Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are known to be subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Use of feet in music for pitch, organ stops, wind instrument air column length[edit]

There is a whole nomenclature and system in music, particularly organology (the study of musical instruments), for describing musical pitch in terms of the length of a vibrating air column (originally an organ pipe) measured in feet. It is notated with the old prime ′ symbol for feet, such that an 8′ air column corresponds to the note C₂, the lowest C on an organ keyboard, two octaves below C₄ (middle C).


  {
    \new Staff \with { \remove "Time_signature_engraver" }
    \clef bass \key c \major \cadenzaOn
    c,1 ^ \markup "8′ C"
  }

Thus, notes from a 4′ and 2′ organ stop would sound one and two octaves higher than written, respectively, and 16′ and 32′ stops sound one and two octaves lower. This notation is also used to describe the fundamental or nominal pitches of wind instruments, e.g. a contrabass trombone in 12′ F. I would like to add something to MOS:UNITS to account for this usage in music-related articles, which is still standard in music literature. Do I need to start some sort of proposal or RfC process? — Jon (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanischoice: This page has many subpages. As this does not come up frequently, I would suggest adding something at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music. The people who watch that page are probably better able to give feedback too. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchreiberBike: thanks for replying. It's not really the usage in music that's up for debate, but it occurred to me as a result of the current WP:GoCE backlog elimination drive that we perhaps need to mention the appropriate usage somewhere here in the MOS:UNITS section, so that we can avoid/clarify situations like this one about the use of feet (and the ′ symbol) in relevant music articles. Jon (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't quite tell what the issue is here. Is your concern MOS:FOOT's proscription on using the prime to represent foot/feet-- that if articles refer to "a contrabass trombone in 12-foot F", we'd look like dopes? Since I'm a musical ignoramus, can you quote a passage from some WP:RS that uses the prime notation, to give us a feel for it in context? EEng 22:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I'm afarid I created some confusion by saying (above) proscription on using the prime, when I should have said "proscription on using the prime or apostrophe". I made it sound like prime-vs-apostrophe is maybe the issue. That can't be it. The issue, AFAICT, is prime or apostrophe (whichever) versus "foot" or "feet" or "ft". EEng 04:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Westminster Abbey also here reliable enough? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an organist: if you use "foot" or "ft" once or twice in a paragraph of prose, that might be fine (particularly if you're discussing something like the physical construction or physics of organs); but anything more than that (such as on mixture) and you would indeed look like a dope. Saying 8' is, from everything I've seen, basically universal, and if you wrote "an example of a plenum is a 8 ft flute, 4 ft principal, and 2 ft principal," everyone would look at you very weirdly. I would support a MOS exception when referring to organs, possibly music more broadly but I haven't heard feet used much outside of organs. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have encountered several WP:RS that use it for other areas of organology, e.g. tubing lengths and other specifications for wind and brass instruments, and string lengths in keyboards (harpsichords, spinels etc.) although that said, the only one I have currently to hand at work[1] uses e.g. 12-ft F rather than 12′ notation. — Jon (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Jon (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are respected RS that write "12-ft F", it will be an uphill battle to argue that the prime/apostrophe form should be used in article. EEng 04:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FOOT and MOS:UNIT have nothing to do with the nomenclature for organs and similar instruments. The use of the prime symbol is the slightly contentious issue here. The symbols ′ ( ′ ) and apostrophe ( ' ) are almost undistinguishable, but using the former has several disadvantages, similar to Wikipedia's use of straight vs. curly symbols. Then there's the added complication of ″ ( ″ )vs. ′′ ( ′′ ). On balance, I would recommend using apostrophes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Re: Jon): Yeah, I'm less familiar with nomenclature outside of organs, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same was used.
The case of prime vs apostrophe is something we should discuss, but I do think we also need to amend MOS:UNIT. I'm doing a quick spot check of a few random organ-related articles and just under half of them are using the "ft" notation, all of them because of changes by semi-automated tools, most of them by Beland. (I'm just mentioning this to make the point that we do need more clarity in guidelines here, not to call anyone out.)
Coming back to prime vs apostrophe: could you spell out the disadvantages of the former? I would naturally default to the apostrophe, largely because it's easier to type; I was going to say that prime looks weird to me (as in Mixture (organ stop)), but that seems to be a result of {{prime}} adding some weird spacing. Usage in other articles seems to be mixed; I should go look at a few organs tomorrow and see which is more similar to the labels on their stops. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but please don't do that. (a) We're not going to go off that kind of OR. (b) First we need to resolve the "foot/feet/ft" question. EEng 04:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh fine, I'll do OR for my own curiosity and not mention it here. :P LittlePuppers (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of ' and " and and ″ for foot and inches is also pretty universal in say, the American construction industry, including reliable sources. Wikipedia is not written for organists and American contractors; it's written for a general, international audience. Most people only know the metric system, and are unfamiliar with the use of these abbreviations for anything other than angular minutes and seconds. Presumably the MOS consensus for "in" and "ft" formed to favor intelligibility to everyone over copying the stylistic choices of professionals. Even as an American woodworker myself, I found the use of ' and " to describe pitch as confusing, and had to hunt around until I found some explanatory web pages, starting with figuring out if "8" meant "8 prime", "8 minutes", or "8 feet". So in the articles I changed, though I wasn't involved in making the rule, I kind of liked having "ft" or "foot" written out for clarity. I think I would recommend keeping it that way. Ridicule from specialists is probably irrelevant. I'm a programmer; if an article in a computer science journal was written in Wikipedia style, it would look ridiculously out of place, but also it would be a lot more intelligible, especially to people who are not academic computer scientists. That's fine, they are just two different audiences.
But, if there's a strong consensus for the prime symbol, I recommend:
  1. Tweaking {{prime}} and {{pprime}} to add the right amount of space after numbers. We're supposed to do {{prime|E}} not E{{prime}} which looks like: E not E, so {{prime|8}} should look better than 8{{prime}} after tweaking. That looks like: 8 vs. 8
  2. Have the MOS require very briefly explaining the notation in each article before using it or at the very least linking to an explanation of the notation, for which the only article I think right now is Eight-foot pitch.
--- Beland (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's not a perspective I considered thoroughly. We do appear to have at least three different ways of notating it in stoplists, which all... kind of explain it? To varying degrees? LittlePuppers (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Grove Dictionary, pretty much the definitive English language music reference, uses primes: Compound and mutation stops may belong to any of the three flue categories and are never used without a suitable foundation (i.e. a flue stop of 8′ pitch, occasionally 4′, 2′ or 16′)[2] (and here).[3] I'll have a look for other RS. — Jon (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Jon (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grove doesn't dictate Wikipedia's MoS. Most printed and online sources use curly quotes, EN Wikipedia doesn't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that might well have been my fault; if we're allowed such latitude over using ft, I'm happy with apostrophes (8') since it seems there's already a consensus I was unaware of about not using primes (8′); let's just drop the whole prime thing. Perhaps all we might need is to amend the MOS:FOOT prohibition of using apostrophes/primes to indicate feet, in order to allow for its usage in music articles. — Jon (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aid to readers who might not be familiar with organ-related terms, editors in this field might add a wikilink on the first occurrence of such a term, e.g. "the Lieblich Gedeckt organ stop at 8' has been …" or "the ophicleide 16' was never …". We do this regularly for specialist terms lik Op., WoO, BWV, KV, and many more. (Creating a suitable REDIRECT (organ feet?) for Organ stop#Pitch and length would be sensible.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beland, thoughts on this? LittlePuppers (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where I've used it in articles about musical instruments, I've linked its first appearance to Eight-foot pitch, e.g. French horn in 12' F but it is possible that the contents of both Organ stop and Eight-foot pitch could be reviewed and considered together (as a separate thing out of scope here?) — Jon (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not a bad idea to explicitly mention that pitch is measured in feet if it's not clear from context, but at a minimum I'd follow the general rule of MOS:UNITNAMES which says "Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name (Energies rose from 2.3 megaelectronvolts (MeV) to 6 MeV)." I think that would mean writing e.g. "8-foot (8)" at first use and then it would be OK to use the prime symbol for the rest of the article. -- Beland (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: I agree with this, sorry I missed it back in January. If we are happy to use 8′ (prime) in a music/organ-related article, would you support amending the MOS to allow prime for feet in the units table, to help address situations like this one? Jon (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more reader-friendly to only use prime for angular measurements, but I would accept writing out feet on first instance to introduce the prime abbreviation and using prime thereafter, as suggested above (and noting whichever practice is adopted in the MOS). -- Beland (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing proposed below on 17 March would be fine. -- Beland (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musicians will say: the bass line in this movement needs a sixteen foot because the tenor goes below it a few times. There's no way to translate that into the metric system, and I believe it's used in other languages (like German and French). Tony (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hokely-dokely then, do we have some sort of consensus? It's gone quiet. Perhaps a tweak to the table at MOS:FOOT, something like the following. Although, I can't help but think that if we are going to make an exception for 16' notation which is for feet, then it should use prime, like we insist for arcminute further down in the same table, which would be used for old feet-and-inches notation. — Jon (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines on specific units
Group
Unit name Unit symbol Comment
(Existing)
  • inch
  • foot
  • in
  • ft
Do not use ′ (), ″ (), apostrophe ('), or quote (").
(Proposed)
  • inch
  • foot
  • in
  • ft
Do not use ′ (), ″ (), apostrophe ('), or quote ("), except in music, eight-foot pitch notation uses an apostrophe ('), e.g. a 16' organ stop; see MOS:MUSIC [which we will also need to amend]
Looks good and sensible to me. (Therefore bound to fail!) BTW, "old feet-and-inches notation" is still in use in the real world, just banned by the SI-brigade on WP. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no term other than 'feet' for organ stops/pitches, the guidance at MOS:FOOT doesn't apply; as that section explains. "The following table lists only units that need special attention." and refers to SI standards – which don't exist in this area. Still, if there is a problem using this measurement (Is there?), mentioning this special case as proposed above might help. However, I find the phrasing above after "except in music …" confusing: after recommending an exception in favour of ′ it then switches to apostrophe and claims it should be and is used in eight-foot pitch which is not the case, nor do I understand the reference to a necessary amendment at MOS:MUSIC. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: there seemed to be some fairly strong opposition to the use of prime in the above discussion, so I'm suggesting apostrophe as a compromise; personally I'd much prefer to use prime, which is the correct character. I mentioned Grove (which uses prime) because folks wanted to know which RS were using it. I'm happy to do a bit more digging. — Jon (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonathanischoice, Michael Bednarek, and Martin of Sheffield: I've been meaning to come back to this discussion for a while. I would suggest something like Do not use ′ (), ″ (), apostrophe ('), or quote (") except in music (such as when describing an organ stop), where an apostrophe (') may be used. In this case, it is encouraged for an article to link to an article such as eight-foot pitch or organ stop#Pitch and length at this notation's first occurance. (Perhaps we want to choose one of these to prefer?) I suppose a section should also be added to MOS:MUSIC. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone; I've un-auto-archived this discussion, because I still want to figure this out, but I've been snowed for the last 30 days. A new proposal amendment to the foot/inches part, below. — Jon (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines on specific units
Group
Unit name Unit symbol Comment
(Existing)
  • inch
  • foot
  • in
  • ft
Do not use ′ (), ″ (), apostrophe ('), or quote (").
(Proposed)
  • inch
  • foot
  • in
  • ft
Do not use ′ (), ″ (), apostrophe ('), or quote ("). Exception: in music, eight-foot pitch notation describes organ stops and wind instrument lengths in feet. A prime may be used with an explanation on first use, e.g. a 16 foot (16′) organ pedal stop; see MOS:MUSIC
Jonathanischoice, I'm supportive of the general idea, two questions with regards to technicalities: (1) is there a specific reason for prime over apostrophe, and (2) currently MOS:MUSIC does not mention this at all, presumably we should put something there? LittlePuppers (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prime is the "correct" character to use for feet (as in 8′) and can be notated with an HTML element or by using the {{prime}} template, i.e. ′ or {{prime}}. Perhaps we should create a {{music|foot}} shortcut for it. For MOS:MUSIC, see the new Talk:Pitch discussion, opinions welcome :) — Jon (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have started a Music template discussion to propose a new shortcut, which may or may not be useful. — Jon (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Correct" in what sense? According to MOSNUM, the only correct symbol is ft. The only exception is the one recently added for organ stops and related musical use. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Correct" as in not an apostrophe in this specific case (musicology/organology). — Jon (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thank you for clarifying. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The correct nomenclature in this area has been discussed in this section before; Ctrl+Fdope. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, more discussions to watchlist. Thanks for the references. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the newly added "see MOS:MUSIC" on the main page reads a bit strange though, because there is nothing whatsoever there (yet)! Gawaon (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separate section for off-color musical jokes[edit]

  • For those who don't know, Bach had 20 children. So, question: Why did Bach have so many children?
Unhide for answer
Because he didn't have any stops in his organ.
Nothing to do with his feet, then...!? — Jon (talk)
Oh yuck! You're DISGUSTING! EEng 04:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he just liked the pitter-patter of (tiny) feet. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Trevor Herbert; Arnold Myers; John Wallace, eds. (2019). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Brass Instruments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 179. doi:10.1017/9781316841273. ISBN 978-1-316-63185-0. OCLC 1038492212. OL 34730943M. Wikidata Q114571908.)
  2. ^ Williams, Peter; Owen, Barbara; Bicknell, Stephen (2001). "Organ". Grove Music Online (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.44010. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0.
  3. ^ Williams, Peter; Owen, Barbara (2001). "Organ stop". Grove Music Online (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.20446. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0.

Primary Unit[edit]

The UK and the USA get their units as the primary unit.

In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.)

Or such other Units…, How and when did this get into the MOS? Anyone can still put in x metres (x hands) for the height of horses, many editors think this allows non SI units like PS or hp as the primary unit, disregarding the first line statement “will be SI units”.

The preponderance of editors on Wikipedia appear to reside in the UK and the USA. The only area the above applies to is the “rest of the World”, This leads many people to assume they can use any non SI unit as the primary unit, This is not the way I read it. “or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) needs to be removed. Avi8tor (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of contexts where SI units are not conventional in reliable source discussions of article topics, no matter what the national context is. Examples are feet for aircraft height, light years and parsecs for astronomical distances, and months and years for time durations (such as people's ages). In some of these contexts it would be inappropriate to use SI units even as secondary - who would benefit from a rule that insists that Usain Bolt be 1.18 gigaseconds old instead of 37 years? Kahastok talk 14:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's no good the MOS stating "the primary unit chosen will be SI" when there is an exception everyone can use. Feet can be the supplemental unit for altitude, parsecs and light years or AU for space distance. People's ages in gigaseconds is stupid, there is no convert template for giving someones age so it's superfluous and years are used worldwide. We are talking about some of the planet who speak English using units the other 95% do not use. Avi8tor (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the protection against non-SI units being used inappropriately given in the requirement that they have to be discussed in reliable sources? Mgp28 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It goes further than that - they have to be conventional in reliable sources, which implies some level of broad acceptance across a range of sources. Kahastok talk 19:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that if you believe that the idea of requiring SI units for people's ages is "stupid", perhaps you ought to reconsider whether you feel we should remove the part of the guideline that allows us to use more conventional units? Kahastok talk 19:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Define conventional units?
Does anyone on the planet use other than years for age? unless it's months for a baby or toddler? Avi8tor (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I am aware. This is my point. Your proposal would require us to use megaseconds and gigaseconds for measuring people's ages, because the conventional unit - the year - is neither SI nor officially accepted by SI. I am opposing that proposal.
(Incidentally, the month is also not accepted by SI, for the same reason - not all months are the same length). Kahastok talk 17:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is getting off topic, my comments refer only to Units of measurement Unit Choice and Order which in Wikipedia use the convert template because some of the planet use US customary, the UK has imperial and metric and the rest of the planet is metric. I'm not suggesting we use mega or giga second when everyone (as far as I'm aware) uses years for age. Age is dealt with in the previous section of the MOS. Avi8tor (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's getting off topic at all. Proposals sometimes have unintended consequences. You may not be intending to replace the year with the megasecond or gigasecond - and this doesn't just affect ages but any period of time measured in months or years - but that is the effect of your proposal. Kahastok talk 18:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be absurd. Gawaon (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the proposal is that we do things that are absurd is a good reason not to adopt the proposal.
If you want to claim that that is not the effect of the proposal, I suggest you go away, look up SI and the units officially accepted for use with SI, and try and find where they define the month and the year. I'll give you a hint - they don't. Kahastok :talk 19:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is such a fundamental misreading of SI that it is difficult to AGF. The SI does not a have a standard month. Nor does it have a standard rock, standard elephant, etc etc. It has no significance whatever and I agree with User:Avi8tor and Gawaon that this is wildly off topic. The {{Colonel}} is getting ready to come on set. You give the appearance of arguing for the sake of arguing. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People don't measure things in rocks or elephants. People do measure things in years. The SI unit of time is the second. The minute, the hour and the day are allowed as units of time in SI. The month and the year are not.
The proposal is that we should be required to use SI, even where other units are conventional and SI units are not. Even in contexts where no serious reliable source would ever consider using SI, Wikipedia would be the outlier.
For example, most of the world uses feet for aircraft altitude. Wikipedia would not. The foot is conventional but it is not SI.
For example, most of the world uses inches for digital display sizes. Wikipedia would not. The inch is conventional but it is not SI.
Practically every astronomer on the planet measures interstellar distances in light-years or parsecs. Wikipedia would not. The light-year and parsec are conventional but they are not SI.
And yes, everyone in the world measures long periods of time in years. Wikipedia would not. The year is conventional but it is not SI.
None of that is a misreading of SI. It's the natural consequence of this proposal. You don't like that? Change the proposal. Kahastok talk 21:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand the benefit of the proposed change. The Unit choice and order section currently seems generally sensible, if a little long-winded. In summary, I interpret it as saying we should use the units found in reliable sources. We then have some guidance on what we can expect those to be. The UK and US have idiosyncratic unit systems so get special mention (I think for this reason, not because of the nationality of editors) ,then for the rest of the world we expect to use SI units except where we find that the sources all say otherwise.
Define conventional units: Those which are used by reliable sources. I interpret this reliable-sources requirement as preventing the use of any unit of choice, or rocks, as the primary unit. But I think there needs to be some allowance for using non-SI units. It would be very strange to convert engine speeds from revolutions per minute to hertz, and, yes, adults' ages really must be given in years.
I interpret some comments above as suggesting that conventional units such as years are so obvious that we don't refer to this MOS when deciding to use them. But taking organ pipes as a less obvious example (because it's discussed at the top of this talk page, not because I know about the subject), it isn't hard to imagine someone diligently going around and changing the pitches on all organ pipes outside the UK and US to metric measures if that's what the guidance suggested.
Perhaps it would help to have some specific examples of problems caused by this clause (or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.)) that would be helped by deleting it? Thanks, Mgp28 (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mgp28; I don't have statistics, but if This leads many people to assume they can use any non SI unit as the primary unit, then those people need to reread it; In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.) (emphasis added) says nothing of the sort. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the guidelines as they are leads to edit warring. Editors can cherry pick their sources. Age is irrelevant here because it's dealt with in a prior part of the MOS under "Dates, months, and years". Scientific articles are all SI primary. Aircraft altitudes can be metres (feet). Living in a non metric country like the UK or USA gives people the impression the whole planet is likely using "their" units. Pilots worldwide (except Russia, China and Mongolia) might use feet for altitude but non pilots (passengers) probably know nothing of feet. This applies particularly in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and former British colonies which converted to metric in the 1960's, more than 50 years ago. I was in a dinner conversation with Brits and Australians. The Brits were astonished the Australians had no idea of their weight in stones, they used only kg. The same goes for height, anyone under about 45 years old in the above countries has no idea what feet and inches are, they have never used them. Avi8tor (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Astronomy a science?
How is the speed of a ship given outside of US and UK? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sailors will probably use knots; for lay people (i.e. the typical readers of our encyclopedia), on the other hand, kilometres per hour will be easier to understand. Like with aircraft, where chiefly professionals use feet, while our typical reader likely isn't a professional pilot. Gawaon (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just scanned Bowditch and charts made to INT (international) standards (according to the IMO) use heights/depths in metres and distances in nautical miles (though US charts are only being slowly converted). the latter is a slightly moot point though, since the latitude scale on either side of the chart is used to read off miles and cables. If you're using nautical miles, then it follows that you'll use knots. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what sailors (in the sense: "a person in the business of navigating ships or other vessels") do. I doubt lay people will often use these charts or be accustomed to thinking in the units they use. Gawaon (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we look at an article about a modern ship in a foreign-language Wikipedia, it ought to mention the speed somewhere. For instance, at Wikipédia en français, fr:Classe Clemenceau has an infobox saying "Vitesse 32 nœuds", i.e. 32 knots. Of note is that there is no metric equivalent. So if the ultra-metric French use knots, I don't see why we shouldn't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what about astronomers? Are we to believe that it's only professional astronomers use light years while laypeople use petametres and exametres? Are we to believe that it's only experts in Canadian football that use the yards painted on the pitch, while laypeople use metres? Are we to believe that it's only experts in the music industry that measure turntable speeds in rpm, and laypeople use hertz? Or similarly car experts with engine rotation speed?
Reality is, contexts exist where the conventional usage in reliable sources is not SI. The proposal is that, in those contexts, we should not follow the conventional usage, but should religiously follow SI, no matter how incomprehensible it makes our articles to readers. Opposing this really doesn't feel like it should be controversial. Kahastok talk 21:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that and would reply that units that are used by experts and lay people alike, and throughout the world, are fine (light years and rpm, say). On the other hand, take "hands for heights of horses". How many people in continental Europe, Asia or Africa will know how much a "hand" is? I bet it's a tiny minority. So in that case the metre would be without any doubt the more international choice (and English being as widespread as it is, we do write for an international audience, so no excuses). Gawaon (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven forfend that someone might accidentally learn something by reading a Wikipedia article!
If the conventional units are not the units that laypeople - in any English-speaking country - would use, then we should be providing conversions for them per MOS:CONVERSIONS.
But, while we write for an international audience, we are an English-language encyclopedia and in every aspect of the MOS it is conventions that are used in English-speaking countries that are preferred. We do not use decimal commas. Our definition of the billion and trillion are based on the convention in the English-speaking world, even though that is different from the convention elsewhere. We put Euro and dollar signs before the number with no space, even when discussing countries where they add a space or where the sign goes after the number. There is no reason why this should be an exception. Kahastok talk 12:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Err, being picky; we use the American definition of billion and trillion (109 and 1012 respectively). Traditionally English usage was 1212 and 1018, but of recent years even august publications like The Times seem to have crossed the pond. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "picky"; it's just anachronistic. We use the short scale because we live in the 21st century, and to the best of my knowledge it's a rapidly dwindling minority in the English-speaking world that's used the long scale much this side of roughly the 1970s. I suspect the vast majority of people of my generation would never have heard terms such as "milliard" and "billiard", much less recognising them as numbers, which in my own life is a usage I've not personally encountered outside French- and German-speaking Europe. Yes, the USA adopted the short scale before the rest of the Anglophone world, but calling it "the American definition" in the 2020s is a bit like calling the alphabet we're using now "those newfangled Carolingian letters" because they're not all uppercase Latin of the sort that might be chiselled on a Caesar's tomb, or even a more "indigenous" northern European writing system like Ogham or Futhark. Everything is indeed the way it is because it got that way, but for the purposes of a MOS that is usually irrelevant historical detail, I feel. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed the word "traditionally" and the phrase "of recent years" in your desperation to write off editors who started work in the 1970s. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI South Africa uses the decimal comma and a space for thousands. Avi8tor (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven forfend that someone might accidentally learn something by reading a Wikipedia article! – a devil's advocate might well point out that this very same logic applies to the people who pretend not to know what a metre is, and any number of units vastly less obscure than the imperial hand. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that people don't know what a metre is, more that they have no feel for it. If something is 25 metres high, that's 75' plus a bit more, say 80'. Now I have a feel for how high it is. Likewise I'm sure that you could convert a furlong (if you wanted to), you just have no feel for it. Providing courtesy conversions allows our readers to flow using the appropriate units instead of having to stop, think, and then continue. Remember WP:RF? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that other Wikipedia language articles have no need for a convert template whereas English does (because of the USA and the UK). The trouble is many articles have no convert template or don't follow the manual of style Talk:Fiat 509 and Fiat 509: Revision history (there are many more examples) or the 1814 London Beer Flood Read the "Backround" to the flood. No conversions only a footnote (a). The article talks about imperial gallons which did not exist until the 1824 Weights and Measures Acts (UK). There are quite a few people who interpret the MOS as allowing such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic, leading to different interpretations of the Style guide. So while there are many instances pointed out by Kahastok, it's the way the exceptions are listed. Obviously all RPM as per the abbreviation is Revolutions per Minute. It took about 500 years to convert Europe to Arabic numerals, it will probably take that long to convert the USA to SI even if it is presently the preferred unit of measurement for trade and commerce (https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/metric-si/metric-policy) and widely used in the USA. Temperature given to pilots at airports in the USA is in Celsius only, but wind speed is in mph despite pilot using knots. Avi8tor (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a US and UK issue. In addition to cases previously mentioned, there's also CGS (In many fields of science and engineering, SI is the only system of units in use, but there remain certain subfields where CGS is prevalent.), although I certainly hope that SI eventually replaces it completely. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the SI brochure 9th edition from the BIPM website, we see the following:’Table 8. Non-SI units accepted for use with the SI units' [1] page 145. This includes:
Time, minute, hour and day.
Length, astronomical unit
Plane and phase angle, degree, minute, second.
Area, hectare.
Volume, litre.
Mass, Tonne & Dalton.
Energy, electronvolt.
Logarithmic and ratio quantities.
I propose we amend the MOS:Units of Measure, Unit Choice and order: To the following text only:
"In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, or non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI".
This might mean RPM would be presented as Hz but would be followed by RPM or we add an exemption for RPM. Do we need other exceptions? Avi8tor (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to mention which revision to use, and even then it is not straightforward. For instance the 8th edition accepts the nautical mile as "a practical unit for marine and aerial navigation to express distance".page 127 The 9th edition does not. Likewise the 9th edition bans the use of decimal prefixes for binary values: "The SI prefixes refer strictly to powers of 10. They should not be used to indicate powers of 2"page 143 whereas Wikipedia bans the use of binary prefixes and prefers to interpret decimal prefixes as binary when required.MOS:COMPUNITS Squaring the circle might be easier than coming up with a solution acceptable to all. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This (from Avi8tor) was the same proposal as was made at the beginning of the thread, just worded differently. All the conventional non-SI units discussed above, that are barred by the proposal above, would also be barred by this proposal. All the objections made to the initial proposal also apply to this one. Kahastok talk 12:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why everyone interested has been having the above discussion. I'm not suggesting we ban any units, they can go after the SI unit, presently used by every country including the UK and the USA. The UK and USA can have whatever unit they want as the primary unit per the MOS. The SI is continually updated and the latest edition is the 9th. Note that the BIPM, which decided this stuff has representatives from the USA, the UK and 57 other member states. There is no reason to have the present poorly worded exception which allows editors to state "well my unit should be primary because it's mentioned in this or that magazine". If you look at https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm (I don't think there is a more up to date breakdown) you can see that 49.3% of Wikipedia readers are from the UK and USA, meaning that the majority (50.7%) of readers live elsewhere. Avi8tor (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole US and UK thing is a straw man. In fact the whole point of this exception - as much discussed above - is to cover cases where non-SI units are conventional outside the UK and US. Many of the examples of conventional units given above are not imperial or US units, so using them does not put American or British readers at an advantage. And that's even if we accept - and I don't - that Canadian readers of Canadian football articles are put at a disadvantage by prioritising the measurements drawn on the field rather than their SI equivalents. Kahastok talk 19:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring a lot of discussions above (which I have been following) I think the units used in the source should take priority. The Convert template can handle conversions more reliably that editors. The Convert template has options for ordering the output in any order you desire, but the input should be what appears in the source. - Donald Albury 17:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Different sources covering the same subject use different units. That way lies chaos. The units in any one article should be the ones specified in the MOS. The connection with sources is that the MOS typically specifies units used by a majority of reliability sources. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have quite a lot experience of this because that argument was a way some editors gamed the system in the past. You end up either with articles with units that are inconsistent from sentence to sentence, or with articles where the sources are chosen for the units they use rather than the other way round. Kahastok talk 19:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Manual of Style state SI shall be the primary unit when some editors put more credence on the verbiage that follows? They pick a source and now that's the primary unit. I read the last part of the sentence as being able to use strange units after the primary unit, like hands and cubits, etc. Wikipedia does not exists for the benefit of individual editors, it's here for the public worldwide. The MOS needs to be definitive, not this or that if I so choose. Avi8tor (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be a list of units, other than SI units and those acceptable for use with the SI, that may be used as the primary unit. I would include

  • the week, month, year, and decimal multiples of the year;
  • the RPM, since the minute is acceptable with the SI;
  • the light year and parsec, which are used internationally by astronomers;
  • the Sun's mass and Jupiter's mass, since stars' masses are known more precisely in these than in yottagrams;
  • the square degree (about 304.6 µsr), which is used in astronomy for solid angles of sky.

I would exclude the calorie and the horsepower, since they have conflicting definitions. I don't follow sports, so I'd rather see heights of horses and football fields measured in metric, whatever the source unit is. The metric equivalent should be given, though in the case of stars' masses, it has to be limited to the precision of the gravitational constant. phma (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to MOS:SEASON[edit]

@Premeditated Chaos, Gog the Mild, Mike Christie, SchroCat, and FrB.TG: I've made several changes to MOS:SEASON following our discussion on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oyster dress/archive1. Hopefully the revised guideline is clearer, but please do feel free to edit further. Also thanks to @Gawaon for helping clean up the text. Edge3 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guidance for magazine issues could be clearer. For example, this is the Summer 2012 issue of Startling Stories; it would go against usage in reliable sources not to capitalize that. Can we restore the Quarterly Review example? On the other hand, if you're simply talking about an issue that came out in the (northern hemisphere) summer of 2012, there's no reason to say "summer 2015 issue" as you now have it; it would usually be better to say "mid-2015" instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Quarterly Review because it hasn't been published since 1967, so "Summer 2015" is factually incorrect. I suppose you could change it to a historically correct example, such as "Summer 1966". But going to the crux of our issue, Amazon really isn't a reliable source because the product description page was written by the publisher of Startling Stories, so it's not independent. MOS:CAPS looks at usage in "independent, reliable sources" (emphasis added). Edge3 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this archived discussion for numerous examples from reliable sources, and in particular see NebY's comment at the end. The few counter-examples given look to me like cases where the writer was not referring to an issue titled that way, so I'm not even sure all of them are counter-examples. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh interesting! I didn't realize you had previously brought up this issue in 2022. Thanks for sharing it now.
I think we're always going to find cases where one publication uses capital letters, and others use lower case. For example, Stanford Social Innovation Review refers to its own "summer 2015 issue" (lower case) in running text, even when the issue is titled "Summer 2015". Edge3 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are certainly exceptions, but there was a strong preponderance of evidence in those examples -- unanimity for genre examples, and majority for others. Given that the previous discussion was closed with a consensus to retain the capital letters for magazine seasonal issues, would you mind reverting that part of your changes while this discussion continues? I think, given the previous discussion, we'd need to demonstrate a new consensus before we could make the change you've made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to, but my concern about the historical inaccuracy of "Quarterly Review, Summer 2015" still applies. Do you have a specific example that you like better than that? Edge3 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about one of the first two given in that earlier discussion? Either "Spring 1942, Tales of Wonder" or "Science Fiction Quarterly, Summer 1942" depending on whether you prefer an example with the date before the title or vice versa. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly these examples seem to be treated as titles, meaning that the usual rules of title case are applied, and so every major word is capitalized. No surprise here. Only the "summer 2015 issue" example mentioned by Edge3 is not title-cased, hence no capital letters. It would be odd to talk about "the Summer 2015 Issue of Whatever Magazine" or "the Summer 2015 issue of Whatever Magazine". No, this is running text and so lowercase letters are called for: "the summer 2015 issue of Whatever Magazine". But when the issue date is mentioned as part of the title, title case is fine: "Whatever Magazine, Summer 2015". Gawaon (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Perhaps two examples, so that those cases can be distinguished? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the examples per both of your comments. Feel free to revise further. Edge3 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking back at the list of examples from the 2022 discussion, it seems many of the running text examples also use upper case, so I'm not sure I fully agree with that part. My main concern was that we keep an example using title case as that's helpful when (as has happened to me) someone contests that. Personally I think it would be OK to have "the Fall 1943 issue of Thrilling Wonder Stories" which is certainly supported by reliable sources, and if you truly mean "the issue that came out that summer" that in itself is a violation of SEASON and should be rephrased. But let's wait and see what others think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

idea to help prevent disruptive invocation of WP:ERA[edit]

As written, it is quite easy for editors to misuse this policy to disrupt an article in which they have no interest beyond the imposition of their preferred era style. I see that this policy has been debated ad nauseam in the past, and that this problem might not be as easy to fix as I had initially assumed. Nevertheless, I have a proposal. The sentence at issue is the following:

An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed.

The problem, as I see it, is that it is entirely unclear what constitutes reasons specific to its content. None of the previous proposals for clarification seemed to go anywhere in past discussions, which I am sure no one wants to revisit. But what if, instead of seeking a positive characterization, we modified the language to instead include a negative prohibition. I have in mind something along the lines of the following:

Reasons that contradict the earlier policy language stating that The default calendar eras are Anno Domini (BC and AD) and Common Era (BCE and CE). Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context. are to be disregarded in article talk space discussion. It is a violation of WP:SPURIOUSPROTECT to invoke a policy only to litigate against that very policy. Consensus as to what constitutes relevant article context must be established with reasons specific to the subject matter of the article itself.

My hope is that this, or something like it, would reduce the number of disruptive interventions by editors not actually there to improve the article under discussion. It would, at minimum, make it much more difficult for editors (whether involved in the development of the article or not) to effectively shut down discussion with a wall of irrelevant considerations likely recycled from previous such debates.

Thoughts, suggestions, criticisms all most welcome! My goal here is just to limit disruptive editing. (The best solution, of course, would be for the MOS to just pick one or the other of these interchangeable styles. But apparently we can't have nice things.)

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have examples of this disruptive editing you speak of, by editors who have actually read the guideline? --Trovatore (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Trovatore,
Yes I do, and I notified them on their talk page, detailing my objections to their editing practice, and offering a chance to provide a more sympathetic account. This was more than two weeks ago, however, and they have not responded or made any other edits since. Anyone who wants can find this through my edit history, but I would prefer to keep this discussion at the policy level. If it goes nowhere, I will consider ANI (it's not their first offense), but I'd much rather just amend the language here to help prevent it from happening again by clarifying the language of the policy. Pursuing sanctions on a case by case basis just eats up more of everyone's time.
To the second part of your question: yes, and this is the problem. I changed BC to BCE throughout an article (two, actually). I thought this was just a copy edit, and I explicitly described what I was doing in my edit description. According to WP:ERA, however, anyone can come in at any time in the future and change it back – with no content-specific justification – unless there was first a talk page consensus established under the heading "era". Since hardly anyone is familiar with the policy, this empowers drive-by editors to selectively revert per WP:ERA and then throw up roadblocks to any actual effort to engage in a collaborative discussion.
In the archived discussion to which I link above, no consensus was reached with respect to limiting this policy-protected right to revert (not with respect to article-involvement, stability, or time-frame). The intention of my suggestion here is to instead insist that any discussion subsequent to such a revert be kept narrowly focused on the actual article and its context, per the policy as currently written. Anyone who doesn't care enough to engage on these terms could then be easily reverted by anyone who cares enough to provide a context-specific justification for changing it back on the talk page—subject, of course, to the normal policy on consensus.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change from BC to BCE in the first place? Gawaon (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per current policy, that's a discussion to be conducted on that article's talk page in terms specific to its subject matter and the relevant context. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to avoid disruptive editing on ERA is not to change the era style without getting the change agreed on the Talk page first. And in fact, where there is a consistent era style in the article, a lot of effort can be saved by leaving the existing era style in place. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Sweet6970,
I am not proposing that we remove the requirement of prior discussion, which would be a policy change. The issue I raise concerns the current policy-restricted scope of the required talk page discussion.
Per the explicit assumptions of this policy, there are two acceptable styles, and at least sometimes there are good reasons to make a change in one direction or the other. (It was an option to simply forbid such changes; this did not achieve consensus.)
It is also a fact that editors, whether aware of this policy or not, believe they have such good reasons.
My point is that, any argument that, if sound, would apply just as much to all articles as to the article in question is, for this reason, in contradiction with this very same policy, which states that there are actually two at least more-or-less equally acceptable practices.
Therefore any such argument should be disregarded in that context. Because, again, any universal argument to adopt one style over the other is an argument that violates this same policy's stipulation that talk page discussion be conducted in terms specific to the content of the article.
If anyone does have such an argument in favor of either style, I suppose I should add, I would be happy to see it prevail so that the MOS could be revised to simply stipulate which to use. Until then, however – and since, apparently, the normal bold policy and consensus procedure are insufficient for this weirdly charged issue – we must work with what we have. And that is what I take myself to be doing.
My proposed rewording of the current policy, if I understand it correctly, only makes explicit what is already included, but which is less than immediately apparent as currently articulated.
If there is a flaw in my reasoning – or if there is some other justification for not drawing attention to this implication of the policy – could someone please explain?
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PatrickJWelsh I think you have rather fundamentally misunderstood WP:ERA. For there to be an "established style", there does not have to have been "a previous discussion under the heading 'era'". If all occurrences (or the overwhelming majority) were BC before you changed it, then that was the established style, and your edit violated WP:ERA. --Trovatore (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I fear as well. It sounds like the needlessly disruptive type of edit which WP:ERA is meant to avoid. Gawaon (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for fear! I most definitely violated ERA with my edits. This policy is a very specific exception to the usual WP:BRD, of which I was not aware. Once made aware, however, I attempted to engage in the requisite discussion.
For a variety of reasons, I do think that this is a bad policy we would all be better off without. All of my remarks, however, accept it as given. The amended wording that I propose would not change that I violated the policy. It would only, if it works I suppose, have kept the talk page discussion focused on what was best for the article in question.
My intention is only to make it more burdensome to invoke this policy in order to pursue what is, apparently, for some people a culture war issue, but which interferes with making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.
I assume this weird exception to standard practices was implemented in order to prevent folks overly passionate about era styles from causing pointless disruption. It's specificity, however – not just talk page discussion, by talk page discussion under a specific heading! – makes it ripe for abuse. So, in the spirit of the policy itself, let's do our best to minimize that on the terms of the policy itself.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see any reason to change the current wording. It says that the era style should not be changed without discussion, and that the reasons used in the discussion should be specific to the article. You say The problem, as I see it, is that it is entirely unclear what constitutes reasons specific to its content. Well, being realistic, there probably are very few such reasons. This means that once a style is established, it is likely to stay. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing against the policy itself. No?
It is stipulated that there are some. This is a discussion about the proper procedure in the event of a disagreement. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No reasons are ‘stipulated’. And no, I am not arguing against the policy, as such. I am just pointing out the way it works out in practice. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No specific reasons are stipulated as decisive in either direction (which is part of why it is a poor policy). It does however stipulate that there in some cases some such reasons. Otherwise the policy would instead state that once established, era style should never be changed. Which it does not. If you think it should, by all means advance such a proposal. It's less good of a solution than deciding on one style to be preferred by default, but it would address my concern about disruptive edits. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse most of the comments above that are not by Patrick J. Welsh. I'd just add that the level of invalid changes of era, and spats over them, seems a good deal lower than a few years ago, and that most people starting them are pretty clearly unaware of WP:ERA. Many think, or claim to think, that BCE/CE are the preferred or mandated style. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support removing the "by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed". I think a talk page discussion with the heading "BC vs. BCE" with a lengthy opening comment would be just fine, if it led to consensus to change the established style. I would not support adding additional language about which arguments are acceptable in such discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Firefangledfeathers,
    I am concerned that requiring that a discussion take place under any specific header makes this policy subject to abuse by those passionate about era styles for reasons unrelated to any specific article. Is there any reason not simply to require prior talk page discussion?
    I'm also inclined to think that the policy should not specify whether the initial justification be brief or lengthy. This is subjective, and I would expect it to be ignored with impunity. For that reason, however, I don't think it particularly matters.
    Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I only brought up "BC vs. BCE" as an example of a perfectly adequate heading that would be inappropriate under the current rule. Again, my preferred outcome here is removing "by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I misunderstood! That does not go as far as I would like, but I do believe it would be an improvement.
    I will add that my ideal outcome, whatever the best means to achieve it, would be to redirect editors with a strongly held universal preference away from individual articles to instead hash things out at the Village Pump.
    If policy allowed, I would strongly support reopening a RfC on revising the MOS in either direction with the further stipulation that, should there be no consensus, it be decided by the coin toss of an uninvolved admin.
    The two styles are interchangeable. It's frankly embarrassing that we can't just pick one so that we can all get on with making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That won't happen, and for the same reason that we don't postulate that all of Wikipedia be written in American (or British, or whatever) English. Gawaon (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no intrinsic difficulty preventing the MOS from taking a stance. Doing so is a large part of the point of having such a thing at all. What I'm proposing, however, is a clarification of what is already there. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us have participated in several discussions on this subject, and we know from experience that they are a waste of our virtual breath. The question is not going to be resolved in the foreseeable future. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry? In any case, please don't feel obliged to waste any further breath. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not the first person to think that there should be a project wide standard for this, but developing a community-wide consensus has not happened. What is currently in the MOS is a compromise, and until something shifts it is going to be around for a while. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @MrOllie,
    Yes, I understand and accept that, however unfortunate.
    As best I understand it, however, the language of this compromise policy already excludes from article-specific discussion such general reasons such as "this is standard", "this is traditional", or "this is more neutral".
    If my understanding is correct, then making this explicit in the wording of the policy might help prevent talk page discussions from devolving into an irrelevant culture war debate.
    Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the best approach to pursue here is simply not to start any talk page discussions on the subject. If the current era style used in an article is inconsistent, you are free to clean it up anyway. But if there is a clear dominance of one or the other style detectable, just clean up whatever inconsistencies remain. That's the best usage of everybody's time. Gawaon (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're almost certainly right that it is a waste of time to argue about anything so trivial. The current policy, however, says that that is what you must do if you think a change should be made. Which some people do.
    If you want to propose a policy change to "always retain established style per first use of either convention", I would reluctantly support that as at least better than what we currently have. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just act is if that already is the rule (I think it essentially is, for most practical purposes), and you won't go wrong. Gawaon (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could get on board with adding something like "or another expressive heading" after "using the word era". I decidedly don't think that the requirement for a preceding talk page discussion should be dropped. Gawaon (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PatrickJWelsh: The first post in this thread fails to state when the language being complained about was first put into the policy. Obviously the language does not apply to any consensus reached on any talk page before the language first appeared in the guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Johnbod,
    Yes, thanks, I hadn't thought about that, but it makes sense (no ex post facto). I would support adding the qualifier "before [date]" to the language in order to prevent particularly egregious abuse of the policy.
    Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked up the bit that it looks like you two are talking about; it says [...]by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era[...]. I don't think that was ever meant to be a legalistic requirement; it's just a helpful hint to open a discussion that other discussants can easily understand and join. If we're talking about it as something that has to be grandfathered to take into account earlier discussions, then it's just being misinterpreted and we should remove it. The intent is just, if you want to change the era style away from an established one, you need consensus first. --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick J. Welsh changed BC to BCE on the Aristotle article, Crumpled Fire reverted, Patrick J. Welsh changed BC to BCE again, Crumpled Fire reverted again, and it was discussed .on the talk page with participants Patrick J Welsh, Andrew Lancaster, Crumpled_Fire, Peter Gulutzan (i.e. me), 86.6.148.125. Patrick J. Welsh also posted what looks like a warning on Crumpled Fire's talk page. I continue to support the reversion, and will support any other reasonable actions that might persuade Patrick J. Welsh to stop, or at the least to ping all participants when moving to a new forum. By the way, WP:ERA is not a policy but a guideline, as is WP:TALKHEADPOV. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Peter Gulutzan,
I quote myself from the talk page discussion:

Thanks for weighing in! The emerging consensus does seem to be "what is wrong with you people and why are you arguing about this?"...Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 5:26 pm, 18 February 2024, Sunday (1 month, 6 days ago) (UTC−6)

And then I dropped the matter and left it BC/AD.
I am not here to change the style of the Aristotle article back to what I consider a very slightly preferable convention. The policy is correct in stating that both conventions are fine.
What I am attempting to do is to raise the barrier to entry for people who do not care about the article in question, but are just gunning for a fight.
Please do share here any considerations you might have in response to the concerns I raise above. If your problem, however, is with my individual editorial conduct, it would probably be more appropriate to raise that on my talk page.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need to raise barriers to entry. People care about articles for different reasons, it isn't up to us to question people's motivations. MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. Masterhatch (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MrOllie,
I should not have expressed myself that way. In both this discussion and in the Aristotle discussion I have made a conscious effort to avoid imputing bad faith motives to individual participants, and doing so in this more general way did no one any favors. I apologize to all concerned.
With respect to "barriers to entry" I should clarify that the only barrier I am proposing is that participants in a discussion about changing era style provide reasons more specific to the article in question than those general reasons that have been proposed and that have failed to achieve consensus in a more general forum. For what less than this could reasons specific to its content be construed to mean?
That said, however, I am satisfied that I have had my say, and I acknowledge that I appear to persuaded precisely no one that this is, in fact, a little bit of a problem that we could easily do a little bit to fix. So, unless someone speaks up in support of this or a related proposal, I will drop the matter. (On pain of rank hypocrisy!)
I am glad that this discussion appears to have at least resulted in a consensus to clarify that the talk page header does not literally need to be "era". If no one else makes the change, I'll swing back around and implement the language suggested by Gawaon and link to this thread in the edit description.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current text does not say that the header must be merely "era". "Change era style from BC to BCE" and other headers using the word era would also be compliant. NebY (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]