimetres, there's nothing stopping you from writing "5 feet 11 inches (180 cm)". The fact that data needs sources is not and never has been an excuse for mass metrication of thousands of articles, nor a good reason to change the MOS, nor a good reason to require source-based units as you so repetitiously demand. Kahastok talk 17:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Yet it has been claimed in the past, in favour of the present MOS wording, that it attempts to replicate the mix of units used by British people. That might make some sense as an objective. But in fact that is not what it is, because it is just a facsimile of the Times house style from circa 15 years ago, which makes less sense.
If the milk rule is indeed unimportant (and it is), then it is by no means clear that it should not be removed, per WP:CREEP. The MOS should not be a collection of unused rules, maintained on the very dubious assumption that if one of them is removed, the whole thing will come tumbling down. That is just the fallacy of the slippery slope. There is no actual evidence that removing that one line about milk could possibly lead to anything, and the entire case against its removal seems to be based on the character of the person proposing it. Maintaining rules based on such poor logic gives the whole thing a bad name.
If we genuinely want people to stop bickering over (spilled?) milk, then removing that rule would be the way to go. No evidence has ever been presented that it would have any effect in article-space, and literally its only function is to cause people to argue over it here. If I'm wrong and there is a genuinely good case for having such a rule about milk, it could always be reinstated. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Reminding my esteemed fellow editors that I have little idea what you're arguing about, I rise to support Archon's general position by reiterating something I posted in another discussion:
This is a superb example of what MOS need not (and therefore should not) prescribe. It an obscure situation which will hardly ever come up. There's no urgent need for WP-wide consistency and little danger that large amounts of editor time will be wasted litigating and relitigating this in different articles. Just work out something that looks good with your fellow editors on the Talk page of the article. If and when a pattern of repeated dispute emerges, only then will it be time to consider adding something to MOS.
More succinctly... in MOS -- especially in MOS, because it's so important and already so bloated -- if we don't need to have a given rule, then we affirmatively need to not have that rule. EEng (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I boldly removed reference to milk bottles. Feel free to revert if I've misjudged the consensus. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I support the removal. This is not an imperial–metric battleground, and we don't need this rule. --Boson (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Strong support. Please let's just get rid of this useless rule and never talk about it again. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
It attempts to replicate the mix of units used by British people. But it also attempts to do it reasonably simply and in a series of brief instructions that can actually used by article writers in order to determine which units they should use in articles. In the same way, we don't tell people to occasionally use Fahrenheit when discussing warm temperatures (but not cold temperatures), even though this would be an accurate reflection of modern British usage. Adding a "most" in there renders the point totally useless in a manual of style because of the "can is not must" argument. If "most" bottled milk is measured in pints, in what circumstances should quantities of bottled milk not be measured in pints? The reader using the MOS is not told.
The way to stop people arguing over this is for the people who keep on starting arguments over this to stop starting arguments over this. If it was different people starting these arguments every time, then you might have a point, but it isn't. It's the same people over and over again. It has been the same people over and over again - on whichever point they thought they could most easily force metrication - for nearly six years. And experience would suggest that accepting a "can is not must" change is not the way to prevent those same people from starting these arguments, because they'll just start arguing on something else.
Ultimately, the only real reason put forward not to put milk in is to make the advice more metric, and that is not a valid goal in and of itself. The source for this advice suggests pints, so we should say pints. Kahastok talk 10:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
What source for this advice are you referring to? --Boson (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
He's talking about the Times style guide again. Every time he's been asked to justify this it ultimately came down to "because the Times said so". But however well recognised it is as a newspaper, it is still just a newspaper. That specific guidance is now quite old and it is not getting any younger; it will only get more and more out of step with metrication in modern Britain. (I'd also note briefly that I have not been here for six years, so there are occasionally some new people who notice what a mess the UK units section is, or run into problems with it).
The situation in the UK regarding bottled milk is that it can legally be sold in primarily metric (e.g. 2 L) or primarily imperial (e.g. 4 pints) quantities. But dual-labelling is not mandatory if the primary quantity is metric (because the law considers imperial units to be optional supplementary indicators on food labels), so you can find milk bottles that say simply ("2 litres") with no imperial at all. Given that there are other imperial anomalies in the British supermarket, which the MOS ignores (in line with Kahastok's comment about ignoring "celsiheit" summer temperatures), I don't see that the actual real-life situation with milk justifies a deviation from the rule that consumer goods in the UK would normally be measured in metric units. You would probably expect a dairy to measure its output in litres – this is the sort of thing that is more likely to be mentioned in an article than milk bottles in a supermarket.
The real point is to make the MOS more consistent and remove unnecessary rules which just add clutter, per WP:CREEP as has been argued several times. It's not a massive conspiracy orchestrated by Michael Glass, and I don't see how his case about football players will be affected in any way by a useless sentence about bottled milk. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Even a creative interpretation of The Times style guide does not really support the statement

"The source for this advice suggests pints, so we should say pints,"

which is misleading. The Times style guide says:

"The main exceptions to metric should be pints of beer and cider, [emphasis in original] while milk is still (confusingly) sold in pint bottles as well as liter containers."

So The Times style guide does not really make a relevant style recommendation about milk. As I understand the legislation, which is the ultimate basis for these rules because it largely determines actual written usage, the exceptions from the obligation to use metric units apply only to "milk in returnable bottles and beer and cider on draught", which is more restrictive than the current guideline. The rationale is that use of "pints" in this context (returnable bottles and draught beer) is not of international significance. Encyclopedic things like production statistics for milk, sugar content of milk etc. will, obviously, use metric measurements, since they don't qualify for the exception. It's very difficult to imagine many contexts where a Wikipedia article will refer specifically to a quantity of milk in a returnable bottle. --Boson (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'm with Archon and Boson. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is "Source based units" in yet another guise, an example of flogging the ground where a deceased equine long ago crumbled into dust and blew to the four corners of the earth. Milk is still sold in pints much to the chagrin of the UK Metric Association. I would hope that those members of the UK Metric Association or the British Weights and Measures Association who have answered the clarion call on whatever organisations website floats your boat and who are convinced that editing wikipedia is a good way to further their cause to once and for all please declare their conflict of interest. And to explain why I oppose this change, its precisely because I see editors who aren't here to improve the encyclopaedia but to advance an agenda, who don't care what is the best way to present information to our readers and are constantly creating unnecessary conflict by urging a little tweak here to favour one system or the other and the huge waste of effort diverted into debating utter bollocks. People oppose this Michael, not because its you, not because you've coming here for the last 5 years with the "wouldn't source based units be a good idea" every couple of weeks but because its a dumb idea. WCMemail 18:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Your comment seems to blur the line between milk and the sports proposal. But in any case, given that the Times already says that sports should have a preference for metric, I don't see why this is an issue. If the MOS actually followed the Times consistently it would be an open-and-shut case. And it is not fair or correct to say that the editors who disagree with the current MOS wording "are not here to improve the encyclopaedia" and "do not care what is the best way to present information" – they (we) have a different opinion on that subject from you, perhaps. Another reason why these discussions go absolutely nowhere is that there is a faction of people who will not hear that the Times isn't the final word on the subject, or that the current MOS wording isn't perfect, and they will constantly cast aspersions on anyone who disagrees with them. They will never accept a compromise on anything, however trivial, as evidenced by the milk fiasco – the rule is widely admitted to be useless, but we ended up keeping it for political reasons. They complain that the people who disagree with them are terrible at consensus-building yet they insist that it's their way or no way and do everything in their power to prevent the formation of a consensus that they don't like. Thus the discussion devolves into an endless succession of ad-hom arguments about whether someone who suggests a change is a member of the UKMA. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Q. Where did I say anything about "editors who disagree with the current MOS wording"?
A. I didn't.
Q. To repeat the question, where did I say anything about "editors who disagree with the current MOS wording"?
A. I didn't.
Q. To repeat the question a 3rd time, where did I say anything about "editors who disagree with the current MOS wording"?
A. I didn't.
Q. Where did I say anything about "someone who suggests a change is a member of the UKMA"?
A. I didn't.
Q. To repeat the question, where did I say anything about "someone who suggests a change is a member of the UKMA"?
A. I didn't.
Q. To repeat the question a 3rd time, where did I say anything about "someone who suggests a change is a member of the UKMA"?
A. I didn't.
I've repeated it three times in the vain hope of making the point absolutely clear. To make it even clearer, I specifically referred to members of two organisations, who aren't here to improve the encyclopedia but to turn wikipedia into an ideological battleground. I suppose the irony of inventing a strawman to indulge in casting aspersions about those opposing this change, whilst complaining loudly on the basis of that strawman that others were casting aspersions was completely lost on you. I rarely contribute here much these days as I am one of those editors driven away with this endless bickering over trivia.
I mention those two organisations as both lobby their members to edit wikipedia to favour their own POV.
The reasons why these discussions never go anywhere is not for the reasons you describe. The reason is simply that rarely do the proposals have merit, whether it is a suggestion to make it little bit more metric or a little bit more imperial, its trivia and the application of a little WP:COMMON SENSE on the part of editors would mean there is no need. A classic example, distances are predominantly in miles but Motorway Location signs use km, so shouldn't we be putting something in WP:MOSNUM to say km in some circumstances. Another example, personal height is in feet and inches, so shouldn't we be putting something in WP:MOSNUM to give a statues height in ft. It isn't about improving matters its one group trying to gain a leverage to exploit over the other with editors who just want to write articles stuck in the middle.
Specifically I oppose anything that is based upon using a source to define unit order, since experience teaches me the sources will be selected to justify a mass conversion from one system to another. And to be abundantly clear, I condemn both camps equally as being disruptive. Using sources to define unit order is a dumb idea and a recipe for disruptive editing by both camps. WCMemail 22:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand that you are not accusing everyone who supports a change of belonging to one of these organisations; I was not trying to strawman you in that way. However, these insinuations of belonging to the UKMA, BWMA, etc. are repeatedly brought up by the same people, and there is no possible way they could ever lead to anything other than more unproductive conflict, because they move the argument into the realm of the ad hominem, and because they are unprovable.
My specific point about the milk, which I think is actually evidence that these discussions never go anywhere (partly) for the reason I gave, was that we ended up having to keep an unused rule purely in order to make a point. Politics over pragmatism, and an unwillingness to compromise on something trivial. An unjustified fear that removing something useless – which, if we were all being totally rational, should not be controversial – would imply the mass-metrication of everything. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to make the point again that I made no insinuation about the motives of any particular editor. Do I have to make it 3 times?
They're not unprovable as it happens, in fact quite easy to prove but WP:OUT means demonstrating a WP:COI risks a block. It isn't like you have to look for it, you can find the links in the course of normal research. I like honesty and I'd have more respect for those who are honest about what they're here for.
There is little point crying about spilt milk. The fact is milk is still sold predominantly in pints in the UK and yes some manufacturers do sell it in litres but they're in the minority. And as an aside when done so it is usually something of a rip off, since for example 500 ml is less than a pint (568 ml) but you end up paying the same price. Being frank, there is no need to update the policy since a little common sense interpretation is in order. On the other hand, if the UKMA does want to make metric more acceptable to the general public, they'd go a long way if they put an end to the Great British Metric Milk Rip-Off. WCMemail 23:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You are correct that spying on other editors' off-Wiki activities and reporting on them here is potentially a serious breach of Wikipedia policy (I assume that is what you meant to link to), since this can easily divulge personal information that the editors in question have not consented to reveal on Wikipedia. This is why I said that such accusations are unprovable, because attempts to connect WP accounts to accounts on other websites are potentially an invasion of editors' privacy and a form of harassment. This is also why I say that obsessing over people's memberships of off-Wiki organisations is unproductive. DeFacto's latest jaunt as "Baaarny" involved what he called a "research project" which was basically just his attempt to prove that all the editors whom he had crossed swords with in the past were part of a UKMA conspiracy against him, by trying to invade other editors' privacy in exactly this way. And by the way, complaining that metrication of shopping is a ruse for price inflation is a classic BWMA chestnut. Any old stick to hit the metric system with. If you want to berate others (even unspecified others) for belonging to such organisations, it would strengthen your case if you didn't repeat their arguments here. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

To get back to the bottles of milk, WCM has confirmed the following:

  • Milk is sold by the pint and also the litre.
  • The British Weights and Measures Association has condemned the price differential.

Yet when I proposed removing the reference to milk or stating that most milk is sold by the pint, two editors treated this as a huge threat to the British Way of Life. No wonder the thread below treats the whole discussion as a joke. Michael Glass (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael, please stop, just stop. Really do you think discussions are helped by you constantly personalising matters and then feigning hurt feeling when people respond to that.
  • NO ONE treated this as a huge threat to the British Way of Life
  • NO ONE treated this as a huge threat to the British Way of Life
  • NO ONE treated this as a huge threat to the British Way of Life
Did you get that? no one did. People objected to you proposing yet again source based units in yet another guise. People object because you personalise this, people are simply fed up with you making statements trivialising and demeaning other editors when they don't agree with you.
Milk is still overwhelmingly sold by the pint and people object because we know you will use the slightest bit of ambiguity to edit against the spirit of the guideline. Did you get that, people object because all of your years of disruptively raising the same issue again and again and again and again have created a complete lack of trust. WCMemail 14:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Come on, WCM, we both accept that most milk is sold by the pint. There's more disruptiveness in your ranting than in my proposals.Michael Glass (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Michael, stop it, just stop it. Do you really think being deliberately provocative convinces people you're right? Newsflash, it doesn't. WCMemail 14:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Another subheading

Am I mistaken in gathering that someone proposed a change to the guideline wording, and while

  • Supports

and

  • Opposes

were accumulating, someone else removed the original passage, so that now

  • Supports

and

  • Opposes

are accumulating for that as well? EEng (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion, out of sheer bloody mindedness if nothing else. WCMemail 08:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Wait... are you opposing my suggestion that there are two different proposals on the table, or are you suggesting opposing one of the two proposals? Who's on first? EEng (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I oppose your suggestion and I oppose any reference to Abbott and Costello. I am oppposed. WCMemail 12:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If I propose we juxtapose your oppose, I suppose it won't break your nose? EEng (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Sorry, my muse abandoned me at the last moment.
When Captain America throws his mighty shield
All those who chose to oppose his shield must yield!
EEng (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC) My muse returned. Or, at least, something did.
As all you Joes knows, there's plenty of NGOs that like to impose rows of no's on the finer points of fine old British prose. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You suppose if we close we'd step on some toes? EEng (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Four scholars encounter a group of ladies of the evening. "Gentlemen," says one, "Shall we term this a jam of tarts?" The second corrects him: "Better, I think, an essay of Trollope's." The third offers: "A flourish of strumpets?" Says the fourth: "You're all mistaken. Here we have an anthology of pros."

Wait, I'm confused. This about milk, right? How often do we have to refer to specific quantities of milk in our articles? "In 1987, he was appointed Sub-Minister for the bydistrict of of Kings-Riding-Upon-The-Green-Hill, then drank a pint of milk"? Does this come up a lot? Could we not just substitute "...then drank some quantity of dairy product" or something in those few cases? At any rate, I strongly Oppose all previous suggestions above.Herostratus (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Since some of the suggestions above were to oppose all the other suggestions above, you are now simultaneously opposing, and opposing all opposition to, all proposals including opposals. In summary, see opos-sum.
Also, what if someone is lactose-intolerant? EEng (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Alternative Spanish beverages are available, by the gallon. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Dispose of the damned milk-bottles, once and for all, per whoever said that was a good idea. Then hunt around for something even more absurdly trivial to argue over. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • YES! Dispose of the milk! The discussion is past its use by date. It's gone from sour to farcical. Even the British Weights and Measures Association knows that milk is sold by both the pint and the litre. Dump the redundant wording! Michael Glass (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, dump the redundant wording. There is overwhelming support to do so. The only arguments I have seen against removing reference to milk are "it supports source base units" (in what way, pray?) and "it is UKMA propaganda" (ditto) Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Please reformulate your post to include a bolded ose-word. It's easy -- you can even use such forms as clothes. EEng (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing the discussion on the removal of the advice about milk

Though the discussion is somewhat "unstructured", there appears to be a clear consensus to remove the style advice about milk. So I think we can close this discussion on that basis and come back to other matters (such as what topic to discuss next, how consensus-building discussions are de-railed, etc.) later.

As I read it, the removal of the milk advice is opposed by

and supported by

while the following users' opinions are unclear but generally supportive

  • EEng (talk · contribs) I see why Boson might have reasonably believed I belong here, but alas as mentioned here [1] I simply don't grasp the issue, and don't intend to take the time to do so. EEng (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

--Boson (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Close the discussion by all means as no consensus to change but this rambling mess does not express a consensus to change the guideline. If someone's position is unclear you don't have the remit to claim they support it, unless and until they explicitly state they do. WCMemail 13:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
EEng has generally supported the view that, if there is no solid reason for retaining a rule, that is ample justification for removing it, to prevent the MOS from becoming cluttered. This was also the argument that I made above. Herostratus seemed to be saying something similar; perhaps these two will clarify their positions further, but I assume this is what "generally supportive" means. At any rate, what is decisive here is that no actual case for the utility of the milk guideline has been made. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You have correctly characterized my opinion re keeping MOS uncluttered. As mentioned near my strikeout above, however, I don't know how that fits into this discussion. EEng (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 6 to 2 in favour of removing the reference to milk sounds pretty decisive to me. Michael Glass (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTVOTE. This is a long, rambling unstructured mess - asserting a majority opinion from it is untenable. WCMemail 14:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Equally, WP:NOTUNANIMITY. However messy the thread was (and however derailed it became by the usual aspersion-casting), several people did clearly express their opinions on the subject at hand. I don't think that should be ignored. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
So, then stop, begin again and have a proper discussion without casting aspersions, for example it would really help if you were to apologise for the spying remark I found hugely offensive but chose to ignore, one of the usual tactics of casting aspersions then feigning innocence when the discussion becomes bad tempered. WCMemail 14:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a very uncharitable interpretation of what I said. I pointed out that discussing which of the editors in these threads might be members of advocacy groups is unhelpful, and that attempts to prove such speculations might contravene WP policy. I clearly did not actually accuse you of spying on anyone; I urged you to drop that whole line of argument before you risked crossing into the territory of spying. But, I am sorry if I did not make it clear that I was not accusing you. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
My interpretation was far from uncharitable. Its these baiting statements and non-apologies that are making these discussions poisonous. WCMemail 16:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I called it uncharitable because you read it as accusing you of something, when I was actually emphasising that attempts to report on editors' off-Wiki affiliations and activities would not generally be permissible, per the policy on outing editors. For the record, and to say it again, I did not accuse you of actively spying on anyone. I'm sorry if my comment came across that way; I'm not sure how much more of an apology you expect. Dismissing other people's attempts to apologise to you as "non-apologies" is also not a good way to defuse a confrontation.
If you cast a closer eye at the notorious thread from last year, you will see who it was who started casting aspersions, and harassed one particular editor until he removed himself from the discussion. Stones and glass houses; pots and kettles. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


Is the current guidance in WP:MOSNUM, it reflects exactly the current UK law [2]. The fact that you can in a few places buy milk in plastic containers in litres doesn't provide a compelling reason to change the guidelines or remove what is currently a legislative requirement in the UK. The few occasions where you may need to mention the purchase of milk in a litre container can be dealt with by the application of a little common sense per WP:COMMON. The law is the law. WCMemail 15:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. One might also note that there is a degree of cultural significance. For example, uf you want to accuse your political opponent of being out of touch with common people, you say they don't know the price of a pint of milk - to the point where just about every politician has to know the current milk price (by the pint) just in case some journalist asks the question.
At this stage, the argument to remove seems to be that editors with a personal preference for the metric system keep on bringing up milk. Many of those same editors have decided that the fact that they keep on bringing up milk is disruptive and therefore that they should stop themselves from bringing up milk by aligning our guidance on milk with their personal preference for the metric system. This is not in any sense a good reason to change the guideline. A far better solution would be for the people who consider such discussion disruptive to stop starting those same discussions. Kahastok talk 17:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the MOS needs a sentence about a unit because it's "culturally significant"; that in itself sounds like BWMA material. If we want the MOS to reflect actual unit usage, I would note that supermarket price labels generally give the price per 100 ml or per litre. I don't think you can dismiss the fact that several editors have clearly disagreed with your opinion by saying that they are all biased; again the discussion moves into the realm of the ad hominem. The reason given to change the guideline was not as you stated; that is the latest of several strawmen you have presented. The reason is rather that the guideline is never actually used, and is kept in the MOS for solely political reasons. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You accuse me of making putting up straw men and then accuse me of reciting "BWMA material" and arguing "for solely political reasons"? You - the person who, since this discussion started, has called me "unintelligent", called another editors "ignorant", lacking "basic numeracy skill" and "lunatics", who has continually accused me and others of outright stupidity (ah, but they were "obviously meant to be jokes") - are accusing me of moving this "into the realm of the ad hominem"? Seriously?
Fact is, I've already told you my political view - though I shouldn't have to - and I view it as a sign of my neutrality that you so continually get it so spectacularly wrong.
Messages like this is why I stopped responding above. You've decided you want metric. In every discussion you advocate metrication wholesale. Regardless of circumstances or context. Shite, you even insisted that parsecs were metric (they aren't) and that all astronomers will insist on using metres instead anyway (they won't - most prefer parsecs or light years). There is no point in continually discussing this with you because you've clearly made up your mind that the metric system is the bee's knees. There's no point in pointing out that there are still contexts where imperial dominates - such as, for example, milk as under UK law - because you've already outright told us that you consider anyone who thinks in imperial rather than metric in any circumstance to be a "lunatic" with no right to an opinion. Kahastok talk 23:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I said that arguing to retain a unit because it is "culturally significant" (whatever that means – it sounds vague, and since you criticise Michael Glass for this, OR) was like something the BWMA would say, yes. It does not sound like a NPOV. As for politics, I was talking about the internal politics of the MOS rather than real-life political affiliations (I'm honestly not trying to speculate about your off-Wiki affiliations because I find it uninteresting and unhelpful, although some others are not so deterred); some people here are unwilling to make even token concessions or compromises, for fear of being seen to "give in" to Michael Glass or something like that. This was in relation to the "slippery slope" argument above. I never called you specifically unintelligent, and I don't think you are. There are other people who do lack basic numeracy skill, which I honestly find a bit shocking; if I were in their position I hope that I would spend my time more productively by learning how to use the metric system rather than coming here and demanding that other people cater to my ignorance. "Newfangled kilowotsits" was an attempt to add a grain of humour to an otherwise dry and boring discussion, not a personal attack; I'm sorry you don't find my SOH germane, so I'll keep my comments suitably humourless from now on.
I said that the parsec was defined ultimately by the metre (because the AU is defined by the metre), so it was odd to argue that parsecs are meaningful and metres are not, and that it wasn't highly unusual to use SI units in astronomy. Parsecs aren't directly "meaningful" beyond the range where parallax is useful as a distance measurement (basically, nearby stars); beyond this range they really aren't any more useful or meaningful than metres in standard form, and they're used only because of convention.
When you say that imperial "dominates" for milk under UK law I think you're overstating it. That seems to apply at most only to milk sold in returnable containers (I guess this means the glass bottles that the milkman puts on your doorstep – how many people still get milk in this way?). But in supermarkets there is clearly no requirement that imperial units be used; it's not OR to point that out, it's a statement of an uncontroversial fact. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
About 4% in 2012: [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation of consensus: Editors are welcome to indicate that my interpretation of their expressed views is incorrect (or that they have changed their opinion). Feel free to strike through your user name or add a simple statement, indicating support or opposition to the proposal to remove the advice about milk. But we really need to cut through these endless discussions. The text was boldly removed and reverted, so we are now in the discussion phase of the WP:BRD cycle. Please let us finish it. In view of the potential number of articles affected (those that talk about a quantity of bottled milk), this is such a trivial change, it would be ridiculous if we could not reach a consensus quickly, or at least firmly establish who supports and who opposes the change. --Boson (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and in fact you can move me from "unclear but generally supportive" to "fully supportive" (of removing the advisement re milk). There are a number of reasons for my support. One is that we should not constrain editors where it's not necessary. Another is that we especially shouldn't unnecessarily constrain editors over rare cases that don't come up, as this clutters the rulebook. I have not seen convincing of evidence that precise quantities of bottled milk sold in the UK is something that is likely to come up in very many articles. I tried to think of a couple, and this thought experiment led me to be even less friendly to this constraint.
The rule is In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom... imperial pints are used for quantities of... bottled milk. Let us suppose that there was a passage in a article "According to police, Smith stopped at a shop about 10:30 and bought a pack of cigarettes and a liter bottle of milk". It would be against the rules to write that, you would have to write "According to police, Smith stopped at a shop about 10:30 and bought a pack of cigarettes and a 1.75 pint bottle of milk". This is arrant nonsense. It's not arrant nonsense to write 1 liter or 1.75 pints, but it's arrant nonsense to require that you must write 1.75 pints, and if you don't someone can (is, indeed, required to) come along and change it, and if you don't accept that you are in the wrong and if you insist you will eventually be dragged to account and so forth.
If you later have "After the explosion, police found a bit of plastic imprinted with the legend '1 liter' to which bits of milk clung, and this led them to Smith" then what'll you do? Leave the reader scratching his head? Change it to "police found a bit of plastic imprinted with the legend '1.75 pints'..."? Hmmmm?
Let's try another one. "According to the Ministry Of Keeping Track Of This Sort Of Thing, the average Briton consumes 2.4 imperial pints (1.4 liters) of bottled milk". This is functional. "...consumes 1.4 imperial pints (1.4 liters) of bottled milk". This also is functional. "...consumes 1.4 liters of bottled milk" is less functional, and so is "...consumes 2.4 imperial pints of bottled milk". In my opinion the latter is even less functional since most people (even Americans and Britons) have a general idea of what a liter represents, while few people outside Britain are familiar with imperial pints Americans are likely to conflate them with American pints which are different, and so the person will be left with the impression that Britons are consuming 1.1 liters of milk rather than the 1.4 they do consume.
So here you are not just withholding information from the reader but actively misleading the reader. Let's not do that, and certainly let's not require editors to do that.
BTW, technically it would be illegal to write "In the UK, bottled milk is usually sold in pints but also sometimes in liters." Imperial pints are used for quantities of bottled milk, period, and writing "also sometimes in liters" is 1) writing about bottled milk in the UK and 2) not using pints. The most you could do is write "In the UK, bottled milk is usually sold in pints" and leave the rest to reader's imagination.
As to the response "Well, but this is silly. Nobody is really going to enforce this rule to that level. Nobody is going to use this rule to prevent someone writing 'In the UK, bottled milk is usually sold in pints but also sometimes in liters', and of course we will use common sense." Yeah maybe, but there are people here who are very serious about enforcing rules. Rightly so, since rules are important (and should be reserved for important issues). And if the de facto situation is going to be "Here's a rule, it should be enforced sometimes and sometimes not -- use common sense" why not cut out the middleman and just say "Use common sense". Herostratus (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not just arrant nonsense, but errant as well, since 1 liter =/= 1.75 pints (whether you're working in US or imperial -- strange to realize no one's dragged this in as yet). EEng (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, fine, I guess I got the math wrong, should have been some other value.... "X" will do as well. Herostratus (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to expect this rule to be enforced in situations where no other unit rule would ever be enforced.
The sentence "In the UK, bottled milk is usually sold in pints but also sometimes in liters." is allowed in the same way as it is allowed to point out that some highways in the US are signed in kilometres. The only thing stopping it is the spelling of the word "litre".
No rule we write here is ever going to override the rule that we preserve quotations. If the milk label after the explosion said "1 liter" in the US, would you be forced to render it in US pints? Of course not.
And note that, as it is understood by many readers here, exactly the same claimed issues apply the other way if you remove this. Because the advice says to use metric except in a few situations (including milk). By your argument, we would then not be allowed to refer to pints of milk, even in cases where milk is required to be sold by the pint by law.
Note also that even if we were to get rid of this rule, we would still need imperial pints both in conversion and in other contexts where the law says they must be used, so the scope for confusion with US pints is not removed. People might just have to get used to the fact that there are different kinds of pints and that they should write accordingly. This point, I believe, is also made by the advice here.
And finally, I really do wish simply saying "use common sense" was as viable as you suggest. But when we have editors routinely mass-converting articles to their preferred system based on perceived loopholes in this guidance, it is useful to give clear advice and avoid ambiguity in the general case. Kahastok talk 23:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm never particularly swayed by argument based on inventing thought experiments, particularly when they're contrived like those above.
"According to police, Smith stopped at a shop about 10:30 and bought a pack of cigarettes and a liter bottle of milk" ...It would be against the rules to write that
Strawman. A) No it wouldn't be against the rules. If fact, its counter to guidance, which states "In a direct quotation, always retain the source units."
Strawman. B) Its illegal to sell a litre bottle of milk, bottled milk may only be sold in pints. (When referring to both its either plastic or cardboard cartons)
The guidance exists because UK Weights and Measures Law means bottled milk may only be sold in pints. If its in another type of container it may be sold in other units eg litres but still predominantly its pints. Your suggestion that WP:MOSNUM will force editors to mislead readers is frankly nonsense.
I agree that common sense seems sadly uncommon in the enforcement of guidelines, equally a good reason for putting it in the guidelines, since those who have none will deliberately edit against local usage. WCMemail 23:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster, you wrote "The guidance exists because UK Weights and Measures Law means bottled milk may only be sold in pints." I am not sure which legislation you are referring to. Could you please quote the text of the legislation that you are referring to, with the name of the act or regulation and the section number? Thank you!--Boson (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the legislation in question is the The Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Part II Section 8). This was quite heavily amended by 1985 The Weights and Measures (Metrication) (Amendment) Order 1994. The first link given includes the later amendments. The 1985 act listed the imperial and metric "weights and measures lawful for use for trade". The 1994 amendment removed almost all of the imperial units, but allowed for some exceptions - most notably pint, 1/2 pint, and 1/3 pint for draught beer and cider, and milk in returnable containers (bottles). The act also allows for a secondary indication of values (for anything being traded) in imperial units provided it is less prominent than the primary (metric) indication. The effect of this is that although you can buy a pint of milk in a non-returnable package the label will be something like 568ml/1 Pint. As far as I can ascertain, there is nothing in the legislation that says bottled milk or draught beer or cider cannot be sold in metric units, only that pints (as the primary indication with no need for a metric equivalent) can be used. Robevans123 (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
As regards
  • As far as I can ascertain, there is nothing in the legislation that says bottled milk or draught beer or cider cannot be sold in metric units . . .:
I believe that is correct for milk in returnable containers, but not for draught beer –which is subject to the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988 (as amended), requiring pint measurements for beer sold as draught (i.e. not in a closed container).
It is, of course, all pretty irrelevant for Wikipedia, since we are not in the business of selling bottled milk or draught beer. If someone writes an article that makes a specific reference to milk in returnable bottles and thinks it is appropriate to use metric primary units for all the other production figures etc. (as required) but use imperial primary units just for the reference to bottled milk, they might need to reconsider their priorities in life. It is also doubtful that British Civilization as we know it would be endangered by Wikipedia using metric primary units in articles that measure quantities of draught beer in a way that has close ties only to the United Kingdom. Perhaps one of the editors who feels the need to retain this provision would like to suggest some articles where it is important.
I suggest we stop this and someone implement the obvious consensus to remove the reference to milk, which is contested by two editors without convincing arguments. Do we really need to hold a formal RfC and request closure by an uninvolved admin to remove this completely unnecessary provision from the MoS? --Boson (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Two editors have already tried to implement this obvious consensus, and in both cases their attempts were reverted by a certain editor with a rather authoritarian streak, who insists his views are in the majority even when the evidence is against him, and dismisses opinions contrary to his own as "huff and puff" in those instances where he cannot be bothered to misrepresent them. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not feel it appropriate to list people and assign them views. We should rely on what they have said, not how we might have interpreted them. One name has already been struck, so clearly the interpretation is not perfect. We should not ask them to come back and say that they have not been misrepresented. Kahastok talk 23:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Tell me Boson why did you feel the need to make the inference that Kahastok is pushing BWMA material? Really you think this helps?
Supermarkets in the UK sell milk in pints, you are being deliberately misleading with reference to supermarket price labels giving the price per 100 ml, fresh milk is sold in 1, 2 and 4 pint containers. Weights and measures law in the UK tells you to sell bottled milk in pints. The guidance relects local usage.
If its so trivial , why the rush to remove any reference to the fact this is everyday life in the UK. A) Give me a good logical reason, why wikipedia shouldn't present information to its readers in a form they readily understand. B) What problem is actually being addressed by removing advice on how units are used practically in the UK?
If the answers are A) because I think metric is better and B) there isn't one, then you don't have a consensus to change as the counter argument A) is that is better to reflect the usage of units in the UK so that readers find it easier to understand and B) removal of guidance means that editors will not do so. The strength of argument is against you.
The best way to avoid wasting time on trivia, is to stop raising such a fuss over trivia.
And to disclose a potential COI, I'm a member of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, who has a policy of advocating adoption of the metric system. It would be nice if other people had the courage to do the same.But I bet they don't. WCMemail 22:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Re "present information to its readers in a form they readily understand", you do understand that we have readers outside the UK? Many readers, in fact. Herostratus (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thats why we provide a conversion, you do realise btw that comment was rather patronising, ask yourself if it was helpful to infer people were stupid. WCMemail 23:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't you mean imply? ;) EEng (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
re Wee Curry Monster "Tell me Boson why did you feel the need to make the inference that Kahastok is pushing BWMA material? Really you think this helps?":
I don't recall making any such inference. Could you provide a diff?
re Wee Curry Monster " you are being deliberately misleading with reference to supermarket price labels giving the price per 100 ml ":
I don't recall making any any such reference. Could you provide a diff?
re Wee Curry Monster " It would be nice if other people had the courage to do the same.But I bet they don't. ":
I do not usually reveal such personal information, do not expect others to do so, and, personally, do not find imputations of a lack of courage appropriate, but, if it helps, I am not a member or supporter of any pro- or anti-metric organization or any similar advocacy group, and I am not a member of any political party or similar organization. And I do not receive any compensation for my contributions.
--Boson (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone supply a diff for my alleged statements? If not, I would appreciate a retraction. --Boson (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused by why Kahastok thinks that the summary of editors' views given above was inaccurate (re. his recent edit summary). As far as I am aware, the only person who disputed its description of his viewpoint was EEng, who duly amended his entry (and was never claimed to have explicitly supported the change anyway). Do others consider there to have been a consensus? Archon 2488 (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

My view was and remains that no good arguments have been presented for mentioning milk explicitly. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Some information that may be helpful

  • The My Supermarket website does price comparisons of fresh milk by the litre. See [4] [5] [6]
  • All but two of the stores listed on the website sell fresh milk in both pint and litre based containers.
  • ALDI sells all its fresh milk in pint based containers [7]
  • Poundland sells all its fresh milk in litre based containers. [8]

When it comes to raw (unpasteurised) milk, usage also appears to be split.

  • Hook and Son sells its milk in pint based containers [9]
  • Foulglers Dairy sells its milk by the litre. [10]
  • John's Jerseys sells its milk by the litre. [11]

Detailed market statistics about milk are available - for $900US - from Euromonitor [12]

Milk is sold by both the pint and the litre. As feelings both for and against removing the wording about milk seem to be firmly entrenched these facts may help to inform further discussion, if any is necessary. Michael Glass (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really relevant. You've inferred vast conclusions about style decisions from a small number of individual instances of usage. You always do this and it's always OR. The reason we're not allowed OR on articles is partly because we can't reasonably conclude that the conclusions match those that might be made from the evidence as a whole, nor that those conclusions would be shared by experts on the subject.
And lets remember that there are several shops that you miss out. It's not as though everyone in the country uses Mysupermarket.co.uk to do all their shopping - not by a long shot - and there are several significant supermarket chains not listed (let alone corner shops). Some of them are not even supermarkets. Superdrug and Boots are chemists. Kahastok talk 11:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. What "vast conclusions about style decisions" are you referring to? This whole discussion is about whether or not to refer to milk in MOSNUM, a trivial point.
  2. The only conclusion that I drew from the evidence is that milk is sold by both the pint and the litre in the UK. Is this conclusion right or is it wrong?
  • If this conclusion is right, why do you call for more evidence? All it takes to demonstrate that milk is sold by the litre in the UK is two or three examples and My Supermarket has supplied more than that on its website.
  1. How it it Original Research to refer to something that is common knowledge? How is it OR when even the BWMA knows that milk is sold by both the litre and the pint?
I don't think you are being serious. Isn't this just a filibuster? Michael Glass (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You claim that various named businesses have policies favouring one unit or the other for the sale of milk. You have no evidence for these claims. Your conclusions are based on false premises and cannot be relied upon. It is not filibustering to point out the obvious flaws in your approach, particularly given how frequently you and others apply a similarly flawed approach to article edits.
You claim your post to be "information that may be helpful" and that "these facts may help to inform further discussion". It is not information that is helpful, and there are no facts given that may inform further discussion. We should all be very clear that there is nothing in your post other than your own conjecture. It's not reliable here, it's not reliable on articles, it's not reliable anywhere else.
The idea that you might be surprised that I take this view - or suggest an ulterior motive for taking such a view - is itself astonishing, given the sheer number of times I have put these points to you (points that you have never actually disputed). As you know, I have been very consistent in rejecting such "evidence" both here and elsewhere. Kahastok talk 13:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I made no claim about policies of businesses. I quoted obvious facts. You and I both know that milk is sold in both litre and pint containers and yet you dismiss the evidence. This is humbug on steroids. Michael Glass (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult to see how "ALDI sells all its fresh milk in pint based containers" or "Poundland sells all its fresh milk in litre based containers", for example, are not claims that these businesses have policies of favouring one unit over another. These are not conclusions that you can draw from the scant "evidence" that you have. Kahastok talk 16:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense! A description is not a statement about policy. Michael Glass (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your claim is that all fresh milk in Poundland is sold by the litre; that all fresh milk in Aldi is sold by the pint. Even if it was "a description" you don't have evidence that Poundland refuses to countenance pints of milk, or that Aldi similarly refuses to countenance litres. There is no reliable source that says that. All you have is a link to a shopping site that may or may not contain the shop's entire range of a given product and that makes no mention of any policy on units for any particular supermarket. On articles this is banned original research. Any conclusions you reach are purely your own conjecture based on evidence that may or may not be representative. As everywhere else, you need a source that actually reaches the conclusion that you reach and this one does not. Kahastok talk 08:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Kahastok, The conclusion that I reached was that fresh milk in the UK is sold in pints and in litres. The evidence is plain from the My Supermarket website alone. However, I also referred to three separate dairies, two of which had litre packaging and one of which used pints. Nevertheless, I do concede that the My Supermarket website does not quote the whole range of products as this link demonstrates that ALDI is advertising Scottish milk in 2 litre containers..

Nevertheless the point still stands: fresh milk in the UK is sold by the pint and by the litre. This would still be true even if every corner store from one end of the country to the other sold milk only by one measure. Michael Glass (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael Glass the point isn't which units milk (or anything else) is packaged in, it is which units currently are most commonly used in the UK when writing or talking about quantities of stuff, any stuff. 94.196.214.34 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The studiedly uncommitted EEng steps forward to propose a way by which this might possibly be resolved

I want to talk about the current provision:

imperial pints are used for quantities of draught beer/​cider and bottled milk;

It has been an axiom of mine for some time (though I'm sure I've stated it many different ways) that something belongs in MOS only if (as a necessary, but not sufficient test) either:

  • 1. There is an apparent a priori need for project-wide consistency (e.g. "professional look" issues such as consistent typography, layout, etc. -- things which, if inconsistent, would be noticeably annoying, or confusing, to many readers reader); OR
  • 2. Editor time has, and continues to be, spent litigating the same issue over and over on numerous articles, either
  • (a) with generally the same result (so we might as well just memorialize that result, and save all the future arguing), or
  • (b) with different results in different cases, but with reason to believe the differences are arbitrary, and not worth all the arguing -- a final decision on one arbitrary choice, though an intrusion on the general principle that decisions on each article should be made on the Talk page of that article, is worth making in light of the large amount of editor time saved.

There's a further reason that disputes on multiple articles should be a gating requirement for adding anything to MOS: without actual situations to discuss, the debate devolves into the "Well, suppose an article says this..."–type of hypothesizing seen above -- none of which, quite possibly, will ever occur in the real life of real editing. An analogy: the US Supreme Court (like the highest courts of many nations) refuses to rule on an issue until multiple lower courts have ruled on that issue and been unable to agree. This not only reduces the highest court's workload, but helps ensure that the issue has been "thoroughly ventilated", from many points of view and in the context of a variety of fact situations, by the time the highest court takes it up. I think the same thinking should apply to any consideration of adding a provision to MOS.

Now then... I don't think we're talking about case (1) here i.e. units for milk and beer/cider are nothing like project-wide layout and typography. Can we agree on that?

That leaves (2), which has (a) and (b) branches, but with a common root: recurring disagreement on numerous articles. Thus, had I been the Emperor of MOS all along, the milk/beer/cider text would have been added only had there been evidence of that; and, as the newly appointed Emperor of MOS, I will allow it to remain oops, that just slipped out if we agree that the above principles are goods ones, it should remain in MOS only if we think such recurring disagreement will, er, recur if the milk/beer/cider provision is removed.

Therefore, here's my challenge: Will the parties please

  • identify the point at which the beer/wine/cider provision was added, and
  • give diffs for multiple, recurring discussions about them, on multiple articles, which satisfies the common root of (2) above.

Once we've done that, we can move on to decide whether 2(a) and/or 2(b) are satisfied. But I have the odd feeling we won't get that far.

What do my imperial MOS subjects oops, sorry again esteemed fellow editors think about proceeding along these lines? EEng (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Without meaning to appear disrespectful, Your Imperial Majesty, I do feel that this type of exposition is a waste of time. It almost universally acknowledged that the "milk rule", should we call it that, is not serving any purpose. In fact, I feel that that was not the intent of it being in the MoS at all. I imagine that it was included to inform whoever happened upon this section of the MoS that Britons use some imperial units. Those most frequently used are the the examples provided, i.e. "stones and pounds for personal weight, feet and inches for personal height, miles and miles per hour for road distances and speeds, miles per imperial gallon for fuel consumption, and pints for beer, cider, and milk". To be honest, I read the current set-up not as a prescriptive rule that dictates that "pints must be used for bottled milk", but as a expository passage meant to illustrate the particular imperial units still used in the UK, and in what context that these uses occur. At present, the MoS does a good job of illustrating the most prominent remaining uses of imperial units in Britain. I would propose that the best way to solve this issue, given the clear stalemate above, is make it clear in the MoS that "pints for bottle milk" is not a prescriptive phrase, but one that is meant to expository. Seperate the prescriptive rules, like "miles for road distances", from the expository bits, like "pints for bottled milk". RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe this was how this part of the MOS originally developed. Originally it was written more as guidance, telling the editor to imperial sometimes and metric in others, with these points as examples. But as it became clear both how much the rule was being gamed and how it was being gamed (particularly with "can is not must" and source-based units), it became more and more rigid to prevent it from being gamed - based on the Times style guide which was already cited at this time. Because the general sanctions proposal does not appear to be going anywhere, this is still as much of a problem now as it was back then.
The only place where this rule is in any way controversial is WT:MOSNUM. This is not desperately surprising given what UK law says on the subject. It would be thoroughly bizarre if we were required to measure beer, cider and milk in litres even in circumstances where UK law prefers pints.
There seems to be a general misunderstanding here that having no rule means leaving it undetermined. In this case, as the guideline is understood by editors actually applying it, having no rule means default to metric. This discussion is not about whether to have a rule. It's about whether we should require metric units even in areas where UK law requires imperial, for no better reason than because some Wikipedia editors prefer the metric system. Kahastok talk 21:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
As milk can be sold by both the pint and the litre in the UK, the present wording is unsatisfactory. The laws of England do not require milk to be sold by the pint or by the litre. Quite literally, in this case, a can is not a must. Therefore diktats from MOSNUM are inappropriate. Michael Glass (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
And so far as we can tell, nobody outside MOSNUM has a problem with it. And let's be clear, the reason why the "can is not must" point is a problem is because certain editors use it as a licence for inappropriate mass-conversion of articles. It doesn't become a can, it becomes can, subject to immediate to conversion to metric as soon as I find it. Kahastok talk 08:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
In the case of bottles of milk, surely the best thing is to simply describe them as pint or litre containers, whch ever one they happen to be. As for the "problem" of mass conversions, it exists only in your mind. Michael Glass (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There are no litre bottles of milk in the UK (unless someone has just manufactured one to prove me wrong). Dbfirs 00:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you, perhaps, mean glass bottles (as opposed to the 1-litre and 2-litre plastic bottles and other containers sold by supermarkets)? --Boson (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I was tired and not thinking clearly (it was after midnight here, and perhaps the editor name influenced my brain). I nearly got up again to remove my comment because it occurred to me after I went to bed that "bottles" might be interpreted differently elsewhere. There are indeed plastic litre containers in some supermarkets. Dbfirs 07:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The UK bottled-milk dispute rages on

  • Whilst we're at it, let me provide a glimpse of my own thinking on this matter. Personally, I'd like to scrap the present MoS section on British units entirely. It is quite clear that it is not working satisfactorily. Instead, I favour an approach like that of WP:ENGVAR in "UK-related articles". That is, first of all, that an article should be consistently imperial or consistently metric. As per WP:RETAIN, when a consistent usage is established in the article, no changes should take place barring something extraordinary. Likewise, "when no unit system has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no unit system was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular unit system. The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate unit template on its talk page. An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of units to another". Likewise, WP:COMMONALITY would apply, meaning that obscure units like the grain would not be favoured over the gramme. I favour this approach because it works for English dialects. If it works for these, I see no reason why it cannot work for units in British articles. RGloucester — ☎ 01:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem with such a system arises on most geographical articles. We have distances, and we have temperatures in a climate section. In both cases there are clear preferences in British usage, but the preferences are for opposite systems. There is no particular systemic or mathematical reason not to mix miles and Celsius, and one of the features of the British use of units is to mix systems depending on context. The benefit of the current system is that it allows us to mirror this - and it's pretty close to what most Brits will naturally write anyway. Kahastok talk 08:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester I admire your patient and relentless attempts to search for solutions to this perpetual source of conflict. The idea that we scrap the current MoS section entirely could be the inspiration that we were looking for. This section has troubled me for a long time. Contrary to what Kahastok suggests above, I do not believe it has ever reflected what the British would naturally write. This is why I think RG might be on to a winner here.
In fact, we could look at MOS:DATE TIES too for a lead on this: "[a]rticles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation." Obviously substituting "date format" with "unit of measure". I know the difficulty will then be reaching consensus on what the more common unit of measure for a particular circumstance might be, but at least we'll move away from the current crazy situation where it is assumed that because a certain unit is mandated for selling a certain product (eg kilos for apples and pints for beer) it is therefore the unit that should be used in Wikipedia for all instances of that type of quantity. Clearly kilos is not the most common unit of weight used by Brits, even for buying apples, so why dictate it should be used based solely on the selling laws. And Kahastok is correct, Brits may well mix units in a given context - they will, for example, talk about the price of a litre of petrol (because that's how it is advertised) but then say how many gallons they put in their tank and how many mpg they achieved.
I support the selection of units based on true most common usage, and NOT usage based on legal requirements for one particular instance of use. 94.196.212.98 (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be making contradictory points here. Either you can base it on most common usage or you can ditch common usage and rigorously use the first system used in the Wikipedia history. The two are mutually contradictory.
It seems to me that we can use common usage - or at least a reasonable approximation to it - so we should. Our current guidance is based on an external style guide (The Times) that is attempting to approximate common usage, which is a far better way of deciding this than just using what some random Wikipedia editors use. In terms of apples, I suspect people are actually far more likely to buy them by the pound than by the pound or kilogram.
As a general principle, where there are UK laws on the units in which things should be sold, it seems to me to be a bad idea for Wikipedia to choose a different unit. The current advice, and the Times, apply this principle. Your proposal, and all the proposals to metricate the pint of milk above (either by removing the point entirely or by applying "can is not must"), deviate from this principle. Kahastok talk 10:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify:
  • As already pointed out elsewhere, there is no requirement under UK law to sell milk in pints. Any statements by you or others implying the contrary are incorrect. The general rule is that all products, including milk, must be sold using metric units (i.e. litres) as the primary unit; the exception from this obligation for milk applies only to milk sold in returnable containers, where pints are permissible, not obligatory.
  • The Times Style Guide, to which you refer, makes no recommendation to use pints. It merely states ". . . milk (confusingly) is still sold in pint bottles as well as litre containers" (i.e. can not must). Although you repeatedly refer to The Times Style Guide, it does not support your position.
So that others can form a correct opinion of consensus based on this discussion, it would be helpful if those editors who have inadvertently misrepresented British law and my statements would strike through the offending statements and distance themselves from them. --Boson (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I still stick by my statement that there are no (glass) litre bottles of milk in the UK. I always buy my milk by the pint or multiple thereof, and that is the traditional unit of sale for milk (as in the recent questions to members of parliament about the price of a pint of milk). Plastic containers are seen in multiples of both units, but I've never heard anyone call them bottles. Dbfirs 19:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
So little milk is sold in glass bottles that it makes very little difference; I've never bought a glass bottle of milk. Personally I think "bottle" is a much more natural way of referring to what the supermarkets sell than "plastic container" which sounds very stilted. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was suggesting that there were 2-litre glass bottles. I'm surprised if you've never heard the plastic bottles called "plastic bottles". This is the sort of thing I mean:
--Boson (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I've only just noticed that this is starting up again. Fascinating that you think that the best way to start demanding things off people is two weeks after the discussion finished and in the middle of a close-to-150 kB discussion. Quite on what basis you think that such an extremely fragmented discussion can possibly create consensus in any direction I have no idea. There will be lots of points in here that go unanswered, not because there are not good answers, but because the editors in question were not aware of all the discussion points.
Dbfirs is quite right that you don't find bottled milk in litres. Milk in plastic cartons or cardboard, maybe, but not bottled milk. And s/he is entirely right about the status of the "pint of milk" in British culture - which is one of the reasons why the milk is in pint bottles.
But before I edit conflicted with Dbfirs (and Archon) and rewrote this piece, I was going to point out the irony that you so aggressively dismissed what was always intended as an avenue for compromise. I will repeat it here:
As a general principle, where there are UK laws on the units in which things should be sold, it seems to me to be a bad idea for Wikipedia to choose a different unit. The current advice, and the Times, apply this principle. Your proposal, and all the proposals to metricate the pint of milk above (either by removing the point entirely or by applying "can is not must"), deviate from this principle.
Do you disagree with that principle? If not, why do you think it is appropriate to say that milk, when sold in pints, should be measured in litres, as you propose? In what way is it not possible or appropriate to state that principle - a principle that our source for this advice, the Times, does adhere to - in so many words, in our MOS, in place of the current bullet point? For example, as, where a drink such as beer, cider or milk is sold in imperial pints under UK law, imperial pints should be the primary unit? Kahastok talk 20:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
My OED describes bottle as "a container with a narrow neck, used for storing liquids" - the material is unspecified, so it's not necessarily glass. My local authority website's recycling page says "bottles" five times in the context of plastics. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to start debating whether and in what circumstances a "plastic container" can be called a "bottle"; that's too angels-on-pinheads for me. I would not strongly object to restating the bullet point as you propose, but I am wary of arguments about the "cultural status" of units. I do find it strange nonetheless that UK law is now the standard, whereas I was told in the past that the MOS advice on UK units was not based on UK legislation. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not "the standard" in general. It could never be - there are far too many instances in areas simply not covered by UK law. I view my suggestion as little more than a restatement of what the Times recommends, and the current rule as it is intended, in a way that is less likely to have people complaining about the definition of "bottle". In this area, the Times strongly implies that it is following the law on units of sale. Kahastok talk 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
An better formulation might be, where a drink such as beer, cider or milk is sold in imperial pints, imperial pints should be the primary unit, to clarify this point. Kahastok talk 22:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought two weeks was a good time to allow for anybody to raise further arguments or voice opinions, and to correct false statements. This seems like the sort of time frame for RfCs. My request for a correction to misrepresentations (addressed to whom it may concern) stands. Anyone can form an opinion on who is responsible for the lengthy and fragmented discussions. We should not allow the consensus-building process to be de-railed by these lengthy, circular discussions, and we should all resist attempts to redefine this dispute in terms of a metric–Imperial battle.
I am unclear as to what statement of mine you found to be aggressive.
I would not normally call the containers shown in my link above cartons. Or these:
But given the number of articles about milk in bottles, this is a diversion. Any special rule about milk in (glass) bottles is completely unnecessary.
Could you explain the source and purpose of where a drink such as beer, cider or milk is sold in imperial pints under UK law, imperial pints should be the primary unit? It is unclear to me what "is sold in imperial pints under UK law" is intended to mean. Is it intended to mean "where UK law prescribes the use Imperial pints for trade"? --Boson (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, when the primary argument advanced to make a change is to make the advice more metric, it is difficult to see how it is not a a dispute about metrication.
I don't think it is at all reasonable to expect, two weeks after the discussion has - so far as anyone can tell - concluded entirely, people to read random parts of the middle of a 150kB discussions. The only reason I saw this at all was because it happened to show up on my watchlist in between discussions of g-forces and an argument for using unit symbols instead of unit names. I maintain that it is impossible to judge that consensus has been reached for anything in particular, and that your decision to list editors of your choice with your perceptions of their positions it is entirely meaningless for purposes of consensus.
The fact is the only people who seem to have a problem with the current rule on milk are about three or four editors on MOSNUM who refuse to shut up about it. The rule as-is is otherwise entirely uncontroversial.
As I believe is entirely clear from what I said before, my suggestion is that where any drink, including milk, is sold by the pint, then it should be measured by the pint. Where any drink is sold by the litre, it should be measured by the litre. Do you believe that it is appropriate to require that milk sold in pint bottles be measured in litres? That would seem a very strange notion. You don't have to like the fact that milk is sold in pint bottles in Britain - your preferences on the sale of milk will not change the fact that milk is sold in pint bottles in Britain. Kahastok talk 23:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I find your answer a little puzzling. I have no preference whatsoever regarding how they should sell milk in Britain. Wikipedia is not in the business of selling milk in Britain or anywhere else. My concern is a consistent and appropriate Manual of Style that is not overly influenced by partisan viewpoints or distorted because the consensus-building process is disrupted. My reason for replying now was that attempts at implementing what looks to me like an obvious consensus to remove the words "and bottled milk" is still disputed by you and one other editor. So I reviewed all the arguments again, as if I were an uninvolved third party, to make sure I had considered all the arguments and viewpoints. This has taken some time. I found several places where an uninvolved closer, or an administrator reviewing complaints might be misled, so I thought it appropriate to correct false impressions. As I understand your arguments you were implying that UK legislation and/or The Times Style and Usage Guide suggest that Imperial measures must or should be used for bottled milk. If that implication was not intended you can state that clearly now. If it was intended, I would like to see some citations. You seem to be saying that you understand "bottle" to mean "glass bottle" (". . .you don't find bottled milk in litres. Milk in plastic cartons or cardboard, maybe, but not bottled milk."). Others have stated that milk in glass bottles accounts for 4% of the market, which makes a special MoS rule for bottles seem even more absurd. --Boson (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to find some form of compromise here to try and stop people arguing over the definition of a bottle. Fact is that you and others are continually going on and on about a rule that is a problem for no more than three or four editors, exclusively at MOSNUM. You want an MOS not influenced by partisan viewpoints? If anything that would make the status quo more imperial, not less. Just about every editor here has expressed a POV preference for metric, and the MOS reflects that by preferring metric in a wide variety of toss-up situations. You claim want to "correct false impressions", well how about the false impression that you are creating that only two editors have preferred the current wording?
Consensus means trying to bring everyone into the fold. I've suggested ways in which we can stop having 150kB arguments over the definition of a bottle, without creating tiny distinctions (by making it part of a wider point), by relying on the actual unit of sale. You're apparently rejecting this. Are you really so insistent that milk has to be measured in litres - even where it is sold by the pint - that you will reject any attempt to compromise from this? That you revive a discussion that's two weeks old to try and force it through again? There is no consensus for this change. Never was. The conversation has become far too confused for that. Now, if you are not willing to compromise to stop these discussions in the future, please drop the WP:STICK. Kahastok talk 07:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Be sure than any resolution of this issue takes account of this kind of bottle too
Most editors seem convinced by the arguments, especially that a special rule for bottled milk is completely unnecessary. The discussion about the definition of a bottle is a distraction that would be entirely unnecessary if we removed the completely unnecessary provision. Trying to bring everyone into the fold does not mean giving two editors with a particular viewpoint a veto, especially when they appear to be working from false premises. However, in the interests of not helping to continue this wall of words, I will bow out of this conversation for now to give others a chance to review the arguments and express an opinion on what the current consensus is, preferably without more endless discussions. If you wish to make suggestions for a compromise, I suggest starting a new discussion with a stricter format, to avoid the confusion you refer to. --Boson (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with everything that Boson said above. You can't wiggle your way out of the fact that most people who took the time to express an opinion here – all but two, in fact – did not support the retention of the milk rule. It's futile to speculate that if other editors were involved the conclusion might have been different – they're not here to give and defend their opinions, so speculating about what they might say is really no better than hearsay. Implying that the MOS would be less partisan if it were more imperial (for which I see no evidence) calls your neutrality further into question. You appear to have persuaded yourself that everyone in the UK actually hates the metric system – the only UK editor I've come across who really fits that description is DeFacto. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, Archon goes for the ad hominem again.
It is simply not correct to say that all but two editors who have expressed an opinion supported the proposal. This is a misconception that is being repeated. Despite demands to retract statements to "correct false impressions", this is a statement that has been repeated and repeated and does create a false impression.
Would the MOS be less partisan if it accepted more of the imperial system? Maybe. Maybe not. Would it be less partisan if discussions on the topic were not dominated by people who would support immediate metrication if it came up on a ballot tomorrow - most likely a minority of the UK population? Almost certainly. I have never claimed to be neutral in the issue of metrication, but I always find it demonstrates that I am successfully masking my POV when people appear unaware of my preference for the metric system. Kahastok talk 19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The dispute was never about your personal POV or which system you prefer in your private life, which is not something I have taken issue with. It centres entirely on your statements here. It's not impossible that someone might personally prefer to use metric units, but believe that WP should prefer imperial (for instance, because of a false belief that British people dislike the metric system and do not understand it, or that imperial units are more "culturally" appropriate, such as the pint of milk), and push that latter POV. A major reason to "support immediate metrication" is that it would stop pointless discussions such as this, in which people manufacture excuses not to use modern units of measurement. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • For my part, I think the milk rule is spoiled and needs to be poured out. There is no justification for a milk rule. None, regardless of whether milk is bottled, canned, jugged, or otherwise packaged in queer and quotidian ways. Pints are used for milk, but we are neither a dairy nor a greengrocer's. If, as I said somewhere else on this page, this was not a prescriptive passage, but merely one that explaining common usage in Britain, I'd support retaining and expanding it. Given that the wording has been changed to the point where it is now a prescriptive rule, and given that most people interpret it that way, it must be removed. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The compromise suggested would do effectively the same thing as the old version. It said, use the unit of sale for all drinks. I'd be happy if it just said, if something gets sold, use the units of sale. It means not having a special rule, but at the same time not insisting on litres for things that are sold by the pint. I am certainly more inclined to support such a change now that the general sanctions have been passed, reducing the likelihood of abuse. Kahastok talk 19:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm more of the opinion that the beer, cider, and milk nonsense needs to go. There is no need for a rule on this. If there is case where we are writing about pints of whatever, then we can deal with that at the article's talk page, and determine the appropriate units. This is such a minor problem, that I don't even think that we'll happen. If someone wants to write an expository section describing unit use in the UK, I'd support that. Such things are often found in style guides. I'm opposed to a prescriptive rule, however. RGloucester — ☎ 21:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • For my part, I am fascinated about how emotional people in the UK (and the US) can be about metrication (not just on Wikipedia). Although it would technically justifiable, Wikipedia does not have an article titled "Metrication in Germany" (another historical enemy of those SI-pushing French) starting off with "Metrication in Germany remains equivocal and varies by context. Most of government, industry and commerce use metric units, but imperial units are officially used to specify 'wheel diameters, plumbing diameters, LED and CRT screen sizes, Internal Combustion Engine Power, etc.'". So what is it with the UK + US ? There must be an RS somewhere exploring this interesting, psychological phenomenon, to be added to the 'Metrication'-articles. Lklundin (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
We've always been stubborn, don't you know? Perhaps you ought read Mr Arnold. I favour the romantic, and hence I favour imperial units. RGloucester — ☎ 21:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Right. Well, since metrication has worked out just fine in the Latin world, I will (at the risk of offending at least two nationalities) quote the Cuban Cortez in Clancy's Clear and Present Danger: "Russians trying to tell a Latin about romantic entanglements. Probably the climate worked against them". And to put the English stubbornness and traditional thinking (such as might be seen in Mr. Arnold) into perspective I recommend a visit to Bavaria, where both government and people take pride in such matters while enjoying the beer by the liter. But I digress, back to the important topic of, what was it ... milk? Lklundin (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, well, I don't want to offend anyone either. However, one must note that the British order was for many years preserved in aspic by its lack of disorder, revolution, and continental authoritarianism. Even when the socialists of our dear Clement Attlee's calibre came to power, hereditary peers were still hanging their hats in the people's house. In fact, even he, socialist and labour man, was elevated to the status of Earl Attlee. Contradictory, perhaps, but contradictions have never phased the British. RGloucester — ☎ 22:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
But I suppose it may have fazed them more than it phased them. EEng (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I am sure that such a fazing is merely a phantasy of yours. RGloucester — ☎ 22:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Could someone point out a problem caused the current guideline on WP:MOSNUM? By a problem, I mean an actual situation where the guideline itself causes an editor a problem? The answer is none whatsoever, and we'd be better off without the ridiculous and absurd time sink by editors endlessly going over the same ground. There is no need to change the guideline but a change of scenery and some productive editing is more life enhancing. I'm reminded of the folly of wrestling pigs in mud, you waste a lot of effort, end up covered in shit and realise the pig was enjoying it all along. WCMemail 22:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the simple problem is that the rule is not accomplishing anything in articles, however, it is creating a mess here. Given that the negatives outweigh the positives, it should surely be removed, should it not? It would not be tantamount to "metricating" anything, since it is not ever applied to anything anyway. RGloucester — ☎ 22:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The answer to it making a mess here is for people to stop bringing it up, not to change the rule. Based on previous experience I don't see much chance that changing the rule will make any significant difference to the amount of mess here if people are not willing to stop flogging dead horses. Kahastok talk 23:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec) It actually does accomplish something, it gives editors a guideline who are not native to these shores as to where imperial remains a primary unit. You're saying remove it because a small number of editors are kicking up a fuss about it repeatedly and disruptively for the simple reason they are here to push an agenda not to improve wikipedia. I observe that if three editors were topic banned, then most of these problems would go away. WCMemail 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't all discussions in life be easier if you could just magic away everyone who disagrees with you? It's pretty ironic that a comment like that should be made just below a mention of authoritarianism. Anyway, since Kahastok doesn't accept my statement that all but two of the editors who expressed an opinion did not support retention, would he care to name any more who supported his position? Archon 2488 (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I take offence at WCM's suggestion that those who prefer a simpler rule (almost all of us involved in this discussion) do so for reasons other than to improve Wikipedia. I see nothing disruptive in 3 or more editors standing their ground. Should all of us face a topic ban? In this case, simpler is better. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Really, "standing their ground", Wikipedia isn't a battlefield its supposed to be a co-operative endeavour and it requires that people compromise not "stand their ground", or in reality, "never surrender". Present information in a manner in which most of our readers relate to it, not in what system of measurement you think is "better" for dogmatic reasons. Yes, every editor who is here to push a POV should be topic banned, the rest of us simply wish to create content in peace. WCMemail 20:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
What would your view be of replacing the current pint rule with a general rule that says that we apply the unit of sale for just about anything that gets sold by the (whatever)? That way we don't have a specific rule for milk, but rather apply a general principle similar to that applied to engineering. Kahastok talk 21:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
How does that solve the problem of the fact that we have a rule that isn't needed or applied? RGloucester — ☎ 21:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Its just one example of where in the UK the primary unit is not metric. And lets not forget what is really at stake here, in the limited circumstances its an example where we put pint before litre. Oh my god, the humanity, think of the children. WCMemail 22:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you people please take this to a subpage somewhere and let the rest of us live in peace? EEng (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, by now I think that the point I made above has been proven beyond my (limited) wildest imagination. How about that section on UK emotions regarding metrication? Lklundin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
At this rate we'll soon have an article on the history of the UK units section of the MOS. You see how much scope there is for making Wikipedia self-referential? Archon 2488 (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
God, yes please. WCMemail 23:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

There is a middle ground between those who want to remove the guidance on bottles of milk and those who want to retain it: simply say "imperial pints are used for quantities of draught beer/​cider and most bottled milk."
  • This retains the wording that applies to milk
  • This brings the wording into line with modern practice, where some bottles of milk are sold in litre bottles.
  • This still makes it clear that most milk is still sold by the imperial pint.
Perhaps this wording can help to end the dispute, Michael Glass (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Please excuse my near total ignorance on the matter, but does the UK have a law that can be cited on this matter? A typical country regulates that goods must be sold using certain units. Lklundin (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Lklundin From the UK Government website [13], Weights and Measures Act 1985 amended by The Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrication) (Amendment) Order 1994. Current guidance is that milk sold in bottles should be sold in pints. In the vast majority of cases in the UK, milk is sold in 1, 2, 4 and in some cases 6 pint containers. As I previously pointed out [14] 16:15, 17 October 2014 the current guidance "imperial pints are used for quantities of draught beer/​cider and bottled milk" reflects UK legislation. You'll note subsequently several protagonists claiming that reference to the UK legislation and the source of the current guidance have never been provided. WCMemail 09:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, that seems pretty clear to me (except perhaps that I very recently failed utterly to introduce into the MOS an adherence to externally defined guidance (not that I intend to approach that equine cadaver)). Lklundin (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Relevant legislation has been cited several times in the discussion, though its content has sometimes been summarized incorrectly. There is

It provides that


"No person shall use for trade—
[. . . ]
 (d) the pint except for—
(i) the purposes of the sale of draught beer or cider, or
(ii) the purposes of the sale of milk in returnable containers
[. . . ]"
"Nothing in this section precludes the use for trade of any supplementary indication; and for this purpose any indication of quantity
("the imperial indication") is a supplementary indication if—
(a) it is expressed in a unit of measurement other than a metric unit,
(b) it accompanies an indication of quantity expressed in a metric unit ("the metric indication") and is not itself authorised for use in the circumstances as a primary indication of quantity, and
(c) the metric indication is the more prominent, the imperial indication being, in particular, expressed in characters no larger than those of the metric
indication."

It provides that


"Unless pre-packed in a securely closed container and except when sold as a constituent of a mixture of two or more liquids, beer or cider shall be sold by retail—
(a) only in a quantity of ⅓ pint, ½ pint or a multiple of ½ pint
[. . . ]"

So the act and the statutory instrument combined mean that (as a primary unit,for the purposes of trade):

  • the pint is allowed only for milk in returnable containers, draught beer and cider
  • the pint (or specific fractions/multiples) must be used for draught beer and cider
  • the pint is not allowed for milk in non-returnable containers
  • the pint is not allowed for bottled or canned beer.

In addition to the metric primary unit, it is permissible to indicate the equivalent Imperial unit, provided that the Imperial indication is less prominent (e.g. in parentheses). --Boson (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Boson wrote "the pint is not allowed for milk in non-returnable containers", this is nonsense most milk is still sold in pint containers. And people pushing this have already provided plenty of links to show this is the case. Which country do you live in? Because the Brits posting here just have to walk into any shop and we know what units we buy milk in. WCMemail 10:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you will find the most popular format is the so-called "four-pint poly bottle". If the container is not returnable, metric units must be used as the primary indication. You can read the law as well as I can. You will note that I, Wikipedia, and the legislation are talking about primary units. The law, of course, permits the sale of containers with the primary measurement "568 ml" and the secondary indication "pint". Again: we give both units; we are here talking about primary units, i.e what is used first rather than what is used second or in parentheses. --Boson (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I suppose you missed the irony; by reflex you referred to it as a "four-pint poly bottle", just as everybody else does. And remember what the guidance actually directs, which reflects current UK weights and measures law. So how much is a pint of milk?, I'm sure there are some here who'd alter that to "How much is 568 ml of milk?" with no attempt at being humorous. WCMemail 13:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It's sometimes done seriously; I remember having a Tesco voucher which was for a "2.27 litre" container of milk. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I am sure Tesco were very serious about complying with the relevant legislation. --Boson (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. What you use colloquially is not what product labels and formal texts such as encyclopedias, text books and administrative texts use. You will have noticed that the primary measurement on the labels (in accordance with the legislation) is "2.27 litres". You are possibly referring to nominal quantities, which are a different matter (and dealt with elsewhere). I don't want to appear discourteous by breaking off this interesting discussion, but we seem to be going round in circles again and any consensus that might come out of this discussion will presumably be rejected because, allegedly, "the conversation has become far too confused for that". I returned to this discussion to answer a request for information. I have given that information. The consensus already reached should be implemented. Further discussions should be limited to precise individual proposals with a much more structured format. --Boson (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Boson I disagree with you. Wikipedia should be careful to reflect true common usage (call it colloquial usage if you like) and not simply toe the official line and adopt units specified for trading by weights or measure. The Wikipedia requirement to reflect the neutral point of view means we should represent usage fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias. To actually deliberately bias our choice of primary units to favour those given in the legal regulations for certain specific purposes, rather than those in common usage for the context of the article, breaks one of the fundamental Wikipedia principles. The most appropriate reference for choice of primary unit would probably be a corpus of British English usage, and not primary weights and measures legislation. We shouldn't be using our articles to give the misleading impression that because the law states that grams must be used to label packaged food, that the British people therefore commonly use metric units when quantifying weights in other contexts. The fact is that metric units aren't even always used for the purposes laid down in the law, let alone in common usage.
And another point, on the subject of misleading information. There is NO legal requirement for imperial units to be less prominent than metric units on packaging, just that they should not be more prominent. On the plastic containers of milk sold in round numbers of pints, the litre and pint details are given equal prominence (same size and no parentheses). 94.196.212.131 (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
94.196.212.131 (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It would seem that our anonymous friend is back. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Archon 2488 because your IP address is hidden, it is you who are more anonymous. 94.196.212.131 (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
And as soon as the SPI closed. Well, that is fascinating. Kahastok talk 22:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not going to get into wiklilawyering half-truths with IP users. If anybody wants to know what the law actually says, it is quoted above. I shall repeat the relevant part :
  • "Nothing in this section precludes the use for trade of any supplementary indication; and for this purpose any indication of quantity
("the imperial indication") is a supplementary indication if— [. . .]
(c) the metric indication is the more prominent" [emphasis added].
There is also a requirement that the character size may not be larger. --Boson (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Boson you misunderstand the quote you give. Look at it in its full context. It is part of the definition of what constitutes a supplementary indication. It doesn't say the metric must be more prominent.
And where is the requirement for the character size to be larger - the regulation says the imperial measure must be no larger (but not necessarily smaller)? 94.196.212.131 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Re-read the law. Re-read my comment. There does not appear to be a basis for further conversation. --Boson (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Boson it is clear to me, the metric does not have to be more prominent, just the imperial cannot be more prominent. Here'e the guidance that the UK National Weights and Measures Laboratory give in [15] (my bold):


26. The normal requirement for a declaration of the nominal quantity in the units of
measurement shown above does not apply to milk sold or supplied to a consumer in a
returnable container. A supplementary indication of the nominal quantity in nonmetric
units is allowed if it conforms to section 8(5A) of the Weights and Measures
Act 1985. This means it must accompany the normal declaration of quantity expressed
in metric units and may not be larger or more prominent. Supplementary indications
may be expressed in any non-metric units (including US units), and may include other
indications of quantity, for example weight including immediate wrappers.

They would say the metric needs to be more prominent, if it did. But they don't, they only say, as I did, that the imperial cannot be more prominent. I know it's difficult to interpret legal primary documents, which is why secondary interpretations and guidance are better. 94.196.212.131 (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a compromise. This exactly the proposal that started this discussion.

A major problem with such "can is not must" proposals is that they fail to actually give any guidance at all. If "most" or "some" milk is to be measured in pints, the user needing to use the rule is not told when pints are warranted and when they are not. It is actively unhelpful.

I maintain my view that a far more logical solution is to say that all things that are sold by a given unit are given in that unit. It is clear, logical, clearly matches usage and is strongly implied by our source for this advice, the Times. Kahastok talk 22:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Kahastok what do you think of the idea of getting guidance from a British English corpus on usage, rather than using a narrowly scoped legal definition? Common usage does not necessarily align with the requirements for milk packaging. 94.196.212.131 (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Support or Oppose?

Thank you one and all for your comments. I think the following points should be made in reply:

  • WCM has stated: most milk is still sold in pint containers. And people pushing this have already provided plenty of links to show this is the case. I agree with him.
  • My proposal confirms that most milk is sold by the pint in the UK.
  • However, it is also true that some milk is sold by the litre.
  • The sale of milk is a can but not must situation because milk is sold by the imperial pint and also by the litre in the UK.
  • This has been described as confusing by the compilers of the Times guide, and as a rip-off by the British Weights and Measures Association. I wouldn't argue with either of these points

MOSNUM can deal with this in several ways.

  • The first way is to stick with the present wording, which implies that milk is always sold by the pint.
  • The second way is to remove the guidance about milk from MOSNUM which might be taken as implying that milk is always sold by the litre.
  • The third way is to say that most milk is sold by the pint while acknowledging that there are some exceptions.

While most editors have proposed that we remove the point about milk, two editors have objected to this. This second proposal - which I did put forward before - deals with their objections.

  • I believe it is accurate to describe my present proposal as a compromise in this context.
  • Adding the word most gives guidance by pointing out that most milk in the UK is still sold by the pint.
  • No more guidance is needed because pints or litres of milk are hardly ever mentioned in Wikipedia articles.
  • Adding the word most clarifies the present wording.
  • Adding the word most is more accurate than the present wording, because there are some exceptions.
  • Acknowledging that there are exceptions can hardly be classed as subversive when even campaigners for the older measures bemoan the fact that milk is sometimes sold by the litre.

I therefore ask other editors whether they would support or oppose the addition of the word most so that the policy:reads:

"imperial pints are used for quantities of draught beer/​cider and most bottled milk."

Over to you. Michael Glass (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep making the same proposal over and over again? This is not a compromise. This is your original position. And it's an unacceptable now as it was when you first proposed it many years ago.
This is, was, always has been, and probably always will be, a very bad idea. The reasons are the same every time as every other "can is not must" guidance. This proposal utterly fails to provide even the most basic of guidance to the user who just wants to write articles and not worry about arguments on MOSNUM, and thus defies the fundamental purpose of having an MOS. You claim it "clarifies" the current wording. It does the opposite. You claim it is "pointing out that most milk in the UK is still sold by the pint". It isn't pointing out anything of the sort. It doesn't say anything about the units of sale of anything at all. You claim that it is "more accurate". This is a manual of style. It would be just as accurate if we measured everything using the FFF system
If you genuinely want this to be based on the units of sale, the most sensible proposal would seem to be to establish the units of sale as the means of determining what the units should be, for example, by replacing the current beer/cider milk rule with:
  • For all commodities that are sold, the primary unit is the unit of sale.
It's clear, definitive, concise, and meets the standards of following British usage as per the Times (which strongly implies such a rule) without requiring small or minor exceptions. Kahastok talk 09:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I like Kahastok's proposal, on the understanding that it would also replace the advice about beer and cider, which is presumably based on this principle anyway. Almost anything would be better than the Great British Bottled Milk Fetish. Really, how did this ridiculous rule ever get there in the first place? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
When WCM stated "most milk is still sold in pint containers," it made sense. Kashastok's proposal makes no sense at all, unless the reader already knows the unit of sale. Michael Glass (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
If the editor does not know the unit of sale, and gets it wrong, then their mistake can be corrected or it can be discussed on talk. But given that your proposal gives the editor no help at all I do find it odd that you think that mine doesn't give enough. Kahastok talk 10:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
(ec) That is the intended understanding; all three points (beer, cider and milk) are based on this principle, so that bullet point would be replaced. Kahastok talk 10:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of Michael's point above was that "accuracy" referred to accurate reflection of real-world practice, not the intrinsic accuracy of the system of measurement. So using FFF units (or FFU for that matter) would indeed be less accurate in this sense because it would be unrepresentative. This is the main objection you have to consistent use of the metric system.
I don't think that it's really "can is not must", if real-life use is not consistent. The MOS should not imply that the size of a litre bottle should be given in pints, with which I think you agree. I broadly support your proposal to rephrase the rule about beer, cider and milk to say "use the unit of sale", since a consensus is not likely to form around Michael's wording, and I do not have the stomach for a protracted discussion of the theological implications of the word "most". Honestly I think there must be some religions that subject their scriptures to less exegesis than WP editors subject the MOS to. Ancient Christianity had the Filioque clause and we have the "most British milk" heresy. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
You could argue - and I have seen it argued here - that all usage is inconsistent. If a bit of inconsistency meant we should remove all guidance, we would tear up the MOS completely. The MOS exists to give guidance and saying "most milk" - or adding any similar qualifier to any other part of the rule - fails to give it. This is a key problem with "can is not must" (or in this case one might say most is not all) arguments. Kahastok talk 13:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Except the unit of sale does not necessarily represent the unit of common usage, especially with milk. A plastic container of milk that is officially sold as 2.272 litres of milk will inevitably be commonly referred to as 4 pints of milk, as detailed on it so-called supplementary indication.
We need to move away from the mistaken impression of unit usage that might be portrayed by the officially required units of sale. In our outdoor market this morning loose fruit and vegetables were being openly sold by the pound (lb weight) and on most stalls the prices were shown in imperial as £/lb. Metric equivalents, if given at all, were generally smaller and less prominent (because nobody used them). Yet the official line is that loose fruit and veg is sold by the gram or kilogram.
Looking at the (admittedly now a few years old) British National Corpus[16] it is evident that although farming and commerce deal with milk in litres (10s of 1000s of litres), general common usage is still very much in pints.
Wikipedia should reflect that reality, and not try to give a different, non-neutral, POV. Articles dealing with farming milk yields should certainly use litres as the measure, and kilograms or even tonnes for apple, plum and potato yield, but general articles about general use of such commodities should continue to use pints, pounds and ounces. 94.196.208.202 (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC) (94.196.212.131 yesterday)
I do not see evidence for your conclusion, that imperial units are more prominent in common usage in general, in your link, and I do not see it as desirable or beneficial to Wikipedia to push imperial units to the extent that you propose. I would note that the corpus in question was compiled in 1991-94, before the current rules came into force. I would note that I believe it would be difficult to sustain advice based on users' interpretation of a corpus, given Wikipedians' preferences for clear individual sources. My proposal is to apply a principle that is clearly implied by the source we have chosen to base this advice on. Kahastok talk 10:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Corpora need work to understand what they can tell us, yes, but try "pint of milk", "pint milk", "litre of milk" and "litre" milk for starters. You will see the clear distinction between commercial and general use. The current rules relevant here haven't changed, in essence, since 1985. And do you think anyway that the UK public jump into line each time an EU directive is implemented? Wikipedia should reflect reality, not be used to try to change or pre-empt changes of reality. The reality today is that imperial still dominates British common usage - you only need to mix with people in the UK and read the British press to realise that. The corpus merely confirms the reality. 94.196.208.202 (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

EEng gives up

  • I give up. I'm abdicating. In retirement I intend to bring peace to the troubled Basque region, as well as to the Mideast -- not sure which I'll do first, but either will be simpler than this dispute. I wish you all good luck, and may God have mercy on your souls. <Grabs imperial jewels and makes a run for it. Stumbles on ermine robes.> EEng (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. I think there may be something to RG's ENGVAR idea.
  • Are those imperial jewels to be measured in imperial Troy ounces or metric carats? Or grams to be more SI-compliant? What order should these units be presented in if you were born in Inner Mongolia, lived for fifteen years in Wales and had recently emigrated to the US? Think carefully before you answer. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Grains, obviously. EEng (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that User:RGloucester idea has merit, all we are talking about is which order the unit of measurement is shown, scrap the detailed British rules in the MOS and just have a moritorium on changing the very few articles that this effects. Perhaps somebody can explain why in an encyclopedia the rules are biased towards the user of the units of measure rather than the reading audience most of which can easily cope with whatever order the units are presented so dont really care. I have never seen any complaints from the general readership either side that the order causes any real issues to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think RGloucester's idea is maybe a viable option, but it might lead to some oddities, such as giving pressures in inches of mercury and temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit, which are certainly quite archaic practices. Still, striving for consistent unit presentation in an article is probably better than insisting that all UK articles must use the same muddle of different measuring systems, based on what some editors believe British people are and are not able to understand.
So I would add to it that context should play a role in deciding whether such an article is "metric-first" or "imperial-first" (maybe some guidance on context could be included). Most articles about modern Britain, such as the infamous Edinburgh Trams article, should prefer the metric system. More historically-oriented articles (e.g. articles about older infrastructure) may prefer the imperial system; this decision should be made locally. In the event of a tie or ambiguity, as with ENGVAR, the unit presentation used in the first substantial contribution breaks the tie. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
So far we have several editors endorsing RGloucester's proposal but very few of them actually seem to mean the same thing by it. RGloucester calls for change to rigorously enforce whatever system happened to appear first. MilborneOne calls for a moratorium without any changes at all. The IP calls for mass-conversion to Imperial. Archon calls for mass-conversion based on the notion of whoever shows up as to whether an article is "modern" or "historical".
I would suggest that Archon's proposal, in particular, is a gamer's charter. If we decide it locally means a whole lot more mass-conversion of articles, not less, because it leaves it up to local editors (for which read whichever MOSNUM editor shows up to enforce their favourite system) to determine whether a given article is "modern" or "historically-based". It's frankly a dreadful idea.
The fact is that when this discussion has been taken outside this page to more UK-specific fora, the status quo tends actually to get a lot of support. We've several times had editors on one side or the other assume there was a silent majority for their preferred system in discussion outside MOSNUM, only to find themselves in a minority of one. This is presumably also why we tend to see relatively few British-based editors chiming in in these discussions. And a straight moratorium with no other rules as MilborneOne proposes is a problem because it fails to give any guidance as to what units new articles, or new sections of existing articles, should use.
The only pressing issue with the status quo is the fact that people keep on trying to change it according to their unit preferences. The MOS should be a guide to editors to what the most appropriate units to use for what will in most cases here be a British audience, not a platform for promoting either system. The status quo achieves that. The fact that some editors prefer one system or the other on MOSNUM talk is ultimately not a good reason to change it. Kahastok talk 12:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The rules as is can stop editors changing the presentation order or it becomes disruptive editing as for new articles cant we just leave that to the good sense of the original authors we dont need to lay down detailed rules as long as both units are presented nearly all of the readership will not care. MilborneOne (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It may be that they can stop editors changing the presentation order but history has shown that they do not serve to do so in practice. I've had editors swear blind before, after they had converted articles by the thousand, that nothing in WP:RETAIN, on this page, or anywhere else, suggested that they should not convert articles en masse - even if it was solely for reasons of personal preference or in pursuit of a WP:FAITACCOMPLI, and against the recommendations of WP:UNITS ("can is not must", you see). It was clearly disruptive - a massive POV push - but admins did nothing. And it appears that the general sanctions designed to prevent such disruption are floundering for unrelated reasons. Kahastok talk 12:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you say but we should not create rules and guidance just because other measures fail to work, we should address the failing of them in the appropriate place. I wouldnt have an issue with giving a topic ban for users that ignore WP:RETAIN or other such consensus (which then becomes disruptive editing). MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think what I said is really a "gamer's charter". Local decisions are supposed to be based on consensus, so if one person from here with a definite preference showed up it shouldn't make much difference. For example, when I edited the article on this railway station to make the unit presentation more compliant with the current MOS, I was advised that most articles on older British rail infrastructure prefer the imperial system. Given that this seemed to be the consensus position, I didn't press the issue, and I reverted my edits – even though there is actually no provision for this in the current MOS. There are other such cases; for example, UK footpaths are generally expected to be measured in kilometres, per the rules of the relevant WikiProject. This gives some more context to what I meant by historical articles and local consensus.
RGloucester drew a comparison with RETAIN and ENGVAR, which do not to my knowledge function as gamer's charters. If anything, they are intended to prevent gaming and edit-warring over style choices. However, there is still scope for making such a change if there is a reason for it (e.g. if local consensus is that the article is US-related, it's OK to change the style to US English). Likewise I think there should be scope for ensuring that articles about modern British infrastructure prefer the metric system, because that would be the most appropriate style. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR is different because it clearly expresses a single preference for a single set of spellings where there are strong national ties. Other instances of WP:RETAIN make similar recommendations. What you are saying is that we would vary between metric and imperial depending on some ill-defined notion of modernness or historical-ness. That is a gamer's charter. Those who want metric will mass-convert all the articles into metric on the basis that they are modern. Those who want imperial will will mass-convert all the articles into imperial on the basis that they are historical. Not every UK-related article is as well-frequented as you seem to think: chances are in many cases metric or imperial POV pushers will outnumber local editors or at least be numerous enough to disrupt normal editing until they get their way. The result will far more edit warring, far more disruption and mass conversion, this way and that way, on articles throughout the topic. We know this. We've tried looser wordings before and that's what happened.
I would also note that the existing rule does allow modern infrastructure to use metric and historical infrastructure to use imperial - was this not the whole point of the UK engineering exception? Kahastok talk 14:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the rule is here because other measures have failed. It's here to guide editors as to how to write units on UK-related articles. I would happily support a general moratorium on changing units from one system to another, except in cases where there is a genuinely good article-specific reason to change (which means, personal preference - or proxies for it such as units based on the individual source used to justify the measure - do not qualify). Kahastok talk 14:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly, I think we need to realise that whatever unit appears first (given that conversions are aways provided) is not significant issues for readers. In the same way, whether an article is in British English or American English is not a significant issue for readers (glosses are provided, &c). Kahastok seems to have interpreted my proposal as I meant it. In this, there would be no nonsense about "some contexts use this, some that". It would simply follow RETAIN "when no unit system has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no unit system was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular unit system. The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate unit template on its talk page. An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of units to another". Discussion on the talk page could determine if there should be a change. If talk page discussion becomes a stalemate, the first variety is retained. RGloucester — ☎ 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester I think you need to realise that it IS precisely which unit comes first that IS significant here - that is the whole point. And what we really need is an agreement of which units are most commonly used for which purposes, and this certainly does not necessarily mean which units are legally required for those purposes. I agree with Kahastok when he wrote above that pounds is probably the most common unit used for describing a quantity of apples. Celsius is certainly common too, but Fahrenheit is still very common - particularly for describing warm weather and for cooking (James Martin gave the oven temperature in Fahrenheit (followed by a conversion to C) on his TV show on BBC 2 this morning). I disagree that RETAIN applies. If the units used are not those that would be most commonly found in British usage, then they should be changed to those that are.
I also disagree with the apparent position of Archon 2488 that "articles about modern British infrastructure" should "prefer the metric system". That is to pre-empt any evidence-based (as opposed to personal-opinion-based) consensus that might be reached on what unit would most commonly be found in British usage (I'd be very surprised if it turned out to be metric). 94.196.211.85 (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was made clear that what unit comes first has little interest to nearly all our readers and despite protests from either Imperial or Metric camps the readers dont care. We are not writing an article for British milk buyers but a worldwide audience, so as long as both units of measure are shown the order frankly doesnt matter. Hence the proposals started by RGloucester. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Mr IP, may I ask, given that it is quite clear that you are very familiar with the nonsense going on here, why you are commenting as an IP as opposed to as a registered user? RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"And all IP Ernie 'ad to offer was a pint of milk a day". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
FWIW the IP missed my point re: apples. Perhaps if I repeat it with the wikilinks unpiped, it might be clearer: "In terms of apples, I suspect people are actually far more likely to buy them by the pound sterling than by the pound (mass) or kilogram." That is, if you're buying apples, you're more likely to look at how much they cost and how many you need than whether they are sold by the pound or the kilogram, because supermarket fruit tends to be self-service.
I do take the view that there is significance in which unit goes first. Why should Britain be the only English-speaking country in the world where the choice of primary units is not decided by local usage? Most affected articles will be mostly read by British people, so while we are generally writing for an international audience, the British audience is not insignificant. Kahastok talk 17:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, because "local usage" is impossible to define, for one thing, since it varies on a person-to-person basis. I believe we've established that here. Regardless, it doesn't matter functionally to the reader, because both units are provided. Regardless of what unit comes first, there will not be any lack of comprehension. The purpose of our articles is to provide comprehension. If that's provided, there is no concern. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. It can be defined, to a reasonable approximation. We've been defining it for years, backed up by a reliable source aiming to do exactly the same as we do - it, too, defines British usage to a reasonable approximation. I do think readers will find it odd if US-related articles are miles-first but UK-related articles end up kilometres-first, given the status of miles in Britain. I also think they will find it strange if UK-related articles end up Fahrenheit-first given that all the weather is given in Celsius. I do feel that there is a POV issue at stake: Wikipedia ought not be promoting the metric system in areas and contexts where it is not commonly used, nor the imperial system in areas where it is not commonly used. Kahastok talk 19:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of using units is not to "promote" anything, but to convey meaning. If both units are used, it doesn't matter whether miles or kilometres come first: the meaning is conveyed just the same. The present definition is not working. Whether it actually defines anything is unknown, because like I said, each person varies in what they use. What's more, we're using a dead link archived style guide from years ago, and there are plenty of other newspaper style guides that disagree with it. In any case, this is just the same as ENGVAR. Writing something in American English does not promote "American English". The only reason it is written that way is because whoever wrote it happened to think in terms of American English. As long as glosses are provided, no meaning is lost. This is an encyclopaedia, and meaning is our only goal. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't accept your premise I think. It is basically working. Why is it that it is always the same few of us who are discussing it, do you think? Controversial discussions on style tend to get dozens of individual contributors. This one has never managed that.
Fact is, the rule as-is isn't particularly controversial on Wikipedia as a whole. There are a half dozen MOSNUM regulars who object to it and we have circular discussions while the rest of the 'pedia accepts it and carries on. If it weren't for the same few regulars restarting this topic - in this case it was DeFacto - this topic would almost never come up.
Does writing in American English promote American English. Not in and of itself. Would writing in American English on articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom act to promote American English? That's more likely. The status quo is actually far closer to ENGVAR than your proposal is. Just like ENGVAR, the current rule hold US-style units on US-related articles and British-style units on British-related articles.
In ENGVAR terms, your proposal is like saying that we use American English in US-related articles, and Indian English on India-related articles. But because British English has some variations and has some similarities to both - and after all, each person varies in the words and spellings they use as Oxford English demonstrates - UK-related articles must either use American English rigorously or Indian English rigorously. We don't need to do that here any more than in spelling. Kahastok talk 20:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Kahastok I agree with you that British usage can be defined, but I do not agree that we currently do it. Currently we use the definition from a "quality" newspaper, which may not reflect accurately the majority usage in the country as a whole. We need a broader based source to get an accurate picture. 94.196.85.225 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem with Kahastok's analogy above is that there is no such thing as "the British system of units". As is, US articles put metric second, almost all others put it first, and UK articles have a schizophrenic attitude towards the metric system. I don't know of any class of article which would be written, say, in a chaotic mix of US and UK English (so as to "promote" neither of them), which would be a better analogy. I think this comes closer to what RGloucester said.
As an aside, I am reluctant to call anything owned by the infamous Rupert Murdoch "quality". Archon 2488 (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
There is not a "British system of units". British usage is not uniformly metric or uniformly imperial. But it's also not completely random. There are units that are in common use in Britain. And those units should be the ones that go first. It's not "schizophrenic" - there are clear patterns. There is no reason not to use them.
For the cases where there is no common unit, it's fair to call it a 50/50. Right now we default to metric because that's what our source does and that's the default generally. We could turn around and say there is no preference at all in those cases - I don't think we should, but we could. But I think in the cases where there is a clear preference in usage we should follow it. We don't need to go for complete inter-article inconsistency. We can consistently follow British usage and be consistent across articles. The fact that we have a half dozen people here with personal preferences for one system or the other is not a good reason not to do so. Kahastok talk 22:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester British majority usage can be established from the available evidence. It doesn't matter that it varies from person to person, it is the majority preference that is important, and I'm sure for most types of measurement there will be a very clear majority usage of one particular unit or unit type (by "type" I mean metric or imperial). And the order does matter. The first should be the majority usage one, the second a conversion into the other type. Very clearly it would be unacceptably biased to put the minority usage unit ahead of the majority usage one. 94.196.85.225 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Per RGloucester's message, given your obvious familiarity with this discussion could you please explain why you are commenting as an IP as opposed to as a registered user? Kahastok talk 22:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I share RGloucester's and Kahastok's curiosity about this. Of course there's nothing wrong with editing as an IP address, but it's clear that you're not new here, and it's nice to know who we're talking to. Also your IP address is not consistent, which adds to the confusion. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I am simply an unregistered reader, a quite prolific reader, of Wikipedia and mu ip address is decided, not by me, but by my internet service provider when I connect to their system.
As a reader I am fascinated by the lengths that Wikipedia guideline writers have gone to to support national variations in the English language (including spelling differences between different countries) and similarly for date format differences.
However, I am (as a UK native) saddened that although there is support for US related articles to use the most commonly used units of measure in the US for a given context, there is no similar support given for the use, in UK related articles, of the most commonly used units in the UK. So, when I saw this very subject was being discussed here (again), I decided to try to participate in it because the current guideline does not reflect common unit usage in the UK. 94.196.214.34 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Page is now semi-protected. No more IPs to deal with. I do wonder, who do we think this fellow is? I was sure he was DeFacto, given that his posts matched exactly the ones made by ProP above. Kahastok said otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 20:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd put my money on it being DeFacto again. It's his modus operandi, and the IPs are from the same ISP as the early DeFacto socks. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm deliberately being vague about the details because of WP:BEANS. I feel that there are a number of aspects of the IP's style that do not match that of DeFacto. I do not rule out a strawman sockpuppet as described at WP:ILLEGIT. Regardless, it is very obvious that the IP is a sockpuppet. Kahastok talk 20:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Beans? How ridiculous. We all know beans don't come in pints. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong, sir! Beans of all sorts are sold in dry pints! RGloucester — ☎ 22:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The dairy of Anne Frank

  • Daft question but does the actually description of how milk is sold in the United Kingdom actually appear anywhere in Wikipedia ? MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
No luck on that so far but, as this discussion hurtles toward its inevitable intersection with Godwin's Law, I did find this. EEng (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

UK Adoption of the Metric System

I have noted that although the UK is now, mainly, a metric country. There remains a number of examples of the retention of the imperial system that are not documented in WP:MOSNUM. These include:

  1. Pornography. Vital statistics for performers eg penis and breast size is still given in inches.
  2. Take away pizza. Pizza dimensions are given in inches [17]
  3. Shirt collar size Still in inches. [18]
  4. Trouser waistband Still in inches. [19]
  5. Suit jacket size Still in inches. [20]
  6. Socket drive size Still in inches eg 1/4, 1/2, 3/8. [21]
  7. Rim size Still in inches. [22]

In addition, I have noted that though we presume Australia, for example, is now 100% metric I think you'll find that these are still in every day use in many Commonwealth countries. I suggest that we need to expand the guidance at MOSNUM to document these. WCMemail 09:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose that the milk-bottle debate be suspended in favor of one on appropriate MOS guidance re vital statistics of pornographic performers, in which context primitive impulses should be less of a stumbling block. EEng (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. WCMemail 13:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thirded. Kahastok talk 22:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Quarted! There are some really big issues to get to grips with here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
We could add:
8. Televisions - screen sizes are given in inches. [23]
9. Laptops - sized in inches. [24]
10. Tablets - sized in inches. [25]
11. Farm land sales - areas given in acres. [26]
12. Paint brushes and rollers - sized in inches. [27]
13. Lawn mowers - sold in inch widths. [28]
14. Slurry tankers - sized in gallons. [29]
94.196.212.131 (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
But why? The above exceptions hold for countries that are considered to be fully metric - and everybody in these countries know that there are exceptions (and that these will eventually end up in a museum, together with other obsolete stuff). So what is the big deal about metrication in the UK? Lklundin (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Short answer: it's kind of a political issue, in a way that it isn't in e.g. Germany. Even in the French Wikipedia, rim diameters are given primarily in inches, because it's the industry standard unit. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
15. Narrow escapes Widths in inches.
16. Weighty matters Gravitas in pounds.
EEng (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
17. Server energy wasted by outrageous socking – measured in therms.
Archon 2488 (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
18. Wikipedia debates Man-hours lost, evenings ruined, lives wasted.
EEng (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
19. Ale, measured in yards.
Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
20. Twilight Zone episode lengths, measured in Rods.
Jonesey95 (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
You get the prize! EEng (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
21. Towaway zones - length in feet. EEng (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- or possibly in lizards. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I Object. In the first two domains mentioned, I'm using the centimeter numbers and I don't want that spoiled. -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh well, so much for getting a perfect 10. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

g-force

In circumstances where g is used as a unit of acceleration, how should it be written? I find articles which are ambiguous because they use notation such as "2 g of acceleration", which reads like "2 grams of acceleration" – this looks very unprofessional, I think. My proposal is that it should be considered as a physical constant rather than a unit, so it should always be written in italics (and without the unit spacing – is this the convention for writing the product of a numeral and a variable?): 2g of acceleration. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say "An acceleration of 2 g" - with g wikilinked for clarity. You might like to inform WT:PHYSICS of this thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The unit g0 is defined within {{convert}} and examples of what it displays are at LBD Gargoyle and Northrop YB-35#YB-49.
  • {{convert|4|g0|lk=in}} → 4 standard gravities (39 m/s2)
  • {{convert|4|g0|lk=in|abbr=on}} → 4 g0 (39 m/s2)
Johnuniq (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Johnuniq. That's useful to know. I think it would nonetheless be useful to have a little guidance in the MOS about how to display this unit (using "g0" has the advantage of removing the ambiguity). As it is, usage is very inconsistent – even the article on g-force is something of a mess. So considering this, I'd suggest adding an entry to the table of guidance about specific units, to require the unit symbol g0 and deprecate g and G.
Redrose, I've just linked to this thread at WT:PHYSICS. I think it makes sense to link to the article on the unit on first mention, but it would be excessive to do it all the time. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Your example looks bad because of bad grammar, not bad notation. Saying "2g of acceleration" is like saying "2 km/s of speed". It makes no sense. It should be "an acceleration of 2g". I would strongly oppose an MOS statement that articles should use "g0", since that goes contrary to the common usage.TR 09:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't supposed to be an example of grammar (but really, would you refuse to accept "this engine can produce 300 N·m of torque"? That seems like pedantry for the sake of it). And your counter-proposal still says "an acceleration of 2 grams", which is what we are trying to avoid. At the very least, the g should be italicised (2 g) to avoid this confusion. I don't accept that g0 is a non-standard symbol for standard gravity; both it and gn are quite routine (there are some small differences in how "standard gravity" is defined, which need discussion), and the choice is somewhat arbitrary. We might as well pick one and standardise on it. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Show the last time anybody said "the pilot pulled a 5g0 turn". (or something similar). Standardization like you propose would result in much of Wikipedia looking like a bunch of gibberish, because it force notation that may be very unusual for the context in which a statement is made.TR 11:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I would agree. I understand where Archon is coming from, but his argument suffers from treating this as a scientific usage - it generally won't be.
I would suggest that g-force is probably the most common unit of acceleration on Wikipedia, generally in articles discussing planes, spaceships and cars, where, say, a 5g turn will be universally understood as meaning g-force, not grams. I don't think we can necessarily always get wonderful SI-standard separation, much as it might be convenient. Kahastok talk 21:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we could just use g as the unit symbol (i.e. with italics)? It looks less excessive than g0. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Another CREEPy situation. If it's really true that the g-force article is a mess because of this question, let's see editors there who are really interested in the subject work it out if they can, and then see if editors of other articles needing cleanup on this point agree. Debating it here in the abstract is not a good idea. EEng (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Except that g-force habitues tend to know & use g (italics g). That article could note the issue, with "g" for gram, but not conclude a MOSNUM from it. To keep it away from SI, this MOSNUM can prescribe a preferred use. -DePiep (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

How to write "number does not exist" in a table?

In tables, the situation can occur "number does not exist", and "number is not available" (not always the same). Example: see here, in the bottom table. More here.

I wonder which punctuation or text to use for such "does not exist". At the moment I see hyphen, en dash, em dash, and "n/a". What would be the style advice for this punctuation, into consistency? -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables#Multi-column standard with subcolumns shows a similair situation, but there is no 'rule' for this, not even in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes. I would use an mdash, or ndash if that is too wide, but I would avoid a hyphen. I call these "empty value" cells. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't think a "rule" can be reached, and that's not my ambition. Gathering opinions & good/bad practices would give a reasonable and workable outcome I guess. As I wrote it, this question is limited to scientific area.
We know that there are different meanings involved: "number not known", "number does not exist (logically; database null)", "situation does not exist", ... That's to be clarified locally, better not adapt a wiki-wide definition for this dash. -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I personally find the hyphen the best option in any scenario because it is the smallest. This makes it easiest to distinguish at a glance the empty cells from those with values. I can't think of a practical reason to choose either dash and I don't think they are esthetically more pleasing than a hyphen either (I find the hyphen looks better as well). Where there may be different reasons for having an empty cell, in general superscript symbols should be used after the hyphen/dash to refer to notes below the table that describe the reason. However, I don't think there are situations where the lack of guidance has let to problems in this area. — SkyLined (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think mdash is preferred in case of situations where a hyphen may be mistaken for a minus sign. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Please, en dash is the only true way to show a missing/unknown value in a table! Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Depends on context: for classical compositions a missing catalogue number can be indicated by Deest, see end of this table --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the mdash because it is the most reminescent of a line drawn by hand in the cell to cross it out. Ndash is second best. Hyphen is an outright no because hyphens are meant to join to things together. N/A also works. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all, so far. As for the infoboxes like this in elements, I already used Edokters suggestion to use en dash, all over. -DePiep (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The en dash, in my view, is much preferable to the em dash, which is just a bit too distracting in most tables. Tony (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with this. The em dash is a bit too large for most purposes, I feel. It also looks like it belongs in an 18th century novel. Here's a quick example of what the hyphen, en dash and em dash look like in a table:
x y z
123 456 789
- – —
Archon 2488 (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, they usually look like this:
x y z
123 456 789
- – —
Usually, in cells like those linked in the original post of this thread, they're centered. Personally, I favor the em-dash. Banaticus (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Acceptable formats (2)

At User talk:Technical 13#Template:Rotten Tomatoes score, Technical 13 is asserting that since a format like "September 01, 2013" is not explicitly listed as unacceptable in the table at WP:BADDATEFORMAT, it is therefore acceptable. I claim that the "June 09" example covers this, and it is therefore not an acceptable format. Bgwhite says that it is covered by Do not "zero-pad" month or day, except in all-numeric (yyyy-mm-dd) format. I would like a clarification please; not merely on this page, but actually in the table so that there can be no doubt. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous about "do not 'zero-pad' month or day". The format quoted from the talk page has a zero-padded day, which is listed as "unacceptable" in the table. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Except on full dates, which April 28, 2024 is a full date. The real issue here is whether or not we want to fix our CS1 module to accept such dates or force Rotten Tomatoes to change the format that their API return to the bot that updates the page. I'd say it will be easier for us to fix our module than it will be to get them to change their API, but I really don't care one way or the other. The reason that the bots and the API do it this way is because it is is easier to pick out /$(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) (\d{2}), (\d{4})^/ than /$(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) (\d{1, 2}), (\d{4})^/ and have everything line up the way it should. A few less bytes are good things.. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Wait, I'm sorry. Are you saying we should allow October 04, 2014, which looks hideous, so some regular expression can be more compact? I don't get what you mean by "have everything line up the way it should", and as for "A few less bytes are good things" -- you mean saving bytes in the RE? I hope I'm misunderstanding you, otherwise the response is, "Are you kidding?" EEng (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It does not say "except on full dates"; it says "except in all-numeric ... format" (such as "2014-10-04"). The table is clear that prose dates should not use leading zeros. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • All I'm saying is we can either change the way that the Rotten Tomatoes API returns the data to the page or we can change our CS module to not be so picky. As for your opinion that October 04, 2014 looks hideous, I think it looks better than October 4, 2014 or 4 October 2014. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

leading zeros should be allowed in days in dates

We all know that dates "should" be formatted in accordance with ISO 8601#Calendar dates. That being said, many people object to 2014-11-04 and so there are many date styles floating around. For all those other date formats, we should allow a leading zero for the days (as closer to ISO 8601 style), or not, as people's individual styles dictate. Perhaps, by implicitly encouraging a leading zero we can begin to move one step closer to overall ICO 8601 compliance. Currently, "04 November 2014" and "November 04, 2014" are not seen as valid dates while "4 November 2014" and "November 4, 2014" are seen as valid dates.
This refers to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates and years in which a leading zero is not explicitly discouraged, just that otherwise non-ISO dates are not depicted using a leading zero. This is likely because the date checking code that Wikipedia is now using at Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation uses regular expressions that look for days as "+[1-9]%d?" rather than "+[0-9]%d?". This change in the Manual of Style would also necessitate a change in lua code, but that change would be rather simple, just involving the select and careful change of some regular expressions from [1-9] to [0-9], so let's focus on style and what should be allowed in this discussion.
This of course doesn't impact at all on something like 11 4 2014 or 4 11 2014 or 04 11 2014 or 11 04 2014 as all of those should throw an error as ambiguous, with or without a leading zero. Banaticus (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this several times before? See for example #Acceptable formats (2) above. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we've been through this a zillion times. People keep showing up talking about ISO 8601 as if it's a given we want to adhere to that. The guideline currently says "Do not "zero-pad" month or day, except in all-numeric (yyyy-mm-dd) format", and that's the way it should stay -- leading zeroes look horrid. EEng (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with EEng. If you spell out the months then no leading zeroes for the day of the month. If you use ISO 8601 then also use leading zeroes. No other cases allowed.  Stepho  talk  23:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Stepho and EEng – ISO 8601 prescribes an all-numeric format; it does not specify how dates should be written in English prose. There's no reason to encourage leading zeros in "November 4" or similar. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Archon and Stepho and myself. EEng (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
In general, Wikipedia style follows real-world usage. I can't recall the last time I saw a reputable published document that used a prose date format with a padded zero, such as "November 04, 1986".
First, thanks for recombining threads. A leading zero is really popular with geneology groups. Apparently the Rotten Tomatoes bot returns dates with a leading zero on the days. IMDB uses leading zeros on days of the month. The US government uses a leading zero on days. Yahoo! uses a leading zero on days of the month. In my opinion, this is a stylistic issue. Let people choose to enter dates the way they're used to entering dates, as long as what they're entering is human/machine parsable. A leading zero on the date is already human parsable and it would only take some slight tweaks to make them Wikipedia/machine parsable as well. Now some might say, "Well, consensus is against you, sucks to be you" but I'd say that EEng has already made the argument that consensus is for a leading zero, if it's been brought up a zillion times already. :) It's really not difficult to find reputable sources which use a leading zero. Apparently the New York Times uses that format as well (top of the page, right after the words "Best Sellers"). I'd say it's really not hard to see that consensus is on the side of having multiple formats. Banaticus (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The US Department of Defense also uses 24-hour time formats, but that doesn't mean WP does as well (except in certain military articles). And I don't see the NYT using leading zeroes other than on the page you link, which I'm guessing is some technogeek oversight no one's bothered to correct. You're right that it's a style issue. Leading zeroes in running text looks awful and catches the eye. The fact that it's come up many times before makes it no different than any number of other poor ideas. EEng (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd also want to know what the proposed benefit of having one more optional style is. Does it make anything less ambiguous? There's an arbitrary choice to be made, and the MOS comes down on one side. I don't see a problem with that. Of course other sources are not going to be 100% consistent, but that doesn't justify WP being inconsistent. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Acceptable date formats

If YYYY-MM is not banned, i.e. is acceptable, it would be consistent to list it next to the other acceptable formats. Michael Shotter (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus that YYYY-MM is an acceptable format. It has the potential to be ambiguous – like YYYY-MM-DD, but worse. The MOS currently lists YYYY-MM-DD as "the only acceptable all-numeric format", for what it's worth. Not that MOS is internally consistent 100% (or one hundred percent [per cent?], if you prefer) of the time.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It has no potential to be ambiguous in environments where it is "clear" that YYYY-MM is meant. Same for YYYY-MM-DD. If YYYY-MM is ambiguous - with what could it be confused? With YYYY-YY? But then YYYY-YY has the potential of being ambiguous too - but that is listed as acceptable. /YYYY-MM-DD as "the only acceptable all-numeric format"/ - and at the same time it allows all-numeric years. Michael Shotter (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
However many of the environments in which YYYY-MM could occur are the same as those in which YYYY–YY could occur, which is a good reason not to allow it. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
If YYYY-MM is banned because it can be confused with YYYY-YY, then YYYY-YY can also be confused with YYYY-MM. Therefore, by your own reasoning, both formats should be banned and date ranges should only use YYYY-YYYY.  Stepho  talk  23:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Stepho-wrs: I agree; I avoid using YYYY–YY and would support it being deprecated. (MOS purists will probably point out that YYYY–YY uses en-dash whereas, if it were allowed, YYYY-MM would use a hyphen, so in principle they could be distinguished. However, who really notices the difference between the two dashes?) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, the purists would notice (and they'd point out to you that a hyphen is not a dash -- harrumph!) However, the other 99.9% of the population who get out of the house now and then will be unaware of the distinction, so to rely on it to telegraph this semantic difference is a poor idea. (It's interesting -- the difference between , and . is very small, yet we do invest great meaning in the difference. But people are use to that and have been sensitized to it since childhood. Not so with hyphen vs. endash.) Also, in some typefaces hyphen and endash are very hard to tell apart even if you're looking for the difference. EEng (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the notation YYYY-MM conforms to ISO 8601 (and ISO-conformance is in general an efficient way to avoid ambiguity). Lklundin (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
PS. On wikimedia, uploaded media dated as e.g. 'July 1947' will have its date automatically modified to 1947-07 (by OgreBot 2). Lklundin (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I would agree more with this: YYYY–YY should not be allowed in any circumstances. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Current international dollar" (in Infobox) vs. US$ (vs. e.g. Zimbabwe $?)

"Use the full abbreviation on first use (US$ for the U.S. dollar and A$ for the Australian dollar), unless the currency is already clear from context." - for Zimbabwe nothing "is clear from the context"; the country is a mess and $ could mean (there) Zimbabwe dollar except they have changed to US$. I changed the Infobox[30] but not sure I did the right thing. It seems "Current international dollar" is close enough to US$ (always I guess), at least not Zimbabwe dollar (far from it). See ref[31]. It seems I did the right thing..

Should we say anything at this page about "Current international dollar"? comp.arch (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your change - since the Zimbabwe dollar is no longer valid and the government uses US dollars, then effectively the nation currency is US dollars. But since both currencies use the $ sign, specifying 'US$' looks like the most accurate and easiest to understand option to me.  Stepho  talk  21:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Trying to do an approximate year but the bots won't have it

On a citation here. No one knows exactly what year Saint Peter assumably wrote 2 Peter. I've tried "~67" and "c. 67" and both seem to have been flagged as erroneous. Does any one have any thoughts? -- Kendrick7talk 08:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I found Help:Citation Style 1#CS1 compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, "Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates: does not support c. or fl.; does not support dates prior to 100"! Help talk:Citation Style 1 seems quite lively and current - maybe ask there? NebY (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The |date= field is for the publication date of the publication that you are citing, i.e. the publication that you saw with your own eyes. I'm guessing that you did not lay your eyes on a publication of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that was published in 67 CE. You can use |origyear= for the original publication date of a reprinted source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a fair point Jonesey and I've made the revision; I know I was being a tad flippant. But still, there certainly are extant manuscripts created in the 1st century for which the exact year is entirely in doubt. Citing them shouldn't be automatically flagged as an error as such. I'll probably go ahead and file a complaint over at Help per NebY's advice. -- Kendrick7talk 23:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the correct unit symbol for gigabaud?

The unit baud (symbol Bd) is frequently written with (decimal) prefixes kilo, mega and giga. The logical unit symbols for the resulting kilobaud, megabaud, gigabaud are kBd, MBd and GBd. I recently changed Gbaud to GBd to conform with this logic, and my edit was reverted. What is preferred, GBaud, Gbaud or GBd? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd also like to know that. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Glad you found your own way here. I will also flag the discussion at baud.
In the International System of Quantities "the baud may be combined with prefixes, for example kilobaud, symbol kBd, megabaud, symbol MBd", from which I deduce that the correct ISQ symbol is GBd. I see no good reason to depart from the ISQ myself. What do others think? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Why should we treat this any differently than we do WP:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Quantities_of_bytes_and_bits (with all the attendant decimal/binary confusions we've somehow learned to live with)? Or is the question simply what the proper symbol is for baud? EEng (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the question is only what the proper symbol for baud is. The fundamental reason the capacities of RAM and ROM are normally a power of 2 is that when an additional memory address line is added to a memory chip, it has generally been the practice to take full advantage of the additional possible addresses. This does not apply to data transmission, so there is no particular reason why the number of symbols in one second should be a power of 2, and hence, no reason to assign binary meanings to prefixes when working with data transmission rates. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Whether there's a sensible underlying reason or not, lots of computing stuff is measured in powers of 2 for no reason other than that lots of computing stuff is measured in powers of 2. (Repeat) EEng (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
But data transmission rates are not among that "stuff". A "56K" modem is running at 56,000 bits/sec, and a "100 Mbit" Ethernet link at 1,000,000 bits/sec. Even the clock rates on RAM are quoted using decimal prefixes, even though RAM capacity is quoted in powers of 1024. Jeh (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
A 56K modem is actually 57,600 bits/sec. Data transmission rates were typically power-of-2 multiples of 75 baud: 75, 150, 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, 9600 etc. (I never heard of a 600 baud modem, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist) and later power-of-2 multiples of (I think) 3600 baud: 3600, 7200, 14,400 etc.; and 57,600, being 14,400 * 4 is in that sequence. The power-of-2 multiples are because of clock rates: given a timing crystal of a certain characteristic frequency, it's a simple matter to add divide-by-2 or multiply-by-2 circuits to alter that frequency; but the resultant frequency will be a power-of-2 multiple of the original. To raise a frequency by ten times is more difficult than to raise it 16 times.
As for RAM sizes, they're always exact powers of 2 - it's not so much "to take full advantage of the additional possible addresses" but because it's easier to make a device where every possible address is accessible than to make one that is smaller, yet larger than half the size. 1,000,000 byte devices are never made, but if they were, the easiest way would be to make a 1,048,576 byte device and add some circuitry to mask off (and therefore ignore) addresses greater than 0x0F423F - which would be a waste of those 48,576 locations in the range 0x0F4240-0x0FFFFF. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Aren't modem-to-modem data transmission rates actually given in bits per second? Thus, for example, it would be 14400, 28800, 33600 or 56000, but bit/s, not baud; in bauds, those would be 2400, 3000 or 3200 baud, except for the 56k modems that stretch the limits of phone lines and have different uplink and downlink speeds. Only the early modems (up to 2400 baud or so) did have equal numeric values for their symbol (baud) and bit rates (bit/s), meaning that for them one transferred symbol equaled one transferred bit; later, that changed with the advancements in modem technology so increasingly more bits were encoded and transferred per symbol. Here's a reference for more information. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Dsimic is correct, the common usage is misleading. ADSL signalling uses even more indirect representation, with multiple signalling channels, each having its own symbol rate, symbol encoding constellation, noise margin, error correction, etc. The data rates from all the channels are aggregated, so it I suite wrong to refer to a baud rate for what is really the aggregate data rate.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I meant to mention the baud - bit/s confusion. But look, this conversation belongs over on the talk page of the article in question, among editors familiar with the sources. As far as we know that's the only place this issue has come up, and it should be resolved there. EEng (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The original issue question was whether one should use Gbaud, on the grounds that it is frequently used (familiar) or GBd, which is prescribed by international standards. I don't think this is the same question as the correct symbol for baud, but we can add that in as well, so here goes:
  1. What is the correct symbol for one baud? Bd
  2. What is the correct symbol for 1000 baud? kBd
  3. What is the correct symbol for 10002 baud? MBd
  4. What is the correct symbol for 10003 baud? GBd
The ISQ's answer to these questions is given after the question mark, but in its wisdom mosnum proudly chooses to flout ISQ. What does mosnum say? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll give my standard response: this should be worked out on the talk page of the article in question. If this becomes a recurring issue on several articles, the maybe MOSNUM should have a provision added. Having said that, I think it's probably a bad idea to mix abbreviated prefixes (K, M, G) with full unit names (baud). So I think megabaud or MBd, but not megaBd, Mbaud. What do sources use? EEng (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Having all this in mind, I'd say that using megabaud and gigabaud would be the best option, as (so far) I've never seen MBd or GBd in a text. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, gigabaud is fine in text, but sometimes a symbol is appropriate. I'm not sure that following any old source is wise. After all, Gbps is more common than Gbit/s for "gigabit per second", but I prefer Gbit/s because that is the international standard symbol. By the same token Gbd is the international standard symbol for gigabaud. As for discussing this issue on every talk page, that would never lead to uniformity, which surely is mosnum's primary goal? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
First, I'm not suggesting following any old source -- I'm suggesting that inquiring into sources' usage is a good place to start the discussion. Second, I'm not suggesting discussing this issue on every talk page (of every article in which the question comes up, I guess you mean) but rather ... OK, here's my standard spiel:
It is an axiom of mine that something belongs in MOS only if (as a necessary, but not sufficient test) either:
  • 1. There is an apparent a priori need for project-wide consistency (e.g. "professional look" issues such as consistent typography, layout, etc. -- things which, if inconsistent, would be noticeably annoying, or confusing, to many readers); OR
  • 2. Editor time has, and continues to be, spent litigating the same issue over and over on numerous articles, either
  • (a) with generally the same result (so we might as well just memorialize that result, and save all the future arguing), or
  • (b) with different results in different cases, but with reason to believe the differences are arbitrary, and not worth all the arguing -- a final decision on one arbitrary choice, though an intrusion on the general principle that decisions on each article should be made on the Talk page of that article, is worth making in light of the large amount of editor time saved.
EEng (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Just as a note, I also prefer Gbit/s over Gbps. At the same time, it might be good to have a baud-related guideline, though I'm not sure how often it pops up? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
A committee somewhere may have an answer for this, but in an encyclopedia the question is irrelevant. Just write "gigabaud" so there is a chance some readers will know what it is (although the 109 vs. 230 issue would need to be resolved from context). Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sensing there is no consensus on choice of symbol. On the other hand there seems general agreement on avoiding this issue by spelling out the term gigabaud in full. I will try that and see how it goes. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Sheesh. I'm surprised at how much debate there is about this. But then, I'm surprised at the number of editors that feel that (even marginally) "common usage" is the overriding factor in the MOS. Makes me wonder what the purpose of the MOS is, other than as stabilizing tool in arguments. —Quondum 16:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of MOS is (indeed) primarily to be a stabilizing tool to avoid arguments over arbitrary, unimportant stuff. See my text in italics above for a more complete formulation, at least as I like to express it. EEng (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
In your opinion. IMO, it is to set and maintain a relatively uniform style, which is not at all the same thing as reducing arguments between editors of differing tastes. And I note you do not address the point of "common usage" at all. This is not entirely at odds with your italicized text: I agree that the MOS should not be unduly prescriptive and detailed, but where a diversity of conflicting styles would otherwise proliferate, even without conflict, I feel that it would be valuable. Otherwise we could simply use the simple rule: first major author of an article dictates the style for that article. There are lots of ways of resolving editorial conflict if that is the primary objective. —Quondum 17:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Um, what I said is that, IMO, MOS' purpose is primarily to be a stabilizing tool. My point 1. (in my italics text) exactly speaks to your "relatively uniform style" concern. But for the moment this seems to have come up on one article only, so uniformity isn't an issue as yet, and if it is, we don't know what additional articles are involved. For the nth time, let editors hash this out on this one article's talk page. If the result is peaceful, they might make an effort to export it to other related articles where the agreed-upong notation might be used. And that would be the end of it -- no need to bloat MOS until/unless it really seems like there's a problem to be solved across multiple articles.
We do use first-major-contributor as the tiebreaker in a few cases (WP:ENGVAR) but in general that's not going to give us good results. EEng (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I probably misinterpreted you. I guess this might be regarded to fall between the cracks (of the MOS as it stands) as a non-SI unit; I tend to assume the SI naming rules would still apply, though, but I'm not sure whether the MOS deals with this. —Quondum 20:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I disagree that this is best dealt with on individual article talk pages because there are too many of them. If there is a suitable Wikipedia Project talk page, that might be a good alternative for a centralised discussion. Is there one? A separate issue is the (in my view) undue weight placed on common use. In my opinion the discussion could be simplified if there were a general advice to follow the ISQ unless there is a good reason not to. That way it is only the exceptions to the ISQ that would require discussion, thus saving the presently disproportionate amount of editors' time on discussions like this one. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
What "too many of them" -- again, so far only one article has been mentioned on which this has arisen. When/if it starts coming up in other articles, then we might consider getting MOS involved. EEng (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
With some assistance from Dsimic, I have just edited several dozen to make them consistent. What are the chances of these articles remaining consistent without a guideline, and what are the chances of avoiding new inconsistencies without a guideline? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
With or without a guideline in MOS on the subject, the probability of all these articles remaining consistent is 0 unless some editor takes an interest in keeping them consistent, because MOS guidelines don't emit magic enforcement rays which exert their power on articles. There may or may not be trouble in maintaining consistency (and, BTW, it's not even certain consistency is desirable on this -- I dunno, maybe different articles have different needs) but if so, then interested editors from the various involved articles can bring their ideas here for an informed discussion, including examples from sources, standards bodies, etc. Right now what we have here is an abstract discussion, solving a hypothetical problem, engaged in by editors who mostly have no more than a passing interest in the subject. That's not a good way to develop guidelines. If this actually becomes a problem, bring it back here. EEng (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Just as a note, I have more than just "drive-by editing" interests here. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I referred "editors who mostly have no more than a passing interest" -- if that's not you, great. But most here are just the usual MOSNUM regulars. That's not a put-down, just that those actually engaged on the article in question are in the best position to bring to bear everything that may be useful in resolving the question. EEng (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, it makes sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, usability should be the paramount. I'd bet that very few readers would figure out what GBd means (could be seen even as a misprint of GB), while the meaning of gigabaud should be easily understood. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The same could be said of almost any other SI or ISQ unit you care to mention. Linking GBd is sufficient for usability. I'm 100% with Dondervogel, including that we should extend the MOS statement from SI to ISQ. —Quondum 22:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I still think that using GBd, linked or not, would favor form over function. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we add a space in >_10 °C?

Do we write >10 °C or > 10 °C? I also want to use it with conversions: >_10 °C (50 °F; 283 K). Inequality (mathematics) did not help me out (at all). -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd say that it would be the best to write it as "higher than 10 °C" or "over 10 °C". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
> 10 °C is better. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It's straight from the ISO ruling—a pretty good one, in my view, and from long ago. Tony (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm working at an infobox, so verbose is not preferred. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Then it should be spaced, though "over" isn't that much longer either. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
In science the symbol is quite common (chemistry). Other signs used are < and ~. I am not aiming to prescribe word/symbol usage in this. -DePiep (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what these symbols are for. :) Didn't want to "derail" your question, sorry. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

ISO said it, so a space there will be. -DePiep (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

ISO is a private not-for-profit organization known for charging exorbitant fees for there standards, so it is not an ideal organization to rely on when deciding style matters in Wikipedia. They have no authority to enforce any of their standards, and many of their standards languish because no one pays any attention to them. We use a space because this guideline says so; in the guideline, search for "40 °". Jc3s5h (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, ISO keeps their standards secret, in Swiss vaults. A great way to promote it. The guideline you point to (as I fou nd it) is about the space in "40_°" (don't) vs. "40_°C" (do), which is not what I am looking for. It's about ">_10 °C?" or ">10 °C". Since we have no guideline on that, I'll go for second best: a sensible reply here. (If it were more strong in one way or another, that would be clear too). -DePiep (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

`

Sorry to be dense, but what does the _ mean as used above? EEng (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A "visible" space character. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It is the position of the space/nospace we are talking about. -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I get it. BTW, if there's a space after the < it should probably be an nbsp i.e. <&nbsp;10&nbsp;&deg;C EEng (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggested addition

In the table of date formats that are not recommended, I suggest adding all-numeric examples with the year abbreviated to 2 digits. In the world outside Wikipedia, one still sees forms like 10/11/12 that are maximally ambiguous. I believe even ISO 8601 allows 07-04-15 (meaning April 15, '07) if the leading digits can be inferred, but that's not a proper encyclopedic style. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought about how to add this warning, but honestly it makes the table just that much more bloated for what I think is little benefit. I really don't care what ISO blah-blah says -- has there actually been a real problem, in a real article, where editors argued over this? It's perfectly obvious from nearby examples that "all-digit" years are required, and editors are not morons who need everyone absolutely spelled out. EEng (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree that we don't need examples for everything (after all, YY-MM-DD isn't in the list of acceptable formats, which implies it isn't), but there's a simple way to slot in one extra line to include it in the unacceptable list if desired. See what you think but feel free to revert if the consensus is that it's overkill. —sroc 💬 13:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Sroc's addition is a good one. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. All the approaches I was thinking of involved much more explanation, thus my plaint above. EEng (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a related discussion

For those of you who still interested in this subject; there is a discussion in progress at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Why meters first for English player height? in which systematic unit flipping, source-based units, source selection based on preferred units, reasons to ignore advice in WP:UNITS & co. are being discussed in relation to the unit order to use for the players in English football (soccer). Baaarny (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate. EEng (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a related discussion

There is presently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Determination of what country an article relates to, and MOSNUM consequences regarding the application of WP:UNITS to articles on individuals within the scope of WP:FOOTY. I invite review and comment. — Jkudlick tcs 02:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake, does this football fussing never end? EEng (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. — Jkudlick tcs 03:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the correct symbol for astronomical unit?

The main choices seem to be AU, au and ua. Those with an opinion might wish to comment here. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that introductory discussions have already taken place at Talk:Astronomical unit#AU vs au vs ua and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#AU vs au vs ua, with some general agreement that this is the right venue for deciding this matter, if a choice must be made (and that is an open question). I will be unable to participate during most of January, being away from Internet service during most of that time, but I have pretty much said what I have to say in the prior discussions. Evensteven (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Without actually copying the existing discussion here, this isn't the proper place to have a discussion, as it is already occurring. If it should occur here, the existing discussion should be copied over. As it is not, then this isn't the relevant place, as Wikiprojects have already been informed of talk:Astronomical unit for the last many days. No coherent presentation has been given here, so let's keep it all where it is already taking place, at the article's talk page. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Rounding to 3 decimals after the point -> possible confusion with thousands separator

I find that in an international context 3 decimals after the point can easily be confused with a thousand separator, although obviously this should not be the primary concern. In paragraph MOS:UNCERTAINTY, I'd like to insert:

"Rounding to exactly three figures after the decimal point should preferably be avoided, so as to avoid any confusion with thousands separators".

Any objection or proposed rewording? --Jules.LT (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, don't do this. Rounding to 3dp is common practice, particularly in science and engineering. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec)I object to any such recommendation in the MOS. This recommendation creates a tension without a clear mitigation. I also do not think that the problem is universal enough to warrant such a recommendation. The reader typically needs to be aware of such ambiguities of interpretation, and in WP, there should be nowhere where the ambiguity is actually a problem, since any MOS-compliant article will use a specific separator for each. Even if some confusion is to be expected in some articles (due to target audience), a general MOS guideline would be inappropriate. I think that this should be resolved on an article-by-article basis. For example, if someone feels strongly about this for a given instance and the context permits it, the precision may be reduced to two decimal places. —Quondum 20:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
(another ec) I'm assuming that by "No", Redrose means, "No, don't do this", and if so I agree with him. We're not gonna create some strange prohibition forcing people to debate 2 vs. 4 places. People are just going to have to pay attention to the notation in use (which, mercifully, is universal across WP -- comma for thousands, dot for decimal -- no "national variety" quagmire as with spelling). EEng (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Next someone will be proposing banning numbers with zeroes in them because zero can be confused with the letter "oh".
I agree with the gist of the above replies, namely that 3 dp is common rounding and should be permitted. But there is an alternative solution to this problem, which is to drop the comma separator for thousands, as it serves no useful purpose and can be replaced by a (thin) space. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I add my objection to the proposal. I thought we already used the thin space to avoid confusion by those whose native language uses dots and commas the other way round? Dbfirs 21:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe the thin space is used after the decimal point. What I am proposing is to use it before the point as well. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case, I support your new proposal. I thought it was already policy, but apparently it isn't. I wonder why not? (See Speed of light for mixed usage.) Dbfirs 21:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly where in Speed of light is this "mixed usage"? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
In the infobox, top right, the comma is (mostly) used as a thousands separator. I too would support Dondervogel's suggestion of the use of a thin space rather than a comma as a thousands separator. —Quondum 22:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Dondervogel 2 mentioned "the thin space is used after the decimal point", and Dbfirs's reply to that implied that thin spaces are sometimes used after decimal points at Speed of light - but I don't see any. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Look again under Astronomical units: "
"light time for unit distance: 499.004783836(10) s
c = 0.00200398880410(4) AU/s = 173.144632674(3) AU/day."
... and they are regularly used as thousands separators. Dbfirs 07:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
First, that's in the main text, not in the infobox. Second, the figure after each of the decimal points is close up to the decimal point - there is no space, thin or otherwise, after the decimal point. Third, those longer numbers contain no thin spaces at all. The visual separation into threes is done by splitting the long sequences of digits into groups of three by wrapping the fourth digit after the decimal point, the seventh, tenth etc. in a <span>...</span> element, with the apparent gap before those particular digits being achieved by means of a style="margin-left:.25em" attribute on that element. If you mark the text, copy it and paste it, you get "499.004783836"; "0.00200398880410"; and "173.144632674", all completely unspaced. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It was not I who mentioned the infobox, and who said anything about spaces after the decimal point? We seem to be arguing at cross-purposes. I agree that the best way to insert thin spaces (.25em) is by using the "val" template, and that it doesn't run if you copy it elsewhere. Dbfirs 13:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Are thin-spaces non-breaking? An objection I have to having any kind of breaking spaces within a number is that long numbers get split across lines. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I believe they are. However, use of {{gaps}} and {{val}} would be prefereable, which do not use any spaces but still leave a gap. —Quondum 23:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Please keep wikitext as simple as possible! People at enwiki expect to write numbers like 12,345 and not 12&thinsp;345 (renders as 12 345 and copies as "12 345" with U+2009 thin space). As mentioned by Quondum, the "correct" way to inject spaces that don't copy is with {{gaps}} or using "gaps" in {{convert}} (example: {{convert|12345.67|m|comma=gaps}} → 12345.67 metres (40504.2 ft)), however they bloat the html and require too much complexity in the wikitext. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This is enwiki and numbers should be formatted using English conventions. The number of decimal points in a number should not be influenced by concern about readers unfamiliar with English. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • See WP:DIGITS for the current guideline, which calls for comma as the "thousands" separator, and optionally space/thinspace in scientific contexts. (And BTW, I seem to recall thinsp will linebreak on at least some browsers.) I'm going to try to put this as delicately as possible, but I have to run out so time is short and I may no succeed very well: any of you who actually think that WP is going to adopt a guideline forbidding comma as the thousands separator needs to get your heads examined (or, to put it another way, are completely out of touch with cultural realities). It's never gonna happen. Forget it. This is a complete waste of time. EEng (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I object to the proposal. In English the decimal marker is a dot not a comma. This proposal would seem to give credence to the notion that it's okay to use the non-English convention of dots for thousands and commas for the decimal point. It's not okay, we don't write like this in standard forms of English, this is proscribed in the MOS. There will be many cases where three decimal places (not two, not four) is exactly what is required; a rule like the proposed would impede our ability to convey accurate information. As for the thousands separator, my preference is for thin spaces but, if they're being used, they should be on both sides of the decimal and done with a template ({{gaps}}, {{val}}, {{convert}}, etc.) not with &thinsp;. However, as mentioned, this does currently entail more complex source code. Jimp 03:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the proposal, per Jimp and others; there should be no admonition against using three decimal places to avoid mistaking the decimal point (.) for a thousands separator as used in some regions. Whilst stylistically I like using simulated non-breaking thin spaces ({{gapnum}}) for thousands separators, most editors are likely to simply enter numbers the way comes naturally (12,345.67) and any effort to use code for all numbers ({{gapnum|12345.67}} → {{gapnum|12345.67}}) seems unlikely to gain any traction and would only lead to inconsistency unless a bot can routinely and accurately replace them. —sroc 💬 06:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I do agree it would be daft to "forbid" a comma separator for thousands, but that's not what I said. What's wrong with thin spaces if done consistently within an article, especially if some articles already do this? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that most editors will not want to bother with complicated formatting of thin spaces, so we probably shouldn't change the manual. In British schools we teach the use of the thin space as a courtesy to our continental friends (but don't insist on it). I suggest that we have the same informal policy in Wikipedia, but not make a fuss about it, and allow editors to use commas as thousand separators in their edits without reprimand. There are enough editors here who understand the usage and could ensure consistency in articles if this is seen as desirable. No-one is suggesting changing the use of the decimal point. Dbfirs 07:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Reading the relevant text, it seems to say already what is needed. The only part that seems odd to me is the 5 digit rule for maths-related articles. Do mathematicians really follow different rules to physicists? If there is consensus for this anomaly I see no need for further change. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "mathematics-oriented" means math, physics, engineering, statistics ... -- the "mathematical" disciplines. EEng (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Is that really the intended meaning? I see little justification for it myself. The only time I have ever encountered groups of 5 myself was in memorising (long ago!) the value of pi at school. My impression is that the numerically minded either group in threes or not at all. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen grouping in fives not even when I learnt a chunk of pi. Let's just ignore that bit. Dbfirs 13:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I have seen grouping by fives, but I think that is largely for long strings of digits or in tables. Not for ordinary usage, which is and should be by thousands (threes). Yes, let's ignore that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine, whatever. Can we all just go back to editing actual articles? EEng (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Dbfirs 13:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that sparked a debate :-P My own preference would definitely be for people to use a space as the thousands separator rather than a comma, but I don't see it happening... --Jules.LT (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

How to format multiple dates?

I have a reference on the page for Norman Feather (reference 4) that is for an interview that occurred on two dates. I am not sure how to cite two specific dates like this - the reference list is throwing a date error. It would be nice to have an answer for this scenario on this page. Thx Bdushaw (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: Why is the 5 November 1971 date necessary? It's not in the linked source, only the February date is. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not there's some way to avoid it in this case, it's a good question in general. Bdushaw, ask at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1. EEng (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bdushaw: There are two sessions, each with its own date. Cite the one that supports the article text in question. If you want to list each of the sessions in a "Sources" or "Further reading" section, cite each session individually. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thx all. Yes there are two sessions - so the rigorous way to proceed is to cite them both separately, it seems. Bdushaw (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Preferred scale for large numbers of money

Should $1,234 million be rewritten as $1.234 billion, for example? Is there a preference for the number to be greater than 1 and less than 1000, as in engineering notation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.238.7.85 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

$1,234 million (or even $1234 million) would seem weird unless it happens to be part of a series or table of values which are mostly 1- 2- or 3-digit values, with this one being the odd "oversized" value. As an aside, generally speaking 4 digits of precision isn't usually justified anyway. EEng (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
A good general rule is to avoid "billion", because the meaning of this word depends on context. Another good general rule is to avoid quoting too many significant figures (EEng's point). In this example the two general rules seem to conflict, which means the best solution depends on the context in which the question is asked. Do you have a specific reason for asking the question? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The "billion-dollar" questions was settled long ago -- we use billion and trillion freely, for their short-scale values. WP:NUMERAL EEng (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree the short scale is consistent with modern use and therefore a sensible default, if linked on first use. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're hoping for too much with linked-on-first use. That's not in the guidelines and I don't see it getting added to them either. On the bright side, most people who actually have a billion dollars have accountants and so on to keep stuff like that straight for them. EEng (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Lol. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The specific page I was wondering about was Guangzhou#Economy: "In 2013, the GDP reached¥ 1542 billion (US$248.billion), per capita was ¥120,515 (US $19,459)." I would think 1542 billion might be better written as 1.542 trillion, but I would've liked to be able to point to some style guidelines before changing it. On the other hand, the billion yuan matches the billion US dollar in parentheses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.238.7.85 (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If the number is known to 3 significant figures I would write that as 1540 billion because that makes it easier to compare with the other numbers in billions. An acceptable alternative is 1.54 trillion. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with EEng. Donder, you're not suggesting that the old BrEng billion = milion × million has any credence nowadays, are you?

Generally, people all over the world have become more used to daily expressions of large quantities, not least because of growing wealth, growing population, and inflationary changes in the value of major currencies. Billion was exotic when I was a kid. No longer. As for expressing it in thousands of millions ($1,234), well, it's not wrong, but mostly simpler as $1.234 billion. One context in which the latter might be useful is if talking at the same time about adjustments to the number (the budget is $22 million dollars higher this year, at ...). However, too fussy to legislate on in MOSNUM, I think. Tony (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many readers of English WP who are not native speakers of English. For many of those readers the word "billion" in their native language really does mean a million million (I suspect there are other examples, but Spanish and Dutch are two I am familiar with). [There might also be an older generation of readers who are still unlearning the original meaning - but this is not my main point]. Is it so hard to help them disambiguate by linking the first use of billion in an article? In any case the specific case given is about trillion, and there the case is even stronger. Without the benefit of a link, I would be unsure myself about the intended meaning of this word. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and I'm willing to be convinced, but this is the English Wikipedia and non-native speakers have to keep in mind that it follows English-speaking usage (which, the British having come to their senses in the last 50 years, is now pretty much standardized on short-scale). BTW, pretty good background on all this is given at long and short scales.

Historical note: The deathless Fowler, discussing the long-scale/short-scale issue in the 1920s, lamented the British use of billion to mean what Americans called trillion (i.e. 10^12), leaving British usage with no way to refer to 10^9 other than thousand million. He wrote:

Since billion in our sense is useless except to astronomers, it is a pity that we [Britons] do not conform.

(National debts and defense budgets were smaller then.) EEng (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC) (paging Tony1 and Martinevans123, who I know will enjoy this.}

Not quite true that "thousand million" was the only long-scale way of saying "109"; there was the rather odd old word "milliard" (still used generally in Continental Europe, which retains the long scale). Archon 2488 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely right. That had slipped my mind. Very few people know, by the way, that this term is derived from the name of US President Milliard Fillmore, who was an amateur mathematician on the side. EEng (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he invented a time machine and went back to 1688 to teach his surname to the French who for the previous 150 years had been using their own word: "milliares" Dbfirs 08:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, not surname. That would be the fillmoriard. EEng (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@EEng And how, pray, are WP readers going to know they must first read long and short scales if it is not linked? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
They're not expected to know to read long and short scales. They're expected to know how billion is used in English-speaking countries, just like they're expected to know a billion (Note: "billion" used here in short-scale sense) other bits of context. Like I said, I'm prepared to be convinced re link-on-first-use as you propose, but I think you'll have an uphill battle as it will be perceived as over-fussy. EEng (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Actaully, we could change MOS to require the use of milliard instead of billion, and that way everyone would be equally, though unambiguously, sent rushing to their dictionaries.
"Sextillions" were around, even as far back as 1924. DYK ... "there are about 200 billion Shakespearean atoms in each of us?" Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Leave it to you to bring sex into it somehow. EEng (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Billion Dollar Baby? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • BrEng and the rest of the non-US anglophone world updated so long ago—really, this is not worth marking or linking or fussing over. "Billion" is common on the front page of English-language newspapers and news sites all over the world, for example, all meaning thousand million. Tony (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Not so long ago, Tony1. It was Harold Wilson who changed the meaning of the word in British English, about forty years ago. (Some of us haven't forgiven him!) Are you sure that the rest of the anglophone world is so clear about understanding short-scale? Many people in the rest of Europe, and in parts of Asia and Africa, read English, and their native billion is the original long-scale British billion. Dbfirs 08:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Dbfirs that this issue is less clear cut for billion than some would have us believe. And in any case, the specific example was about trillion. [Wasn't she in Hitchhiker's Guide?] Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Did Wilson manage to get his "newspeak" into the title of this Russell blockbuster? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
General Midwinter was a Texan billionaire, so presumably he funded the Brain using a Texan billion. I recall making the mental correction to thousand million when I read the novel many years ago. Dbfirs 16:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Linking first use of billion would often soon be undone as overlinking, even on UK-related articles. It's a term that's commonly used for everything from the age of the world or its population to the cost of UK infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2 or Government spending in the United Kingdom, within Wikipedia or outside it. We switched a long time ago - Harold Wilson was following a pre-existing shift - and just as we have learnt new meanings for other words over the decades, so we have with this one. Imagine how a modern writer who used "billion" for a million million would be treated. NebY (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
"It does not mean that the wiki article here in Britain, in your watchlist, in your project or sandbox has been devalued." Huddersfield Harry (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@NebY For as long as there is no advice to link, that will be used as an argument not to. That just strengthens the case for advising/recommending/requiring a link, especially for trillion and higher. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
A sensible legislature doesn't pass laws that will largely be ignored, be broken for good reasons, cause resentment and disrespect for the legislature and the rule of law and ultimately be repealed. Conversely, the lack of a law does not prevent people following their civic duty and helping fellow citizens, or in this case linking on those occasions when it it is helpful to do so. NebY (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong national ties to a subject

I'd like to propose an amendment to the "Strong national ties" rule for MOS:DATEFORMAT. Talk:Microsoft Office 2013 argues that articles related to multinational corporations based in the U.S. cannot use MDY format for dates because their international expansion/focus means that they no longer have "strong national ties" to their home country anymore.

Thus, there should be a rule specifically dictating that articles that are of "significant international interest" must use DMY format because it is, as Wikipedia itself notes, "common to the majority of the world's countries". ViperSnake151  Talk  14:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As regulars here will not be surprised to hear me say, hash it out on the article's talk page. If this becomes a recurring source of timewasting on multiple articles, then maybe it's time for something to be added here. MOS is not a court of appeal or settler of one-page disputes, and certainly shouldn't be enacting new rules in anticipation of hypothetical widespread dispute that has yet to actually emerge. EEng (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
User:ViperSnake151 seems to be operating under the mistaken belief that articles on topics of international interest must use the DMY format. This is just not true. Articles not relating to any particular country, such as "Algebra", may use either the DMY or MDY format, whichever was is the established style for that article. If ViperSnake151 has changed any articles on the basis of his/her mistaken belief I would advise him/her to revert his/her edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ViperSnake did, they changed the dates around on Windows 8, Windows 8.1 and Windows 10, all without any attempt at discussing things first. Microsoft are an American company, it's an American OS, so it should follow the "American way", so to speak. Even if it shouldn't, then we fall back on the "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." statement from the guideline, which ViperSnake clearly contravened. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of interest, if you call Microsoft's customer support line in Australia, you get recorded messages in an American accent. —sroc 💬 03:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The same has happened when I've rung Microsoft in the past to activate Windows or Office from the UK. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. I just called from here in Boston and got someone with a distinct Indian accent. Maybe it's a kind of Microsoft hands-across-the-water initiative, by which everyone is connected to someone elsewhere in the world, to promote cross-cultural interaction, understanding, world peace, and so on. EEng (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The recordings were American accents, the staff sounded like Indian accents. They did eventually transfer me to a North American line but, surprise surprise, the office was closed because apparently the operator hasn't heard of time zones. —sroc 💬 13:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In case a vote helps, the proposal is without merit, and changes from MDY to DMY format in Microsoft-related articles would not be helpful—we already have too many pointless things to argue about. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. If anything we need more pointless things to argue about. EEng (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
By "more pointless things", do you mean a greater number of things that are pointless or things that have a greater degree of pointlessness (if that is possible)? —sroc 💬 03:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Surely you of all people know the difference between more pointless things and more-pointless things. Quantity, not quality. EEng (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Time zones

Quote: the term "UTC" is not appropriate for dates before this system was adopted in 1961. That's dubious, ISO timestamps—there's also a public RFC 3339, not only the paywall text—can be older, and UTC is the default. ISO timestamps also use a proleptic Gregorian calendar, or in other words, Gregorian dates before this calendar was introduced. If an article isn't about time zone details, where the differences between GMT, UTC, UT, etc. matter, just saying UTC should be good enough. Example, MJD (Modified Julian Date) switched Julian Days from counting days beginning at noon (relevant for astronomy with observations in the night) to counting days beginning at midnight (UT or as specified). –Be..anyone (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This kind of "it didn't exist" hyperfussiness is useless. No one will be misled or confused. While we're at it, it's time to take on the stupid idea that the YYYY-MM-DD format can only be used from 1583 onward (see end of table in MOS:DATEFORMAT). EEng (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
As for UTC, why should Wikipedia make itself look stupid by using an incorrect term, UTC, when it's just as easy to use the correct term, UT. UTC depends on adjustments, which cannot be predicted for the future, and which cannot be extrapolated before the invention of atomic clocks; these adjustments to the atomic time steer the resulting time scale toward mean solar time (in the form of UT2 or UT1).
As if anything in any but the most specialized article is going to depend on a leap second here or there. EEng (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
As for YYYY-MM-DD before 1583, if we don't obey ISO 8601, then we don't have any standard. So what should we write for the birthdate of Galileo, 1564-02-15 or 1564-02-25? How about the death date of Augustus, 19 August 14 0014-08-19, 0014-08-17, 14-08-19, or 14-08-17. How about the total solar eclipse of 15 February 3 BC, Julian proleptic calendar. Is that 3 BC-02-15, 3 BC-02-13, -2-02-13, -0002-02-13, or something else. If there is no standard, there is no answer. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Galileo reports his birthdate as 15 February 1564, with a footnote (as is usual when needed) explaining that that's a Julian date. If, for some reason, G's birthdate needs to be listed in a table or something, and YYYY-MM-DD dates are a good idea there for whatever reason, then 1564-02-15 means exactly the same thing as 15 February 1564. (And if, in context, 15 February 1564 would have needed a footnote, then 1564-02-15 needs a footnote; and if 15 February 1564 wouldn't have needed a footnote, then don't have one on 1564-02-15 either.) It's as simple as that. YYYY-MM-DD is just a compact way of encoding the words January, February, ... etc., and rearranging the order of the components. It in no way invests the date with any additional semantics, because normal people neither know nor care about ISO-whathaveyou.
"If we don't follow ISO 8601, then we don't have any standard at all" -- No, if we let YYYY-MM-DD mean what I just said it should mean, then that's our standard, and again, normal people will understand immediately what's meant. (And cognoscenti aware of 8601 should certainly be smart enough to check the footnotes or context to interpret the date properly, if it really matters -- anyone who's smart enough to know about 8601, yet dumb enough to insist that YYYY-MM-DD must always mean a Gregorian date, and who walks off a cliff chanting that, gets what he or she deserves.) You're worrying about nothing.
This probably isn't a good idea to extend back into Roman history and before, because at that point the correspondence 01=January, 02=February, etc. begins to break down. EEng (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Lest anyone think I'm a fan of ISO 8601, I'm not. I think it is too expensive, vague on many points, has been deceptively promoted by ISO, and has totally bungled several issues, such as time before the introduction of UTC, local time, and the time the new date begins in local time (does it have to be midnight?). But I certainly don't advocate Wikipedia writing its own YYYY-MM-DD standard. It would be better to just ban the YYYY-MM-DD format from articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
EEng wrote "As if anything in any but the most specialized article is going to depend on a leap second here or there." Tell you what, you get the community to remove every single thing in the MOS that is a matter of personal preference, such as how to use dashes, how to capitalize, whether to use American customary or SI units. Then we can discuss advocating actual errors, however minor. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
When John_F._Kennedy says that JFK was assassinated at "12:30 pm Central Standard Time", it doesn't matter if this is relative to UTC or just UT or whathaveyou -- for most historical events we don't even know the minute, really, and much less the seconds. Neglecting a hypertechnicality which makes only an infinitesimal difference, in context, is not "advocating actual errors", but rather reducing the investment (of editor effort and reader brainpower) in a level of precision that matters not at all, so that they will be available for things that actually matter. In an article on astronomy things would be different. In an article describing an internet attack we'll need to start arguing about Lamport clocks. I really do know what I'm talking about here, and this is a waste of time (so to speak). EEng (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It would look silly to write that John Wiles Booth was seen outside Abraham Lincoln's booth at Ford's Theatre about 10:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, since that time zone had not been invented in 1865. Likewise it is silly to write about UTC before UTC was invented, especially when a different time scale, UT, can be extended backward before it was named while UTC cannot. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I purposefully chose the JFK assassination as an example, because it was soon after UTC came into existence; my point is that UTC and UT are the same for almost all practical purposes -- no one's talking about introducing "standard" time in an era when that would make no sense at all. The major problem I see in using "UT" is that, as a practical matter, we're having a hard enough time getting people to understand that UTC is pretty much what used to be meant by "Greenwich time" -- writing UT (instead of UTC) where the difference is trivial will just confuse more people more of the time, to no purpose whatsoever. EEng (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The reference to 10:25 PM as Eastern Standard Time is silly, not because it didn't exist then, but because it is a locally (and even personally) observed time with no showing that was "standardized" to the proper meridian. On the other hand, is it silly to use AD (and BC) to refer to dates prior to AD 525 because they are before Dionysius Exiguus invented that notation? I don't think so. If it is acceptable for astronomers to count back into time in Julian days and Julian years, it would seem equally acceptable for (say) a physicist to use UT if counting backing in UT seconds, even before UT was invented.
The problem with counting backwards in UTC is, of course, not knowing when leap second adjustments need to be made. But it seems to me the bigger problem is editors wanting to use UTC/UT for times that are at best only local time. When someone reports "at 10:25 last night...", is that really local time on the local meridian? Or the time shown on some railroad's clock? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Display resolution consistency (or not?)

At Display resolution:

4320p (7680 × 4320 progressive scan; aka "8K UHD")
8640p (15360 × 8640 progressive scan; a speculated future standard)

Strict reading of the MOS indicated "15,360" as "In general, use a comma to delimit numbers with five or more digits to the left of the decimal point. Numbers with four digits are at the editor's discretion". Then for consistency also "8,640" and a comma in all the other (all) four-digit numbers. Now, we are barely up to the former "8K", but we'll get there.. I would have liked to standardize on without a comma and fix the exceptions at e.g. Digital Visual Interface. Where does consistency end? Within article? If without a comma then potentially many need updating later.

And should there be spaces before and after "×" (not not "x"). Or both allowed but not in a single article?

Then there are "modifiers" " @60 Hz" etc.. comp.arch (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Check this page's archive over the last year or two. These were argued ad nauseam. EEng (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, use the commas. They're a great aid to readability, especially for the dyslexic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP intros

Given a choice, which is preferred? (born date) or just (date)? GoodDay (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The examples here and at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies follow "(birth date – death date)" for a dead person, "(born birth date)" for a living one, and those formats seem fine to me. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering, because I had a correcting 'edit' of mine reverted at Song Jia (actress, born 1962). Wasn't sure if I had made a mistake. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_149&oldid=1090632832"