Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Archives at:

Names for the era: BCE/CE versus BC/AD

Christian ethnocentrism?

Forgive me if this topic has been broached before; I scanned the archived discussion pages briefly and saw no mention of it. Shouldn't the standard nomenclature for designating the era of a year be updated to make it non-specific about religion? BC -> BCE & AD -> CE? I see that this might be considered revisionism by some since the numbers would, in fact, still be based around the same event, but of course it's really just a matter of convenience to keep them. It's important for the western world, if it's going to enforce its dating system on everyone else anyway, not to enforce its religious trapments as well. Most serious scholars, particularly those who completed their formative years recently relative to the grayer-haired ones who might (or might not) be stubborn about keeping things the old way, have adapted to the secular style. I'm surprised Wikipedia hasn't done so as well, given the general standard of objectivity and compromise between all points of view (even non-christian ones!) found here. Aratuk 10:43, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I disagree; rebadging the Christian-derived basis for a calender to the PC joke that is CE/BCE is, to put it mildly, pointless. The problem is not the set of letters, nor what they stand for, but the event that they refer to, and given that we, as members of a multi-cultural world society, are unlikely to all, or even in majority, agree to a common point means that CE/BCE is meaningless. Indeed, I find the 'C' somewhat offensive - it's meant to stand for 'Common', but the switch-over from 31.xii.1 BC to 1.i.AD 1 is of absolutely no significance to me, personally, and so is certianly not a 'common' feature of my culture. Sticking with reality is, IMO, far more pointful.

James F. (talk) 11:41, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree to the use of CE and BCE to replace the traditional BC and AD. Being a multilingual, multinational, and a multicultural encyclopedia, it would do Wikipedia well to drop these archaic terms in favour of something that everybody can use. Christianity is not the only religion represented in Wikipedia, indeed, there are many non-religious Wikipedians working on the project. In the spirit of NPOV, that's the way to go. TimothyPilgrim 13:16, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

I was also surprised to find BC/AD as the dominant form in Wikipedia, and support BCE/CE. -- Zigger 20:07, 2004 Mar 23 (UTC)

The simple thing is to allow the person who starts an article to use whatever system he wants. The ISO 8601 system avoids the problem entirely by using negative numbers for BC(E) dates. I'm a non-believer in any religion, but I still see the attempt to enforce the BCE/CE usage as an attempt to impose political correctness, and that alone is a reason to oppose it. Eclecticology 01:04, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)

I agree with Eclecticology in that there should be no imposing or enforcing, and that contributors are relatively free to do what they want (regardless of whether they start the article). It's just that:

The siglia? BCE/CE are regarded as more religiously neutral than BC/AD.
They are not some new fad to bait the right-thinking. They may have been used in the 1700s by Jewish scholars, then by theological scholars, then by wider academic communities particularly in the last twenty years.
Political correctness was used as a weasel phrase, and no reason to preserve Christian dominance in a reference work at the expense of neutrality.
The Manual of Style has value. It offers a concept of correctness. We deal with that by discussing it.
Personally I prefer BCE/CE to ISO 8601 to BC/AD, but I am not always offended by BC/AD. I'm still trying to get my head around mya ^H^H^H MYA. There are some Christian organisations that are offended by BCE/CE. Mileage varies...
I hope that Wikipedia's software will format dates in users' preferred format in the near future - as well as converting the units of measure that have less religious assertion.

-- Zigger 13:46, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)

I changed the section on years to allow dates BCE. AD and CE are allowed but only recommended for ranges of dates that span the epoch. Gdr 16:17, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

Rename BC → BCE?

This debate was moved here from Wikipedia:Village pump.

There's a debate over on Talk:Centuries about the use of BCE/CE in place of BC/AD. While not as well known among the general public (especially outside the USA), the "Common Era" nomenclature has basically become the international standard in academic circles. Detractors argue that it's simply Political Correctness, an annoying Americanism, or a fad. I think it's arguable that the connections to Christianity implied by BC/AD are inappropriate (if not offensive) when applied to historic events from other cultures.

The debate is also mentioned in the article for Anno Domini as well, in the section entitled "Alternative nomenclature for the same era".

I suggest that we rename all the BC date pages so that they're at their BCE equivalents, and create redirects. Authors of individual articles can decide for themselves how they want to label the dates, but I think the "official" versions should use the more generic term.--Wclark 21:55, 2004 Jul 10 (UTC)

It's absurd. As a non-Christian, I find it vaguely annoying that years are in BC and AD, but using exactly the same system but using different abbreviations is totally pointless and changes nothing. The French Revolution had the right idea: they reckoned years from a new point, changed the names of the months... If there was a serious proposal to do that now, it would be kind o' cool, but just changing the abbreviations is utterly silly. Calling Anno Domini the Common Era is just plain denial about what our era is based on.

Now that I mention names of months, how about January, March, etc., named after Janus, Mars and other Roman gods I don't believe in. How about Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday...? Maybe I find it offensive to worship the Moon, Tiw and Woden. Should we go hyper-politically correct and call them Firstday, Secondday, etc. as in Portuguese and Chinese? — Chameleon My page/My talk 22:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree. As a "radical atheist" (with thanks to Douglas Adams), I find it deeply offensive to suggest that I'm so stupid as to (a) be annoyed by the reality that most of the development of modern culture, and especially that of the last millennium or so, has been driven by a Christian-dominated world, and (b) not recognise this for the hollow, vile, ridiculous joke of re-branding what is still a Christian-dominated calender, rendered no different by some lame attempt at hiding this.

James F. (talk) 23:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The point isn't whether "BCE" accomplishes the task of white-washing history (I tend to think it's a bit misguided too) but whether it should be accepted as the standard or not. It makes no difference why BCE is being used, just that it's being used. The academic/scientific community seem to be gradually adopting BCE as the standard, and I'm just suggesting Wikipedia honor that convention (whether we agree with the motivation behind it or not).--Wclark 01:22, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

If you think you have the stamina to make at least 3000 moves and redirects, you have my admiration. I rather have BC, because i do think ACE its an annoying political correctness. And flawed: common era? common to who? i blieve the jews, muslims, chineses, and Ancient Romans, for what matters, have a different opinion of what is common. Muriel G 01:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The People's Republic of China uses the Western AD/BC calendar almost exclusively, and they call it gongyuan which translates as "common era". I suspect the western calendar is common to all sorts of people when they are speaking in English and want other people to know what year they are talking about. - Nat Kraus e 02:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perl scripts have the stamina to do whatever I tell them to do. Your (or my) POV on the BC vs. BCE debate is irrelevant. CE is sometimes taken to stand for "Christian Era" (which is probably better than either "Year of our Lord" or "Common Era"). In any event, it's certainly common in the sense that it's used as the international standard (yes, even by Jews, Muslims, Chinese, etc.).--Wclark 01:26, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Could we make it a user preference, like month day vs day month? We should be already doing [[404 BC]] — couldn't we have an option to render it as 404 BCE? Myself. I prefer BCE/CE,as not religion/culture specific, but arguably we should go with the most common option as the default. m.e. 01:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the date display as a preference -- but that doesn't solve the problem of what names to use for the date pages themselves. Also, I don't agree that we should always go with the most common option in situations like this. If there is a scientific or academic standard involved, I'd argue that that takes priority.--Wclark 02:30, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

There are lots of terms that academics use that most people wouldn't have a clue what it meant. BCE/CE are like that. I'll bet that your original statment is correct, most people know what BC/AD means. Why on earth go to something obscure, when we're trying to provide accessible information, not obfuscate it? Elf | Talk 03:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BCE/CE are hardly obscure. Anyone who has taken a university history class in the past decade (or two) is almost certainly familiar with this usage. I don't see how obfuscation is really an issue here, since redirects would be put in place to make sure that 300 BC still took you to the same page it always did (even though that page would now be named "300 BCE"). Article authors would still be able to present the date however they deem most appopriate. Display preferences could even be added so that the user sees whichever usage they prefer. All we're talking about is whether the BCE pages redirect to the BC versions, or vice versa. Since BCE is the more generic term, and an academic/scholarly standard, I still think it should be the main page and the BC versions should be redirects.--Wclark 04:40, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

If I were the type of person who would use the phrase "political correctness", this would be an example of it gone amok. Leave the damn dates where they are. People who know what BCE means, will also understand BC, but people who don't know what it means will be completely confused. RickK 05:59, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

That's not a good reason to choose BC over BCE for the Wikipedia. All we should care about are what the standards are, not why the standards are what they are, or whether people are aware of the standards (isn't part of our jobs to make them aware?). Most people have no idea what AD stands for, yet that doesn't prevent us from making AD a redirect to Anno Domini rather than After Death. The only good argument I've seen so far for why the Wikipedia should stick with BC as the de facto standard is that it's the more common usage among laypeople. BCE is the standard among academics, so the issue is really whether we go with the more popular usage, or the scholarly one.--Wclark 06:10, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

isn't part of our jobs to make them aware? - no, it's to make sure they don't leave in frustration. Hey, we could write it all in Spanish too, so that they'd have to learn how to read Spanish, but our job isn't to drive them away. Wikipedia policy is to use the most common naming convention. Are we writing an encyclopedia for academics, or for a general reader? RickK 06:14, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

I said part of our jobs. There's a balance. Like I said, we don't treat AD as if it stood for "After Death", even though the majority of people probably think that's what it stands for (it's a pet peeve of mine, and I correct people on it more frequently than you'd probably believe). More importantly, it's not Wikipedia policy to adopt popular naming conventions over scholarly ones -- at least not consistent policy (and if I'm mistaken here, please point me at the appropriate policy page). Maybe it should be. That's the real problem here: do we use the popular convention (BC) or the academic one (BCE)? Should there be a general policy for making these kinds of determinations in the future?--Wclark 06:24, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

I think that BC and BCE can coexist in Wikipedia. We can live with different formats for displaying dates; we can live with different systems of measurement. So we can certainly live with two names for the BC/BCE era. (For dates in the AD/CE era, we can avoid the whole question of what to call the era by writing the date as a plain number, as recommended in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).) It seems to me that in some articles it is more appropriate to use BC (for example, Dionysius Exiguus) and in others it is more appropriate to use BCE (for example, Buddhism). For now, we can live with both names, and eventually the software will give us an option to display our preferred name for the era. Gdr 15:04, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

The issue isn't (entirely) how the dates are displayed so much as which pages are actual articles vs. which are redirects. Since this topic never seems to get anywhere (I found at least five different places where the BCE/BC dispute has been discussed on Wikipedia over the years) I propose the following:

My "Wclarkbot" bot (pending approval on the Bot talk page) will create redirects from all BCE dates to their BC equivalents. For example, 300 BCE will be made into a redirect to 300 BC.
I will find articles which use the BCE convention (Google returns over 500 of them) and edit them to point directly to the BCE redirects.
Once 300 BCE and 300 BC are on more equal footing in terms of ease-of-use, we can begin to monitor how frequently each is used by Wikipedia contributors.

As things currently stand, authors wishing to use the BCE convention must go out of their way to do so, using their own labels for the links (for instance, [[300 BC|300 BCE]] to get 300 BCE). This is an obvious bias in favor of the BC convention, and should be eliminated -- although by keeping the BC pages and creating the BCE versions as redirects, we can still keep BC as the Wikipedia standard for the time being and not upset the status quo. --Wclark 15:26, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Your bot proposal looks sensible to me. When you've created all the redirects, please update Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) to reflect the new recommended use ([[300 BC]] or [[300 BCE]], not [[300 BC|300 BCE]]).

Personally, I think it's a shame that Wikipedia has the idea of an article living at a particular name, with other names being redirections of second-class status... Gdr 17:59, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Since too many people currently object to using BCE as the Wikipedia standard, and since I was too impatient to wait a week to have my bot approved (though I'm still waiting for that to use for other tasks) I just went ahead and created all the missing BCE → BC redirects by hand. I've also started compiling a list of pages that have the old style [[300 BC|300 BCE]] date links, so that I can convert them to the new style [[300 BCE]] links to the redirects. That page is at User:Wclark/BCE fix if anyone wants to help out. Note: I am not touching links that display the BC convention. Once the BCE links are updated, it should be easier to determine how much they're being used vs. the BC links. I'm still an advocate of switching the Wikipedia standard to BCE, but I concede that we need more data on how popular it is among contributors. I plan on revisiting this topic in a few months with more data. --Wclark 05:53, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

"Common Era" is by no means standard, and it is undesirable as a standard. — Chameleon My page/My talk 12:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Common Era" very much is the standard among academics. Take a look at any (American, Canadian, British) undergraduate textbook published in the last decade. You'll be hard-pressed to find one that still uses the AD/BC convention. --Wclark 14:29, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

I agree with Wclark. BCE and CE are very common terms, especially in scientific textbooks. I cringe everytime I see the term BC or AD. I took a first-year (Christian) religion course for kicks and the prof actually had the audacity to suggest that it meant "Before Christian Era". As an atheist, professional scientist, and amateur astronomer, I'd like to see the Julian date system used, but I have to recognize that much of the world uses an archaic system. BCE is an entirely appropriate and inclusive term and I fully support its use as a standard in Wikipedia. TimothyPilgrim 17:59, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the support, but in the interest of remaining objective (or at least trying to) I should point out that the issue for Wikipedia probably shouldn't be whether BCE is less offensive than BC, but whether we should adopt an academic standard (BCE) over the more popular convention (BC). I'd thought the policy was to use academic/scholarly/scientific standards whenever possible, even if they were less common than the alternatives -- but apparently there isn't any consensus on this. --Wclark 18:31, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

Apparently there isn't a consensus, when there are questions like "Are we writing an encyclopedia for academics, or for a general reader?" I was not aware that it was necessary to make a choice on that matter, expecting that Wikipedia ought to (and does) both contain material accessible to even a second-grader (we have one as an editor) and also material only useful and understandable by specialists, but with material mostly in between those extremes. And what has that issue or questions about people being driven away if it were written in Spanish (which it isn't and won't be) have to do with the use of what is a normal and widely used convention that many, including myself, have used for decades and which is also used by many in writing Wikipedia articles? Southern Baptists officially condemn the convention, so I suppose they might object. Jehovah's Witnesses fully support it. It was actually popularized in the 1960s by Christian theologians (having been previously adopted by some Jewish theologians and historians) and from there moved into Biblical archeaology, into other archaeology, and into general historical writing and scientific writing.

But this issue is a devisive one. See Religious Tolerance.org: The use of "CE" and "BCE" to identify dates which claims:

We probably get more critical E-mails about the use of CE & BCE than about any other single topic, other than homosexuality, abortion in the Bible, and whether Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses are actually Christians.

Jallan 00:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think we should go with BCE and CE. That's the academic standard, and rightly so, in my opinion. Josh Cherry 14:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's an academic standard, certainly, but is it really the academic standard? Gdr 15:46, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

In the English-speaking world, yes it is the academic standard. It's difficult to find any textbooks that still use the AD/BC convention, and most journals require BCE/CE usage as part of their style guidelines. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Wikipedia should use those same conventions. The fact is that the AD/BC usage is significantly more common among laypeople, especially outside the USA. Many articles still use miles/inches/etc. rather than the academic/scientific standard of metric units, so there is some precedent for going with what's popular and well-known rather than what's academic. I've created all the appropriate redirects from the BCE dates to their BC counterparts, and am in the process of directly linking all actual usage of BCE dates in articles to those redirects (so as to make tracking simpler). This debate springs back up every couple months, and never seems to get anywhere because there is so little in the way of hard data. Once I'm through converting all 600 or so articles that reference BCE dates, I plan on re-visiting this issue in a few months with more data comparing frequency of usage for BC vs. BCE in actual Wikipedia articles. Until then, I'd suggest we shelve the debate (unless somebody has some hard data on usage they'd like to share, rather than just opinions). --Wclark 19:00, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

BCE/CE is POV, BC/AD isn't. BC/AD is the de-facto standard wherever the Gregorian calendar is used. Some academics, especially in the USA, prefer BCE/CE; that's up to them. Just where are all these text books with BCE/CE? I read extensively on calendrical matters and I rarely come across this notation in non-USA material. It's irrelevant how many articles use BCE/CE as against BC/AD. The fact is Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to promote minority views that are at odds with a current standard. Wikipedia should use the most common notation until such time as it ceases to be so - globally. Therefore, to maintain strict NPOV in this matter, BC/AD should become our standard. Ask the man in the street what BCE means and he'll not know what you're talking about (even in the USA), but the chances are he'll know what BC means. Arcturus 16:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

BCE/CE and BC/AD are both POV. Even if we were bound by de-facto standards (and IMHO that would be a silly thing) it's simply not true that BC/AD is more common wherever the Gregorian calendar is used -- in China, for example, their terminology for dates translates as common era. I'm surprised that you're finding significant usage of BC/AD in textbooks, but if you're looking at older (or republished) material that may explain it. It's a quite common observation that BCE/CE usage is the standard in modern academic texts (for just one example, [1]). As noted in that article, BCE/CE usage was fairly widespread dating as far back as the 19th century, but in theological circles it goes back to at least Maimonides in the 12th century.

The relative usage of BCE/CE vs. BC/AD in Wikipedia articles is relevant because it's a point of debate on this issue, and one for which we can actually collect useful numbers. I'm not sure what you mean by "minority views" since the BCE/CE convention is used by many different groups, often with mutually exclusive agendas (there are Christian groups that promote its usage as a means of "whitewashing" the religious overtones, as well as secularists who believe the usage to be more in line with their worldview). Among readers of the English Wikipedia, "Standard" units of measure (miles, gallons, pounds, etc.) are more widely understood (owing to American dominance), yet there are valid arguments for adopting the Scientific (and in this case, International) standard of Metric units — so the fact that one or another system is more widely understood is hardly decisive.

I really wish everyone would just use ISO conventions and be done with all this naming-of-eras nonsense, but I really wish people would just stop getting so bent out of shape over the connotations of one usage over another. To be perfectly frank, the position of the anti-BCE/CE folk strikes me as particularly anti-American and borders on anti-Semitism (and for those reasons it always rubs me the wrong way).

If it weren't for the date articles themselves (e.g. 1 BC vs. 1 BCE, this problem could be trivially solved by allowing BCE/CE or BC/AD to be a preference setting that each user could configure on their own, just as the MM/DD or DD/MM settings are now. Something along those lines may still be the best approach. --Wclark 17:12, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

AD before or after the date?

While we are at it... In Armenian (people), "301 AD" was recently "corrected" to "AD 301". I realize that would be correct word order in Latin, but I believe it is minority usage in English. I'm not getting into this sort of petty editing on either side, but just thought it worth noting here, hoping that those who are working on this can sort this out. -- Jmabel 05:42, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well... since you're posting to the talk page for the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) I suppose it's apropos to quote what it has to say on the matter:

- To specify a period of years spanning the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, [[1 BC]]–[[1|AD 1]] or [[1 BCE]]–[[1|1 CE]].

So there you have it. Minority usage or not, it's Wikipedia style to put the AD first. --Wclark 05:58, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

Is it right to do so though? Pcb21| Pete 08:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Anno Domini. The Chicago Manual of Style confirms that AD goes before the year. So does the Guardian's house style guide. Gdr 09:26, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

However, I see that 1 (number), 2 (number), etc. do not follow this style. Lots of work needed to make things consistent... Gdr 14:27, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

"AD" is from the Latin Anno Domini 2004 literally meaning "In the year of our Lord 2004". The "in" is because "anno" is in the ablative case. "AH" meaning "Anno Hegira" fo Islamic years should also appear before the number. The question may be between a "minority usage" or a majority mis-usage. Eclecticology 17:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's literally "in the year of the lord". The "our", which is often objected to, is traditionally stuck in the translation, but that would be a translation of "anno nostri domini" - Nunh-huh 00:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AD before the date is more academic and we should prefer that. But the layman puts it after and that is also acceptable. — Chameleon My page/My talk 12:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Multiple references to years and dates?

Is it considered redundant to have multiple links to the same year or date in an article--for instance, linking to 2004 or to July 10th more than once? This question comes up because the TechTV article has a number of dates in it, and I don't know if I should feel guilty for removing the redundant date links. My question wasn't answered in the dates and numbers manual, but I have not checked the archives yet. If there's another place where this question is answered, maybe we should link to there from here. --Ardonik 23:27, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

All month-day or month-only dates should be linked, otherwise they won't be formatted according to the user's date formatting preference. It currently doesn't matter for years -- HOWEVER, I'm in the processing of adding functionality to allow users to set preferences for BCE vs. BC conventions (and maybe to optionally display AD or CE as well). So to be on the safe side, I'd suggest linking all dates. --Wclark 00:15, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I'll correct the TechTV article accordingly. --Ardonik 00:48, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Dates in Tables

I just got through editing the tables of Prime_Minister_of_India and President_of_India I intended to only switchover to the wiki-pipe-markup, but after a little experimentation I found that by following the mon dd, yyyy format considerable screen space was gained (small monitor perhaps?), also it stacked more neatly than dates with the fully-spelled-out month names. I then found out that there was already a dispute over date-formats on the Pres. page, and followed a link here. According to the guidleines in this manual, months must be expressed in full to avoid any ambiguity. Would it's use in a table like the ones I've linked to above, qualify as ambiguous? If so, I'll gladly revert the dates to the normal format, though I really do think it's use in such a table is quite a bit neater. -- Phil R 14:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that dates with short form months do not reformat according to user's preferences. With my preferences set to "dd month yyyy", on Prime Minister of India I see all the May dates resolved according to my preference, and all other dates in the table in the 'incorrect' "mon dd, yyyy" format -- most disconcerting! -- Arwel 18:23, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Hadn't thought about (or ever used) the dynamic date formatting. The May dates hadn't been masked (3 letter mon). Sorry about that. It's now corrected. (now if only I could figure out how to get back the anonymous default user preferences that got changed just to test this :-) I also managed to find some vague references in the talk archives (see top of page links) about similar formats: namely 'archive1' (lookfor: simian), 'archive7' and "naming conventions (calendar dates)" (lookfor: abbreviation). The format may possibly be ambiguous, used anywhere else on a page, but in a table-column of only dates it is neater to use. -- Phil R 21:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dashes (again)

Hi, Chameleon.

Chocolateboy, i don't get why you're changing good punctuation into sloppy punctuation.

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes.

chocolateboy 20:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)#Dash guidelines for Wikipedia editors

In the interests of Wikipedia:Wikilove and pending the planned update of the Wikimedia software that will automatically convert strings of hyphens into the appropriate correct en- and em dashes, editors are encouraged to be accepting of others' dash preferences and not to modify a chosen style arbitrarily, in the same way as they would refrain from arbitrarily changing "artefact" to "artifact" (or vice-versa). The following five dash styles are currently in use on Wikipedia: of these, three formats are endorsed and two are deprecated. Please do not change them to reflect your preference, except as indicated below.

As far as I can tell, the usage that you changed is included in the list, so I do not think you are justified in making the change.older≠wiser 20:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that we should recommend and illustrate the best practice while accepting (and quietly correcting) the common practice. Gdr 20:53, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

Hi, older≠wiser.

I hadn't spotted the movement away from hyphen and towards — and – on the talk page. FWIW, I dislike the HTML entities (particularly without surrounding whitespace), and hyphens are certainly the de facto standard for date ranges. Nevertheless, there clearly is some momentum behind the use of the traditional forms, though I think Gdr's compromise is more consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes and current (if not necessarily "best") practice.

chocolateboy 21:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dashes have already been discussed ad nauseam. You need to revert the article back to proper punctuation. Not liking HTML is not an excuse. — Chameleon My page/My talk 00:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything. The policy is still under construction and hyphens are still the default.

chocolateboy 00:49, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Articles with bad grammar and factual inaccuracies are also the default, but not necessarily therefore desirable. — Chameleon My page/My talk 02:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fascinating. But what has that to do with this discussion?

... the necessity of using HTML entities makes the wiki markup more difficult to read, and these do not display consistently in all browsers. (Please see the talk page.) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)

chocolateboy 02:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't be childishly sarcastic. You see what it has to do with it.

Dashes display correctly in all modern browsers. Hyphens display incorrectly in all browsers. — Chameleon My page/My talk 04:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've cited three authorities: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), and the status quo. You've pontificated ("you need to...", "don't be...", "you see what...").

Dashes display correctly in all modern browsers. Hyphens display incorrectly in all browsers.

---

... the necessity of using HTML entities makes the wiki markup more difficult to read, and these do not display consistently in all browsers. (Please see the talk page.) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)

Wikipedia is not paper.

chocolateboy 11:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Chocolateboy, you have cited three authorities which do not unambiguously support the changes that you made earlier (although you seem to be under the impression that hyphens are some sort of de facto standard or the status quo, this is most definitely not the case--there are countless articles with many varieities of dashes). The opinion you quote: "the necessity of using HTML entities makes the wiki markup more difficult to read" is just one side of the guideline and discussion--there is no consensus one way or the other and both html entities and hyphens are supported. older≠wiser 13:55, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, older≠wiser.

They are the de facto standard for date ranges (i.e. the subject of this article). Otherwise, I agree with everything you say, in particular "there is no consensus". I modified the article a) to reflect this fact and b) to ensure consistency with the other guidelines cited above.

chocolateboy 07:23, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The content at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) represents the current consensus on dashes after long debate. It is still open to tweaking, but the core of it is clear. To summarise: there are various hacks involving hyphens ( - ), (--) etc., which are products of the fact there is no dash key on most keyboards. Contributors are welcome to write articles with such hacks, but should expect them to be changed to proper punctuation by Wikipedians carrying out clean-up. Three types of acceptable punctuation were agreed upon, old-fashioned unspaced em-dashes, new-fangled spaced en-dashes, and (my personal favourite) spaced em-dashes. It was agreed to change hyphen hacks to proper dashes, but not to change from one type of dash to another, in the interest of Wikilove.

Dashes display correctly in all modern browsers (NS4 may have problems, for example, but then the entire site is unreadable in NS4, so it's not really an issue), whereas hyphen hacks do not display correctly in any browser. Numerical HTML entities are tricky to understand, but word-based ones are highly intuitive. Once the concept of starting with an ampersand and ending with a semi-colon is mastered, they couldn't be simpler, e.g.: &rho; for the letter Rho (ρ), &euro; for the euro sign (€), &mdash; for the em-dash (—). Since nobody is being told to use such entities, but merely to leave them alone when coming across them, one has to question the oft-used complaint that they are difficult. They are no more difficult, and disrupt the flow of the source code no more, than other methods we use for marking up text or inserting content, such as the image code ([[Image:Name of the image.png|left|thumb|110px|Comment]]) or the numerous colons, asterisks, square brackets, curly braces and apostophes that litter the source code for various purposes and are a necessary evil.

It will soon no doubt be possible to enter such correct punctuation without the need for entities. All it would take is the adoption of UTF-8, and we could replace all entities by directly-entered characters — the important thing is that proper punctuation should appear in the article. On the same topic, it has long been planned to implement automatic conversion of hyphen hacks into proper dashes. Indeed, it was once implemented, but had to removed due to problems with table syntax (which uses "--"). Until that time, the tiny inconvenience of seeing the occasional entity in the source will remain.

As for the concept of a "status quo", the current situation is that there are in excess of half a dozen different ways of attempting to represent various dashes. It has been decided that three of these are acceptable. It is our duty to change the bad ones to the good ones. Changing good ones to bad ones is rather unhelpful.

A "default" is something that happens "because of a lack of opposition or positive action" according the OED. The proliferation of hyphen hacks is indeed because until now people haven't been strict and positive enough about proper punctuation; this is not an argument for such hacks. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 10:49, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi.

While hyphens may not display "correctly" as dashes, they clearly do display "correctly" as far as the vast majority of editors and readers are concerned. Changing those hyphens to HTML entities serves only to alienate and annoy those contributors who take their lead from web standards of punctuation adopted by such sites as the BBC and H2G2.

Until consensus is genuinely reached (the other cited policy documents show that it has not been, and opinion is more or less evenly divided on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dashes)), and, more importantly, the MediaWiki software is upgraded so that dashers and hyphenators can coexist peacefully, there is no reason to suppress recognition of the customary and official policy for dates on this site.

Wikipedia policy emerges bottom-up, taking its cue from what is done; it is not imposed top-down by the appeal of a handful of editors to standards of "propriety" that obtain in different media. That argument is explicitly addressed and rejected in Wikipedia is not paper and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

The pending MediaWiki update (assuming it renders " - " as " – " and "--" as "—") actually argues strongly against the current deprecation (albeit incoherent) of hyphens, as they will, in future, become the de jure standard, while the currently obsolescent HTML entities will finally be rendered obsolete.

chocolateboy 15:24, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Use of "-" in date ranges, for example, will almost certainly not become standard in any future upgrade. It may be that "--" will become standard for n-dash and "---" for m-dash. If so, then at that time one might expect to see – no longer used in new edits. But it would mostly left in old edits because it works, just as things like é appear in many articles. They are not "obsolete", especially if a particular editor is used to those entities and doesn't know any other easy way to get such a character directly from the keyboard.

You will find much use of &ndash on Main Page and Wikipedia:Community Portal. Use of "–" in date ranges and other ranges and use of either "–" or "—" or "--" for other dashes is the current standard in Wikipedia, arrived at after much discussion, when those like yourself who honestly don't like — and – were outvoted. Actually I don't think anyone likes the entities much, but a majority preferred the results that use of those entities produces over ASCII work-arounds. Similarly I don't think anyone likes three apostrophes to indicate bold emphasis. They use it because they like the result.

But the current standards on dashes (and on other matters) were not imposed top-down. They were decided by discussion. In the case of dashes it became an issue when some users, notably one called Wik, started unilaterally changing other people's use of "—" and "–' to " - ". There were bottom-up protests against this. There was no top-down suppression. More people who cared about the issue one way or the other opted for use of HTML entities as the norm. This was recently modified to allow "--" also, after notice on the pump and discussion on a talk page. Please abide by consensus in this matter. Otherwise it is Chocolateboy who is alienating and annoying others, who is suppressing others who are following what is here the preferred style and often the individual preferred style of the users whose work he is changing.

Not all points of Wikipedia style are my own preferred style. But I try to follow Wikipedia style when editing here.

As to standards being under construction ... all standards here are always under construction and subject to modification at any time, if there is consensus among those who care about any standard usage to modify a particular standard or to extend it. That's how the current policy on dashes emerged. Unilaterally changing someone else's standard usage to non-standard usage without discussion is normally not acceptable on any site or in any publishing entity, regardless of what standards that site or publishing entity has chosen.

Even three years ago it was very reasonable in English web publishing to keep within the cage of the subset of characters defined by the intersection of Latin-1, MacRoman, and Latin-9. It even made sense to stick to ASCII as character set conversions were sometimes buggy. So of course web sites continued to use the normal ASCII/typewriter kludges to represent dashes despite the spread of Unicode because of difficulties with older systems and older browsers. Many large sites still follow those standards even after the reason for them has gone. Changes take time and the hand of convention rules. But the cage door is open now. HTML Unicode entities and UTF-8 are supported on free browsers available on almost every system and there is longer need to restrict oneself to old-fashioned limitations inherited from typewriter technology. If you won't get out of the prison yourself, don't expect others to stay there with you or agree with you holding them back.

Jallan 00:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Jallan. Thanks for your comments. I agree with some of them, and, for the record, would be quite happy to see – and — in the rendered HTML.

If so, then at that time one might expect to see – no longer used in new edits. But it would mostly left in old edits because it works, just as things like é appear in many articles. They are not "obsolete"

They are obsolete. They would be removed by conscientious Wikipedians just as the jejune and redundant use of HTML to achieve formating that is directly catered for in wikitext is removed (usually with a gloss of "wikified").

They still appear at [[2]] which is the help page accessed from an edit page. Presumably they are there to help editors not clear on how to get the characters from their keyboards. A gloss of "Wikified" does surely not necessarily mean that such characters are removed or that, for example HTML tables are removed, but rather that titles mainly that titles are now in standard Wiki format, the introductary paragraph follows Wiki standards, links have been made to other articles and other stated standards of the style sheets have been followed—encluding use of the proper dash characters. Jallan 03:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Use of "–" in date ranges and other ranges and use of either "–" or "—" or "--" for other dashes is the current standard in Wikipedia

That is incorrect. See below.

arrived at after much discussion

That ("arrived at") is also incorrect. There is no consensus. Or rather, the consensus (the solution that displeases no-one) is that hyphens should be used in wikitext and that they should be convereted to – and — in the resulting HTML. See below.

More people who cared about the issue one way or the other opted for use of HTML entities as the norm.

This is incorrect. The majority of Wikipedians are unaware of the attempts of a vocal minority to overthrow standard web usage (it doesn't help that the discussion is spread over several talk pages and articles). Those who do care enough to contribute to the discussion are almost unanimously in favour of the hyphens-in-wikitext/dashes-in-HTML solution referred to above.

How do you know what the majority of Wikipedians are aware of? The discussion is spread over many talk pages and articles, but the guidelines are not. A further change to the standard (allowing "--") was advertised on the pump for about a month. No-one has tried to keep anything secret. As to "standard web usage", that is changing also. Jallan 03:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here are some sites that I found quite quickly. The link is to a sample subpage when the main page does have a dash example:

Oxford University Press: Online
University of Chicago Press: In the News
Enyclopedia Britannica: Henry V
Bartleby: Columbia Encyclopedia: Shakespeare
InfoPlease: Columbia Encyclopedia: Shakespeare
Grolier Encyclopedia American: George Washington
Jewish Encyclopedia: David
University of California Press: Press Release: August Frugé Dies age 94
Johns Hopkins University
University of Texas at San Atonio: Editorial Style Guide: Visual standards for representing UTSA in print, Web and new media
Plumtree Brfanding and Style Guide
New York Times Must register (free) to see articles.
Washington Post Special dashes can be seen heading the bylines.

Some of this is probably quite old. One site was even using a graphic kludge to emulate a dash. But a lot is new. Do you really think any of these pages and sites will revert back to hyphens? Do you really think that many other sites are not going to change in the next couple of years.

You might try telling the following that they don't know anything about using the web:

Microsoft: About this site
Apple: Hot New
Adobe Systems: About Adobe
Digital Web Magazine: Firefox 0.9 They demand that submitted articles have the proper dashes. See Guidelines for Contributors

It is quite possible that some of these sites, like Wikipedia, also have hyphens for dashes in the majority of pages. But not in the new pages. Though I did find sites I did not list which were mixing "--" and "—" even on the same pages. New technology means new standards are possible. And people are beginning to take advantage of the possiblities, moving away from a standard forced by necessity rather than by consideration of was really wanted. Jallan 03:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please abide by consensus in this matter.

I would advise you to do the same. I have gone to some trouble to support my argument with statistics rather than dismissive references to individual Wikipedians ("Chocolateboy", "Wik"), which, IMHO, are offtopic.

That thousands of old articles (and many new ones) do not follow Wikipedia standards in many different ways is a fact. So standardize them. Jallan 03:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not all points of Wikipedia style are my own preferred style. But I try to follow Wikipedia style when editing here.

I prefer title case headings to sentence case, as do many other websites (and, for that matter, print style guides). I don't go through Wikipedia systematically changing headings to title case. Nor do I complain or revert when an editor (or bot) tweaks my headings to conform to the de facto Wikipedia standard. Given the large number of witting and unwitting Wikipedians who favour title case headings (see Lady Lysine Ikinsile's list for example), I doubt it would be difficult to corral a troupe of contributors to vote for a title-case overthrow of the relevant policy page. I choose not to do that because I prefer not to fly in the face of the de facto standard both here and on other websites. If there is an argument for a minority-backed imposition of a dash policy that flouts customary Wikipedia usage, then there is an equally strong case for the overthrow of all de facto Wikipedia standards.

Ah! customary usage. ASCII only was at one time customary on the web if you wanted to be safe. "Customary usage" was exactly the excuse Wik claimed when he began arbitrarly changing other people's ussage. But of course it was customary. Use of special characters outside of Latin-1, and even outside of ASCII, used to be somewhat chancy, and still is for many of the newer Unicode characters. Not for dashes though. No reason any more not to use them. The world has moved on. Try changing the main page in Wikipedia to get rid of the dashes and see what happens. Jallan 03:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unilaterally changing someone else's standard usage to non-standard usage without discussion is normally not acceptable on any site or in any publishing entity, regardless of what standards that site or publishing entity has chosen.

There is no unilaterism here. There are ample arguments on both sides, as your previous paragraph backhandedly acknowledges. The position with the broadest support advocates the use of hyphens in wikitext, and dashes in the rendered HTML.

Of course. And until then ... it advocates use of entities, or "--". Read the discussion carefully. There is no way that a hyphen in a range will be automatically changed by software from a single hyphen to an en-dash. That's why use of – in ranges is particularly urged. How does the software know whether "150-355" is a range or an identification code of some kind? Of course linked date ranges could probably be identified, leaving the entities to other cases. But current suggestion seems to be that en-dash in a range should be represented by "--" and em-dash by "---" following TeX standard. Who knows? It's all pie in the sky. Meanwhile, the entities work, and they will continue to work regardless of what might be done, just as do HTML tables. Or perhaps a convention to UTF-8 will happen first, in which case people can simply enter the proper dashes if they want without messing around with either HTML entities or silliness like "--" and "---". Jallan 03:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contrary to the repeated appeal to a "vote", there is no consensus on the Dashes talk page. There are around fifty different contributors to that page. A handful of recurrent print-oriented pundits (most of whom have tried to railroad this and that page into supporting their position) have repeatedly lobbied for entities in the wikitext. A similar number have objected to this on the grounds that it obfuscates the source. The rest have either made peripheral observations, or have simply endorsed the status quo, which is that hyphens should be used in the source and rendered (in the resulting HTML) as – and —. Most contributors to Wikipedia are manifestly unaware of any of the dash policy pages; they contribute to this discussion by example. In contrast, the – and — advocates project a seriously skewed impression of Wikipedian policy by systematically organizing their putsch here and on other policy pages. The hyphen advocates are the silent majority. The entity advocates are the vocal minority.

The "silent minority" fallacy. All the people out there who agree with you but somehow don't speak up. Not credible. True, a lot don't know (and a lot don't care.) And there is a group who don't like the idea of having to mess around with dashes, just as there is a group who don't like mixed spellings from one article to another, and a group who loaths tables, and a group who would ban almost all lists, and a group who would ban most articles about fictional characters, and a group who sees no reason why "how to" articles shouldn't be included and so forth. Jallan 03:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hyphens are the de facto standard on Wikipedia, not only for dates, but for "dashes".

Yes, they are standard for old articles, except when changed, in a sense. There is a lot of changing to do, and seemingly no-one feels strongly enough to start doing this as a project. So the changes happen gradually, along with other edits. HTML tables are probably the de facto standard on Wikipedia also. Jallan 03:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(The file normalized.txt referenced below is a version of the 20040727 cur table dump with talk pages removed (script available on request). Due to stack overflow issues in Perl's recursive regular expression engine, a few longer articles are also excluded from these statistics.)

Globally, hyphens are at least 15 times more common than ndashes or mdashes combined:

I am not surprised. Maybe about six months ago they were 40 or 50 times more common. Who knows? Jallan 03:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

grep '–' normalized.txt | perl -pe '$_ = join ($/, /–/g) . $/' | wc -l

> 14663

grep '—' normalized.txt | perl -pe '$_ = join ($/, /—/g) . $/' | wc -l

> 16526

grep ' - ' normalized.txt | perl -pe '$_ = join ($/, / - /g) . $/' | wc -l

> 494155

Likewise, hyphens are approximately 40' times more popular than dashes for date ranges:

grep '\]\] – \[\[' normalized.txt | perl -pe '$_ = join ($/, /\]\] – \[\[/g) . $/' | wc -l

> 2698

grep '\]\]–\[\[' normalized.txt | perl -pe '$_ = join ($/, /\]\]–\[\[/g) . $/' | wc -l

> 2599

grep '\]\]-\[\[' normalized.txt | perl -pe '$_ = join ($/, /\]\]-\[\[/g) . $/' | wc -l

> 59366

grep '\]\] - \[\[' normalized.txt | perl -pe '$_ = join ($/, /\]\] - \[\[/g) . $/' | wc -l

> 160911

As you can also see from those stats (which exclude some date ranges and include some non-date-ranges: patches welcome!), spaced hyphens are used approximately 3 times more often than unspaced hyphens.

So ... there's a lot of work to do to get Wikipedia (and the web) out of the ASCII kludges once necessary for technical reasons, kludges based on old typewriter technology (which is a paper print technology as much as professional typography, but a cheap kludge technology). But that HTML tables are more common in Wikipedia than pipe tables doesn't mean that one shouldn't use pipe tables does it? Of course it really doesn't matter with tables. HTML or pipe, they look the same when viewed. Not so with dashes. But you are playing with the word standard, using it to mean what happens to exist, as though to say that Internet Explorer HTML is "standard" HTML. In that sense, it is standard HTML. It is very standard. In another sense it is not. So get the dashes off the main Wikipedia page and the Community portal page if they aren't what you think should be standard and you can get people to agree with you. Otherwise, leave other people's dashes alone. Jallan 03:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

chocolateboy 16:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's a shame that you felt the need to grievously disfigure my comments in the course of your reply. I hope you'll learn to quote (rather than interlineate) in future. If my laboriously researched facts are going to be ignored (as they have been, systematically), then I see little point in taking the trouble to refute your inky op-ed (I congratulate you on plucking a handful of semi-dashed sites out of the seething majority of hyphenated sites: most of them are mechanically-converted print resources; and the Washington Post uses hyphens in the articles). As stated before, if there's a case for the style-guide approved dashes in wikitext (no-one objects to them appearing in the rendered HTML), then there's an equally strong case for a militant overthrow of the sentence-case headings policy, which "merely" has consensus (rather than "correctness") on its side. If the censorship of the de facto dash policy on Wikipedia prevails, then I look forward to the contributions of your title-case vandalbot in the forthcoming headings consistency (with this policy, not with other Wikipedians) war.

chocolateboy 00:19, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Em and en dashes are considered the proper punctuation in many cases. Using em and en dashes can be considered similar – albeit outdated in HTML – to putting one space between sentences: two spaces are a relic of the old days of fixed-width typewriters, needed to make the page readable. I notice that you use one space. Now, with the advent of computers, we can use dashes—even true minus signs (not dashes or hyphens)—without having them be the same width as the rest of the text. Oh, and I'm sure that websites with bad HTML are about 200 times more abundant than ones with good HTML, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to code badly. And sentences that end with prepositions are about twenty times more common than their "proper" equivalents...I could go on and on. *L* — TTD

Bark 05:01, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to bump in with my opinion, too. :) Personally, I'd support any system-wide conversion away from hyphens to dashes. Dashes are certainly a part of proper typography, which is (nearly) as important as proper grammar. I gather that one of the aims of Wikipedia is to be as professional as possible, yes? I'm sure we have plenty of badly-constructed sentences, but that doesn't make them the right thing to keep, either. While we can't plausibly include every correct typographic convention (oh, beautiful curved quotes, how I miss you) IMHO we should include them when possible. Miss Puffskein 23:48, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

As to curved quotation marks, I quite agree, though no-one including myself is avidly pushing for them. For one thing, there are reasonbly good algorithms to produce "smart quotes" which can allow this to be done on the fly when users download without anyone having to bother about them while editing. I expect that will be done here eventually. "Smart quote" algorithms aren't perfect, but are good enough for about 95% of usage. Things like "Spirit of '76" come out with the wrong mark as well as things like 20º 7' 3" where the straight quotation marks should not be turned into curly quotation marks. Also one would not want any translation done in fixed with text, e.g. text of computer source code. The answer is to explicitly hardcode the proper curly quote symbols and proper prime symbols only for those cases where the alogrithm does not convert properly. And provide some way, perhaps \' and \", to represent straight quotation marks that are to be left alone (as well as leaving them alone in fixed-width text. It would quite doable and not very complicated. It is unfortunate that dashes cannot be handled so simply through an algorithm that handles about 95% of the cases without difficulty or there would have been no debate. And the algorithm which was tried messed up pipe table format. Jallan 20:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The angle measurements you mention: 20º 7' 3": they should be converted, but into prime and double-prime. Once again, A List Apart has an excellent discussion about miscellaneous [confusing punctuation marks (including dashes!). — TTD

Bark 05:01, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Summary of debate so far

I note that everyone in this debate is agreed that dashes in date and number ranges should appear as en-dashes when displayed or printed. The disagreement is on what method or methods should be recommended in the Manual of Style to achieve this. The proposals are:

Recommend –. (Advantage: achieves the desired result immediately. Disadvantage: awkward to type, offputting to newcomers.)
Recommend hyphen. (Advantage: common practice. Disadvantage: never achieves the desired result, because it there's no way to automatically convert it.)
Recommend double-hyphen. (Advantage: easy to type. Disadvantage: doesn't achieve the desired result immediately. A wiki markup feature that turned double hyphen into en-dash would introduce a small number of errors, for example in the discussion of the -- operator in the C programming language.)

Note that one day the English Wikipedia will allow all Unicode characters, so then surely the recommended approach will then just be to type an en-dash. Gdr 13:04, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

It's easy to automatically convert both the spaced hyphen (to –) and the spaced double hyphen (to — (not –)). There's always  (soft hyphen) for (rare) isolated pre- and post-decrement operators. As you can see from this discussion, it's not a complicated issue :-) Otherwise, I agree with your summary.

chocolateboy 23:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spaces in date ranges

It is obvious that unspaced en-dashes need to be used in unspaced date ranges such as "1978–2004". However, what about spaced dates like "1 September 1978–1 August 2004"? Doesn't the dash look like it is joining the "1978" and the "1" rather than the first whole date and the second whole date? I think "1 September 1978 – 1 August 2004" is better and should at the very least be permitted. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 21:44, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me, certainly.

James F. (talk) 23:36, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Spaced en-dashes are certainly permitted. Perhaps the word "to" would be better then either? Gdr 14:58, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

The thing is that I think they should only be permitted in this case for clarity. I don't see why they should be allowed in other cases. As you said, usage guides say no to spaces. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the article to reflect the de facto Wikipedia standard. See stats and comments above. chocolateboy 16:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why? The style guide is about how Wikipedia should be, not how it is. It's like being on an examination board and disagreeing with the other professors because you think students should get higher marks not for putting the de jure correct answers, but the de facto ones, i.e. the answers most frequently given by other students... on the grounds it is more democratic or something.

Any research such as that carried out by you above is flawed because it does not take into account one thing: it is harder to insert dashes than hyphens because they do not feature on keyboards. That will always skew results. The same thing occurs with the correct use of special characters in foreign words. Most English speakers will enter them incorrectly, and the rest of use have to come along afterwards and tidy up, as we do with punctuation. The de facto standard on Wikipedia is also stubs, lists, semi-correct info, badly-written prose and huge US bias. Should we also encourage this so as not to be nasty, pedantic, ivory-tower prescriptivists? Does anyone agree with you? — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 18:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hola.

Please don't reformat my comments.

Why?

For the reasons given above. Please answer facts with facts rather than op ed.

Any research such as that carried out by you above is flawed

I usually find that's the case when someone disagrees with me.

because it does not take into account one thing: it is harder to insert dashes than hyphens because they do not feature on keyboards.

It's "harder" to enter <em>foo</em> than ''foo''. That's why the latter is preferred. The flaw is in your contention that "difficult to enter" should be the preferred solution in wikitext.

The de facto standard on Wikipedia is also stubs, lists, semi-correct info, badly-written prose and huge US bias.

I took considerable pains to support my position. I hope you will corroborate your indictment of Wikipedia by citing your sources or providing evidence rather than impugning the competence and cluefulness of the majority of Wikipedians.

Does anyone agree with you?

The vast majority of Wikipedians agreee with me as the statistics cited above amply demonstrate.

chocolateboy 19:06, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You assume that your opinions are statements of facts and that mine are mere opinions. All individuals are probably guilty of this, but you don't have to be so open about it. You have not supported your position at all; you have merely shown that there is much poor punctuation on Wikipedia. Only in your opinion does that support your position. In my opinion that supports a drive to improve punctuation in Wikipedia.

There is a huge logical leap between seeing that there are a great deal of hyphen hacks on Wikipedia and concluding that everyone actually agrees with you. The vast majority of people have never thought about it, don't care either way or have no idea how to enter a character not on their keyboard. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 20:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You assume that your opinions are statements of facts and that mine are mere opinions.

I have repeatedly cited Wikipedia policy and expounded an argument supported by verifiable statistics. You've done neither. If your opinion has the weight of consensus behind it, it should be easy to demonstrate. It merely requires a complete rewrite of a raft of policy documents, and a rigorous demonstration that the statistics I provided are inaccurate.

All individuals are probably guilty of this, but you don't have to be so open about it.

Why? Are we all required to dissemble ("don't have to be so open") and argue from opinions rather than facts?

You have not supported your position at all; you have merely shown that there is much poor punctuation on Wikipedia.

Please answer the points made in my comments above before wading further into the realm of patronising anti-Wikipedia invective.

The vast majority of people have never thought about it, don't care either way or have no idea how to enter a character not on their keyboard.

Unfortunately for your argument, the vast majority of Wikipedians decide Wikipedia policy. It is not decided by a militant minority hell-bent on propagating the illusion that Wikipedia is paper.

chocolateboy 22:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Who is this militant minority propagating an illusion that Wikipedia is paper?

Wikipedia has been printed on paper and the plan is that it will be printed on paper again, many times. After all, anyone can print it. But I don't think about that when I edit. I think about the screen display that I see. And I think dashes look better on the screen, that they give an article a more professional air. That did seem to be consensus, though of course people do not especially like the entities necessary to accomplish this. But, one works with the tools at hand. I would also like to simply press CTRL-B or something similar and have bolding turned on in my editing display without any visible coding.

I have background in editing and writing and doing layout on paper. I am a programmer by profession. There are desireable differences between print on paper and screen display. Most of those differences can be accomplished by twiddling a CSS while using the same text. I don't see that use of dashes falls into differences that are for some reason desireable on screen but not on paper or vice versa. Hyphens for dashes were never really asethetically desireable on typewriters. It was simply that for reasons of cost and mechanical practicality that the number of characters had to be kept down and using "--" or " - " for dashes and hyphen for both en-dash in ranges and for minus was a reasonable way to do it, especially when characters were, for the first time, all of a single width. People got used to the typewriter set of characters, and it made sense at the time to mostly transfer it to computers as it existed. But new technology throws away its limitations. To turn your strange accusation back at you, are you propagating the illusion that Wikipedia and the web should continue to accept old typewriter limitations when the reaon behind them is gone? You don't ask that Wikipedia articles be displayed in a fixed-width font at 80 characters to a line, which also used to be computer "standard". You accept italics rather than underscores and bolding rather than asterisks. I presume you accept superscript and subscript and so forth. Why are you so set on something which has been "standard" mostly because people could do no better?

Jallan 04:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unified date feature proposal

I propose a more general approach to the Date/Time handling, which I filed as a Wikimedia feature request [3]

Please comment (at sourceforge). If you feel that it's better to continue the discussion here than there (I'm pretty new in Wikipedia so I'm sorry if it goes without saying that date/time issues are only discussed here and not there), then please put a comment at the sourceforge pointing here and continue the discussion here. BACbKA 22:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are a lot of difficult issues in your proposal that need to be thought about (and argued over), so I think it would be a better idea to work out the details here before presenting a more worked-out proposal. I can't add comments to the SourceForge feature request, so I hope someone else will add a note pointing here. Gdr 15:45, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

BACbKA's proposal

At the present moment, whenever a date/time period/epoch is referenced within a Wikipedia article, various notations are used, and they are also unportable with respect to language and calendar systems.

It would be nice to have a special tag for a date specified to a given degree of accuracy (i.e., referring either to a particular date or even date+time, or to a particular week/month/century/millenium/epoch or some interval, like XIV-XVII AD).

(I am purposefully omitting any concrete implementation details and markup details at this stage, preferring to reach full agreement on the desired functionality first. If you want it in XML, I can easily prototype a DTD encompassing all the features once the agreement is reached).

The markup should allow specifying the date according multiple calendar notations (such as Julian/Gregorian/Russian Orthodox, or Arabic, Jewish, Mayan or whatever else - the system should be designed in such a way that adding another notation should not affect the existing dates specified in the notations already supported).

Aside of the way the date is *specified*, there should be a possibility to attach an attribute to the date that would signify the native calendar system for the date (rationale: a national/religious recurring holiday is celebrated according to the given calendar).

Now when a Wikipedia article is rendered, depending on the language it is in, a given date is translated as follows: 1) it is coerced from the originally specified notation to the native notation for the article language (as long as the attribute forcing a particular notation is not set) 2) the current language/locale is used to express the particular notation (also maybe as per the current user's preferences environment) 3) in case of the mismatch about the native notation for the article context and the native notation for the specified event/period, the date might be represented twice (this behavior might also be affected by the current user preferences). E.g., in an English Wikipedia article about an event native to the Hebrew calendar: 26/Jul/2004 (9th of Av, 5764)

This would simplify trans-article date formatting decisions within a language-specific Wikipedia greatly, and would also facilitate easier translation of Wikipedia article portions.

Discussion

My initial thoughts are:

It looks like a good idea and something like this will work for many cases, especially modern dates.
But there are lots of reasons why a date should not be translated, or should be translated with care:

Sometimes it is wrong to translate: for example, an article discussing dating systems themselves.
Date conversions between systems that have different starts to the day might be tricky. For example, days in the Hebrew calendar begin at sunset, so 2004-07-26 isn't necessarily 9th of Av, 5764.
Calendars like the Islamic calendar rely on an actual sighting of the new moon, so when translating to the Gregorian calendar there are a couple of days of uncertainty.
When translating between the Julian calendar and the (proleptic) Gregorian calendar you can't be accurate to the day because of the doubt over which years between 44 BC and AD 8 were leap years.
With some calendars there is disagreement over how they relate; for example there are still multiple opinions on how to translate Mayan dates, or how to date events in ancient Egypt.

The attribute forcing a date not to be translated will solve, or at least help, problem 1. Problems 2 and 3 are not very severe, but could in any case be solved by a system allowing you to specify a date in multiple systems if you needed to. I don't know what to say about problems 4 and 5.

It would be nice to see a detailed proposal. Gdr 15:45, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

Use of numerals

I propose to replace the text of the second paragraph of section "Number names" with the following:

In ordinary text, whole numbers from zero through one hundred, and any such whole numbers followed by hundred, thousand, hundred thousand, million, and so on should be spelled out. A number other than these should be represented in numerals, except in sentences where it is the first term or where spelled-out numbers would crowd, as in a list. Numerals should also be used where appropriate in dates, times of day, currency, or scientific, mathematical, or technical prose.

This is far more comprehensive, precise, and accommodates necessary practice for certain fields. Spelling out numbers up to one hundred is the practice prescribed in the Chicago Manual of Style, which is for formal works which do not have a strict limitation on the amount of text, and elsewhere. The practice of only going up to ten is prescribed in the Associated Press Stylebook, where formality is sacrificed in order to more strictly limit the amount of the text. - Centrx 02:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I strongly object to this for two reasons: 1) Using numerals for numbers greater than ten is widespread throughout Wikipedia; 2) spelling out the numbers makes the text quite clumsy looking, IMO. I see no reason to prefer the CMS to the AP. I do not understand what you mean by "accommodates necessary practice for certain fields". Can you explain? If you can identify specific contexts in which there is a clear advantage to spelling out the numbers, I could agree to doing so only in those specific contexts. But for general use, I would not want to see the numbers spelled out. older≠wiser 03:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Using numerals for numbers greater than ten is widespread throughout Wikipedia

This does not mean that the standard should not be otherwise. Present use is no impediment and differing use between articles--which will be resolved--should not have any bearing on what is the proper standard.

spelling out the numbers makes the text quite clumsy looking

I don't see how this is the case. All of the numbers would be of a form where the smallest lettering would be "ten" and the largest would be "seventy-eight". I don't see how this looks clumsy, they are just words, and for reading it seems it might be less clumsy, for the words are spelled out in front of you. This is the English language in a formal work; it is appropriate to use words. We should not, for instance, replace all instances of "for example" with "e.g.". Note also that the proposed text indicates that numerals should be used rather than spelled-out numbers where those numbers would cluster thickly, that is where it would be clumsy looking.

I see no reason to prefer the CMS to the AP.

The reason I mentioned this is that, of the two major manuals of style which indicate numeral practice, the one which deals with text that is designed to be short prescribes 1-10 and the one which deals with text that is more formal and is less constrained on size prescribes 1-100. The Wikipedia does not need limitations on text size and it is appropriate for it to be formal.

Wikipedia is not a book. We prefer news style in many article over book style and I would argue that reading materials online is much closer to news style than to reading a book. What do manuals of style for online resources have to say in this matter? [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 21:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by "accommodates necessary practice for certain fields"

This statement was not regarding the limit on numerals; it was in reference to another provision of the paragraph. The present text of the page does not provide for the use of numerals between 0-10, or the proposed 0-100. The proposed text, however, provides that numerals should be used where appropriate in terms of date, time of day, or currency, or where appropriate in various technical fields, for example in the properties of chemical elements. So, please also note that there are several new and modified provisions in the proposed text which are not directly associated with the issue between 1-10 and 1-100. - Centrx 14:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I second the above proposal. Whenever numbers can be written out with one or two words, numerals should not be used (e.g. one hundred, ninety, ten million). See The Chicago Manual of Style, "Numbers in Writing", Gude to Punctuation. -- Emsworth 20:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we should be more flexible. We can perhaps recommend writing out small numbers but I think we should not require it. There are too many contexts where numerals are better.

The English had 102 ships under George Monck, the Dutch 98 ships under Maarten Tromp.

By the end of October, Tromp had 117 ships, including 12 fire ships.

The German panzer armies encountered the US 99th and 106th divisions.

The Germans suffered between 60,000 and 104,000 casualties.

Are these really better as the following?

The English had 102 ships under George Monck, the Dutch ninety-eight ships under Maarten Tromp.

By the end of October, Tromp had 117 ships, including twelve fire ships.

The German panzer armies encountered the US ninety-ninth and 106th divisions.

The Germans suffered between sixty thousand and 104,000 casualties.

I think not. Gdr 20:12, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

So then, add something like the following to the criteria: "For numbers that are applicable to the same category and used in the same context, where this rule prescribes that some of the numbers be numerals, for the sake of consistency use numerals for them all." - Centrx 02:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, there is room for flexibility. (As for army divisions, incidentally, "1st Division," "10th Infantry," etc., appears to be common practice.) But, in general, numerals should not be used where one or two words could be employed to represent the number. I do not favour any attempt to impose any absolute requirement, either that only numerals should be used or that only words should be used (except in certain limited circumstances, where one or the other is clearly and definitely appropriate). -- Emsworth 20:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer that this flexibility be incorporated into the proposed change. As presently worded, it seems pretty inflexible to me--I would not want to encourage any bot-assisted campaigns to change all occurences of numerals to words. There are plenty of cases where numerals are preferable. As I said above, I still have not seen any compelling reasong to prefer the CMS over the AP in this matter. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 21:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think your last objection has already been addressed. The Manual of Style often uses the CMS as an authority. The CMS applies to formal writing, including encyclopedic writing, whilst the APS applies to newspapers, where space is at a premium. Needless to say, our style of writing fits the former. In any event, I think the following wording might be desirable:

Perhaps I have missed something, but I have not seen where the MoS gives preference to the CMS over other style guides. It is one among many style guides that are frequently referenced. There IS however, a stated preference for News style. Wikipedia is not a book. I STILL have not seen any COMPELLING evidence to prefer the CMS over AP or other news style type guide. The Economist, The Guardian, The Times (of London) all say spell out number 1-10 and use numerals above that. I'd say we are in very good company. I have no problem with allowing both styles (much like we allow both British and U.S. usage), but I don't want to see the book style to become the recommended style for Wikipedia. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 22:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where does it say that news style, as you construe it to include this issue of numerals, is the preference of the Wikipedia? Wikipedia:News style stresses having the "impact" of the news style, but does not dictate the encyclopedia articles follow the news style. The news style that is the stated preference is, as the news style article describes, "the order in which stories present information, their tone and the readers or interests to which they cater". In other words, the stated preference is for clear, accessible prose where sections are easily parsible by virtue of the pyramid style. It is not because of a preference for the format, that is nearly typographical format, of a newspaper. At the same time, why should the AP style for newspapers be our guide in contrast to the CMS which is more appropriate for works of serious length and is used, for instance, in publishing various encyclopediae and other reference works.

What is your point in saying that "Wikipedia is not a book"? What exactly about a book is something that we should not have in the Wikipedia? Why do you (it seems, you personally) prefer that Wikipedia not have the features of a book? Usually, the reason for mentioning that "Wikipedia is not paper" is in order to stress that there are not limitations on length... In short, I think saying "not being a book" or "being like a newspaper" are not productive as analogies and, indeed, are in many respects contrary to the well-established form of the Wikipedia. - Centrx 02:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did not say that the stated preference for news style explicitly included the issue of numerals. However, I would say that it supports the case for prefering a news-type of style guide such as AP (or that of the Economist, the Guardian or the Times) over the CMS. The typographical format of reading Wikipedia online shares much more similarities with a newspaper than it does with a book. I gues I simply do not agree that CMS is a "more appropriate" style guide for Wikipedia. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 03:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In what way is the format of the Wikipedia more like a newspaper than a book? Indeed, why is the format of the Wikipedia not more like a paper encyclopedia, a book of the same purpose as the Wikipedia? 'Simply disagreeing' does not constitute an considerable argument. - Centrx 01:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with further discussion. You've laid out your argument, which I find unconvincing; and I've presented my rationale to the best of my limited ability and interest in the matter, which you have similarly found unconvincing. As I said, I'll abide by the consensus opinion. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 02:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have not laid out a rationale. Regardless of numerals, I would like to know why you think that the Wikipedia is more like a newspaper than a book. Why is it more like a format with a limited space rather than a format with a vastly greater space? Why is it more like a format for delineating specific events and researching information directly relevant to current events rather than a format for thoroughly fleshing out an entire topic? Why is it more like a newspaper (on news paper) rather than an encyclopedia (in a book)? - Centrx 17:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In general, whole numbers from zero to one hundred, and whole numbers followed by hundred, thousand, million, and so on, should be spelt out. Other numbers should be represented by Arabic numerals.
The rule above is not absolute. In several circumstances, it may be preferable to use only numerals, even for whole numbers between zero and one hundred, etc. Numerals may be used to prevent crowding (e.g. in tables). When multiple numbers are listed, it is acceptable to use only one form for all of them (e.g. "between 95 and 135," instead of "between ninety-five and 135.)
Arab numerals should be always be used for dates, times, years and currencies, and in scientific or technical contexts ("1000 km/s," not "one thousand km/s").
Numbers at the beginning of sentences should always be written out, or else the sentence should be restructured so that the number occurs in the middle.

Any suggested amendments? -- Emsworth 21:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The caveat "in general" and a statement that the rule is not absolute in practice almost brings us back to the current standard. Change scientific to technical in the current standard and I don't see much wrong at all. Short is better.

From the Encyclopædia Britannica: Carom Billiards:

The 1993 World Billiard Association (BWA) three-cushion championship was won by an American for the first time in 40 years at the BWA's World Cup in Ghent, Belgium. Sang Chun Lee, a native South Korean who moved to New York City in 1987, won the crown despite lagging in cumulative tour scoring at the onset of the sixth and final tour stop. The 39-year-old Lee trailed both 21-time world titlist…

This is just an article that has more numbers than most I found. But use of digits rather than words appears throughout their current articles. For example, from Augsberg Confession:

Latin Confessio Augustana , the 28 articles that constitute the basic confession of the Lutheran churches, ...

Their article Twelve Tribes of Israel which can be seen fully if you log in, uses spelled numbers "six" and "two" but then refers to "The 10 tribes that settled in northern Palestine ..." Neither "twelve" or "12" actually occurs in the article.

Or check Oxford English Dictionary: A Day in the Life of the OED. It contains "another thirty or so" and "twentieth-century quotations" but also "roughly 70 quotations" and "batches 19 and 20".

The Style sheet for the Journal of the Royal Musical Association prefers digits for numbers 10 and highter, but not when numbering centuries. The MIT Style Sheet also wants digits for numbers 10 and higher. These are just the first style sheets I found that covered the matter.

So leave it to user discretion as is currently done. There are too many academic and scholarly resources that follow the same style that APS recommends to make a case that it is currently more correct or academic to spell out numbers in full when they are less than a hundred.

In any case, the Wikipedia style sheet should not normally be repeating material found in most other style sheets except for cases where almost all style sheets agree and editors here still very often get it wrong. I don't see any point to adding material on such matters.

Jallan 23:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So leave it to user discretion as is currently done.

Then this should be established in the Manual of Style. Many times, others have changed the numbers of my edits while pointing to this manual. Still, this is a guide and I see no reason why an appropriate practice should not be indicated in it while stressing that automated bots must not make changes to this effect by reason of the complexity of the matter.

the Wikipedia style sheet should not normally be repeating material found in most other style sheets

Why should we not be establishing guidelines of style that are appropriate to this unique platform? - Centrx 02:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---Proposed modification of section "Number names" (which I think should be separated to "Use of numerals"):

In ordinary prose, whole numbers from zero through one hundred, and any such whole numbers followed by hundred, thousand, hundred thousand, million, and so on should be spelled out. A number other than these should be represented in Arabic numerals, except where indicated below.
If a number is the first term in a sentence, it should be spelled out. It is often better to restructure the sentence so that the number is not the first term.
Where spelled-out numbers would crowd, as in a list, use numerals.
When both spelled-out numbers and numerals would be in the same category and used in the same context, such as in a comparison, use numerals for all of the numbers. Note that numbers of different categories are treated differently.
Numerals should be used where appropriate in dates, times of day, currency, or technical prose, especially in tables or other areas where space is restricted.

Suggestions? - Centrx 02:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) (removed examples - Centrx 01:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) )

I don't think I can support any version that indicates a "should" reccommendation along the lines of "In ordinary prose, whole numbers from zero through one hundred, and any such whole numbers followed by hundred, thousand, hundred thousand, million, and so on should be spelled out." Since you seem to think this is only my preference, I would be willing to have a poll on the matter and accept consensus whatever that may be. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 11:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't support such a recommendation either. And Centrx's suggestion is much too long for what should be a simple recommendation along the lines of "Writing out numbers is preferred in these situations, use numerals in these other situations, otherwise use your judgement." Gdr 12:00, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

In fact, it only looks longer because of the examples and is shorter than Lord Emsworth's proposal when those are removed. Including examples is a separate issue and they might, for instance, be added to the present text if that is considered beneficial. They are provided, I suppose, only for interest and may be easily removed for they are not necessary. - Centrx 01:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I quite strongly prefer a hard-and-fast rule of:

If the value is over ten or non-integral, use numerals;
In a list where any item is over ten, use numerals;
For ages, scientific data, technical specifications, dates, use numerals.

I think it's clearer — for non-native English speakers, dyslexics, dyspraxics and those of us (including myself) with an astigmatism. I even prefer numerals for century names, though I can live with those.

Quite frankly, I find 18th Century much easier to read than Eighteenth century; I'm hardly illiterate (thankyouverymuch ;o) , I just find it much easier. And I am a native English speaker. Given the English-language Wikipedia is (to my ken) the most extensive, I find it hard to believe that the readership doesn't include non-native readers. To be quite honest, I don't understand the need or desire to use words when numerals are (a) more than sufficient and (b) quite acceptable in several style guides. — OwenBlacker 12:48, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

If, then, several style guides differ on the matter, let us leave it up to the preference of the original creator (except in circumstances where either numerals or words would be clearly correct). As with British/American English differences, the primary contributor's preferences for numerals above ten could be respected. -- Emsworth 13:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whilst I'd still find that harder to read, it's certainly an acecptable compromise. It's not like there aren't myriad issues where we "solve" the problem that way already (British/American English; Dashes etc). That's fine by me, I guess. — OwenBlacker 16:39, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I quite agree. That is what the current statement on the matter indicates with "may be represented", that is, do as you will on the matter of numbers from 10 upward.

Centrix asked: "Why should we not be establishing guidelines of style that are appropriate to this unique platform?" Unique is irrelevant. There are other encyclopedias on the web and other sites providing much factual information on the web. Also the current Wikipedia style guide is already unique, just as every style guide is probably unique. That's neither good nor bad. The current style guide allows individual freedom in some areas while being restrictive in others. I don't see that the question of when numbers should be rendered by Arabic digits and when they should be rendered by spelled-out words is one of those areas where guidelines should be more restrictive than they are now, especially not in a direction which goes against what many here prefer and which is also preferred by many style sheets and by the Encyclopædia Britannica. So far consenus is against Centrx's preferred use, tending towards leting the editor decide or towards using digits in far more numbers than Centrx prefers.

As to the question of robots, no matter what is decided in matters of style, bots should never be used to make changes in style unless the bot can be counted on to never change any quoted material. In this case since even numbers under 10 (ten) may be expected to be written with digits in technical material, a bot is even less likely to ever be a viable option for changing representation of numbers to fit a standard.

I am changing "non-scientific" to "non-technical" in the guide as I think that probably better represents what was intended and what is intended by those who have discussed the matter here. If anyone disagrees, change it back or discuss it here or both.

Jallan 19:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unique is relevant in that it is not necessarily the case "the Wikipedia style sheet should not normally be repeating material found in most other style sheets" when it may be at times necessary to specify a style on the Wikipedia that is not in accordance with those style sheets which do not pertain to "other encyclopedias on the web an other sites providing much factual information on the web" - Centrx 01:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The very reason I brought this up is because numerous times others have reverted certain number edits while pointing to the style guide as the incontrovertible reason for doing so. No matter what else, this style guide must still be changed to reflect that it be the editor's choice. - Centrx 01:58, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you might provide examples of such reversions. It is sometimes hard to understand why someone sees a problem without concrete examples. I see "may be represented" as incontrovertible in indicating that number ten (10) and up can be represented either by digits or by words. Whose choice, if not the editor? Jallan 18:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion following consensus of the above

this first comment is in response to the last comment of the above, superordinate section

They are lost in various edit histories, but they were for numbers of the values we are discussing here and the justifying comments were very simply along the lines of see Manual of Style (dates and numbers) or according to..., etc. I think may be represented by numerals could be ambiguous because it does not specify that they may be spelled out. Also, it would allow, for instance, 43649 to be spelled out, which is something that would not really be appropriate. Also, should not five hundred be spelled out? So, how about:

In ordinary prose, whole numbers from zero through ten, and any such whole numbers followed by hundred, thousand, hundred thousand, and million~~, and so on~~ should be spelled out. Whole numbers from zero through one hundred, and any such whole numbers followed by hundred, thousand, etc. may be spelled out or represented by numerals. Other numbers should be represented by numerals, except where they appear as the first word in a sentence, in which case they must be written out in full.
Numerals should be used where appropriate in dates, times of day, currency, or technical prose, especially in tables or other areas where space is confined.

? - Centrx 17:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I could agree to most of this. I'm not sure about "whole numbers followed by hundred, thousand, hundred thousand, million, and so on should be spelled out." Why? I don't see that "ten million" is any better than 10,000,000 and in fact, given the differences between commonwealth and US meanings of million and billion it would be better to use numerals. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 22:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is the written word, not a mathematical text, not a confined space. I don't see why one should be spelled out but not one hundred. As for US vs. Commonwealth, yes I do think it might be appropriate for numbers greater than billion (million is common between the two). Although, as the OED states, billion in the U.S. sense is increasingly common in Britain. - Centrx 23:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Um, no, million is still a source of confusion. As for space, so what. What about consistency. Why make exceptions for some numbers simply because they have zeroes. That makes no sense to me. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 00:02, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Simply, there is no confusion in the English language with million. Whereas the OED lists two unique definitions for billion, the U.S. and British variety each, it does no such thing for million. Million as 1,000,000 has been the definition since the fourteenth century through today and the standard for British writers. Whereas billion is 1,000,000,000 in the U.S. and 1,000,000,000,000 in Britain, what is million in Britian if not 1,000,000 and what is 1,000,000 if not a million? A British milliard is 1,000,000,000 like the U.S. billion, but the OED states that this term has largely been superseded by billion and nevertheless it is no confusion of million. As I write these long numbers I now see more the propriety of spelling out large numbers. As for the reason to have a different rule for "some numbers" with "zeroes", the exception is rather that non-round numbers are not spelled out and the others are standardly spelled out. The reason for this is that it is unwieldy to spell out four million twenty thousand two hundred and fifty-five whereas spelling out round numbers that can be expressed concisely, as four million is sensible. Note also that it is especially important to spell out approximate numbers. Rather than referring to the geology of 1,000,000 years ago, the reference should be to one million years ago (things like 1.53 million can also be used) whereas if the number would be indicated in numerals by this rule, it would be a relatively specific number. - Centrx 18:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct about million. I was misremembering the discussion about the milliard. However, I still would not want an absolute rule about this. I quite agree with you that it is better to spell out the term when dealing with approximations. However, if the what is meant is exactly 100, 1,000 or 1,000,000 then I see no advantage to requiring that the number be spelled out. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 00:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So:

In ordinary prose, whole numbers from zero through ten should be spelled out. Whole numbers from zero through one hundred, and any such whole numbers followed by hundred, thousand, hundred thousand, and million may be represented by numerals or spelled out, especially when approximate. Other numbers should be represented by numerals, except where they appear as the first word in a sentence, in which case they must be written out in full.
Numerals should be used where appropriate in dates, times of day, currency, or technical prose, especially in tables or other areas where space is confined.

But, what can we say about numbers greater than billions? Should 6,000,000,000,000 really represented by numerals when it is so long? - Centrx 22:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Currency style / disambiguation

I hope I've found the right spot for this. I'm new to Wikipedia, but in my explorations so far I've noticed that some (most) authors (probably Americans like myself) have a tendency to use the dollar sign ($) when discussing monetary amounts in articles. The dollar is a popular currency name worlwide and therefore somewhat ambiguous. I can't seem to fine a style guide entry covering formatting of currency values, but would suggest that using the ISO 4217 currency codes rather than symbols and avoiding multiple inline conversions (since exchange rates are fluid) would be the best NPOV style.

ex. 1,000,000 USD rather than $1,000,000.

Thoughts? Comments? Autiger 22:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That usage would depend on us believing that Americans know what USD means. I am not sure that is true. Rmhermen 23:13, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm ignorant of this matter. But if you can cite prominant style sheets recommending this and provide examples showing that it is in use (outside of technical material directly dealing with currency exchange) then you can make a good case for recommending their use. I agree that when there is any amiguity, currency amounts should not be expressed in US dollars without some indication that the article is not talking about Canadian dollars or Australian dollars or some other dollars. But "$1,000,000 (US)" and "$1,000,000 (Austalian)" is probably more understandable to more readers and just as unambiguous as the USD codes in such doubtful cases, e.g. if someone from Canada were recorded as buying property in the US. Jallan 23:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does it matter if Americans know what USD means, if it's hyperlinked? — OwenBlacker 12:50, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yes it matters. We try to make our articles readable, not masses of technical jargon. Rmhermen 14:52, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any other style guide support for the USD usage. Most make a POV currency assumption based on the geo-political area within which they are located. i.e. US publications assume a US dollar, etc. All others are specified, as often before the monetary amount as after: ex. AU $1,000 vs. $1,000 AU. The UK Times Online goes so far as to assume the most widely known of any given monetary unit and only denote others: the dollar is US unless A$ (Australian) or C$ (Canadian), the pound is UK, the franc is France. I suppose a POV assumption within the context of the article is usually going to be ok ( a $34M building project in Chicago, IL, US is assumed to be US dollars.) In any case, should there be a style guide entry to codify or will people be left to their own devices? Autiger 15:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm quite a fan of The Times' standard, where major reserve currencies can be left as just a symbol and disambig'd where necessary (so $100, €100, ¥100, £100, C$100, A$100, NZ$100 etc). It could be helpful to suggest (but not require) that the currency symbol be hyperlinked, for clarity's sake, if it's not blindingly obvious from the article. — OwenBlacker 17:17, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

External reference: Times Online style guide see dollar entry. Autiger 17:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since this is text, why not just use "1,433,433 U.S. dollars" or "one million Australian dollars" ? - Centrx 02:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In Canada one hears "five hundred dollars U.S." more often than "five hundred U.S. dollars" though both are used. The latter is more concrete and tends to call up an image of physical U.S. dollar-bills, but not so much so that it feels odd in most circumstances. In writing (outside of currency exchange discussion which would be likely to use special codes) one would normally output "$500 (US)" or "$500 US". See Google Search: $500 US which comes up with samples of both. See also "a pair of boots cost $500 (confederate)" at Delisle Antiques: Civil War Items.

I would recommend this usage as most readible for non-technical use when the desire is simply to make clear which currency is intended when not obvious from context. Sometimes a phrase like "all prices in Australian dollars" early in an article is in itself sufficient. I think the style sheet should call attention to the problem, should mention the solutions discussed here, all of which have their place, and urge that an appropriate method of disambiguating currency should always be used when there is any reasonable possibility of misunderstanding on the part of the reader. That is what is most imporant. Which method does not matter too much, as long as it is clear and is appropriate to the article. It would seem odd to use something so modern and technical as the code USD when referring to prices in the US a hundred years ago. Jallan 18:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Midnight and noon

12:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. are not ambiguous, just confused. -- 66.32.123.183 06:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with the 24-hour clock and the ISO 8601 standard? [4] — OwenBlacker 12:57, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

But in ordinary writing, "noon" and "midnight" are preferable to "12:00 PM," etc. ISO 8601 can be confusing; for the hours of the morning, one may not know if the time refers to the forenoon or the afternoon. Furthermore, this standard prescribes both "00:00" and "24:00" for midnight. -- Emsworth 13:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

00:00 is the midnight at the start of the day and 24:00 is the midnight at the end of the day. The 12-hour clock has "12:00 am" for the former but no notation for the latter. Gdr 15:05, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

And the standard discourages use of 24:00 unless it really is necessary. I have no objection to the use of the words noon and midnight, certainly; I'm jsut suggesting that 24-hour clock is a very useful solution — an unqualified 09:00 is always going to be taken as being 9am, right? I do think it's suitably helpful for non-native English readers, though; that's the good thing about international standards: they're international! :o) — OwenBlacker 16:43, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Although I personally prefer the 24-hour clock, I'm not sure that the recommendation to always use the 24-hour clock is a good one for Wikipedia. US editors are likely to want to use the 12-hour clock that they are familiar with and as with other international differences it is wise to be tolerant. Gdr 17:13, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, I'm not recommending that we should insist on 24h times, merely that we should express a preference and then leave it as another "don't bother changing it" point, like British English vs American English. Personally, I think that the whole damn world should use the 24-hour clock, much as I think the whole world should use ISO paper sizes, but I do know it ain't gonna happen and I've better things to lose sleep over ;o) — OwenBlacker 19:52, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Protest to universal addition of metric measurements to US topic articles

I would like to protest the mechanical, universal addition of metric measurements to all US topic articles. I note that the provision to add metric to Imperial units as a courtesy has long been included on this page. That urging had one effect when it was left to the authors' discretion, but it has another when it is mechanically enforced in all articles. User:Bobblewik, assertedly in a spirit of helpfulness (and I have no reason to disbelieve him), and possibly with the aid of a bot, has apparently undertaken to add (though not replace) a metric unit to every mention of "acre" or other U.S./Imperial measurment found anywhere in Wikipedia. This includes a lot of US topic articles where the metric conversion is of little value or relevance. The argument that this assists readers from metric system countries only bears up if we also add an English/Imperial measurement to every metric measurement in a European/Asian article to assist readers from English system countries (and no, that is not my suggestion, although the Manual of Style suggests we do this as well). Looking at the Wikipedia:Measurements debate page, I am not seeing a consensus that the metric addition to English units should be enforced universally without editor discretion and regardless of the geographical context of the article. Am I alone in my objection? --Gary D 00:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree completely.

In what way does adding metric measurements to articles hurt anyone?

Why should articles about US topics not be of interest to those more familiar with metric?

I would also have no problem with anyone adding Imperial or US measurements to articles which currently use only metric. Increased understandability is a good thing.

I guess I fail to see why this is a problem. Please explain. Exactly what hot button is this pushing?

I support User:Bobblewik's work on adding metric equivalents to articles. While I've occasionally disagreed with the way the changes have been made, he has always been willing to adapt his approach in all the cases I have personally dealt with. —Morven 00:33, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I am also generally a believer in more information being better. The issues as various agendas are advanced are editor discretion and balancing a bulk of additional information that may amount only to clutter against the usefulness/relevance of that information in the specific context of an article. Node ue would like to add native language transations to the first line of many or all Arizona city articles. The astrological signs of every person mentioned in Wikipedia would be of interest to some readers, and some Japanese readers would apparently be interested in their blood types. All this information would have some, non-zero value, but if we are to advance all these helpful agendas, the value of all these additions has to be balanced against the space they take up and the kinks they cause in the flow of articles' text. Where an editor surveys the context and makes that balancing determination, great. That's why I'm not against the concept of metric measurements added as a considered courtesy. Where metric measurements pop up automatically in every US article at every measurement reference, however, most of those additions will be little more than clutter (to back country Texas land measurements, say, the addition of km squared will be about as useful as George W. Bush's blood type). That's why I'm against the blanket mechanical change. Something that universal, that thoughtless (in a non-pejorative sense) should at least be the subject of a definite policy fiat, and I don't believe there has been one. --Gary D 00:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. There's nothing harmful about adding metric measurements to an article, even if it's done "mechanically" or otherwise indiscriminately. You refer to the "discretion" of the author or editor in your argument. However, we are all editors here, including User:Bobblewik. So, he's doing so at his discretion. I'm from the US, and fail to see this as a problem. Satori 00:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I fear a definition that broad would also include a vandalbot as an editor. --Gary D 00:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a rule, I support the addition of metric equivalents to articles, provided they deal with specific measurements and not generalities or idioms ("came within inches," &c.), and the most relevant form is given first (airplanes fly at 20,000 feet; the Camino de Santiago is about 750 kilometers long). On a somewhat related note: when describing guns and firearms, the word "caliber" (or even "calibre") is most appropriately used to describe bore measurements as expressed in fractions of an inch. Writing of a "0.5 inch gun" is nonstandard at best and confusing at worst when what you're really talking about is a .50 caliber gun. On the other hand, I don't think it necessary to include imperial equivalents when writing of metric firearms—Americans know what a 9mm automatic is, better than they do a .354330711 caliber automatic. Austin Hair 01:38, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with metric being added to US-focused articles, as long as 1) the imperial measurement is listed more prominently, 2) it is NOT done by machine unless it is a very specific measurement (i.e. don't convert 55mph into 88.51kph), and 3) as mentioned, idioms need to be ignored. Likewise, imperial measurements should be added to most metric measurements, since the US audience is sizable. (after all, we're adding metric to imperial because the non-US audience is likewise sizable). This is NOT an invitation to add any possible measurement scheme. --Golbez 02:19, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Both measurements are useful. However this could be merged with a suggestion that was (I think) on the village pump a couple of weeks ago. The VP proposal was that for logged in users, text such as ((11.5 km)) (a measurement with double curved brackets around it) was automatically rendered as 11.5 km or 7.15 mi, depending on a users preference setting. This was turned as it was suggesting things like The speed limit is 88.51km/h would not be useful.

However, my variant on this suggestion would be to code measurements in the form ((11.5 km|7.15 mi)), where the two alternatives (metric / imperial) are specified in the code itself and no automated calculation takes place. That way you don't have measurements looking out of place. You could have things such as The speed limit on U.S. highways is ((55 mph|55 mph (about 88 km/h))) which would render as either

The speed limit on U.S. highways is 55 mph
The speed limit on U.S. highways is 55 mph (about 88 km/h)

My second suggestion - make use of tooltips to automatically convert all amounts, regardless (although taking significant figures into account). The information is then useful to the largest number of people, and doesn't clutter up the article. -- Chuq 03:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as the original protestor, I like these two solutions quite a lot! Technology to the rescue, eh? --Gary D 07:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that the world should be forced to deal with our system rather than us deal with that of the entire world. Further, I believe that readers are accustomed to overlooking the metric measurements when they prefer the Imperial and vice-versa (unlike Zodiac signs or blood type). It makes sense to me to include these measurements as we work towards world unity and away from mistakes like those that crashed the Mars Rovers.Cavebear42 03:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree; people are used to both systems of measurement being stated. I don't see where there is a problem. —Morven 05:25, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

This whole problem should disappear with the fix of bug 235. ··gracefool |☺ 03:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, that is the bug I was talking about above - though for some reason I've used curved brackets instead of square brackets. I didn't realise there was already work underway on it -- Chuq 04:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as someone born and raised in the U.S., I protest this absurd protest against adding metric measurements to U.S.-specific articles. I'm embarrassed that my fellow citizens are so mentally hobbled by the English system of measurements (which most have only a partial grasp of, anyway, and which the British themselves were smart enough to dump) that some would actually fight for this mental handicap and against logical practice. I think the fight to enforce Imperial measurements and ban metric must be some kind of foreign conspiracy to prevent U.S. citizens from being able to use simple arithmetic, since the complicated stuff is beyond most of us. The evidence is plain to see everywhere, in any conversation, business transaction, or news report. I'm sure one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell was because they had to do arithmetic with those silly letters. The United States faces the same mule-headed, anti-intelligent, nonsensical tradition today. I say we should free ourselves from the yoke of English rule! ☺ If we can't abolish Imperial measurements entirely, the least we can do is help our progeny get comfortable with sensible measurements, so they won't be as stupid as we are! — Jeff Q 06:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right, it's not like it's useful to have a foot evenly divisible into 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12 inches or anything. - Centrx 05:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you need to divide something into 5 or 10, then thats right, it's not useful at all. (What has this got to do with the topic at hand, which in case you needed a reminder, is the display of U.S. and international measuring systems?) -- Chuq 07:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are correct: it is only relevant to the above comment by Jeffq. The usefulness of the many divisions, into sixths, fourths, thirds, and halves far exceeds that same usefulness of the metric system. - Centrx 18:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suspect the objection is that adding metric equivalents to articles with English units while not adding English equivalents to articles with metric units is a not-so-subtle suggestion as to their relative importance. Surely it can be no mystery that this would tick people off. Or are conversions being made in both directions? - Nunh-huh 06:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I actually wasn't so much objecting to the direction of conversion as to the bulk of conversions being added in the first place; I would prefer to keep English units without conversion in core US articles, metric units without conversion in core Eurasian articles, and dual units where it mattered or made sense. --Gary D 07:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you understand only one system well, or prefer it strongly, it matters everywhere. Most people raised in the United States have no natural feel for the magnitude of metric measurements. Most people raised in Europe have no natural feel for Imperial or American measurements. Even many young people in the United Kingdom no longer have a feel for them.

I must protest in the strongest possible terms the suggestion of dividing Wikipedia so. There are no "core US articles", "core Eurasian articles". My personal belief is this: Articles may be created using whatever system of measurement is understood by the author. However, other Wikipedians are permitted, even encouraged, to add conversions to the other system..

I have been sensing from the beginning that there's an anti-Metric feeling underneath this, and a feeling that US authors and readers are somehow being "picked on" by the zeal to add metric equivalents for everything. Something of a feeling that the US measurements, and those who use them, are being looked down upon. Kind of "The only reason to add metric conversions to article, which is of an obscure topic almost certainly of interest to nobody outside the US and few even inside it, is to try and convert Americans to metric".

Is this the case? Am I right in my feeling here? —Morven 08:26, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Certainly that metric missionary zeal exists; we can see it on this page. That zeal is not my issue, however; clutter is. If system equality were my hot button, I would be pushing instead for cross-conversions to Imperial units in all the articles currently using metric, and that is the last thing I want. What I do want is to give every reader—U.S., non-U.S., Martian tapping into the Internet—every possible break in aiding his reading scansion and comprehension, always. That includes removing all bumps in the textual road. In that light, I would now like to morph my original protest into a backing for the measurement-system-specific-display feature that was mentioned above. With that fix, everybody gets a measure in the format that means the most to them, and clutter is eliminated. Now, I personally might favor implementing that system using manually inserted alternative text rather than automatic numeric conversion by software, but I think I have already generated enough controversy for one go-round, so I'll be happy with whatever pops out of software bug/patch 235. --Gary D 19:25, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to reassure Gary I have never used a bot.

For authors/editors: conversion is part science and part art. Sometimes the whole article affects the judgement of 'correct' conversion. Sometimes culture and domain are factors, even two different metric communities disagree. Many of us can make fair criticisms of existing conversions. Specifications of how to do conversions might make a small difference. But a bigger difference would be made if more people actually did conversions. Most of us here have the skill and judgement to do a few metric conversions 'correctly' using the Google converter. Most unit statements are easy to convert.
For readers: I don't foresee a situation where Wikipedia readers use options for 'show metric' and 'hide metric'. Nor do I foresee a situation where Wikipedia has articles marked as 'metric units not appropriate'. But if people want to debate that, then it is fine by me.

I want to thank Gary D for bringing the debate here, as soon as it was clear that this was a Manual of style topic. I am interested to read more. Bobblewik (talk) 09:51, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Metric is not an anti-US system, it is a worldwide system - which should be preferred even within the US. As such, certainly it warrants inclusion on US topic articles. It is the only sensible measurement system for scientific purposes. Having both sets of measurements though, provides a useful unambiguous value (so as you don't lose probes going to Mars for example). Besides, I haven't a clue how many strides are in a yardarm (well, OK, feet-yards-miles) - we aren't taught anything but Metric here. Many people won't have a notion as to what the local measurements mean - conversions are always needed. zoney ▓█▒ talk 12:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree totally with the protest. Adding a metric conversion doesn't do any harm. Anything that makes articles easier to understand is an improvement. True, adding a thoughtful metric conversion is better than adding a clumsy one, but this is a Wiki and clumsy conversions can be improved. In terms of making articles useful, I don't see how there can be any objection to adding conversions. My perception is that the only possible objection to metric units is a surrogate for some strange kind of nationalistic POV, like fussing over whether a "billion" is 10¹² or 10⁹, or whether a Belgian food item popularized in the U.S. in turn-of-the-century World's Fair should be properly called french fries or freedom fries. But even this is misplaced concern, because metric units are part of the U. S. legal system of weights and measures and have been for decades and decades and decades. In fact all the U. S. Customary units are currently legally defined in terms of metric units. By the way, I live in the U. S. and I think almost entirely in U. S. Customary. Just my 0.02 Euros. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I add my voice to the chorus of disagreements. This protest is absurd. I'm a U.S. citizen born and raised. I'm reasonably comfortable with the metric system. In the context of Wikipedia and the Internet, I regard the use of imperial measurements as a bit quaint, even in U.S.-oriented articles. If anything, I'd prefer using metric first in all cases, with imperial measurements added parenthetically as a courtesy, if the author thinks of it. There are a lot of archaic measurement systems out there; the USA just happens to be a big enough economy that it can get away with stubbornly sticking to imperial. Now, all that said, it would be pretty nifty if all units of measure could be made into wikilinks that somehow got converted to the reader's preferred unit of measure on the fly, but my coding skills are not up to that. adamrice 14:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If metric information seems to have been clumsily added or seems inappropriate in some cases, then a later editor can do further fixup. Adding it is a good idea. Nor do I want to see automatic conversions by software where I can decide what measurement to view. Give me both (with one in parentheses or otherwise indicated as the conversion) so that I can see which is the basic measurement from which the other has been converted. Don't smudge that information. Also, I wonder why Gary D speaks of core Eureasian articles. Does he really not know that all countries in the Americas also commonly use metric save for the U.S.? Jallan 18:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Eurasia" was just a quick and rough reference for those wacky metric folk; I'm happy to give you metric countries in the Americas also. --Gary D 19:25, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

and yet one more .0164 Euros'-worth... There is an excellent, if slightly long-term, reason, for asymmetric treatment of metric and traditional units: Future proofing. Sooner or later, both the US and the UK will acquire governments with enough gumption to complete their transition to the metric system (both have already started, and both processes were stalled by craven politicians). But no country, ever, having once metricated, is going back to the old system. seglea 19:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not a matter of politics. America's infrastructure is huge. Think about jsut one _very_ small portion. Let's consider the sewage. Every Pipe in the ground is standard. New pipes go metric. Every new house/building needs a converter. When pipes are replaced, converters are needed. The tools carried by all of the pipefitters need to be ready to do both. The plumber needs to carry twice as much equipment. You see, this gets pretty big pretty fast. Now consider that this is a matter of a very easily changed field. What about Areospace or electronics? What happens when you have a 6 foot, 6 inch doorframe and you can only find 2 meter door (close but no cigar)? This is not a matter of politcs, it will take a few decades at best, maybe a century. (FTR, im for hte listing of both)Cavebear42 20:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a reasonable point, and in many ways we're already in that awkward transitional phase, as with many car parts and (ahem) NASA projects. The bottom brackets on many bikes have their diameter measured in metric and their thread pitch measured in imperial. So I'll back off slightly from my previous position and say that if it's a measurement canonically given in imperial units, stick with those, and if it's a common turn of phrase, don't convert (A miss is as good as a mile, not 1.609 kilometers). In any case, Wikipedia isn't going to force anyone to change pipe diameters.adamrice 21:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do believe it is a bad idea, and harmful to the metric movement, to run simple mathematical replacements on every single Imperial number (or vice versa). No one, metric or not, wants four decimal points of precision. A meter should be 1.1 yards, not 1.0904 yards, etc. (Not even 1.09 yards.) I am no fan of metrication, just clear communications, and unless you are weighing gold, some judicious rounding will be better for metric and better for readers. That means a much better bot is called for. Ortolan88 22:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another recent example of somebody objecting to metric units is at Compact audio cassette. The initial response from the person reverting does not make sense to me, and he has yet to reply to my follow up. Can anyone else explain what is unacceptable about the metric units that I added? Bobblewik (talk) 10:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to object to the excessive use of fractions in that article. The metric is alright, but those fractions make it impossable to read.Cavebear42 16:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would seem that an objection (possibly not the one you're talking about which I can't find) would be that the cassettes were specifically designed to be those measurements, in inches, and not designed on, for instance, "47.625 mm". Also, some of these metric values are approximate rather than certain. As here, we should everywhere be careful because certain measurements are due to a specific prescription that is from an exactness of Imperial or metric units, rather than a measurement of, for instance, physical phenomena that is always an approximate description with no semantic difference between whatever units are decided. Consider a hypothetical unit of hypothetically widespread use, the "flongstre": For a description, we can use flongstre for anything as we can appropriately use any unit system. For a prescription, if the prescription was in flongstres then the article should describe everything in flongstres, at least on the primary non-parenthetical level. If the prescription was not in flongstres but metres, then the article should describe everything in metres on the primary level. Ultimately, in such cases I think that at the very least the parenthetical notation should indicate something like as follows: "The cassette was 20 flongstres (which is 17 millimeters) wide", including the "which is". In these cases, the additional measurements are provided as a service to the reader for their accessibility, and do not have any semantic content like the primary measurement. Unlike these, in descriptions of phenomena, neither have semantic content. It is important to the article that the tape is 1/8 inch wide; it is not pertinent to the subject that it is 3.175 millimeters wide. - Centrx 18:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The guide clearly calls for the same precision to be applied. This is really under debate as is whether or not we should say X lbs (y Kg) on U.S. based articles. Further, this thread is getting really long. I think that nearly everyone is in agreement that there is no harm done to following the guide as it is written and adding the metric, in parameterizes, on articles using measurements, regardless of the articles origin or subject matter. I, for one, digress. Cavebear42 20:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia, not the US wkipedia. It is entirely appropriate to have dual measurements (1) for non-English speakers who use a sensible system and (2) the fact that metric measurements are used in the United Kingdom apart from some things like a pint of beer [5]. now stop being silly. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mind you, here in Ireland we can buy 568 ml (I think) of milk (a pint), although some sneaky milk producers sell 500 ml cartons at the same price! I don't think we'll see "demi"s of Guinness being sold in Ireland anytime soon though. (Ireland, the only country in the world I suspect that uses metric for distances on road signs, but mph for speed limits - well, until they change to km/h next year!) zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Winding back up several comments... first, thanks for the report on Ireland, Zoney - I was wondering what was happening there. Second, can I join the digressions, and say that I do think it is a matter of political will. Metrication will always be unpopular when you actually do it, because people don't like change, and there are real issues about carrying two tools around; but once a government makes up its mind to do it, it's amazing how quickly and completely it goes through - consider Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all of which are countries with roughly as much infrastructure per head as the US or UK, and all of which got through metrication, relatively recently, with vastly less fuss than anyone expected, or than present American and British prophets of doom suggest. I don't buy the argument that the scale of the total problem makes any difference - all it does is make it easier to ignore common sense. Yes, of course the old measurements have some advantages - convenient divisibility, and the fact that you can measure almost anything in single-digit numbers, because there are so many different units. And they make people learn their 14 times table, too (see stone). And yes (to gress, or whatever the opposite of digressing is), in Wikipedia we must always include traditional measurements for things that were originally measured in them, like railway gauges. And yes, conversions need to be done intelligently. But for a major international work of reference not to have a preference, other things equal, for the internationally understood system of measurements, would be daft. The obvious way of expressing that preference is to have a convention that all measurements (which doesn't, of course, include turns of phrase) are given in international units, though for good reason they may also, or even first, be given in local traditional units as well. Pretty well everyone agrees on that, I think; this is really a non-problem which only needs 28g of common sense all round. seglea 22:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disagree entirely with the original point. SI units are recognized internationally, and WP is an international project. All measurements should be given at least in SI. As for a unit-translating bot... my mind BOGGLES at the wastes of processor cycles we manage to invent here -- Tarquin 12:53, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Believe it or not...

Believe it or not, there are plenty of articles with numbers greater than 2070 which ignore the rules about articles for years vs. numbers. 66.32.249.176 20:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Punctuation (A.D. vs. AD)

(I brought this up at Talk:Anno Domini and was directed over here.)

I just did a brief survey of my history textbooks and they all have one of the following:

A.D. xxxx

xxxx C.E.

Now, of course, we expect textbooks to be a bit more rigid about putting the A.D. before the date, and of course a random sampling of my textbooks is hardly conclusive, but I can't figure out why there is no reference to the abbreviations as "A.D., B.C., C.E., B.C.E." instead of "AD, BC, CE, BCE". Has this been discussed? If we decide that either format is acceptable (and I would like to be shown evidence that version without periods is acceptable—is it British English usage? popular usage? non-academic usage? or just not in my textbooks?), we should at least include a note in the article to that effect. See [6], but also [7].

I don't mind picking a standard for use on Wikipedia, but we should explain what the standard is and why it was chosen—and we should also make it clear (perhaps in the relative articles and not here) that this is a Wikipedia standard and does not necessarily reflect usage elsewhere. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 14:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought one of the items in the Manual of Style was that we avoid using periods in abbreviations (with an exception for U.S., to disambig from the word us in capitals, though that grates on me, personally). I must say, though, that I can't find it in a quick scan of the Style Guide, though, so I'm happy to be disproven. I'd suggest that the forms without periods (which are increasingly used, at least in British journalism) are clearer, myself. — OwenBlacker 15:55, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

years and commas

Is there a policy on the use or not, or commas with years, as in "On June 10, 1993, blah blah ..."? Maurreen 07:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What most people would write in either normal form ("On 10 June, 1993, blah blah ..." and "On June 10, 1993, blah blah ...") would both work with this bracketting-comma use, and its form seems most prevalent, so...

James F. (talk) 08:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd write "On 10 June 1993, blah, blah..." -- Arwel 12:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)