Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Archives at:
01 - 02 - 03 - 04 - 005 - 5a - 06 - 07 - 08 - 09 - 10
11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 14a - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20
21 - 22 (binary units/non-decimal numbers) - 23 - 24 - 025 - __ - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30
31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 035 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39

See also:

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

Prefixes - headers

I've changed these as they had beoe a bit confused (or at least I had) . Any ptroblems, please fix or talk to me, as usual. Rich Farmbrough. 11:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Date formats related to topics

Once upon a time this was a bit clearer, but now it's lost under the subheading Dates in article titles which seems to only relate to the first sentence, and that could easily come under the previous subheading Usage of links for date preferences. I therefore propose that the subheading be changed to Date formats related to topics and put after "In article titles, dates will not be converted" which will form the last sentence of the previous subsection. so that the subsection begins with "It is usually preferable to use the format preferred in the variety of English that is closest to the topic". This would help to avoid the perennial problem of date formats being changed inappropriately. ....dave souza, talk 19:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. The section has been significantly weakened since 27 February, and this change in guidance needs to be carefully considered. ...dave souza, talk 09:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

spaces before unit symbols

User:JP06035 added an exception to the general guidance about spaces: Due to the consensus of a recent Wikipedia forum, all metric numbers written in Olympic articles (like olympic medal counts, results pages, games pages, etc.) shall be written like this: 1500m , 20km , 4 x 10km , etc.
Sources: Discussion Results ● Archived Discussion'

I reverted the text but perhaps we can regard it as a User:JP06035 initiated proposal for a change. What do people think? bobblewik 13:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not a proposal; it was decided by the Olympic conventions forum, and had a pretty good consensus, too. Its what most of the olympic related websites use even the IOC, which is the most trusted source for Olympic related things...it's usually the last resort for the forum. (see this page for an example of the IOC's use). I know this is what the people want, so I advise you to switch it back. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 13:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing was decided there:

• There was no consensus on anything.
• That is a bogus page, not part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics. Jared claims ownership of it, too.
• Whatever straw polls there were were not publicized on WikiProject Sports Olympics, here on MoS (dates and numbers), nor anywhere else.
• Even if Jared's claims were true, it would be in conflict with the guidance here on the MoS, as well as with the rules of the standards-keepers.

Unlike the ludicrous claims on Jared's user page that "I created this series of debates which will now stand as current Wikipedia policy", his page has not even created any guidelines, let alone policy.

Gene Nygaard 13:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I support User:JP06035's interest in units but I happen to think he/she is wrong in process and in decision. Process: the MoS is the best place to question MoS guidance and it is unreasonable to expect us to accept any change to MoS guidance without discussion. Decision: the nine people with an Olympic focus may have acted in good faith but people here have Wikipedia-wide focus that those nine did not discuss. An exception could never be contained just to Olympic articles, it must affect all sports articles. It will also affect any article that mentions a sport. Editors will have two different formats and complicated cross-over rules that will never be properly implemented. bobblewik 14:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have nominated Wikipedia:Olympic_conventions for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Olympic conventions. Gene Nygaard 15:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The MoS has worked very well for a long time. I happen to agree with bobblewik on this one. One of the things that make Wikipedia work well is consensus. In my profession (chemist), we write measurements with the number space symbol (except temperature [e.g. 77°F], but that is more a company mandate than anything else). The MoS for the most part is inline with some of the scientific writing manuals that we have on the shelf in our library. You can find some if you search the internet. Those are my thoughts, what's your? MJCdetroit 17:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't have an opinion whether it should be 1500 m or 1500m. However, as I said in my vote on the conventions page, since the Manual of Style says it should be 1500 m, we should follow that. I don't think that a 9/6/0/1 vote is a "consensus". It's barely a majority of the votes at 52%. While there are some things on the conventions page that have been helpful to discuss, a decision to go against the Manual of Style should be overwhelming. This one is obviously not. Sue Anne 17:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that thew MoS should be the last resort, but who doesn't agree with me that the IOC should come first? I mean come on, its olympic articles, not articles about a car or a floppy disk, but Olymppics. We don't refer to un-Olympic sources for Olympic things...that should be the way it is! --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 20:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is also only 9/6/0/1 because Jared improperly closed the vote after a few days of discussion on an unpublicized corner of Wikipedia space. My vote isn't counted, which would be added to the 6 on the second one. I don't think it is any stretch of the imagination to guess that Bobblewik would also support that. Or Crissov, who has recently edited the other ambiguous related vote on Jared's little private domain. Gene Nygaard 21:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One difference is that the IOC does not declare this as a rule to be followed. Or can prove me wrong, Jared? OTOH, NIST (see [1]) and National Physical Laboratory, UK (see [2]) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) do state the use of the space as a rule to be followed. Gene Nygaard 21:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gene, apparently you don't see my logic here...if no one is leading or heading something...there'll be chaos. I had it posted for a while now that it would be closed in a week or so, in the case of this debate, I kept it open for alteast 2 weeks because there werten't enough votes for either of the sides (and actually my side was winning, FYI). I don't just think of myself. Further, I can't leave a debate open forever. What if I went on vaca and a page of mine was nominated for deletion? 7 days later it may be deleted, and I never once got to it. You think you can just get me on this because you think I may be vulnerable, but in fact you can't and it's your fault for not finding the page fast enough to show your opinion. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 21:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

When you didn't have consensus, you could have just said so—without falsely claiming that you did. Gene Nygaard 21:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a consensus....most people found that the current was (1500m) was correct. Case closed. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, here's something for you to do...go to Google.com and type in 1500 m. It will say "Did you mean 1500m. Then do a search for 1500m. Which had most of the olympic articles on it? I thought so. It's the preffered way!--Jared ^[T]/_[+] 21:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposing a major change to binary unit prefixes policy

Specifically, I object to this part: "If a contributor changes an article's usage from kilo- etc. to kibi- etc. where the units are in fact binary, that change should be accepted." It is my very strong opinion that the IEC prefixes are jargon that should be avoided, and that the prefixes that are in common usage should be the ones that are favoured. I have argued this on another article's talk page, and rather than rephrase those arguments, I will paste them below: thus, the contents of the following two paragraphs are the arguments I made in Talk:Intel Core. Jgp 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing to existing common usage. Standards bodies have come up with good solution to the various problems of the mis-use of the decimal multipliers. The binary multipliers may not currently be as prevalent as the old broken system. But if we are ever to get to using the standards-based system, it's not going happen in a "big bang" style; it's going to be a gradual change. There are going to have to be points along the line where both systems are in use. The longest journey begins with a single step. It could start with those people who are enlightened enough to see that it should be changed, and who have the opportunity to make the change. Wikipedia is a good place to do this because the new units can be easily explained by means of wikilinks. Duckbill 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like advocacy to me, which is what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia should not be used to push one system of units over another in order to advocate a point of view. Also, a "standard" that was made up and isn't in common usage really isn't standard. Just because an important group made it up doesn't mean it should be used. Using (and especially advocating) a term that isn't in common usage over a term that is in common usage just because a small group of people made it up out of thin air is intellectually dishonest. If KiB/MiB/GiB becomes common usage, I'll relent, but it's extremely uncommon, and using Wikipedia as a platform to advocate it is wrong. Wikipedia is not the place to advocate such change. It goes against both the "what Wikipedia is not" policy and the NPOV policy. The purpose of Wikipedia is to collect knowledge about and describe the state of the world in the past and present, not the state of the world as you believe it should become in the future. Jgp 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's see--how many years were computers in common use before the IEC pulled those units out of thin air? They were introduced in 1999, at the tail end of the first dot-com boom, long after computers and basic terminology such as "Megabytes" and "Gigabytes" became commonly used by the general public. I talk to many people, both computer-literate and not, and none of them use that -bi- garbage. When I help people with their computers (including people who aren't computer-literate), I ask them how much RAM they have, and they reply with something along the lines of "It says I have 512 Megabytes", "I've got a gig", etc. I open up a newspaper and look at the ads: when memory is mentioned, units such as "MB" and "GB" are used. I bring up the website of any major electronics store (including stores that cater to common people and not to geeks), and they all refer to memory in MB, GB, etc. The binary unit prefixes are the very definition of jargon: it's something that's never used when communicating to the general public (and when the general public must be communicated to, alternative, more commonly-used terms are used instead), it's completely unknown except to computer geeks and professionals, and only a very small subset of those geeks and professionals actually use them. Jgp 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The older terms, on the other hand, are in common use by everyone except a small group of geeks and pedants. Furthermore, the common person knows that words can have different meanings in different contexts. Here's an example: "I was just looking at my hand". Normally, this means that I was gazing at the appendage at the end of my arm. But if I'm playing cards, it means that I'm looking at the cards I was dealt. The same word, or even the same phrase, can mean something entirely different depending on the situation, and any intelligent adult can understand that. Jgp 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've got a question: is there anywhere else I need to go in order to make this an official proposal? Or is proposing it on the talk page all I need to do? Jgp 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a computer expert, so I'll ask: is this in terms of accuracy of description? i.e. is MiB more accurate than MB? If so, I would say that including both in technical descriptions could be appropriate (with MiB in brackets, as it is in Intel Core now). But if there is little difference between the two, then using the much more common MB / GB designations seems like common sense. Ziggurat 01:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, MB is ambiguous and can mean either 1,000,000 bytes or 1,048,576 bytes. MiB always means 1,048,576 bytes, and most standards organizations recommend that MB be used in its decimal meaning only; 1,000,000, like mega- means everywhere else. We've had this discussion a million times before, which is why the policy was created in the first place. Here's the original policy discussion: Unit Disagreement, MiB vs. MB — Omegatron 01:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Except for the fact the IEC units are only used by a small subset of computer experts. Neither laypeople nor the majority of computer experts use them (and almost the entirety of the former group has no idea they exist), and thus they are unnecessary jargon. Furthermore, the IEC prefixes were only made up relatively recently compared to how long computers were in public use before that. There's nothing wrong with words that can mean different things depending on context--common people do it all the time and have no problems with it (see my "hand" example above--even an entire sentence using "hand" can mean completely different things depending on context). Common usage should always trump pedantry. Jgp 01:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Laypeople don't know that KB = 1024 bytes, either. Only a small subset of computer experts users.

The computer misuses of SI prefixes were only made up relatively recently (40 years or so?) compared to kilo- meaning 1000 for the last several centuries.

We've been through this a (decimal) million times before, as linked above, and almost everyone agrees with the current wording. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a comp sci textbook, and has to represent numbers in a way that is unambiguous across all fields. — Omegatron 02:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Laypeople use KB. Laypeople have never heard of KiB. All computer experts know that KB = 1024 bytes in certain contexts, and most of them use KB over KiB. I'd even argue that there are more laypeople who know that KB refers to more than 1000 bytes than laypeople who have heard of KiB. Jgp 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

All computer experts know that KB = 1024 bytes in certain contexts

What was that you said about unnecessary jargon? — Omegatron 02:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That was a reply to your needlessly sarcastic comment about how only a small subset of computer experts knows that KB = 1024 bytes. Furthermore, that was not the only piece of evidence I used as to way binary unit prefixes are a Very Bad Thing (did you not see "Laypeople use KB. Laypeople have never heard of KiB."?). Don't put words in my mouth. Jgp 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Needlessly sarcastic?

Binary unit prefixes are a Very Good Thing.

Anyway, we've been through this enough times. Go read the policy discussion. — Omegatron 03:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The much older SI prefixes were formally adopted in 1960, computer misuse of the prefixes became popular about twenty years later. Would it not be an improvement to keep KB, MB, GB and TB with each incorrect use incorporating a piped link to the IEC equivalent? The muddle needs to be cleared up, as anyone who noted the court case about hard drives measured in GB not accommodating the same number of GiB will recall. ...dave souza, talk 09:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

All computer experts know that for instance ‘MB’ is often used in the binary sense. Almost nobody knows when this is definitely the case! (See for example CD vs. DVD.) Joe Sixpack, i.e. the average Wikipedia reader, OTOH does not know nor expect that ‘MB’ could mean two different things, and standardisation bodies actually are on his side. Joe Sixpack will usually ignore the additional letter ‘i’ in ‘MiB’, but it is a disambiguation hint for the computer expert. I therefore see no reason not to prescribe binary prefixes where applicable. Christoph Päper 11:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If MiB is linked, it is harmless. If it is not linked, it will be routinely "ocrredted" as an obvious misprint. Bo change of policy is needed. Septentrionalis 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If the page is watched, the misguided correction will be reverted, and the person making the misguided correction will learn something. Alternatively, a comment can be placed in the wiki markup to point out that the term used is in fact correct. Duckbill 18:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether MB means 1,000,000 bytes or 1024^2 bytes doesn't affect Joe Sixpack. Only a computer expert would actually be affected by such a detail. The fact remains that KB/MB/GB are the terms that are in common usage and thus they are the terms that should be used. As I've said before, get a newspaper and look at the ads for Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, or any electronics store that caters to Joe Sixpack. If your newspaper doesn't have such ads, look at the websites of the aforementioned companies. You'll never find Joe Sixpack complaining about how the units are confusing. Joe Sixpack will happily tell people that the sticker on their (OEM-built) computer says that their computer has 512 MB of RAM, and they won't be confused by the usage of "MB". Jgp 16:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes but that sticker is WRONG! In that context it doesn't matter that the sticker is wrong because (a) it's just giving a feel to the customer of the rough amount of memory in the machine, and (b) the retailer is not legally exposed because the machine does in fact have 512,000,000 bytes (512 MB) of memory — it also happens to have another 24,870,912 bytes of memory as well. But Wikipedia isn't a sticker on a computer in a computer shop. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It should contain information that is accurate and verifiable. In the example you mention here, 512 MB is off by some 4.6%. 512 MiB is exactly correct, and uses entirely standard units. Standards don't get laid down until a lot of well-informed people are happy with them. Standards bodies know that a lot of people are going to base their work on things that they say and take a lot of care to get them right. Duckbill 18:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not wrong. The same word can have different meanings in different contexts. Jgp 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The current guideline is fine, allowing casual use but recommending precise units where they matter. This is an encyclopedia, and there's no need to baby the reader if the text is written well enough. Maybe someone reading it can learn something. —Michael Z. 2006-03-10 17:30 Z

Actually, while out shopping I just came across the classic case where it does matter to Joe Sixpack: browsing CompuerActive magazine, it gives guidance in simple language for beginners that a 4.7 GB DVD only takes what your computer calls 4.3 GB, a good way to fail to record data. It makes good sense to use GiB when appropriate, with the recommended link for Joe's enlightenment - if people are desperate to use GB, it could be a piped link as GB, but it's probably preferable to openly use the IEC designations with links. Current guidance stands. ..dave souza, talk 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would be willing to support a piped link as a compromise. Earlier, I was going to mention linking KB/MB/GB/etc when used in a binary context to a page that explains the different meanings, but I forgot. That's a good idea. Jgp 20:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Common usage" isn't common, anyway. Your decimal-sized hard drive is chopped up into a decimal number of binary chunks by the operating system, transferred by your decimal-speed CPU to your binary-sized memory over its decimal-rate bus, then moved across a decimal network connection to your friend who burns the files with binary-reported file sizes onto a decimal-sized DVD or a binary-sized CD.

This isn't a case of everyone in the universe using one meaning consistently and being opposed by a small group of purists. (And no, the NIST, IEEE, IEC, BIPM, ANSI, and ISO are not "a small group of geeks and pedants".) The distinction might not be important to programmers, who only work with binary memory addresses, but it's certainly important to anyone burning files to a CD, coding on an embedded processor with a limited amount of memory, measuring web server bandwidth, or designing telecommunications systems or computer peripherals. This is an encyclopedia; accuracy and standards trump sloppy trade-specific jargon. — Omegatron 06:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, can you all look at {{quantities of bits}}, {{quantities of bytes}}, {{Bit rates}} and um... I guess there's no place to talk about it as a group, but a user suggested we merge all the articles like kilobit, mebibyte, and so on into bit and byte. We had that discussion a while ago on Talk:Binary prefix, and the decision was to keep them separate but tie them together with a navigational template, but it's come up again. — Omegatron 07:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: The new Unit guidelines added by User:Andy85719

The guidelines added are helpful, but may be inaccurate. In reference to the Area heading, for imperial units, I have always been taught that the superscript 2 (²) was only to be used in metric units, and imperials should use sq. in., or sq. mi., but never the 2, as it is only for metrics. Could someone please varify this? --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the contributions, he appears to be a new user. I disagree with some of the guidelines he has added (e.g. Always abbreviate units). Some of the guidance does not belong here (e.g. specifying symbols). Some of it is duplication of existing guidance (e.g. Never use an s after an abbreviation to make it plural). Some of the stuff addresses problems that do exist but I am not sure if they are worthy of documenting (e.g. Do not put periods (full stops) after units). It look likes his heart is in the right place. Perhaps a way to deal with it would be to invite him to undo his contribution and discuss it here. It is up to you. bobblewik 01:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds pretty good, I'll invite him to see this discussion. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, you already have. Thanks. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 02:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry about that. I noticed a couple of changes from British english to US english and could not resist raising it with him myself. bobblewik 02:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Superscripts are common and proper for English units as well. All there is is a somewhat greater acceptance of using "sq" and "cu" with English units; it's far from a universal rule, and while one way or another may be mentioned in various house style guides, few if any general purpose guides will prescribe one or the other.

One problem, of course, is that few people bother setting out rules for the use of Fred Flintstone units, whether English or other customary units or obsolete metric units, any more. Gene Nygaard 02:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that both can be used, but I think that the sq. is more common and more generally accepted, but it shouldn't be made a big deal. All I was trying to say here is that the people should be left to decide and not have this guideline misleading them. P.S. Gene, what are you talking about: Fred Flintstone units? --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 02:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Many times on Wikipedia the units used on articles vary dramatically. Some people use "Km," some people spell out "kilometers," some spell out miles and others abbreviate it. These kinds of variations are not helpful. Although Wikipedia is used to help spread information across borders, standardized guidelines are neccessary. It also helps improve appearance. For example, according the the Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook, when abbreviating the United States "U.S." should be used and never "US." The my purpose for establishing a list of correct ways of displaying measurements wasn't to indicate that they are set in stone, but to fill the need for one. The previous guidelines listed under measurements were not sufficient. Now that there is a list, changes can be made as seen fit. I was also the one to include a guideline for currency, something that was completely missing before. Regarding the U.S. units being squared, it is most definitely allowed. Many products in the United States have their surface area listed as in². Since the use of the metric system and its use of "²" to denote that a unit is square, this method of denoting square and cubic units has crept into usage with U.S. units. The reason I repeatedly emphasized things is because they are never followed. Andy85719 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in getting uniformity, then why in the world would you ever violate one of the basic, fundamental rules of writing units and put a capital K in those "Km" in your example? Gene Nygaard 13:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was not the one who capitalized the K in the example. I am not responsible for the examples given on that page. Whoever did that must have reversed my correction of their error. That is moot now since someone has taken it upon themselves to reverse everything so that they could redirect people back to a personal style guide that they have listed under their name and which can be accessed by looking at the History and looking for the revision that shows "rv" in the comments section. This is supposed to be the style guide. Other articles are not supposed to serve in such a manner. This situation has greatly perturbed me. Andy85719 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that people making these style guides want to make things as vague as possible. Not only to they argue if something is added to the guide, but they quibble over minute things. Most style guides have a section which tells the way in which units are displayed. However, this one has about a one paragraph guide telling in general how they should be used. This has resulted in vast differences in measurements and constant changes being made. Is that what is desired? Do people want to continue arguing over if SI Units should be abbreviated and imperial units spelled out. And with all of this quibbling, how is one supposed to form a consensus? People are still arguing over how to display dates and if the period should go inside or outside of the quotation marks. This kind of gridlock has led to aggresive reversers. People who revert any new thing that has been added. Isn't the purpose of this site to add on and refine and not to reverse over and over again and then write nasty comments about "we should get a consensus"? If people honestly feel that the way in which I have displayed units is wrong than they should correct what is written. What they shouldn't do is go and revert over and over again. By the way. I am unsure how Gene Nygaard found a capitalized Km. It could be as a result of one of the aggressive reverters. Andy85719 16:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was unclear. I wasn't talking about any "Km" on the project page—rather, just to your statement 'Some people use "Km"' in your comment on this talk page to which I was responding. Of course, that statement is true enough; some people do. But so what? That capitalization is an unnecessary distraction, having nothing whatsoever to do with the point you were trying to make. Your point would have been clearer had you written "km" instead. Gene Nygaard 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Must we abbreviate imperial units and spell out SI?

SI units have standard abbreviations which are much more widely used in dimensioning than the full name, but some of the abbreviations of imperial units are very rare in the UK: mi is uncommon (and looks rather like ml on my browser). The imperial names are much shorter anyway, so it makes more sense to type "a pipe 100 mm (4 inches) in diameter and 16 km (10 miles) long." If I remember to stick to the rule as it stands, I'll just have to give the imperial units first, regardless of the context. ...dave souza, talk 10:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the notion of spelling out the first and using symbols for the second is silly, and should be changed—but I think that "mi" should generally be used as a symbol for statute miles. So I'll addres each of those points separately.

Whether or not symbols should be used for the units depends on a lot of other factors more important than whether or not one of them is a conversion, or whether or not one of them is listed first (the original should generally be first, but not everybody follows that rule either).

• It depends on the density of measurements in the article.

• There are many articles with few measurements in which all units spelled out looks good.
• There are few articles filled with measurements in which spelling out either of the unit names looks good.

• It depends on common formulations recogizable as a measurement instantly, with commonly understood units

• When giving a persons height and weight together, it rarely makes sense to use anything other than symbols for all the units (even st for stone is okay, though most North Americans are unfamiliar with that usage).

• There are many situations in which one or more of the units of measurement, or their symbols, are not likely to be familiar to a significant number of readers. In these cases, I'd think the best practice would be to spell out the unit on first use, then use symbols in subsequent use.
• It matters how complex the units are

• The people writing these rules often act like the only unit we ever use are simple short one-word units like "miles". They often fail to take into consideration that we also use units like "pound-force feet" and "newton seconds per kilogram" and "square foot-degree Fahrenheit-hours per British thermal unit" which many people would probably express in words ambiguously as square feet per degree Fahrenheit per British thermal unit per hour, where the order of operations is not properly identified.
• Even more significant are units such as "joules per mole-kelvin" or "joules per mole per kelvin", which isn't easily disambiguated but can much more easily be correctly written in symbols: J/(mol·K) and J·mol^-1·K^-1 or even (J/mol)/K or (J/K)/mol are correct, but J/mol/K or J/mol·K are not correct for the units regularly encountered (even if in some situation the latter were the intended unit, it should be reordered as J·K/mol.

On to the other point about miles

• The use of "mi" isn't really that uncommon in the UK.
• The use of either mile² or worse yet miles² is ugly. Superscripts should only be used with symbols, not with spelled out words.
• The use of ft/mile and the like is ugly. Mathematical operators such as "/" should be used with symbols, not spelled out words (use something like "feet per mile" instead when the words are spelled out, spelling out all of the units).
• The symbol "mi" helps in disambiguating ambiguous miles. While there is no universally accepted symbol for nautical miles, one thing is certain—nobody intentionally uses "mi" standing alone (as opposed to "n mi" or "nmi" and the like) to stand for nautical miles, so if we see "mi" it should be safe to assume that the intended miles are statute miles, and the symbol should be changed if they are not. The spelled-out word "mile", OTOH, is often used standing alone when the miles are nautical miles. In cases such as polar exploration, distances between islands, locations of tropical storm with respect to a city, and the like, using the symbol "mi" is less ambiguous than using an unqualified spelled-out word "miles".
• If the context allows you to confuse "mi" and "ml", then maybe some rewriting is in order.

Gene Nygaard 14:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

One factor I forgot to mention is avoiding arguments about "kilometres per hour" or "kilometers per hour", when a simple "km/h" will be universally understood in almost any context, and a lot of needless irritation avoided. Gene Nygaard 15:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd probably use kph as in mph: we agree that the current guidance should be changed, and it's a good idea to spell out what the units mean for the first time in each article, particularly for unusual or derived units: examples in common use being rad, N, Pa and ha: today a newsreader on the BBC was wondering aloud what a hectare was, but they missed the opportunity to explain themselves. ...dave souza, talk 18:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Another point: is there any guidance about changing gms to SI? While editing pancake I left cm dimensions alone, but wondered about it. ...dave souza, talk 18:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Grams are SI; but their only acceptable symbol is "g", not "gms". Similarly, you might write "kph" but someone will likely change it before long. Even in the United States, all our car speedometers use the proper symbol, "km/h". You only get away with using "mph", with that language-specific "p" in the middle, because the International System of Units is the only system still fully supported and updated; nobody bothers updating the rules for English units. Gene Nygaard 19:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, may be just my erratic memory, but around 1970 the system for building here went SI, skipping the system which lingered in other countries (which I vaguely recall as being grams/metres/seconds) of using cm (still used in primary schools here, I think), cc instead of ml, kg force and the like, so we shifted straight to Newtons etc. Must look at my speedometer, think it's probably the same as yours, and of course we've stuck with miles. Anyway, what I should have asked, is there any policy about standardising on pure SI, or do we leave things like centimetres alone?..dave souza, talk 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC), tweaked 21:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has made some very good points in this discussion. Here's my thoughts...For a while I have been editing articles so that the first measurements were spelled out and the converted measurements were abbreviated in parenthesis. I had a battle on the New Zealand page over this format. Most pages have the metric system first and English/U.S. customary unit converted. So editing would look like this: 45.3 kilograms (100 Lbs). Since metric units have a defined abbreviation for most measurements and English/U.S. measurements can vary, I like the idea of putting the English units first, spelled out and the SI units abbreviated in parenthesis. Most people are use to seeing metric units in their abbreviated state anyway. Either way I am happy as long as both are displayed. MJCdetroit 21:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Grams and centimeters are part of SI. Where did you get the idea that they are not, Dave? That said, things like 3×10¹⁸ cm are clear evidence of obsolete cgs (the terminology you were obviously trying to think of was centimeter-gram-second) usage, and should be changed. Of course, centimeters used in conjunction with ergs or dynes fall into the same category, and the choice of prefixes should be considered if the non-SI cgs units are replaced with SI units in an article (for example, when the basis of the article is some old public domain publication). IMHO, about the only thing centimeters are good for are cubic centimeters and your hat size. But if I run across a persons height as 175 cm, I leave it (if I'm adding a conversion myself, it will be as 1.75 m). Centimeters (centimetres) always raise red flags with me in three situations: when they are used with scientific notation, when they are greater than 100, and when they have fractional parts (other than 0.5 in measurements likely to half-centimeter precision). If all of the centimeter measurements have decimal fractions, they are likely best converted to millimeters.

Your are also likely too young to understand the significance of some of the arguments about cubic centimeters vs. milliliters, though if you remember the 1970s you may be almost old enough. If you weren't around in the days when we were taught that they weren't exactly the same thing (and they really weren't, even though the difference probably wouldn't show up in any of the measurements most people make), then just consider yourself fortunate to have missed out on that. That's probably enough said on that topic; if you want to know more, see the litre article and pay attention to the history of its definition. Gene Nygaard 23:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Time formats

I noticed that the MOS recommends using "12 noon" and "12 midnight" rather than 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. However, writing "12 noon" and "12 midnight" is redundant and unnecessary; instead, it should just be "noon" or "midnight" (or, personally, I'd go with 12 a.m. or 12 p.m.) Furthermore, while a.m. and p.m. may be confused by some people, they are not ambiguous: 12 a.m. is midnight, and 12 p.m. is noon.

I looked through the archives, and the closest thing I found was Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/archive11.

In summary, I feel that the recommendation should be changed from "12 noon" and "12 midnight," respectively, to merely "noon" and "midnight." (Although i do support exclusive use of 24-hour times (despite my dislike for them, since I'm American and rarely use them) for consistency, but apparently that's never going to happen.) //MrD9 05:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no real redundancy. You could be talking about solar noon instead, and that's a 50 minute (for about five months) or 1 hour 50 minute (the rest of the year) difference where I live.

Furthermore, there is often the issue of parallel construction; when several times are given, all of them should be stated in numbers.

I'd say there is some ambiguity in either 12 a.m. or 12 p.m., and that 12 m. which used to be used for 12 meridiem has become uncommon (likely because some people started using 12 m. intending the m for midnight). Gene Nygaard 14:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Most intelligent people will know what is meant by noon and midnight. I don't think that it needs to be over analyzed. MJCdetroit 15:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The MoS actually once recommended the 24-hour format only. Then some people whined often and long enough until the 12-hour format was also included, but mostly to standardise its usage (“PM”/“p. m.” etc.), not to recommend the use of it. (If people can read out loud a written “i.e.” or “e.g.” as “that is” and “for example” “a.m.” or “p.m.” as “in the morning” / “before noon” and “in the afternoon/evening” respectively, why aren’t they expected to understand “23:45”? It’s just a simple substraction/addition of twelve anyway.)

There’s hopefully no doubt about “12 a.m.” and “12 p.m.” being counter-intuitive (unlike uncommon “0 a.m.” / “0 p.m.”) if not ambiguous; they are often misunderstood by non-native speakers. Therefore “noon” and “midnight” should be used. (As if this alone was not reason enough to use unambiguous hh:mm.) Whether this be with or without the number twelve is not that important IMO to request one or the other, but doesn’t “noon” sound even more vague than “12 noon”?

PS: I just saw the first watch (or clock) in my lifetime here in Good Old Europe that cannot be switched from 12-hour to 24-hour format. Cheap Hongkong import. It does support kilograms (besides pounds), though, and it displays dates either in ISO-conformant or alphanumeric formats. Christoph Päper 16:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess, then, this won't be changed, even though what's recommended as the allowed "American" version goes against what standard American English would prefer. I guess it's not worth fighting, though. By the way, just for my own awareness, when you people who use the 24-hour clock in everyday life talk about times, do you actually say like "I'll meet you for dinner at 20" (as opposed to "I'll meet you for dinner at 8") or "The game is at sixteen-thirty" ("four-thirty") or something? I never quite understood it. Or do you simply say it in 12-hour but do everythign written in 24-hour? //MrD9 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The spoken usage is described at 24-hour clock, but not completely. Perhaps it needs more work. Here are some bullet points:

• The 24 hour clock is certainly not confined to the written form. It is also a spoken format.
• There are some situations where it is written as 24 hour format but spoken as 12 hour format. A dinner date is a good example but it would be quite normal to say "I am catching the eighteen twenty five so can I meet you at nine instead?"
• The written format '20' and the spoken format 'twenty' do exist in some languages. I do not know if it exists in english, where the written format '20:00' and the spoken format 'twenty hundred hours' is commonplace.

Hope that helps. bobblewik 23:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What does 64K mean?

I noticed the format '64K' in Apple IIe and changed it to '64 K'. It got reverted as collateral damage in a dispute about some of the other edits on the page. I am sure that there is missing 'B' or 'bit' symbol. What is the correct format for the units on that page? bobblewik 13:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

64K means 64 x 1024 eight bit bytes. It refers to the memory size of the microcomputer. To me that is 64 kilobytes or 64 KB but a fabby-dabby expression is 64 kibibytes (which I have never seen or heard in the wild!). The notation 64K was (and is) very common in computer parlance but I think it is not appropriate in Wikipedia. Thincat 13:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see now! I've looked at the history [3]. In this article, as in so many of these batches of reversions recently, the reversion has been entirely deleterious and so, in my view, disruptive. Looking at your edit, I am personally not too keen on the abbreviation K, even in a computer-related article. However, that is a very minor point compared to what you are having to put up with. Thincat 14:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. One small comment of support like that can compensate for a lot of frustration. Please feel free to contribute to the new proposal in the linking of dates section above. bobblewik 17:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Gene Nygaard must have seen this discussion because he made some edits to the page in line with what you said. There are still lonely prefixes outstanding. bobblewik 17:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As an unadorned prose quantity term in Wikipedia, 64K means 64,000 of something; nothing more, nothing less. As a reported term, i.e. reporting verbatim a term that has been used elsewhere, it can refer to 64 KiB i.e. 65,536 bytes. It may also be used as a proper noun or as part of a proper noun for something which includes 64 KiB. If it is just referring to a quantity of memory which is intended to be 65,536 bytes, then it may be edited to 64 KiB (64 KiB in wiki markup). Duckbill 22:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Truncation of dates

Can we switch the rule to NOT allow truncation of dates? By having a date truncated such as: 2000-05 or 1987-89 it prevents us from searching for dates for listing in the specific date articles. Its an archaic format designed to save space in a written document. I need to be able to search for "1989" to see what events ended in 1989 and this format prevents it. Anyne else have any thoughts? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support a proposal along those lines. Neier 13:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be m:instruction creep. Truncating the second date is standard in AmE style guides; why can't we just let the editors of each article decide what style they'll follow? —Kirill Lokshin 14:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

linking of dates

I have just withdrawn my application for a bot to reduce overlinking of non-preference dates. There was a lot of support but not enough for a bot. Some people supported delinking of dates but wanted it done without a bot. Unfortunately the MoS only addresses the issue from the point of view of an editor looking at an unlinked date (generally do not link). It does not address the issue from the point of view of an editor looking at a linked date.

I propose adding the following to the 'Avoid overlinking dates section:

• Editors are encouraged to remove links that do not conform with the guidance on this page.

If somebody has better proposed text, I would be happy to read it. In the meantime, I am seeking responses over the next two weeks to the question:

• Do you support or object to this addition? bobblewik 20:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is really splitting hairs, and certainly doesn't need an additional guideline. The existing rule doesn't say "don't over-link when you write, but don't remove links when you edit". It just recommends what an article should look like.

The bot issue is completely unrelated. It sounds to me that editors over-linking dates to be fixed with an editor's judgement, and not by a dumb machine. Live with it. —Michael Z. 2006-03-09 21:16 Z

We probably should add a suggestion to not delink to this page. -- User:Docu

Actually, the present text does suggest delinking, at least in extreme cases. If we generally do not link, that is on the same footing as the advice not to link every word in an article. If somone has gone ahead and done this rash thing, consider the merits and then, if it is excessive, reverse it. This requires judgment; it may require asking the linker's reasons. A bot can do neither. Septentrionalis 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I Support that quotes addition to the MoS page. We need some official guideline on this point, and many agree that the overlinking is a vast and growing problem (particularly the 20thcentury year links). --Quiddity 21:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't completely agree with encouraging editors to remove links, since this almost implies that the date delinking is a high priority issue for Wikipedia, and has a full concensus behind it. Here's an alternative stab at it:

"Existing date links which do not conform to these standards, and which obviously do not contribute to the overall understanding or context of the article, can be deleted. When making edits of this sort, be sure to state so in the edit summary, so that problems can be quickly resolved." Neier 05:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I take your point about encouragement being more than permission. The role of this sentence is simply to give explicit permission to implement the guidance that follows. Self-evidently, that permission is constrained by the guidance that follows. The bit about 'overall understanding' is part of the guidance that follows and is therefore already inherent as a constraint.

I would have thought normal rules for edit summaries apply. So I do not see the need for the second sentence, but if you think it is needed, so be it. How about:

• Editors may remove links that do not conform with the guidance on this page. When making edits of this sort, be sure to state so in the edit summary, so that problems can be quickly resolved.

I support this. Most linked dates are irrelevant, and obstruct readability. Birth and death dates/years I can understand - but how many people, upon reading "Joe Bloggs joined the army on September 18 1976", would think "Gosh, I wonder what else happened on a September 18th"? Dates should only be linked if the date itself is a significant discussion point, or if contemporanea would be an aid to the reader. UrbaneLegend 19:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I do, actually. I do it all the time (more often with years than specific days of the month). I like finding out what other events happened during that year. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This begs the question, why? David D. (Talk) 20:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why what? If the question is, why do I click these links, I just answered that - it's because I like finding out what other events happened during that year. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you like finding out what other events happened in a particular year? Why when reading an article do you feel the need to click on all these dates to read about random events that happened that year? I'm sorry but I don't understand the reasoning for this? Are you looking for context or do you just enjoy going off on tangents? If the later then I can understand why you do it since the year pages are suited for going off on tangents; rarely have i found a year link that adds real context to an article. Anything important is usually already mentioned in the article.

After reading all the things that happened in a given year do you actually go back to the original article to continue reading? Or do you get side tracked with new articles. If side tracked are they relevant to the article you were orginially reading, or something completely different? If you do continue reading the original artcile do you then click on the next date that is linked? These are serious questions because i find it hard to relate to this kind of browsing. Why not just read the whole article? It's great to link to relevent pages but something more specific than an incomplete list of hundreds of unrelated events is desirable. David D. (Talk) 07:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does everyone have to browse Wikipedia the same way you do? We all do things differently. Ambi 08:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So you browse like that too? Seriously, if that's what people want why don't they just go straight the the year page? David D. (Talk) 08:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think we're complaining about this? And as to your question, why do we have internal links at all? Ambi 08:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there. People can browse Wikipedia how they like. If someone wants to go off on tangents, then they can. I'm against linking all the dates in an article becuase of readability issues and the fact that such links seldom offer insight into the article. But there's no need to attack those who want to look up what else happened in the same year as Alanis Morrisette's debut album, or whatever they want. Be tolerant of other people's browsing styles. ~ UrbaneLegend 10:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that he almost certainly does not browse this way. And i bet very few do. How people use links and browsing styles are as relevant to this discussion as readability. There is a random article link to the left for those that enjoy tangents. In general linking to years does not provide useful context. Now if I was reading a science article and the years linked to other major discoveries in that year related to the article, that would be one thing, but that is not what i get when I link to the year. I get a random collection of events that are very hard to parse to find anything relevant. I think it is important not to link to years if there is no context. The whole point of links is to coordinate relevant information. Linking to unrelated data is not helpful. Linking such dates we are suggesting that there is something useful on that page. In fact, what is really happening is that people are being conditioned NOT to use date links since there is rarely anything relevant on those pages. So who are these date links aimed at? Is this an encylopedia or a random collection of facts? David D. (Talk) 18:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need to understand how I browse Wikipedia? The fact that I do it that way should be good enough for you. You're not the Wikipedia Inquisition. There is no "correct" way to browse a website or an encyclopaedia. Please respect the way I do, and don't enforce a style which makes it difficult for me. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above, specifically 'The whole point of links is to coordinate relevant information' and 'people are being conditioned NOT to use date links'. It would be great to have dates linking to relevant information but they hardly ever do. To say that everything that happened in 1984 is ALL relevant to a specific date in a specific article is silly. It's easy to link to all this random information but a good and responsible editor would make sure it links to something useful. To get back to Bobblewick's edits. He is de-linking masses of linked dates that seem to serve no purpose with regard to coordinating relevant information. Most appear to be linked for no other reason than they can be linked.

In summary, the encyclopedia should not be linked to help people randomly browse the encyclopedia. It should be linked to help people make this information less random. If this goes against your preferred browsing style then so be it. I never had any intention and have no interest in leading a "Wikipedia Inquisition" but to link to random information goes so strongly against the function of an encyclopedia that these points need to be made. Note I am not saying do not link dates, I am saying lets make these links more useful. David D. (Talk) 18:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In honour of your campaign to tell people how to browse Wikipedia "properly", I dedicate Wikipedia:Manual of Style (browsing methods) to you, Daycd. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ;-) that's funny. But seriously, what about the point of people who end up not using the date links since they are invariably not well conceived. You don't think this is a problem with regard to overlinking dates without thought? David D. (Talk) 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but having all dates in an article function as links is detrimental to readability. If you want to search for a particular date then you could always use the standard search box. You'd still get the cross-references you want without the page being a mess of blue links. :-) ~ UrbaneLegend 02:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm .. this page still requires that all full dates be linked. "September 18 1976" should be linked to enable date preferences. It's probably a good thing to request that one explains in the edit summary why a particular link is irrelevant to a page. "links as per MoS" is a bit too short. -- User:Docu

Can you give an example that might not be too short (serious question)? bobblewik 10:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As for full links, there is a proposed code change thrashing about somewhere that would produce a new date formatting syntax that didn't link. I don't know how work is going on that front, though. --Cyde Weys 05:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. The only mention i've managed to find is here. Can someone hunt down further details? --Quiddity 06:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. As proposer. bobblewik 20:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object, of course. Let us have a proper discussion about coming to an actual compromise, rather than trying to ram this through at all costs. Ambi 04:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I don't see this as trying to ram anything through. The guideline is already in place; is it so outrageous to encourage that it be enforced?! And the proper discussion was already had awhile ago when date unlinking was decided on. --Cyde Weys 05:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  Any chance you can find a link to that discussion/archive? (search isnt rewarding me..). It would help cut-down on repeating arguments. thanks :) --Quiddity 06:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. For simplicity, I am only commenting on the linking of years (not, days, dates, months etc.) that are not part of the linking of dates for display preference. Although I find linked years an irritation, if Talrias and others find it helpful to click them then it is a case of balancing the benefit to these people with the irritation to others. What I find very unfortunate is that in the current dispute so many of Bobblewik’s uncontroversial and useful changes (not relating to linked years) are getting reverted blindly. For people who favour linked years, what would you like the MoS to say? Maybe to ask editors link the first occurrence of every year in an article? Would you encourage or allow editors to change articles to this style? The convenience for viewing the events of a year seems to me to be unrelated to the importance of the year within the article. Do you have a problem when editors create an article with unlinked years? Do you ever link them yourself (or feel like linking them)? Could there be a pop-up menu option so all four digit numbers were clickable? I find it quite strange that some people feel such a strong wish for years remaining linked but seem so less concerned with years that were never linked in the first place. If I could understand this better it would help me "vote". Thincat 13:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  You're correct -- there are years which probably should be linked, but which aren't. The main concern I have is that wholesale "cleansing" of wikipedia will result in more of those, with the only benefit being that the nasty blue and purple colored links don't distract everyone. I agree that there are many many superfluous year links. A well-managed effort to eliminate them (like, the 2004 example bobblewik cited) would be welcome, in my opinion. I get the sense that bobblewik has paid more attention to things in recent weeks, and that the number of bad de-links has gone down. But, it is still not a perfect process, and that is why I opposed the bot. It is also why I would like to see some words added to the statement regarding verifying the relevance of the links, so that we don't have to go through the same type of learning curve with the next people who want to cite this MoS. The mention of relevant links is already in the MoS, so it is not like anything is being added. Just reinforced; and experience has shown that without an explicit statement to that effect, it is easy to ignore. Neier 13:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  The problem with the relevance criterion is that it is subjective. The problem is not that it is forgotten or overlooked. Stating it twice within 3 lines will not solve that. bobblewik 14:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Bobblecruft. Bloating guidelines entirely unnecessarily. Noisy | Talk 14:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support What to link seems to be hard to get right, but I do think we have too many year links. And it does sort of irritate me when someone comes in and blindly links every year in an article I've worked on. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support this should really not be necessary, but it is. Rich Farmbrough 00:41 15 March 2006 (UTC).

• Object. I click dates in articles all the time, I just like doing it. --Rory096 01:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object, for several reasons: 1) that date preferences require the over-linking of full dates, and thus reducing the linking of bare years only does a unsatisfactory and sometimes unsightly half job; 2) that context for dates is sometimes very helpful, especially so as one goes further back in history. I would recommend that in many cases date links should be pipe-linked to a more specific page (e.g. 1953 in art). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates in tables

While repetitive linking is normally a bad thing in a table the only way people can view the whole table by their date preference is if all the dates are wiki-linked. Maybe this should be mentioned here. Discordance 21:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, nobody is proposing to delink full dates, as that falls within the guidance of the existing MoS already. So, this feature shouldn't be affected, right? Neier 09:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aboslutely. Rich Farmbrough 19:05 14 March 2006 (UTC).

Correct. In any case, this is not a proposal to change the guidance. bobblewik 20:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)