Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

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

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).

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)

@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)

@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)

• 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)

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)

Is Westminster Abbey also here reliable enough? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Oh fine, I'll do OR for my own curiosity and not mention it here. :P LittlePuppers (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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′) (and here). I'll have a look for other RS. — Jon (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Jon (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Beland, thoughts on this? LittlePuppers (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

Separate section for off-color musical jokes

• 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) Perhaps he just liked the pitter-patter of (tiny) feet. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Added MOS:BINPREFIX

I need the MOS:BINPREFIX shortcut in order to simplify a future argument about MOS:COMPUNITS.

So I added the shortcut.

I also added a new redirect-page MOS:BINPREFIX.

The redirect-page informed me that it takes a few weeks for it to be approved. Until the approval completes, the new shortcut MOS:BINPREFIX will not work. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've created the redirect for you. Just start your discussion about the topic as a new section. Nthep (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. MOS:BINPREFIX now works. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The action were suggested and approved in Teahouse, by user User:Writ Keeper, under:

Questions on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES and questions about complaints about archive of complaints Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

What is "WWF:"? That's not a shortcut pattern we use. Anyway, the threads pertaining to this seem to be:

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1212#Complaint on WWF:BINARY PREFIXES and complaints about complaints about archive of complaints
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1212#Questions on WWF:BINARY_PREFIXES and questions about complaints about archive of complaints

This of course goes back to perennial arguments about "mibibytes" and so on, like:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive B17 (2010)

back to:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive B1 starting in 2007.

Some intermittent post-2010 dicussion of the issue not archived in this "B" page series. E.g.:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 94#Omegatron's recent changes to the main page involving binary prefixes (2008)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 133#RFC on the use of IEC prefixes to describe binary quantities (2011)
  • Discussion referred to there has been archived as Talk:Hard disk drive/Archive 7#IEC prefixes and WP:MOSNUM (2011)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 140#IEC vs ISO binary prefixes (2013)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 141#Problematic binary prefix paragraph (2013)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 143#Problematic binary prefix paragraph (2013)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 146#Binary prefixes February 2014
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 153#Binary prefixes (new thread moved here from previous discussion) (2015)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 153#Binary prefixes again (2015)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 160#Binary prefixes (2020)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 161#RFC: Column name/position/content for binary computing units (2022)
  • Discussion referred to there is still unarchived at: Template talk:Quantities of bits#RFC: Column name/position/content for binary computing units (2022)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 161#More eyes needed at Binary prefix (2022)

Probably a bunch I missed, plus endless debate in the archives of Talk:Binary prefix, and something semi-recently at Template talk:Quantities of bits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I'll try to read as much as I can, as I find the discussion amusing.

IMO, my argument about MOS:BINPREFIX is a valid argument, but the discussion below was closed (unfairly, IMO). I also made a concrete proposal, in the same post, so the green summary is incorrect, IMO. I'm ready to continue the discussion, if the other side is willing. Z80Spectrum (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion is:

Some kind of summary needs to be written, which includes the best arguments from both sides. The way the MOS:BINPREFIX arguments are presented makes me immediately suspicious of intentional manipulation and misuse of power. The way that | my suggestion below has been handled makes it even worse, and I might consider reporting the involved parties to WP:ANI. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Poring over the material, and producing a neutral summary might be helpful, and might point the way to some kind of proposal that would not be ignored immediately as tiresome rehash. However, beware going in directions like "makes me immediately suspicious of intentional manipulation and misuse of power"; this is a WP:CTOP area (whether we think internal rule-making discussions should be or not), and WP:ASPERSIONS, especially bad-faith-assumptive ones, are strongly contra-indicated. PS: vaguely threatening people with ANIing is in no way going to "win friends and influence people", just make them treat you like an axe-grinder/PoV-pusher/battlegrounder and make them dig in their heels. Any time you're actually certain something rises to ANI level, just go open an ANI discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not certain about anything, because I'm new here. I just highly disliked the way my suggestion was treated here.

I was thinking of producing a more detailed proposal, but I can't do it alone because I don't have enough experience. As for arguments in previous debates about MOS:BINPREFIX, I find them completely missing the point. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Ordinals

Our text on ordinals leads off with For guidance on choosing between e.g. 15th and fifteenth, see § Numbers as figures or words, referring and linking back to the section immediately above. But the section above doesn’t contain any pertinent guidance that I can see? Other than the general statement about single-digit numbers that is already in the ordinals section itself. MapReader (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

MapReader, I think all of the guidance of the preceding section is meant to apply to ordinals. For example, it's saying we should avoid starting a sentence with an ordinal expressed as a figure (e.g. don't use "15th place went to Aida."). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t say that, at all. It specifically refers to choosing between number and written format, about which that section says nothing new or relevant. I suggest the cross reference can be deleted? MapReader (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Your use of pronouns is throwing me off a bit. Are you saying that §Numbers as figures or words doesn't advise against starting a sentence with a figure? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Why raise something not in my original post? The issue with the article is that it says For guidance on choosing between e.g. 15th and fifteenth… and then cross-refers to a section that doesn’t provide any additional guidance to what is already stated below. MapReader (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying my best to respond to something raised in your original post. I think you are saying that §Numbers as figures or words does not contain any guidance that would be pertinent to deciding whether to represent ordinals using figures or words. I'm expressing that I see all of the guidance of §Numbers as figures or words as pertinent. Of the bulleted guidance in that subsection:

1. The first, about one-digit numbers, is duplicated in §Ordinals; you already noted this
2. The second, about numbers expressible in one or two words, is relevant to ordinal numbers (e.g. don't use "five hundred and second best runner"); I had not previously brought that up
3. The third, about avoiding beginning sentence with figures, is also relevant to ordinal numbers; I tried above to show this using the "15th place" example

I could go on to the remaining bulleted items, but I'm sensing there's some disconnect here, and I can't place it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You’re really just muddying the water, and so rendering this talk item ineffective. Which is sad. If there aren’t any better focused comments from other editors, I will just edit the main page and wait for any reaction. MapReader (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't. With your support of a change to the guideline and my opposition, we're short of the consensus need to ensure that the change is "faithfully reflecting the community's view", as required by WP:PGCHANGE. I am sorry that my answers have muddied instead of clarified the waters, and I hope someone new can either explain your points to me or mine to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This is also how I interpreted it: When deciding whether to write an ordinal in words or figures, look up the cardinal equivalent in the section above and apply that to the ordinal. I think this is also supported by the proper names and technical terms paragraph which doesn't differentiate between cardinal and ordinal examples. —-Mgp28 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Following this ambiguity, would there be any appetite for changing the first bullet point under 'Ordinals' to something like

* The decision whether to write an ordinal using figures or words, e.g. 15th or fifteenth, should follow the same principles as § Numbers as figures or words. Generally, for single-digit ordinals write first through ninth, not 1st through 9th.

Mgp28 (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Firefangledfeathers and Mgp28 seem to be parsing the material as-intended, while MapReader was not, and might not be alone in that, so just clarifying the cross-reference in this manner should resolve the issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made the change.

I'm not sure if MapReader had seen the suggestion. Please let me know if you don't think this sorts the issue. Thanks Mgp28 (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please can someone say what the “principle” we are supposed to be following, in deciding between “fifteenth”, or “15th”, actually is? Or are? For example, I want to edit into an article, ”Mr X was a prolific author and this was his fifteenth/15th book” - explain to me how I use the cross-referred section to make my decision? MapReader (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless there's more to the context, either form would be fine in that example. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

So, as I said, pointing to the section above for guidance on the "decision" was not helpful, since there is no such guidance there. Hopefully this is now resolved with the tweaked wording? MapReader (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the relevant bit of guidance is Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words.

Regarding the separation of the words and figures and ordinals sections, I think the general layout is meant to be that words and figures is a general section that applies to ordinals as much as it does to cardinals. The ordinals section is then primarily about suffixes and dates.

I think the hyperlink to the previous section is fine because people don't necessarily read the manual of style in order. If they arrived via the MOS:ORDINAL link, they may not know that the words and figures guidance is just above.

I'm content with the current text but might also suggest losing "same" and "also": The general principles set out in § Numbers as figures or words apply to ordinals. Mgp28 (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

A sensible Copyedit. Making things shorter is often good, esp in the MoS! MapReader (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Either form would be fine in that example" (of 15th or fifteenth) is not correct, though (for most situations, anyway); MoS means to use 15th because we use 15 not fifteen (under most circumstances). How is there still any confusion about this?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I have boldly had a go at some clearer wording, in the article. It removes the example, which was not helpful. Even my shorter wording includes both the cross-reference and the shared principles; if the only other pertinent principle is “don’t mix and match formats” it might be more straightforward simply to restate that principle for ordinals, and delete the cross-reference altogether. Referring to the paragraph immediately prior with a section link isn’t great practice, since it implies sloppy drafting. Alternatively, if the same set of principles apply to both cardinal and ordinal numbers, why do we need separate sections for these in the first place? MapReader (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be better to merge them, if it makes the confusion go away and produces shorter wording with less crossreferencing. All three results appear likely. Simply saying "cardinal or ordinal numbers" and including examples of both should be sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Prefer words over figures in comparable numbers?

I reverted a recent change by MapReader and wanted to expand on my reasons. For ease of reference, the change in question added the following* at the end of the rule about comparable values needing to be styled the same:

Where all the numbers can be spelled straighforwardly, prefer this (for example nine and twelve, four and one hundred, or eight and fifty-one) but use figures where spelling would be cumbersome (3 and 157, or 9 and 1,032).

Among my objections:

1. The general rule is that words and figures are both fine, except when clarity, concision, convention, or some other important consideration demands otherwise. I don't see such a reason here.
2. "spelled straightforwardly" and "cumbersome" are unclear. The examples suggest the existing "one or two words" rule applies.
3. The guidance clashes with the example given earlier ("ages were 5, 7, and 32") and the sub-item about mixed units, where both figures and words are presented as appropriate.

If there are good reasons for the change, I could get behind it, and many of the other issues are fixable. Looking forward to hearing more. *The effect of intervening edits by Dondervogel 2 and MapReader is the removal of the "eight and fifty-one" example, but it doesn't factor into my objections either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The challenge to the current draft is that the general rule isn't as you state. The general rule is that single digit numbers are spelled out, and that otherwise there is editor choice (the criterion/a nowhere specified - another weakness) except that there should be consistency within proximate related values. Logically this ought to mean that a formulation like "nine and twelve" is always spelled out, to meet both rules. But we have an example, as currently drafted, sitting as an exception (I have tried to tweak this previously to deal with the contradiction, but this too was reverted).

In my view our examples should exemplify what has already been described - not introduce a new guideline that is nowhere explictly stated (and our title "notes and exceptions" is both lame and unhelpful). My edit just reverted was an attempt to be explicit about the criteria to bear in mind when making the choice between figures and spelling, and is - I suggest - what editors already do in practice.

I recognise your (2) that it's imprecise, but I considered that trying to be precise and specific would be equally problematic (and just as likely to be reverted as my making up a new 'rule' on the hoof). In real editing it is unclear, because it depends considerably on context, and ISTM that a loose guideline as to whether to use figures or spelling would be better than no guidance at all.

The TLDR is that our guidance states boldly "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words" and then goes on to give an example/exception of correct usage "ages were 5, 7, and 32", which is neither an example nor an explained exception. MapReader (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I would probably be inclined to follow the additional advice MapReader added, including the "eight and fifty-one" example. As stated, if all earlier guidance can be followed simultaneously, that feels optimal.

However, I'm not certain we need to add it as a rule. I don't feel that "5, 7, and 32" is necessarily wrong. Sometimes (outside Wikipedia) I see numbers that have been written to obey a rule that end up feeling quite unnatural, so I'm inclined to prefer that we don't have more rules than are needed. If we do adopt this into the MOS then it may as well be clear, so I agree that "in one or two words" feels more consistent than "spelled straightforwardly". Mgp28 (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

PS To write "three and one hundred and fifty seven" would feel wrong, so the "3 and 157" example also seems wise. Mgp28 (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

As above, I don’t think we need (nor would it be easy to produce) a hard and fast rule to decide every case. The broad thrust of the guidance we want is that spelling out is preferred for short numbers, because figures tend to interrupt the readers’ flow, whereas longer numbers should be in digits to avoid long strings of spelled out numbers when we can just say ‘1,032’. The ‘disagreement’ above over ‘fifty-one’ illustrates that people will have different views as to what is cumbersome and what is not. The example “5, 7 and 32” is unhelpful because, with the current wording, the contradiction with the general rule, ‘spell out single digit numbers’ isn’t justified or explained. MapReader (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with "not certain we need to add it as a rule. I don't feel that '5, 7, and 32' is necessarily wrong". For giving people's ages, that would actually be entirely normal, and less cumbersome both for editor and for reader than the written-out form. This sort of thing should be left to editorial discretion. "the contradiction with the general rule ... isn’t justified or explained": then just explain it, e.g. "when short and long numbers are juxtaposed, normalize them to the same style. Prefer numerals over words when the result would be awkward." PS: "one hundred and fifty seven" wouldn't comply with our style guide anyway, and many editors not even knowing that it should be "one hundred fifty-seven" or "one hundred and fifty-seven" by MoS (with the dispute about the excrescent "and" never resolved that I know of) is a good reason to not force them to write out such constructions just to agree with an initial default of doing "five" and "seven".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that we really prefer numbers to be written in digits, but we allow them to be spelled out in some contexts. We just aren't quite clear on how to write out what those contexts are. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Revising MOS:DATED

At the "Statements likely to become outdated" section, the material there appears to have been written only with a concern about facts that might change at any time and claims about which can be pinned to more specific dates. It completely misses the common use of "now", "today", "modern", etc., as clear and obvious shorthand for a construction like "in the modern era". Some examples:

• At Borlengo: Originally a food eaten by the poor and made only with flour and water, it now also usually includes salt and optionally eggs
• At History of the kilt: Widespread use of this type of kilt continued into the 19th century, and some still wear it today ... as highly formal attire; and: the garment people would recognize as a kilt today was invented in the 1720s; and: the earliest documented example with sewn-in pleats, a distinctive feature of the kilt worn today.

This sort of usage is in no way "broken", and replacing it would require longer and less clear verbiage for no benefit to the reader.

The same section also makes the claim that Terms likely to go out of date include best known for, holds the record for, etc.. The latter is often correct (not in every case, e.g. for records in dead sports like 18.2 balkline billiards, or records that aren't of that sort, such as longest river in the world), but the former usually is not except in biographies of still-active living people, and "best known for" is one of the most common phrases in our biographical leads, so red-flagging it as something that must be avoided is clearly wrong.

I propose a revision along these lines:

Statements likely to become outdated

[shortcuts and hatnotes]

Generally, there is no "present" in a work of reference. Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly (e.g. the "Current events" portal), terms such as now, today, currently, present, to date, so far, soon, upcoming, ongoing, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 2010s, since 2010, and in August 2020. Wording can usually be modified to remove the "now" perspective: not she is the current director but she became director on 1 January 2024; not 2010–present but beginning in 2010 or since 2010.

Phrases often used in lead sections that may go out of date include best known for in biographies of living people, holds the record for when the record could be broken later, etc.^{[footnote elided]} For current and future events, use phrases like as of December 2024 or since the beginning of 2024 to signal the time-dependence of the information; use the template {{as of}} or {{updated}} in conjunction. This is not necessary for information unlikely to change any time soon, such as the best-known work of a retired actor, or the location of a company's headquarters.

Relative-time expressions are acceptable for long periods. Terms like now, today, modern, and present-day can be used appropriately and concisely to distinguish the modern era from earlier history, if the modern conception of the subject is unlikely to change within coming decades. E.g.: Modern cuisines worldwide have integrated chili peppers, originally native only to the Americas.; and: The Inca empire stretched across parts of present-day Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, and Colombia.; and: Humans diverged from other primates long ago, but only recently developed state legislatures.

Or use some other examples. We could actually lose the entire Samuel Butler joke anyway, since it's not really illustrative of encyclopedic writing.

The original version for comparison:

Statements likely to become outdated [shortcuts and hatnotes] There is no "present" in a work of reference. Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly (e.g. the "Current events" portal), terms such as now, today, currently, present, to date, so far, soon, upcoming, ongoing, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 2010s, since 2010, and in August 2020. Wording can usually be modified to remove the "now" perspective: not she is the current director but she became director on 1 January 2024; not 2010–present but beginning in 2010 or since 2010. Terms likely to go out of date include best known for, holds the record for, etc.[footnote elided] For current and future events, use phrases such as as of December 2024 or since the beginning of 2024 to signal the time-dependence of the information; use the template {{as of}} (or {{updated}}) in conjunction. Relative-time expressions are acceptable for very long periods, such as geological epochs: Humans diverged from other primates long ago, but only recently developed state legislatures.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

End dates, when they end at midnight.

At the stroke of midnight, beginning on 1 January 1801. The Kingdom of Great Britain & the Kingdom of Ireland merged to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Here's the question - Which is the correct end date, for the Kingdom of Ireland & the Kingdom of Great Britain? Is it 31 December 1800 or 1 January 1801. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Depends on whether midnight means 00:00 (ie start of 1 Jan) or 24:00 (ie end of 1 Jan).  Stepho  talk  05:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The 31 December 1800 is the last day the two old kingdoms existed. Gawaon (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is an interesting question, and one that I don't think has a properly-defined answer. In the Army, they avoid ambiguity by never using the term "midnight" - they say things like "this pass expires at 23:59" or "the operation will commence at 00:01". Similarly, barring death of the incumbent, the U.S. presidency changes hands at noon (Washington time) on 20 January of the year following an election, or another date as arranged: I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour – Richard M. Nixon, August 8, 1974.

In the world of railways we have a similar problem. Our many thousands of articles about railway stations have information like the opening date, plus the closing date where relavant. Opening dates are easy; it's the day when the first public train ran. But closing dates are more difficult - some RSs give the date when the last public train ran, others give the date when no trains ran that (barring closure) would otherwise have run. If a station was last served by trains on 31 December, some books will give that date, others will say that it closed on 1 January. It's more complicated when the station previously had no service on Sundays and public holidays - in Scotland, which has two days public holiday for Hogmanay, it's conceivable to have a station where the last train ran on Saturday 31 December, but the "closure" date is given as Wednesday 4 January (no Sunday service on 1 Jan, no bank holiday service on 2-3 Jan, as happened in January 2023).

All in all, I would say to go with the last date when the two constituent kingdoms were separate, i.e. 31 December. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Our article "12-hour clock" addresses this, and cites a page from one of the two agencies in the US charged with disseminating time: the National Institute of Standards and Technology. (The other is the Department of Defense.) The relevant NIST page indicates there is no universal convention and says "to avoid ambiguity, specification of an event as occurring on a particular day at 11:59 p.m. or 12:01 a.m. is a good idea". Jc3s5h (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The union was effective as soon as it was the first of January. The linked article Acts of Union 1800 has external links to the legislation including The Union with Ireland Act 1800, which has

that the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the first Day of January which shall be in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, and for ever after...

and so the last day the kingdoms were separate was 31 December. "At the stroke of midnight" is a red herring; the drafting is smarter than that. NebY (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

One of the unfortunate side effects of a 12-hour clock. 24-hour clock is unambiguous: a day starts at 00:00 and ends at 24:00. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually 24:00 doesn't exist – that would be 00:00 the next day. Gawaon (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you, 24:00 is widely used. You may want to consult ISO 8601. Talk:24-hour clock/Archive 1 is also interesting. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have yet to see a clock that shows 24:00. ISO 8601 allows lots of things, not all of which are good practice. But sure, you can use 24:00 if you really want to. Gawaon (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You're not looking hard enough: Commons:Category:Time 24:00. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It isnt if you are talking about 'when school starts at 9' or 'your exam starts at 1' because why would school start at night or exams begin after midnight? But when it comes to 'their train leaves at 7' you see a problem thinking the train leaves at 19:00 (7:00 pm) when it actually left at 07:00, hence why UK railway stations use 24 hour clock, even in spoken text so here is my example of an announcement: (not a real train timetable)

• 'the next train to arrive at platform five, will be the 14:24, East Midlands Railway service, to Sheffield.'

14:24 is pronounced as 'fourteen twenty-four'. if it is 0 mins past the hour, then after 10:00, it says eleven hundred, twelve hundred, thirteen hundred, etc.

See also: Wikipedias example at 12 hour clock:

• '...if one commutes to work at "9:00", 9:00 a.m. may be implied, but if a social dance is scheduled to begin at "9:00", it may begin at 9:00 p.m.'

Basically in short, context and common sense is used if 12 hour time is used without am/pm but in some cases, such as railway stations, can be ambiguous. JuniperChill (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

To a normal human, the answer is "ended 31 December 1800", because 12:00 (or 24:00 if you prefer that style) is how this get conceptualized by most people; "00:00" is a rather modern and computery idea. When 31 December ended, so did the original polity, and when 1 January started at the same moment so did the replacemet polity. I would not be sensible to say that the original one survived into 1 January, because it did not. Same goes for saying that the new one started at the end of and within 31 December; it just didn't.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Primary Unit

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Don't be absurd. Gawaon (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

FYI South Africa uses the decimal comma and a space for thousands. Avi8tor (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do we add "born" in front of the birth date in the lead, where "née" is present?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons § Do we add "born", in front of the birth date, in the lead?

GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

An editor is in disagreement with me at Kamila Magalova, as to how to handle the intro of living. Do we add or 'not' add "born" in front of the birth date, in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:BIRTHDATE indicates that "birth and death labels are included only when needed for clarity". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It also says to add "born" in the intro of BLPs. Anyways I've opened a discussion at the BLP for input. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It gives examples of including the label, but I'm not seeing where it says born must be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Look closer, at the bottom, the Sally Wong example. PS - Would you recommend deleting "born" from the intros of BLPs & just leave the birth date? GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The Sally Wong example indicates the format for use in lists, not general bio articles.

The article in question already uses "née"; I don't see a need to add "born" to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

So you would have just "(December 25, 1971)" for Justin Trudeau's intro? GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

No - what I'm saying is it doesn't make sense to have two labels, not that we should have none. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:NEE provides more than one example with exactly those two labels. As I wrote on the talk page of an individual article, because we are writing in English not French here, and even though in French "née" means the same as the English "born", in its English meaning "née" is more specifically about names. So readers of English rather than French still need to see "born" in front of the date to clarify that it is a date of birth rather than some other date; I don't think we can reasonably expect them to know enough French to use the French meaning of "née" instead of the English meaning. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:DOB does recommend the use of "born". I don't think it makes sense to double up where 'née' is present, but cases like Trudeau's benefit from 'born' for sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we add "born" when we are giving only one date. It is "needed for clarity": without it, we would not know whether it is a birth or death date. (Using verb tense is too ambiguous.) See also the "Nationality examples" section, later, which includes another "born". —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

In cases like this, where policy/guideline examples may not be clear, I like to look at examples in featured articles. I just checked probably 90 to 100 articles, and noticed that "born" is used:

1. When the subject had a different name at birth (ex: Alexis Bachelot, Chinua Achebe, Maya Angelou, Honoré de Balzac)—though this does not seem to apply when we list maiden names (ex: Josephine Butler).

2. When the subject is still alive (ex: Ann Bannon, Amy Adams, Ben Affleck, Angel Aquino, Vidya Balan, Christian Bale, Eric Bana). Similarly, we use "died" when we don't have a birthdate (ex: Ælfwynn, wife of Æthelstan Half-King and Abishabis.

At Kamila Magálová, it seems like "born" is appropriate, not because of her maiden name but because she is still alive. Woodroar (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Would "(Slováková) (born 16 November 1950)" be acceptable? If "(Slováková; born 16 November 1950)" isn't? GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm still looking through featured articles. The only similar articles I've found are Priyanka Chopra, Kareena Kapoor Khan, and Courtney Love. All use "(née Name; born date)". Woodroar (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If I were writing that article, I'd have thought something like Kamila Magálová (née Slováková; born 16 November 1950) would be appropriate. Pretty sure I've seen wording like that on plenty of articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I tried to make that change, but kept getting reverted. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: You're invited to give your input here, too. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

This entire discussion is what our MOS pages are designed to address. I suggest that any decision here be implemented there, and taking the entire discussion there would not be inappropriate, either. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Moved from WT:BLP talk. GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

'born' should be added - it provides crucial context to what otherwise might appear to be a meaningless date. The wording suggested by Sideswipe9th and supported by GoodDay looks correct. GiantSnowman 11:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on mixed numbers

Personally, I don't think there's any lack of clarity at all, but maybe there is. User:Chris the speller is making changes en masse to prose citing MOS:FRAC changing seemingly every instance of "x and a half" written out to {{frac|4|1|2}} and the like (example diff, but this isn't done on just one article, it's being done on many). Here's the relevant line:

• Mixed numbers are usually given in figures, unspaced (not Fellini's film 8 1⁄2 or 8-1⁄2 but Fellini's film 8+1⁄2 – markup: {{frac|8|1|2}}). In any case the integer and fractional parts should be consistent (not nine and 1⁄2).

The implicit and obvious comment here is that this only applies when talking about the number specifically, in say a mathematical or numerological context where the number-as-number is important. If it's just a vanilla measurement like four and a half teaspoons (roughly) or four and a half miles (loosely), spelling it out is fine. It's possible that an editor might use a fraction, but it's certainly not required, and mass changes along this line are "fixing" a non-existent problem.

I'm not sure there's even any change to the MOS required here, just a validation that yes, Chris the speller's interpretation is incorrect? Alternatively, if somehow Chris the speller's interptation of this line as mandating using the frac template rather than spelling out "X and a half" (even when the frac template unduly draws attention to a meaningless amount, like loosely half a year), then maybe we do need to modify this line to be more restrictive that it's talking about numbers-as-numbers only, not numbers used as units of measurement, etc. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Your second edit to my talk page caused a conflict just as I was saving my reply. It would have been nice to wait and hear what I had to say: please go read it now. Chris the speller ^yack 04:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, you've mostly verified that we should have this conversation here, since you think you're right. You've misinterpreted this guideline, which is why I'm asking you to stop your edits until you can verify that this guideline is actually mandating what you think it is. There is no blanket prohibition to writing out "five and a half" or the like, especially for vague, imprecise rounded figures trying to get a gist. This guideline is specifically about numbers as numbers, which is not the case in basically any of your 500+ recent edits on the matter. SnowFire (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The guideline generally recommends the use of figures, but it's clear that the use of words is permissible. The line "In any case the integer and fractional parts should be consistent (not nine and 1⁄2) implies that consistent use of words is fine. There's an example given in the prior section, §Singular versus plural, that approves of "one and one-half doses". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: To go back to the merits of the case, the relevant part of MOS:FRAC is this:

• Where numerator and denominator can each be expressed in one word, a fraction is usually spelled out (e.g. a two-thirds majority; moved one-quarter mile); use figures if a fraction appears with a symbol (e.g. 1⁄4 mi – markup: 1⁄4 mi, not a quarter of a mi or one-quarter mi). A common exception is a series of values: The distances were 1+1⁄4, 2⁄3 and 1⁄2 mile, respectively.

But you know this already because this was already cited in this edit, which you also reverted. All of these cases you've changed are this case that asks for spelled-out fractions like "one-quarter mile." I don't understand why you're using the sentence on numbers-as-numbers like 8+1⁄2 (which isn't measuring anything and is a number-as-a-number) in edits like this recent one changing one and a half years to a fraction. SnowFire (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm done trying to point out the difference between fractions and mixed numbers to someone who appears unable to understand. The MoS guidance on mixed numbers does not mention anything about "numbers-as-numbers". The MLB Advanced Media article had an improperly formatted mixed fraction. I haven't changed anything like "one-quarter mile." Chris the speller ^yack 04:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

It's improperly formatted in that it should have said "one and a half years" rather than "one and half", but that isn't the fix you made.

Anyway, I guess we've found our problem: you think that this line only applies to "pure" fractions like one-quarter, not one and a quarter. As Firefangledfeathers says above, I don't think that's the intent given that a spelled out mixed fraction is used elsewhere as an example. Would explicitly adding an example of a mixed fraction to this line satisfy you that spelled-out fractions in prose are covered as well, here's how they're done, etc.? "Four and a half years" is common English, not a style violation. The line on mixed numbers is clear from context to be talking about "mixed numbers in a mathematical sense" but I don't see a way to phrase that cleanly and nobody else seems to have had an issue with it. SnowFire (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't care what the guideline says, this edit [2] is clearly inappropriate. In fact, it looks completely ridiculous. I'm the one who wrote the phrase "usually given in figures" into the guideline ten years ago, but for the life of me I don't know what I was thinking. I've removed it [3]. EEng 05:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@EEng: Take a look at the policy page WP:OWN: "No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it)". Please restore the MOS:FRAC guideline until there is consensus to change it. If it has been that way for ten years, it should remain unless and until we find a a good reason to change it. There's no hurry here. Chris the speller ^yack 14:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Making a bold change to remove something being interpreted as implying articles should say ridiculous things like "He was at the school 1+1⁄2 years" isn't ownership. EEng 15:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The implication that I can't read and understand written English, which Snowfire has made repeatedly, is somewhat undermined by the fact that EEng has rushed to change the MoS to now support Sunfire's claims. Maybe I did read it correctly. Maybe an apology is in order. Chris the speller ^yack

I didn't rush to do anything, nor do anything to support anyone's claims. I removed an inflexible guideline which was clearly wrong. I've now made another edit [4], for consideration by my esteemed fellow editors, which brings the guideline on this particular point in line with well-established guidance elsewhere on the page. EEng 15:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If the accusation that I don't properly interpret the MoS is true, I'm not the only one with a reading disability: Firefangledfeathers stated above "guideline generally recommends the use of figures". --Chris the speller in such a rush he forgot to sign

If you're quoting their comment, quote it in full: FFF also said in the same exact sentence that it's "clear that the use of words is permissible". You don't appear to agree since you were replacing spelled-out words everywhere. SnowFire (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Chris: You're "standing on procedure" a lot above with comments about OWN, consensus, etc. rather than what the style guideline should be. Can we get back to discussing the merits? This line you're citing is about how to do mixed numbers with numerals if you are already using numerals. That's fine. Nowhere does it say that using numerals is required. Can you cite a style guideline or style example elsewhere as reason to prefer your apparent preference for a mandate for the use of numerals? Or just some other reason it's "better" to do that compared to "four and a half years"? Again, I don't think anyone else has really interpreted the guideline the way you have, and it's not just the people here - it's the multiple separate editors in good standing who reverted you in your edit above who don't think such a mandate is common English. SnowFire (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Anybody looked at the use of mixed numbers in sports? The Washington Post and LA Times report "games behind" in baseball standings almost always in figures. WP had 16 articles with properly formatted "xx and a half games behind the" – 10 articles with improperly formatted "xx-and-a-half games behind the" – 10 articles with some form of figures "xx+1⁄2 games behind the". And no, this is not a result of changes made by me. I have not analyzed horse lengths or track lengths in racing, but I expect to find something similar there. A ratio of 16:10 for correct:incorrect spelled-out mixed numbers should strike most editors as unsatisfactory. Shouldn't we get a grip on the use of mixed numbers in cases other than literary prose before we go flipping the MoS without a consensus? Chris the speller ^yack 17:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

"5+1⁄2 games behind" might have its uses; "five and a half games behind" (or maybe "five-and-a-half games behind" -- I always get that mixed up) might have its uses; "five and a 1⁄2 games behind" would never be acceptable. Beyond that I can't tell what you're talking about. For sure not every mixed number is always given in figures, which is what you seem to be saying the guideline might reasonably say. EEng 18:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

My search was faulty. I missed 107 cases of "xx+1⁄2 games behind the" where the Frac template was used. Wikipedia and newspapers predominantly use figures for games behind, and probably for innings pitched. I think it is a very bad idea to ignore these facts when loosening up the MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 19:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in the MOS, "loosened" or not, that forbids such expressions. Also, the only thing that has happened was that an obvious oversight has been corrected – forbidding expressions such as "two and a half years" was certainly never the intent of the MOS. Gawaon (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I prefer Mapreader's example to that of EEng. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that MOS has said for ten years that mixed numbers should be in figures, whether used as a measurement or a number per se, and regardless of whether other numbers elsewhere in the article are in words, except in unusual cases. And that Wikipedia style rules should not be changed without consensus.

As for which is the better style, that is less clear, but I prefer figures for mixed numbers for the same reason I prefer figures for large numbers. "Two-thirds" is reasonable to me, but "one and two-thirds" is exhausting. In prose where figures would be awkward, I'd rather not see mixed fractions at all (e.g. not "one and a half years", but "a year and a half"). I do feel strongly that Wikipedia should pick a style. If MOS just says "either way is fine", then the only thing that can determine the style of an article is article ownership, which I oppose. ("This article spells out mixed fractions because it was written by John, and Johns prefers to spell them out"). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)