< Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 21:40, 16 October 2013 editRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits →Proposal on wording← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:30, 19 January 2025 edit undoChaosdruid (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,258 edits →MOS:CENTURY appears to be incorrect: accidental deletion moving februaryTag: 2017 wikitext editor
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talkheader|sc1=WT:DATE|sc2=WT:MOSDATE}}
	{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=at}}
			{{Calm}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell|
	{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}		{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
			}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	|archiveheader = {{aan}}		|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	|maxarchivesize = 300K		|maxarchivesize = 800K
	|counter = 140		|counter = 163
	|minthreadsleft = 3		|minthreadsleft = 2
			|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	|algo = old(20d)
			|algo = old(60d)
	|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive %(counter)d		|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	{{Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive box}}
			|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive index
	{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot II |age=20 |units=days |small=yes }}
			|mask1=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive <#>
	__TOC__
			|mask2=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive zero
	{{clear}}
			|mask3=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive B<#>
			|mask4=Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive D<#>
			|leading_zeros=0
			|indexhere=yes }}
			{{Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive box}}
			{{tmbox|image=] |text=It has been '''{{age in days|2024|6|18}} days''' since the outbreak of the latest dispute over date formats.|small=yes}}
	== Imperial measurements ==		== Numerals in a sequence ==
			'Phase 1' or Phase one'? This appears to be a case that's not explicitly covered.
	why are we still using archaic empiric measurements? only US and Burma are using them. How is it justified?
	thx
	] (]) 21:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
	:You mean "imperial" units, although some US units are different (e.g. gallons). The answer is because the US uses them and the US has by the far the largest number of native English speakers, so of course the English Misplaced Pages should provide both systems of measurement. By the way, the UK still uses miles. ] (]) 21:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
	: see CIA factbook: only US, Burma and Liberia are officially using them. Is there any source for your claim? some statistics?
	India would be the largest native English speaking country ] (]) 22:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
	::What proportion of Indians have English as their mother tongue? ] (]) 22:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
	:::According to ], a little over 10%. India has about 125 million English speakers, compared to US at about 267 million. No other country comes close as far as total English speaking population. --] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 23:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
	:::And the additional figure has only 226,449 Indians with English "as first language". Is that the same thing as "native English speakers"? If that's the criteria then it appears the majority of native English speaking people use imperial units. --] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 23:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
	: your explanation of statistics has some serious flaws. India, unlike US, has English as one of the two official languages.
	We are referring to internet users only. there is about 250 000 internet users in US.that is not majority of English speaking users worldwide. Also keep in mind that you dont have to be "native " English speaking to use wiki in English language ] (]) 23:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
	::250,000 internet users in US?? Where on Earth did you get that figure from? Try more like 200,000,000+. --] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 00:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
	:sorry I clearly missed some zeroes. it is, of course estimated 250 million internet users (2012). ] (]) 14:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
	::Also using internet users only isn't going to help you much I'm afraid. US - 80% of population. India - 10%. --] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 00:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
	::According to ]: "Most editors (20%) reside in the United States, followed by Germany (12%) and Russia (7%). The only country not in Europe or North America in the top 10, is India (3%)." <small>—''']'''&nbsp;]</small> 00:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
	:::I think you'll find that's for ''all'' Wikipedias. I think it's almost certain that the second largest number of Wikipedians on ''English'' Misplaced Pages reside in the United Kingdom, where we also commonly use and understand Imperial measurements (no matter what our official units may be). -- ] (]) 11:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
	::50.9.97.53. This is the best I could come up with. 2.4 billion internet users worldwide. Of which, 27% use English (not native speakers, this is first, second and third language English users and those who simply use the language on the internet). So that's 648 million English using, internet users. There are 267 million English speaking people in the US. Of which, 81% use the internet. That's about 216 million English speaking internet users in the US. So subtracting US from World (and ignoring the relatively few English speaking internet users in Burma and Liberia) we get: 432 million metric using, English using, internet users vs. 216 million imperial using, English speaking, internet users worldwide. After rounding it worked out to exactly a two to one ratio; or in other words, one third of the total English using internet users, also use imperial (if my calculations and sources are correct). I can't think of any way to skew it in your favor any more than that. --] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 01:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
	: keep in mind, that English wiki editors does not have to be native English speaker. for our purpose we are looking for en:wiki editors. They are global editors, not just US, UK, Australia, India etc. I am pretty sure there must me some wiki statistics as mentioned here by someone. btw I agree with your calculations (2:1) ] (]) 14:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
			The AP Stylebook recommends using figures for sequences in its section on "Numbers":
	::As I mentioned above, the 27% includes all English language users. Not just native speakers. That figure includes all first, second, third, etc. speakers and additionally anyone who can communicate with English on the Internet. The US figure of total English speakers in the US is however only including first and second language speakers because that was the only source I had at the time. Like I said, the above data is skewed, but mostly in the favor of the metric using, English using, internet using population. ] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 16:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
			"Also use figures in all tabular matter, and in statistical and sequential forms", from which I infer that for sequences, such as 'phase 1', figures should be used for clarity and consistency.
	In any case, note that imperial units are only preferred in "non-science US-related articles" (]), otherwise they are only given as a conversion, which is not unreasonable for the 20% or more of Wikipedians from countries that still use them. <small>—''']'''&nbsp;]</small> 01:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
	:Yes sroc, but to clarify, I think that 20% is US editors within the entirety of Misplaced Pages. Only ''English'' Misplaced Pages uses those conversions. I am sure the percentage of English Misplaced Pages editors who are from the US is much higher. --] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 01:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
	::Ah, thanks. I thought there were statistics somewhere on the "typical" user on the English WP, but I can't find it now. <small>—''']'''&nbsp;]</small> 02:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
	:To answer your question 50.9.97.53, it's a compromise. If you want the justifications, feel free to search the archives. <span style="background-color:#B7D9F9;border:solid 0px #0E5CA4;padding:0px 3px;border-radius:3px">]&nbsp;<span style="border-left:1px solid #0E5CA4;padding-left:3px">]</span></span> 02:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
	:thank you guys.can you point me to the right direction,to the archives of previous discussions about imperial units usage please?
	::You might start with {{search link|imperial units prefix:Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive|this search|ns = &ns0=1&ns8=1&ns10=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns108=1&ns446=1&ns710=1&redirs=1}} which looks for the phrase "imperial units" in the archives of this talk page. Further searches for "units" or "SI units" would give more background. <span style="background-color:#B7D9F9;border:solid 0px #0E5CA4;padding:0px 3px;border-radius:3px">]&nbsp;<span style="border-left:1px solid #0E5CA4;padding-left:3px">]</span></span> 06:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
	@50.9.97.53, referring to your recent comment placed a few posts above about Wiki statistics on usage. You expressed interest in refining the sample group from internet users to WP editors. I think it would make more sense to refine the stats to include WP ''readers'' (and editors), rather than only WP editors, but if you're still interested I found at the article ] for en:WP edits by country and for en:WP page views by country. --] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 01:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
			Similarly, chapter 9 of The Chicago Manual of Style advises using figures when referring to a sequence.
	:The page views of English Misplaced Pages show that 39.9% of readers come from the United States and a further 16.7% come from the UK. (UK usage is a mixture of metric and Imperial.) This means that roughly half of our readers would be comfortable with Imperial/US Customary measures and about half would be comfortable with metric measures. The policy of providing both measures in general articles provides for all. ] (]) 02:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
	::Slight correction. 39.9% of ''edits'' come from the US. 42.9% of ''page views'' come from US. Lets be clear about what we are looking at. An individual edit is different than an editor or a reader. Same for a single page views. --] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 02:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
	:Thanks for that. It is interesting that the US has 42.9% of the page views but only 39.9% of the page edits while the UK has 11.2% of the page views but 16.7% of the page views. Australia also has 3.6% of the page views but 4.2% of the page edits and New Zealand has 0.7% of page views but 1% of edits but Canada has 6% of both views and edits to the English language Misplaced Pages. Overall, however, the split between imperial and metric usage would still be about 50-50 for both editors and readers. This reinforces the need to provide both metric and imperial measures for readers, even though this requires a lot more work. ] (]) 03:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
	::Agree. I think it would be safe to assume the percentage of readers and page views; editors and edits would be approximately the same. Then again, who would have guessed the statistical curiosities you have just pointed out? But overall, yes. The stats indeed support the consensus of display both units. It would be easier for uS editors (punny, yes even some American editors like myself wish that some things were simpler) to not ever have to worry about conversions and conversion templates and such if we went to metric units exclusively, but currently any serious attempt to rally the community in that direction would be ] --] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 05:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
			I propose adding similar explicit advice to this section of the MOS.
	:::Perhaps the missing American readers are reading Conservapedia? It's well-known that Misplaced Pages is a hotbed of dangerous un-American liberals. :-) ] (]) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
			-- ] (]) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
	The UK uses both. For example petrol is bought in litres but distances are measured in miles. Beer has to be sold in quantities based on an imperial ]s while spirits and wine are sold in millilitres (both by law). So not only the US but the UK still use imperial weights and measures, its just that the UK manges to have both on the supermarket shelves at the same time. -- ] (]) 08:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
			*As usual, what's needed before something's added to MOS is examples of this being an issue on multiple articles -- see ]. Are editors not able to work this out for themselves on individual articles? Anyway, why does the word "Phase" need this in particular? Why not "Section" and "Part" and any other words like that? {{pb}}The advice from APA and CMS are great if you're making up a new sequence for your thesis, but that's not us. It's hard to imagine an article using a phrase like "Phase 1" or "Phase One" on its own -- that is, other than in imitation of the phrasing of sources. So follow the sources; for example, ] refers to ''Phase I'' and ''Phase II'' and ''Phase III''., because that's the form the Act uses. We're not going to override that in the name of consistency with other, unrelated articles. ]] 22:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:To clarify: I'm using 'Phase' purely as an example. The issue of using figures for sequences applies to any sequence. including 'Section' and 'Part' - and other examples: "Game 3", of a sequence of nine; 'Chapter 9' of a sequence of 24; 'Week 4' of a limitless sequence.
			*:I raise this issue in the context of differing editorial practices in the ] article, where both figures and words have been used to reference the same phases and weeks of the inquiry. I sought guidance from the MOS and found none.
			*:I'd be content to follow the sources, without adding bloat to the MOS, if I could be confident that that's an accepted stylistic convention in this instance. -- ] (]) 22:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::Such names are very often established by authoritative sources and constitute proper names; we should follow the sources rather than renaming them. Per EEng, we only need a MOS guideline if our sources don't provide clear names and either there is dissent among editors or consistency across articles would be of significant benefit. In the Post Office case, I see the phases have been titled Phase 1, Phase 2 etc by the inquiry so unless the inquiry's inconsistent, we can follow that source. Still, I see that this is a live issue at that ] article, so it would be wrong to establish a new guideline or issue some sort of MOS talk-page ruling without the knowledge of the other editor; pinging {{u|MapReader}}. ] (]) 14:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Between ] and ], multi-episode ''Doctor Who'' stories could have titles in any of the four combinations of (i) "Episode ..." or "Part ..."; (ii) numbers as figures or as words. The decision as to which format to use was probably in the hands of the series producer, but in our articles about each story, we give the actual title shown on screen - except that where the on-screen title is all-capitals, we reduce it to title case. Certain ''Doctor Who'' reference books do the same, so we're following the sources. --] &#x1f339; (]) 18:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::The question raised was "differing editorial practices in the British Post Office scandal article". Sounds like a matter of internal consistency, which is different. For all manner of things -- this being one IMO -- we might not need consistency among articles, but it does look bad within articles. Surely we already have a rule addressing that general issue tho? ] (]) 13:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I think we don't. In articles on TV series it's common to have expressions like "season 3" and "episode 7", which seem to go against our current wording (use words for numbers below 10). ] (]) 16:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::It is indeed a matter of internal consistency and it does look bad, as ] says. Within the one article (]), we have (e.g.) both "Phase 3 hearings" and "Phases five and six". Is there in fact a rule addressing this general issue? -- ] (]) 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::From ]: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently." Unless you are dealing only with series with fewer than 10 seasons each with fewer than 10 episodes, it is more in line with MOS to give all season and episode numbers in digits rather than words. --] (]) (]) 13:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::True, but series with less than ten seasons aren't all that rare, and there are also miniseries with less than ten episodes. ] (]) 16:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Whether or not it's in line with MOSNUM, we frequently – I suspect in the vast majority of cases – give series/season and episode numbers in digits. I've been dipping into ]. Articles on individual episodes do routinely begin e.g. " the ninth and final episode of the first season" but with digits in the infobox. Articles on a season/series list episodes using digits, and articles on a show list series/seasons and episodes with digits, regardless of whether there are more or less than ten, in keeping with the examples in ]. Articles are often titled ''&lt;show&gt; season &lt;n&gt;'' where n is a digit, never a word, in accordance with ]. Sampling our ], I see the same treatment in titles, infoboxes, and listings.{{pb}}I very much doubt that editors would accept changes to those FAs and GAs to bring them into line with ], that FA and GA assessors will start to apply ] in such cases, that any move requests would succeed, or that ] and ] will be brought into line with the current ]. Changing ] might be easier. ] (]) 08:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::I agree, a small addition to MOS:NUMERAL might be a good thing. ] (]) 17:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Your final sentence doesn't follow from your statement. It would be more in keeping with the MOS to give all in words. ] (]) 11:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
			* Generally concur with EEng and NebY. It's clear that certain conventions adhere strongly to certain things, and these conventions will be readily apparent from the source material about those things. WP is not in a position to impose an artificial WP-invented consistency on them that makes no sense for those familiar with the subject (e.g. referring to "issue number seven" of a comic book or "the three ball" in a game of pool). Where nothing like a consistent convention can be observed for the topic at hand, then MOSNUM already provides us with a default to fall back to: use "one" through "nine", then "10" onward. This is the case with centuries, for example. There is no overwhelming source preference for either "third century BC" or "3rd century BC" in reliable sources. (Books tend to prefer the former, journals use the latter more than books do because journal publishers are more interested in compression/expediency. Scroll through first 10 pages of GScholar resuls and see how much variance there is, and how frequent the numeral style is compared to "traditional" spelling-out. That said, GScholar searches do include some books as well as journals.) Following our default system, we naturally end up with "third century BC" and "12th century BC". (Of course, our material doesn't perfectly follow this; our editors are human, not robots. Well, mostly.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 15:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
			== μs vs us ==
	:Actually, note that the US doesn't use imperial measurements for volumes; US pints and gallons are different from imperial ones. So for volumes, at least three units are often needed: litres/liters, US gallons/pints, imperial gallons/pints. ] (]) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
	::This can bite in reverse and mean that conversions can be next to impossible, a classic one is the bomb weights used during World War II as secondary sources often use tons for raids flown in the ] but don't specify whether it is ] or ] (I suspect that in a number of sources the authors do not know as they themselves are quoting secondary sources and not the original RAF and USAAF primary sources (which may not be clear on their own without researching further primary sources to find out what weight the USAAF used when stationed in Britain)). Another one I was surprised to find,--it came to my attention via some obscure (to me) measurements in the ] (a Rhineland ])--that when reviewing old sources (particularly about international matters) there is no such thing as a ], (or ], ] etc) and that often like tons the secondary source reports the distance without noting a conversion to a standard contemporary unit, which makes including conversions in Misplaced Pages text a guess or original research. -- ] (]) 09:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
	::: MilHist Coordinator says: The bomber offensive figures are in long tons; these were used by both the USAAF and RAF. The short ton was not used for this purpose. However, when dealing with logistics in World War II, you must always watch out for the more commonly used ], which was not a unit of weight at all. It is also worth noting that in SWPA US forces used imperial, not US gallons. I'm not sure if this was the case in the UK. ] (]) 22:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
			Which style I should use for micro seconds? Does μs "Do not use precomposed unit symbol characters"? ] (]) 04:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
	:Also, we in the US manage to have both on the shelves at the same time as well. Soda, fizzy drinks, or whatever you want to call them, are sold in 1-, 2-, and 3-liter bottles (the latter is not terribly common) and in 20-ounce bottles and 12-ounce cans. Beer is sold in ounces, but wine and spirits are sold in liters. Most drugs, including the illegal ones, are measured in metric units, with the exception of marijuana. Just about all foods and drinks (but not medications) are labeled in both measurements, though. -] (]) 15:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
	::Funny I don't recall ever seeing a 3-liter bottle of soda. Must be very uncommon in my area. But yes, the liter is a fairly familiar unit in the US. Consider also its use in the US automobile industry (among the other metric uses and parts on US vehicles). My pickup truck was assembled 30 miles (48 km, heh:) from my house and it has a badge on the side displaying its engine displacement in liters; and the vast majority of Americans know exactly what a 5.7L engine is. Another example that comes to mind is the length of US cigarettes is given in millimeters: 72's, 100's etc. --] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 23:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
			:The 2 characters "μ" and "s" are just fine. The precomposed symbols advice is to guard against particular fonts that combine them into a single character because many software readers for the sight impaired do not know all of these symbols. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 04:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
	::May I put the Indian figures into perspective. About 250,000 Indians use English as their mother tongue, but the ] prints ] copies a day - more than double any UK or US newspaper. ] (]) 17:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
			:But do use μ, not "u". The latter was something of an early-Internet halfassed approach, but we have Unicode now. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 15:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
			== Day, date month format ==
	===Policy implications===
	I think most editors accept the necessity of providing imperial/US customary measures along with metric measures for general articles, as usage varies across the English-speaking world. In most cases this is fairly clear-cut, with metric measures being given priority throughout most of the world and US customary measures being given priority in US based non-scientific articles. In the case of UK articles the situation is more complex, with metric units being used in some contexts and imperial units being used in others and where usage is both divided and hotly contested between the fans of both metric and imperial units. MOSNUM reflects this situation.
			Greetings and felicitations. I assume that such constructions as "Wednesday, 24 February" are discouraged, but I can't find it in the text or the this page's archives. (The comma seems unnecessary to me.) May I please get confirmation or refutation? —] (]) 04:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
	I believe the present policy could be improved with some copy editing. For example, "imperial units are still used in some contexts" is clearer and shorter than "imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts". Are there any comments or suggestions about this proposed change? ] (]) 14:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
			*] and ] cover the allowed and disallowed formats. Unless the day of the week is ''vitally'' important then we leave it out. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 06:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:This specifically regards the "]" article, and its Konomiya Hadaka Matsuri infobox, which includes the days of the week. —] (]) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::Ah, the mysterious East. ]] 08:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			*Salutations and hugs and kisses to you too.
			**If your question is whether day-of-week should be gratuitously included with dates for no particular reason, the answer is ''No''. That is, if the day-of-week is somehow relevant to the narrative, sure, include it, but otherwise no.
			**Assuming we're in some situation where (per the preceding) inclusion of day-of-week is indeed justified, maybe your question is how to append the D.O.W.
			***If the date is {{nobr|''February 24''}} or {{nobr|''February 24, 2024''}}, then without doubt the right format is ''Wednesday, February 24'' or ''Wednesday, February 24, 2024''.
			***According to "Elite editing" (whoever they may be -- search the text "inverted style" on that page), the corresponding answers for {{nobr|''24 February''}} and {{nobr|''24 February 2024''}} are {{nobr|''Wednesday, 24 February''}} and {{nobr|''Wednesday, 24 February 2024''}}. To me that does seem right -- {{nobr|''Wednesday 24 February 2024''}} (all run together, no commas at all) seems intolerable.
			:The question naturally arises as to whether MOS should offer advice on all the above. My answer, as usual, is provisionally ''No'', per ]. ]] 08:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Looking at the article, the date is the 12th day of the Chinese year and the day of the week has no significance. I would remove the day of the week from all those dates in the infobox. For what it's worth, I spent most of the 1990s in Hong Kong/China. Major holidays based on the Chinese calendar treat the day of the week in the same way that we treat the day that Christmas falls on. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 09:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Okay—will do. Thank you both. ^_^ —] (]) 09:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:The new 18th edition of ''The Chicago Manual of Style'' gives advice about commas in dates in ¶ 6.14. When giving examples they mostly give examples with words after the end of the date so the punctuation at the end of the date is illustrated. Some examples:
			:*The hearing was scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on Friday, August 9, 2024.
			:*Monday, May 5, was a holiday; Tuesday the 6th was not.
			:] (]) 16:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Concur with EEng on avoiding adding a rule about this, as more ]. It's just a matter of basic writing sense, basic comma usage in competent English. Our MoS's purpose is not that of ''CMoS'' or ''Fowler's'', trying to answer every imaginable usage question. Just those that have an impact on reader comprehensibility and/or recurrent editorial strife. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 15:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
			==Spacing with percentage points==
	:I think the current wording is more correct. Older people in the UK still use imperial units in their personal life, e.g. feet and inches during DIY, or stones and pounds for their weight (I still do this!). But the "main" units in each case, in these cases the ones used by shops and by the medical profession, are metric. This is different from driving distances or beer glasses where the "main" units are imperial. So I would expect the order in which the units are given in a UK-based article would be different. For lengths of wood, say, it should be metric with an imperial conversion; for distance between towns, say, it should be imperial with a metric conversion. ] (]) 15:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
			A question regarding spacing of percentage point (pp) usage. I have always assumed there is no space between the number and pp (e.g. 5.5pp not 5.5 pp), on the basis that you wouldn't put a space between a number and a percentage sign (5% not 5 %). There is no reference to this in the MOS, but the ] article uses it unspaced. It might be good to have it clarified in the MOS as I see regular changes adding spacing, which I am not sure is correct. Cheers, ] ]] 23:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			*] says "omit space". <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:Perhaps I am missing something, but as far as I can see, it says to omit space when using the percentage symbol (%) but nothing about when using pp? ] ]] 00:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::Apologies, I missed the "point" word in your question. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 01:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			*% is essentially a constant factor (.01), but ''pp'' is more like a unit so my intuition says it should be spaced. I note that the ] article uses a space before ''bp'' (mostly, anyway). I'll be interested to hear what others think. ]] 18:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:You've got this back to front. Percent (%) is a standard unit symbol and should be spaced, whereas pp is a made up abbreviation, meaning you can put it anywhere you want, space or unspaced. I know MOSNUM says otherwise, which is WP's prerogative. In other words, if we need a rule, let's make one up and apply it, but there's no logic involved. ] (]) 21:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
			*Dondervogel, "Percent (%) is a standard unit symbol and should be spaced". Huh? It's not an ISO unit symbol, is it. No spacing in English, unlike French. On pp, I agree with EEng: space it. ] ] 11:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::Absolutely. When it comes to peepee, always space it . ]] 21:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:Yes, "%" is an ISO standard unit symbol. ] (]) 12:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::What is it the unit of? ] (]) 13:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Nothing. It's a ]. To the original q: I don't see "pp" used often, in fact rarely. It's probably better written out in full on first use, and if there are subsequent uses, follow the guidance at ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 19:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::::It's used widely in election infoboxes where there isn't space to write it out. ] ]] 22:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I will answer Gawaon's valid question in two parts. The first part is a quotation from ISO 80000-1:2009 (emphasis added)
			*:::*In some cases, per cent, symbol %, where 1 % := 0,01, is used as a submultiple of the coherent unit one.
			*:::*EXAMPLE 4
			*:::*reflection factor, r = 83 % = 0,83
			*:::*Also, per mil (or per mille), symbol ‰, where 1 ‰ := 0,001, is used as a submultiple of the coherent unit one.Since the units “per cent” and “per mil” are numbers, it is meaningless to speak about, for example, percentage by mass or percentage by volume. Additional information, such as % (m/m) or % (V/V) shall therefore not be attached to '''the unit symbol %'''. See also 7.2. The preferred way of expressing, for example, a mass fraction is “the mass fraction of B is w B = 0,78” or “the mass fraction of B is wB = 78 %”. Furthermore, the term “percentage” shall not be used in a quantity name, because it is misleading. If a mass fraction is 0,78 = 78 %, is the percentage then 78 or 78 % = 0,78? Instead, the unambiguous term “fraction” shall be used. Mass and volume fractions can also be expressed in units such as µg/g = 10-6 or ml/m3 = 10-9.
			*:::Notice the deliberate space between numerical value (e.g., 83) and unit symbol (%). ] (]) 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::The second part is a partial retraction, quoting from ISO 80000-1:2022, which supersedes the 2009 document:
			*:::* If the quantity to be expressed is a sum or a difference of quantities, then either parentheses shall be used to combine the numerical values, placing the common unit symbol after the complete numerical value, or the expression shall be written as the sum or difference of expressions for the quantities.
			*:::*EXAMPLE 1
			*:::*l = 12 m - 7 m = (12 - 7) m = 5 m, not 12 - 7 m
			*:::*U = 230 ⋅ (1 + 5 %) V = 230 ⋅ 1,05 V ≈ 242 V, not U = 230 V + 5 %
			*:::The space is still there between numerical value (5) and percentage symbol (%), but I could not find an explicit reference to "%" as a unit symbol. I'm unsure how to interpret that change, but I'll report back here if I find further clarification. ] (]) 22:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I found this in
			*:::*In keeping with Ref. , this Guide takes the position that it is acceptable to use the internationally recognized symbol % (percent) for the number 0.01 with the SI and thus to express the values of quantities of dimension one (see Sec. 7.14) with its aid. When it is used, a space is left between the symbol % and the number by which it is multiplied . Further, in keeping with Sec. 7.6, the symbol % should be used, not the name "percent."
			*:::*Example: xB = 0.0025 = 0.25 % but not: xB = 0.0025 = 0.25% or xB = 0.25 percent
			*:::*Note: xB is the quantity symbol for amount-of-substance fraction of B (see Sec. 8.6.2).
			*:::*Because the symbol % represents simply a number, it is not meaningful to attach information to it (see Sec. 7.4). One must therefore avoid using phrases such as "percentage by weight," "percentage by mass," "percentage by volume," or "percentage by amount of substance." Similarly, one must avoid writing, for example, "% (m/m)," "% (by weight)," "% (V/V)," "% (by volume)," or "% (mol/mol)." The preferred forms are "the mass fraction is 0.10," or "the mass fraction is 10 %," or "wB = 0.10," or "wB =10 %" (wB is the quantity symbol for mass fraction of B—see Sec. 8.6.10); "the volume fraction is 0.35," or "the volume fraction is 35 %," or " φB = 0.35," or "φB = 35 %" (φB is the quantity symbol for volume fraction of B—see Sec. 8.6.6); and "the amount-of-substance fraction is 0.15," or "the amount-of-substance fraction is 15 %," or "xB = 0.15," or "xB = 15 %." Mass fraction, volume fraction, and amount-of-substance fraction of B may also be expressed as in the following examples: wB = 3 g/kg; φB = 6.7 mL/L; xB = 185 mmol/mol. Such forms are highly recommended (see also Sec. 7.10.3).
			*:::*In the same vein, because the symbol % represents simply the number 0.01, it is incorrect to write, for example, "where the resistances R1 and R2 differ by 0.05 %," or "where the resistance R1 exceeds the resistance R2 by 0.05 %." Instead, one should write, for example, "where R1 = R2 (1 + 0.05 %)," or define a quantity Δ via the relation Δ = (R1 - R2) / R2 and write "where Δ = 0.05 %." Alternatively, in certain cases,the word "fractional" or "relative" can be used. For example, it would be acceptable to write "the fractional increase in the resistance of the 10 kΩ reference standard in 2006 was 0.002 %."
			*:::As with ISO 80000-1:2022, there is always a space between numerical value (e.g., 35) and the percentage symbol (%), but no mention of % as a unit symbol. ] (]) 22:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::{{tq|there is always a space between numerical value (e.g., 35) and the percentage symbol (%)}}{{snd}}Maybe in NIST-world, but not here on Misplaced Pages (see ]), so I don't see how any of that helps us with the issue at hand. ]] 23:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::I was correcting a misconception that % is not a unit symbol when it is. At least it was until 2022. I find it best not to leave incorrect statements unchallenged or they take on a life of their own. ] (]) 00:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Um, OK, but you do realize that WP does not follow NIST's advice about spacing it, yes? ]] 00:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::Yep, and I wasn't trying to change that. My contributions have been to
			*::::::::*correct a factual error (yours)
			*::::::::*respond to questions from Tony and Gawaon
			*::::::::I have not weighed in on the main thread regarding percentage points because I don't expect my opinion (based not on NIST's utterings but on the ISO standards on which they are based) to be taken seriously, so why would I waste my e-breath? ] (]) 09:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
			*It is not conventional to space "%" in English. Nearly no publishers do this, and our MoS doesn't say to do this or incidentally illustrating doing this, so don't do this. "pp" here is a unit abbreviation for ''percentage point'' ("the unit for the arithmetic difference between two percentages)", so space it. % is not a unit abbreviation/symbol, but a quantity symbol, so it's in a different class. It's more like the ~ in "~5&nbsp;ml". That the spelled-out equivalent "approximately", like the spelled out "percent", is spaced apart from the numeral is irrelevant. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 15:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
			==Do we have to convert inches for wheels?==
	::I do not assume good faith in the case of Michael Glass due to previous editing history. If the word "main" is removed Glass will use the new policy to present ONLY metric units and not give conversions to customary units at all. ] (]) 16:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
			I see people adding conversions to mentions of screen sizes and wheel dimensions - is this really necessary? Even in or , automobile and bike wheels are universally referred to by inches; rim diameters are expressly . To me, adding conversions for these types of dimensions adds unnecessary clutter, harming readability for no return whatsoever. I haven't read the entire MOS today, apologies if I missed a mention of these situations. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 17:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
	I don't edit to remove customary units and have only metric units. I have argued consistently for the need to provide both measurements, and my editing history is consistent with this belief. ] (]) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
			:It looks like sizing bike wheels in inches is not universal. I see many charts in the I-net such as that use both metric and imperial/American units for bike wheels and tires. Whether the convert template handles them correctly is another issue. ] 17:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::Agreed. Or he might use it as an excuse to argue that the policy doesn't say that they should be the ''main'' units, and that therefore that metric units should be the main units instead. We certainly cannot assume that this is a mere copy-edit as suggested. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
			:On the matter of wheel sizes, not all are inches. See ] and my reply. Even for a conventional non-Denovo wheel, the dimensions are a bastard mixture: "195/65 R 15" means a tyre that is 195 mm wide on a 15-inch rim. --] &#x1f339; (]) 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
	You're wrong. It was just a suggested copy edit. The expression "main unit" would still be in the policy. However, as you object, I won't push it any further. ] (]) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
			::Yes, there is the Michelin TRX and the Denovo. Just as we wouldn't convert the "195" when we write 195/60 R15, I don't think we ought to convert the diameter either. I would treat all of these tire dimensions as one would nominal measurements, rather than inserting unnecessary templates. Bicycle tires, meanwhile, proved more varied than I was aware of. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 04:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::I agree with Mr.Choppers on this subject. I think wheels sizes on cars are a compromise between the USA and the rest of the world. There are metric rims on older vehicles but pretty rare on new vehicles. ] (]) 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{ping|Avi8tor}} - I was actually triggered by you converting screen dimensions, but five minutes online showed me that the modern world has indeed begun dropping the use of inches for screens. My gut was wrong. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 13:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Many people around the planet know only millimetres, so it makes sense to have both. I notice in France the data information on television screen size have it in both inches and millimetres. ] (]) 17:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			*I agree with Aviator, who didn't mention that aviation uses "feet" for altitude—needs conversion in my view. ] ] 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:I thought that ] is not a measure of distance but of pressure, so perhaps it should be converted to pascals first. I'm not saying one should not then convert to metres too - only that the conversion would need some care. ] (]) 22:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			==RfC Indian numbering conventions==
	I'd like to propose a clarification of an ambiguity (potential clash between two points of guidance relating to units): the section relating to British articles states that "in some contexts" it is appropriate to give primacy to imperial units, e.g. ''miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon'' (although it does not stipulate exactly what these contexts are, I assume the advice relates primarily to road transport). Shortly afterwards, the stlye guide states that "Nominal and defined quantities should be given in the original units first" (which I do not contest). In my experience (I am British), the UK has very mixed measurement traditions on some of these points (many distances are typically given in metric, often with no imperial equivalent, in daily British life, e.g. on OS maps, athletic events, hiking trails, and engineering/construction projects such as Crossrail) and I propose that the official policy on units in articles relating to Britain should be clarified to the following: '''Given the mixture of different measurement systems in use in contemporary British society, the main unit used in a given context should be the unit which is given primacy in the relevant primary sources'''. I view this as merely placing more emphasis on the second point that I quote above, namely that precedence should always be given to the original units, with any conversions clearly displayed as such, i.e. secondary or supplementary pieces of information. To extend the argument: if I were important enough to deserve my own Misplaced Pages page, and I gave information on my own height/weight in metric units (because that's what I prefer), would these figures need to be amended to prioritise Imperial, just because I'm British? Would changing my nationality exempt me from this rule? My point is that, given the confusing mess of units in use in the UK today, it's impossible to say in such a broad-brushed way that "when talking about subject X (distances, body dimensions, etc.) always use Imperial" - British people will use both, inconsistently.
			{{atop
	My proposed amendment is the only way I can see to steer clear of conflicts like the one on (for example) ], where some editors understood the standing policy to mean that imperial units are always correct for distances, regardless of primary sources. In this case the primary source gave a metric distance with a very approximate imperial equivalent, because British construction and engineering use the metric system exclusively, whereas the editors flipped the unit conversion so that the Wiki page showed the converted value first, with the source value displayed alongside it as though it were a conversion. My disagreement with this was that it was misleading to readers about which was the primary value and which was the conversion, and it's not appropriate for editors of a neutral reference work to "interpret" its sources in such a way, by deciding that they know better than the source what the appropriate units are. Their counterargument centred on the wording of the style guide as it stands, rather than on the substance of my argument, which they didn't care to contest, so for that reason I think this is quite an uncontroversial proposal (i.e. source units determine Misplaced Pages units). If there are no strenuous objections to it, I'll add the wording in bold above as a caveat in the section on units for British articles. ] (]) 11:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
			| result = There is consensus to continue using crore and lakhs when appropriate.
	:I agree that we need something like this. Although miles are still used on road signs, most measurements are in metric as archon as explained. Even our highways have metric measures on them although not on the road signs. Petrol at the petrol pump is only in litres, so why would we give primacy to gallons? I know that Google search results are dicy, but p petrol "miles per liter" gives about 1,430,000 results while we get about half that when we search for "miles" per gallon. ] (]) 12:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Yes, gallons are long-due for retirement - they've not been used for fuel in the UK since the early '90s (I think only a tiny number of Caribbean islands still sell fuel by the Imperial gallon, and maybe Liberia). Fuel economy/consumption units are already a real mess on Misplaced Pages because there are so many competing conventions, including miles per US gallon (which is not directly comparable to the Imperial measurement because the US gallon is much smaller). I'd be against introducing "miles per litre" measurements because it's a very nonstandard unit (mixing metric/imperial in a unit is bad practice) and it's not used in car adverts/dealerships in the UK (which is to my knowledge the only country that has this particular measurement confusion of selling fuel in metric and measuring driving distances in imperial), and adding one more measurement convention is just to contribute so much more clutter to an article. The legal measurement in the UK is actually the metric one, which by law must be given in the standard international form of L/100&nbsp;km or km/L (the former is used almost universally outside the UK and USA; India prefers the latter). The imperial MPG value is actually considered supplementary information. My (British) car manual uses L/100&nbsp;km exclusively for describing fuel consumption. Given all this, I'm not sure how useful it actually is for Misplaced Pages to retain the MPG(imp) measurements, when the metric ones are at least as meaningful to British people (it's at least as easy to relate 100&nbsp;km to your typical driving distances as it is to relate the imperial gallon to the amount of fuel you buy at the pump, arguably more so since most British people under 30 have minimal experience of Imperial volume measures). Anyway, we are a confused society slowly migrating towards the metric system, so it makes sense for articles about us to reflect this fact, even if this means they can't be 100% consistent in their preference of units (because we, as a country, are not). ] (]) 13:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
			Most participants also generally agreed with SchreiberBike's conditions (or a variant) - '''Always 1) link it on first use, 2) include what it is a measure of (rupees can not be assumed), 3) also include conventional numbering, and 4) allow it only in articles about the subcontinent'''.
	:I think there is a serious problem with the wording of the passage:
	::*In non-science UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units ({{xt|44 kilograms (97 lb)}}), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including
	::**miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon;
	::**feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight;
	::**imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.
	::**hands for horses and most other equines
	:Perhaps something got accidentally edited out somewhere between "miles" and "fuel consumption"?
	:As it is, it seems to say that miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption should be measured in miles per imperial gallon, which is obvious nonsense and clearly not intended. The main reason for the linguistic problem is that the introduction to the list talks of the use of ''units'' in some ''contexts'' but while the other UK exceptions to metric give '''the unit''' ''and'' '''the context''', ''no context'' is given for "miles" and "miles per hour", making it somewhat useless. "Miles are used in some contexts" is not very helpful. We know that miles are not used in all contexts; so we want to know ''what'' context calls for the use of miles.
	:This is what I mean:
			However, this RFC suffered from structural issues that a precise wording isn't agreed on yet. Any changes from status quo should go through a clearer future discussion or RFC on just that.
	{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto;"
	|-
	! Units!! Applicable context
	|-
	| miles || ''unspecified''
	|-
	| miles per hour || ''unspecified''
	|-
	| miles per imperial gallon || for fuel consumption
	|-
	| feet/inches || for personal height
	|-
	| stones/pounds || for personal weight
	|-
	| imperial pints || for draught beer and bottled milk
	|-
	| hands || for horses and most other equines
	|}
			{{nac}} ] (]) 22:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	:So it looks as if
			}}
	:* for miles per hour we should add something like " for road vehicle speeds", and
			<!-- ] 17:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1734800468}}
	:* for miles we should add something like "for road distances (but not in a scientific, civil-engineering or similar context)".
			I am revisiting an issue that was last brought up 6 years ago ] and settled without a strong consensus.
	:Perhaps the information should actually be presented as a table.--] (]) 13:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
			I think we should avoid using Indian numbering conventions unless it is needed for context. For instance, if we want to list the box office take of an Indian movie, don't use "crore", use "millions". This isn't about disrespecting a culture, it's about using internationally favored notation and unit conventions. We should use "millions" instead of "crore" for the same reason we favor meters over feet. There is no reason that India-related articles should be an enclave of Indian conventions. People who are not Indian will struggle with these things, it will weaken Misplaced Pages's role as an information tool for everyone.
	::Yes, this is a very good suggestion. Looking back over the passage I agree that it is far too ambiguous about which contexts to use Imperial units in, and this has clearly resulted in confusion and unnecessary "unit wars". I'd also preface the table with the general proviso that, in cases of ambiguity or confusion, the primary source should determine the preference that is given to the unit, and that a conversion should not be presented as if it were a primary value, because this is disingenuous and a violation of common sense editorial policy. I don't think a general piece of advice to prefer Imperial in certain British contexts over-rules something as basic as that. My own preference for metric would not lead me to write something like "The maximum speed limit on British motorways is {{convert|70|mph|km/h|disp=flip}}" because this is obviously silly; it's no less silly to do it the other way around in an article that relates to something in Britain which is metric (such as modern tramways). So if, per my example, I gave my weight in kg (or quoted the weight of another British person from a source which gave kg), a conversion into st/lb might be appropriate, but it should certainly not be given primacy over the initial value. Misplaced Pages is not the British tabloid press, slavishly converting metric to Imperial, to the ludicrous extent of writing things like "1100&nbsp;yards" instead of "1&nbsp;km" - it's not unreasonable for us to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that. MPG is officially deprecated in the UK as I described above, so I don't see why it should ever be given primacy over metric; the relevant official/legal figures are all in metric anyway, and if a conversion is strongly desired then it can be provided as supplementary information. Articles such as ] give L/100&nbsp;km precedence over MPG, presumably for this reason. ] (]) 14:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::The concept of listing the unit from the source first, followed by any necessary conversions, has been repeatedly rejected in discussions on this talk page. An encyclopedia assembles information from diverse sources to produce a coherent, easy-to-read article. Changing style from sentence to sentence, or word to word, is for ransom notes, not encyclopedias. ] (]) 14:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)		This is not the same thing as currency. It is appropriate to list an Indian movie's box office take in rupees. Providing a US$ conversion is optional, but a good idea since the US dollar is widely used around the world as a reserve currency. But write it as "millions of rupees", not "crores of rupees". ] (]) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			:What's the common usage in english? ] (]) 16:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			::I don't think most people in the US understand what "crore" is, and would not recognize it as part of the English language. The online says it means ten million, specifically, a unit of value equal to ten million rupees or 100 lakhs. I think most people in the US would not even understand that a currency is being mentioned.
			::--] (]) 17:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Not just people in the US. Nobody outside of India can be expected to know what a crore is. ] (]) 17:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			:We use meters over feet? Where?
			:{{tqb|In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.)}} ] (]) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			::You get extra points for saying "US customary" and not "Imperial". 😉 ] (]) 18:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{smalldiv|1=imperial :3 ] (]) 18:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)}}
			:I agree with ], do not use "crore", use "millions". Misplaced Pages is for a worldwide audience. ] (]) 18:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Kinda like how US units are used for US articles, I don't see the harm in using "crore", and it's way more work to manually convert to millions every time a member of India's vast diaspora in the Global North adds "crore" to an article, not knowing our ManualOfStyle. ] (]) 18:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Except we don't favor meters over feet — we use both. That's what the ] is for.
			:Speaking as a non-Indian, who can never remember what how many is a "crore": I'm fine with it, as long as the ]. ] (]) 18:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			:We already make an exception for ]. I see no good reason for barring a second exception. State in ] and convert to a unit non-Indians can understand (millions of ]s?). ] (]) 20:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			The article for the French movie '']'' lists the budget as "9.5 million", using a point as a decimal separator. In France they use commas for this, ie "9,5 million". We don't use the French notation convention for France-related articles. ] (]) 17:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Is it the French style to use that notation in English? A different unit elicits way less confusion than a reversed decimal separator meaning anyways. ] (]) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Bad RFC'''; see ] and the rest of the guidance there too. Unsurprisingly, this has just started out as a disorganized discussion that doesn't resemble a normal RFC...you might want to just remove the tag, get some feedback, and then start a proper one in a bit (separate subsections for discussion and survey are pretty helpful too). ] (]) 18:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{replyto|Kurzon}} I did {{diff|Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style|prev|1257781055|advise you}} not to jump straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC without first exhausting the suggestions at ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 18:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			:This RfC is clearly improperly formatted, ]; thank you to our unregistered friend for pointing this out.
			::Oh come now. It seems to be developing nicely, I doubt that any editors are swayed by the wording. it's not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good and its good enough. ] (]) 04:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::That reply was before the appropriate discussion centers were notified and before discussion started to develop. It's not just formatting; it's that there was no prior discussion. Now we're effectively having both at the same time, especially when an informal discussion could've resulted in consensus without a time-consuming process. ] (]) 16:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			:Consistency and clarity to our international readership are valid arguments in favor of prohibiting "crore" and "lakh". However, Aaron Liu makes good points about the fact that we allow local variation in articles with local ties, e.g. all of ]. I am unsure where I sit on this issue. I would like to see some Indian editors weigh in on this. ] </span>]] 19:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			::I also agree that crores are too obscure (as are lakhs), with use limited to South Asia. Feet and inches, while retrograde and infinitely useless, were used across most of the world not many generations ago. The major unit in Japanese is 万 (man), which is 10,000, but we do not use that because most people wouldn't know it. Engvar is somewhat different: we cannot avoid choosing between "colour" and "color", for instance, whereas we can easily write the globally recognized "millions" rather than crores. As for ]'s comment: if someone adds crore, it will be there until fixed – it's not pressing enough of a problem to hunt down every instance. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 20:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Good point about 万 – I completely forgot that Chinese has similarly different units. I think that settles it – either we allow crore and lakh alongside the ] (which I think is ridiculous) and an infinite variety of customary units, or we allow none.
			:::(Two counterarguments: 1. This is a ] argument, which is a logical fallacy. To which I say no, we can't give only one country special treatment, we ought to be fair. 2. The East Asian units are non-Latin characters and thus more impractical than "crore". This is true.) ] </span>]] 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::On the subject of the myriad, I agree with Toads's second counterargument: there is no widely-recognized English translation for the unit in some "East Asian variant" of English; they just convert it to ] in translations.{{tqb|we cannot avoid choosing between "colour" and "color", for instance, whereas we can easily write the globally recognized "millions" rather than crores.}}Part of my argument is that "crore" vs long scale is basically the same thing as "colour" vs "color": anonymous editors are going to add them. A ton. Expecting people to not use crore is like expecting people to not spell "colour". It's not pressing enough to hunt down, sure, but you're going to see sweet summer children adding crore into crore-free articles again and again and again. ] (]) 01:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
			::By the way, I've left a (neutrally-worded) note about this discussion at the Talk page of WikiProject India. ] </span>]] 20:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Don't allow crore.''' In the interest of making articles understandable to a wider audience, we already do this for the decimal marker (.) and separator for groups of 3 digits (,) as previously mentioned. We also ] even though long-scale hasn't entirely died out in the British Isles. ] (]) 21:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:The decimal marker and long/short scale have a much better reason for their ban: The symbols they use have very different meanings outside of their local context, while crore, lakh, etc. do not. ] (]) 01:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Don't allow crore''' Per ]. This is not comparable with US v metric units where we report both - that is just a case of which is primarily reported. Furthermore, imperial units have a relatively recent historical usage across English. It is not like other issues of ENGVAR such as colour v color or ise v ize that do not affect understanding. {{tq|For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable}} - to the point of being paramount. ] (]) 22:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Allow''' ''crore'', ''lakh'' and ], '''but always''', 1) link it on first use, 2) include what it is a measure of (rupees can not be assumed), 3) also include conventional numbering, and 4) allow it only in articles about the subcontinent.&nbsp;]&#124;] 23:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:I agree with all of these conditions. While I remain somewhat ambivalent on the use of “crore” in general, we must provide enough context for non-Indian readers to understand them. ] </span>]] 13:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Allow''' ''crore'', ''lakh'' per ], and with the same caveats. ] (]) 00:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Allow ScreiberBike''', per my comments above. ] (]) 01:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Allow ScreiberBike'''. But see also ] - "You may use the Indian numbering system of lakhs and crores ''but should give their equivalents in millions/billions in parentheses''" <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
			* '''Allow''' ''crore'', ''lakh'' and ], '''but always''', 1) link it upon first use <u>in every section where it appears</u>, 2) include what it is a measure of (rupees can not be assumed), 3) also include conventional numbering <u>using template {{tl|convert}}—i.e., don't convert yourself</u>, and 4) allow it only in articles about the subcontinent. ] (]) 23:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			*: Hm; was very surprised to notice that the {{tl|convert}} template does not currently support lakhs and crores. I think it should, and started ] about that. If you wish to comment, please go to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 23:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::The convert template converts units, like feet and metres. Crores and lakhs are not units, but multipliers. It would be like convert being used to convert between hundreds, thousands, millions etc. --] &#x1f339; (]) 22:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::The {{tlx|lakh}} and {{tlx|crore}} templates make more sense than overloading {{tlx|convert}}. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 23:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:I agree with SchreiberBike and others; "crores" and "lakhs" can always be used to add colour/color to an article as long as those requirements are met. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 04:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Do not allow'''. This is not the same as variations of English in wide use where there are multiple widespread usages (color or colour). While SchreiberBike's conditions for use are reasonable, I would say that the standard international measurements should always be primary and subcontinent-specific numbering as a secondary only in articles about the subcontinent. ] (]) 09:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:What does "widespread" mean? ] (]) 12:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
			{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: ]. ] (]) 01:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
			*'''Allow, but always ...''' exactly as Mathglot laid out above (other than, per Stepho-wrs and Redrose64, {{tnull|convert}} isn't actually the right template, or at least isn't presently). I would add a further caveat that these traditional Indic units (technically, multipliers) should be given secondarily not primarily, but I could live without that. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 11:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Allow''' when appropriate, under conditions set out by ScreiberBike. Also, this RfC does not meet ]. ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 02:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Do not allow''' crore et al. It's not only native English-speakers who haven't a clue what it means when reading India-related articles; it's non-natives too. ] ] 07:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:I don't get what native/non-native speakers have to do with the issue. ] (]) 12:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Allow per ScreiberBike''' for South Asian articles. ] (]) 17:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Allow''' All Indian academic/professional textbooks and all Indian reliable sources, with few exceptions for specific conditions, use lakhs/crores when denoting INR and millions/billions when denoting foreign currencies. Not allowing is not an option, unless editors want to disregard Indian readers. Using X million rupees is almost as uncommon in India as using Y lakh dollars. My suggestion -- for articles that use {{tl|Use Indian English}} force editors to '''1) link it on first use, 2) include what it is a measure of (rupees can not be assumed)''' with Indian comma separator at 00 after thousands and for articles that don't use that template force editors to '''always''' use millions/billions with 000 comma separator. — ] (]) 03:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:'''Strongly disallow''' use of Indian comma separator. That would only serve to confuse. We don't permit a French comma separator on English Misplaced Pages. The Indian comma would be much worse. ] (]) 09:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:I concur entirely with Dongervogel_2 on this side-point; we cannot mix-and-match numeric separator styles. We've repeatedly had debates in the past about permitting "," instead of "." as a decimal point to suit the preference of some subset of readers, and the answer is always firmly "no", so this isn't going to be any different. I'm not a professional researcher in this area, but I have looked into the matter in the course of various style debates, and the evidence clearly shows Indian publications using "Western" number formatting systems (or whatever you want to call them) on a regular basis, though often alongside the Indic {{lang|hi-Latn|krore}}, etc., system. That is, it's just not plausible that English-using readers in/from India have any difficulty understanding our numeric material, especially after the rise of the Internet has exposed them to content from all over the world since the mid-1990s and pretty much ubiquitously since the early 2010 with the rise of mobile data. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 14:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::{{tq | “it's just not plausible that English-using readers in/from India have any difficulty understanding our numeric material …”}} Of course the same could be said of American readers and the spelling of ‘colour’. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 17:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::What isn't the same is how many editors will add "colour" into articles while most wouldn't add numbers in the Indian system. ] (]) 18:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::::I’m genuinely not sure what your point is? Editors are more likely to (erroneously) change spelling to ‘colour’, so that gives them more grounds for the MOS giving them parity with American English? I know we should be realistic about what we can control, but I don’t love that logic. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 03:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Yes, that or add spelling that says "colour" is what I'm saying. ] (]) 04:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Like I would campaign for navboxes to be placed in the "see also" section if it weren't so widespread and unduly investative to correct. The corrections for disallowing crore are the same thing to me. ] (]) 04:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::On this attempt at a ''color'' ]: "What isn't the same" even more pertinently is that the cases aren't parallel in any way. ''Crore'' and ''lakh'' are not barely noticeable spelling differences of an everyday word used the same way in every single dialect of English; they're a radically different system of approaching large-ish numbers. There is no audience capable of reading en.wikipedia for whom either ''colour'' or ''color'' is impenetrable. If HTGS's pseudo-analogy is intended to suggest that ENGVAR should be undone on the same basis that we would rejecte or further restrain use of ''crore'' and ''lakh'', that doesn't work since they're not actually analogous at all, plus the fact that not a single element of MoS is more dear to the community than ENGVAR; it is never, ever going away. If HTGS isn't actually suggesting we get rid of ENGVAR but is instead trying to suggest that opposition to ''crore'' is pretty much the same as advocating the death of ENGVAR, that's not cogent either, for the same false-analogy reason plus scoops of ], ], and ] fallacies plopped on top. Aaron Liu's original "what isn't the same" point is that most editors will use ''color'' or ''colour'' as contextually appropriate in our content, yet very few will ever add ''lakh'' or ''crore'' to an Indic-connected article. That could be argued to be suggestive of a {{lang|la|de facto}} community consensus already existing against those units' use at en.wikipedia. While it's worth considering, it's clouded by ] in that a comparatively small percentage of our editors are from India or its immediate environs, so the statistics are probably not usefully comparable even if they could be gathered with certainty. I would suggest that the reasons to rarely use ''crore/lakh'' and to always convert when used at all, has to do with end-reader comprehensibility, not with editor preference or usage rates. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Because, the fact is, we aren’t using varieties of English solely to ensure accuracy or intelligibility. They are also being used to avoid recreating the Anglo-American hegemony that exists in published English, and to foster a connection in the community with the most interest in the subject. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 18:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::This is not MakeLocalsAsHappyAsPossiblePedia or EngageInCrossCulturalFeelGoodBackscratchingPedia or RightGreatWrongsPedia. It may be unfortunate in some sense that a "Western" (now globally internationalized) enumeration system dominates nearly everywhere (with arguably more benefits than costs), but it is a fact. And it has nothing to do with "Anglo-American" anything, being the same system used by the French and the Russians and the Japanese and so on, and predating both America and England and even the English language, going back to ancient Eurasia very broadly, from the Rome to China. (There's an incidental British correlation of course: it was largely the English, along with the Dutch, who pushed this system in India. That makes it socio-politically and emotively connected to India–UK and Indian–Western relations, but it is not an Anglic counting system and we are not to be confused by sentiment.) More to the point, the "job" of this site is to communicate clearly with as many English-competent readers as possible. The simple fact is that virtually no one outside of the Subcontinent and nearby islands (plus first-generation emigrées therefrom), think in or even understand ''lakh'' and ''crore''; meanwhile pretty much everyone in India and thereabouts {{em|also}} understands millions, and hundreds of thousands, even if it is not their immediate mental model and they have to convert a bit in their heads, like Americans with metric units. There is no ] to be had here; the sides are not equivalent. Finally, it is not the goal of our articles on Indic culture, history, geography, economics, etc., to appeal to and primarily serve the interests of people in South Asia, but {{em|everyone}}. For this reason, I'm supportive of retaining the permissibility of ''crore'' and ''lakh'' in relevant articles as long as they are always converted into the now globally prevalent enumeration system, and usually with that first unless there's an important contextual reason to use ''lakh/crore'' first. Best of both worlds: everyone gets to understand the material, and Indic numbering is not deleted. It's pretty much the same situation as American customary ("imperial") units of measurement: most of the world doesn't use or understand them, but we should not ban them, just always convert them to metric. (The only difference I can see is "wiki-political": our American editorial and read bases are so large that it would be very difficult to get consensus to always put American units second after metric even in articles about American subjects. That really {{em|should}} be the rule, but it'll be hard to get there.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Do not allow crore''' - I am not convinced that this word is actually English, and this is the English-language wikipedia. It seems that this is a foreign word that is used ''alongside'' English in areas that have ties to the language this word is from. Even in these areas, it seems that English speakers there fully understand what "millions", "thousands", etc mean, and there have been attestations linked above where they use both, presumably to help English speaking people understand what number is being referred to. My perspective here is colored by being an American expat living in Japan... in day-to-day speech, I will sometimes mix the languages and say "Oh, this costs 3 man yen." But I am under no circumstances thinking that "man" meaning "ten thousand" is English. I'm using another language's word. That's what it looks like they are doing here. ] (]) 07:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:As an alternative, I would also accept allowing crore only if the "millions" number is included alongside it. ] (]) 07:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:"Gumption" is borrowed from Scots; it is English. "Chutzpah" is borrowed from Yiddish; it is English. "Powwow" is borrowed from East-American indigenous language; it is English. "Crore" is borrowed from Hindustani; it is ]. All of the above are attested by dictionaries, while "man" to mean myriads is not. ] (]) 18:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Allow crore''' - my gut feeling is to disallow it because it is not English as understood by the majority of English readers (including native speakers from UK/US/Australia/etc and second language speakers from China/S.America/Europe/etc). However, crore and lakh are words that Indians practically think in even when speaking English. We have a similar problem where an article is marked as British English and has 99 occurrences of "litre" - an American will still add new stuff with "liter" because it is so naturally to them. In the same way, we will be pushing it up hill trying to get them to stop. So, we should let them use it in articles related to the Indian region but never on anything outside that region. Each first usage should link to ] and ] so that the few non-Indian region readers have a clue what's going on. I would not bother with conversion to millions - once you learn that they are just putting 0's at the end it becomes easy enough in a short time and conversions just clutter up the article. But do not allow grouping like 1,00,000 under any circumstances.<span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Don't allow crore'''. If there are people who don't know what "million" is, well some level of literacy is required here, yes. As to "link on first use", no, links are supposed to be "here's some extra/more detailed info about the subject if you want" not "you need to interrupt the flow of your reading and go off the page to understand this word". ] (]) 04:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:Actually that's exactly what links are for. Readers who know the general topic well can just read an article straight forwardly. But readers new to the general topic are likely to come across words they don't know yet and can follow the links to learn. Eg, in car articles we often talk about the ]. If you are new to the detailed study of cars then you can follow that link and then return later. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 06:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:And if anybody thinks that a politely worded MOS rule will stop them adding crore and lakh then consider that at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nissan&diff=1256595427&oldid=1256557060 somebody added a MDY style date in spite of the article having 186 references in DMY style. I fix these (in both directions) practically daily. People do whatever comes natural and do not consider that any other way even exists.
			*: But I do feel a little better after my vent :) <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 11:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::{{+1}} and it’s worth reiterating that most advocates here are suggesting that the Indic value should always be “translated” into a Western value in parentheses, so most naïve readers would still be able to parse the article without following the link. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 06:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Do not allow crore'''—India-related articles are for international readership. No one outside the subcontinent is familiar with ''crore''. It is a disservice to readers to allow it. ] ] 06:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:If they are not familiar with crore they can read the conversion to millions. And if they also want to learn about ] they can click on the link. I see no disservice. ] (]) 12:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:Perhaps some are not aware but English Misplaced Pages is heavily used in India. The ] from 2023 had five items about Indian movies and movie stars. The latest week's most viewed ] had ] and '']''. According to ] there are 128 million English speakers there. If we say to basically never use ''crore'' and ''lakh'', we are sending a discouraging, even insulting, message to many of our readers and editors.&nbsp;]&#124;] 13:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Allow''' in articles with strong ties to India, provided that the conversion is shown at first use. Hey, we could even write {{tq|In non-scientific articles with strong ties to <s>the United States</s> India, the primary <s>units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.)</s> multipliers are Crore and Lakh}}. See ]. Also, it is very relevant that a huge fraction of en.wiki readers are Indian. "ccording to a 2011 census, 10.2% of the Indian population speaks English. This figure includes all Indians who speak English as a first, second, or third language. 10% of India's population is approximately 145 million people." Twice as many as in the UK, half as many as in the US. --] (]) 11:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Allow''' only with linking and conversion as per Mathglot. The most practical solution for both Indian and non-Indian readers. ] (] · ]) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Discussion===
			Maybe this can be solved technologically so that every user sees numbers in the way they are accustomed to? ]<sub>]</sub> 20:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This could be done for logged in users, but the vast majority of readers are not logged in with an account. Similar solutions have been proposed for date style and variety of English, but they won't work.&nbsp;]&#124;] 20:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Which era? ==
	::::Obviously I am not suggesting anything so silly as changing units repeatedly within an article. I am saying that the context is framed largely by primary sources: in the case of the tramline, the Edinburgh Council website gave priority to metric, with a very rough imperial equivalent - I don't understand why this was acceptable for Edinburgh Council but not a Misplaced Pages article. If the policy is designed to reflect the units that are used in real-life Britain then that is what it should do, and in this case the unit that was used was metric. What I am saying is that, in cases such as this, where the primary unit is metric, in the context of an area of British society where metric units predominate, that should be reflected in the choice of the primary unit ''to be used consistently within the article''. A 10&nbsp;km race is a 10&nbsp;km race, not a "6.2&nbsp;mile race", even if it is run in Britain. Presenting a conversion as if it were a source value is dishonest, and bad academic practice, because a conversion and a quoted (nominal) value are not the same thing. The existing version of the style guide says as much: '''Nominal and defined quantities should be given in the original units first, even if this makes the article inconsistent''' (in the case of the tram, 14&nbsp;km was the nominal length given by the Council). ] (]) 15:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
			I'm inviting fellow editors to figure out whether ] should use BC / AD or BCE / CE. The issue is that the article mixes eras and when I went back to see which was first, I saw it originally used "BC/BCE" and it stayed like that for years. The thread: ]. Thanks! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
			:] applies so status quo ante should apply. (FWIW, Judaism and Islam have religious perspectives on Jesus of Nazareth, so the neutral style seems entirely appropriate.). --] (]) 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Agreed on the last part. As for the procedural matters, all of our ] principles ultimately default/fallback to the style used in the first non-stub version that used one of the competing styles, if consensus fails. ] is the general principle, the root rule: Don't change from one acceptable style without a very good reason. If there is or you expect resistance, discuss to establish consensus. If you don't get consensus for your change (i.e., there is consensus against you), it stays the {{lang|la|status quo ante}}. If there's no consensus on which would be better (which is often the case and likely the one in this case), then use the version established earliest. For particular things covered by ], ], ], ], we simply reiterate this principle and process more topically, and these ones also basically resolve to an additional rule: don't change that particular kind of style without establishing consensus first {{em|even if}} you're sure you've got a good reason and don't think there should be resistance.<!-- --><p>The STYLEVAR process actually sometimes (namely when there's clearly no firm consensus in favor of the {{lang|la|status quo ante}}, either) overrides the usual Misplaced Pages {{lang|la|status quo ante}} principle, which in practice amounts to "fall back to whatever the discussion closer thinks is more or less a pretty long-term {{lang|la|status quo}}". That usually works for a lot of things, but for these "I will win my Holy Style War or die trying" tedious cyclic ] typographic disputes, it has proven unworkable, because the dispute lives on and on, simply shifting in stages to: what constitutes a {{lang|la|status quo}}; how long is long enough; whether interruptions in the use of the alleged {{lang|la|status quo}} have reset its tenure; whether this *VAR-imposed consensus discussion was followed when the alleged {{lang|la|status quo}} was imposed; if not, then whether that imposition pre-dated STYLEVAR requiring it; and yadda yadda yadda. There's just no end to it, because it's too often a super-trivial but deeply obsessive PoV-pushing exercise grounded in prescriptivist emotions (mixed sometimes with nationalist, or socio-politically activistic, or my-profession-vs.-yours, etc.). The style-war-ending default of falling back to the first major edit that established one of the competing styles is arbitrary (in both senses), but it is {{em|the end of it}}, and we move on to something more productive.</p><!-- --><p>For this particular article: If "it originally used 'BC/BCE{{'"}} in the original post isn't a typo, and really does mean that the style was mixed from day one, then that's a rare edge case, and JMF's "status quo ante should apply" is probably the only reasonable approach. (Even from an excessively proceduralist viewpoint: If STYLEVAR and its application ERAVAR impose an overriding principle that in this case cannot actually be applied, then the default necessarily must be the normal Wikipedian {{lang|la|status quo ante}} principle, even if for matters like this it tends to lead to re-ignition of the dispute again in short order. Not every solution is perfection.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 12:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)</p>
			:::But what would be the status quo ante in this case? Surely you can't mean the mixed BC/BCE style? ] (]) 08:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Four questions ==
	:::I agree that - though consistency may occasionally be more important - the primary source is very often the most important consideration (and sometimes outweighs all other considerations). For instance
	:::* when quoting a person's statement or legislation verbatim, it is essential to use the original units; other units may be inserted in ''square'' brackets (indicating that they are not in the original source).
	:::* when paraphrasing a person's statement or legislation or referring to it directly (e.g. "according to . . .") the same should apply, though parentheses may be used, rather than square brackets.
	:::* Even within an article, mixed usage may sometimes be necessary in order to correctly document the facts. This may appear inconsistent, but is actually consistent application of a slightly more complex (or less oversimplified) rule. For instance, in an article on transport in the UK, there might be a (direct or indirect) reference to an EU ''regulation'' (which has direct effect) that specifies a minimum length of 100 km or or a maximum speed of 50 km/h . The primary unit in this case should be metric. The same article might also refer to a UK act of parliament that uses ''miles'', in which case miles would be the primary unit.
	:::On the other hand, Misplaced Pages style should not depend on which (non-primary) source happens to be used to support a particular statement, which might lead to stating that one county council built 50 kilometres (31 mi) of new road while another council built (only) 30 miles (48 km).--] (]) 19:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
			#Can 24-hour clock be used in articles with strong ties to United States (I have seen no US-related articles with 24-hour clock) such as: "The Super Bowl begins at 18:40 ET?
	:It should be miles per hour for all speeds and miles for all geographical distance. Otherwise we end up in the absurd position where two towns are {{convert|10|km}} away, but {{convert|8|mi}} away by road, or comparing a {{convert|200|km/h|abbr=on}} train with a {{convert|70|mph|abbr=on}} car.
			#Can 12-hour clock be used with UTC time?
			#How are primary units of an article determined if the article has strong ties to both US and Canada, as Canada-related articles always use metric units first? For example, ] is such an article, and it currently uses imperial units first, but it would be more logical to use metric units first as a Canada-related article.
			#Why mixed units are not used with metric units? Why it is either 1.33 m or 133 cm, but never 1 m 33 cm? --] (]) 23:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			#:I'd add a fifth question: why does Misplaced Pages not use ISO dates, i.e. yyyy/mm/dd? They are becoming more common internationally. ] (]) 00:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			#::# I wouldn't recommend it.
			#::# Probably?
			#::# That should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
			#::# No benefit for the additional visual or semantic complexity; that's part of the appeal of the metric system, right?
			#::# English-language sources never use this format, and the English Misplaced Pages bases its style on that of other English-language media.
			#::<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 00:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			#:::You write "English-language sources never use this format", but this is untrue. ISO date format is widely used in scientific publishing and it is standard in aviation and for machine processing. Have a look at the Misplaced Pages entry ]. You might be surprised.] (]) 23:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			#::::I personally use ISO format on my devices; if it helps, you can replace "never" with "almost never". <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 23:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::#] says 12 and 24 clocks are equally valid. It's just that the majority of native English speakers use 12 hour clocks, so they choose to use 12 hour clocks. If you create an article (or are the first to mention times within an existing article) then you can choose. Don't change an existing article from one to the other. With the possible exception of US Army articles, you may get kick-back from readers not familiar with the MOS. See the ] essay.
			::#UTC is an offset. It is a separate question from how you format that time. UTC can be used with either 12 or 24 hour clocks. See ] but it doesn't actually say much.
			::#Primary units are based on ''strong'' ties to a country. If you have multiple countries with a mix of units then you have multiple weak ties and no strong ties. Therefore we default to metric first, as per ]. Only articles with strong ties to the US and UK get to use imperial units first.
			::#A major benefit of metric is that we can change from m to cm to mm to km just by shifting the decimal point. Splitting it into 1 m 33 cm makes that harder and is now rarely used in metric countries. It was more common in my country of Australia during the first 20 years after metrication when we copied our old imperial habits but it fell out of favour and we now universally say 133 cm, 1.33 m or 1330 mm as appropriate. Countries using imperial units tend to use split units because it is so hard to convert miles to feet, gallons to ounces, etc in your head.
			::#] dates are allowed in limited cases (mostly references and tables where space is limited). It is not used in prose because it is not yet common for native English speakers to use this in their day-to-day lives. Note that any other purely numeric format is strictly disallowed. See ] <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 01:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::#:(In terms of accuracy in my own answers, 2 out of 5 ain't bad right?) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 01:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Being OCD helps 😉 <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 01:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I'm unsure how to medicalize it, but I'm certainly obsessive and compulsive, and it only helps somewhat! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 02:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Answering #2 and #4 only
			::*2. No. The clarity of UTC is obtained only with a 24-hour clock.
			::*4. You could write 1 m + 33 cm if you want, but why make life so complicated? The plus sign is needed because without it a multiplication is implied (1 m 33 cm = 0.33 m<sup>2</sup>).
			::] (]) 07:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The answer to Q2 will depend at least in part on whether UTC was chosen because it's local time or because it's the international time standard. It would make no sense to allow the 12-hour clock for events in London between March and October, but ban it for events between October and March. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 14:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{rto|Kahastok}} I don't get this reply. The time of an events in London is given according to BST (= UTC+01:00) in summer and according to GMT (= UTC+00:00) in winter{{snd}} normally without either qualification stated unless it is the weekend when the time changes. It the time zone matters (for an internationally televised live event, for example), the time is normally given both ways: in the local and in the international notations. (Or did you not realise that GMT is just another timezone, not a synonym for UTC though often used that way, especially by seafarers.) ] (]) 15:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I don't accept that UTC is always distinct from GMT. Usually there is not enough information about the reasons a particular author used one or the other abbreviation to tell if the author intended a distinction or not. ] (]) 17:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Well OK, if we're going to insist that the sub-second formal discrepancy between GMT and UTC is somehow vitally important (despite all evidence to the contrary) the split hairs do not count in the case of Lisbon, where the local time in the winter is defined as UTC, rather than just being UTC in practice. Why would we say that a winter event in Lisbon has to use the 24-hour clock, but a summer event does not?
			:::::For the record, I don't think I have ever seen a time recorded at {{tq|17:00 GMT (17:00 UTC)}} and I would like to see examples of that usage. ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 19:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::and you never will, because it would be pedantic in the extreme. In fact most timestamps you see anywhere will be just one of (a) not stated, because it is for local use; (b) the local timezone (notation adjusted according to whether or not DST is in operation); (c) a poor third at "front of house" (excepting worldwide online systems like Misplaced Pages), UTC time. Use of both (b)&(c) at once is very rare, vanishingly so if b=GMT or even BST.
			::::::Jc3s5h is certainly correct for use of GMT in almost all sources pre this century and still quite a few recently{{snd}}it will take 50 years to fall out of use as a world standard, I suspect. Perhaps more ... who would think that there are still people who insist on ]s?
			::::::Just to be clear, I am not proposing that we introduce an MOS rule mandating any notation. Just clarifying that GMT is not a synonym for UTC. ] (]) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::If you weren't aiming to be {{tq|pedantic in the extreme}}, why bring it up? And in particular, why claim - specifically in the context of GMT vs UTC - that {{tq|the time is normally given both ways: in the local and in the international notations}} in situations where time zone matters? '''']''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 21:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) s
			::My 2c:
			::# Not just English speakers, anybody with an analogue wristwatch display does so. BUT (in the UK at least), train, bus and plane timetables are invariably shown using 24 hour clock notation. Basically, anywhere that it matters, where ambiguity might arise.
			::##The application of am and pm to 12:00 noon and midnight seems to be a perennial source of dispute, see ]. Good luck with writing an MOS guidance that avoids that minefield.
			::# I was about to declare that ]s never exceeds 12:00 so crisis, what crisis? But I think there is a UTC+13:00 on one of the Pacific islands near the date line?
			::# Stepho, the use of imperial units in the UK is dying out, literally as well as metaphorically since they are preferred by the older generation. Don't be fooled by the rail-fans insistence on ]s{{snd}} all UK railway engineering has been done in metric since 1975. So no, ] applies to UK articles too. {{midsize|Except articles under the aegis of ], of course. --] (]) 15:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			::# I concur with Stepho's reply.
			::# Anybody who puts their boiled egg upside down should be taken out and beheaded immediately! (aka, ask us again in a 100 years time but it is a non-starter right now.)
			::Here endeth the lesson. ] (]) 15:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You say, {{tq|the use of imperial units in the UK is dying out}}. Is it therefore your contention that the British (or even just younger British people) all use kilometres really and just put miles on all the road signs to confuse foreigners? ''''']'''''&nbsp;<small>'']''</small> 19:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Because of the multitude of road signs and therefore the huge cost of moving from miles, that one will likely never change. In most other fields, however, there has been a progressive move toward using metric measurements in the UK over recent decades. ] (]) 04:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Never mind that other countries that went metric changed our road signs just fine. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{@|Dondervogel 2}}, why must UTC be 24 hours? UTC is just a timezone. Technically it is no different any other timezone and the other time zones can use either 12 or 24 hour times as they wish. Of course, UTC is a little special in that it gets used as the "universal" timezone. And when somebody wants to be unambiguous they tend to use 24 hour time. And when they want to be really unambiguous they write it as UTC rather than local. But a lot of that is just convention. They could equally well say 4:00 pm UTC and still be very precise and unambiguous.
			:::::Also, why do you need the "+". In the 1970s in Australia (just after metrication) we used to see "1 m 33 cm" a lot. I've never seen anyone think that it was multiplication. It was more likely from the habit of doing "4 ft 7 in". Once we learnt that writing it as 1.33 m or 133 cm made conversion between them trivial (just shift the little dot), we dropped the complication of mixed units. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::*UTC is not a time zone. It's a time standard, and it uses a 24-hour clock.
			::::::*In the language of the SI, symbols have special meanings. If you mean addition (as here) you need a "+" sign. In the absence of any other symbol, a space denotes multiplication. Outside the SI you can invent any conventions you want, and Misplaced Pages sometimes chooses to depart from the SI, via MOSNUM. I don't believe MOSNUM permits this particular departure.
			::::::] (]) 08:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Remsense, one reason Misplaced Pages can't rely on ISO 8601 throughout is that some articles express dates in the ], or even the ], and ISO 8601 only allows the ]. ISO 8601 is fine for airline schedules and hotel reservations, but it truly sucks for history. ] (]) 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::If we can't get Americans to switch to DMY, or Brits to switch to MDY, what hope do we have of getting both groups to switch to YMD? --] &#x1f339; (]) 00:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: I think the biggest problem with YMD, besides unfamiliarity, is that you frequently want to suppress the Y part when it's understood, and that's harder to do when it's at the start. --] (]) 00:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I think the UN should enforce use of DMY worldwide on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, MDY on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and of course dedicate the weekends to YMD. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 00:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Whaaaaat? Why would we want the least fun format on the {{em|weekend}}? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Year-first encourages us to meditate on the long term while many are less occupied at work. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 08:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:My responses to these questions would be:
			:# There is no strong tie of "18:40" format to the US, or the UK, or whatever. It's a format used in a variety of military, otherwise-governmental (e.g. transport/transit scheduling), and sometimes scientific and a few other contexts, and that's true inside and outside the US. It's a completely abnormal format outside of those kinds of contexts, and people don't use it on an everyday basis (that I know of; maybe there is some English-using country in which it has been so aggressively imposed that it's become an everyday norm there and people don't know what "3 pm" means any more, but I'm not aware of such a place). MOS:NUM grudgingly permits its use, but 24-hour format verges on "user-hateful" and should be avoided in most circumstances (i.e. where it's not an established norm for the subject in question).
			:#*On JMF's side point about "12:00 pm", MoS could easily have a rule about this, just to settle the confusion, which is common among the general populace, but not among reliable sources on time and writing, in which it virtually always corresponds to "12:00" in 24-hour time, with "12:00 am" being "00:00". MoS saying something about it, though, should be to avoid it in favor of "midnight" and "noon", because confusion among everyday people persists. (My city is gradually changing all of its "No Parking 12 AM – 6 AM, Street Cleaning, Tu, Th" signs to "No Parking 12:01 AM – 6:01 AM, Street Cleaning, Tu, Th" because of this factor).
			:# Meaningless, confused question. As Stepho-wrs explained, UTC is an offset, not a format. There's a standardized way of writing {{em|the name of}} a UTC time-zone offset, e.g. as "UTC+05:00", but that's not relevant to how times are used or referred to (in various styles) for typical human consumption. Likewise, the Unicode name of "@" is "{{Unichar|0040}}", but this has no implications for use of the symbol or for plain-English references to it; writing "the at-sign" is not an error. When WP puts "3:05 pm, February 3, 2002 (UTC)" in someone's sig to conform to their date settings in the WP "Preferences" panes, that is also not an error.
			:#* Stepho-wrs (which surprises me, given the above) wondered why UTC offset names use a +. It's because the offsets run both directions, e.g. "UTC−05:00" is US and Canadian eastern standard time, and rendering the positive ones as "UTC 05:00" or "UTC05:00" would be problematic for humans and automation alike in various ways. The + isn't any more superfluous than the leading 0 on 00–09.
			:# A Canada–US squabble over ordering: A) Who cares? We have {{tlx|convert}} for a reason. B) This is a pretty good argument (from Stepho-wrs): "If you have multiple countries with a mix of units then you have multiple weak ties and no strong ties. Therefore we default to metric first, as per ]." B) If that argument were not persuasive, then ] still already covers this: When there are two competing acceptable styles, do not change from one to the other without an objectively defensible reason. Try to establish consensus on the article's talk page about which should be preferred, if you are convinced a change should happen. ] such a consensus cannot be reached, then default to whatever was used in the first post-stub version of the article (same as with ENGVAR disputes, and CITEVAR ones). So, we are not missing any rules.
			:# It's "1.33 m" (not "1 m 33 cm") primarily because that is how the metric system is internationally standardized and how it is used in the real world, rather consistently. The two-units version is also less concise, and annoyingly repetitive because of how the units are named. And the system is designed to be decimal from the ground up. Thus Steoph-wrs observation: "Once we learnt that writing it as 1.33 m or 133 cm made conversion between them trivial (just shift the little dot), we dropped the complication of mixed units." It's not WP's role to treat occasionally-attestable but very disused variants away from a near universal system as if they had become norms and must at all costs be permitted. (Much of MoS's role is eliminating unhelpful variation that is confusion or which causes cyclic dispute, even if we settle on something arbitrary; but most of MOS:NUM is not arbitrary but standards-based.) As for US customary (or "imperial" units, never mind the British empire doesn't exist any longer and what's left of it metricated a long time ago), you can find decimal uses of it for various purposes in real-world publications (e.g. "0.35 in"), but it tends to be for special purposes, like establishing margin widths when printing on non-metric paper, and in electronic media when calculation or sorting might be needed. But the typical use of such units is in "3 ft 7 in" form because they are unrelated units, and because the two-unit split format is deeply conventionalized, including in various industries like construction. That's not true of "3 m 7 cm".
			:#*I don't buy Dondervogel_2's "multiplication implied" argument. Virtually no one outside of some particular ivory towers (and even then only in specialist material that was explicit about it) would ever interpret any "# unit1 # unit2" construction, in any context, as a multiplication operation. The real world routinely uses formats like this and {{em|never}} means multiplication by it. E.g. look at the fine print on any laptop's or other device's power-brick; you'll likely see back-to-back, undivided measurement-and-unit-symbol pairs, like "12&nbsp;W&nbsp;&nbsp;3.7&nbsp;A".
			:# Skeptic2's add-on ISO-dates question: WP doesn't use 2024-12-23 format (except for special purposes) because it is not a norm, anywhere (as an ENGVAR or other geographical or dialect consideration). It's only standardized within specific industries, systems, processes, organizations, and other specialized usage spheres. (I use it very, very frequently in web development and other coding. But it's not something I'd use in a letter or a novel or an op-ed, because it's a format for computers, and for precision and cross-language exchange among engineers and scientists, not a format for everyday communication.) I've never seen one iota of evidence of broad and increasing acceptance of ISO among the general public for daily use, in regular writing (though ability to parse it has likely increased in the last 30 years because of the Internet and the amount of people's exposure to code that uses it). But it does not match anyone but maybe an ultra-nerd's English-language parsing. If you're American, probably (unless you are older and rural) what you think and say aloud to express today's date is "December 23, 2024" or perhaps "December 23rd, 2024". If you're not American, you probably (some Canadians are an exception too) would express it as some variant of "23 December 2024", "23rd December, 2024", or "the 23rd of December, 2024", depending on your age, social background, country of origin, etc. (American yokels often use the last of those; I have relatives in the Deep South who do it habitually.) These correspond closely (between exactly and too-close-to-matter) to MOS:DATE's two "M D, YYYY and "D M YYYY" formats. An ISO date does not. It's very unnatural. It requires the reader (most readers, anyway) to stop and "translate" it in their heads, thinking about which block of numbers means what, and so on. (I've been using ISO dates on a daily basis since around 1990, and I still have to think about it a little, and once in a while get it wrong, especially shortly after transferring from narrative work to coding work.) Worse, many people do not know at all whether that represents YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-DD-MM; lots of non-geeky non-Americans mistakenly think it's the latter because they are used to D M YYYY order otherwise, and the idea of the month coming before the day is foreign to them, an annoying Americanism. I run into this problem in a great deal of online content.
			:<span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Official documents in South Africa are YYYY-MM-DD, I personally use it to name bank statements etc. on my computer because they are easier to find. It depends on what you are used to. ] (]) 12:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::It isn’t however very readable, on articles of prose. ] (]) 18:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::To reiterate a distinction that's not potentially reducible to cultural acclimation, it's clear that purely numerical formats are less natural in prose. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 18:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Unit formatting ==
	:We don't need to worry about engineering in that case because it refers to ''geographical'' distances.
			Are any of these formats correct?
	:We should not be just following sources in all circumstances for all the reasons provided on innumerable occasions in the past (as the same editor has proposed it repeatedly).
			* a 10-cm blade
			* a 10 cm blade
			* a 10-cm-long blade
			* a 10 cm-long blade
			* a ten-cm blade
			* a ten-cm long blade
			And why numbers are not spelled out before unit symbols, and why unit symbols are used more with metric than imperial units, where unit names are typically written in full? --] (]) 13:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:In all cases, regardless of circumstances, directly or indirectly quoted units, nominal units or defined units, should respect the original versions. That means that a 10km race is a 10km race. If a regulation is in metric units, we give it in metric units, and if it is imperial units, we give it in imperial units. That's standard anyway and is not affected by this rule. But simply using a source for a measurement that is not nominal or defined, does not qualify.
			:In answer to your first question I suggest choosing between "a 10 cm blade" and "a ten-centimetre blade".
	:I would dispute Archon's assertions about miles per gallon, which remain overwhelmingly more common in normal usage, despite the fact that fuel is sold in litres.
			:To the second, there is no internationally accepted standard describing symbols for the imperial unit system. Perhaps that is the reason. ] (]) 14:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:You can also consult our {{tlx|convert}} template which deals with all these edge cases: {{tlx|convert|10|cm|adj{{=}}on|abbr{{=}}on}} produces {{convert|10|cm|adj=on|abbr=on}}, per ].
			:Also, is there a reason you're not just consulting the MOS directly? It more or less covers your questions so far. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 15:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This is possible to output: {{tlx|convert|10|cm|adj{{=}}on|abbr{{=}}on|spell=in}}, and it produces: {{convert|10|cm|adj=on|abbr=on|spell=in}}. So, why it is not used? And a sixth question, why fractions are not usually used with metric units? Fractions would be useful indicating repeating decimals, such as one-seventh of a meter, as things like "0.142857142857... m" or "0,{{overbar|142857}} m" would look ugly, so {{frac|7}} m would be only option. --] (]) 23:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Do you have a real world example illustrating your concern? ] (]) 23:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::How would {{frac|1|7}} be the "only option"? You yourself just used the obvious other one: simply writing "one-seventh", which isn't broken in any way, and is probbaly easier to read for most people, than {{frac|1|7}}, which can mess with line height. It actually copy-pastes as <code>1⁄7</code>, with inconsistent display on various systems. The use of the Unicode fraction-slash character is interpreted by some OSes, including my Win11 box (but not my Mac, or any Linux I can remember using), as an instruction to superscript the 1 in nearly unreadably tiny font and do the same to 7 but as a subscript. (Win11 even does this to me in a {{tag|code}} block!) I'm not convinced we should have that template at all, since the Internet has done just fine with <code>1/7</code> for decades. Regarding the other material, Remsense is correct that there's a standard way of abbreviating metric units (and there's also a lot of systemic enforcement of that), but there isn't an entirely standardized approach to other units (perhaps better called "American traditional" at this point), and they are often unabbreviated in the real world. So, despite MoS providing a standard way of abbreviating them (based on ANSI or whatever, I don't remember), there's less editorial habit and desire to bother with it, while editors steeped in metric (everyone but Americans) are habituated to the short symbols. Nothing's really harmful about any of this, with regard to reader comprehension, so we have no need to firmly impose a rigid rule to do it this way or that. (We do have such a rationale for settling on particular American/"Imperial" unit abbreviations, though, since use of conflicting ones from article to article would be confusing for readers and editors alike, and some of them found "in the wild" are ambiguous and conflict with actual standards (e.g. using "m" to mean 'miles' instead of 'metres/meters'). As for the original question, yes it's "a 10 cm blade", and the output of {{tnull|convert}} is MOS:NUM-compliant. A construction like this is taken as an strongly conventionalized exception to the ] rule of hyphenating compound modifiers (writing "a 10 cm-blade" or "a 10-cm-blade" isn't really any clearer, and probably less so). In long form it would be "a ten-centimetre-long blade" and Dondervogel is correct that "-long" would usually be omitted for concision, unless it was necessary to indicate length versus width of something (which isn't the case with a knife or sword or whatnot, but would be with a shipping box). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 07:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Mixed spelled/figure format ==
	:I'd add that the current wording is based on the style guide for the Times - chosen as the UK's ]. Unfortunately, it has been moved behind the paywall, but the most recent version before the paywall went up is available through the Wayback Machine '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
			How did we come to this guidance?
	::"We should not be just following sources in all circumstances" yes, I agree, but if the source is the primary one, containing the original measurement which secondary sources like newspapers then quote (with or without conversion), then it makes sense to follow that source unless there is a very good reason not to. Perhaps I should not have put so much emphasis on slavishly following sources; in particular, the example I gave (Edinburgh trams) relates to something in Britain which is already metric (modern light railways). If roads are to be described in Imperial units, it is not obvious why this rule applies to railways, which are governed by different regulations. The Misplaced Pages pages on Crossrail correctly give precedence to the 42&nbsp;km figure for tunnel lengths (for example), because this is the figure that has been given by Crossrail itself (I have read some of the press releases from Crossrail, and they seem to use metric units exclusively, which reinforces my point; this category of thing is metric in real-life Britain, so I don't understand why Misplaced Pages should be expected to Bowdlerise this by putting Imperial first).
			:Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: {{xt|patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two}} or {{xt|ages were{{nbsp}}5, 7, and{{nbsp}}32}}, but not {{!xt|ages were {{nobr|five, seven, and 32}}}}.
			This goes against the that pretty firmly enforce that the numbers nine and below should be spelled out, while figures should be used for 10 and above. I’m not as aware as other style guides, is this a case of AP being the odd one out… or is Misplaced Pages style the odd one? -- ] (]) 04:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The example shows it very well. Mixing both types in one sentence like {{!xt|ages were {{nobr|five, seven, and 32}}}} looks very amateurish. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 05:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I'm not convinced how appropriate it is to tie Misplaced Pages's style to the style of one particular newspaper. I have noticed that the British media have lately got much better at quoting metric units without insisting on Imperial conversions everywhere: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24133410 is an example (supplementary use of Imperial speed in the accompanying text but not in video).
			::I agree, but as the MoS is the only style guide I've perused at length, I'd naturally be inclined to. I wonder what the provenance of this guideline is also—and that of other guidelines of note as well if anyone knows and cares to waste time telling me. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 05:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Saying it “looks very amateurish” is very much a subjective opinion.
			:::But to focus this on my more real-world concerns, this question was prompted by in connection to coverage of the jet crash in Kazakhstan. So in keeping with that, I present how the New York Times handles three such sentences on : {{xt| Kazakhstan’s Emergency Situations Ministry said that at least 29 people had survived, including two children}} … {{xt|Kazakhstan’s transportation ministry said that the flight’s passengers included 37 Azerbaijani nationals, 16 Russians, six Kazakh citizens and three Kyrgyz nationals.}} … {{xt|The airline’s last major episode was in 2005, when an An-140 plane crashed shortly after takeoff, killing 18 passengers and five crew members.}}
			:::Because of editors closely following our current MOS, our introduction on this same topic reads: {{xt|On 25 December 2024, the Embraer 190AR operating the route crashed near Aktau International Airport, Kazakhstan, with sixty-two passengers and five crew on board. Of the sixty-seven people on board, thirty-eight died in the crash, including both of the pilots and one flight attendant, while twenty-nine people survived with injuries.}}
			:::If we adopted AP style it would read: {{xt|On 25 December 2024, the Embraer 190AR operating the route crashed near Aktau International Airport, Kazakhstan, with 62 passengers and five crew on board. Of the 67 people on board, 38 died in the crash, including both of the pilots and one flight attendant, while 29 people survived with injuries.}}
			:::In my opinion, the AP style is vastly superior to what is suggested by our current MOS. ] (]) 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The present guidance not to mix forms has consensus here. If you want that to change you'll need to propose a change to the wording, and explain why it is better. Saying "AP does it that way" seems unlikely to change the consensus. ] (]) 07:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Long time editor, but this is definitely the first time I’ve encountered a MOS rule that I found so out of line with how I am used to writing (as you can probably surmise, I use AP in my day job). Frankly, I was just trying to get insight into ''why'' this was the consensus. I’m happy to propose something, is this the correct venue? Does it need to be in a formal format? ] (]) 08:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Go ahead and suggest an improvement. This is the right place for it. Indeed it is the raison d'etre of this talk page. There is no formal format. Just make sure the proposed change is clear, and explain how it results in an improvement. ] (]) 08:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It's pretty clear they're suggesting the AP style, right? I don't think it'll catch on here, though. However, one point in its favor one could argue is it doesn't depend at all on the surrounding context. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 08:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I agree the verbatim AP wording, including “You should use figures for 10 or above and whenever preceding a unit of measure or referring to ages of people, animals, events or things”, would be unlikely to gain acceptance here, mainly because of its far-reaching consequences for other parts of MOSNUM. Let’s judge the proposal when it comes. ] (]) 08:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::No one has yet replied to the "why?" question. One would need to check the archives to be sure, but I imagine one reason is to avoid bizarre combinations like "the sum of 11 and two is 13". ] (]) 09:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I suspect a significant part of the answer to “why?” is that, unlike other publications that set down a preferred style which they then use universally, Misplaced Pages explicitly tolerates a ''variety'' of styles across its ‘publications’ - most obviously for the national varieties of English, and date formats, but also in many other respects (‘AD’ or ‘CE’ being just one example) - with the MoS itself being guidelines that are widely respected, but not policy that can be rigidly enforced. This is a pragmatic compromise, given our global reach and multitude of editors of all ages and nationalities, and the practical impossibility of enforcing any single way of writing. But it does make '''consistency''' a policy issue for WP, which it simply isn’t for any other publisher (since by definition their style guides ensure that everything is consistent). Thus WP guidelines put a lot of emphasis on style choices being internally consistent within articles, because they aren’t between articles. When it comes to number format this means using either words or figures, but not a confusing jumble of both. Personally, I think this is a sensible guideline and would expect to oppose any proposed change, unless the argumentation is exceptionally convincing. ] (]) 14:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'd say that {{xt|Of the 67 people on board, 38 died in the crash, including both of the pilots and one flight attendant, while 29 people survived with injuries}} is absolutely fine and in agreement with our guidelines. The numbers {{xt|one}} and {{xt|29}} are so far from each other that there's just no reason to consider them "comparable" (except in the trivial sense that you can compare anything with anything, but that's certainly not the intended one here). I'd also consider {{xt|with 62 passengers and five crew on board}} as fine since crew members and passenger numbers aren't really comparable either – there'll likely to be an order of magnitude or more away from each other, as in this case. That's very different from people's ages (the example given), which all come from a population's age distribution and rarely exceed 100. ] (]) 08:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I would argue the present guidance should result in "62 passengers and 5 crew", not "62 passengers and five crew". I have the impression {{u|RickyCourtney}} would like to change the guidance to reverse that preference. ] (]) 08:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{xt|62 passengers and 5 crew}} is certainly possible if we consider this as falling under the guideline. However, {{xt|Of the 67 people on board, 38 died in the crash, including both of the pilots and 1 flight attendant, while 29 people survived with injuries}} is certainly too odd to consider! My point, of course, was that these sentences don't fall under the guideline anyway, due to these numbers not really being "comparable". ] (]) 09:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Re: 'Saying it “looks very amateurish” is very much a subjective opinion.' Sure. But your follow up of "in my opinion" is also subjective. There are no objective measurements here. The alternatives are:
	::I didn't say MPG wasn't used informally, I said it was legally quite deprecated. The law says: "Fuel consumption shall be expressed either in litres per 100 kilometres (1/100km) or kilometres per litre (km/l), and quoted to one decimal place, or, to the extent compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 80/181/EEC(1) in miles per gallon." (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/3523/schedule/1/made) - the effect of the cited piece of EEC legislation is to relegate Imperial measures to supplementary status. Given that the Imperial gallon has not been authorised for use in commerce since 1995, it's something of an anomaly that MPG is still used at all.
			:::::::*Existing MOS: "with 62 passengers and 5 crew on board" or the equally allowed "with sixty two passengers and five crew on board". Both are consistent and do not require me to do a mental switch between styles. I like the all numbers version and hate the all words version - subjectively of course ;) The disadvantage is that it disagrees with a couple of major US style guides - which WP is not required to match anyway.
			:::::::*AP/Times style: "with 62 passengers and five crew on board" Advantage is that it is the same as a couple of major style guides used in the US. Do British style guides agree? Disadvantage is it requires that mental switch halfway through the sentence.
			:::::::It is entirely subjective whether the mental switch or matching an outside style guide is more important to you. If you like consistency (like me) then consistency is more important. And naturally, if you grew up in the US then matching major US style guides is possibly important.
			:::::::Re: 'The numbers one and 29 are so far from each other that there's just no reason to consider them "comparable"'. They are in the same sentence and are comparing similar things (people). Why would you consider crew and passengers as different when listing fatalities?
			:::::::Re: '{{xt|Of the 67 people on board, 38 died in the crash, including both of the pilots and 1 flight attendant, while 29 people survived with injuries}} certainly too odd to consider.' Why too odd? Its the form that I personally prefer and allowed by the current MOS. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 13:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	::The "absurd position" you refer to is exactly the absurd position we're in in modern Britain; if Misplaced Pages reflects this, its only crime is being true to reality. ] (]) 20:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
			::::::::29 only has meaning to me in that it is comparable to 1. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 13:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::This isn’t just “US style.” AP is US-based, but they serve news organizations across the world. Reuters, which is UK-based, uses the same style . As does . As does the . ] (]) 15:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Fair enough - not just US. But still an external style that is just one among many and one that we are not necessarily compelled to match. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 22:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::@] this is an ''extremely'' helpful interpretation. Thank you. I wonder if you and others would weigh in on another sentence in the ] article: {{tq|The aircraft was carrying sixty-two passengers. Of those, thirty-seven people were citizens of Azerbaijan, sixteen of Russia, six of Kazakhstan, and three of Kyrgyzstan. Four minors were on board.}} My preferred way to rewrite this would be: {{tq|The aircraft was carrying 62 passengers. Of those, 37 people were citizens of Azerbaijan, 16 of Russia, six of Kazakhstan, and three of Kyrgyzstan. Four minors were on board.}} That would be in alignment with how it’s been written in the , and the . -- ] (]) 15:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::No, modern usage would not normally put the distance between two settlements in kilometres in any circumstance. And if someone did, they wouldn't switch to miles depending on whether it measured was along a road or a footpath, or depending on whether it measured was along a road or a the crow flies. Whether it is along roads or not makes no difference. Britain uses a mixture of unit systems, but I can't think of a context where the distinctions are ''that'' fine.
			::::::But is more readable as it was. ] (]) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::My choice would be all numeric: {{tq|The aircraft was carrying 62 passengers. Of those, 37 people were citizens of Azerbaijan, 16 of Russia, six of Kazakhstan, and 3 of Kyrgyzstan. 4 minors were on board.}} No mental context switch required between numeric and spelt out words within closely related sentences — which could easily be a combined: {{tq|The aircraft was carrying 62 passengers. Of those, 37 people were citizens of Azerbaijan, 16 of Russia, six of Kazakhstan, and 3 of Kyrgyzstan — 4 minors were on board.}} <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 22:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::{{+1}} to this, though I admit my preference is biased because I've been taught in business correspondence to write related numbers either in words or figures, with figures taking precedence if the largest number is at least 10. —]&nbsp;(&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;) 04:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			Okay, so I did some more research this morning and found the answer I was looking for. This is a case of journalists adopting a style different from academics, and the MOS adopting the academic style. The APA has strict rules about consistency within categories, requiring numerals for all items in a list if any number is 10 or above. But it appears our MOS most closely matches the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires consistency, but allows for context-specific judgment if numerals or spelled-out numbers are used. -- ] (]) 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Acceptable Date Format: Month Year ==
	:::If the source is primary, and the original measurement is nominal or defined, or quoted (either directly or indirectly), then we should respect the original measurement. I have not seen the Edinburgh trams article and don't intend to look, but it is difficult to imagine that it was designed deliberately to be exactly 12 kilometres long (for the sake of argument). At that stage, we are no longer dealing with a nominal or defined unit but can make our own choice. Your own suggestion seems to be that it is {{convert|12|km}} long, all {{convert|12|km|disp=flip}} of which is along roads.
			Right now, "Month Year" is listed as an acceptable format, with an example of September 2001, but this is *bad grammar*, violating the basic rules of English. There are two acceptable ways to convey this, grammatically:
	:::Trying to determine BBC usage is not really useful, since they tend to be entirely inconsistent. For every usage of kilometres you can cite, others can cite miles. Unless you can actually cite a BBC style guide, there's not a lot we can reasonably deduce.
			# Month of Year (September of 2001), which is listed as unacceptable but is correct grammar in the form Noun of Noun, e.g. Juan Esposito of Peru.
	:::In terms of miles per gallon, the standard means of doing this is based on usage, not legislation. This is as applied all over Misplaced Pages. There are several newspapers out there, some primarily using metric, others primarily using imperial. The Times is most appropriate because it is ]. It is also a useful source (so we're not basing this on our own opinions and prejudices) that actively tries to document modern usage rather than dogmatically insisting upon one system or the other. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
			# Month, Year (September, 2001), also listed as unacceptable, but again, correct grammar, of the same shape as general dates (September 1, 2001), which *is* listed as acceptable, which is correct but inconsistent, because September, 2001 and September 1, 2001 are two uses of the *same format and grammar*.
			"September 2001" is bad grammar and an unacceptable format and should be labeled as such. ] (]) 15:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	:"We don't need to worry about engineering in that case because it refers to geographical distances"
	::That's OK if everybody makes the same distinction between civil engineering and geography. It's one thing to talk about the distance between two locations in miles; that's the sort of thing you expect on road signs for the public. Similarly, you might talk about a river being a mile wide. However, once you start building bridges and railways, or even roads, you are talking civil engineering. So you expect the longest span of a bridge, the length of a bridge, the cost per unit of building a railway, distances along a motorway for maintenance purposes, and other civil engineering entities to be measured using metric units, rather than yards or miles. To me, this appears unclear in the current wording of the guideline. --] (]) 22:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Yes, this is exactly what I am suggesting. With British civil engineering projects such as Crossrail, which are entirely metric, it's jarring to start talking about miles and yards, simply because these are the units that, in their wisdom, the DfT has decreed that we shall see on our national road system. I question the rationale behind preferring a certain unit because it "sounds" more British - this is like Americans talking about engine displacement in the "all-American" unit of cu. in., when the reality is that their car industry metricated in the 1980s and uses cm<sup>3</sup> like everywhere else. ] (]) 22:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Once again, you pull out the "sounds more British" nonsense. No one here or anywhere else has said any such nationalist tosh. Nevertheless, I don't give a damn if metric takes priority, as long as an Imperial conversion is given. ] — ] 23:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Archon and Boson are putting sensible arguments for updating. WP should not be ''behind'' the changing usage in the UK, nor in front of it. And what elderly people do is really a weak argument—many elderly people will never change, and that's too bad. We have a conversion article, don't we? I don't see temperatures mentioned in this thread. ] ] 23:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Archon may have plenty of sense, but he also has plenty of nonsense. I don't disagree with his argument, other than his repeated assertions about "sounds more British" and "ye olde englyshe units" (this was at the Edinburgh Trams article). It hurts his position, and I don't know why he insists on repeating it. Metric can take priority, except for road speeds, road distances, personal heights and personal weights, and I doubt anyone would care. But some people prefer Imperial, so an Imperial conversion should always be given alongside metric units. As long are both are there consistently, I'm sure there will not be a problem. All the MOS needs to do is clarify when to use miles. That's easy: road speeds and road distances. ] — ] 00:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I'm sorry, I was trying to give an idea of the impression that Imperial units create when they intrude in contexts where they are simply not appropriate (like modern civil engineering in the UK). If it's in the USA and the original units are actually pound-feet per second and whatnot, then fair enough. My point was that translating primary measurements into a language you think is more "contextually appropriate" is ''pretentious'' in the specific sense that it tries to emulate a certain ''perception'' of "standard practice" within a culture, without actually reflecting what that practice is, in the real world (e.g. maintaining the pretense that Americans will always describe things in US Customary units, even if the American industry in question is actually metric). I am sorry for paraphrasing like this, but I'm trying to convey a rather abstract point; it's the disparity between real-world use and descriptions on e.g. Misplaced Pages that I am calling pretentious (for want of a better word, and I understand that my choice of word is open to objection). This is also what I call trying to "sound" British (again, for want of a better way of putting it), because it's the way a hypothetical British person would presumably express it. RGloucester also said (again, on the Edinburgh tram page) that a reason to prefer the converted Imperial was that "it reads better to the ear" - this is a prime example of what I am rightly or wrongly calling "pretentious" and "trying to sound British". I don't understand why a converted value in decimal miles "reads better to the ear" than a round number in kilometres.
	:::Why should Imperial ''always'' take priority for personal heights and weights (this is what I understand you to mean)? Like I say, I've always measured my own body using the metric system, and this is what any healthcare professional in modern Britain will do (try to calculate your BMI directly from Imperial height/weight if you want to see why). Do I fail to meet the arbitrary criteria of Britishness set by the Misplaced Pages manual of style? If I became a naturalised Australian citizen (for the sake of example) would I then be entitled to have my weight and bodily dimensions expressed primarily in the units that are most meaningful to me? I'm trying to illustrate the shortcomings of such a blunt policy.
	:::I'm not sure what Tony1 expects us to discuss about temperature; it's one of the less controversial cases. In my experience, everyone in the UK talks about the weather in Celsius, and any modern British oven will use Celsius temperature markings. Fahrenheit is extremely deprecated in modern British life, and in the world today it's used near-exclusively by Americans. ] (]) 01:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	::"Sounds better to the ear" merely means that it will automatically register more clearly in the mind. That is because road distances are primary use of long distance measurements for a layman, and for those we use Imperial. So, to a layman, wouldn't it make more sense to use Imperial, wouldn't they be more familiar? Never once would I question your Britishness, whatever that may mean. I don't even consider myself British, but that's another story entirely.
	::As far as weights are concerned, we need some kind of standard to hold to for sake encyclopedic consistency. I don't think you can doubt that personal weights are usually done in stone/pounds. We can't bend to desires of everyone who happens to be described in article, one which way, and then have a mess all over the place. You'd choose to list your weight in kilos, and I'd choose 斤 (]). That's not how it works. We have to have a standard, whether it be metric or imperial. That standard needs to be understandable and familiar to Joe Bloggs, as I said before. Not the elite up in an ivory tower. I don't care, to be honest, which one it is. But you're not making sense, and you are being bombastic. ] — ] 01:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::I think the basic reasoning for using non-metric units first on topics that have strong ties to certain English-speaking countries is that residents of those countries are presumed to be more likely to read the articles than other people. So the hypothesis is that a story about ] or ] is more likely to be read by British people than others, so if the height or weight of these subjects is mentioned, the first units should be those that British people most often use for personal heights and weights. The preferences of the subject of the article are irrelevant. ] (]) 01:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
			*It’s common English usage, both in the UK and US, so on what authority are you suggesting it is bad grammar? ] (]) 15:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I'm happy for it to be geographic distances excluding articles related to civil engineering FWIW.
			*Agree with MapReader, this is standard. ]] 15:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Agree with MapReader. ''Chicago Manual of Style'' 18th ed. ¶ 6.41 states "Commas are also unnecessary where only a month and year are given...." and gives the example "Her license expires sometime in April 2027." ] (]) 16:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*There ain't nothin' wrong with September 2001. ] (]) 20:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:To be clear, that particular month was not one of unalloyed pleasantness, but the ''formatting'' has nothing wrong, anyway. ]] 21:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*{{replyto|Quindraco}} You're about {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers|prev|5087496|twenty years too late}} to change the guideline. --] &#x1F98C; (]) 21:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Ah, yes. The very well-respected defense of "we've been doing it the wrong way for so long, lord knows we mustn't stop ''now''." ] (]) 05:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Except you haven't shown it to be wrong in the first place. "Month Year" dates have always been taught to be correct in my experience. If you think about it, requiring "July, 1776" would also require "4 July, 1776". I have noticed that my computer's available date formats include a few oddities that I was always taught were flat out wrong. Is that where you are getting this idea?--] (]) (]) 00:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Yep. Just checked. Windows has "Wednesday, 5 April, 2017" and "5 April, 2017" listed as date formats. Commas should only be used within the date when it is not in either "day-month-year" or "year-month-day" order. I've sent feedback about this, but I doubt that anything will be done about it.--] (]) (]) 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*The OP's complaint is, I regret to say, just so much ]ism. ]] 21:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Agree with MapReader. "September 2001" is perfectly acceptable in formal written English and was acceptable long before I was born. --] (]) 06:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*It's recognised to be . —]&nbsp;(&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;) 16:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*"January 2018" is the official usage in Australia: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/numbers-and-measurements/dates-and-time ("Incomplete dates" section). <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 00:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Agree with those above; "September 2001" is perfectly acceptable. ] (]) 15:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== ] appears to be incorrect ==
	::::I was otherwise just going to point out that we don't need to deal with the whole "sounds more British" bit because we have the Times style guide, which we can base this on, and that while distance along roads may be "primary use of long distance measurements for a layman", it's not the primary use of long distance measurements in Misplaced Pages, and we're better dealing with the latter. People don't change systems depending on whether the distance is measured along a road or not - it's miles regardless. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 06:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
			I'm surprised that this hasn't been fixed already but ] currently incorrectly claims that "the 17th century as 1601–1700", for example. I was about to fix the ] article which incorrectly claims that the 21st century started in 2001, not 2000, but then noticed that it's only like that thanks to this MoS guideline!
	:::::If we are to refer to the Times Guide we should bear in mind this quotation from it:
			There have been quite a few news articles analysing the 21st century recently, many of them because the first quarter of the century (2000-2024) is now over: , , , , .
	::::::"The Times should keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use, but given the wide age range and geographical distribution of our readers, some continuing use of imperial measurements is necessary."
	:::::It is all very well to quote the letter of the Times guide to say we shouldn't put metric measures for this or that while ignoring the spirit of the Times, which is to keep abreast with the gradual change towards metric use in the UK. I believe that it is a mistake to use the Times Guide as a diktat to tell editors what they should and shouldn't do. Other style guides are both more metric and less than the Times, so using the Times guide to forbid other usages that are accepted by these other bodies, is, frankly, a nonsense. No-one is making a fuss because an area of land is described in acres or hectares so why not allow the same freedom with regard to people's heights and weights, especially when the BBC and many sporting organisations give metric heights and weights for their players? This could be achieved by simply changing a few words in the present policy from this:
			I can only assume the current MOS wording came out of the mistaken assumption/hypercorrection that a century must begin in a year ending in "1" thanks to the lack of a year zero in the calendar system, but that is of course not how the term is actually used in any sources. Thoughts on the best way of fixing this? I imagine quite a few articles will be affected by this error given it's somehow ended up in the MOS. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 13:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::*imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including....
			*If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ] is correct. Ask yourself when the 1st century CE (using the ]) began and then work your way forward. -- ] (]) 15:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::to this:
			*:But there wasn’t such. The dating system was invented many years later (and incorrectly, as it turned out) and applied retrospectively. Such that it doesn’t matter whether there was a year zero, or not. Centuries nowadays are commonly recognised as 1900-1999, 2000-2099, and it’s only the WP pedants that hold out for 1901-2000. ] (]) 17:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::::*imperial units can still be used as the main units in some contexts, including....
			*::Where did you hear that. I was taught for 60 years it was 1901-2000. Did schools change their courses recently? I guess it wouldn't be the first time, but this sounds like since so many get it wrong we should make sure that Misplaced Pages follows that same wrong thinking. Like people following a printing error on the term "Blue Moon" so they think it's the second full moon of a month. ] (]) 09:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::I believe that this small change in wording would address the concerns that have been raised by ] and ] here. It would not stop editors from putting consistency first in cases where different sources use different units. ] (]) 09:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
			*:::That sounds like a case of ]. (I'm not saying it's actually a lie, but it's a lie that that's the ''only'' way in which centuries can be spliced.) ] (]) 11:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Chessrat didn't explain where they looked for sources to justify the assertion "but that is of course not how the term is actually used in any sources." Misplaced Pages guidelines do not need to cite sources, since they announce the community's consensus on various matters. It is articles that must cite sources. A number of sources are cited at "]" including
			::{{Cite web| title = century | work = Oxford Dictionaries| access-date = 20 January 2021| url = https://www.lexico.com/definition/century| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20191230065254/https://www.lexico.com/definition/century| url-status = dead| archive-date = December 30, 2019}}
			:] (]) 15:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			*“Incorrect” is not the way I would put it. Either you treat it as a style decision, with both systems being valid ways to designate the years (using either 1–99 or 1–100 for the first century) or you treat it as a logical / mathematical system, ending at 100 because you want every century to actually be 100 years, and the first year wasn’t 0. I could see it either way, but I don’t see a lot of sense trying to change it now.
			:What might be more sensible to pursue is a footnote that acknowledges and explains the two common ways of counting. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 03:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::+1 ]] 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I don't think there's any evidence that there are two different common ways of counting? As far as I can tell from looking into this, use of the term for the period beginning in a year ending in "1" is very rare, and the only sources that mention the "ending in 1" definition (such as the Oxford dictionary entry mentioned by {{ping|Jc3s5h}} mention that it is a technical definition only and not used that way in practice. It is not the case that there were widespread celebrations of the new millennium both on 1 January 2000 and also 1 January 2001!
			::If there were two equally-used systems then I would agree with your comment, but that isn't the case; Misplaced Pages has a duty to provide accurate information even if it does take a significant amount of work fixing this across various articles. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 16:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::How many years were there in the 1st ]? ] (]) 18:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::100, obvs. 1 AD to 100 AD. Next question please? --] &#x1F98C; (]) 21:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::My question was in response to {{u|Chessrat}}'s post claiming that centuries start in 00, in which case they must end in 99. If the 1st century had 100 years, its first year would therefore have been 1 BC (and the 1st century BC would have ended in 2 BC). Alternatively, if the first year of the first century was 1 AD, it would have been a century with 99 years. Just trying to understand how it works (I don't know which of the two is more bizarre). ] (]) 21:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::It is a matter of personal preference. I find it logical and satisfying that the 19th century ended with 1900 and the 20th century ended with 2000. There are many people, though, who are more comfortable with the 19th century consisting only of the years that began with 18-- and the 20th century consisting only of the years that began with 19--. I remember that ], someone I have long admired for his adherence to logic, stated that he was willing to accept that the First century consisted of only 99 years (although I think he was wrong). We do need to be consistent in Misplaced Pages, however, and if anyone feels strongly enough about the current guidance being wrong, RfC is thataway. ] 22:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Again, the numbering of years AD/BC wasnt actually devised until over five centuries after the purported BC to AD break point, and such numbering was not widely used until over eight hundred years afterwards. And it was then applied retrospectively to historical events (with, historians now believe, an error of four years in terms of when they were trying to pitch the start), relatively few of which during that period can be fixed to a particular year in any case (not insignificantly because when these events were recorded, the AD/BC calendar system didn’t exist). So it’s an artificial construct and it doesn’t really matter what the first year was purported to have been. ] (]) 22:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Sources are fairly clear that in common usage, a century starts with a year ending in –00, so yes, by implication that means that the 1st century had 99 years (albeit of course the Gregorian calendar did not enter use until far later so this is purely retroactive)
			::::::I didn't really expect that there would be any disagreement with this– will probably start an RfC to gain wider input as it seems like this will be a matter which there is somehow internal disagreement on. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Why should all centuries have the same length? Years haven't always the same length, so why should centuries be any different? ] (]) 08:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{replyto|Chessrat|Gawaon}} A century doesn't have to be 100 years, but it must be 100 ''somethings'', for example 100 runs in a cricket innings, or a military unit comprising 100 Roman legionaries. This is because the word "century" is derived from "]", which is Latin for "hundred". If you had a span of 99 years, it couldn't be called a century. Also from "centum" we get words like "cent" for the hundredth part of a dollar. If I gave you 99 cents, you probably wouldn't give me a dollar in exchange. By contrast, the word "year" doesn't have a comparable derivation from 365 (or 366). --] &#x1F98C; (]) 22:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Common usage having the 21st century starting in 2000 is utterly irrelevant to the Latin etymology of the word "century". The calendar system came into use long after 1 CE so analysis of the durations of past centuries is purely retroactive and simply a case of how society largely agrees to define it.
			::::::If one were to strictly assume Latin etymology is always fully indicative of how a word is used, then the article on ] would say that it is the seventh, not the ninth, month of the year. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 07:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Yes, the argument by name origin is fairly weak, since actual meanings don't always live up to their origins – or certainly not exactly. ] say: "The size of the century changed over time; from the 1st century BC through most of the imperial era it was reduced to 80 men." So if a century can have just 80 men, surely it can have just 99 years too! ] (]) 15:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::I agree the etymology argument is weak, but a century has 100 years, regardless of etymology. That's what we were all taught at school and that's what all credible sources say. Misplaced Pages should not take it upon itself to make up an exception. ] (]) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::@]:
			:::1) I actually don’t hate the idea of doing it your way, I just don’t see the need or the community interest. As you point out, socially and culturally we {{em|do}} treat it this way; we did have a special party on 31 Dec 1999, and not so much 31 Dec 2000. But the effort to shuffle it all around still comes with the need for a footnote explainer for our choice of convention and that now the ] is just the “first century” in name, and covers only 99 years. Honestly this is (imo) not a big deal, just not a hill I’d be looking to die on, and such a change will need a whole bunch of annoying cleanup. As everyone else has said, the old way has the seductive logic that 100=100. This area of Misplaced Pages especially was built early and therefore done so by those net-denizens more inclined towards “logic” than social convention.
			:::2) As far as I know, articles on the subject of centuries are either covering the entire period broadly, or just giving a timeline of events that occurred in such years (or really, both). Presumably there’s not much worry whether we start with 1900 or 1901 when the topic is “world war, atomic energy, the end of empire, mass telecommunication and the beginnings of the internet” (etc). Alternatively, the specific events occurring on those crossover years is just arbitrarily dumped into whichever list-like article we like, and if it has carry-over effects on future events, that should get a mention either way. I guess this point (2) actually cuts both ways though, in the sense of “both work fine”. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 06:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I assume by "we" you mean you personally. I also had a 31 Dec 1999 "2000" party, but my big millennium party for the century change came on Dec 31 2000. And my tickets to the event are on that date. ] (]) 09:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::That’s honestly surprising to me. Whereabouts were you? I was in New Zealand, but my impression was that the big deal end-of-millenium in “Western” (global “North”? Anglosphere?) popular culture was 1999 to 2000. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 08:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Yes, it would be a significant amount of work, but retaining an incorrect status quo is not desirable. If Misplaced Pages lasts to reach 2100, there would be the ludicrous scenario where it's impossible to cite the large number of sources stating the arrival of the 22nd century because Misplaced Pages policy defines the word "century" differently to the rest of the world.
	::::::Yes, this is my point exactly. Given that British people are not consistent in the real world, I question the wisdom of a Misplaced Pages policy that would lead us to Bowdlerise this fact by imposing a facade of Imperial use to cover up the creeping advance of metrication. As ] points out, heights and weights are consistently given in metric by the BBC in relation to sport - does this fall foul of our hypothetical "British style"? I fear that imposing a hard Imperial-always-first rule will actually lead to Misplaced Pages falling behind the trend towards increasing metric use in British society; in such a case, where the real world is not consistent, I don't see how an encyclopedia can easily reconcile the objectives of being true to real life and being internally consistent; my argument is that the former objective should generally trump the latter, within reason (internal consistency is hardly irrelevant and I am not trying to imply that).
			::::You're probably right that regardless, a hatnote/explanatory note of some nature is needed. For instance, a lot of sources such as , , , , report that ] (1899–2017) was the last surviving person born in the 19th century. However, there are also a few sources such as , , and which report that ] (1900–2018) was the last surviving person born in the 19th century, using the ending-in-1 definition.
			::::At the moment, the implication of Misplaced Pages policy is that Tajima is described as having been the last person born in the 19th century on her article section, but Morano is ''not'' described as having been the last person born in the 19th century despite the numerous reliable sources stating that she was. The current policy effectively overrides any amount of sourcing of facts like that- every article treats the uncommon ending-in-1 definition as not only being a common definition but as the ''only'' definition. I don't see how a policy which arbitrarily overrides established facts and sources like that can possibly be justifiable. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 09:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::So your suggested change would also affect many other articles such as our own sourced ] article. ] (]) 10:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Usage such as 20th century for 1900 - 1999 simply reveals the source as being unable to perform basic counting. Any such source is immediately rendered unreliable. --] (]) (]) 13:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'm usually one to say that we should accept that language changes and that we in the language police should go along with it, but in this case, many, especially the mainstream press, looking for headlines, are wrong. Saying the first century has 99 years, is like saying 99 cents is sometimes a dollar. Sometimes a misused word becomes acceptable, but not in this case.&nbsp;]&#124;] 14:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{outdent}}
	::::::As for mph vs. km/h, it's not "miles regardless" because there are cases of inconsistent use in the UK such as this beautiful example: http://citytransport.info/Digi/P1020084.jpg - this is a sign from the Tyne & Wear Metro, where it shares track with mainline trains. The speed limit signs in the circle are mph for mainline trains, whereas the metric speed limit in the hexagonal lozenge is for the metro trains (because, like other modern rail projects in the UK such as Crossrail, it's metric through and through). Insisting on Imperial-first would create a veneer of uniform and consistent Imperial use at the expense of fidelity to the real world; I am unconvinced that this is a price worth paying in any work of reference.
			As per ] (with the emphasis on ''reliable''), I asked Mr Google <code>when does the new century start</code>, then looked at any hit that seemed reliable (typically government or scientific time orientated organisations) and ignored anything like quora, mass media (I gave Scientific American a pass as they are scientific) and forums. The first 3 pages gave me the following list, plus I added the Greenwich observatory. Note, I choose them based on the sources ''before'' looking at what they said.
			{| class="wikitable"
	::::::Regarding distances, it's not about "the distance between A and B" expressed variously in miles or km depending on how you travel; the total length of track in a rail system is a fact about a civil engineering project, not a distance between two points in Britain. The total length of London Underground track, as well as Tyne & Wear Metro track, is given in metric first for exactly this reason. ] (]) 12:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
			! Organisation !! URL !! 00 or 01
	::::::::::The BBC is far more complicated than that. When was the last time you heard a sports commentator give a player's dimensions in metric units? They don't. It's ''always'' in imperial.
	::::::::::My point about distances is that a lot of our distances are not measured along roads, they're measured point to point. Nothing to do with engineering at all. The distance from London to Edinburgh is 330 miles - as the crow flies. The distance from Scotland to Northern Ireland is 13 miles - there's no road. The Isle of Wight is about 25 miles from east to west. You would not expect these measurements to be in kilometres in normal usage. You would not drive 405 miles to cover the 535 kilometres from London to Edinburgh. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	The idea of using "source based units" as an idea has been rejected out of hand for as long as I've been a wikipedia editor. There is a very good reason why we don't use it, it leads to an inconsistent article. A rather obvious example for some time was ], specifically this earlier draft . If we take the earlier draft as an example, it shows all of the worst excesses that such a policy would result in. First of all it starts by giving the definition of a Munro as a Scottish mountain with a height greater than 3000 ft (914.4 m). It then switched half way through to for example "Ben Lomond, 974 m (3,196 ft)" and then switched back to 449,000 ft (137,000 m). There are also other problems with the earlier version for example the excessive precision in some of the conversions.
	We have had a policy for sometime on UK specific articles reflecting local usage. The majority of measurements given the metric system preference, with the exception of a few common measures that are still predominantly in imperial first. We ask editors to edit to this style guide so there is a consistent look and feel to wikipedia's articles. However, there are a number of editors who simply don't like this policy and have consistently edited counter to it and have exploited any ambiguity in the policy to justify their edits. Hence, specifically I would oppose this change in wording, because long and bitter experience of clearing up edits like ] leads me to conclude that those editors would exploit any such flexibility in wording in a disruptive manner.
	Often it seems that people forget why wikipedia exists, it exists to present information to our readers in a clear and consistent manner (which is why we have a style guide). And hence the community decided sometime ago the units policy would be to follow local usage. We also give a unit conversion so that the data is also relevant to non-natives. I personally believe this to be a more than reasonable compromise and I can fully understand the community's impatience when the subject of a policy suggestion repeatedly rejected is raised yet again.
	If there is to be an exception for say civil engineering, then I am quite happy for the guidelines to add this to the list of exceptions rather than watering down the guideline as suggested. Simply because where consistency is key requirement for a policy such ambiguity is unhelpful. ] <small>]</small> 12:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	::"The idea of using "source based units" as an idea has been rejected out of hand" - yes, my position has evolved a lot on this, as you can see if you follow the thread above. I now understand that I should not have put so much emphasis on sources when there are other important considerations, especially the subject matter of the article. Your example illustrates this very well: in an article on Munros it ''is'' desirable to emphasise feet for elevation measure, because the current definition of a Munro (3000 ft) dates from a time when elevations of terrain in Britain were measured in feet. In this case it's less important that modern British sources will reflect the current practice of measuring elevations in metres. I certainly have no intention of disrupting articles by starting "unit wars" and the like, and I stopped editing as soon as I became aware that this touched on a controversial point. My only proposal is that the wording be clarified in some way (the suggestion of a table is a good one, I feel), so that confusions like this over the interpretation of the style guide are less likely to arise. The volume of comments here is a testament to how controversial and confusing the standing version is.
	::For the exact same reason as one would talk about Munros in feet, however, it follows that in the context of a modern civil engineering project which is metric (as, I daresay, all modern British engineering projects are), it makes sense to emphasise metric units to be consistent with the subject matter of the article, even if this departs from a more general provision that miles be preferred for measurement of long distances (such as geographical distances) in British contexts. If we're talking about a modern road bridge designed in metric units, I am saying that it makes sense to give its length and main span firstly in metres or km rather than decimal miles, yards or feet (this is the convention correctly used at, for example, ] and ]). Likewise track lengths in metres or kilometres, rather than miles or feet - I think that measuring track length is much more analogous with measuring a bridge's length (or the dimensions of any other engineering project - ] gives the planned tunnel dimensions in metric first, even though it was an American project, because the metric value was the design specification) than with measuring, say, the distance between Glasgow and Edinburgh. ] (]) 13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I am glad that ] has raised the issue of the ] article. Yes, his edits have attempted to remedy the issue of having different units in different places. However, his efforts have created their own problems. One sentence contained this before WCM worked on it:
	::::Beinn a' Chlaidheimh was found to be 914 metres (2,998 ft 8.3 in), 40 centimetres (1 ft 4 in) short of the Munro mark.
	:::WCM flipped the display and lessened the precision of the conversion, so we got this:
	::::Beinn a' Chlaidheimh was found to be 2,999 feet (914 m), 1 foot (40 cm) short of the Munro mark.
	:::Then another editor, annoyed at the obvious mismatch between 40cm and 1 foot, amended this so it read:
	::::Beinn a' Chlaidheimh was found to be 2,999 feet (914 m), 1 foot (30 cm) short of the Munro mark.
	:::Perhaps the first version was over-precise, but the other versions became less and less true to the source. In this case the measuring was done in metric terms and it would make more sense to base the text on the actual measures that were made.
	:::WCM says that style should be clear and consistent, yet WCM's edits to ] make that article less compliant with MOSNUM, for feet for heights are not amongst the exceptions to the metric general rule. My point is that if MOSNUM is to be used as a straitjacket, it applies in both directions. So if all UK heights and weights must be Imperial first because MOSNUM says so, then UK acres and square miles must take second place to hectares and square kilometres, because neither are mentioned in MOSNUM as exceptions. I believe that we would be better to leave it to the good sense of editors to decide when the units should be put first, because UK usage is divided.
	:::Once again, my proposal is to change the wording so that it reads:
	::::*imperial units can still be used as the main units in some contexts, including....
	:::This is not source based units. It's just a way of getting a policy straitjacket off the backs of editors like - dare I say it - WCM? ] (]) 14:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::I am simply going to make the generic comment that focusing on individual editors and personalising matters is deepy unhelpful. A matter of a few inches may mean a lot in some circumstances but in the context of a 3000 ft mountain the obsession with such precision is perhaps misplaced.
	::::Returning to the matter at hand, the volume of comment is not indicative of the controversy over the policy but perhaps more indicative of a certain zealotry in the advocacy of the metric system. I remain bemused by the obsession about unit order that leads some editors to return time and again with the same suggestion. Such persistence is not helpful and it has entrenched attitudes, which probably goes further in explaining the volume of comment. Hence, for some time I've avoided ] as the heat and light simply isn't worth it.
	::::As a professional enginer, my personal preference would be to favour the metric system in engineering articles. I tend to agree with the suggestion that engineering articles should follow the lines suggested; especially in a modern context. However, as with all guidelines the devil will be in the detail. For example ] worked in the imperial system, so for examples such as the ] the guidance suggested may be inappropriate. ] <small>]</small> 14:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::To add, if Archon could suggest some improvements to policy I think some fresh input would valuable but having said my piece my intention is to step aside and allow others to comment. ] <small>]</small> 14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::That's just going for the "can is not must" argument again. That as the rule would say that imperial units ''can'' be the main units rather than that they ''are'' the main units you can then go around mass-metricating.
	::::As to the point at hand, need we point out that 3000 feet in ] falls under ''nominal or defined units'' (in that a Munro is defined as a mountain taller than 3000 feet in Scotland), and therefore that this rule does not apply at all? Practically else in the article is being compared with that height - 3000 feet. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	====Arbitrary break====
	So, if I'm to understand this correctly...it is proposed that for modern civil engineering projects which were drawn up in metric, these should always display metric units as primary. However, for historical projects done in Imperial, those should display Imperial as primary. In other words, the style guide should have an addendum to its existing policy with regards to civil engineering in the UK. I would not be opposed to this. ] — ] 15:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, we shouldn't single out individual editors and edits, especially since the existing policy has managed to cause a considerable amount of confusion across the board. A high volume of comments is par for the course in any discussion of metrication in Britian (in my own experience), maybe because of "zealotry", but also in no small measure because of frustration at the absolutely glacial pace of our country's metrication, which leads to unnecessary silliness like the railway speed limit signs I posted above, as well as absurd road signs like http://www.bwmaonline.com/383%20yards.jpg which exist because the outdated DfT regulations consider that to be more meaningful to the UK public than the equivalent "350&nbsp;m" sign you would see almost anywhere else on Earth. It is precisely this "measurement muddle" that makes it so hard for us to agree on a coherent units policy for British articles.
	:::::This is also the country where, as recently as ten years ago, the Active Resistance to Metrication folks were going around vandalising public signs that they deemed to be "un-British" because they displayed metres instead of yards, so they put up extremely unhelpful signs in their place which gave distances (at least occasionally) in furlongs. Clearly there is no small amount of "zealotry" among those who favour the status quo, to say nothing of journalists who are content to cause further mischief by misinforming the public about the metric system, like "we'll be forced to ask for 0.568 litres of beer", "Shylock didn't ask for 454 grams of flesh" and "the EU is forcing it on us" (all in recent history, but the hysteria seems to have died down a lot now, except perhaps in the minds of certain sectors of the British tabloid press, who remain convinced that centimetres cause cancer). My point is that, in this cultural climate, it's unsurprising that any discussion about metrication can quickly become heated. I wish we could have transitioned quickly and painlessly in the '70s like Australia, SA and NZ, but that sadly never happened.
	:::::Regarding older engineering projects, I agree that the primary dimensions can be given in Imperial if the original design was Imperial; this is in keeping with the theme and feel of the article (e.g. talking about pre-1960s British trams primarily in feet, inches, miles, long tons and so on, is acceptable by my proposed criterion). My main concern was with articles that relate to things in contemporary Britain, where metric units predominate for virtually all engineering purposes (including, in this case, modern tramways and light railways). I would also like to emphasise that I have withdrawn my support for "source based units" as such; my concern with the source in the case I cited was secondary, because the source reflected the custom, in this part of British life, of using metric units (this was actually my primary concern, and I realise that I have not always explained it very well). So if we were to clarify the existing list by making a table, it might say something like "miles, mph - for geographical distances, road journeys and road vehicle speeds; other vehicle speeds where contextually appropriate (e.g. an older train system which uses imperial speed limits)". ] (]) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	If we are making proposals, I would suggest that the first bullet point be changed to:
	*''Miles for geographic distance, miles per hour for speed, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon; articles on civil engineering projects that were conceived in metric should use metric units''
	Alternatively to replace with table format (with context first):
	{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto;"
	|-		|-
			| Hong Kong Observatory || https://www.hko.gov.hk/en/gts/time/centy-21-e.htm#:~:text=The%20second%20century%20started%20with,continue%20through%2031%20December%202100. || 01
	! Context!! Unit
	|-		|-
			| timeanddate.com || https://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html || 01
	| geographical distances || miles
	|-		|-
			| Scientific American || https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-is-the-beginning-of/ || 01
	| speed || miles per hour
	|-		|-
			| US Navy Astronomical Applications Department || https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/millennium || 01
	| fuel consumption || miles per imperial gallon
	|-		|-
			| US Library of Congress || https://ask.loc.gov/science/faq/399936 <br> https://www.loc.gov/rr//scitech/battle.html (Battle of the Centuries) || 01
	| personal height || feet/inches
	|-		|-
			| Merriam Webster || https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/centuries-and-how-to-refer-to-them || says it used to be 01 but that public opinion is swinging
	| personal weight || stones/pounds
	|-		|-
			| Greenwich Observatory || http://www.thegreenwichmeridian.org/tgm/articles.php?article=12 || 01
	| draught beer and bottled milk || imperial pints
	|-
	| horses and most other equines || hands
	|}
	with a footnote appended to the first two: "except in articles concerning civil engineering projects conceived in metric units". '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I'd add that if the agreement above is that we're doing miles for all appropriate distances (i.e. without the "geographical" qualifier) that aren't in civil engineering articles, that's fine with me. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I have no problem with the tabular format. The problem lies with wording for UK articles that can be read as a ''diktat'' to use this unit or that, regardless of context. Because UK usage is mixed, orders to use this unit or that are simply unworkable. The discussion above concentrated on exceptions to a proposed rule about engineering articles. We need wording that can ''not'' be read as an order to use a particular unit. There will always be exceptions. Simply changing the wording from "are still used" to "can still be used" or "can be used" would achieve this aim. With a tabular form it would look like this:
	:::*In non-science UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units ({{xt|44 kilograms (97 lb)}}), but imperial units can still be used as the main units in some contexts, including:<ref name="UKmetricUnits">Some editors hold strong views for or against ]. If there is disagreement about the main units used in a UK-related article, discuss the matter on the article talk-page, at ], or both. If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the main units. Note the ] of British publications such as (under "Metric").</ref>
	{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto;"
	|-
	! Context!! Unit
	|-
	| geographical distances || miles
	|-
	| speed || miles per hour
	|-
	| fuel consumption || miles per imperial gallon
	|-
	| personal height || feet/inches
	|-
	| personal weight || stones/pounds
	|-
	| draught beer and bottled milk || imperial pints
	|-
	| horses and most other equines || hands
	|}		|}
			Seems like the scientific community has a solid consensus on new centuries starting in the year xx01. The "Battle of the Centuries" is a good read. To be fair, does anybody have any authoritative sources backing the xx00 change date?
	::I believe that this wording would work for all, whatever their views on units of measure. ] (]) 22:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Now, as I said, I don't care myself. But that won't work it all, because it gives justification for someone with metric tendencies to go around and make everything metric. I think we should leave the existing wording, merely adding a civil engineering caveat, whereby those projects done in metric are given in metric. This makes the most sense given the complaints here. Of course, we should also make clear that there are exceptions to rules, and that is not a hard and fast rule in every case. ] — ] 22:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Metric tendencies? I love it! But never fear: Misplaced Pages also has those with ''Imperial'' tendencies, who go round disp flipping displays so that their beloved measures come first. The present wording plays into the hands of those who want to force Imperial units on articles even when all the sources use metric measures. It is also open to being used to force the use of metric units despite ''Imperial'' sources of information. There is, however, a provision in the present wording to stop these silly games. It's a footnote that says:
	:::::: If there is disagreement about the main units used in a UK-related article, discuss the matter on the article talk-page, at ], or both. If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the main units. Note the ] of British publications such as (under "Metric")
	:::::Perhaps this should be given more prominence instead of being confined to a footnote. However, what we ''don't'' need is a diktat to force metric (or Imperial) measures to go first when they are not appropriate. ] (]) 04:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Oh, come off it Michael. Let's remember which editor it was here who is responsible for these particular metric POV pushes: . And you're still going through article converting imperial units to metric - was three days ago (albeit in a context where metric is accepted by MOSNUM).
	:::::::When it comes down to it, when you say "this wording would work for all", what you mean is that it would work for you, in that it would allow you to insist "can is not must" and continue your campaign of mass-metrication. If there are people wanting to "force" any kind of units, it's generally you forcing metric. There is a reason why we've already got people saying they "do not assume good faith in the case of Michael Glass due to previous editing history", a sentiment I endorse.
	:::::::There is nothing wrong with flipping units as ] requires. We don't have source-based units - as you well know - so the fact that the system chosen in the sources don't always match the units in the articles is entirely irrelevant. I oppose your proposal entirely. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 07:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Kahastok, Even when I put cited information into Misplaced Pages in a context when metric is accepted by MOSNUM you still attack me for doing so. Other editors here will note what this reveals about you. ] (]) 11:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::I would suggest that said other editors look at all the diffs as provided, compare the changes made with ] (which I note was has not substantively changed in the intervening period) and come to their own conclusions. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}In general I have to say I would be willing to see the original proposal broadened significantly. In the UK, modern engineering uses SI units and has for some time. Hence, in a modern context I would suggest a broader definition to cover engineering in general; provided there was a caveat to cover the historical context identified earlier. Noting the science exemption, engineering is in the same context.
	That said, any amendment loosening the language where the refrain "can is not must" can be used I would oppose. Sadly I have to observe that experience has demonstrated that any such loosening of the wording would be exploited by editors to edit in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of the policy. ] <small>]</small> 08:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:IIRC there always used to be a separate rule saying that articles on science and engineering would use the units prevalent in those fields. That would put Spitfire design in imperial and modern British engineering in metric. To be clear I remain happy with my original proposal or similar, without Michael's rewording, and with RGloucester's proposal to simply add the engineering caveat.
	:We could resolve this by simply adding engineering related topics, and saying to use the units of original design (where known). This is as recommended for example by ].
	:It should be restricted to ''articles'' rather than contexts, the same as the rule on scientific topics. This avoids the faff of people turning up on topics not about engineering at all and insisting that anything that was originally engineered must be metric (the geography-is-a-science-so-miles-are-banned argument). '']'' <small>'']''</small> 09:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Since geography '''is''' science and in many UK-oriented geographical-type articles use metric units followed by imperial units in brackets, the use of the word "geographical" should be used with extreme caution. ] (]) 12:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I believe that a "modern engineering in general" caveat is in order, just as it already is for science. As long as Imperial is used for historical projects done in Imperial, this should be the way it is set up. With regards to "geographic distances", I think we should leave the present exceptions alone, except for to add the engineering caveat. That gives us more flexibility. I also suggest moving the footnote about consensus, which should instead be placed right next to these guidelines. ] — ] 13:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::This is an important point. The original purpose of the word "geographical" was to emphasise "not including lengths of track, etc." because things like the total track length in the London Underground, or the total length of tunnels in Crossrail, are not distances between points in Britain. Miles might be the norm for giving distances between settlements in the UK in most contexts, however in an article of a more formal geographical nature there might well be a legitimate reason to prioritise metric units. In such a case, there could be a danger of further unit wars because of editors who insist on sticking to the letter of the units policy.
	:::Criticising ] for the hectare edit is odd - he improved the accuracy of the figure used in the article, and hectares are officially used in the UK, widely used in modern British media, and completely permitted in all contexts by this style guide, so I don't see why this is a problem.
	:::Anyway, to criticise his proposal because of his history is leaning towards a genetic fallacy, if not actually committing it. The point he's making is that creating too inflexible a policy can end up causing unreasonable results, like forcing editors to prefer Imperial when most or all real-life sources would prefer metric (I mean in cases where metric is used almost universally in real life, not "source-based units" which, I reiterate, I now see to be a bad idea). My assumption is that newspaper style guides (such as the Times's) would allow enough wiggle room in their interpretation to avoid this sort of problem. I would also assume and hope that editors would have the sense to determine what is a "non-science related" article, and apply these rules only to such articles. ] (]) 14:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Actually, the point I was raising when I said "geographical" was to avoid telling people that the length of a table should be 0.001 miles. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::No one is criticising him for that reason. I've already said that the footnote that already exists which makes it clear that these are not hard and fast rules should be given more prominence. The problem is that his wording would allow editors to make Imperial secondary in every case, even in those when Imperial makes more sense. Instead, the existing guideline outside engineering should remain. Miles are normally used for distances (not "geographical" distances) and so on. Geography special-cases would be covered by the "science exception" already. Perhaps a note about that could be added. Engineering can be added as an addendum to the science exception, whereby for UK engineering projects done in metric, the units are listed in metric. If it was historically done in Imperial, it should be in Imperial. This seems to make the most sense. Can we add this in without controversy? ] — ] 14:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::I think I should make it clear that it is '''not''' my intention to force metric units in every UK article. The only time I think it can be justified is when metric units are used by local British sources of information. My experience has been that UK articles frequently have information that is not cited and which may be at variance with an authoritative source of information. In that case I think it is perfectly in order to put in a citation and align the information in the text with the source. I can't see how saying that Imperial units can be used in certain contexts means the opposite. Finally, I can't see that source based units are a threat. If we don't base our units on reliable sources, what do we base them on? ] (]) 14:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::In other words, you are going to continue to push your POV using a principle that has been rejected on innumerable occasions when you have proposed it here? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Your "other words" are yours, not mine. I repeat: it is not my intention to force metric units in every UK article. If you want to blame me for edits I did two years ago, (and which still stand) so be it, but attacking me for editing in accordance with MOSNUM is not acceptable. ] (]) 00:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Given the controversy that this causes, a certain degree of prescription is beneficial as it removes some of the scope for argument over the rules. All Misplaced Pages rules are ].
	:::Cases of scientific articles are already covered, but the problem arises when an editor shows up and announces that it means miles are outright not allowed to be first in any circumstance that is even vaguely geographical. That argument is against both the spirit and letter of the rule ("science-related articles") but that doesn't stop them. We should be careful to avoid leaving too much scope for such spurious arguments.
	:::As I note in the message I've put above, the point behind calling it "geographical" distance is to exclude distances such as the lengths of extension cables or similar cases where miles are clearly inappropriate.
	:::I think we should add a general exception like the science one for ''all'' modern engineering-related articles - whatever the country - based on the units actually used by the engineers. What constitutes "modern" can probably be left to common sense. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::I think we're starting to say much the same thing - make the footnote more prominent, and expand the scope of the exemption from prioritising Imperial in British articles to include modern engineering as well as science. In practice this would cover pretty much anything engineered in Britain since the 1960s (such as the ] - I note that this article currently uses miles for track length, and it also uses the Imperial convention for gauge width, which would have made sense in talking about Brunel, but is horribly anachronistic for something designed and built in the 1990s). The table design adds clarity and I like it. The word "geographical" is likely to cause confusion and objection so I propose rephrasing to make its meaning more explicit: something like "distances between points/settlements in Britain and distances travelled on road/rail" with the explicit proviso that this would apply only to non-science/engineering articles, of course. ] (]) 14:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I'm not saying we should make the footnote more prominent (I'm not keen on giving too much wiggle-room because I want to avoid dispute over what the rule means) and I am not happy with "distances between points/settlements in Britain and distances travelled on road/rail". We should use miles for all distances where miles are appropriate in terms of magnitude (including, but not limited to, distances between points/settlements in Britain and distances travelled on road/rail) except in science- or engineering-related articles as discussed.
	:::::I'm also saying that the "exemption" should not be saying use SI or metric, but that it should be saying to use whatever units the engineers used. If an engineer in Britain in the 1990s was using feet, we should use feet. I'm also saying that that point should be being made ''worldwide''. It should apply equally to American, Australian, Canadian or Indian engineering - if the engineers used non-metric units (because it was before their country switched to metric, or, shoot, because the engineers were in the mood), Misplaced Pages should use non-metric units. If the engineers used metric units, we should use metric units. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I agree. Nice to see you're speaking up for source based units, Kahastok. ] (]) 15:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm not. The fact that you can find a source that gives the wingspan of a ] in metres would not change the fact that we would be giving it in feet. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Googling "supermarine spitfire specs" brings up imperial measurements first. I have no problem with putting imperial measurements first in this instance. This is a straw man argument. ] (]) 00:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, it pretty much sums your conduct in the past, where you would always choose a metric-based source over an imperial source, regardless of circumstance. If you think your own arguments are weak enough to be straw men, perhaps you should stop making them. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 14:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Kahastok, yours was the straw man argument. Inferior sources are soon detected and removed; it's the metric sources that get you going. If you find a better source of information than I do, please provide it. ] (]) 15:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I think we are agreed that basing the units on sources should not mean that different (primary) units are used for the same purpose in the same article; so - except in exceptional circumstances - we should not have an article giving the height of one mountain in feet and another in metres. But I don't think this necessarily precludes the use of different units ''for different purposes'' - in the same article. For this reason, I think we need to refer to the ''purpose'' or "context" where the unit is used rather than the ''topic of the article'' (as I understand Kahastok's comments). I understand the desire to have things set in stone, to avoid what is sometimes perceived as gaming the system and I agree that consistency is an important goal, but I think sometimes apparent inconsistency is appropriate and editorial judgement is necessary. For instance an article on a civil engineering project such as the Forth Road Bridge should give the total length as "2,512 metres (8,241 ft)" but the speed limit for driving on the bridge should be given in mph, and there is an argument for allowing statements like "the bridge shortens the road journey from A to B by x miles"; the same applies the other way round. This may partly reflect a (sometimes subtle) difference between the concepts of ''length'' and ''distance''. So I think basing the primary unit on the ''article'' topic is taking it a bit too far. Personally, I think the word "context" achieves the right balance, but perhaps some other wording can be found to take account of articles that deal with both civil engineering topics (such as bridges or motorways)and non-engineering topics (such as the surrounding country or journeys). ''The Times'' style guide also says ''try'' not to mix the two systems in a single article", i.e consistency within an article is one goal, but it may not always be possible. --] (]) 15:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::If the footnote is there already, I'm not sure what substantive changes to policy would be introduced simply by moving it without changing its content. If ]'s fear is that people will be more likely to see the footnote when it's placed more prominently, then the problem is with its content and not its position. I am content with "use miles where order of magnitude is appropriate".
	:::The "exemption" would effectively mean that the article is governed by more general rules on unit choice, rather than the specifically-British rules. This would, strictly speaking, take the article out of the scope of this conversation - all we are debating here is whether or not articles that relate to modern British engineering are exempt from the provisions of the style guide that relate to unit choice in British articles. Given that modern British science and engineering don't use feet, foot-pounds, slugs etc., ]'s point about using the engineers' units first is technically correct but quite academic. In the real world, the units will be SI in (I daresay) every case. We've already agreed (I think...) that it's OK for older engineering to be discussed primarily in the original units, with metric conversions secondary. ] (]) 15:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::(ec) I can see your point and I'd agree in principle with the unit choice in the descriptions provided. My concern is people turning around and saying, ah, this single engineering-related context in an otherwise non-engineering-related article means that we have to go with what I want rather than following the general rule. I speak from experience with the science exception - we've had an editor in one of the topic areas I edit repeatedly insisting that geography is scientific and therefore that all measurements of geographical features (including point-to-point distances on non-scientific UK-related articles) must be not just metric-first but metric-only.
	:::That said, it seems to me that we are actually talking about something different that we would not phrase in the same way as the science exception, and that we would still need conversions. We might start with:
	:::'''General rules'''
	:::*In science-related articles: generally use only SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, and specialized units that are used in some sciences. US Customary and imperial units are not required.
	:::*When discussing modern engineering projects, generally put the units used by the original engineers first, followed by conversions into SI, US customary or imperial units as normal.
	:::In the case of roads, I think it would seem odd - even if the road was originally designed in metric units - to put kilometres first when the the most visible indications of the length of the road and the distances along the road (the road signs) are all in miles. The same could equally apply the other way around in countries like Australia or Canada. We are likely to also have cases where a single road may have been designed in one system originally, but additions were added in another system. So we might say something like,
	:::*For lengths of roads or distances along roads, put the primary units used on the road signs first, followed by conversions as normal.
	:::Thoughts? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::OK, I see that the criteria for science articles are understandably somewhat stricter than would be desirable for engineering articles. For things like roads and railways that require ongoing engineering work (maintenance, expansion, etc.) it generally makes sense to prioritise the ''current'' units rather than the original ones (so the London Underground track length is described in km because it's the unit that modern engineers would use, even though the system obviously predates metrication by a very long time). Similarly, it would not make sense to describe pre-metric roads in Australia using primarily the original units, since nobody in modern Australia (engineer or layperson) would do that. If it's always been metric (e.g. Sheffield Supertram, Tyne & Wear Metro) I see no compelling argument for giving imperial priority. The primary source of technical information aimed at the public gives metric units only (http://www.supertram.com/technical.html) so I don't think it's appropriate for the relevant Misplaced Pages article to lean so heavily towards imperial (the Supertram article actually uses converted imperial values as primary for track lengths, and shows the metric as a conversion, even in the source, which I think is very bad practice).
	::::British roads are the hardest case here, and might even merit a special category of their own, because as you say they are described differently by engineers and laypeople, perhaps the only road system in the world with this complication. I don't think it would do harm to make British people more aware of this divide, given that a common counterargument against metrication of the road system is that it would involve extensive and expensive redesigns, which is obviously not the case when the technical descriptions are all metric anyway. I'm saying that I'd like there to be some way of drawing attention to the fact that the metric figures are actually primary, without insisting that they have to go first, if people find this objectionable. I realise this is a tall order, and I'd like to focus on getting a consensus on trams/light railways for now, because I feel it's much less controversial. ] (]) 16:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	====Arbitrary break====
	::I think it is relatively simple. We merely add the following addendum.
	*In UK engineering-related articles, generally use the system of units that the system was devised in, whether it be metric or Imperial. Provide conversions where appropriate.
	*Road distances and speeds are an exception to this, and should always be given in Imperial units.
	*Bridges and tunnels should be given in the system of units that they were drawn up in, even if they are used by a road.
	:::I am concerned that people are talking about extending this past UK articles. This guideline should only be for the UK. Not for Australia, or whatever else. It would be housed in the British part of the MoS as the present exceptions are. ] — ] 16:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::{{Agree}} OK, this seems like a reasonable consensus position. I am content to draw a line here, as it seems that everything to be said on the subject has already been said.
	::::UK guidelines are for the UK only, correct. Nonetheless it's sensible to compare the general principles at work with those that would be used to write articles that relate to other countries, just to ensure basic commonsense consistency on the fundamental principles. ] (]) 17:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Many thanks for this very stimulating discussion. I have been having trouble sleeping at night, but a quick scroll through this and I am out like a light. You people really need to get out more.] (]) 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	*I've put a sample of how I think the revised style guide section should look in ]. ] — ] 19:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	:May I make a few suggestions:
	:*The section on science-related articles should give explicit rules for geographical articles - namely metric units followed optionally by imperial units in parenthesis.
	:*The section on road signs should make explicit exceptions for situations where metric units that are displayed on road signs are cited - weight limits for example are cited in tonnes, not long tons, while ]s explicitly cite distances in kilometres.
	:I have misgivings about overview articles that extend beyond the limits of science and engineering defaulting to "non-sciences" or "non-engineering" usage of units where the section concerned has a "Main" hat note. ] (]) 10:37 pm, Today (UTC+1)
	:::That's fine, but what you are proposing is separate. I did not change anything other than to add an engineering exception. Your changes would alter the original wording of the section, which is something different. If you'd like to do this I suggest you make a new section here and start a new proposal. ] — ] 21:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Let me explain what I'm doing here. I'm not proposing that we change the existing non-science criteria, which you will note that I left alone. Merely expanding the science caveat to engineering. I'd like to take things one at a time. To start with, this will address the initial concerns of Archon, and is relatively uncontroversial. Your proposed would require a separate debate, and is more controversial. Can we at least agree on the engineering caveat, bar any changes to the original non-science criteria? ] — ] 21:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)I
	::Alright, I've added the revised version of the engineering caveat in. Now we can tackle bigger matters, if people would like. ] — ] 12:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I've made a slight change. If there is ever any need to quote a driver location sign, that's already covered by the rule that says that we preserve quotes. The fact that a road has driver location signs on it does not mean that the primary distance information provided to the road user is not provided in miles. I suggest the reference to tonnes is also superfluous as the rule refers to "road distances and speeds". '']'' <small>'']''</small> 14:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I agree, and shall remove it. ] — ] 16:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{Agree}} Looks fine to me. ] <small>]</small> 11:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I have extended the definition to include Ireland. British and Irish engineering histories are closely intertwined and many concepts used in Northern Ireland are, for historic reasons! more in line with those found south of the border, for example the use of try 5'3" (now 1600 mm) rail gauge. The wording has also been amended to take the situation in Gibraltar into account. ] (]) 03:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I don't agree, and I have reverted your changes. This discussion was about UK articles, and it isn't wise to make unilateral changes to the MoS. In the Republic, since they are totally metricated, I'm not sure how to go about it. They might just want everything in metric. I don't think what we discussed necessarily applies there, and I don't think it should be expanded to cover the Republic on a whim. ] — ] 12:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
	====Reference to Driver Location Signs====
	Driver location signs are a definite exception that should be mentioned in MOSNUM's UK engineering-related articles.
	*They are part of the motorway system.
	*They are clearly about distances on motorways.
	*They are clearly related to the design of motorways
	*The distances given are clearly metric.<ref>http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/breakdown_advice/driver-location-signs.html</ref> <ref>http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/ians/pdfs/ian93r1.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_185820.pdf</ref>
	*"The fact that a road has driver location signs on it does not mean that the primary distance information provided to the road user is not provided in miles." I agree, so pointing out this exception does not undermine that fact.
	*"The figure on the bottom of the sign gives the distance in kilometres from the beginning of the motorway." This statement is strictly factual but is ''not'' a direct quote. Therefore it is ''not'' "covered by any rule about preserving quotes." Stating or implying that you have to use direct quotes when referring to driver location signs is not a logical requirement on editors.
	I have therefore been ] and restored the reference to the text. ] (]) 07:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	:There is nothing in the agreed rule saying that we cannot make the statement you suggest, if it is accurate. Your text does not even contain a measurement.
	:In fact, the statement you give is not accurate in general. For example, on the ], the driver location signs give numbers well over 100, and on the ] they are well over 200. Even though the roads themselves are far shorter than this would imply. And what do you think is going to happen if a motorway is realigned at part-distance? Do you really think they're going to spend all that money reorganising all the driver location signs for the rest of the road? They don't need to. It's not exactly common knowledge that those numbers are distances, let alone distances in kilometres, let alone where they are measured from. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Well I can confirm that isn't common knowledge, that was new to me and I've had a UK driving license for nearly 30 years. Thanks Michael I finally figured what the signs are for, seen 'em and could never figure them out. Just for information, there is also an indicator on each emergency telephone on the motorway which is simply a number with no meaning. They are also used to give Driver Location.
	::What amendment do you propose? ] <small>]</small> 17:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Ah, I hadn't noticed the revert. To add, those signs are a newish feature on the road network, they haven't been around for long and they would be covered by the exemption already agreed in the policy. I'm not sure exactly what the purpose of your addition was? ] <small>]</small> 18:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Driver location signs only appear on English motorways. I believe that WCM is a Scot (at least that this the impression that he gave from the signature that he used a few years ago). ] (]) 19:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
	*You guys might want to remember the ] prescribed here by the . Discuss what you're doing before reverting. As far as my opinion on the matter: I don't see the point including a reference to the signs that would not already be covered, but nevertheless it doesn't really harm the policy to have it listed there. ] — ] 18:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Oh, apparently those sanctions finished ages ago…regardless, still a good idea to discuss before reverting. ] — ] 18:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::A revert is a standard part of ] FWIW, and my comment above was my implementing the "D" (for ''discuss'') of that principle. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I know, that was meant to be a polite reminder and not an admonishment. ] — ] 22:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
	First of all I would like to thank the three editors who commented. It was an interesting exchange of views. Here are my comments on them.
	*My proposed amendment was to add the bolded words to this sentence:
	:*"Road distances and speeds are an exception to this: use imperial units with a metric conversion''', except for references to ]'''."
	*My ''edit'' didn't contain a measurement because it added to a sentence which already referred to units of measure. A second reference would have been redundant.
	*A second objection was "It's not exactly common knowledge that those numbers are distances, let alone distances in kilometres, let alone where they are measured from." I agree, but even mentioning the signs served an educative purpose.
	*WCM said, "Thanks Michael I finally figured what the signs are for, seen 'em and could never figure them out." This demonstrates the usefulness of referring to the signs.
	*RGloucester said, that though the reference did not harm, he couldn't see the point of it. I agree that mentioning the signs does no harm, and I think that WCM demonstrated its usefulness.
	*Kahastok has disputed the accuracy of one statement. The UK Government document said My statement said, "The figure on the bottom of the sign '''gives the distance in kilometres from the''' beginning '''of the motorway'''. The bolded words are identical. I think any fair-minded person would agree that my statement accurately reflects my source of information.
	I therefore put it to editors that a reference to the driver location signs in MOSNUM:
	* does no harm
	* is interesting
	* is informative
	* draws attention to a significant safety feature on British motorways
	* draws attention to a safety feature that is among the general public
	* draws attention to a legitimate exception to the general rule to put miles first on British motorways
	The reference therefore clarifies a point of usage while drawing attention to a significant safety feature on British motorways that is too little known. Therefore I recommend it. ] (]) 02:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I think the question that should be asked is whether ] is a suitable place to bring attention to a safety feature on British motorways? Whether it does no harm, is interesting or is informative, does it really warrant inclusion in a ''policy'' (emphasis added)? There is already an exception in the policy that gives primacy to metric units in this case. ] <small>]</small> 06:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
	If the ''only'' effect of including this reference was to draw attention to this safety feature you could say that was a fair, but perhaps narrow-minded, call. I don't see the problem of having something interesting and informative in the policy. I certainly don't see the problem of having something harmless in the policy. More to the point, the clause draws attention to a legitimate exception to the general rule to put miles first on British motorways. I am not aware that this specific point is covered elsewhere.
	Mentioning the driver location signs does no collateral damage and could do some collateral good: this would be a point in its favour. After all, if its brief inclusion benefited you, perhaps its permanent inclusion could benefit others. However, I do accept that the main point is that the signs are a legitimate exception to a general rule. ] (]) 07:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
	Just a thought: almost all the comments in this thread have been by three editors who are known for their strong opinions on units of measurement. Perhaps it might be better for the three of us to step back and let others comment on this proposal. ] (]) 11:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
	:It's been several decades since I drove on a UK motorway, but the discussion suggests UK drivers don'k know what the signs mean, just that they should mention the number on the sign when reporting a motor vehicle incident. Since MOSNUM isn't intended to teach about the underlying facts being expressed by numbers, but rather what style to use when writing numbers, the only significant MOSNUM audience that already understands the substance would be UK emergency responders, dispatchers, and wrecker drivers. It seems to me the number of people coming to this guide seeking style advice about how to express UK road location markers would be miniscule, so there is no need to mention them. I mean, we don't provide advice on how to express pump gauge readings on UK fire appliances, do we? ] (]) 12:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
	===Tidying up===
	Following the addition of the section on UK engineering articles, the somewhat garbled bullet point pertaining to "miles", "miles per gallon" and "miles per hour" in the subsequent section is redundant. I propose that the bullet point in question be removed. ] (]) 20:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Why would we remove it? It isn't redundant if one is referring to the distance between, say, Orkney and Penzance. Would we not quote that in miles? And yet, that is not a "road distance". Furthermore, mpg were not mentioned in the engineering point…so we'd have to state that some place as well. Unless you propose removing mpg all together in favor of mpl or kpl. ] — ] 21:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Absolutely not. The point is in no sense redundant as it applies equally to non-road distance and non-road speed. Far from being "tidying up", this would represent a major change in policy.
	::It may be useful to put "for distance" after "miles" and "for speed" after "miles per hour" (or similar, as discussed above) OTOH. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 07:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::@RGloucester - The example of the distance between Orkney and Penzance is an artificial example. About a year ago, I check the units used on the following sets of articles:
	:::*'''All''' the articles related to British overseas dependencies
	:::*'''All''' the articles related to the major islands off the British Coast
	:::*The articles ]' ], ], ] and ].
	:::Apart from the articles ] and ], metric units were either used exclusively or were the dominant unit of measure. Yesterday I rechecked them and found that the Isles of Wight article had been changed to reflect metric rather than imperial units as the dominant unit of measure. I then started checking the British counties, leaving the Falkland Islands as the odd man out.
	:::After checking ], ], ], ], ], ] and ], I found that the pattern was the same. This tells me that WP:UNITS does not reflect consensus, at any rate as far as geographical articles are concerned. Would somebody please reconcile the current text in WP:UNITS with these articles or give me some other good reason why the sentence mentioned above should stay.
	:::On the point of "mpg", the normal way of measuring fuel consumption using metric units is litres per 100 kilometres. ] (]) 11:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Just because these articles use metric doesn't mean that that's the consensus. Someone coiuld well have gone along and changed the lot. I don't think we can change the units policy on a whim. ] — ] 13:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Furthermore, it doesn't say that Imperial "must" be the the main units, just that they can be used in these cases. See the footnote. ] — ] 13:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Don't get fooled into "can is not must". We need a good reason to go against the recommendations here - favouring miles - and Martin doesn't have one other than his own POV.
	::::When you say, "omeone could well have gone along and changed the lot", chances are good that that's exactly what happened. Chances are good you're actually talking to the editor who did it - he certainly enforces it. It wasn't necessarily him. But chances are good.
	::::Oh, and worth pointing out that I think the point Martin makes is highly misleading. Note that Martin did not say that ''kilometres'' were generally primarily used. He said ''metric units''. Metric units should be the primary units in all non-scientific UK-related articles, except where dealing with the specific exceptions listed:
	::::*distance, speed and fuel consumption
	::::*personal heights and weights
	::::*draught beer and cider
	::::*horses
	::::*engineering originally designed in imperial units
	::::plus any units covered by other parts of ]. ] for example, is primarily ''metric''-first, but for distance is primarily ''miles''-first - exactly as it should be. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I was merely stating that the footnote specifies that in some instances there may be exceptions to the guideline favouring Imperial, and these can be determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis. I wasn't saying I was in favour of the current state of things with regard to the articles Martin has mentioned. Now, I'm not in favour either of attacks on editors, and I haven't seen evidence that he's done what you've said. Regardless, I hold by my point that articles should be brought into line with the MoS, and not the other way around. These current guidelines were derived through a consensus bases process. Unless someone can contrive a good reason why an article might be an exception, that's what should happen. Or someone can propose a change to the MoS. ] — ] 16:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
	::, FWIW. Note that consensus on this matter has not substantially changed in the intervening period, so the removal of miles was inappropriate. I can refer you to more of the background to my comment - there's plenty of it - but I suggest it's probably better that I leave it at that for all of our sakes.
	::Other than that, I believe we are in agreement. I would note in passing that there may be some hangover from the major change to this rule that occurred some years ago (2009?). The previous rule was to choose either imperial or metric and stick to it religiously; it was changed as it imposed consistency where it did not exist in practice. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Kahastok's knows perfectly well that in the example given by him, every single unit of measurement quoted was taken from a source that used metric units and that Wee Curry Monster (who added the "dispute=flip" qualifiers to the convert templates) was indiscriminate in doing so (for example in clippings areas and mountain heights) and in failing to note that the citations concerned used metric units. He also knows perfectly well that in so doing, Wee Curry Monster was using replacing neutral terminology with terminology that might be provocative towards Argentina, thereby violating Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality. As I have explained earlier in this thread, the use of metric units in not provocative towards the British point of view, but then Kahastok fail to note that (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). In short, it is Kahastok who is manipulating WP:MOS to promote a non-neutral point of view. ] (]) 20:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::Editors, on reading the above, may wish review the history of the article in question. They will easily be able to judge how well- or ill-founded Martin's flurry of accusations against ] and myself are.
	::::They may also wish to review whether Martin's arguments for metrication of that article are in accordance with ]. Does ] endorse source-based units as overriding the rule that we follow British usage in UK-related articles? Does it ''require'' that the units in the source be cited in a footnote? Is Argentina likely to be provoked by the use of non-metric units, and if so, do we care? Does the principle in ] that we follow British usage on UK-related articles inherently violate ]? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	I really have no wish to be drawn into a long discussion on a subject that seems to occupy an unwarranted obsession in certain quarters and is decidedly ], so I am simply going to state my current position. I see no merit in discussing the short comings of other editors.
	Looking at my car on the way into work this morning, like all UK cars fuel consumption is ''still'' displayed in mpg (its a 2009 model for information), I drove on roads with the road signs displaying miles, with the speed limit in mph. Were I to wander into my local supermarket I would buy milk in pints and in the local pub, beer. If I were to have any interest in horses they still measure them in hands, which was anachronistic when imperial was a dominant unit system. This is because whilst the metric system has pervaded much of UK life it is not wholly universal. Hence, on wikipedia we have a manual of style to guide editors in the manner in which to write articles to make them easier for the reader to comprehend. This suggests for a limited series of units where the imperial unit is still predominant, we put that first reflecting UK usage, with the metric conversion in parentheses. This is nothing more than a sensible compromise, which puts the needs of our readers first, and follows current practise in the UK.
	As a professional engineer, I have a natural preference to work in SI units. The metric system is not universal, so I would always support the use of conversions. I don't always write in SI units because guided by ] where warranted I give precedence to the imperial unit in the manner prescribed. Editing against ], then claiming that there is no consensus for an established policy is a bankrupt argument with no merit. Neither do I see any merit in the proposed amendment to the policy, which does not serve a useful purpose in making wikipedia of use to readers but is actually counter to it. ] <small>]</small> 11:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Now, I don't know if there is some kind of long-running dispute between some of you, but I think what WCM has said is essentially how I feel. The current policy, as it stands, is simple. Metric is predominant for UK articles, except certain circumstances, such as miles for distances, miles per hour for speeds, miles per gallon for fuel consumption, pints for beer, and so on. It makes sense, and it holds to the general manner in which units are used in the UK.
	::As far as your concerns, Martin, I think they are not well warranted. We don't use source units, so it doesn't really matter that the source gave metric. As far as offending the Argentine, I tend to doubt that it would offend anyone. And regardless, the Falkland Islands are most likely a special case that we should not get bogged down in here. I don't know anything about what units they use there, or if they differ from the units used on the "mainland" UK. That is something to discuss in a different forum, probably the ]. ] — ] 16:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::Ah, I see. Having looked about, it seems you all have a long history of "discussion" on this matter with regard to the Falklands. Can we not bring that into here, please? It isn't needed. ] — ] 16:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::FWIW I was trying to avoid bringing up the Falklands here (note that the article I referred to was ]). A new consensus position on the Falklands was recently found and that should be the end of it. On the matter as a whole I endorse Curry Monster's position. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Wee Curry Monster's description of part of his daily life is a prime example of cherry-picking to promote his POV.
	:::::*his petrol was sold to him in litres. In my view it is absolutely daft to use mpg when you buy petrol in litres.
	:::::*If he had the misfortune to break down on a motorway, he would relay his position to the emergency services in kilometre (the digits on the ] indicate kilometres).
	:::::*At his local supermarket he would notice that soft drinks, all other dairy products such as yoghurt, cream, goats milk and the like are sold in metric units.
	:::::*If at the pub he preferred a glass of wine or a shot of whiskey, metric units units would be used.
	:::::Yes, imperial units are still widely used in the UK, but they are far from exclusive. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopeadia, not a tabloid newspaper, so maybe he should wander into his local bookshop and look at the study guide used by school children for geography - it is all metric. Now that it a very good reason to use metric units in geographical articles, or would he prefer "Nelson's columns", "Elephants" or "multiples of Wales", so beloved of the press. If he looks at his road atlas, he might notice a 5 kilometre or a 10 kilometre grid - some road atlases have such a grid, while the A-Z series of county level maps have kilometre or 500 metre grids. OS maps have had kilometre grids since before the war. Using WCM's argument therefore, geographic articles should use metric units. ] (]) 20:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::There's a lot of straw men in that comment. Nobody is saying we should not give quantities of petrol in litres. Nobody is saying that we would not quote the contents of a driver location sign in kilometres (only that the motorway should be measured in miles as is standard on all other road signs). Nobody is saying that quantities of soft drinks, wine, whisky and dairy products other than bottled milk should not be given in metric units first. Nobody is suggesting that we should measure areas by comparison with Wales or height by comparison with Nelson's Column. The vast majority of the argument above addresses issues that are simply not in dispute.
	::::::The argument for kilometres itself fails on Martin's claim against Curry Monster - one might indeed call it "a prime example of cherry-picking to promote his POV". Fact is, distances, including point-to-point distances, are overwhelmingly in miles in modern British usage. You don't have to like it or agree with it. It is what it is. The fact that the effect of the comment and of the proposal is to suggest that British people use one unit to measure distance along roads and a completely different unit to measure distance along footpaths or point-to-point demonstrates its absurdity.
	::::::Now, at this stage, it is clear that there is no consensus in favour of the change Martin proposes, and it seems fair to suggest that there is consensus against it, that the underlying assumptions made are not in line with the spirit of the rule. The same result has been found by consensus when it has come up elsewhere. I suggest we end this discussion at this stage with that result. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I would agree. There is clearly no consensus, and nothing is coming of this debate other than clear disdain. ] — ] 21:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I agree there is nothing to be gained from further discussion. A prime example, why some UK articles do not conform to ]. It really does irk me to have to point this but its precisely because ] will edit counter to policy as noted earlier by ]. This is such a (frankly) ludicrous argument I refuse to continue with it. This edit does of course does demonstrate also why this behaviour is counter productive. We have ] to ensure articles have a consistent look and feel and its really about article quality. Having an article switch unit order part of the way through is not the hallmark of a quality article. I know from past experience that Martin is looking to edit war but I don't intend to indulge him in that. ] <small>]</small> 07:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::@All - you might do well to look at ] (dated 2007). If you look at the article ], you will see that is is now metric-first (as are almost all English counties). Clearly Wee Curry Monster was out of order in making the changes that he described above, so maybe the wording in WP:UNITS need to be made crystal clear that the use of miles only applies to '''some''' but '''not all''' UK articles,otherwise people like Wee Curry Monster will misinterpret the page and make unnecessary changes. ] (]) 09:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}Policy states in the lede <u><i>Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.</i></u> Changes that bring a small number of additions back into line with the rest of the article are clearly within the guidelines of policy, this is why disp=flip is in the conversion template. Changes were made previously for reasons of article quality and were done on the basis of policy which is <i>crystal clear</i> in this respect. The UK is not 100% metric and that is why policy guidelines are written as they are. ] <small>]</small> 11:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::The case Martin points out, FWIW, was in 2007. I also think at this stage it would be useful to all if Martin could supply diffs to substantiate his accusations of misconduct against Curry Monster and myself on the article ]. If he cannot (as I would expect) he should stop making such accusations. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::As I see it, ] on UK articles is not always followed because it is unworkable. Instructions to put metric first clash with information that is available only in imperial measures; imperial exceptions clash with metric information and reliable sources are often inconsistent. Style guides . I believe the best we can do is to give general guidelines and trust editors to cope with inconsistencies as best they can. And if the result is inconsistent, well that simply reflects the messy reality of British usage. Edit wars over the order of units, however, should be stopped. The Times Style Guide says that the UK is gradually transitioning to the metric system. Whether or not this is so, it's something for the British to work out. Misplaced Pages doesn't need rigid instructions that will inevitably be flouted on all sides. ] (]) 12:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::When we have a topic that is as controversial as this one - or more precisely, that so frequently has the same people trying to read something into the rules to favour their own POV, a degree of instruction is beneficial. The style guide we have is useful partly because it is Britain's newspaper of record and partly because it is one of the few that actively tries to keep up with British usage.
	:::::I do not accept the premise of your point. The rules are perfectly workable if they are followed. The reason why there are sometimes discrepancies are partly because of disinterest on the part of many editors (bearing in mind that many high-profile articles were created at a time when the old one-system-or-the-other rule was in place) - but has a lot to do with the fact that we have a few hard-core pro-metric editors who go around mass-converting topics according to their POV and enforcing their POV on articles. Like you, for example.
	:::::All that said, I suggest that this is not going anywhere and that we finish this here. Consensus certainly does not favour any change, and I see no prospect of that changing if this discussion continues. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I think you're exaggerating the influence of your dreaded "hard-core pro-metric editors". I think it could be part of the gradual shift towards metric usage that the Times noted in its style guide. It could also be influenced by the fact that so many sources of information give data in metric dimensions, including . Certainly there are articles where there are discrepancies between MOSNUM and some articles, ] being one of them, only in this case the discrepancies were introduced by, shall we say, hard-core pro-Imperial editors? Personally, I think the problem with articles is not whether they are metric or imperial first, but whether they have information from reliable sources. And that last point is something I hope that we can both agree on. ] (]) 12:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: Yes, I hope that we're all agreed on the need for reliable sources. You do well, Michael, to point us at royal.gov.uk, as that site is a good demonstration that in current UK usage the units depend on the context (broadly as explained in ]). The Royal Family website refers to tonnes of compost, but . The royal car lengths are given in metres and their engine capacity in litres, but their speeds in . Even though the Channel Isles are not part of the UK, the Royal Family describe their distance from France in . The royal public finances discuss distance travelled (whether by air or by rail) in . - ] (]) 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Good reason to take note of the usage of reliable sources. ] (]) 22:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::We do not use source-based units for all the reasons that you have been given so many times in the past. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::It may be of interest to note that at ] there is broad support for the current consensus on ] to continue to reflect common usage in the UK. There has been a consistent consensus for this position and opposition to the changes in policy proposed. I would also suggest some Sassenach's learn how to spell ] before lecturing a Scotsman in how to measure it. ] <small>]</small> 17:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
	In the UK there are things that still use imperial measurements, things that use both, and some that use metric. It is terribly confusing, and metric is superior and the future, however imperial still exists. Where these apply have been already been listed above so no need to repeat them here, however I do notice that whilst proposing removing the examples from the exceptions include list, Martinvl at the UK talk page tried to claim that WCM "mis-interpreted" this guideline by putting miles before km for distance despite the fact it does and states so in the exceptions include section that they proposed above we remove. They are also now stating that nowhere puts square miles before square km despite Encyclopedia Britannica online doing so. So what should the policy be in regards to area?
	Also in regards to "imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.", should we not also mention half-pints? ] <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I believe half pints are implied by pints, in the same way that distances of two miles are implied by "miles".
	:] Style Guide (on which this guidance is based) says for area:
	:''Similarly , for areas prefer hectares and square metres to acres and square yards, but do not use square kilometres in the UK and the US where distances are measured in miles.''
	:This would seem to suggest that square miles are in order for land areas of appropriate magnitude.
	:We use the Times because it actively tries to reflect modern UK usage rather than dogmatically following one system or the other, and because it is the UK's ]. (Note that the BBC style guide does not address the point at all.) '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
	::On the point of areas ("This would seem to suggest that square miles are in order for land areas of appropriate magnitude"), we should note that "where distances are measured in miles" is not preceded by a comma, which makes it a restrictive or defining relative clause, not a supplementary clause. In other words, square kilometres should be avoided ''only'' where miles are used for distance, which seems logical in order to avoid apparent inconsistency within an article. Of course, we still need to specify explicitly in which contexts miles are used for distance, as discussed elsewhere. --] (]) 19:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Most people seem to understand the rule perfectly well as currently written. Miles have been applied to all distances of an appropriate magnitude at both ] and ] when editors have been invited to see the rule and have seen the arguments for both. That also seems to be the general consensus in this discussion. Given that the alternative is to create inconsistency where none exists in the real world, this is understandable.
	:::While clarification of this point may be useful, it would not be a change to policy.
	:::I have no problem with a rule that says that we use square miles in cases where we also use miles, and square kilometres otherwise. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
	====Distances in miles/kilometres====
	As I understand it, the discussion is primarily about kilometres and other units as a measure of distance, not about derived units, such as units of area (hectares, square kilometres, etc.). Perhaps an explicit statement about areas (primary unit: hectares or square kilometres) should be added to avoid further disagreements down the road.
	There is still no statement on the contexts in which miles (as opposed to kilometres) should be used as the primary units.
	This means that there is still contention concerning
	* the rule on when to use miles as the primary unit (including its interpretation and the permitted latitude).
	As I understand the discussion so far, there seems to be broad '''agreement''' that
	* kilometres should be used as the primary unit in science-related articles
	* miles should generally be used as the primary units for road distances (with the already discussed exceptions for distances of an engineering nature).
	There seems to be '''disagreement''' on
	* whether use of miles should be extended to ''all'' "geographical" distances.
	There may be '''disagreement''' on
	* whether kilometres should be used in a scientific context (e.g. the speed of light) in a non-scientific article.
	As I understand it, some of the contexts where some editors would prefer kilometres to be the primary units are:
	* encyclopedic contexts of a geographic nature (where geography can be seen as a science), such as
	**the distance between two points (e.g. as the crow flies) in the '''physical geography''' section of a country article (as opposed to the distance by road as information for a driver);
	** the length or width of a stretch of land (e.g. in a section on agriculture or economic geographym in a country article).
	I understand the arguments for miles as follows:
	* miles are generally used in the UK for distances.
	I understand the arguments for kilometres as follows:
	* Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopaedia, should adopt the same usage as similar types of texts, such as learned articles and educational or academic books on geographic topics, and these generally use kilometres;
	* the UK has largely converted to metric measurement; exceptions are provided only where they are ''necessary''; therefore use of imperial measures by sources where they may be deemed necessary, e.g. for reasons of cost or safety, should not be interpreted as general use based on the wider topic. --] (]) 19:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I don't quite see what the point of this post is.
	::The present rule has stood for several years in this or similar guises. Using miles for all geographical distances would not be a matter of extending the rule. Far from it: miles for all distances of appropriate magnitude in non-science UK-related articles has been the rule for years now. As I note above, it is consensus here and when the arguments have been raised on articles that's the conclusion that has been reached.
	::There is only one editor who disputes this. Understandably: the alternative, to suggest that we should invent a split in usage meaning that roads should be measured in one unit but footpaths (or point-to-point distances) should be measured in a completely different unit - in other words, artificially creating inconsistency where none exists in the real world - is patently absurd.
	::I do not accept the claim that imperial is only used where "necessary". It's not difficult to think of counterexamples - pints of beer and milk are a reasonably obvious one. In any case it doesn't matter - we have always determined these matters and matters like them by usage. We have a source that describes usage and should be using it.
	::For scientific contexts in non-scientific articles, the point has been obfuscated by the insistence by a single editor that this includes all distances (''not'' just in geography sections in articles), which clearly runs counter to the spirit of the guideline. This is a different question, but for the sake of consistency in general we shouldn't be treating sections that deal with scientific contexts as equivalent to scientific articles.
	::For the record I would suggest that scientists are no more likely to describe the speed of light in kilometres per hour than they are miles per hour, since the standard scientific unit is metres per second. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Boson. Kahastok's rationale about beer and milk is wrong - pints are used for beer and milk because the law explicitly permits pints to be used for '''bottled''' milk and requires that pints be used for draught beer. Kahastok is quite right that it is absurd that we use miles for roads and kilometres for geographic distances, but this is not the place to remedy this absurdity, the correct procedure is for Kahastok to lobby his MP. ] (]) 21:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Given the ambiguity surrounding the issues of physical geography, I think that WP:UNITS should explicitly state that metric units should be used for purposes of UK-oriented physical geography. ] (]) 22:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::If the law says it's permitted, that's not a matter of necessity.
	::::As to the claim "Kahastok is quite right that it is absurd that we use miles for roads and kilometres for geographic distances": as a rule British people ''don't'' "use miles for roads and kilometres for geographic distances". Martin might, but if he does he is very much the exception. For the most part British people use miles for both. As evidenced by the style guide that we base this entire guidance from, and multiple editors above who have made the same point. As to the claimed ambiguity, the fact is that editors reading this do not see any ambiguity, as evidenced above and on pages like ] and ]. The rule is clear that we use miles in UK-related articles for distance - quite rightly based on British usage.
	::::The claimed distinction in UK usage has been entirely invented by Martin. It does not exist anywhere other than in Martin's own POV push. And if he doesn't like that fact, that's his problem. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 22:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::The point of my post was to attempt to identify where the remaining differences lie, since there appear to be different interpretations, and challenges seem to quickly turn into discussions of what might or might not have been agreed at some time in the past, instead of directly addressing and settling what the ''current'' consensus is. As I wrote above, the current text specifies a number of imperial measures and states explicitly in which contexts they are to be used. However, it does not do this for miles and kilometres, and I suspect this is a major reason for the acrimony and endless discussions that do not achieve a clearly stated consensus.
	:::'''As I understand it''', the state of the discusson on miles/kilometres is at present as follows:
	:::* One participant suggested making the context explicit by adding "for geographic distances" for miles. However the text has not been changed to reflect this clarification.
	:::* Another agreed with "for geographic distances" but with the text changed to
	:::::". . . imperial units ''can'' still be used as the main units in some contexts''
	::::However the text has not been changed to reflect this interpretation either.
	:::Two participants object to the use or implication of "can not must".
	:::At least one participant has expressed the view that "can not must" is implicit in the current text.
	:::I'm not sure if we are at the stage where a straw poll on individual components would be useful, but it appears to me that there are ''at least'' the following (approximate) views:
	:::#Geography is a science; geographic distances should be primarily expressed in metric units (there may be exceptions, probably most road distances in the UK).
	:::#The use of imperial units (as primary units) is (always?) optional ("can still be used" + footnote).
	:::#Imperial distances should always be used (as primary units) for ''all'' geographic distances (excluding engineering).
	:::*There is a footnote about retaining historically stable versions. It can be interpreted as supporting "can not must", but this does not seem to be universally accepted.
	:::As regards the "present rule", I don't think we should expect editors to know the history of the discussion and share the same interpretation. The question is: What is ''now'' the consensus view, as expressed by the participants in this discussion? At the moment, I don't think I could name two participants who agree with (a common interpretation of) the current text. --] (]) 22:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I think the problem here is a rule that is too inflexible. There is so much dispute over whether something should read {{convert|8|km|mi|0}} or {{convert|8|km|mi|0|disp=flip}}. This is as futile as disputing whether eggs should be opened at the big or little end. There are two ways of sorting out this problem:
	::::*the dreaded "follow the sources" idea. This, we all have been warned, would cause the downfall of Misplaced Pages while editors futilely search for sources that pander to their prejudices.
	::::*the dreaded "imperial units ''can'' still be used in some contexts." This, we have been assured, will unleash the fanatic hordes of metricationists to sweep down and mass-metricate '''all''' our beloved British articles.
	::::If we follow this nonsense there is no solution to this problem. Either we have endless disputes about which units go first or loosen up the rules enough to allow the good sense of ordinary editors to determine these questions on a case-by-case basis, based on common sense guidelines in MOSNUM. ] (]) 03:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::*I agree that to follow what sources are used would be a nightmare. Allowing both metric and imperial in the same article, whether "kilometre and miles" or a mix-and-match "kilometre and pound" or "grams and pints", seems like nonsense to me also. The "case-by-case basis" also often leads to pitch battles. I'm not saying I would necessarily support it, but a third possibility (apparently omitted from the above) is that, for our own purposes, we would define ] to determine that all British articles should adopt imperial measures (just like how we have embraced ] per ]) notwithstanding what might be practised elsewhere in the published world. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 04:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	I agree with Kahastok, and the point on consistency raised by Ohconfucius is quite good. Imperial is used for distance etc., and it makes sense to use imperial first to maintain consistency where it is required, for example at present in the UK article's Geography section, we have imperial for distance and metric for area which looks odd. Seeing as Kahastok made the extremely relevant point of The Times as newspaper of record, and that it dictates: ''Similarly , for areas prefer hectares and square metres to acres and square yards, but do not use square kilometres in the UK and the US where distances are measured in miles'' - so for consistency it should also be explicitly stated that for UK articles, area should be preferentially square miles. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	I see discussions are needlessly descending into childishness yet again, could I issue my usual refrain for editors to focus on content rather than each other.
	We've been over this before, the rules are not "inflexible", they are prescriptive for the very reason that editors who disagree choose to interpret the policy creatively to impose their own views having failed to achieve a policy change. The suggestion that geography is "science" and hence articles should be metric only is a perfect example as to why the policy is needed. Hence, any suggestion that the rules should be loosened is unworkable. It simply would lead to further disruption.
	To be blunt, the whole business boils down to the fact that some editors don't like to put the imperial unit first in some circumstances and this is utterly ]. I would suggest those editors learn to compromise as I and others do in the interests of our readers. Misplaced Pages exists for its readers, not to pander to the egoes and bizarre pecadilloes of its editors.
	As to a way forward, Ohconfucius makes an excellent suggestion, we should link this to ] so that it is clear the consensus is to follow local usage. I also tend to agree with Mabuska's suggestion that square miles should take precdence over square km but really no longer have the energy for the effort it would take to amend the policy. ] <small>]</small> 12:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I believe that you would open a can of worms if you tried to enforce a rule of square miles for articles because so many UK articles have been stable for years with square kilometres. Personally, I think it would be better to live with this inconsistency. It can be annoying to see a variation in usage, but the provision of imperial/metric conversions helps to soften this. I'll take Ohconfucius!'s word for pitched battles over individual articles, so I think that part of the solution might be strengthened rules against fighting over which unit comes first. However, the use of ] to enforce usage would only make matters worse, because British usage really is inconsistent. Try getting information on areas of parks and you will soon encounter an array of acres as well as hectares. Look for the height of hills and mountains and there will still be a fair sprinkling of feet amongst the metres. Heights and weights of sportspeople are similarly divided. Even with miles vs kilometres, where miles should be ahead by a country mile, kilometres are encountered with a fair degree of regularity in some contexts. Of course, there is always the possibility of war over whether a particular usage is scientific or engineering or general in nature and whether a geographical article is essentially scientific or general.
	:I believe that a bit of flexibility is vital. If we say that metric units should '''generally''' be used in UK articles then we should also say that imperial units '''can''' be used in certain contexts. Having said that I would be amenable to a rule that said that miles are more common in British usage, because that is clearly the case, but I don't think that proviso should be presented in a way that could be used to start a war to weed out every last kilometre that dares come first in any UK article. I think it is much more important to go through articles and verify the figures that they present. In my experience, the figures in undocumented articles can be inconsistent with reliable sources. ] (]) 12:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Its precisely because of the fact that sources can be inconsistent in the way units are used that requires Misplaced Pages to have a policy on how to present information to ensure consistency in wikipedias articles. Editors have achieved a consensus that this should in general follow the Times style guide. The assertion geography is a science is simply a red herring and ]ing. Certain editors need to realise they have to stop this behaviour or editors will simply make the policy even more prescriptive in response. ] <small>]</small> 12:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I think that WCM has presented us with a clear picture of what we can choose between: a strict "Do this or else!" approach or a more flexible approach that allows for variation. I believe that the second approach is more appropriate for a situation where people have different ideas. It often doesn't matter that much what order things are presented in, provided that the source information is reliable. The world really isn't going to come to an end if the order of units in Misplaced Pages does not follow the letter of the Times Guide. The Guardian doesn't follow the Times Guide. Neither does the Daily Mail. Or the BBC. Why then should UK Misplaced Pages articles be shackled in a straitjacket designed for another publication entirely? English people value variation. The rules make provision for those who prefer Oxford spelling as well as the great majority who prefer . The same applies to the order of units. It might be a bit messy, but, hell, that's the nature of things in the UK (and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the world). ] (]) 14:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	::My dear fellow, I think, as you said previously, it is best that we live with this slight inconsistency. The present guideline is just that, a guideline. As it says in the footnote, exceptions can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is not at all a straitjacket. In most cases, miles should be used for distances. I don't think anyone would say otherwise. In those cases where it makes sense to use metric, outside of science/engineering articles, that can be discussed on that page's talk page. The present standard already allows this. There is no reason to muck it up and muddle it more by altering anything. ] — ] 15:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Sure - ] always applies. If there is a good reason that is not considered by the guidelines to use some other rule, then we should use some other rule. Michael will recall that this is precisely my argument at ], where I suggest that fact that a Munro is defined in feet means that the definition should be given in feet (as per another part of this guideline) and that it is absurd to then put all the other mountain heights in the article in metres. Michael rejects this effectively on the grounds that this rule ''should'' be a straitjacket.
	:::But in the general case, where there is no good reason to deviate, we should follow the rules set out. And the fact that some editors do not like imperial units is not a good reason not to use them.
	:::The reason to use the Times style guide is because it is the UK's ] and because unlike the other publications Michael names the Times style guide actively tries to mirror common UK usage. (The exception is the BBC, which has, to our knowledge, no in-house style for units at all.) Delegating the point to the Times style guide means precisely that we ''don't'' have to keep on having this discussion.
	:::In answer to Boson's point, I suggest you should reread the discussion. Most editors here have agreed here that the current wording provides for miles for point-to-point distance. Consensus at recent discussions at ] and ] have found exactly the same thing. This is what "geographic distance" means, so far as I am concerned (and I was the one who came up with the wording in the first place). Adding the words "for all distance" or "for distance" or "for geographic distance" to the guideline would not change the meaning of the guideline in any way. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	*The great thing about having our own style guide is that we can define what rules we want to follow, and under what circumstances. That, as I understand it, is how ] came about. I hate its divisiveness, but the positive side is that it has contributed enormously to peace and style stability &ndash; just imagine if we were still stuck ] and ] whether we want to apply "color" or "colour"? Why do we care that the UK is itself an inconsistent mess as to application. Even though the UK is inconsistent, WP doesn't have to be. We can apply metric to all, none, or any part of our articles if we want. Consistency is the most important, and If we please, we can stay in that time warp until such time as the UK has fully embraced metric. We can roll back time here and adopt Imperial throughout as it once was in the UK. Or we can be deliciously inconsistent in a consistent way &ndash; WP:ENGVAR is that, if that's what keeps order and harmony. In the meantime, we can apply and execute some of the alignment work by script or bot. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 16:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Yes. I have seen what happened at ]: a straitjacket so tight that saying that a particular mountain was {{convert|40|cm|in}} short of the Munro mark was too much! It seems that in practice the flexibility is all one way: include imperial measures at will but flip the display of metric measures. No prior checking of sources, just flip, flip, flip. ] (]) 23:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::That was merely false precision, and you would be one of the very few who would be reading it as an "error". You fixed it, didn't you? and nobody reverted. So I fail to see the problem. In any event, the "Munro" was defined before metrication. It seems the crux is that you prefer metres to feet &ndash; I've noticed your attempts to dredge sources for their metric measures. The appropriate degree of precision is good, but I think it's time to get out of ] on laboriously following sources to the nth degree as if there were no inherent imprecisions there. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 04:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Yes, but that was after quite a lot of discussion, which fortunately did not descend into ]. Mountains are now measured in metres, and it seems quite daft to me to mass convert modern measures to Imperial just because Sir Hugh Munro defined the heights at 3,000 feet in 1891. As 914.4 metres is an exact equivalent, there are other ways to achieve consistency and accuracy (and consistency with MOSNUM), but for that change to come about it would depend on support from other editors. ] (]) 12:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Well, there's a run called the "]", but nobody would think of changing the "]" to "91.44 metre dash", and it's quite logical for everything to be stated (or re-stated, if needs be) to Imperial in the latter case. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 14:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
	:True, but sometimes things are restated in other units. The earliest ] were stated in feet and inches, but today they are now compared in millimetres. Now I'm not insisting that this should automatically apply to the ] article. This, I believe, is a matter for editors of that particular article to determine, ] (]) 22:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
	::The BBC are sometimes guilty of misusing imperial units. A few years ago, they stated that the law prohibited demonstrations within half a mile of Parliament. Knowing that the law actually states "one kilometer", I contacted them and told them that they would look a right bunch of monkeys if somebody who was protesting 900 metres from parliament was arrested and then showed the BBC statement in their defence. Within a few minutes, the BBC website changed the text to read "one kilometre". This sort of thing is happening all the time. ] (]) 20:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	===The Times style guide link===
	The link to the Times Style Guide is no longer accessible which means that one should question whether or not it is an appropriate link in a section of MOS. Various editors have quoted from the style guide, but unless the guide is freely available to all editors, such quotes should be viewed with skepticism as they may be used out of context (maybe inadvertently). We need to verify that The Times themselves have not modified the guide. As a Times reader, I noticed that after the ], Times editors seemed less inclined to convert everything to imperial units. (For the record, ] was chairman of ], the company that owned both papers). My own view is that the reference to The Times Style Guide needs to be written out of the MOS. ] (]) 19:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	:The Times Style Guide is the basis for the advice we have here. Getting rid of any reference to it would disguise this fact - which I imagine is why you want it removed. I note that I have provided a link to the guide already, and I would suggest that your anecdotal evidence on a point that is not even relevant (unless you're seriously suggesting we shouldn't even convert into imperial?) is not evidence of anything much.
	:If you have evidence that the Times Style guide has changed, by all means raise it. If there is none, we should assume that they have not. I see no reason to assume that they have. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	::] has missed completely missed the point - the main question being "how can I get hold of the text of the Time Style Guide?". ] (]) 20:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	::As with other advice in ], I think it is appropriate to take various style guides into account in forming an opinion, and it may therefore be appropriate to quote this and other style guides on this ''talk page''. However, I do not think we should defer to someone else's house style in matters of house style. For this reason, I think we should remove references to the the Times Online Style Guide on the ''project page''. In an ''article'' on the topic, it might be appropriate to cite the Times Online Style Guide to document one view on the subject, though even in article space I would ''prefer'' to use sources that are freely available. Since this is a matter of principle affecting ], this should perhaps be discussed ], rather than on this sub-page. To be clear: I am not suggesting disguising anything; I am suggesting that we should decide as editors on our own house style and merely take this particular style guide (and possibly others) into account. Having done that we should remove the reference to this publisher's house style. I think the deference to someone else's style guide is another issue that is part of the problem rather part of the solution and we should address the problem directly. This project page should state ''unambiguously'' what our rules are (as from now) and what latitude is permitted. Until we do that, I fear conflict and implicit accusations of bad faith will continue. Do we defer to any one style guide on any other matter of Misplaced Pages house style?--] (]) 21:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I have moved this post so that it does not break mine up.
	:::We do not ''defer'' to another style guide here. The entire premise of your point is wrong. There are several matters where we differ from the Times (an obvious one being that the Times calls for miles ''only'' - with no conversion - whereas we call for miles first and kilometres second).
	:::But there is nothing wrong with ''basing'' our advice on the style guide of a respected external publication that has the same aim as us - to reflect British usage on this matter of style. Far from it - this is eminently sensible as it means that we don't have to have continual debates on what the normal British usage is. We can just look up what the Times says and accept that.
	:::And so far as practically everyone is concerned - including consensus at ] and at ] where this has been discussed by a good number of outside editors recently - there is no significant ambiguity in the current wording. We could add "for distance" after "miles" or "for speed" after "miles per hour", but no editor other than you two seems to need them.
	:::FWIW the last version of the Times style guide from before the paywall is available through the Wayback Machine . There is no reason to assume that it has changed. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::As I understand the discussion here, there ''are'' differences as to the interpretation or the proposed consensus view. I have listed many of these above, with quotations from several participants. The question of ambiguity is not solved by adding "for distance", since everybody seems to be agreed that imperial units "''can sometimes be used for distances''". The differing interpretations seem to be about whether this means
	::::* ''must'' be used
	::::* for ''all'' distances,
	::::* including scientific and engineering contexts in articles that are not substantially about scientific or engineering topics.
	::::which seems (to me) to be the interpretation implied by your objections above. If you feel that this misrepresents your interpretation, perhaps you could state explicitly how you would rephrase my clarification of the individual elements of your interpretation. --] (]) 00:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::The fact remains that everyone but you two seems to find the point pretty unambiguous. Consensus at ] and ] have both found the same thing as well.
	:::::There's a major straw man being raised here, that this rule is somehow an exception to ]. Let us be clear that the only people in this discussion who have implied, argued, or otherwise suggested that there is even a possibility that this rule can have no exceptions at all are you, Michael Glass, and Martin. And Michael Glass and Martin both have a long history of using that argument to try to water down these rules so that they can switch articles to their personal preference of metric first in all cases.
	:::::It's not difficult:
	:::::*Miles ''must'' be used for ''all'' distances on non-scientific US-related articles, subject to the exceptions outlined elsewhere in the guideline and subject to ] where special circumstances (beyond personal preference) apply.
	:::::*Miles ''must'' be used for ''all'' distances on non-scientific UK-related articles, subject to the exceptions outlined elsewhere in the guideline and subject to ] where special circumstances (beyond personal preference) apply.
	:::::*Kilometres ''must'' be used for ''all'' distances on non-scientific Australia-related articles, subject to the exceptions outlined elsewhere in the guideline and subject to ] where special circumstances (beyond personal preference) apply.
	:::::The parallel is exact. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::No, this is not a strawman. We are talking about the UK., not the Falklands or Australia, so they are irrelevant. We are also talking about this guideline, not consensus at one specific article, one of thousands about some aspect of the U.K. If any consensus agreed there is intended to apply to other articles, the discussion belongs here. I would appreciate it if we could confine the discussion about this project page to this talk page (and possibly its parent page). it is difficult enough without introducing extraneous discussions. I am not trying to suggest that you want to use imperial measures as a primary unit in these cases. And, of course, ] always applies (in ''very constrained'' situations; it should not be invoked lightly). However, I don't think there is general agreement with how you have stated it:
	::::::#You seem to be of the opinion that metric units should not be used in scientific or engineering contexts in generally non-scientific articles. I disagree, and do not recall anyone else supporting this position. Everyone has an opportunity to do so now.
	::::::#You insist on retaining the reference to the Times Online Style Guide on the project page. I don't recall anyone else in this discussion supporting that. Now is the opportunity for people to come forward after reading the arguments above. I have seen no evidence that this is still ''Times Online'' policy. If the publisher has removed the document from the Web site, I would see that as, at least, lack of evidence that it is still their position. Its removal could possibly be taken as evidence that they no longer intend it to be applied.
	::::::#There is a view that in additional contexts related to the UK, metric units should be primary. There seems to be agreement that miles are appropriate for road distances. I do not see evidence (in this discussion) of consensus that miles should be used for all other distances (except in scientific articles). You write "Let us be clear that the only people in this discussion who have implied, argued, or otherwise suggested that there is even a possibility that this rule can have no exceptions at all are you, Michael Glass, and Martin. " So ''you'' have named 3 people who appear to disagree with you. Others have also used the phrase "for road distances" or have referred to "official" Ordnance Survey maps using kilometres; so we seem to be talking about at least 5 people who do not support your position. Some may not have very strong opinions on this relatively trivial subject and are more interested in stopping the constant disruption by arriving at an unambiguous consensus, but it might be helpful if you could name substantially more than 5 editors who support your version in this discussion. In my view, wording the guideline based on the suspected motives of other participants is not the way to go. Limiting the usage to road distances may be overly restrictive, but extending it to all distances (outside of articles where this part of the guideline does not apply) may not be restrictive enough. I would welcome middle-of-the-road suggestions. --] (]) 22:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, what I'm saying is that in any circumstance where there local context means that there is a good reason - beyond personal preference - to ignore the rule, ]. Just like every other rule on Misplaced Pages.
	:::::::::Let us be clear that you are talking about measures in a genuinely scientific context in a non-scientific UK-related article (engineering is already dealt with). This is quite a specific point and it's unlikely to be common. Certainly not common enough to need a specific rule other than ]. But on the other hand, if we did add a specific rule it would be certain to be abused as all measures would suddenly be declared scientific. By editors involved in this discussion.
	:::::::::It is a complete straw man to suggest that this rule has to cover every imaginable situation. I reject your claim that this is restricted to the UK because I see nothing about the concept of scientific contexts in non-science related articles that is specific to the UK. There is no reason why it has to be made clear in UK-related situations but not in US- or Australian-related situations, and the fact that you insist that this is only UK-related is very telling.
	:::::::::I note that the point we're dealing with is not what the article ''should'' say, but what it in fact ''does'' say. The way that this is interpreted both here and at articles such as ] and ] is of clear relevance to that. It is clear from this discussion and from those discussions that the rule currently calls for miles in all circumstances except where ] applies.
	:::::::::I reject your suggestion that we're likely to get much in the way of outside comment at this stage in a discussion resulting from long comment in the middle of a massive length of text. I reject your speculation that the Times does not apply the style guide, but even if they did not, it would not remove the guide's usefulness as an outside basis for our advice.
	:::::::::You're listing people citing arguments about what it should say, not on what it ''does'' say. Not only that, your five people appear be to yourself, Michael Glass, Martinvl, Martinvl and Martinvl - which is not five people by any normal measure. The first three instances are included because they seem to believe that ] does not apply to this rule - an argument that I believe would be given close to zero weight by any admin. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::*To your point about ]: I think ] is best reserved for unforeseen or exceptional circumstances, not as a general excuse for sloppy formulation of guidelines that can easily be improved.
	:::::::::*To your point about scientific articles: I think this should apply to engineering as well. My point is that whether imperial units are appropriate depends on the immediate context rather than the topic of the article. For instance, if a distance is in a section about an engineering or scientific topic, the title of the article is less important.
	:::::::::*I haven't a clue what you mean by "very telling" and I don't know what you mean by the rest of that paragraph.
	:::::::::*To your point that I am talking about what the "article" (I presume you mean the guideline/project page) ''should'' say (when talking about participants' opinions): Yes, that is true in some cases. If there is a consensus on how the text should read, it is rather pointless to try and reach a consensus on what the text currently says or means. That might be appropriate on the talk page of an article (where it is a case of applying the guideline) but is less useful on the guideline talk page (where the discussion is about how that text ''should'' read).
	:::::::::*To your interpretation of my comment " your five people appear be to yourself, Michael Glass, Martinvl, Martinvl and Martinvl". No that is not correct. I ''prefer'' not to mention people by name as I believe it helps to keep the discussion objective and impersonal. Also, they may prefer not to be drawn into these endless discussions of what should be quickly settled minor issues. If you look at my quotations and use the search function in you browser, you should find at least two other users.
	:::::::::*To your point that you reject my " speculation that the Times does not apply the style guide". There was no argument of mine dependent on any speculation. I was indicating that there is no basis for assuming the present relevance of this style guide. If you wish to refer to this style guide, which implies that it is still relevant, the burden is on you to show that it is relevant.
	:::::::::*To your point about the unlikelihood of outside comment at this stage "in a discussion resulting from long comment in the middle of a massive length of text": Well, the people who have already commented in this discussion (in particular the 5 people mentioned directly or indirectly) may still be reading this, so they might want to clarify whether they support your opinion, but you may be right. A formal RFC is probably the way to go. I had hoped we could clarify some more issues first, but if that is not possible, so be it. --] (]) 23:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::So you want a formal RFC to tells us whether we should have a specific rule to cover - and let's be clear about this:
	:::::::::::'''Distance, speed, fuel consumption, quantity of draught beer or cider, quantity of bottled milk, personal height, personal weight and dimensions of equines, in scientific contexts on non-scientific UK-related topics.'''
	:::::::::::Frankly, I can't think of an instance of a genuinely scientific measure on a non-scientific UK-related article that falls into these categories, nor any reason why one would want to use one. This is a solution in need of a problem - ] comes to mind. If we find that there is such a measure, we can ignore the rule under ]. On the other hand, there is no doubt whatsoever that the rule you propose would be rampantly abused.
	:::::::::::And before you start talking about engineering, I suggest you reread the advice: engineering topics are already dealt with. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::No. I want a couple of simple changes to the current text that would ''probably reduce its length''. It would make the guideline better reflect curent (2013) British usage and ''remove dead links to documents that may no longer exist'', instead of introducing imprecise or incorrect distinctions that continually give rise to dissent. If it were a matter of keeping the guideline simple, it would be easier to just decide to use metric primary units throughout; it is the complicated nature of British practice and the apparent decision to adopt everyday usage in the encyclopaedia that are making the text somewhat complex. It shouldn't really require an RfC, just a clear formulation of the amendment, but if one person constantly refuses to countenance any change to the existing text in this respect (as you point out, engineering has been dealt with elsewhere), it might be the most efficient way of putting this to bed and save countless hours of circular discussions. The advantage of a straw poll or RfC, in my opinion, is that it can be formulated to present a clear choice and separate the clear choices from the long discussions that tend to go astray and become repetitive. The advantage of a "global" RfC would be that it brings the discussion on this topic to one time and place, and helps bring in others who are interested in settling the problem without getting bogged down in interminable discussions with little chance of resolving the problem. A topic of this nature should not be creating this amount of work spread over so many venues. My hope is that a couple of RfCs would settle the matter within a few weeks and that the solution would hold for a couple of years. --] (]) 13:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::I note with interest that you have failed to cite any circumstance in which your proposed change would have any effect. I think it fair to assume that what the change you propose is a specific get-out for a tiny number of instances: an extra rule that would legitimately apply almost nowhere but would be abused almost everywhere.
	:::::::::::::FWIW I have no idea what you're talking about when you say you propose "a couple of simple changes to the current text that would ''probably reduce its length''" - I do not recall having seen such a proposal.
	:::::::::::::I note that you refer to "imprecise or incorrect distinctions that continually give rise to dissent". It does continually give rise to dissent, but the dissent always comes from ''the same two editors'' and their push for Misplaced Pages to allow them to promote their POV over units of measure. It's hardly a measure that the current rules are problematic, only that a couple of people don't like modern British usage.
	:::::::::::::That two editors have repeated the same bad arguments over and over again for the best part of half a decade does not make those arguments good. And that same half decade's experience demonstrates that no RFC is going to stop those two editors from continuing the POV push. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 14:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Can someone with a subscription confirm that this is still documented as Times Online house style? --] (]) 00:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I have a subscription and prior to posting my statement last night, I could not find any reference to their house style on their website. (Of course I might have missed it). In yesterday's Times I did however notice that the weight of a massive Halloween pumpkin was given as 275&nbsp;kg with no imperial equivalent - this is the sort of change that I have noticed since Murdoch stepped down. (Posted by ] at 04:38, 10 October 2013‎Signature was omitted in error)
	::::::@Martinvl, can you supply a link for that pumpkin story? I looked in The Times for it, but found only , from October 1st, which uses imperial only for size, and imperial (metric) for weight thus: "It is 16ft in circumference and estimated to weigh 1,500lbs (680kg). The British record is 1,504lb (682kg), set by identical twin brothers..." FWIW, I have noticed an increased tendency to use imperial only recently. ] (]) 11:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::It was in the paper edition of the newspaper. Unfortunately out local paper collection took place today and I am afraid that my copy of the newspaper is now in a recycling plant somewhere. If you live in the UK, you should be able to check it out at your local library. ] (]) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::The version on the Wayback Machine is dated "July 10, 2009", which is over 4 years ago; so I don't think we can use that version. We have no particular reason to assume that the style recommended there is still relevant. In the interests of efficiency, I would suggest that we wait till 17 October 2013, 12:00 UTC to see if anyone can produce a current version of the Times Online Style Guide before making a formal proposal to remove the reference to that style guide from the project page.I think we need to take the improvement of the guideline one step at a time. --] (]) 11:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::That's the date it was updated on the website, not the date it was accessed or the date it was archived. I see no reason to remove all reference to the style guide on which this advice is based from the guideline, and very good reason to keep it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	:@Kahastok - it is inappropriate to rely on the Wayback machine to second-guess current policy. ] (]) 04:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I'm not. OTOH, it is inappropriate for you to insist that we act on your speculation that something might have changed when you have no evidence that it has. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Kahastok. Martinvl's concerns is simply speculation with no evidence, and frankly after recent events I don't trust a single word they type. No doubt removing a link to this guide is a step to arguing against it being used in the future to backup use of Imperial for certain UK measurements - something that appears to be a never-ending campaign by Martinvl. Does this carousel ever stop? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::No - though it does pause sometimes. Martinvl's ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Let's stop speculating whether or not the Wayback version of the Times Style guide is up-to-date or not. A more relevant question is whether MOSNUM is up-to-date. We don't need to depend on the Times Style Guide to tell us that the British still use miles on their roads, and that some milk and beer is sold by the pint. There are other - official - sources to confirm this. However, we are on less sure ground about personal heights and weights. Certainly the usage is mixed in regards to sporting teams, and the National Health Service uses kilos and metres. In a non sporting context this might not matter too much, but when it comes to sporting teams it may be time to consider following the usage of the Premier League and other national codes. ] (]) 02:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::So what's the big deal if we state all UK units as imperial or metric or a mixture? It matters not that the MOS is not fully up-to-the-minute or does not conform to the exact usage in the UK at any point in time. This is already causing a lot of circuitous and unnecessary arguments between the 'imperial' and 'metric' camps, but it's of no interest to improving the project that this discussion resurfaces every other month. The transition of usage in the UK seems slow and gradual but staunchly imperial in the US, and it will be impossible to determine the Rubicon of when/if the UK passes to wholly metric for any given measure, so we ought not to waste time on trying to crystallise it. Let's just adopt a style and get on with life. Equally, I feel that there is absolutely no need to review any given rule or facet each time a new style guide appears, or an existing style guide is updated. There won't be any "revolution" to the MOS driven by external style guides. However, we should periodically and not too often, probably every few years, review all the rules and "top and tail" them, adding established 'new' rules and replacing those that are determined to be absolutely archaic. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 02:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I do not want to see this rule dragged up every couple of months. I think it would be much better for all concerned if those who insist on dragging it up every couple of months ceased to do so. But given that they've been doing it for years and years I don't see any sign of that.
	:::::::I think it is worth noting that several of those who people put in the "imperial" camp have mentioned that they are scientists or engineers who use metric units routinely at work. One of the ironies is that there's a good chance that most of us - including those who you put in the "imperial" camp - use metric units more than the average Brit. Someone pushing as part of an "imperial" camp would be pushing for imperial mountain heights (mixed in RL, we say metric) or weights in general (mixed in RL, we say metric).
	:::::::In fact, the objection is to being forced to use metric units even in cases where usage is overwhelmingly imperial, or to applying rules to produce ridiculous inconsistency such as saying that the distance from London to Edinburgh is 500 kilometres point-to-point but 400 miles by road - even where no such distinction in usage exists in RL. The issue here is at least partly the use of Misplaced Pages to campaign for a political position (in favour of metrication).
	:::::::In terms of the scripts, if you want to apply them, all of the imperial bits are pretty limited in scope except distance, speed and fuel consumption. If you can script it to do personal height and weight but not other weights, then that would work, but you won't use it often. Draught beer and cider, bottled milk and horses are probably rare enough and specific enough to make it worth being aware of them but not worth scripting them. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::Date formats and British spelling keep me busy enough. It's regrettable that the UK had to start on the road to metrification so that the situation today is neither fish nor fowl, and likely to stay that way indefinitely. Yes, I'm interested in achieving format consistency across the 'pedia, but only on an intellectually coherent level. Trying to mirror or apply the current RL chimera is of little interest to me. What's more, I don't want to get sandwiched in between Imperialists and the Metrifiers. <p>My position is that we should use either all imperial or all metric. While I was working on the English variants script, I created a few regexes that would allow me to flip {{tl|convert}} templates to display Imperial first, as it was in the old days in Britain. But a significant proportion of units of measure are not captured within conversion templates, so a lot of extra work will be needed for instances the script will miss. In terms of scope, it will be far too complicated to do weights and avoid personal weights, and do building heights but not distance, speed and fuel consumption. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 14:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Britain has generally "gone metric". Metric units are used for practically everything, and even the exceptions are mixed and dependent on specific context. Children use metric units in schools and metric units are used in most professional contexts, with a few measurements being converted when dealing colloquially with the "general public. So I don't think general use of imperial measures is viable. If we want to standardize it has to be metric, I think. That ''would'' make everything a lot simpler. --] (]) 17:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::If we look at the introduction to the Times Style Guide we see:
	:::::::::::''The Times should keep abreast of the trend in the UK to move gradually towards all-metric use, but given the wide age range and geographical distribution of our readers, some continuing use of imperial measurements is necessary. The main aim is to avoid confusing the reader, so try not to mix the two systems in a single article. In general, we should prefer the metric, with imperial conversions in brackets at first mention.''
	::::::::::Note that The Times emphasizes the move towards all-metric use. Note furthermore that The Times is concerned about '''all''' it's readers. They median age of Times readers is 44.5 years, that of Misplaced Pages readers is 34.5 years. If we add on another four years (at least) due to The Times style guide being at least four years old, that that the target audience for The Times style guide is at least 14 years older than the current Misplaced Pages audience. Given this difference, it is difficult to justify using The Times style guide apart from the rationale in the opening paragraph. ] (]) 17:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Do you have any evidence - not instances of usage but actual evidence - that usage has actually moved toward metrication from that described by the Times? I doubt it: if you did, you would have brought it up in the last five years. The statistic is ridiculous given the different bases for the comparison, your extrapolation doubly so. We might note, FWIW, that the age group most likely to read the Times are actually those aged 25-34.
	:::::::::::As to Boson's point, we already are metric, except in specific circumstances where imperial units are overwhelmingly more common in British usage. Children use metric units in school - but it is folly to assume that children learn nothing outside school, and children will learn those imperial contexts outside school. The principle exception for our purposes - miles - is not mixed or particularly context-dependent. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot reflect British usage and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I don't believe Britain has "gone metric". Britain, as far as metrification goes, is stuck in the rather unsatisfactory situation like someone in the middle of the road, with people on both sides dragging him towards them. Nothing will crystallise for decades, if ever. Nationalist sentiment is on the rise all over Europe, and there is an increasing backlash over the Eurocratic push for metric system to be adopted in Britain, minority languages like Welsh has been on the resurgence for a number of years. The pound (both weight and currency) and pint have become anthemic. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 00:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	''The Times Style and Usage Guide'', which was clearly still being used by The Times in February 2012 given that it is mentioned in of that date, is available as a book - ISBN 13: 9780007145058. ] (]) 19:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:That's ''The Times Style and Usage Guide'', published in 2003; it appears to be out of print. Was it the same as the referenced ''Times Online'' Style Guide? --] (]) 00:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	::For what it's worth, I think the idea of having separate conventions for articles about different countries is bizarre and illogical in itself (why do we not treat articles about Sierra Leone differently from articles about Nigeria? What are MOSNUM's recommendations for articles specifically about Liechtenstein?). The much-touted Times Style Guide also seems rather impotent to resolve this question (and I am dubious about the merits of tying the policy of an encyclopedia to the content of a newspaper style guide) especially when it apparently recommends such ludicrous practices as giving smaller areas in square metres and hectares, then arbitrarily switching to square miles at some unspecified cutoff point. Relating square miles to acres and square yards/feet is hard enough (using the imperial system properly is hard, and regardless of what some here might say, few British people today really know the imperial system), but relating sq mi to hectares and square metres is well-nigh impossible without a calculator. Is it one of the objectives of Misplaced Pages to promote confusion and inconsistency, or is this the pit we've dug for ourselves? ] (]) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: provides interesting information about British newspaper readership profiles. The median age of readers of the various quality newspapers as per the data on page 20 are:
	:::*Daily Telegraph - 57 years
	:::*Times - 44.5 years
	:::*Independent - 41 years
	:::*Guardian - 40.5 years.
	:::The median age of ] is 36 years. This information suggests to me that if we want to take the lead from the quality press, we shoudl be looking towards] rather than ].
	:::] (]) 14:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I don't agree. Aside the fact that the data concerned does not in fact make your claim (in an article it would be a clear ] violation), and aside the fact that the difference between the bottom three is small enough to be irrelevant, you neglect all other factors, such as the Times' status as ] and the clarity of the Times' guidance. I don't know where you hope to find an Independent style guide, I didn't find one when I looked - but would you, for example, follow the advice of the Guardian and use pints for all capacities - including for water, petrol, wine and so on?
	::::Regardless, the Guardian style guide still prefers miles for all distances. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Had you read the whole style guide, you would have seen what the Guardian style guide has an implied "in certain circumstances" after the words "the mile and the pint". Further down the article it explicitly states that geographic units should be given in metric units followed by imperial in brackets. cites the Guardian as a newspaper of record (along with The Times, Telegraph, Independent and Financial Times). When I graduated from the ], the graduation list was published in The Guardian rather than one of the other newspapers, making it, in that case, a newspaper of record. ] (]) 19:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Your post, unsurprisingly, is highly misleading.
	:::::::Your source is actually a reuse of Misplaced Pages. The text in question was as a "almost completely unsourced" and " an inappropriate exercise in WP:OR", see ].
	:::::::''Further down the article it explicitly states that geographic units should be given in metric units followed by imperial in brackets'' is true - in the same sense as it is for our current advice: for "geographical heights and depths". Nowhere does it state or imply that there is ''any'' exception to miles first.
	:::::::Your claim ''the Guardian style guide has an implied "in certain circumstances" after the words "the mile and the pint"'' is simply false. The point in fact continues to mandate conversions from metric to imperial, but not from imperial to metric. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	===Metric for everything===
	Would anyone support the idea that all articles (non-scientific and non-engineering) related to the UK should use metric units as the primary units? That would make things much simpler and save work in the future. I thought it might be worth a try. Just wanted a show of hands to see if it is at all worth pursuing. --] (]) 18:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''Absolutely not'''. Biasing Misplaced Pages by pandering to the POV push of two editors is the very last thing we should be considering. The United Kingdom should not be the only country that is not allowed to use the units of measure in use locally, and Misplaced Pages should not be taking a political position in favour of metrication. That is the effect of your proposal. British people do not just put miles on the road signs to confuse foreigners. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''Absolutely not'''. Misplaced Pages should not be being used as part of the, so far failed, campaign of the ] (UKMA) to metricate the UK. Today in the UK, although industry largely voluntarily metricated in the 1960s and 70s because it helped it in the international market place, and certain disciplines of retail trading have metricated because they were forced to by weights and measures regulation, common and everyday usage outside of the workplace, even by the younger generations, is still overwhelmingly imperial. One consequence of shoppers rejecting the metric measures that certain shops have been forced to use is that shops (such as greengrocers) now price most product by unit rather than my weight. This is why UKMA exist, because the majority of the UK people have not yet embraced the metric system other than where they have been forced to at work and at school. ] (]) 19:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''No'''. Britain uses, for example, miles for distance and pints for beer. Misplaced Pages should not be giving preference to different units from those in common use. - ] (]) 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''Comment''' Let's make it clear that we're not talking about ''removing'' imperial units of measure. We are just talking about ordering (in other words, ''which one we put first''). I'm ambivalent, but am more concerned with consistency of not seeing a mish-mash of imperial and metric in first place in any article. But the only way to stop the argument and any potential tug of war is definitively to come down on one or other. Right now, even with the MOS mandating displaying both units, it's become a zero-sum game. Articles are a mess and the reader is a loser. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 00:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''' I support Ohc's initial comment. This discussion is only about which units should be put first. I agree that consistency of presentation is important, and it would be more consistent to have a "metric first" rule. However, as others have stated, this does not coincide with British usage. The answer to this has been to have a general rule for metric first with stated exceptions. This causes problems because the stated exceptions don't exactly coincide with British usage, especially when usage is split. Also these exceptions mandate inconsistencies if taken literally. We could have a rule to follow the sources '''if''' this resolves the inconsistencies. Another would be to permit editors to deal with inconsistencies as they choose. We could also trim the exceptions to those that are mandated by law. Other editors may have other ideas for dealing with anomalous results and messy articles. These ideas may help to resolves many of the difficulties caused by the inconsistent use of measures in the UK context. It is not the fault of Misplaced Pages or its editors that UK inconsistencies are a challenge to deal with. However, by pooling our ideas we may come up with better ways of dealing with this challenge. ] (]) 05:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::The answer is to have a simple rule, as we currently have. There is no reason to dogmatically declare that the fact that we use miles for distance means we have to use Fahrenheit for temperature. Using miles for distance and Celsius for temperature is not intrinsically inconsistent and there is no reason why we cannot mix them.
	:::Much of the rest of the message seems to be a recipe for arguments. Given how many times source-based units have been rejected there's no point in discussing them further. The use-the-law message has generally been interpreted to require far greater inconsistency than we have presently through the insistence on hair-splitting distinctions that do not exist in usage (i.e. that London to Edinburgh is 500 kilometres point-to-point but 400 miles by road). And "permit editors to deal with inconsistencies as they choose" is at best a recipe for arguments and at worst an excuse for bringing in full-metrication or source-based units by the back door by your old "can is not must" argument. I note that the whole point still assumes the non-existence of ].
	:::When it comes down to it, this is not a major Misplaced Pages-wide or even large-scale dispute. All this is is two editors with a chronic inability to ]. There is no good reason to change the meaning of the current rule, so we should not change it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I think this is an important issue and don’t think it should be dropped. Irrespective of metric vs imperial, there are important principles of clarity (units should be familiar and unambiguous) and self-consistency (units should be used consistently throughout an article; don’t switch half way through) that should be up front but I do not see them stated clearly. Have I missed them? ] (]) 11:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''No:''' - The word "Everything" means just that "everything". It also means that whoever wrote the rule claims to have foreseen '''every''' possible situation - something that I will always dispute. Beer is sold by the pint in British pubs and any Misplaced Pages text that describes this should use pints as the primary unit of measure. It is of course appropriate to qualify that it is sold by the imperial pint, not the US pint. On the other hand, glasses of wine are specified in metric units - 125 ml, 175 ml and 250 ml. On the other hand, we should recognize that the metric system is the reference point for most, if not all, the world's systems of measure - the official definition of the yard is "0.9144 metres exactly". Similarly, the imperial pound is defined in terms of the kilogram. In line with this, the default should be to use metric units unless there is justifiable reason to the contrary.
	:@Dondervogel - I agree with your observations.
	:] (]) 12:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''Yes, but good luck persuading the others''' - The idea of "biasing" Misplaced Pages by preferring standard international measurements is bizarre and incoherent. Metrology is not politics, regardless of what those who like to imagine that the British Empire never ended might believe. The fact that we've gone so far into angels-on-pinheads territory that we consider it OK for dogs, kangaroos and whales to be measured in metres and kilograms, but not humans or horses, is a fitting statement of how silly, arbitrary and untenable this position is. ] (]) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''Comment''': Having seen the progress of metrification, it seems clear that metric is progressing in the UK. Beer will always be sold in pints (although probably in 600 ml pints) but how many ounces that is will be forgotten... It seems to be a waste of time setting things in stone here when the UK is in the process of migrating to metric. If we give it a few years, metric might seem quite natural. ] (]) 09:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I don't think anyone would argue that we can't move with the times if it can be demonstrated that the times have changed. Part of the point of the current exceptions are that they are the unusual cases where imperial units still dominate. If and when they change, this rule should change. But this rule should not be trying to push for change.
	::(FWIW I haven't the foggiest how many fluid ounces there are in a pint. Pints are used in the UK today for draught beer, draught lager, bottled milk from the milkman and - colloquially - blood. In none of those contexts would you ever need anything smaller or more precise than a simple fraction of a pint. I can imagine some cooks using fluid ounces for their ingredients, but nobody else.) '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Actually the ] recommends using milliliters. You could of course check the recipes in last weekend's newspapers. ] (]) 18:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::It would not surprise me. The Times does as well (though the Guardian prefers pints). But most cooks are not in the Guild of Food Writers and there's no shortage of people who have older cook books or cook books not written by members of the Guild of Food Writers, or who use the fluid ounces included as supplementary units. But who cares? Misplaced Pages doesn't include recipes - there's no need to make a case either way for a new exception that would never be used. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Obviously a very minor point, but it's not at all difficult to find bottled milk in the UK sold by the litre. Tesco sells two-litre and four-pint (or 80 fl. oz., if you like) bottles side by side. ] (]) 22:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''No''' - The UK has various exceptions all already mentioned above. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	===Imperial for everything===
	I've just come across another interesting, and very recent, article - this time from the BBC. In December 2011 they published an article titled "". The most significant paragraph is this one: "Call it a proud expression of national identity or a stubborn refusal to engage with the neighbours. Either way, the persistent British preference for imperial over metric is particularly noteworthy at a time when its links with Europe are under greater scrutiny than ever." Clearly the writer of that article believes that the common usage in the UK is still predominantly imperial units.
	is another piece providing more evidence that the UK people have not yet embraced metric.
	And (from January 2013) it seems that UK schools are to be asked to put more focus on teaching pupils imperial measures to prepare them for life in the still largely imperial UK. ] (]) 22:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	In the light of those: would anyone support the idea that all articles (non-scientific and non-engineering) related to the UK should use imperial units as the primary units? ] (]) 21:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
	The above sections were struck by me out once ] was unmasked as a sockpuppet of the banned user ]. I have not struck out his other "contributions", but other editors in this section should be aware of who he is. ] (]) 07:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I have unstruck them because without them the below comments make no sense. Your own comment can serve as a record of the point. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''No.''' All Imperial won't work. Too much information is in metric, and as the Times policy recognises, the trend is for the gradual increase in metric use. Even if the Times opinion is mistaken, a huge amount of information is already in metric measures. This includes such things as the heights of hills and mountains, the area of parks, fields such as science and engineering and even information about heights and weights of footballers (though not of jockeys) is in metric terms. The idea that most or all of this can or will be rolled back is fanciful. The only thing that Misplaced Pages can do is to have a policy that tries to reflect actual usage. There are two ways of doing this: specify which units are to be put first in which context, or follow the most authoritative local sources as a general rule. Those favouring the continued use of imperial measures like to specify which units can be used and where, because it puts a brake on metric use. The other method, of following the sources as a general rule, has been attacked as a stalking horse for full metrication. In fact, it has the advantage of reflecting actual usage. Most editors of UK articles don't give a toss which unit comes first (except, perhaps, for miles for distances). ] (]) 00:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	::In the vast majority of cases where imperial units come first under the current rules, it ''is'' miles for distances.
	::Source-based units have been repeatedly rejected for any number of reasons - including your habit of choosing the sources because they have metric units, and including the fact that if used in the spirit of the rule they would create rampant inconsistency - as demonstrated by the fact that you're saying that footballers should be described in metric units but jockeys should be described in imperial units. A "stalking horse for full metrication" is not a neutral description, except inasmuch as the rule is far too open to the extreme levels of abuse that we have seen from you over the past few years.
	::The claim "hose favouring the continued use of imperial measures like to specify which units can be used and where, because it puts a brake on metric use" implies a political agenda that does not exist. If people like me wanted to put a "brake on metric use", I would be arguing for mountains to be feet-first always and to put pounds first always before kilograms. The only places where the current rule puts imperial units first are places where usage is ''overwhelmingly'' more commonly imperial. Anything less than overwhelming imperial use is metric-first by the current guidelines. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Khastok, in 2010, you refused to budge even on Fahrenheit temperatures when there was overwhelming support for this to be changed in . It was you who objected to my putting information on parks in hectares, even though this is fully in line with MOSNUM policy. It is you who continues to scream blue murder about my documenting of footballers' heights and weights from the national leagues, even though these edits have remained in place for more than two years. Your agenda of opposing metrication is crystal clear and of long standing. Your tactics appear to come from the British Weights and Measures Association. I have suggested this on more than one occasion. You have never denied it.
	:::I repeat: I do not put metric measures first in any article without documentary evidence. Inconsistency in any article can be a good reason for reconsidering the order of units. That is why I have not contested your flipping the display of the measurements of the mountains in the ] article. The fact that you flipped the displays rather than seeking other sources shows just how empty your accusation of source shopping is. ] (]) 10:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::So, you've got no arguments so you start on the ''ad hominem''.
	::::I did - and do - strongly object to your mass-converting ] from a MOSNUM-favoured style to a MOSNUM-disfavoured style in flagrant and knowing violation of Misplaced Pages norms.
	::::You say, "he fact that you flipped the displays rather than seeking other sources shows just how empty your accusation of source shopping is" - based on the premise that we already have source-based units. Which we don't. And in the context of source-based units, you're telling me I ''should'' be going "source shopping". Which says a lot.
	::::On the Fahrenheit point, given the background (which I won't go into), and your already long-history of ] this rule on Falklands articles, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I and other editors wanted to go by the book and not allow you shortcuts to undermine the wider consensus.
	::::Ultimately, if I were the person you claim I am, I would be supporting this proposal. If my position did indeed "come from the British Weights and Measures Association" I would be supporting this proposal. If I had an "agenda of opposing metrication" I would be supporting this proposal. I am opposing this proposal. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::#You started the ad hominem.
	:::::#The fact that you accepted the sources I found showed either that they were OK or that you were too lazy to find better sources.
	:::::#If we don't base our information on reliable sources, what do we base it on? Imagination?
	:::::#Have a look at the link I provided. You were the holdout on using Celsius on the Falkland Islands.
	:::::#I note your statement that implies that you are not associated with the British Weights and Measures Association. ] (]) 12:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''No''' - there is no reason why we should be required to use imperial first in contexts where metric is far more common, such as temperature. But I will say that the contexts (such as temperature) that are primarily metric-first tend to be more mixed than those that are overwhelmingly imperial-first (like distance), so a rule favouring imperial in case of significant inconsistency may be appropriate. Alternatively, we might simplify the rule by requiring all mile-derived units to come before kilometre-derived units, except as per standard exceptions and per ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''No''' to the idea of reverting to all imperial. I agree with Kahastok on that point, and I welcome his support for temperatures to be Celsius first. However, I would also say no to Kahastok's suggestion that the present compromise should be rolled back. This is Misplaced Pages. Policy should not be determined by the dictates of the British Weights and Measures Association. ] (]) 10:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	::As I note above, if I were arguing that policy should be determined by the dictates of the British Weights and Measures Association I would have supported this proposal. Policy should equally not be determined by the ] as some would have it. I should be clear that I am happy with the present compromise, but pointing out avenues by which the alleged inconsistency that you continually bemoan might be fairly addressed. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::*I am glad that you are happy with the present compromise. I hope that you won't push for it to be watered down. ] (]) 12:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''No:''' If you go into a supermarket, you will notice that almost every commodity on the shelves have their quantities expressed in metric units - the only product that supermarkets sell where metric units are not required in milk in '''returnable''' containers (plastic bottles must be labeled in metric units, even if it is "568 ml"). On the other hand, a sign showing a "50 limit" is a 50 mph limit, not a 50 km/h limit (except on certain tram lines). Given this disparity (maybe the word "mess" might be better), one cannot make cast-iron rules that cover all situations. ] (]) 11:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Farenheit is being used as ad hominem and nothing else. The unit is only used in the USA, so it's irrelevant for all but US articles anyhow. Current usage in the UK of a mixed bag of units of measurement is relevant to and a preoccupation of British editors. But it seems these editors will continue to argue and battle over which should prevail until the cows come home. I would be prepared to wager that that battle will continue to be waged even if the real life situation on the ground has been resolved. But we must never lose sight of the fact that we are here to serve the reader. From the perspective of the average reader, who isn't British and doesn't care about the ongoing debate in the UK, which units of measurement appear first is of little importance or relevance. Both are mandated to be displayed by MOSNUM, and one or the other can be easily parsed. <p>If we use all imperial first, readers ''might'' think it quaint or quirky but will accept it. Equally, it will not cause problems to readers if we consistently use all metric first. My plea and hope is not to mix imperial and metric units even though the real life is otherwise in the UK. To continue to argue and bicker over this is to just be self-absorbed and parochial. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	::No, Farenheit is not only used in the USA, it is in common usage in the UK too, particularly for high summer temperatures. Most UK weather websites give the reader the option of using C or F and newspapers will give a mix. Outside of a scientific environment, the UK public would use F and C in equal measure - C usually for low temperatures and F more commonly for high ones. ] (]) 19:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::"Common" among the over-60s perhaps. In my experience, everyone talks about the weather in Celsius, all remotely modern devices like ovens and washing machines are Celsius-only, thermometers are Celsius-only or dual-units (Fahrenheit-only thermometers are extremely rare). If only one temperature unit is given, it will invariably be Celsius (e.g. TV weather forecasts, British websites and newspapers). ] (]) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Farenheit has totally died out in Australia, even amongst the old folk, due to the fact that weather broadcasts and thermometers no longer use the old measurements. It's the most disconcerting use of the old measurements in the US. ] (]) 18:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''No''' unless articles on Scotland also use Scots miles, falls, ells, etc. and articles on China use Chinese customary measurements, etc. This is exactly the sort of confusion that the metric system was invented to get rid of. ] (]) 23:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''No''' as there are instances where metric is preferential. ] <sup>]</sup>
	===This is absurd===
	I don't understand why this is being taken so far, to the point of absurdity. "Imperial for everything", "metric for everything"? This is a nuanced issue. I understand that uniformity would be preferable, but usage is not uniform, and nor can we be without favoring a point of view. It is that simple. All this talk is nothing more than a pointless debate. Neither of these options are worthwhile and neither are even worth discussing. The present system, however messy, does its best to replicate the mess that is the use of units in the UK. That is all we can hope for, and all we can do. Is it possible, then, that we can stop this madness? ] — ] 21:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:It's absurd, but so is the idea that a system of measurement is a "point of view". The metric system is no more a point of view than the English language is a point of view; arguably even less so, since it was designed to be shared by people irrespective of their languages or cultures. I'd say the metric system is a point of view in the way that Arabic numerals vs. Roman numerals is a point of view. This entire debate was really settled long before any of us were born, when the primary physical definitions of the imperial units were abolished, and they were redefined in terms of metric units (this was in the 19th century). Traditionalists will moan that a pound is not "0.45359237 kg", although this is precisely what it is defined to be. Given that the units are long-redundant, they're not used by the overwhelming majority of people on Earth, and they don't have any natural relationship to one another (I was recently in an old lift with three weight-restriction signs that said "3 tons", "60 cwt" and "6720 lb" - of course, all the same quantity!), it's just a matter of waiting. ] (]) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I don't think the questions themselves are absurd. It is the way the argument progresses that is frustrating. There is a fairly simple decision tree. We have already limited the discussion to non-scientific, non-engineering, UK-related articles and decided that both imperial and metric units should be displayed. So ''we are currently talking about the primary units'' (what goes first). We can also exclude exceptional cases where everybody agrees that ] applies. There are four logical alternatives:
	:* all metric
	:* all imperial
	:* try to reproduce real-life usage in the UK
	:* something else.
	:The next question where no decision seems to have been documented is: "Which usage (register) should we reflect?
	:* colloquial usage,
	:* educational usage,
	:* journalistic usage
	:* scholarly usage
	:* something different
	:* dependent on the topic (remember that we have excluded only scientific and engineering ''articles'' from the start).
	:--] (]) 23:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:However, I would first ask:
	:Who supports/opposes leaving the current text exactly as it is? --] (]) 23:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	::'''Unenthusiastic yes''', it's a consensus position, as unsatisfactory as it might be. If others were to support a more progressive position I'd be happy to agree with them, but I see no evidence that they could ever be persuaded by any amount of argumentation. So long as the Peter Hitchens mentality persists in Britain, the dreaded "foreign kilometres" will never be welcome. ] (]) 23:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Who supports/opposes closing the discussion on "all imperial" and "all metric" as both rejected?--] (]) 23:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	::'''Suggestion''' I'd propose discussing separate points separately, so rather than "all metric" etc. we could talk about heights/weights and distances separately, but I don't see those discussions progressing very far, when we seem to have people still pining for Fahrenheit. ] (]) 23:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::It's only absurd when people going around stirring up hornets' nests, deliberately putting British footballers' heights and weights into metric first in violation of the guideline, usually justified by the "follow the sources" argument. If people can't respect what's already a ridiculous fudge in the guideline by doing taking this sort of course, there's little hope for peace. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 01:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::'''Agree''' with Archon2488's suggestion above. I think almost everyone realises that we cannot have an all-metric or all-imperial rule at this stage. That means we are stuck with a compromise, and this means that there will be inconsistencies. i do believe that the present compromise could be tweaked. The general rule in the UK may be that heights and weights are given in imperial, but there are exceptions:
	:::* player profiles: metric only.
	:::* player profiles: metric only
	:::* player profiles: metric only.
	:::* player profiles: metric first
	:::I think it would be in order either to ignore MOSNUM per ] and follow the codes or change MOSNUM to recognise player profiles as an exception to the general rule to put imperial measures first for UK heights and weights. ] (]) 02:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::The whole point in having ] is to allow for common-sense exceptions, not to allow people to ] to push their POV. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I too agree with {{mention|Archon2488}}, and I think {{mention|Boson}} has posted a useful analysis above. I don’t know about the UK, but have observed the mixed, transitional, or confused situation here in Canada for some time. Register and context are both significant. Most anglophone Canadians talk about personal dimensions in traditional units (we use the “short” measures for weight, never stones) but official documents like drivers’ licences give them in metric. Road signs are exclusively metric (everywhere I’ve been, anyway), and dashboard instruments are metric-first or metric-only, while colloquial discussion of road distances & speeds is pretty evenly mixed. I haven’t heard anyone for decades using Fahrenheit in the context of weather, unless ''e.g.'' describing a visit to the USA, but it still prevails, almost exclusively, for ovens, cookbooks, and related conversations. (Many more examples could be adduced.)
	:::Ultimately it’s the reader we should be considering, and the principle of least astonishment. I must say, though, as long as this whole question is about ''which comes first'', as opposed to ''which to include'', it’s not worth a fraction of the time, electrons, & server-kittens that have been sacrificed to it.—]]] 03:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	I've requested an admin close this frankly ridiculous discussion and hope that whoever does it sees fit to enact my suggestion of a moratorium on this ridiculous argument. ] <small>]</small> 11:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:The danger of a moratorium is that it would become impossible for anyone to have a discussion about this issue should there be any substantial change in the primary units used for certain things in the future (e.g. the acre was officially deprecated in 2010, so what if miles are officially deprecated by 2020?). It's an important stylistic point in the sense that people care about it (evidently!) and there are cases where hard-and-fast regulations are too much of a straitjacket, and editors will be (and are) upset by being forced to conform to a MOS that is tied to a certain rather conservative perception of common British usage circa 2013. ] (]) 13:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::There should be a moratorium, that this should only come up either in the context of a wholescale reorganisation of the MOS or if someone can demonstrate that the facts on the ground have changed. It would impossible to reasonably refuse to rework this rule if Britain converts its road signs or adopts 600-millilitre points, for example, but this does not apply when we have the same editors bringing up the same points month after month and year after year. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I'm not absolutely sure which discussion you mean (since your contribution is threaded under "Who supports/opposes closing the discussion on "all imperial" and "all metric" as both rejected?") Am I correct in assuming you mean all the discussions about the text regarding use of imperial and metric measures in UK-related articles? --] (]) 15:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	*I believe that the present system does what it needs to do. To go so far into specific uses of units in specific cases provides the very straitjacket that Michael Glass argued against. At least, with the present system, there is flexibility. Every single instance need not be defined. When exceptions arise, discuss. That's all. And as far as a moratorium goes, I'd agree. Let's stop this nonsense and absurdity unless reliable sources demonstrate a change in usage. If road signs become metric, fine. If beer is sold in mL, fine. At present, this deprecation hasn't happened. And, to be frank, most of the conjecture here has been just that: conjecture. Very few, if any, sources have been cited on either side. The only viable option is to retain the present system, which attempts to replicate British usage. There isn't another way that is viable. ] — ] 18:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	*The area that does need to be sorted out is geographic usage which is metric first in academia, in education, in public administration, in the military, in agriculture and in certain newspapers (The Guardian and in many respects, The Times). ] (]) 19:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::There remains no benefit at all to the encyclopædia in manufacturing hair-splitting distinctions that have no basis in usage, as you wish to create between distances along roads and distances not along roads. Moreover, there is nothing that needs to be sorted out, nor any issue with the present understanding of the rule. This thread serves no further useful function. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::This POV crusade being waged is incredibly selfish and disruptive. Yes Imperial is not superior to metric and at some stage we will move to metric, however until then there are instances where Imperial is used preferentially as we all already know. I back an end to this disruption. Michael Glass however has raised grey areas that need looked at such as height and weight of people. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::This is why I said that things like height/weight could be productively separated from "metric only" vs. "imperial only". My own perception of this particular issue is that an encyclopedia should lean towards the somewhat more formal tone of written content such as BBC sports pages (as linked to by Michael Glass above) or, indeed, modern medical records. Commentators might well prefer imperial, but it hardly befits an encyclopedia for it to sound like a sports commentator! Similarly, some people will still insist on talking in acres, even though they are an officially-deprecated unit no longer used for land registry in the UK. I'd suggest that it would make sense to treat human heights and weights in the same way and remove the sentence about them so that the same logic as land registry as applied to them. It's completely absurd and illogical that the MOS explicitly requires measurements for two kinds of mammal to be given in a different format from every other living thing, so long as it's "in a British context".
	::::I also don't understand why it's such a problem if people choose to discuss this on talk pages, so long as they refrain from editing pages in line with their views without consensus. Shutting down discussion is heavy-handed and unhelpful. If these exchanges offend you so much, you don't need to read them or participate in the discussions. Talk pages are divided into sections for a good reason. ] (]) 22:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:If everybody wants to close the discussion on "all imperial" or "all metric", I suggest everybody answers my question above 'Who supports/opposes closing the discussion on "all imperial" and "all metric" as both rejected?' with an unequivocal '''Support'''.
	:If you mean the whole discussion about UK measurements, I suggest a similar unequivocal '''Support''' in response to my question "Who supports/opposes leaving the current text exactly as it is?"
	:That should give an admin a basis for closure.
	:At this stage, I can't see on what objective basis an admin would close the discussion, but see ].
	:Having a text that is supposed to reflect current usage and is known not to reflect that usage accurately is a recipe for strife.
	:Advocating generous but undefined latitude when applying the guideline but treating violations of a preferred interpretation as disruptive is another recipe for strife.
	:Is anyone interested in an RfC on a draft of a new wording of the relevant part of the guideline with a !vote on about 4 or 5 individual points (such as body weight of sportspeople, problem of the dead link to a possibly obsolete style guide, etc.)? I think the net increase in the length of the text would be about two lines. —] (]) 22:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	*Please, I beg of your soul: stop dragging this out, and prolonging this inane debate. I do not understand why you are proposing anything, or what it is you are proposing to fix. You've not pointed out a problem to fix, that I can see. There is no need for an RfC. There is no need for "proposals" that are obviously dead before they've even been conceived. The one problem which I recognize exists is "geographic distances". However, I feel like the status quo is the best possible situation. Requiring either metric or imperial to be primary in "geographic" circumstances will not sate either side. The best we can do is to leave it as it is. Individual situations can be discussed where appropriate. But a broad guideline isn't going to work, one, for lack of consensus, and two, because the situation is clearly nuanced, and not zero-sum.
	::I don't disagree that metric units are "the future". However, it is not the job of this encyclopedia to decide what "the future" is, before it has happened. That would be taking a point-of-view. As it stands, metric is primary in the UK except for a certain few things, like distances/speeds. There is no doubt about that. No one is doubting metric in most circumstances. But in the few where imperial is used, the encyclopedia should use it. While Archon likes to say that metrication isn't political, and while I wish that were true, the reality is that units have become politicized. Imperial is associated with Little Englanders, and metric with the pro-Europe camp. That's the way it has gone. To favor one over the other is to inadvertently imply a PoV. So, we have no alternative but to try and mimic usage, as hard as that might be. That's all. Please, I beg of you once more: no more absurd proposals, no more trivial debate. ] — ] 22:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I share your ''desire'' not to drag this out, but my feeling is that it is getting dragged out because people don't listen to each other and refuse to just say "support" or "oppose", instead talking about others' motivations and how the present text is the best of all possible texts. I don't know if your comment "I don't disagree that metric units are "the future". . . it is not the job of this encyclopedia to decide what "the future" is, before it has happened. . . . in the few where imperial is used, the encyclopedia should use it." is actually addressed at me. I share this view, but see the problem as being that, as currently formulated, '''it does not do that'''. However, when one editor another tries to apply their interpretation of ''actual'', British usage, they get an answer similar to that. My request for a quick "show of hands" on whether it was worth a try at standardizing on metric was in response to someone who made the valid point that we don't have to try and mimic actual usage and could just choose one. I thought it would take about an hour for half-a-dozen 'votes (probably rejecting it). Foolishly, I did not expect more extended discussions. Why on earth can't people just write "Oppose''' (followed by a couple of words) and click enter?!
	:To your point "You've not pointed out a problem to fix, that I can see." : I thought I had mentioned most of them, but I see the following problems (first without the solutions):
	:#'''The reader is referred to the ''content'' of the ''Times Online'' style guide.''' This is a {{!xt|dead}} link. It is also describes ''journalistic'', not formal, encyclopedic usage. The solution is very simple.
	:# '''The note about retaining existing usage is in a footnote''', where it is easily overlooked. The solution is very simple.
	:# '''The "prescription" of imperial units for speed and fuel consumption is too broad.''' It does not take account of actual usage for rail, air, and water transport.
	:# '''The "prescription" of imperial units of length (miles) is too broad.''' It does not take account of preferred usage of kilometres for some distances. As currently worded it is not even restricted to geographic distances. It is not really clear if it applies to anything ("some contexts" could be everything or nothing.)
	:# '''The "prescription" of imperial units for body statistics is too broad.''' For instance, it does not take sportspeople and some healthcare usage into account.
	:# '''The section does not specify where there is no consensus''' or where editorial judgement should be used, which means that ] is applied or invoked inappropriately and people get upset.
	:In short, if we both agree that "in the few where imperial is used, the encyclopedia should use it", the section needs rewording to reflect that reality.
	:We can't fix the problems if we don't acknowledge them.
	:—] (]) 00:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Alright, now we are getting somewhere. As far as the Times style guide, that is merely a link to the style guide of the UK's newspaper of record. It doesn't mean it needs to be followed, and I don't think it is endorsed as the "definitive" style guide. The simple solution is updating the link with the archived version, or getting a print copy, and adding a caveat saying that it is not "gospel". I agree about the footnote. Include it in on the body, along with the current footnote that these guidelines are GUIDELINES and not "gospel", and can IAR'd in exceptional instances. Of course, this addresses your other concern about "prescription", as none of these guidelines are "prescriptions" but GUIDELINES. There is no reason to specify where there is "no consensus" as consensus changes on a case-by-case basis. I think we should just state that the ] process is preferred, and that discussion should be had at whatever the page it is that is in question, rather than here.
	::Right now, the style guide does what it needs to do. It states that metric is used in most circumstances. It states that some old units are still used for some things, which they are. This is the reality. Trying to get bogged down in specifics here is impossible, as there are an innumerable amount of possible exceptions. Rather than play that game, we need to make it clear that, as I already said, these are GUIDELINES, not hard and fast rules. They can be applied as needed where they are needed, and discussed where they may not fit. This is most intelligent way to do it. As far as nonsense about sportspeople, that is a discussion to be had at the appropriate WikiProjects where people more connected with the field can discuss and decide what to do. I think we need a dispersed and gradual process, not a centralized dogmatic one. That is what matters most to me. ] — ] 00:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::*{{ping|RGloucester}} You said: {{xt|"''it is not the job of this encyclopedia to decide what 'the future' is, before it has happened''"}}. Whilst I would agree with that statement, the underlying assumption is that the MOS should mirror usage in the UK. I've been trying to put forth the idea that ''we don't need to'' mirror usage. In deciding what measurements to put first, we're not deciding on "the future". This is an editorial decision pure and simple, and we can apply Imperial ''or'' metric first at complete variance to any or all publications in the USA, Australia, the UK or anywhere else &ndash; it'll be ''our'' prerogative. So from where I stand, ] is a red herring and doesn't even come into it. Having said that, I'll just accept that "current usage" is identified as "neutral ground" or the battle front between the "imperialists" and "metrifiers", and neither camp wants to cede ground, and thus any perceived deviation will be a violation of "neutrality". So let's archive the discussion as circuitous and unproductive. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 01:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I agree, let's archive it. As far as an "editorial decision", the difference is that there is no one editor of Misplaced Pages to defer to. Everything is based on consensus among many, many editors, rather than the direction of one or few. Given this reality, there is no hope for a policy that accepted metric or imperial solely, as you've stated. If there was an appointed "editor" in the print journalism sense, then he could choose whatever. And perhaps that would be better in a situation like this. There are both advantages and disadvantages to a vaguely non-hierarchical system, as anyone that edits this project knows. But that is neither here nor there. ] — ] 02:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::*I agree that a more prominent (and more explicit) note that these are guidelines (that do not need to be observed to the letter) would go some way to solving some of the problems, but even this requires a consensus to edit the current text. I do not agree with the suggestion to link to the Wayback Machine's archive of an old version of a style guide, Since the relevant content is part of the MoS and we don't need a citation for authority or to credit The Times' intellectual effort, I see no reason for the reference at all and suggest it be removed completely. Since we need to make a change, either way, I think we should discuss the alternatives, preferably in a more structured format. --] (]) 13:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Any such note ''will'' be exploited to an extreme degree by those intent on pushing metrication of the entire project as effectively overriding all of the rest of the advice. As we have seen on literally thousands of articles. This is "can is not must" packaged differently. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	===Current state of discussion===
	It looks to me as if several problems with the existing text have never been properly resolved.
	*Can someone point me to a previous RfC on the issue (preferably advertised with the {{Tlp|RfC|style}} template)?
	*Has any other form of dispute resolution been tried?
	I hope that the following will also help any closing admin assess the situation.
	Based on the above discussion, my understanding of the current position is that
	* many (but not all) participants agree that the proposals "all metric" and "all imperial" are not viable.
	* some participants think the guideline should be based on journalistic usage (in particular the ''Times Online'' style guide); others do not
	* many (but not all) participants agree that the text ''should'' attempt to reflect current usage in Britain.
	* most participants agree that the current text ''does not'' accurately reflect current usage in all respects (without liberal application of ])
	The responses to the last problem seem to be
	* some participants think the text could be left largely unchanged and the problems dealt with by a very liberal interpretation of ], allowing the literal text of the rules to be interpreted differently.
	* some participants see others' liberal interpretation of the guidelines as a violation
	* some participants would like to introduce some reference to sources related to the specific topic (e.g. to account for sportspeople)
	* some participants would like to tweak the guideline to avoid a literal interpretation of the guideline being applied to inappropriate topics (e.g. sportspeople, rail transport statistics, personal height and weight in some healthcare contexts, some physical and economic geography contexts).
	It might be better if the guideline actually stated where there is ''no consensus'', rather than documenting an inaccurate approximation which means that in the unavoidable arguments both sides feel they are in the right. --] (]) 22:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::"No consensus" is probably the most we can do; it's all that these discussions have ever produced. ] (]) 23:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Suggesting that ] is a viable response to a situation that almost never occurs (a genuinely scientific instance of distance, speed, fuel consumption, quantity of draught beer/cider, quantity of bottled milk, personal height or weight, or horse size, that does not come under the rule on nominal or defined units, on a non-scientific UK-related article) is not "a very liberal interpretation of ]". '']'' <small>'']''</small> 06:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	====Proposal on wording====
	First of all I would like to congratulate Boson for his summary of people's varying opinions (above). It is both comprehensive and fair-minded. Archon might be right about agreement, but the present wording is open to the interpretation that we '''must''' do this or that. If we changed the wording to make it clear that it was a guideline, we would get something like this:
	________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
	*In non-science UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units ({{xt|44 kilograms (97 lb)}}) '''particularly for engineering articles. However,''' imperial units '''can be put first''' in some contexts, including:
	**miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon;
	**feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight;
	**imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.
	**hands for horses and most other equines
	_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
	*''This'' wording makes it abundantly clear that although imperial units ''can'' be used, this ''can'' is not a ''must'' .
	*It '''retains''' the current advice about UK usage.
	*It '''removes''' the descriptive wording in the the present advice that is so easily read as being prescriptive.
	*It removes the need for a separate subheading on UK engineering articles.
	*It removes the need for separate advice about sporting teams.
	*It is slightly simpler, shorter and more straightforward than the present wording.
	*It removes a footnote to the text that states that if consensus cannot be reached we defer to the historically stable version. Even if there was an objective way of deciding what a "historically stable version," was, this would still be a recipe for disputation. This footnote gives a veto to those opposed to change and has slipped under the radar because it does not appear in the main text.
	*I believe that this proposal could be an improvement on the present wording. However, if other editors can improve on it, that's even better. ] (]) 02:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: I still see no hint of the general principles that are needed. I agree that specific advice (along these lines) is useful, but the big weakness of this entire section is the absence of the bigger picture of dos and don'ts. ] (]) 06:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Not sure what ''bigger picture'' you were thinking of. Accuracy to source? Consistency of display? Conformity to local custom? All three? What did you have in mind? ] (]) 11:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::: I was referring to my previous remark calling for an up-front statement of general principles like clarity (units should be familiar and unambiguous) and self-consistency (units should be used consistently throughout an article; don’t switch units half way through; don't change the meaning of a unit half-way through once a meaning has been introduced). ] (]) 12:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Much of what you have raised is at the beginning of ] or elsewhere in the policy. ] (]) 12:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: In that case it is well hidden. I do not see it. ] (]) 12:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I put some info on your user page. Hope that helps and that we're not at cross purposes. ] (]) 13:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::'''Strong oppose''' once again, Michael's "can is not must" argument. We know from experience that Michael considers "can is not must" to be an good reason, taken alone, to mass-convert articles according to his POV. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 06:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::The predictable ''ad hominem'' nonsense about things that happened years ago. ] (]) 11:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::If you don't like being called up on having ] such rules in this way, you shouldn't have gamed them in the first place. You have no reasonable right too expect people to pretend that your considerable history in this area has not occurred. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Sure, I documented the footballers' heights where they were not documented before. Some of them were missing. Many of them were wrong. I document them, fixed them when they were wrong, and footnoted them to the information to Premier League and the other codes. Months later, when you screamed blue murder about how terrible it was, I said I would not do it again and I have kept my word. Furthermore, the edits have stayed that way, hundreds and hundreds of them. You said you couldn't be bothered changing them so your two years of inaction speaks even louder than your bellyaching. ] (]) 00:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	::'''Oppose'''. Ordinarily this is the sort of wording that is generally acceptable to editors who inhabit MOS discussions because this avoids instruction creep. However, there seems to be considerable mistrust and a certain amount of ill will which means that the current wording should probably be retained, on balance. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 07:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I am glad that you see the wording that is generally acceptable. Avoiding instruction creep was one of my aims and I am pleased that you saw that. It would be regrettable if acceptable wording was rejected because of personal animosity.] (]) 11:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' - This issue is dragging on and on and on and on with each of these new sub-sections that will produce no consensus for change. Thus I feel the best thing is for everyone to just drop the issue for a specified period of time, say 6 months. It'll come around quick enough, trust me. Also in regards to "If we changed the wording to make it clear that it was a guideline" - all these manual of styles are guidelines regardless of whether it says it is or not, they are only to help guide people to the established Misplaced Pages best practice - ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Sorry that it's dragging on but the present wording leads to disputation because the wording is ambiguous. ''Is used'' is descriptive but some use it as a hard and fast order. My proposal is designed to end this by saying ''can be used''. Then it is obvious that the ''can'' cannot be a ''must''.] (]) 11:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I think your statement ". . . all these manual of styles are guidelines regardless of whether it says it is or not, they are only to help guide people . . ." shows where the problem lies (because in pactice it is ''not true''). MoS guidelines are more than a guide; they are usually treated as being very prescriptive except where they are worded to expressly define the degree of latitude . If the MoS says headings are bolded, footnotes do not come immediately before punctuation, there are no commas in the English date format, and so on, that is not just guidance, and there are bots to fix violations. When there is a choice, the MoS says so, and has rules about applying the choices (e.g. ], ],etc. Guidelines sometimes say explicitly "there is no consensus . . ." or use words like "generally". However it is formulated, where there is not one fixed rule, either the choices are described or the latitude is defined. If someone repeatedly edits in contravention of the MoS and reverts bots and other editors when corrected, they will generally experience problems, articles will have problems getting to FA status, etc. --] (]) 13:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}You missed the point. Oh well, let the carousel continue. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''', wholeheartedly. Not only does this modify the engineering exception we already agreed to, but it also follows a "can not must" logic. It is quite clear that this will be used to remove imperial wholesale, and anyone that doesn't see that hasn't been paying attention. Here is what we need to do.
	::We should say something like the following:
	______________________
	*In non-science and non-engineering UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units (44 kilograms (97 lb)). Imperial units, however, are generally made primary in these excepted contexts:
	**] for distance, ] for speed, and ] for fuel consumption;
	**] and ] for personal height and ] and ] for personal weight;
	**] for draught beer and cider, as well as for bottled milk;
	**] for horses and most other equines.
	*However, in some instances, there may be disagreement about what unit to use in a specific circumstance. Some editors hold strong views for or against metrication in the UK. If there is disagreement about the primary units used in a UK-related article, discuss the matter on the article talk-page, and at the appropriate WikiProject talk-pages. If consensus cannot be reached, refer to historically stable versions of the article and retain the units used in these as the main units.
	______________________
	:::This merely moves a current footnote into the body, and specifies "generally", rather than "specifically". ] — ] 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::This wording still raises the problem of geographic articles - length of a specified piece of land in miles, area in square kilometres and altitudes in metres? The article will look a right mess. Of course if we differentiate between the words "length" and "distance" - my Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "distance as "extent of space between", and "length" as "measurement from end to end", or in simple language, a "distance" is a measure of the void between two objects and a "length" is a measure of the matter that comprises an object. That is why we need to be more specific. ] (]) 16:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I think you're manufacturing between distinctions that don't exist in usage again. The river is 50 kilometres long, of which the last 10 miles is navigable. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::No, it isn't. You will notice my mention of WikiProjects. I believe we need to devolve this discussion to places that have more specialist knowledge. Discussion here should be about the style guide specifically. The problem is that discussion here attracts people who often have little knowledge of specialist applications, but are more interested in the units themselves. By devolving power from the MoS to the WikiProjects, one is more likely to find people with interest in the field. So, for example, I propose that discussion on geography be had at the reasonably active WikiProject known as ]. There, it can be decided how to deal with geographic articles on a pragmatic basis, rather than on the "straitjacket" that most people seem to dislike. This seems more appropriate than dogmatically handing down dictates from the MoS. ] — ] 16:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I think that is a very good suggestion as a way forward. I would like to see what others have to say before firmly supporting it, but I think it is at least a much better basis than the current text and has a reasonable chance of gaining consensus. --] (]) 16:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::It is good in theory, but in practice the final text should be here because this is where people from any project expect to find the information. What happens if an article is supported by two different project groups who have conflicting styles. If the definitve text is here, editors from either party know where to look otherwise, if I am editing an article, I needs to check all the projects that support the article. That was the underlying reason for the consolidation of such pages into the WP:MOS structure. (For example, I don't really care if the city in Ireland is called Derry or Londonderry, but some editors have strong views about the matter. I know that if I start my search at ], follow the link for "Regional topics" which will take me ]. In short, we need to involve the ] group and let them point us in the direction that should be taken (possibly a RFC on their page regarding this page). ] (]) 16:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Prolonging this already-seemingly-interminable discussion does nobody any favours - which is partly why I haven't come up with a suggestion of my own. The best thing we can do for everyone is close this down. The fact that a couple of editors like the metric system is not a good reason for this whole thing to be renegotiated on an annual basis, and at this rate we're doing it much more frequently than that. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I agree that we need to close this down. However, I'm trying to make it harder for this to happen again. Martin, I agree with you. But I propose that we implement what I've written, and, in the meantime, you consort with UKGEO on what they think is appropriate. After that has been determined we can implement it here if it is approved by consensus. How does that sound? ] — ] 17:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I agree and '''support''' implementation of ]'s proposal. Then we can wrap up this discussion. It is still not perfect, so I do not support a moratorium. It would be perfectly in order to raise concerns ''at a later date'' - for instance after consulting with appropriate projects, and this should be seen as constructive. --] (]) 18:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::And I don't. The idea that this is going to "make it harder for this to happen again" is a triumph of hope over nearly half a decade of experience. I know - I thought the same when the status quo came up. The editors did not stop - if anything the frequency with those same editors brought up the same subject actually ''increased''.
	::::The proposal appears to be a repackaging of "can is not must". It's a little bit stronger, but not strong enough when we have editors who are quite happy to mass-convert thousands of articles ''against'' the guideline and then claim that it's OK because there wasn't an individual objection on every single article. I do not support it, and remain very far from convinced that the fact that two editors have not been able to ] at any stage in the last five years is a good reason to change this guideline. It ain't broke, and we don't need to fix it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I am not happy about the wording "Imperial units, however, are generally made primary in these excepted contexts ... feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight". These units are important in biographies of sportsmen, but are otherwise not very important. When discussing the height and weight of sportsmen it makes sense to follow the convention of the sport concerned, particularly in the ] where weight categories exist. In other sports, such as ], it is makes sense to use kilograms for the weights of players. particularly those in the scrum - adding eight weights in kilograms is a lot easier than adding eight weights in stones and pounds. This is a good reason not to use the word "generally". Ideally this section should be revisited on its own at a later date, preferably in conjunction with the Wiki-projects affected. I therefore suggest leaving the wording as it is - we know that it is defective, but lets concentrate on removing as much as we can from the "Other artciles" before we play with the wording. ] (]) 20:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I feel like giving up. Maybe Kahastok is right. ] — ] 20:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I think we must recognize that compromise is necessary. This is not a zero-sum game, as I said.
	:::As far as your concerns Kahastok, I am really not changing the body of want currently exists. That footnote is already there. It was only modified in a minor way. It merely makes it clearer how to deal with these guidelines. In no way is it a repackaging of "can not must", which I oppose. It just makes it clear that leeway exists, as it does now, with certain circumstances. That doesn't mean that people will be able to metricate an article that would otherwise have units expressed in imperial without good reason and justification.
	:::As far as you, Martin, I think you are not getting the matter of the thing. First of all, heights and weights are commonly expressed in imperial, which I'm sure you are aware. For example, today mentions "three stone" with no qualification. That is true. In specific contexts, there may be an exception. That can be discussed, just like with geography. Go to the relevant WikiProject, discuss what they think is appropriate. If they vote to have those weights expressed in metric or imperial, bring it back here and we can decide whether to include it here. What is more important, Martin, though, is that we don't get bogged down in very petty details. We cannot make a rule for every particular instance. It isn't possible. Some, if not many, articles will have to be dealt with pragmatically.
	:::Let me state my feelings here. I only got dragged into this mess, that I otherwise would not care for at all, because I working on getting ] to GA status. Luckily, it achieved that. However, on the way, people were concerned about the use fractional imperial units for a system that was drawn-up in metric. I listened, and was willing to compromise, which led to me thinking up the engineering exception. I think that some of us here, as well, must be willing to compromise. Otherwise, this will never end. ] — ] 22:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''Comment:''' I find it bizarre that a newspaper style guide is being touted as a consensus position when it, in its own right, is the subject of not a little controversy. I am not persuaded that the style of an encyclopedia can sensibly be modeled on the style of a newspaper. As for "common use", it is hardly the goal of Misplaced Pages to sound like a "bloke down the pub". We don't insist on filling articles on China with Chinese customary measures just to be more true to the units that Chinese people might use colloquially, nor does it cause much consternation that the ] article is horribly anachronistic in the units it uses.
	:Another major irritation of the ubiquitous "miles" is that editors often don't bother to specify whether they mean nautical or statute miles in contexts where such confusion is easy (i.e. air and sea), resulting in horribly confused articles such as ] with figures like "103 miles" being bandied around, and variously converted to kilometres depending on whether it's understood to be in nautical or statute miles. ] (]) 23:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	::You really are trying to beat me down, aren't you? I've shown that I'm reasonable, to the point that I helped institute an engineering exception as a result of our discussion at Edinburgh Trams. Your examples have nothing to do with what we are talking about. And as far as a "bloke down the pub", I think you should take the spirit of ] into account. While it does not directly apply here, it emphasizes that Misplaced Pages does not try to be official or formal for the sake of it, but instead tries to be comprehensible to the average reader. ] — ] 23:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Sorry, I wasn't having a go at you (or anyone) in particular. My comment was meant to stand on its own: I see the attempt to settle this debate by invoking the Times Style Guide as an exercise in clutching at straws, but then maybe it's the best straw there is. ] (]) 00:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	::: RGloucester, I think your wording is, on balance, a move in the right direction. I urge you not to give up just yet. Some will oppose any change, there is nothing you can do about it. However, I have two positive suggestions that I hope you will consider:
	:::*It is wrong to impose imperial heights and weights as primary measures on sporting codes that primarily use metrics. This obviously applies to weightlifting but it also applies to the various football codes. I suggest adding a footnote like this: '''For sporting team profiles, follow the usage of the national bodies of the relevant sport where appropriate. Include conversions other units, whether Imperial or metric.''' Note the ''where appropriate.'' Some wiggle room is necessary.
	:::*The footnote you put in the text is contentious because it gives the power of veto to those who oppose change. I advise you to leave it where it is. We can always come back and discuss it later.
	:::With those two changes I would '''support''' your suggested amendment. ] (]) 00:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	*It doesn't give a veto to those who oppose ''justified'' change, only change for change's sake. It is already there, and as a footnote it has no less meaning. Merely that some people may not see it. It belongs in the body, where people can see it. As far as sporting bodies, I am willing to consider such an exception. I'd like, however, to see what sporting bodies say on the matter before implementing it. Would someone care to provide a bit of research? ] — ] 01:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Yes. In the interest of coming to some agreement I'll withdraw my request to keep that paragraph as a footnote. I'd be happy to write to the sporting codes, if that would help (or not, if that would help more! Please advise.) .] (]) 10:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Whilst this ought not to be a zero-sum game, the way this entire debate has been playing out tells me that the "two sides" perceive it to be zero-sum &ndash; if the "metrifiers" win, we the "imperials" lose, and vice versa. I would strongly contend readers' needs ought to be put first. Unfortunately, their needs are being ignored at worst or made subservient to those of editors' whims and desires at best. Both sides are dug deep in their ]. The reader is losing out in this débâcle, making the end game a negative (or lose-lose) situation.<p>Nobody has been able to state the concrete benefits of using "'either metric or imperial' for bridges and tunnels and imperial units for road distances and speeds" other than the rule artificially keeps the peace. Has anyone thought about how utterly ludicrous it is to administer such a dichotomous rule within one subject category that is the roadways, and confusing readers &ndash; I mean, where the fuck does a bridge or tunnel start and a road end? That rule should be removed. Classic case of too many cooks spoil the broth. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 01:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	::It is pretty ludicrous, from a purely practical standpoint, that imperial has survived at all, or that this patchwork system is maintained. The reality is that that is the way it is. ] — ] 01:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Most readers of en.wp aren't British. They will neither know nor care about the debate raging within the UK; the "delicate" current balance there ''vis à vis'' units of measure is utterly irrelevant to them. What they will be ] and puzzled by is the patchwork of measures used in UK articles, with apparently little industrial logic, that is not replicated anywhere else. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 02:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	::No moreso surprised than when they find the spelling "centre" for "center" or the grammatical form "Edinburgh Council ''have'' opened an inquiry into…", or "goods wagon" for "boxcar". That's the way ] goes. I agree that in an ideal situation, the English Misplaced Pages would develop a system similar to the Chinese one, whereby there is a toggle option that gives on either traditional or simplified characters. We could have, a toggle option that did various national English varieties. However, we do not have this. Nor will ever, judging by how people feel on this issue. Dealing with the situation that we have, there is no solution viable other than what we have. ] — ] 02:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::@RGloucester: You wrote "As far as you, Martin, I think you are not getting the matter of the thing. First of all, heights and weights are commonly expressed in imperial, which I'm sure you are aware." I agree that ] and the like use imperial units, but if you go to the local gym or to the army, you will find that kilograms are widely used - people are concerned about the weight they are carrying or pulling as a fraction (or multiple) of their own body weight. Likewise, in the medical profession, heights and weights are recorded using metric units. In other words people who actually use their weights for onwards calculations use metric units, those who merely listen to what the advertisers say are happy with imperial units. Like I said, it is a mess and sorting out this mess is outside Misplaced Pages's remit. All that we can do is to tweak things for editorial consistency, ideally at a category by category basis which is why I object to tightening the rules on a Misplaced Pages-wide basis. ] (]) 05:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::The reality is that how weight/height are (primarily) expressed depends heavily on context, as Martin points out. Many sports lean heavily towards metric, as does medicine. It's common for such fundamentalist metricationists as the BBC to give e.g. rugby players' heights and weights in metres and kg '''only''', which is far more radically pro-metric than anything that anyone here is suggesting.
	:::The reason for the road/bridge/tunnel rule is that UK civil engineering also uses the much-dreaded SI units, and it made no sense to "censor" this fact by putting imperial first in this context, so it was very anachronistic for these articles to prefer imperial to metric (or can we not metricate the relevant Misplaced Pages articles even after there has been metrication in the real world? What kind of double standard is that?) ] (]) 09:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::When have you ever heard Gary Lineker, Sue Barker or John Inverdale give a player's dimensions in metric units? I don't believe I ever have. Not even in conversions - it's always in imperial only. The BBC are far from "fundamentalist metricationists". The reason we don't look to their standard is that so far as we know they don't have one. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::My view is that an encyclopedia should strive to follow the rules for written content/usage, not the conventions of spoken languange (which is obviously much less formal). In any case, my own favorite sport is skiing, which is, mercifully, quite consistently metric :) Of course I know that the BBC are not "fundamentalist metricationists"; I was being facetious. Nonetheless, they still refrain from caving in to the Daily Mail mentality and banishing the "foreign" metres and kilograms in favor of imperial, at least in written format. Entering the name of a sports personality into the UK version of Google will return their dimensions in metric-only, so my point is that this is hardly something that the average British person will be completely unused to seeing. ] (]) 19:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::It is still BBC usage. I note that it's actually not difficult to find BBC using imperial units even for measures defined in metric - and yet it's been argued before that the fact that an article uses metric for a distance somewhere means that the BBC is entirely metric. In general, this evidence is irrelevant. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I'm also aware that it depends on context, that is true. But, as the revised guideline states, "generally", as it always specified in the footnote. If, as Michael Glass has proposed, we follow sporting bodies in the UK on this matter, that might work. I hope that he provides research of what these bodies do in terms of units (that's the go ahead, MG). "Sporting bodies" being defined as the bodies that regulate a given sport in the UK. ] — ] 13:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::FWIW, we should be clear that any evidence should be sources actually discussing usage, not instances of usage. Michael often comes up with instances of usage in these discussions, and infers that they are typical without further evidence. I've known Michael cite in the past the fact that a particular page of the website of the ] uses metric units as solid proof that the Royal Family only use metric measures. In an article. This is not sufficient. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::And what is "usage" other than the ensemble of "instances of usage"? The overwhelming majority of British entities and people don't follow any kind of set script or a priori logic in determining what units they'll use, so the entire idea of a centralized Style Guide acting as a set of commandments to dictate usage is extremely artificial. ] (]) 19:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::I have frequently seen Michael use the argument that, because a single page that is not on the subject of units of measure happens to use a given unit first, that means that the entire organisation has adopted a formal policy of preferring that unit. Being Michael, it is always a metric unit (because he chooses his sources for the units they use). This is the danger here.
	::::We cannot infer that a style guide exists, and if it exists what its contents are, simply from the fact that someone chose to use a given unit on a single or even multiple pages. We need a source that actually describes usage, not one that merely uses measurements. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I agree with what you've said. I merely want to see what turns up. I have a discerning eye. ] — ] 21:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
	== Spelling ==
	I've noticed that the words metre/meter and kilometre/kilometer are spelt both ways in the policy. Should we make the spelling consistent or let sleeping dogs lie? ] (]) 15:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
	:The find function reveals the following:
	:*metre, 12 matches; meter, 5 matches
	:*kilometre, 4 matches; kilometer 1 match ] (]) 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
	:*favour 1 match
	As "consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise" I propose to change the other spellings to ''metre'' and ''kilometre.'' Please let me know if this raises any concern. ] (]) 07:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
	:I'm pretty sure AmEng was the traditional variety for MOSNUM. -re might have crept in. I do think it should be regularised to -er. A note about the different spellings would be in order at the top of the units section, yes? ] ] 08:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
	::I checked the earliest versions of MOSNUM - the American spelling "meter" was used. However care should be taken in making a blanket conversion to US spelling-
	::*The text "{{xt|the Murray River is {{convert|2375|km|mi|0}} long}}" should remain as it is because it is an Australian example
	::*The text "{{xt|the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000&nbsp;mi) from Earth}}" should use the spelling of the article and if it is agreed that the default spelling should be American, then this item should be changed.
	::However before making any changes, lets see what the consensus is and once that consensus has been reached, write it to the Talk Page and, as suggested by Tony, a note at the top of the page. For my part, I am not going to oppose this page using US spelling as the default, but I am not going to do any of the work of the conversion. ] (]) 09:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
	I have no problem in principle if we regularise the spelling one way or the other. However, Martin has pointed out one case where there would be a break in style if we regularise on US spellings. I know that the manual of style uses mainly US spellings and I don't see any harm in MOS having US spellings and MOSNUM with the alternative. In fact it would demonstrate that Misplaced Pages does not take sides in matters of spelling. I think we need to get consensus before making a change. If consensus cannot be reached, then I guess we would have to let sleeping dogs lie. ] (]) 09:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
	:"{{xt|the Murray River is {{convert|2375|km|mi|0}} long}}"—I'd choose another example if it grates. But the clause could come from an article written in AmEng on river lengths worldwide. ] ] 09:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
	:This guide covers an encyclopedia that accepts various national varieties of English on an article-by-article basis. So we could decide upon American or British spelling. But even if we did, any example, even a made-up example, could be imagined as an example from an American English article, or a British English article. So if we decide on a variety of English for this article, I think we should leave all examples as they are. ] (]) 09:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
	::The idea that this guideline should be "consistent" in its selection of ENGVAR seems to hinge on viewing it as an "article", which it clearly is not. There might be an case for explicitly noting which ENGVAR is illustrated in each example used. I notice also that ] indicates that both variants are supported by that template. ] <small>]</small> 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
	:::Murray River ... rethink ... it's a quote, isn't it. So there's no need for it to be in any other variety than AusEng. ] ] 14:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
	As far as I can see, there appears to be no consensus on what to do about the inconsistency in spelling I've pointed out. I've suggested British spelling, two others have suggested American spelling, one has said that the examples of usage can use any spelling and one has argued that the policy on consistency doesn't apply as this isn't an article. (I think that was the intended meaning.) At this point I'm not sure what to do. I don't feel that it's appropriate to leave the article as it is but I certainly don't feel that if I regularised it to either British or American spelling that this would satisfy all. Perhaps someone else could come up with a proposal that might gain support. ] (]) 02:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
	I think the body text should be consistent with the rest of the MoS, but I‘d just as soon leave the heterogenous examples; for one thing, they serve as a reminder that the guidance is applicable to both/all varieties of English.—]]] 07:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
	:That sounds like an opinion in support of applying American spelling. Is that right? ] (]) 12:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Yes concerning the body text, presuming that’s normal for MoS pages in general <small>and despite my personal preference</small>; not necessarily in examples, especially if they’re drawn from Br/Can/AusE articles, as if they were quotations; No in the table where SI unit names are presented in both international and US spellings.—]]] 01:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
	===Revised proposal===
	In the light of the discussion above, would it be acceptable to regularise MOSNUM to American spellings (except for examples of other usage) or would editors prefer leaving the spelling as it is (a mixture of spellings, predominantly non-US)? ] (]) 03:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	:It's not worth the trouble to have and enforce a dialect guideline/policy for the page. Maybe it would work if there was a guideline/policy for all MOS pages, but I'm certain that proposing such a guideline wouldn't go over especially well in the wider community. Besides, particularly with respect to metre/meter & litre/liter, American usage is deviant compared to everywhere else, in English and in general. That's probably the worst instance from which to craft a general rule. <font style="font-family:Constantia" size="3" color="#0077bb">]</font> 04:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Leave it be. ] — ] 12:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
	== YYYY-MM-DD (ISO 8601) in All Scopes ==
	I'd like to suggest allowing this date format in all scopes, rather than limiting it to "references, tables, lists or areas where conciseness is needed."
	* It's arguably the most unambiguous format (by virtue of starting with the year, it can't be misread as "American" MM-DD-YYYY when it's actually "European" DD-MM-YYYY, or vice versa).
	* Its big-endian format mirrors decimal numbering.
	* Its worldwide adoption keeps increasing, thanks perhaps to its use by computers, the military, and the ISO.
	I'm not suggesting it be listed as preferred, only as acceptable. Thank you. ] (]) 01:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
	:There has been no end of discussion on the matter. Please check talk archives. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 02:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
	:When Startswithj wrote "'American' MM-DD-YYYY when it's actually 'European' DD-MM-YYYY" I wonder if the editor meant all numeric dates, for example, 9-5-2013 or 5-9-2013. If so, these are already forbidden, so the reason for the change does not exist. ] (]) 04:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Can you give some examples of adoption increasing? I'd love to see it happen, as I'm a big supporter&nbsp;– I just haven't seen any increase in usage. <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 07:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
	::: MusicBrainz use YYYY-MM-DD see (top right in desktop mode) . <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
	:The simplest reasons to avoid ISO dates in running prose is that it breaks the reading process with an unnatural format. I realize not everyone reads "verbally", but even having the ISO date requires one to pause to flip around. There are times where dates are being presented inter-sentence as data, but more often than not, dates as process lead off a sentence ("On January 1, 2013, this happened...") or used in other adverb-like phrasing, and there just make the ISO inclusion needlessly complicating the sentence. Hence why preferable to avoid the format in running process. --] (]) 13:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
	::I wouldn't disagree that the majority of English speakers read and speak dates primarily as either "on January one, twenty thirteen" or "on one January twenty thirteen" (perhaps swap "first" for "one," and/or add "the" and/or "of" around the day). But I have heard (and I personally read and speak) "on twenty thirteen January one" (or "…first"). Being US-born, the little-endian model gives the slightest pause to my reading…and being a traveler and sometime programmer, the middle-endian ("American") model gives the slightest confusion to my comprehension.
	::I realize no single person's preference nor any anecdote counts for much, and we can't serve every reader perfectly. The manual does say "acceptable" however, not "preferable." ] (]) 18:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
	::*Too much choice is dangerous. It's like the proverbial genie. Let it out of the bottle, and although most people will not use it, it will end up running our lives. Once it's made optional, it's one more format to manage and maintain. There will always be those who insist it is '']'' on articles they work on. Then will begin the edit warring and never-ending jostling for the validity of the format. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 18:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::The problem with this argument is that it ends up with "only those choices preferred by ". However, I do agree that the best compromise is the current one: allow its use in tables and "bare" lists but not in running text. However, this is a compromise that needs to be respected by both "sides" (am I ever hopeful!). ] (]) 08:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::May I add URL access-dates to that list. Using YYYY-MM-DD consistently in an article allows the reader to quickly differentiate between access-dates and publication dates. ] (]) 11:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Being a proponent of YMD everywhere, I for one obviously would not object to what I think you propose. ] (]) 01:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::It's not a natural format for most English speakers. I'd rather it not be used at all on WP. ] 10:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
	:Being a proponent of the ISO 8601 format as well, I would, of course, support a change to allow the yyyy-mm-dd format everywhere. However, previous discussions have shown that some people are attempting to overturn even the long established consensus which allows the yyyy-mm-dd format to be used in lists, tables and references. I don't think it would be a good idea trying to defeat one extreme position by another, therefore I think the current consensus to allow the yyyy-mm-dd format in list, tables and references, but not in prose (except for if the article must use this format for some reason), is a good and working consensus. The number of people accustomed to ISO 8601 is constantly increasing, and there will be no turning back the more we get interconnected, so, in the long run the English Misplaced Pages will have to allow the yyyy-mm-dd format in prose as well for simple reasons of practicability, but apparently it is still too early for this to happen now. I think, it will happen naturally and noone will have reasons to object any more in a couple of years, so there is no reason to push it, IMHO. --] (]) 12:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
	== YYYY-MMM-DD Format ==
	I'd like to suggest adding year-month-day format—with the month spelled as its three-letter abbreviation—to the list of acceptable, non-prose usages. This option has an advantage of being even less ambiguous than using numbers for months. It also aligns well if listing dates, due to the uniform length of abbreviations and digits. Its listing might also prevent a confusion I myself had earlier in the conversation above.
	Cursorily I can point to:
	* ]'s listing of the YYYY-MMM-D format and its partial use in Canada and Eastern Asia.
	* A paper by Dr Markus Kuhn of Cambridge (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html) citing partial usage in Eastern Asia and Northern Europe.
	* A paper by Ian Galpin of MIT (http://web.mit.edu/jmorzins/www/iso8601/y2kiso.htm) citing usage by astronomers and occasionally other scientists.
	Thank you, ] (]) 23:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I do not support additional formats for dates that are not part of citations; we have enough, and the ones we have are the most natural for English-speaking people.
	:However, ] allows one to follow printed style guides, several of which are named. Some of these call for other date formats in particular situations, including ]'s endorsement of "2013, September 7" for publication date; I am unaware of any citation style guide that would call for the format suggested by Startswithj. I believe following established style guides should be allowed to facilitate the use of citation management software that supports these styles. ( trying to determine whether date format in citations is controlled by ] or ] was inconclusive.) ] (]) 23:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Such a format would be very rare in Canada. East Asia is irrelevant. I would not support allowing this format. ] 10:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
	== Falklands units ==
	Kindly take note that there is currently a discussion at ]. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 09:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:There is a similar discussion on ]. ] (]) 13:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	== kB (or kbit/s) or KB is not ambigious ==
	{{rfc|style|sci|rfcid=BBCE8D6}}
	For purposes of writing English Misplaced Pages articles, does ambiguity exist about whether kB means 1000 bytes and KB means 1024&nbsp;bytes? 16:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	See recent revert of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AManual_of_Style%2FDates_and_numbers&diff=573344515&oldid=573336953
	"BINARY PREFIXES ARE CONTROVERSIAL; I DEMAND RFC BEFORE THIS IS CHANGED"
	I think I'm following protocol, not sure if there is another one for WP namespace. If he means RFC=Request for Comments then feel free to share your opinion. If people take a deep breath and read the section as I changed it, and ] and maybe the discussion on my talk-page:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Comp.arch#kB_vs_KB
	They will see that it is a good change. I know ] is ambigious and ], but written down, just as kbit/s = 1,000&nbsp;b/s, and KB = 1024&nbsp;B and the recent change to decimal kilobytes mandated kB=1000&nbsp;B. The binary prefixes are only "controversial" for MB and up. ] (]) 16:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I consider kB and KB to be ambiguous because the main standard that serious, academically-oriented organizations refer to, ], has not been widely accepted by the popular media, popular software, or manufacturers. Thus there is a vacuum for authoritative statements on this matter.
	:Also, when statements are made concerning disk files, sometimes base 10 is used and other times binary-related sizes are used, making it hard to tell from context which is intended.
	:I have not found a quality source that has performed a survey of current use of these terms and can make a definite statement about how these terms are generally used. I must say I discount all positive statements made by editors who have not provided impressive sources to back them up. Measurements are fraught with ambiguity. ] (]) 17:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::Considering kB to be ambiguous is rather contrived, but KB most definitely is ambiguous. So changing kB to KB where 1024 B is meant seems justified, but changing the MOS as proposed is not. &minus;] (]) 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::I didn't use a '''should''' and mentioned "They are however sometimes mixed up but need not be." But if I '''know''' 1000 bytes is meant or 1024 bytes is meant, what ''should'' I you do? I see nothing wrong with pointing people to ''kB'' and ''KB'' (or ''KiB'', it's just not recommented) - if they are not ambigious, as I thought. I think all OSs have changed to ''kB'' and decimal now (or use ''KB'' for binary). No one officially mixes this up right? ] (]) 17:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::k/K is ambiguous. Enough said.<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 19:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::::See, ], I and ] (thanks) recently edited it, and I tried to make it clear that people mix it up (especially when it '''always meant''' KB (1024), but just as people mix up mHz and MHz and are wrong, we should not say that it is ambigious when people are just wrong (and the JEDEC standard and IEC never use k with binary or K with decimal). ] should use a should in my opinion, but I didn't even dare to go there only not mislead people into thinking they are ambigious, see the edit. ] (]) 22:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	::"statements are made concerning disk files", I don't worry to much about accuracy there. I just hate seeing ''kB'' in hardware context, such as ] sizes. It is just wrong there and nothing wrong with using ''kB'' only in decimal context. ] (]) 22:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	: At present, the MOS explicitly recommends to use a capital "K" prefix for binary units (1024), as this is what is meant most of the time when someone writes "KB" (probably because this is what is typically used in operating system messages dealing with memory or file sizes rather than speeds). It is also standardized in JEDEC. (Alternatively, the IEC "Ki" prefix can be used for binary units, but since this form is not widely used outside sciences we allow it only in certain rather specific scenarios as detailed in the MOS.) So far, so good.
	: What is still missing - and we should therefore add it - is the opposite recommendation to use a lower-case "k" prefix when the decimal unit (1000) is meant. While this won't solve the potential ambiguity and we cannot enforce it, it would at least provide some guidance to editors running into the problem and having to make a decision. They may implicitly make this decision already given that we recommend a capital "K" for 1024, but I think it would be better, if we'd recommend it explicitly.
	: In the long run, this would help reduce the number of occurances where "kB" was used for binary units and "KB" for decimal units and the correct type cannot be determined out of the context of the article.
	: Such a recommendation wouldn't help the case for "M", "G", "T" etc (unless we would allow the IEC prefixes to be used for binary units more often), but since it wouldn't introduce any new inconsistencies either, let's at least improve the situation for "k"/"K" somewhat.
	: --] (]) 20:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:: I am not advocationg changing anything about the other SI prefixes (binary prefixes in general), and agree to everything you say. I'm not sure what to do there or recommend. Maybe this is just a lost cause and I should not correct kB->KB where I think appropriate. People have reverted (or commented) and pointed to COMPUNITS. ] (]) 22:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::The MOS currently states:
	::::<blockquote>
	::::''''
	::::''Follow these recommendations when using these prefixes in Misplaced Pages articles:''
	::::*'' Specify if the binary or decimal meanings of K, M, G, etc. are intended as the primary meaning. Consistency within each article is desirable, but the need for consistency may be balanced with other considerations.''
	::::''''
	::::* ''A capital K can be used for "kilo-" when it means 1024 in computing contexts.''
	::::''''
	::::</blockquote>
	:::What, if we make this the first item in the list and change it as follows:
	::::<blockquote>
	::::''''
	::::''Follow these recommendations when using these prefixes in Misplaced Pages articles:''
	::::* '' '''Following the SI standard, a lower-case k should be used for "kilo-" whenever it means 1000 in computing contexts, whereas a capital K should be used instead to indicate the binary prefix for 1024 according to JEDEC. (If, under the exceptions detailed further below, the article otherwise uses IEC prefixes for binary units, use Ki instead).''' ''
	::::* '' '''Do not assume that the binary or decimal meaning of prefixes will be obvious to everyone, therefore explicitly specify the meaning of k and K as well as the primary meaning of M, G, etc. in an article.''' Consistency within each article is desirable, but the need for consistency may be balanced with other considerations.''
	::::''''
	::::</blockquote>
	::: --] (]) 23:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
	:::: I think I can live with this suggestion since the MoS is supposed to be "best practices" but I think we all know that "therefore explicitly specify the meaning of k and K as well".. will not be followed be people, however I see no good solution. In articles like ] and similar I see ''KB'' signaling binary kilobyte (the kibibyte) and I even liked to kibibyte and not kilobyte. See edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Apple_A7&diff=574076414&oldid=574041777 I linked MB to Mebibyte (and similar for GB) also to signify that I do not mean 1,000,000 bytes. Maybe you view these links as fulfilling the MoS guidelines. For people in the know they already know that binary must be intended in this context anyway but for others they can click ''KB'' if they find it peculiar that ''kB'' is not used.. This is the first time I'm involved in (MoS) vote. Should it happen soon? The discussion seems to have died. ] (]) 18:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	::::: Since this is just a minor refinement or clarification of what was already stated in the MOS implicitly and it does not negate anything previously stated there (and therefore it won't have any huge impact on existing articles, hopefully just give slightly better directions for future edits), I just edited it accordingly. Nothing is hammered in stone, and if someone objects, we'll further refine it, seeking for the best-most possible solution as we always do. --] (]) 21:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
	'''* Comment''' Some things justify a fixed standard only on the principle of "voteffer iss not specifically permitted iss verboten; voteffer is specifically permitted iss compulsory." A healthy dose of common sense commonly proves fatal to uninured constitutions. There decidedly ''should be no'' standard here:
	* partly because there is no universal standard,
	* partly because if there were such a standard and it were widely observed it would be confusing and a source of error,
	* partly because it hardly ever makes a material difference in everyday usage (error of less than one part in 40, too little to matter in typical calculations of disk space etc), and
	*partly because in the rare circumstances where it '''''does''''' matter, its justification would require that it must matter enough to justify explicitly and conspicuously '''''stating''''' the convention being observed, as well as its application. If it does not matter even that much, it is decidedly better not to waste reader time and bandwidth on such trivialities.
	:The whole thing in any case is not worth MoS wars on such pseudoconcerns. Any sane standard would require that if omission of an explicit standard is practical, it should be omitted accordingly, and that where in exceptional cases some explicit convention proves desirable, the convention be stated in context. ] (]) 12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' It will always technically be ambiguous, and that's ok. People understand what is needed from context. If I send someone out to get "4 gig of parity memory for a PC", they come back with memory totaling 2<sup>32</sup> × 9 bits. If I'm getting "33.75 Mbps download speed on my internet connection", it means I'm receiving at a rate of 33,750,000 bits (4,218,750 bytes) per second. If I order "a key of sugar" for a baking party, I'll be expecting a 1000&nbsp;g brick. If you happen to want, specifically, the disk drive with a capacity of 40,000,000,000 bytes, and not the one that's 10 × 2<sup>32</sup> bytes (for some reason), then you had better spell that out, and not rely on ''anyone'' to interpret the nuance of letter-case or strange new prefix names.
	I tried to find the date of this "K for 1024" JEDEC standard and was unable to, but I know that the only prefix near 1000 when I went to school 30 years ago was emphatically lower-case "k". The only place it meant 1024 was in the computer realm, when speaking of memory and disk space. An upper-case K attracted the more nit-picky instructor's red pen. In practice, when I've seen someone write KB instead of kB (or even Kb or kb in a context where bits don't make sense), I just assume it's a mistake, not an attempt to mean KiB. Until/unless a whole generation of students is taught and uses the K=1024 standard (and figures out what to do with the more important M, G, and T), it's hard to imagine it will be widespread enough to be unambiguous. <font color="red">—&#91;</font>](])<font color="red">&#93;—</font> 23:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
	== Problematic binary prefix paragraph ==
	While editing ] user Comp.arch has misinterpreted this paragraph:
	<blockquote>Misplaced Pages follows common practice regarding ]s and other data traditionally quantified using ]es (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 2<sup>20</sup> and 2<sup>10</sup> respectively) and their unit symbols (e.g. MB and KB). Despite the IEC's 1998 guideline creating several new binary prefixes (e.g. mebi-, kibi-) to distinguish the meaning of the decimal ]es (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 10<sup>6</sup> and 10<sup>3</sup> respectively) from the binary ones, consensus on Misplaced Pages currently favours the retention of the binary prefixes in computing-related contexts. Use {{xt|256&nbsp;MB of RAM}}, not {{!xt|256&nbsp;MiB of RAM}}.</blockquote>
	It's no wonder the paragraph was misunderstood; it's a long-winded way of saying we don't normally use the IEC symbols such as "Mi". But the paragraph can be read to mean that when combined with byte or bit, kilo- and mega- always have their binary meaning and never have their decimal meaning, which is just wrong. ] (]) 13:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
	:What I actually put in ] (that you reverted along with more that I hadn't put in):
	<blockquote>Misplaced Pages standard uses ''kilobyte'' to mean ''KB'' = 1024 bytes unless 'kB' or 'KB', or other method is used is used to state intended meaning.<ref>]</ref> It also recommends ''kilobyte'' over ''kibibyte''.</blockquote>
	:I'm referring to the Misplaced Pages standard and although not usually a reliable source, isn't it reliable as it's own guidelines? Anyway I can say this in Kilobyte article without getting reverted, for citing Misplaced Pages or for not citing anything? ] (]) 09:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
	::The word "kilobyte" might mean 1000 bytes, or 1024 bytes. If the former, the usual symbol is kB; if the latter, the usual symbol is KB. I don't think there is any standard claiming that kilobyte means 1024 bytes unless otherwise indicated.
	::Misplaced Pages style conventions are not suitable as subject matter for articles. One reason is that a reader who has not participated as a Misplaced Pages editor might not realize that the style suggested in the Manual of Style and its various subpages is not consistently followed, and can not be relied upon to accurately interpret any ambiguous terminology that might be present in some of our articles. ] (]) 13:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
	== fractions and accessibility ==
	How is the use of the Unicode precomposed characters (e.g. ¼, ½, ⅖) bad for accessibility? From the standpoint of readability, the improvement in typography is a win. The "½" character means "one half" just like the character "5" means "five". I don't see what's not accessible. ⇔ <span style="font-size-adjust:0.54; font-family:Ovidius, 'Ovidius Script', 'Horizon BT', 'Final Frontier Old Style', Charcoal, Virtue, London, 'Old English Text MT';">]</span> 13:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
	:When the rest of text the has been balanced between being readable while getting a reasonable amount of text on the screen, the Unicode fractions are too small to read. A different problem is that articles that use these fractions are also likely to need fractions for which no Unicode fraction is available, leading to inconsistent typography. ] (]) 14:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
	::The former argument is font-dependent, but I concede the latter point. Unless it's an isolated use of a common fraction, it may make more sense to write them out oneself. ⇔ <span style="font-size-adjust:0.54; font-family:Ovidius, 'Ovidius Script', 'Horizon BT', 'Final Frontier Old Style', Charcoal, Virtue, London, 'Old English Text MT';">]</span> 18:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
	== Migratory seasons ==
	I was wondering why there is an exception to the ] guideline: ''"Season names are preferable, however, when they refer to a phase of the natural yearly cycle ({{xt|migration to higher latitudes typically starts in mid-spring}})."'' To me this makes no sense at all for ] species, such as the ], which traverses both hemispheres during its migration. ] ]</span>] 21:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	:I have just read more of {{U|B.d.mills}}' treatise on hemispheric bias, and in particular the section on the talk page about ] in which {{gender:B.d.mills|he mentions|she mentions|they mention}} that usage of season names is appropriate when taken from the perspective of the bird itself, not from the perspective of a human resident of either the northern or southern hemisphere. Perhaps this information should be added somehow to the guideline page, for clarification. ] ]</span>] 22:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
	== Ordinals in dates ==
	What is the reasoning behind this prohibition, and what is its history in this manual? — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 08:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
	:I had wondered about this too, so I searched the archives. I didn't find any record of an early decision not to use ordinals in dates, which made me think that the decision was made very early. In fact, I went to the of this section of the MoS (back in 2004) and ordinals were not mentioned but dates without ordinals were used in the examples of how to properly write dates. There's nothing inherently wrong with ordinals in dates, and there have been occasional efforts to change the MoS to allow them, but there has never been a consensus to change. <span style="background-color:#B7D9F9;border:solid 0px #0E5CA4;padding:0px 3px;border-radius:3px">]&nbsp;<span style="border-left:1px solid #0E5CA4;padding-left:3px">]</span></span> 21:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I've come back to this section and found the interesting debate that's happening below; I would appreciate any further insights from other MOS regulars/long-timers as to where and when this rule originated on WP. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 15:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:* It's a rather archaic practice to use ordinal dates. Although people might employ the construction in vernacular, very very few people use it in written form these days. The usage in the 1960s. Of course, we still see them used in quotes, for example Victoria Cross citations. But then we don't change verbatim quotes to remove them. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 02:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
			This is, of course, counter-intuitive to the layman who just sees 1999 tick over to 2000 and therefore assumes that change in the 3rd digit means a new century. But as we all know, intuition and truth do not always agree.
	:I believe many professional style guides (such as the Chicago manual) share our MOS's recommendation not to add "-nth" to date's day numbers. ] (]) 14:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Oh please, let's go with the authoritative style guides in English—US, UK, Australian—in proscribing the messy little ordinal suffixes. It went the way of "the" and "of", years ago: "the 22nd of June", people wrote 50 years ago. ] ] 12:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	:: and "the 22nd inst." in the preceding century.—
	{{outdent}} As I understand Chicago (not a current edition), '22 July' is the appropriate spelling of both "twenty-two" and "twenty-second" as spoken, so we should change so-called verbatim quotations in this respect. That is, when we do use numerals. --] (]) 13:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I for one would strongly object to changing the spelling of direct written quotes. If the quote is totally oral, there is perhaps a bit more flexibility, but Misplaced Pages is almost always going to depend on a text source for any quote. ] ] 15:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Changing quotes to remove archaic usage is a total nonsense. If we were to do what you proposed, then we'd have to change all instances of "thou" in Shakespeare to "you", because the use of pronoun thou is archaic in most modern English dialects. Does that make much sense? No. A written quote should not be changed. Especially in this instance, where it does not affect comprehension. ] — ]
	:::However, this isn't what ] says. It allows "alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud". This seems to me to apply to changing, for example, "July 22nd, 1934" in the original to "July 22, 1934" in Misplaced Pages. I would personally read both aloud as "July the twenty-second, ..."; others might read both as "July twenty-second". This is quite different from changing "thou" to "you". ] (]) 17:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Actually i would read "July 22, 1934" aloud as a cardinal "July twenty-two nineteen-thirty-four". ] ] 00:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::As would I. The vast majority of spoken usage in my experience of a lifetime in an English-speaking country has included ordinals, and I find it hard to imagine that the people using them in that way would read out printed cardinals as if they contained an invisible ordinal. In fact, any such claim gets a "citation needed" from me. This is not my being a prescriptivist; I simply remain unconvinced that the reading style described by Peter coxhead is a common one. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 15:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I don't know if this is relevant, but "July twenty-two" (not just the order but also the use of the cardinal) sounds decidedly American to me. I think most Brits would usually read "22 July" as "the twenty-second of July". So there may be AE/BE differences. --] (]) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::I'll endorse this. That's indeed how most British people would read a date, however it was written. -- ] (]) 16:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
			So why did the world celebrate the new century on 1 Jan 2000 ? I'm going to digress into armchair philosophising but bear with me. Image that you are a major newspaper, news channel, magazine, etc and you want readers to buy/subscribe. You can research it, find out that 1 Jan 2001 is the correct date and make a big thing on that date. But your competitors celebrated way back on 1 Jan 2000 and the public goes "meh, we did all that last year - get with the times you out of date moron!" The big news companies know this, so they all go with the earlier date to avoid their competitors getting the jump on them. Never let the truth get in the way of profit! Joe public naturally follows the mass media and ignores the nerds saying "2001" - why listen to boring nerds when you can party now! Party, party, party!
	:::: Archaism is not the point, I agree. Just now I inserted a break in my preceding comment. --] (]) 18:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	::It isn't really that different from changing "thou" to "you", as the meaning doesn't change. It merely is a different way of speaking. I'm away of what the MOS says on the matter. I am, however, disagreeing. There isn't any reason to harm the integrity of the historical dialect present in a quote. It is essential that this remain, so that the reader understands how people spoke and wrote and the time the quote was produced. ] — ] 21:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::Who is advocating changing quotes to remove archaic usage? Not the MOS, certainly. End of story? --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 04:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	::::Well, ] is clearly wrong to equate changing "thou" to "you" with changing "22nd" to "22". The first change does alter meaning: "thou" carries distinctions not present in modern "you", such as singularity, being in the nominative case, and familiarity or condescension. The second change does not alter meaning. On the other hand, I suspect the root cause here is an issue which comes up over and over again on the various MoS talk pages: whether or not it's right to change the {{em|style}} of a source, coupled often with a lack of agreement on what counts as style. The MoS advocates changing quotes to remove archaic styles, but not to remove archaic usages. It's only the "end of story" if there is full agreement both on this principle and on what counts as style. ] (]) 10:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	::I'm well aware of that, dear fellow. But to the modern reader (which is who will be reading it), it does not change the meaning. That is because we now can use "you" with condescension and familiarity and because "you" could always function as either a singular or a plural, so that has not changed. We use "you" now in the way "thou" was originally used, and we all use "you" in the way "you" was originally used. The two have merged. I know the original T-V distinction, but even that began to fade by the time Shakespeare was around, when it became a muddle of pragmatism. This muddle ended-up with thou falling out of use.
	::Regardless, this is irrelevant. I don't think the MoS should remove archaic styles for the sake of it. Are they not an integral part of what locates said text in the era it is from? I suppose I shan't argue over this, as it matters little to me. But it sounds queer regardless. ] — ] 13:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	:::I don't think it is "irrelevant", because, as I noted above, there is a recurring issue here; you are far from being the only editor not entirely happy with the view taken in the MoS that Misplaced Pages is free to change styles from those in the source. But to discuss this sensibly we need to be able to distinguish "style" from other issues. The fact that many modern readers don't know that "thou" and "you" at one time had different semantic and pragmatic features doesn't mean that one should be replaced by the other when quoting a source, because other modern readers (even if only a small minority) do know this, and the information should not be hidden from them. On the other hand, "October 10th" and "October 10" have precisely the same meaning; it's a pure style issue.
	:::(Previous heated discussions involving the issue of what is purely a matter of style include: changing hyphens to en-dashes, the de-capitalization of the English names of species, and the use of logical quotation in articles in American English.) ] (]) 09:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
			So, here we are, arguing whether to follow the truth or to follow Joe Public with both of his brain cells following news companies who are chasing the almighty dollar. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] and international events hosted by the United States. ==
			*There are some known inconsistencies/anomalies in our treatment of centuries, including categories or articles covering decades. For example, ] is a subcategory of ], but includes 1900 which the MOS puts in the 19th century. If we were starting again, I think it would have been better to avoid using century in categories or articles, e.g. use "1900–1999" instead of "20th century", but we are where we are. ] (]) 12:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	In specific regard to the article ] which is the single World Cup event hosted by the United States, one editor seems to have the opinion that all articles pertaining to association football (soccer) should use DMY and MDY is not appropriate, despite the event being held in the US. The article and all articles pertaining to this event should use MDY since it was hosted by the United States. ] ]</font> 00:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure why you're focusing only on the specific niche of science-related sources? If the scientific community chooses to adopt an unorthodox definition of the duration of the centuries, but most other sources follow the common definition, obviously the latter is more accurate. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 13:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:This is not an issue which should be discussed here, in my view. Clearly a case can be made either way: soccer is not a sport associated with the US, so there's no "STRONGNAT"; this particular World Cup was held in the US, so there is. Editors need to reach consensus on the talk pages of the relevant articles. ] (]) 10:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
			::{{ping|Chessrat}} the century beginning in XX01 is not {{tq|unorthodox}}, quite the reverse. As people above have said, it's the definition that has been taught for years, but one that I agree is increasingly being replaced by the century beginning in XX00 definition. {{tq|Obviously the latter is more accurate}}, well, no – as pointed out above, this definition leads to the first century having only 99 years, so can hardly be called more accurate. Orthodoxy and accuracy are not the important issues in my view; the most important issue is what most readers now think 'century' means, which does appear to be the XX00–XX99 definition. ] (]) 14:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Yes, it was hosted by the USA, but the vast majority of people who took part in it and watched it were not from the USA, and the MDY form seems to be pretty much exclusive to the USA. -- ] (]) 10:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	::Vast majority, yes, but thats shouldn't be a factor. The deciding factor should be the country in which the event was held. And since this one World Cup was held in the US, this one World Cup should use the MDY associated with the US.--] ]</font> 12:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)		:::Back in 2000 it was suggested that a year zero be created with (since years have variable numbers of days anyway) zero days. That way the first century would have 100 years in it. ] ] 22:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::At least we can all agree that that would be the ugliest possible solution. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 08:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::We're not talking about an immovable object based in the US, or an individual that is/was a US national. Even the US military has, by our convention, adopted dmy dates per WP:TIES. So mdy is not the ''only'' American date format. I think the location where the footy tournament takes place can be regarded as accessory to the event. An American born of US parents in Britain is still American. Imagine if Michael Jackson were to have died in England during his last concert tour, I'm sure the Americanness of the deceased and the death would be strongly defended, as it would be argued that the primary subject was MJ. Similarly, this is a FIFA event, and should be dmy by the same argument that you have so strongly defended the Americanness of films (i.e. organised and funded by) which we have been heatedly arguing about. The USA doesn't own this like it owns basketball, baseball or the other type of football, and is only the host of ''one of the series'' of an organisation that seems to have adopted dmy as its format. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 15:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
			::::I am a little confused, as it is the first year after 0. It's not the same as 0.1 in numbers. A child's first year is everything from being born until they have their first birthday, which marks the end of their first year.
	::::Either way, there's no {{em|general}} principle involved here, so the issue should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. ] (]) 16:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
			::::This also fits with the 20th century being the years containing all the 19XXs (including 1900) and the first century being all the ones with 00XX or just X, XX and XXX !!
	:::::Well this is very disturbing trend indeed. I wouldn't say that any country owns any sport. The mere idea that since soccer (football) isn't as popular in the United States and therefore articles pertaining to tournaments held within its boundaries are not subject to ] is somewhat ludicrous. We are only talking about the articles related to a single tournament. I see no reason why the articles should not follow the standard date formats for the host nation. And this is not the same issue as with the films. ] ]</font> 16:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
			::::That means that the years 01-01-00 to 31-12-99 = 100 years. So let's just agree tha the first century har 99 years instead of 100. Simples.
	::::::I agree with JOJ. If arranging the 1994 World Cup doesn't constitute strong national ties to it, I don't know what does. ] (]) 06:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
			::::Is this purely a case of missing "(not inclusive)"? 1900-2000 to me, means that when the number 2000 first appears on the timepiece, that is the end of the 20th century, and the start of the 21st - so midnight on the cusp of 31-12-1999 and 01-01-2000 would be the end of the 20th century.
	::::::Likewise – commenting on the "owning basketball, baseball", etc, sentence above – basketball tournaments such as the European championships, the Olympics (except when arranged in the USA) would use the international date format. ] (]) 06:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
			::::All the months have a fixed number of days, except one every four years ... I'm really happy just considering that the 1st century only had 99 years. It's so long ago, and doesn't really matter as long as we all do the same thing. Lets just say that 1 BC is 0AD and 0BC is 1 AD. ] (]) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{replyto|Chessrat}} Scientists put much thought into the matters that they comment upon, it's a poor scientist who states something as fact when they have no demonstrable evidence. So I would take a scientist's view over a newspaper's view any day. --] &#x1F98C; (]) 22:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I just had another thought on the “why did the media prefer 2000?” question. At the time, there was a lot of concern over the ], which had nothing to do with the official change to a new millennium. It would be easy to confuse the two, and the drama of the “Y2K bug” could easily have fed into hype about the new century/millennium.
			:Of course this could all be irrelevant if anyone has a couple of newspaper stories from 1899 talking the same story. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 20:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The front page of the Daily Telegraph (a serious and respected global newspaper back then) from 1 January 1900, talking about the close of a century and the coming of a new one - largely in relation to Germany, it seems, with prescience given what was to come. ] (]) 07:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've already hypothesised on why the media preferred 2000 as the start of the new century but I will re-iterate. Assume you have smart employees that know 2001 is the real start and therefore your newspaper makes plans for a big celebration on 1 Jan 2001. Your competitors go with the 2000 date and the unwashed masses celebrate with them for many sales of their newspapers - yours gets mediocre sales because yours is boring. A year later you do celebrate but the unwashed masses say "we did that last year - loser!" Knowing that the unwashed masses will always go with the early date (no matter what the reason, any excuse for booze) and will ignore any repeat the next year (no matter what the reason), which is the better financial decision for the newspaper? Facts be damned, popular opinion makes money for newspapers! <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 09:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The analysis seems fairly straightforward to me:
			:::# It is pretty common for the inconsistent definition to be used, regardless of how respected its user is.
			:::# The inconsistency at the epoch generally goes unencountered, which means it is not a real problem. Nothing is meaningfully misunderstood by readers or writers most of the time.
			:::# Just because many don't run into the uncontroversial inconsistency, doesn't mean we are so lucky. We're enforcing style across the entire wiki, entailing thousands and millions of encounters with the epoch.
			:::# That means we each would like to understand what we're doing and why. Ergo, our choices tend to value logical consistency.
			:::# However, if we allow a convention, many editors will use it that do not fully understand it.
			:::# If we allow both the inconsistent and consistent definitions to be used, editors who see the former is valid usage in some locations will impose their preference elsewhere, leading to chaos and sorrow. This will occur regardless of whether the distinction is explained in the MOS itself.
			:::<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			== RfC on the wording of ] ==
	== Roman numerals for centuries? ==
			<!-- ] 15:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738940465}}
			{{rfc|hist|lang|rfcid=6F3124E}}
			Should ] specify the start of a century or millennium as a year ending in 1 (e.g. the 20th century as 1901–2000), as a year ending in 0 (e.g. the 20th century as 1900–1999), or treat both as acceptable options with the use of hatnotes for clarity in the case of ambiguity in articles? See the discussion above. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 14:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*The year ending in zero, which is nowadays the most common understanding. Whether or not there was ever a year zero is irrelevant, given that AD year numbering wasn’t invented until the 500s and wasn’t widely used until the 800s. ] (]) 21:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	The manual says "Do not use Roman numerals, such as "MMXII" for "2012", to denote years." Much farther down, it also says "Centuries and millennia not in quotes or titles should be either spelled out (eighth century) or in Arabic numeral(s) (8th century)." It might be good to change the first instruction to "... to denote years or centuries.", or is it already obvious enough? I had to dig a little. ]&nbsp;] 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
	:It would perhaps then better be reworded as 'Do not use Roman numerals to denote years or centuries, such as "MMXII" for "2012".' It seems a quite uncontroversial change to me. ] (]) 16:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)		*As the 1st century is 1–100, the ] is 1901–2000, as its article says. Let us not turn this into another thing (like "billions") where English becomes inconsistent with other languages. —] (]) 22:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Also, I do not understand what "hatnotes in case of ambiguity in articles" should mean: whenever any article uses the word "20th century", it should have a hatnote explaining whether it follows the centuries-old convention of numbering centuries or the "starts with 19 is 20th century" approximation? Perhaps it would be easier to outlaw the word "century". —] (]) 22:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:In short, '''oppose change'''. —] (]) 17:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*First year of a century ends in 01, last year of a century ends in 00. This has been extensively discussed above. --] &#x1F98C; (]) 22:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*The RfC does not make clear what specific change is being proposed to MOSNUM wording, and I fear will lead only to a continuation ''ad nauseum'' of the preceding discussion. For what it's worth, I '''oppose''' any change resulting in a century of 99 years. ] (]) 23:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose change''' Century and Millennia begin in 01 and ends Dec 31, 00, like it always has and per the discussion above. Just because people make errors, like with Blue Moon, doesn't mean an encyclopedia has to. Why would we change from long-standing consensus? ] (]) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Treat both as acceptable options.''' ] already explains both viewpoints, without describing one of them as "correct". Generally our business it not to arbiter truth (which in this case doesn't exist anyway, as either viewpoint is just a convention), but to describe common understandings of the world, including disputes and disagreements where they exist. ] doesn't privilege a particular POV here, and neither should ]. ] (]) 16:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:All of our articles on individual centuries mention only the traditional point of view where the first century starts in year 1 and each century has 100 years. There is no need for ] to do anything else. —] (]) 17:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose.''' If this matters to you, convince the academic sources to adopt the change, then Misplaced Pages can follow. ] (]) 18:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose change''' I prefer centuries to begin with --01 and end with --00. I'll not bother with any arguments, since I think this boils down to personal preference. I do oppose allowing both options, as that leads to confusion and edit wars. ] 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Why is it personal preference to favour 1-100 AD over 1 BC-99 AD? The latter choice leads to the first century BC running from 101 to 2 BC. I find the asymmetry highly unorthodox (and hence hard to justify). ] (]) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::You wouldn’t start at 1BC for the first century AD in either case though. You would just treat “century” as the name for the period, and ignore that it only has 99 years. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 19:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::You seem to be saying the choice between a century (the first, whether ] or ]) of 99 or 100 years amounts to personal preference. Do you have credible sources showing they are equally valid? ] (]) 19:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose treating both as acceptable''' This would lead to endless confusion. ] (]) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' change; century starts at ###1 and ends ###0 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			* '''Strongly oppose''' any change resulting in more than one definition of a century. The reasons seem self-evident, and others have spelt them out above. In a nutshell, such a change would be a retrograde step, against the spirit of the MOS. ] (]) 23:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Just use '00s.''' Why on Earth should MoS <em>ever</em> encourage using wording that will be misunderstood by many or most people? To most people, "20th century" means 1900-1999. To pedants of history, it means 1901-2000. Cool. We should try to not confuse either of those groups. If I had to pick one, I'd say confuse the pedants, but fortunately we don't have to pick, because a third option exists: "1900s" (etc.). That's the phrasing I've always used on Misplaced Pages, for this exact reason. It's consistent with how we refer to decades (see vs. ). It's universally understood. It avoids silly arguments like this one. Let's just do that. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:And to put this in terms of what the wording should be, I would suggest something like {{tq2|Because phrases like {{!xt|the 18th century}} are ambiguous (sometimes used to mean 1700–1799, sometimes 1701–1800), phrases like {{xt|the 1700s}} are preferable. If the former is be used—for instance, when quoting a source—an explanatory note should be included if the two definitions of ''n''th century would lead to different meanings.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Is this a joke? <small>Sorry if I ruined it by asking.</small> <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 23:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::No? From any descriptive point of view, there is no widely-accepted definition of "''n''th century". Some Wikipedians thinking there <em>should</em> be a widely-accepted definition doesn't make it so. And MoS should not be in the business of encouraging ambiguous wording. Instead we should encourage solutions that avoid ambiguity, ]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Ah, sorry. This is all just not the question at hand though, and it directly contradicts current (well-positioned) guidance.
			*::::In any case, I’m sure we’re better off with the ambiguity between 1900–1999 and 1901–2000, which, in most cases, is not really a problem. Your idea introduces an ambiguity between 1900–1910 and 1900–. This is explicitly called out by ], of course. And does “1700s” even solve the issue of which year to start or end with? It {{em|implies}} that the century starts with 1700, but not explicitly. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:We should avoid use of "1900s" to mean anything other than 1900-1909. ] (]) 12:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::What's funny is I have never heard people talk about the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s or 1900s, as anything except Jan 1 00 to Dec 31 99. Always 100 years. I checked and I'm shocked our wikipedia article only covers 1900-1910. The only time it gets used as a decade is when the parameters are specifically talking about the 1930s, 1920s, 1910s, and 1900s. Without that fine tuning it's always 100 year period. It would be used , or . Usually I would say the "first decade of the 1900s" with no other context. I would amend your comment to say we should never leave 1900s dangling without context. And that's only for 1900s, not anything else.] (]) 19:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose treating both as acceptable'''; otherwise indifferent to 31 Dec 1999 vs 31 Dec 2000. This is a style decision, but one that affects a lot of content. To use both would be a terrible solution. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 23:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose change'''; continue using "20th century" for 1901–2000 and "1900s" for 1900–1999. ] (]) 03:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Bad solution. How will readers know which system we are using when we say 1900s? Will they presume that the period ends with 1999 or 2000, or even 1909? <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 23:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose change''' - The ''n''{{sup|th}} century is 01-00, you can feel free to use "the xx00s" for 00-99. Neither is prefered to the other, but the meaning is determined by which you use. ] (]) 04:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Per the MOS, and as Dondervogel 2 most succinctly puts it above: {{tq|We should avoid use of "1900s" to mean anything other than 1900-1909.}} <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 19:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::I somewhat disagree. It is a very ambiguous term so we should avoid use of 1900s at all without context, because obviously readers will be confused. I sure would since I would immediately think a 100 year period just like 1800s , 1700s, and 2000s (25+ years thus far). ] (]) 07:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::You mean 24 years so far, right?
			*:::And yes, “avoiding 1900s at all” also jives with what I said. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 23:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' treating them both as acceptable. I imagine this could lead to headaches concerning inclusion in categories, list articles, timelines, templates, etc. ] (]) 01:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose change''' People have been getting it wrong for centuries (pun not intended) and will probably continue doing so for centuries. Intuition says that the year 2000 was the start of the new century but intuition is wrong. Just like people believing that light-years and parsecs are a measure of time (doing the Kessel run or otherwise) or trying to learn relativity, intuition is simply wrong. <u>All</u> authoritative sources for measuring time say that the new century starts in the year xx01. WP is only suppose to report on this. If we try to say that the year 2000 is the first year of the new century then we are actively entering the battle and are try to ]. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 04:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Keep XX1 as the start of a decade, century, or any other unit of year.''' It sounds ridiculous to have only the first CE century be 99 years long while everything before and after it remains at 100. —]&nbsp;(&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;) 18:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I think they consider the ] to also have 99 years. ] (]) 19:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			It is high time to end this :
	::That would shorten the MoS by a little bit, and that is good. There is a downside though. When I make corrections to uses of centuries, I link to ] because there is a good description of how centuries should be written there. That would become less clear. <span style="background-color:#B7D9F9;border:solid 0px #0E5CA4;padding:0px 3px;border-radius:3px">]&nbsp;<span style="border-left:1px solid #0E5CA4;padding-left:3px">]</span></span> 23:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
			:{{tq|When the encyclopedia of human folly comes to be written, a page must be reserved for the '''minor imbecility''' of the battle of the centuries--the clamorous dispute as to when a century ends. The present bibliography documents the controversy as it has arisen at the end of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, as well as a few skirmishes in the quarrel that has begun to develop with the approach of the third millennium.}}
			:{{tq|The source of the confusion is easy to discern; ever since learning how to write, we have dated our documents with year designations beginning with the digits 19. Obviously, when we must begin to date them starting with 20, we have embarked on a new century! Haven't we? The answer is no, we have not; we have merely arrived at the last year of the 20th century. As historians and others involved in measuring time continue to remind us, there was no year 0. In fact, there has never been a system of recording reigns, dynasties, or eras that did not designate its first year as the year 1. To complete a century, one must complete 100 years; the first century of our era ran from the beginning of A.D. 1 to the end of A.D. 100; the second century began with the year A.D. 101.}}
			:{{tq|While the period 1900-1999 is of course a century, as is any period of 100 years, it is incorrect to label it the 20th century, which began January 1, 1901, and will end on December 31, 2000. Only then will the third millennium of our era begin.}}
			:{{tq|Those who are unwilling to accept the clarity of simple arithmetic in this matter and who feel strongly that there is something amiss with the result have developed some impressively convoluted arguments to promote their point of view. Baron Hobhouse, studying some of these arguments as set forth in letters published in the Times of London during the first few days of January 1900, found "that many of the reasons assigned are irrelevant, many are destructive of the conclusion in support of which they are advanced, and that such as would be relevant and logical have no basis whatever to maintain them in point of fact." He was one of several observers of the fray at the end of the 19th century who predicted that the foolishness would recur with the advent of the year 2000, as people began to look for ways of demonstrating "that 1999 years make up 20 centuries."}}
			:{{tq|As a writer stated in the January 13, 1900, Scientific American, "It is a venerable error, long-lived and perhaps immortal." The shortness of human life is also a factor; as a century approaches its end, hardly anyone who experienced the previous conflict is still living, so we are doomed to undergo another round.}}
			:{{tq|Astronomers have been blamed for some of the confusion by their adoption of a chronology that designates the year 1 B.C. as 0 and gives the preceding years negative numbers, e.g., 2 B.C. becomes -1, 3 B.C. becomes -2, etc. This system permits them to simplify calculations of recurring astronomical events that cross the starting point of our era, such as series of solar eclipses and the apparitions of periodic comets. However, this scheme affects only the years preceding A.D. 1 and cannot be used as a justification for ending subsequent centuries with the 99th year.}}
			:{{tq|Some argue that Dionysius Exiguus made a mistake in his determination of the year of Christ's birth when he devised our present chronology in the sixth century, and that the discrepancy allows us to celebrate the end of a century a year early. However, even though the starting point of our era may not correspond to the chronologist's intention, it is still the point from which we count our centuries--each of which still requires 100 years for completion.}}
			:{{tq|Nevertheless, as many of the entries in this list (from p. 45 on) will indicate, plans to celebrate the opening of the 21st century and the third millennium at midnight on December 31, 1999, have become so widespread that anyone who tries to call attention to the error is disparaged as a pedant and ignored. Perhaps the only consolation for those intending to observe the correct date is that hotels, cruise ships, supersonic aircraft, and other facilities may be less crowded at the end of the year 2000.}}
			] (]) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose change.''' ] ] 11:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Don't break the calendar for exactly zero benefit'''{{snd}}There's no need to stage a revolt against the counting numbers and anyone who wants to extend discussions back to the epoch or beyond. There is one system that is consistent, and it is the one we use and should continue using. There's not even a problem that needs to be addressed. Aren't we on Misplaced Pages? This is the place where many often learn that a thing is a certain way and why, and I am not sure why that didn't happen here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 12:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''To get literal''', the current calendar under discussion pertains to the life of Jesus. Ideally it starts when Jesus was born, 00:00, and he turned one-year-old on January 1, 1. Now, say he lived a long life and made it to 100. He would have been 100 on January 1, 100. At that point, the second his ] turned over on January 1, 100, his new century would begin. The first century was literally over on January 1, 100, and a new one started immediately and ran from 100-200. etc. Saying the first century was 99 years is incorrect, it was 100, but then the second century started immediately. I'd have to go with a split-second past midnight on January 1, 2000, as the start of the 21st century, per logic and common sense. ] (]) 13:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Nice theory, except for the minor detail that there was no year zero, meaning that on 1 January 1, your hypothetical Jesus would have been 1 day (not 1 year) old. ] (]) 13:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::That's one way of looking at it, and the other is that Jesus's birth started the clock rolling towards his turning 1-year-old on 1-1-1. ] (]) 14:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::So by your "other way" he was 1 year old throughout 1 CE. So in what year was he six months old? It would have to be 0 CE, but there isn't one. It simply doesn't work. ] (]) 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Unless our baby Jesus was born on 1 Jan of 1 BC (we have invented a fictitious baby so we can assign him any date of birth we want). Then we have a first century running from 1 BC to 99 AD. While highly unconventional, it could be entertained until you realise the 1st century BC would have to run from 101 BC to 2 BC. It works but it's silly, and (more to the point) lacks RS to support it. ] (]) 17:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::Insofar a he is likely to have existed, anyway, he was most probably born in 4 BC, since the calculations used five hundred years later to fix the BC/AD break point contained an error. So this is all nonsense, anyway; the first century was itself centuries in the past - probably eight or nine - before people started calling it that. And most people will continue to see 1900 as the start of the 20th C and 2000 as the start of the current one, whatever. ] (]) 18:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::The bible is very clear on this point: he was born ''after'' the Roman census in 6 AD (Luke 2:1-4) and ''before'' the death of King Herod in 6 BC (Matthew 2) ] ] 06:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::I think you mean the ] in 6 BC, while ] gives Herod's death as c. 4 BC. ] 14:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::That would make for a more consistent timeline. Forgetting our fictional baby, are you saying the Real McCoy was born between 6 and 4 BC? ] (]) 15:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::That's what many sources I've seen say. See ]. ] 15:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::That make a lot more sense than being born before –6 {{em|and}} after +6. Although, if anyone could, surely it’s the son of God. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 23:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::Why would Jesus be one year old throughout 1 AD? The year 1 means Jesus was 1-year-old, Happy Birthday on 1-1-1, one candle on the cake. When Jesus was six months old he was 1/2 AD. The point of using BC and AD, ] and ], logically informs that the time before Jesus's birth, counting backwards, was "before Christ" (six months before his birth was 1/2 BC, etc.) The birth starts the count on both BC and AD. The "year" he was born would not matter, only the counting forwards and backwards. 1/2 AD when he was six months old, 3/4 AD at nine months old, etc., until reaching 1 AD and then beyond. Another point, since the 21st century was celebrated by the entire population of the Earth on January 1, 2000 - even most of the 2001 holdouts, never ones to pass up a good party, still celebrated on 1-1-2000 - ] for the start of the century and, ], and in all the reputable sources that recognized the date that the human race partied, Misplaced Pages probably should as well. But, then again, and '''Oppose''', the scientific community differs and happily celebrated on January 1, 2001, ordaining that Misplaced Pages should keep the academic calendar as well and forego the obvious. ] (]) 02:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::You can keep discussing this forever. Come 2100, when almost all of us will no longer be editing on here, the large majority of people will be marking the turn of the century. ] (]) 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::Nice crystal ball you have there. ] 15:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::{{re|Randy Kryn}} For the sake of argument, if Jesus was born on 25 December 1 BC, he would have been six days old on 1 January AD 1, and one year old on 25 December AD 1. That would place the 100th anniversary of his birth on 25 December AD 100. ] 15:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::But 25 December is irrelevant, and is hence ignored by those faiths, such as Islam, that recognise Jesus as an earlier prophet. December 25 is an entirely fabricated date, chosen to override the pre-existing pagan midwinter festivals widely observed in Europe during the early Christian era. If early historians were four to six years out on the year Jesus was purportedly born, they are hardly likely to have any information whatsoever as to the date. ] (]) 15:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::December 25 has nothing to do with this. The people who created this BC-AD concept were going by the moment that Jesus was born (or conceived, whatever they decided was the starting point), never mind the "correct date", in essence calling that Day One. Then, 365 days later, year 1 ended and year 2 immediately began. The same with BC, from the moment of Jesus' birth to everything that came before was BC, and one year previously was automatically 1 BC, ten years was 10 BC, etc. By calculating that the day of Jesus' birth was the start of the calendar, logic dictates that the first year ended on his first birthday. 1 A.D. Nothing is broken here, except that they made a guess at Jesus's birthday when they made the calendar. The first century of 100 years ends on the 100th anniversary of Jesus' birth, 1-1-100, and the second century began immediately. There is no "year 0", a year 0 isn't needed, when Jesus was six months old it was 1/2 A.D. The absence of a year 0 is incorrect, the creator of the calendar took it as a moment in time (a birth, then start the clock). ] (]) 10:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::"he turned one-year-old on January 1, 1".. No, that's not how that works. The year 1 AD is the equivalent of the first year of his life. He would not be 1 year old until it ended. ] (]) (]) 14:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Only ignorant people think the century begins with the 0 year. Is it that difficult to appreciate that there was no year 0! -- ] (]) 11:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:However, few people will doubt that there was a year 2000. So the question of when the 21st century began it still unresolved. ] (]) 04:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::If the 1st century began in AD 1, then the 2nd century began in AD 101, the 3rd century in AD 201, etc, etc, the 20th century in 1901 and the 21st century in 2001! People a century ago were fully aware that the 20th century began in 1901. It's only in recent years that people have seemingly become unable to grasp the system. I should also point out that we naturally count in multiples of 10: 1 to 10, 11 to 20 and 21 to 30, not 10 to 19 and 20 to 29. -- ] (]) 11:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::Looks resolved by consensus to me. ] (]) 06:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::Yes, this has consensus, but nobody has actually refuted my discussion points above. There is no need for a year 0, the "point of zero" was when Jesus was born (which started the clock). He was 1 year old on 1-1-1. And so on. {{u|Necrothesp}} calls me ignorant, so I'd like them to comment if they would on the analysis of why year 1 started exactly a year after the birth of Jesus. Thanks. ] (]) 11:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::You presumably do know that the year before AD 1 was 1 BC? We're talking history here, not religion. Basing the calendar on the supposed year of Jesus's birth is pure convention. But the facts are that in the modern dating system 1 BC was followed by AD 1 with no weird gap. Therefore, the 1st century AD began on 1 January AD 1, and the new century has begun on 1 January AD X(X)01 ever since. -- ] (]) 11:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::BC literally means "before Christ". Year 1 B.C. would be a year before Christ. Year 1 AD would fall on his first birthday. There is no weird gap. BC was created without regard to previous calendars, it just shifted all of the years before Jesus' birth and after Jesus' birth to a new counting system. This has nothing to do with religion or the exact year or date that is now believed to be Jesus's true birthday, it was just how the people who created this system decided to place their 0: the moment Jesus was born. As I say above, I agree with the consensus here, mainly because science has, for some reason, gone along with 2001 etc. being the start of a new century. It wasn't, but that counting system has enough support to continue to represent this mistake in scientific and encyclopedic literature. ] (]) 11:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::There is I believe no year zero because the Roman's (whose numerals we used) had no concept of Zero, there was no zero year, it was 1&nbsp;BC then 1&nbsp;AD. ] (]) 12:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::But whether or not there was a year zero is pretty much irrelevant, except to the pedants overrepresented amongst our editor base. People are quite happy that the ‘1930s’ refers to 1930-39 and the ‘1630s’ to 1630-39, yet if you follow that right back the first decade only had nine years. So what? Stuff that happened, or works that were produced, in 2000 are widely referred to - including in WP articles - as being of the 21st century, because that’s the way most people see it. ] (]) 13:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::You are confusing 2 different systems. Decades are named cardinally, centuries are named ordinally. The 1930s refers to 1930-39 for the simple reason those are the only years of the format 193X. However, the "first decade" refers to the first ten years of the system. Thus it means the years 1-10, just as the first century means the years 1-100. Decades and centuries are handled differently and do not line up. The 1900s decade was the years 1900-1909, and included one year from the 19th century and 9 years from the 20th. The first decade of the 20th century was the years 1901-10. ] (]) (]) 14:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::::::Yet, back here in the real world, nobody cares, and everybody ignores stuff like that. ] (]) 14:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::The "real world" in your view presumably refers to "what ''I'' say" rather than "what is correct"! In ''my'' real world, the 21st century began in 2001! That's not being pedantic; that's being correct. In this fabled "real world", most people seem to get their "facts" from some nobody on TikTok; that does not make them right. -- ] (]) 15:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::In the real world people also talk about things happening on "Friday night" when they actually occur in the early hours of Saturday. The encyclopedia still goes with the facts, though. --] (]) (]) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			== mdy on pages that have nothing to do with america ==
	== Comma after the year in MDY format where the date is an adjective ==
			ive been seeing lots of mdy on pages that have nothing to do with the usa, like on media that was only released in japan, like the fds and lots of japanese exclusive video games
	This discussion has recently come up in ], and it's probably best to have the discussion here, rather than there, for consistency. At issue is whether a comma has to be placed (specifically in a title) where the MDY date serves as an adjective describing a noun that immediately follows it (e.g. June 1, 2011 tornado outbreak). I was taught that it is permissible to omit the second comma, and I have found various Internet sources that support this; however, I have found some that disagree. The MOS does not explicitly address commas involving MDY dates acting as adjectives, so I figured I would bring the discussion here for some guidance. ] (]) 04:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
			i just want the mdy stuff to be ONLY on usa related pages...
	:I don’t see that being adjectival makes any difference; the usual rationale for using both commas is that the year is a kind of parenthesis, and should not seem more closely connected to what follows than it is to the rest of the date. (That said, I think I would usually prefer paraphrasing to avoid the adjectival usage.)—]]] 05:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
			idk why we have to use multiple date formats here anyway... its just stupid
	::There has fairly recently been a similar lengthy discussion at ] that hasn't led anywhere so far. ] (]) 08:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
			why cant we use just one... dmy for long form and iso 8601 for short form
	== RFC - Clarifying Units of Measure in UK Geographical articles ==
			japanese date format looks similar to iso 8601 if youve seen it ] (]) 08:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	An RFC to clarify the use of units of measure in UK geographic articles has been published at ].
			:i did change a couple, like on the pcfx and .lb pages but im backing out of others because i dont want to be involved in edit wars or be accused of vandalism ] (]) 08:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	] (]) 14:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
			::The relevant guideline has a shortcut, ]. People who's main editing activity was to go around imposing their favorite date format have been indefinitely blocked. ] (]) 15:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::thats just stupid
			:::idk about you but there should be an option for unifed date formats you can toggle in settings so users can use their perferred date formats without fighting over it. is it possible to yknow code something like this? ] (]) 05:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Unfortunately this is wishful thinking. We've looked into it many, many, many times before and it's just not doable with Misplaced Pages's current technology. One problem is that there are certain usages of comma with the mdy format that are really had to deal with when embedded in some sentences that use commas in certain ways - the computer just isn't smart enough to deal with it. The other is that we also have to handle users not logged in or without accounts - there is no preference to apply and it brings us back to which is the default and all the arguing that goes with that.<span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 06:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{replyto|ZacharyFDS}} We did have such a feature, it was removed in 2008. I joined Misplaced Pages in May 2009, at a time when the clear-up was still going on. --] &#x1f339; (]) 22:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I want to emphasize that I supported removing that feature because it only worked if you were logged in to WP with an account AND had specified what format you preferred in your preferences. That meant that the vast majority of readers saw the default format. It required linking dates in a specific manner, which looked unusual and could be disrupted by editors who did not understand what the links were for. ] 01:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			* I believe this is covered at ]. ] (]) 10:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:This issue is covered in the Manual of Style which stipulates what countries have which date styles. Here is what it says: A''rticles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that country (month-first for the US, except in military usage; day-first for most others; articles related to Canada may use either consistently). Otherwise, do not change an article from one date format to the other without good reason''. Because English is not a legal language in Japan, you might find the Japanese use American date formats when writing English. Look for an English language Japanese newspaper and see what they use. ] (]) 12:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::It's because in English prose there are 2 dominant date formats: MDY used mostly by Americans and DMY used by most of the British Commonwealth. Both sides think that their version is the only correct and reasonable way and that anything else is stupid and wrong. So an article created by a Brit with DMY dates gets "corrected" by an American to MDY. And then "corrected" by an Australian to DMY. And then "corrected" by another American to DMY. And so on until all parties have a deeply embedded hatred for each other.
	:There is now a related discussion at ] related to the long term disruption of ] by Martin, I urge other editors to make a constructive comment as to how to move forward. ] <small>]</small> 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
			:::] was created so that once an article gets a format then it generally stays in that form and we avoid ]s (mostly - there are always die hard "do it my way" people out there).
	::I suggest that participants in the debate here refrain from putting forth a position at the UKGEO RfC until later on. It would be better to see what members of the project think on a substantial level before bringing our chaos to their shores. ] — ] 16:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
			:::We don't use Japanese YMD dates because no native English speaking country uses YMD in prose. Which is a shame because I love YMD after living in China. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 12:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::: Would now be the time to start the argument about what is a UK geographical article? I guess that the UKMA activists would claim all 20400 or so at ]. To take an early example, would we regard ] as a geographical article which should put km ahead of miles? Not in my view. - ] (]) 16:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
			:::Previous discussions on this talk page have made it clear that if a country isn't a predominantly English-speaking country, either MDY or DMY may be used. It just doesn't matter what the English-speaking minority within the country under discussion usually uses as their date format. ] (]) 15:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Actually, by my understanding of those activists' definition, the number affected would be much larger than that - every settlement, county, river, stream, and so on. Districts of towns and cities, small areas. Effectively any distance measured on a UK-related article would be kilometres-first. I'd be shocked if this amounted to only 20400 articles. My view is that we shouldn't create a distinction, meaning that the precise terms of the distinction are irrelevant. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
			::::all other countries use variants of dmy tho except for those east asian ones ] (]) 05:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::No they don't. Many other countries use dmy. Some countries use entirely different calendars with different year numberings; for instance Iran still uses the ] as its official calendar. Etc. Your assumption that "only that one country uses the other system and everyone else uses my system" is exactly the problem that ] prevents. —] (]) 05:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Pinging any Canadians: how annoyed does this discussion make you every time it happens? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			oh yeah i forgot about iran (thats a variant of hijiri/islamic calendar)
	:::I do not agree. Martin's RFC description is strongly biased and I see no reason why he alone should be able to put his perspective. I am willing to declare my involvement, though. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
			im dumb can you forgive me ] (]) 06:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	*I apologize for what I've wrought, I did not intend for this heavily-skewed RfC to open, nor to bring further chaos upon this debate. I think it is best that I withdraw from these discussions. ] — ] 18:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
			:No worries - it ''looks'' real simple until you actually get into it. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">]&nbsp;</span></span> 08:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Not your fault, by any means. So far as I've seen you've done the best you could in a difficult dispute. I wasn't at all surprised by the contents of the RFC (I've seen Martin start many RFCs and none of them were written neutrally), but I can see it would be a nasty surprise to those not used to it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
			::] states the situation that has obtained back to the early days of en.WP. It keeps the peace: US editors can create articles that have little to do with any majority-Anglophone country, including the US, and expect that their initial choice will be retained. Same for vice versa. It's a reasonable policy and should be respected. My one issue is that if you try turning a US military article into dmy, sometimes you'll be shouted at. So I've learnt to leave the date formats in those articles as they are (even if they contain a mix of dmy and mdy). I wish they'd work out what they want. ] ] 09:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Yes we need clarity on US military. ]] 09:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::US astronomers (or at least the communications of the American Astronomical Society) also appear to use dmy. —] (]) 17:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::The astronomers themselves might, but their websites also might not; e.g. . --] &#x1f339; (]) 18:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Professional astronomers generally use yyyy/mm/dd. In fact they may even have been the originators of this format back in the days of George Airy at Greenwich.] (]) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The US Army's Center of Military History still mandates dmy, which is used internally, but mdy is acceptable in PR. As Tony says, we generally retain the existing format. ] ] 19:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 14:30, 19 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Dates and numbers page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:DATE WT:MOSDATE

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

General 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, vote, 6, 7, 8, 9 (AD/CE), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14a, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 49a, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 Binary prefixes B0, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, B15, B16, B17 Years and dates D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dates Misplaced Pages talk:Date debate Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates) Misplaced Pages talk:Timeline standards Misplaced Pages:Measurements Debate Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008) Dec. 2008 RfC on Date linking/autoformatting (three proposals) Dec. 2008 RfC on Date linking/autoformatting (detailed)

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

It has been 215 days since the outbreak of the latest dispute over date formats.

Numerals in a sequence

'Phase 1' or Phase one'? This appears to be a case that's not explicitly covered.

The AP Stylebook recommends using figures for sequences in its section on "Numbers": "Also use figures in all tabular matter, and in statistical and sequential forms", from which I infer that for sequences, such as 'phase 1', figures should be used for clarity and consistency.

Similarly, chapter 9 of The Chicago Manual of Style advises using figures when referring to a sequence.

I propose adding similar explicit advice to this section of the MOS.

-- Jmc (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• As usual, what's needed before something's added to MOS is examples of this being an issue on multiple articles -- see WP:MOSBLOAT. Are editors not able to work this out for themselves on individual articles? Anyway, why does the word "Phase" need this in particular? Why not "Section" and "Part" and any other words like that? The advice from APA and CMS are great if you're making up a new sequence for your thesis, but that's not us. It's hard to imagine an article using a phrase like "Phase 1" or "Phase One" on its own -- that is, other than in imitation of the phrasing of sources. So follow the sources; for example, Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 refers to Phase I and Phase II and Phase III., because that's the form the Act uses. We're not going to override that in the name of consistency with other, unrelated articles. EEng 22:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify: I'm using 'Phase' purely as an example. The issue of using figures for sequences applies to any sequence. including 'Section' and 'Part' - and other examples: "Game 3", of a sequence of nine; 'Chapter 9' of a sequence of 24; 'Week 4' of a limitless sequence.

  I raise this issue in the context of differing editorial practices in the British Post Office scandal article, where both figures and words have been used to reference the same phases and weeks of the inquiry. I sought guidance from the MOS and found none.

  I'd be content to follow the sources, without adding bloat to the MOS, if I could be confident that that's an accepted stylistic convention in this instance. -- Jmc (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Such names are very often established by authoritative sources and constitute proper names; we should follow the sources rather than renaming them. Per EEng, we only need a MOS guideline if our sources don't provide clear names and either there is dissent among editors or consistency across articles would be of significant benefit. In the Post Office case, I see the phases have been titled Phase 1, Phase 2 etc by the inquiry so unless the inquiry's inconsistent, we can follow that source. Still, I see that this is a live issue at that British Post Office scandal article, so it would be wrong to establish a new guideline or issue some sort of MOS talk-page ruling without the knowledge of the other editor; pinging MapReader. NebY (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Between May 1966 and December 1989, multi-episode Doctor Who stories could have titles in any of the four combinations of (i) "Episode ..." or "Part ..."; (ii) numbers as figures or as words. The decision as to which format to use was probably in the hands of the series producer, but in our articles about each story, we give the actual title shown on screen - except that where the on-screen title is all-capitals, we reduce it to title case. Certain Doctor Who reference books do the same, so we're following the sources. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  The question raised was "differing editorial practices in the British Post Office scandal article". Sounds like a matter of internal consistency, which is different. For all manner of things -- this being one IMO -- we might not need consistency among articles, but it does look bad within articles. Surely we already have a rule addressing that general issue tho? Herostratus (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think we don't. In articles on TV series it's common to have expressions like "season 3" and "episode 7", which seem to go against our current wording (use words for numbers below 10). Gawaon (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  It is indeed a matter of internal consistency and it does look bad, as Herostratus says. Within the one article (British Post Office scandal), we have (e.g.) both "Phase 3 hearings" and "Phases five and six". Is there in fact a rule addressing this general issue? -- Jmc (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  From Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently." Unless you are dealing only with series with fewer than 10 seasons each with fewer than 10 episodes, it is more in line with MOS to give all season and episode numbers in digits rather than words. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  True, but series with less than ten seasons aren't all that rare, and there are also miniseries with less than ten episodes. Gawaon (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Whether or not it's in line with MOSNUM, we frequently – I suspect in the vast majority of cases – give series/season and episode numbers in digits. I've been dipping into Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Media and drama#Television. Articles on individual episodes do routinely begin e.g. " the ninth and final episode of the first season" but with digits in the infobox. Articles on a season/series list episodes using digits, and articles on a show list series/seasons and episodes with digits, regardless of whether there are more or less than ten, in keeping with the examples in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing. Articles are often titled <show> season <n> where n is a digit, never a word, in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (television)#Season articles. Sampling our WP:Featured articles#Media, I see the same treatment in titles, infoboxes, and listings.I very much doubt that editors would accept changes to those FAs and GAs to bring them into line with MOS:NUMERAL, that FA and GA assessors will start to apply MOS:NUMERAL in such cases, that any move requests would succeed, or that MOS:TV and WP:TVSEASON will be brought into line with the current MOS:NUMERAL. Changing MOS:NUMERAL might be easier. NebY (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, a small addition to MOS:NUMERAL might be a good thing. Gawaon (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Your final sentence doesn't follow from your statement. It would be more in keeping with the MOS to give all in words. MapReader (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Generally concur with EEng and NebY. It's clear that certain conventions adhere strongly to certain things, and these conventions will be readily apparent from the source material about those things. WP is not in a position to impose an artificial WP-invented consistency on them that makes no sense for those familiar with the subject (e.g. referring to "issue number seven" of a comic book or "the three ball" in a game of pool). Where nothing like a consistent convention can be observed for the topic at hand, then MOSNUM already provides us with a default to fall back to: use "one" through "nine", then "10" onward. This is the case with centuries, for example. There is no overwhelming source preference for either "third century BC" or "3rd century BC" in reliable sources. (Books tend to prefer the former, journals use the latter more than books do because journal publishers are more interested in compression/expediency. Scroll through first 10 pages of GScholar resuls here and see how much variance there is, and how frequent the numeral style is compared to "traditional" spelling-out. That said, GScholar searches do include some books as well as journals.) Following our default system, we naturally end up with "third century BC" and "12th century BC". (Of course, our material doesn't perfectly follow this; our editors are human, not robots. Well, mostly.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

μs vs us

Which style I should use for micro seconds? Does μs relative to "Do not use precomposed unit symbol characters"? DungeonLords (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The 2 characters "μ" and "s" are just fine. The precomposed symbols advice is to guard against particular fonts that combine them into a single character because many software readers for the sight impaired do not know all of these symbols.  Stepho  talk  04:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

But do use μ, not "u". The latter was something of an early-Internet halfassed approach, but we have Unicode now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Day, date month format

Greetings and felicitations. I assume that such constructions as "Wednesday, 24 February" are discouraged, but I can't find it in the text or the this page's archives. (The comma seems unnecessary to me.) May I please get confirmation or refutation? —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:DATEFORMAT and MOS:BADDATE cover the allowed and disallowed formats. Unless the day of the week is vitally important then we leave it out.  Stepho  talk  06:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  This specifically regards the "Hadaka Matsuri" article, and its Konomiya Hadaka Matsuri infobox, which includes the days of the week. —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, the mysterious East. EEng 08:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Salutations and hugs and kisses to you too.
  • If your question is whether day-of-week should be gratuitously included with dates for no particular reason, the answer is No. That is, if the day-of-week is somehow relevant to the narrative, sure, include it, but otherwise no.
  • Assuming we're in some situation where (per the preceding) inclusion of day-of-week is indeed justified, maybe your question is how to append the D.O.W.
    • If the date is February 24 or February 24, 2024, then without doubt the right format is Wednesday, February 24 or Wednesday, February 24, 2024.
    • According to "Elite editing" (whoever they may be -- search the text "inverted style" on that page), the corresponding answers for 24 February and 24 February 2024 are Wednesday, 24 February and Wednesday, 24 February 2024. To me that does seem right -- Wednesday 24 February 2024 (all run together, no commas at all) seems intolerable.

The question naturally arises as to whether MOS should offer advice on all the above. My answer, as usual, is provisionally No, per WP:MOSBLOAT. EEng 08:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the article, the date is the 12th day of the Chinese year and the day of the week has no significance. I would remove the day of the week from all those dates in the infobox. For what it's worth, I spent most of the 1990s in Hong Kong/China. Major holidays based on the Chinese calendar treat the day of the week in the same way that we treat the day that Christmas falls on.  Stepho  talk  09:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay—will do. Thank you both. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The new 18th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style gives advice about commas in dates in ¶ 6.14. When giving examples they mostly give examples with words after the end of the date so the punctuation at the end of the date is illustrated. Some examples:

• The hearing was scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on Friday, August 9, 2024.
• Monday, May 5, was a holiday; Tuesday the 6th was not.

Jc3s5h (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Concur with EEng on avoiding adding a rule about this, as more WP:MOSBLOAT. It's just a matter of basic writing sense, basic comma usage in competent English. Our MoS's purpose is not that of CMoS or Fowler's, trying to answer every imaginable usage question. Just those that have an impact on reader comprehensibility and/or recurrent editorial strife.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Spacing with percentage points

A question regarding spacing of percentage point (pp) usage. I have always assumed there is no space between the number and pp (e.g. 5.5pp not 5.5 pp), on the basis that you wouldn't put a space between a number and a percentage sign (5% not 5 %). There is no reference to this in the MOS, but the percentage point article uses it unspaced. It might be good to have it clarified in the MOS as I see regular changes adding spacing, which I am not sure is correct. Cheers, Number 57 23:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:PERCENT says "omit space".  Stepho  talk  23:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps I am missing something, but as far as I can see, it says to omit space when using the percentage symbol (%) but nothing about when using pp? Number 57 00:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies, I missed the "point" word in your question.  Stepho  talk  01:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• % is essentially a constant factor (.01), but pp is more like a unit so my intuition says it should be spaced. I note that the basis point article uses a space before bp (mostly, anyway). I'll be interested to hear what others think. EEng 18:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  You've got this back to front. Percent (%) is a standard unit symbol and should be spaced, whereas pp is a made up abbreviation, meaning you can put it anywhere you want, space or unspaced. I know MOSNUM says otherwise, which is WP's prerogative. In other words, if we need a rule, let's make one up and apply it, but there's no logic involved. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Dondervogel, "Percent (%) is a standard unit symbol and should be spaced". Huh? It's not an ISO unit symbol, is it. No spacing in English, unlike French. On pp, I agree with EEng: space it. Tony (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Absolutely. When it comes to peepee, always space it . EEng 21:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, "%" is an ISO standard unit symbol. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  What is it the unit of? Gawaon (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing. It's a dimensionless quantity. To the original q: I don't see "pp" used often, in fact rarely. It's probably better written out in full on first use, and if there are subsequent uses, follow the guidance at MOS:ACRO1STUSE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's used widely in election infoboxes where there isn't space to write it out. Number 57 22:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I will answer Gawaon's valid question in two parts. The first part is a quotation from ISO 80000-1:2009 (emphasis added)

  • In some cases, per cent, symbol %, where 1 % := 0,01, is used as a submultiple of the coherent unit one.
  • EXAMPLE 4
  • reflection factor, r = 83 % = 0,83
  • Also, per mil (or per mille), symbol ‰, where 1 ‰ := 0,001, is used as a submultiple of the coherent unit one.Since the units “per cent” and “per mil” are numbers, it is meaningless to speak about, for example, percentage by mass or percentage by volume. Additional information, such as % (m/m) or % (V/V) shall therefore not be attached to the unit symbol %. See also 7.2. The preferred way of expressing, for example, a mass fraction is “the mass fraction of B is w B = 0,78” or “the mass fraction of B is wB = 78 %”. Furthermore, the term “percentage” shall not be used in a quantity name, because it is misleading. If a mass fraction is 0,78 = 78 %, is the percentage then 78 or 78 % = 0,78? Instead, the unambiguous term “fraction” shall be used. Mass and volume fractions can also be expressed in units such as µg/g = 10-6 or ml/m3 = 10-9.

  Notice the deliberate space between numerical value (e.g., 83) and unit symbol (%). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  The second part is a partial retraction, quoting from ISO 80000-1:2022, which supersedes the 2009 document:

  • If the quantity to be expressed is a sum or a difference of quantities, then either parentheses shall be used to combine the numerical values, placing the common unit symbol after the complete numerical value, or the expression shall be written as the sum or difference of expressions for the quantities.
  • EXAMPLE 1
  • l = 12 m - 7 m = (12 - 7) m = 5 m, not 12 - 7 m
  • U = 230 ⋅ (1 + 5 %) V = 230 ⋅ 1,05 V ≈ 242 V, not U = 230 V + 5 %

  The space is still there between numerical value (5) and percentage symbol (%), but I could not find an explicit reference to "%" as a unit symbol. I'm unsure how to interpret that change, but I'll report back here if I find further clarification. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I found this in NIST Special Publication 811

  • In keeping with Ref. , this Guide takes the position that it is acceptable to use the internationally recognized symbol % (percent) for the number 0.01 with the SI and thus to express the values of quantities of dimension one (see Sec. 7.14) with its aid. When it is used, a space is left between the symbol % and the number by which it is multiplied . Further, in keeping with Sec. 7.6, the symbol % should be used, not the name "percent."
  • Example: xB = 0.0025 = 0.25 % but not: xB = 0.0025 = 0.25% or xB = 0.25 percent
  • Note: xB is the quantity symbol for amount-of-substance fraction of B (see Sec. 8.6.2).
  • Because the symbol % represents simply a number, it is not meaningful to attach information to it (see Sec. 7.4). One must therefore avoid using phrases such as "percentage by weight," "percentage by mass," "percentage by volume," or "percentage by amount of substance." Similarly, one must avoid writing, for example, "% (m/m)," "% (by weight)," "% (V/V)," "% (by volume)," or "% (mol/mol)." The preferred forms are "the mass fraction is 0.10," or "the mass fraction is 10 %," or "wB = 0.10," or "wB =10 %" (wB is the quantity symbol for mass fraction of B—see Sec. 8.6.10); "the volume fraction is 0.35," or "the volume fraction is 35 %," or " φB = 0.35," or "φB = 35 %" (φB is the quantity symbol for volume fraction of B—see Sec. 8.6.6); and "the amount-of-substance fraction is 0.15," or "the amount-of-substance fraction is 15 %," or "xB = 0.15," or "xB = 15 %." Mass fraction, volume fraction, and amount-of-substance fraction of B may also be expressed as in the following examples: wB = 3 g/kg; φB = 6.7 mL/L; xB = 185 mmol/mol. Such forms are highly recommended (see also Sec. 7.10.3).
  • In the same vein, because the symbol % represents simply the number 0.01, it is incorrect to write, for example, "where the resistances R1 and R2 differ by 0.05 %," or "where the resistance R1 exceeds the resistance R2 by 0.05 %." Instead, one should write, for example, "where R1 = R2 (1 + 0.05 %)," or define a quantity Δ via the relation Δ = (R1 - R2) / R2 and write "where Δ = 0.05 %." Alternatively, in certain cases,the word "fractional" or "relative" can be used. For example, it would be acceptable to write "the fractional increase in the resistance of the 10 kΩ reference standard in 2006 was 0.002 %."

  As with ISO 80000-1:2022, there is always a space between numerical value (e.g., 35) and the percentage symbol (%), but no mention of % as a unit symbol. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  there is always a space between numerical value (e.g., 35) and the percentage symbol (%) – Maybe in NIST-world, but not here on Misplaced Pages (see MOS:PERCENT), so I don't see how any of that helps us with the issue at hand. EEng 23:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was correcting a misconception that % is not a unit symbol when it is. At least it was until 2022. I find it best not to leave incorrect statements unchallenged or they take on a life of their own. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Um, OK, but you do realize that WP does not follow NIST's advice about spacing it, yes? EEng 00:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, and I wasn't trying to change that. My contributions have been to

  • correct a factual error (yours)
  • respond to questions from Tony and Gawaon

  I have not weighed in on the main thread regarding percentage points because I don't expect my opinion (based not on NIST's utterings but on the ISO standards on which they are based) to be taken seriously, so why would I waste my e-breath? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• It is not conventional to space "%" in English. Nearly no publishers do this, and our MoS doesn't say to do this or incidentally illustrating doing this, so don't do this. "pp" here is a unit abbreviation for percentage point ("the unit for the arithmetic difference between two percentages)", so space it. % is not a unit abbreviation/symbol, but a quantity symbol, so it's in a different class. It's more like the ~ in "~5 ml". That the spelled-out equivalent "approximately", like the spelled out "percent", is spaced apart from the numeral is irrelevant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we have to convert inches for wheels?

I see people adding conversions to mentions of screen sizes and wheel dimensions - is this really necessary? Even in Germany or New Zealand, automobile and bike wheels are universally referred to by inches; rim diameters are expressly defined in inches in the EU regulations. To me, adding conversions for these types of dimensions adds unnecessary clutter, harming readability for no return whatsoever. I haven't read the entire MOS today, apologies if I missed a mention of these situations.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like sizing bike wheels in inches is not universal. I see many charts in the I-net such as this that use both metric and imperial/American units for bike wheels and tires. Whether the convert template handles them correctly is another issue. Donald Albury 17:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

On the matter of wheel sizes, not all are inches. See this post and my reply. Even for a conventional non-Denovo wheel, the dimensions are a bastard mixture: "195/65 R 15" means a tyre that is 195 mm wide on a 15-inch rim. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is the Michelin TRX and the Denovo. Just as we wouldn't convert the "195" when we write 195/60 R15, I don't think we ought to convert the diameter either. I would treat all of these tire dimensions as one would nominal measurements, rather than inserting unnecessary templates. Bicycle tires, meanwhile, proved more varied than I was aware of.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.Choppers on this subject. I think wheels sizes on cars are a compromise between the USA and the rest of the world. There are metric rims on older vehicles but pretty rare on new vehicles. Avi8tor (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Avi8tor: - I was actually triggered by you converting screen dimensions, but five minutes online showed me that the modern world has indeed begun dropping the use of inches for screens. My gut was wrong.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Many people around the planet know only millimetres, so it makes sense to have both. I notice in France the data information on television screen size have it in both inches and millimetres. Avi8tor (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Aviator, who didn't mention that aviation uses "feet" for altitude—needs conversion in my view. Tony (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  I thought that "feet" used for altitude is not a measure of distance but of pressure, so perhaps it should be converted to pascals first. I'm not saying one should not then convert to metres too - only that the conversion would need some care. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC Indian numbering conventions

There is consensus to continue using crore and lakhs when appropriate.

Most participants also generally agreed with SchreiberBike's conditions (or a variant) - Always 1) link it on first use, 2) include what it is a measure of (rupees can not be assumed), 3) also include conventional numbering, and 4) allow it only in articles about the subcontinent.

However, this RFC suffered from structural issues that a precise wording isn't agreed on yet. Any changes from status quo should go through a clearer future discussion or RFC on just that.

(non-admin closure) Soni (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am revisiting an issue that was last brought up 6 years ago here and settled without a strong consensus.

I think we should avoid using Indian numbering conventions unless it is needed for context. For instance, if we want to list the box office take of an Indian movie, don't use "crore", use "millions". This isn't about disrespecting a culture, it's about using internationally favored notation and unit conventions. We should use "millions" instead of "crore" for the same reason we favor meters over feet. There is no reason that India-related articles should be an enclave of Indian conventions. People who are not Indian will struggle with these things, it will weaken Misplaced Pages's role as an information tool for everyone.

This is not the same thing as currency. It is appropriate to list an Indian movie's box office take in rupees. Providing a US$ conversion is optional, but a good idea since the US dollar is widely used around the world as a reserve currency. But write it as "millions of rupees", not "crores of rupees". Kurzon (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

What's the common usage in english? GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think most people in the US understand what "crore" is, and would not recognize it as part of the English language. The online Merriam-Webster dictionary says it means ten million, specifically, a unit of value equal to ten million rupees or 100 lakhs. I think most people in the US would not even understand that a currency is being mentioned.

--Jc3s5h (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Not just people in the US. Nobody outside of India can be expected to know what a crore is. Kurzon (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

We use meters over feet? Where?

In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.)

Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You get extra points for saying "US customary" and not "Imperial". 😉 Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

imperial :3 Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Kurzon, do not use "crore", use "millions". Misplaced Pages is for a worldwide audience. Avi8tor (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Kinda like how US units are used for US articles, I don't see the harm in using "crore", and it's way more work to manually convert to millions every time a member of India's vast diaspora in the Global North adds "crore" to an article, not knowing our ManualOfStyle. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Except we don't favor meters over feet — we use both. That's what the Convert template is for.

Speaking as a non-Indian, who can never remember what how many is a "crore": I'm fine with it, as long as the international unit is also used. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

We already make an exception for feet. I see no good reason for barring a second exception. State in crore and convert to a unit non-Indians can understand (millions of rupees?). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The article for the French movie Les Visiteurs lists the budget as "9.5 million", using a point as a decimal separator. In France they use commas for this, ie "9,5 million". We don't use the French notation convention for France-related articles. Kurzon (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it the French style to use that notation in English? A different unit elicits way less confusion than a reversed decimal separator meaning anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RFC; see WP:RFCNEUTRAL and the rest of the guidance there too. Unsurprisingly, this has just started out as a disorganized discussion that doesn't resemble a normal RFC...you might want to just remove the tag, get some feedback, and then start a proper one in a bit (separate subsections for discussion and survey are pretty helpful too). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Kurzon: I did advise you not to jump straight for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC without first exhausting the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

This RfC is clearly improperly formatted, Kurzon; thank you to our unregistered friend for pointing this out.

Oh come now. It seems to be developing nicely, I doubt that any editors are swayed by the wording. it's not perfect but perfect is the enemy of good and its good enough. Herostratus (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That reply was before the appropriate discussion centers were notified and before discussion started to develop. It's not just formatting; it's that there was no prior discussion. Now we're effectively having both at the same time, especially when an informal discussion could've resulted in consensus without a time-consuming process. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Consistency and clarity to our international readership are valid arguments in favor of prohibiting "crore" and "lakh". However, Aaron Liu makes good points about the fact that we allow local variation in articles with local ties, e.g. all of ENGVAR. I am unsure where I sit on this issue. I would like to see some Indian editors weigh in on this. Toadspike 19:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that crores are too obscure (as are lakhs), with use limited to South Asia. Feet and inches, while retrograde and infinitely useless, were used across most of the world not many generations ago. The major unit in Japanese is 万 (man), which is 10,000, but we do not use that because most people wouldn't know it. Engvar is somewhat different: we cannot avoid choosing between "colour" and "color", for instance, whereas we can easily write the globally recognized "millions" rather than crores. As for User:Aaron Liu's comment: if someone adds crore, it will be there until fixed – it's not pressing enough of a problem to hunt down every instance.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good point about 万 – I completely forgot that Chinese has similarly different units. I think that settles it – either we allow crore and lakh alongside the East Asian 万 and 亿 (which I think is ridiculous) and an infinite variety of customary units, or we allow none.

(Two counterarguments: 1. This is a slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. To which I say no, we can't give only one country special treatment, we ought to be fair. 2. The East Asian units are non-Latin characters and thus more impractical than "crore". This is true.) Toadspike 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

On the subject of the myriad, I agree with Toads's second counterargument: there is no widely-recognized English translation for the unit in some "East Asian variant" of English; they just convert it to short scale in translations.

we cannot avoid choosing between "colour" and "color", for instance, whereas we can easily write the globally recognized "millions" rather than crores.

Part of my argument is that "crore" vs long scale is basically the same thing as "colour" vs "color": anonymous editors are going to add them. A ton. Expecting people to not use crore is like expecting people to not spell "colour". It's not pressing enough to hunt down, sure, but you're going to see sweet summer children adding crore into crore-free articles again and again and again. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I've left a (neutrally-worded) note about this discussion at the Talk page of WikiProject India. Toadspike 20:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Don't allow crore. In the interest of making articles understandable to a wider audience, we already do this for the decimal marker (.) and separator for groups of 3 digits (,) as previously mentioned. We also require the use of short-scale even though long-scale hasn't entirely died out in the British Isles. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  The decimal marker and long/short scale have a much better reason for their ban: The symbols they use have very different meanings outside of their local context, while crore, lakh, etc. do not. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Don't allow crore Per WP:COMMONALITY. This is not comparable with US v metric units where we report both - that is just a case of which is primarily reported. Furthermore, imperial units have a relatively recent historical usage across English. It is not like other issues of ENGVAR such as colour v color or ise v ize that do not affect understanding. For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable - to the point of being paramount. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• Allow crore, lakh and Indian numbering system, but always, 1) link it on first use, 2) include what it is a measure of (rupees can not be assumed), 3) also include conventional numbering, and 4) allow it only in articles about the subcontinent. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with all of these conditions. While I remain somewhat ambivalent on the use of “crore” in general, we must provide enough context for non-Indian readers to understand them. Toadspike 13:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Allow crore, lakh per SchreiberBike, and with the same caveats. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Allow ScreiberBike, per my comments above. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Allow ScreiberBike. But see also Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Basic_India_conventions - "You may use the Indian numbering system of lakhs and crores but should give their equivalents in millions/billions in parentheses" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteramellus (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Allow crore, lakh and Indian numbering system, but always, 1) link it upon first use in every section where it appears, 2) include what it is a measure of (rupees can not be assumed), 3) also include conventional numbering using template {{convert}}—i.e., don't convert yourself, and 4) allow it only in articles about the subcontinent. Mathglot (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hm; was very surprised to notice that the {{convert}} template does not currently support lakhs and crores. I think it should, and started a discussion about that. If you wish to comment, please go to Module talk:Convert#Indian numbering system: lakhs and crores. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  The convert template converts units, like feet and metres. Crores and lakhs are not units, but multipliers. It would be like convert being used to convert between hundreds, thousands, millions etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  The {{lakh}} and {{crore}} templates make more sense than overloading {{convert}}.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with SchreiberBike and others; "crores" and "lakhs" can always be used to add colour/color to an article as long as those requirements are met.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Do not allow. This is not the same as variations of English in wide use where there are multiple widespread usages (color or colour). While SchreiberBike's conditions for use are reasonable, I would say that the standard international measurements should always be primary and subcontinent-specific numbering as a secondary only in articles about the subcontinent. Avgeekamfot (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  What does "widespread" mean? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Allow, but always ... exactly as Mathglot laid out above (other than, per Stepho-wrs and Redrose64, {{convert}} isn't actually the right template, or at least isn't presently). I would add a further caveat that these traditional Indic units (technically, multipliers) should be given secondarily not primarily, but I could live without that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• Allow when appropriate, under conditions set out by ScreiberBike. Also, this RfC does not meet WP:RFCNEUTRAL. ThatIPEditor 02:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Do not allow crore et al. It's not only native English-speakers who haven't a clue what it means when reading India-related articles; it's non-natives too. Tony (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't get what native/non-native speakers have to do with the issue. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Allow per ScreiberBike for South Asian articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Allow All Indian academic/professional textbooks and all Indian reliable sources, with few exceptions for specific conditions, use lakhs/crores when denoting INR and millions/billions when denoting foreign currencies. Not allowing is not an option, unless editors want to disregard Indian readers. Using X million rupees is almost as uncommon in India as using Y lakh dollars. My suggestion -- for articles that use {{Use Indian English}} force editors to 1) link it on first use, 2) include what it is a measure of (rupees can not be assumed) with Indian comma separator at 00 after thousands and for articles that don't use that template force editors to always use millions/billions with 000 comma separator. — hako9 (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  Strongly disallow use of Indian comma separator. That would only serve to confuse. We don't permit a French comma separator on English Misplaced Pages. The Indian comma would be much worse. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  I concur entirely with Dongervogel_2 on this side-point; we cannot mix-and-match numeric separator styles. We've repeatedly had debates in the past about permitting "," instead of "." as a decimal point to suit the preference of some subset of readers, and the answer is always firmly "no", so this isn't going to be any different. I'm not a professional researcher in this area, but I have looked into the matter in the course of various style debates, and the evidence clearly shows Indian publications using "Western" number formatting systems (or whatever you want to call them) on a regular basis, though often alongside the Indic krore, etc., system. That is, it's just not plausible that English-using readers in/from India have any difficulty understanding our numeric material, especially after the rise of the Internet has exposed them to content from all over the world since the mid-1990s and pretty much ubiquitously since the early 2010 with the rise of mobile data.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  “it's just not plausible that English-using readers in/from India have any difficulty understanding our numeric material …” Of course the same could be said of American readers and the spelling of ‘colour’. — HTGS (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  What isn't the same is how many editors will add "colour" into articles while most wouldn't add numbers in the Indian system. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  I’m genuinely not sure what your point is? Editors are more likely to (erroneously) change spelling to ‘colour’, so that gives them more grounds for the MOS giving them parity with American English? I know we should be realistic about what we can control, but I don’t love that logic. — HTGS (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that or add spelling that says "colour" is what I'm saying. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Like I would campaign for navboxes to be placed in the "see also" section if it weren't so widespread and unduly investative to correct. The corrections for disallowing crore are the same thing to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  On this attempt at a color false analogy: "What isn't the same" even more pertinently is that the cases aren't parallel in any way. Crore and lakh are not barely noticeable spelling differences of an everyday word used the same way in every single dialect of English; they're a radically different system of approaching large-ish numbers. There is no audience capable of reading en.wikipedia for whom either colour or color is impenetrable. If HTGS's pseudo-analogy is intended to suggest that ENGVAR should be undone on the same basis that we would rejecte or further restrain use of crore and lakh, that doesn't work since they're not actually analogous at all, plus the fact that not a single element of MoS is more dear to the community than ENGVAR; it is never, ever going away. If HTGS isn't actually suggesting we get rid of ENGVAR but is instead trying to suggest that opposition to crore is pretty much the same as advocating the death of ENGVAR, that's not cogent either, for the same false-analogy reason plus scoops of slippery slope, overgeneralization, and argument to emotion fallacies plopped on top. Aaron Liu's original "what isn't the same" point is that most editors will use color or colour as contextually appropriate in our content, yet very few will ever add lakh or crore to an Indic-connected article. That could be argued to be suggestive of a de facto community consensus already existing against those units' use at en.wikipedia. While it's worth considering, it's clouded by WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in that a comparatively small percentage of our editors are from India or its immediate environs, so the statistics are probably not usefully comparable even if they could be gathered with certainty. I would suggest that the reasons to rarely use crore/lakh and to always convert when used at all, has to do with end-reader comprehensibility, not with editor preference or usage rates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Because, the fact is, we aren’t using varieties of English solely to ensure accuracy or intelligibility. They are also being used to avoid recreating the Anglo-American hegemony that exists in published English, and to foster a connection in the community with the most interest in the subject. — HTGS (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  This is not MakeLocalsAsHappyAsPossiblePedia or EngageInCrossCulturalFeelGoodBackscratchingPedia or RightGreatWrongsPedia. It may be unfortunate in some sense that a "Western" (now globally internationalized) enumeration system dominates nearly everywhere (with arguably more benefits than costs), but it is a fact. And it has nothing to do with "Anglo-American" anything, being the same system used by the French and the Russians and the Japanese and so on, and predating both America and England and even the English language, going back to ancient Eurasia very broadly, from the Rome to China. (There's an incidental British correlation of course: it was largely the English, along with the Dutch, who pushed this system in India. That makes it socio-politically and emotively connected to India–UK and Indian–Western relations, but it is not an Anglic counting system and we are not to be confused by sentiment.) More to the point, the "job" of this site is to communicate clearly with as many English-competent readers as possible. The simple fact is that virtually no one outside of the Subcontinent and nearby islands (plus first-generation emigrées therefrom), think in or even understand lakh and crore; meanwhile pretty much everyone in India and thereabouts also understands millions, and hundreds of thousands, even if it is not their immediate mental model and they have to convert a bit in their heads, like Americans with metric units. There is no bothsides-ism to be had here; the sides are not equivalent. Finally, it is not the goal of our articles on Indic culture, history, geography, economics, etc., to appeal to and primarily serve the interests of people in South Asia, but everyone. For this reason, I'm supportive of retaining the permissibility of crore and lakh in relevant articles as long as they are always converted into the now globally prevalent enumeration system, and usually with that first unless there's an important contextual reason to use lakh/crore first. Best of both worlds: everyone gets to understand the material, and Indic numbering is not deleted. It's pretty much the same situation as American customary ("imperial") units of measurement: most of the world doesn't use or understand them, but we should not ban them, just always convert them to metric. (The only difference I can see is "wiki-political": our American editorial and read bases are so large that it would be very difficult to get consensus to always put American units second after metric even in articles about American subjects. That really should be the rule, but it'll be hard to get there.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Do not allow crore - I am not convinced that this word is actually English, and this is the English-language wikipedia. It seems that this is a foreign word that is used alongside English in areas that have ties to the language this word is from. Even in these areas, it seems that English speakers there fully understand what "millions", "thousands", etc mean, and there have been attestations linked above where they use both, presumably to help English speaking people understand what number is being referred to. My perspective here is colored by being an American expat living in Japan... in day-to-day speech, I will sometimes mix the languages and say "Oh, this costs 3 man yen." But I am under no circumstances thinking that "man" meaning "ten thousand" is English. I'm using another language's word. That's what it looks like they are doing here. Fieari (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  As an alternative, I would also accept allowing crore only if the "millions" number is included alongside it. Fieari (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Gumption" is borrowed from Scots; it is English. "Chutzpah" is borrowed from Yiddish; it is English. "Powwow" is borrowed from East-American indigenous language; it is English. "Crore" is borrowed from Hindustani; it is Indian English. All of the above are attested by dictionaries, while "man" to mean myriads is not. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Allow crore - my gut feeling is to disallow it because it is not English as understood by the majority of English readers (including native speakers from UK/US/Australia/etc and second language speakers from China/S.America/Europe/etc). However, crore and lakh are words that Indians practically think in even when speaking English. We have a similar problem where an article is marked as British English and has 99 occurrences of "litre" - an American will still add new stuff with "liter" because it is so naturally to them. In the same way, we will be pushing it up hill trying to get them to stop. So, we should let them use it in articles related to the Indian region but never on anything outside that region. Each first usage should link to crore and lakh so that the few non-Indian region readers have a clue what's going on. I would not bother with conversion to millions - once you learn that they are just putting 0's at the end it becomes easy enough in a short time and conversions just clutter up the article. But do not allow grouping like 1,00,000 under any circumstances. Stepho  talk  02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• Don't allow crore. If there are people who don't know what "million" is, well some level of literacy is required here, yes. As to "link on first use", no, links are supposed to be "here's some extra/more detailed info about the subject if you want" not "you need to interrupt the flow of your reading and go off the page to understand this word". Herostratus (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Actually that's exactly what links are for. Readers who know the general topic well can just read an article straight forwardly. But readers new to the general topic are likely to come across words they don't know yet and can follow the links to learn. Eg, in car articles we often talk about the camshaft. If you are new to the detailed study of cars then you can follow that link and then return later.  Stepho  talk  06:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  And if anybody thinks that a politely worded MOS rule will stop them adding crore and lakh then consider that at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nissan&diff=1256595427&oldid=1256557060 somebody added a MDY style date in spite of the article having 186 references in DMY style. I fix these (in both directions) practically daily. People do whatever comes natural and do not consider that any other way even exists.

  But I do feel a little better after my vent :)  Stepho  talk  11:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  +1 and it’s worth reiterating that most advocates here are suggesting that the Indic value should always be “translated” into a Western value in parentheses, so most naïve readers would still be able to parse the article without following the link. — HTGS (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Do not allow crore—India-related articles are for international readership. No one outside the subcontinent is familiar with crore. It is a disservice to readers to allow it. Tony (talk) 06:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  If they are not familiar with crore they can read the conversion to millions. And if they also want to learn about crore they can click on the link. I see no disservice. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps some are not aware but English Misplaced Pages is heavily used in India. The Top 50 Report from 2023 had five items about Indian movies and movie stars. The latest week's most viewed Top 25 had 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election and Kanguva. According to Indian English there are 128 million English speakers there. If we say to basically never use crore and lakh, we are sending a discouraging, even insulting, message to many of our readers and editors. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Allow in articles with strong ties to India, provided that the conversion is shown at first use. Hey, we could even write In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States India, the primary units are US customary (pounds, miles, feet, inches, etc.) multipliers are Crore and Lakh. See sauce for the goose. Also, it is very relevant that a huge fraction of en.wiki readers are Indian. "ccording to a 2011 census, 10.2% of the Indian population speaks English. This figure includes all Indians who speak English as a first, second, or third language. 10% of India's population is approximately 145 million people." Twice as many as in the UK, half as many as in the US. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• Allow only with linking and conversion as per Mathglot. The most practical solution for both Indian and non-Indian readers. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Maybe this can be solved technologically so that every user sees numbers in the way they are accustomed to? Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This could be done for logged in users, but the vast majority of readers are not logged in with an account. Similar solutions have been proposed for date style and variety of English, but they won't work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which era?

I'm inviting fellow editors to figure out whether Religious perspectives on Jesus should use BC / AD or BCE / CE. The issue is that the article mixes eras and when I went back to see which was first, I saw it originally used "BC/BCE" and it stayed like that for years. The thread: Talk:Religious perspectives on Jesus#BC BCE AD CE. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterhatch (talk • contribs)

MOS:ERA applies so status quo ante should apply. (FWIW, Judaism and Islam have religious perspectives on Jesus of Nazareth, so the neutral style seems entirely appropriate.). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on the last part. As for the procedural matters, all of our MOS:VAR principles ultimately default/fallback to the style used in the first non-stub version that used one of the competing styles, if consensus fails. MOS:STYLEVAR is the general principle, the root rule: Don't change from one acceptable style without a very good reason. If there is or you expect resistance, discuss to establish consensus. If you don't get consensus for your change (i.e., there is consensus against you), it stays the status quo ante. If there's no consensus on which would be better (which is often the case and likely the one in this case), then use the version established earliest. For particular things covered by MOS:DATEVAR, MOS:ERA, MOS:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, we simply reiterate this principle and process more topically, and these ones also basically resolve to an additional rule: don't change that particular kind of style without establishing consensus first even if you're sure you've got a good reason and don't think there should be resistance.

The STYLEVAR process actually sometimes (namely when there's clearly no firm consensus in favor of the status quo ante, either) overrides the usual Misplaced Pages status quo ante principle, which in practice amounts to "fall back to whatever the discussion closer thinks is more or less a pretty long-term status quo". That usually works for a lot of things, but for these "I will win my Holy Style War or die trying" tedious cyclic bikeshedding typographic disputes, it has proven unworkable, because the dispute lives on and on, simply shifting in stages to: what constitutes a status quo; how long is long enough; whether interruptions in the use of the alleged status quo have reset its tenure; whether this *VAR-imposed consensus discussion was followed when the alleged status quo was imposed; if not, then whether that imposition pre-dated STYLEVAR requiring it; and yadda yadda yadda. There's just no end to it, because it's too often a super-trivial but deeply obsessive PoV-pushing exercise grounded in prescriptivist emotions (mixed sometimes with nationalist, or socio-politically activistic, or my-profession-vs.-yours, etc.). The style-war-ending default of falling back to the first major edit that established one of the competing styles is arbitrary (in both senses), but it is the end of it, and we move on to something more productive.

For this particular article: If "it originally used 'BC/BCE'" in the original post isn't a typo, and really does mean that the style was mixed from day one, then that's a rare edge case, and JMF's "status quo ante should apply" is probably the only reasonable approach. (Even from an excessively proceduralist viewpoint: If STYLEVAR and its application ERAVAR impose an overriding principle that in this case cannot actually be applied, then the default necessarily must be the normal Wikipedian status quo ante principle, even if for matters like this it tends to lead to re-ignition of the dispute again in short order. Not every solution is perfection.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

But what would be the status quo ante in this case? Surely you can't mean the mixed BC/BCE style? Gawaon (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Four questions

1. Can 24-hour clock be used in articles with strong ties to United States (I have seen no US-related articles with 24-hour clock) such as: "The Super Bowl begins at 18:40 ET?
2. Can 12-hour clock be used with UTC time?
3. How are primary units of an article determined if the article has strong ties to both US and Canada, as Canada-related articles always use metric units first? For example, Great Lakes is such an article, and it currently uses imperial units first, but it would be more logical to use metric units first as a Canada-related article.
4. Why mixed units are not used with metric units? Why it is either 1.33 m or 133 cm, but never 1 m 33 cm? --40bus (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

   I'd add a fifth question: why does Misplaced Pages not use ISO dates, i.e. yyyy/mm/dd? They are becoming more common internationally. Skeptic2 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

   1. I wouldn't recommend it.
   2. Probably?
   3. That should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
   4. No benefit for the additional visual or semantic complexity; that's part of the appeal of the metric system, right?
   5. English-language sources never use this format, and the English Misplaced Pages bases its style on that of other English-language media.

   Remsense ‥ 论 00:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

   You write "English-language sources never use this format", but this is untrue. ISO date format is widely used in scientific publishing and it is standard in aviation and for machine processing. Have a look at the Misplaced Pages entry List of date formats by country. You might be surprised.Skeptic2 (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

   I personally use ISO format on my devices; if it helps, you can replace "never" with "almost never". Remsense ‥ 论 23:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

1. MOS:TIME says 12 and 24 clocks are equally valid. It's just that the majority of native English speakers use 12 hour clocks, so they choose to use 12 hour clocks. If you create an article (or are the first to mention times within an existing article) then you can choose. Don't change an existing article from one to the other. With the possible exception of US Army articles, you may get kick-back from readers not familiar with the MOS. See the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT essay.
2. UTC is an offset. It is a separate question from how you format that time. UTC can be used with either 12 or 24 hour clocks. See MOS:TIMEZONE but it doesn't actually say much.
3. Primary units are based on strong ties to a country. If you have multiple countries with a mix of units then you have multiple weak ties and no strong ties. Therefore we default to metric first, as per WP:UNITS. Only articles with strong ties to the US and UK get to use imperial units first.
4. A major benefit of metric is that we can change from m to cm to mm to km just by shifting the decimal point. Splitting it into 1 m 33 cm makes that harder and is now rarely used in metric countries. It was more common in my country of Australia during the first 20 years after metrication when we copied our old imperial habits but it fell out of favour and we now universally say 133 cm, 1.33 m or 1330 mm as appropriate. Countries using imperial units tend to use split units because it is so hard to convert miles to feet, gallons to ounces, etc in your head.
5. ISO 8601 dates are allowed in limited cases (mostly references and tables where space is limited). It is not used in prose because it is not yet common for native English speakers to use this in their day-to-day lives. Note that any other purely numeric format is strictly disallowed. See WP:DATEFORMAT  Stepho  talk  01:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

   (In terms of accuracy in my own answers, 2 out of 5 ain't bad right?) Remsense ‥ 论 01:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Being OCD helps 😉  Stepho  talk  01:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure how to medicalize it, but I'm certainly obsessive and compulsive, and it only helps somewhat! Remsense ‥ 论 02:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Answering #2 and #4 only

• 2. No. The clarity of UTC is obtained only with a 24-hour clock.
• 4. You could write 1 m + 33 cm if you want, but why make life so complicated? The plus sign is needed because without it a multiplication is implied (1 m 33 cm = 0.33 m).

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The answer to Q2 will depend at least in part on whether UTC was chosen because it's local time or because it's the international time standard. It would make no sense to allow the 12-hour clock for events in London between March and October, but ban it for events between October and March. Kahastok talk 14:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kahastok: I don't get this reply. The time of an events in London is given according to BST (= UTC+01:00) in summer and according to GMT (= UTC+00:00) in winter – normally without either qualification stated unless it is the weekend when the time changes. It the time zone matters (for an internationally televised live event, for example), the time is normally given both ways: in the local and in the international notations. (Or did you not realise that GMT is just another timezone, not a synonym for UTC though often used that way, especially by seafarers.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't accept that UTC is always distinct from GMT. Usually there is not enough information about the reasons a particular author used one or the other abbreviation to tell if the author intended a distinction or not. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Well OK, if we're going to insist that the sub-second formal discrepancy between GMT and UTC is somehow vitally important (despite all evidence to the contrary) the split hairs do not count in the case of Lisbon, where the local time in the winter is defined as UTC, rather than just being UTC in practice. Why would we say that a winter event in Lisbon has to use the 24-hour clock, but a summer event does not?

For the record, I don't think I have ever seen a time recorded at 17:00 GMT (17:00 UTC) and I would like to see examples of that usage. Kahastok talk 19:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

and you never will, because it would be pedantic in the extreme. In fact most timestamps you see anywhere will be just one of (a) not stated, because it is for local use; (b) the local timezone (notation adjusted according to whether or not DST is in operation); (c) a poor third at "front of house" (excepting worldwide online systems like Misplaced Pages), UTC time. Use of both (b)&(c) at once is very rare, vanishingly so if b=GMT or even BST.

Jc3s5h is certainly correct for use of GMT in almost all sources pre this century and still quite a few recently – it will take 50 years to fall out of use as a world standard, I suspect. Perhaps more ... who would think that there are still people who insist on chain (unit)s?

Just to be clear, I am not proposing that we introduce an MOS rule mandating any notation. Just clarifying that GMT is not a synonym for UTC. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If you weren't aiming to be pedantic in the extreme, why bring it up? And in particular, why claim - specifically in the context of GMT vs UTC - that the time is normally given both ways: in the local and in the international notations in situations where time zone matters? 'Kahastok' talk 21:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC) s

My 2c:

1. Not just English speakers, anybody with an analogue wristwatch display does so. BUT (in the UK at least), train, bus and plane timetables are invariably shown using 24 hour clock notation. Basically, anywhere that it matters, where ambiguity might arise.
   1. The application of am and pm to 12:00 noon and midnight seems to be a perennial source of dispute, see 12-hour clock#Confusion at noon and midnight. Good luck with writing an MOS guidance that avoids that minefield.
2. I was about to declare that UTC offsets never exceeds 12:00 so crisis, what crisis? But I think there is a UTC+13:00 on one of the Pacific islands near the date line?
3. Stepho, the use of imperial units in the UK is dying out, literally as well as metaphorically since they are preferred by the older generation. Don't be fooled by the rail-fans insistence on chains – all UK railway engineering has been done in metric since 1975. So no, MOS:RETAIN applies to UK articles too. Except articles under the aegis of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK Railways, of course. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
4. I concur with Stepho's reply.
5. Anybody who puts their boiled egg upside down should be taken out and beheaded immediately! (aka, ask us again in a 100 years time but it is a non-starter right now.)

Here endeth the lesson. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You say, the use of imperial units in the UK is dying out. Is it therefore your contention that the British (or even just younger British people) all use kilometres really and just put miles on all the road signs to confuse foreigners? Kahastok talk 19:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Because of the multitude of road signs and therefore the huge cost of moving from miles, that one will likely never change. In most other fields, however, there has been a progressive move toward using metric measurements in the UK over recent decades. MapReader (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Never mind that other countries that went metric changed our road signs just fine.  Stepho  talk  05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Dondervogel 2, why must UTC be 24 hours? UTC is just a timezone. Technically it is no different any other timezone and the other time zones can use either 12 or 24 hour times as they wish. Of course, UTC is a little special in that it gets used as the "universal" timezone. And when somebody wants to be unambiguous they tend to use 24 hour time. And when they want to be really unambiguous they write it as UTC rather than local. But a lot of that is just convention. They could equally well say 4:00 pm UTC and still be very precise and unambiguous.

Also, why do you need the "+". In the 1970s in Australia (just after metrication) we used to see "1 m 33 cm" a lot. I've never seen anyone think that it was multiplication. It was more likely from the habit of doing "4 ft 7 in". Once we learnt that writing it as 1.33 m or 133 cm made conversion between them trivial (just shift the little dot), we dropped the complication of mixed units.  Stepho  talk  05:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• UTC is not a time zone. It's a time standard, and it uses a 24-hour clock.
• In the language of the SI, symbols have special meanings. If you mean addition (as here) you need a "+" sign. In the absence of any other symbol, a space denotes multiplication. Outside the SI you can invent any conventions you want, and Misplaced Pages sometimes chooses to depart from the SI, via MOSNUM. I don't believe MOSNUM permits this particular departure.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Remsense, one reason Misplaced Pages can't rely on ISO 8601 throughout is that some articles express dates in the Julian calendar, or even the Roman calendar, and ISO 8601 only allows the Gregorian calendar. ISO 8601 is fine for airline schedules and hotel reservations, but it truly sucks for history. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If we can't get Americans to switch to DMY, or Brits to switch to MDY, what hope do we have of getting both groups to switch to YMD? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with YMD, besides unfamiliarity, is that you frequently want to suppress the Y part when it's understood, and that's harder to do when it's at the start. --Trovatore (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the UN should enforce use of DMY worldwide on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, MDY on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and of course dedicate the weekends to YMD. Remsense ‥ 论 00:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Whaaaaat? Why would we want the least fun format on the weekend?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Year-first encourages us to meditate on the long term while many are less occupied at work. Remsense ‥ 论 08:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

My responses to these questions would be:

1. There is no strong tie of "18:40" format to the US, or the UK, or whatever. It's a format used in a variety of military, otherwise-governmental (e.g. transport/transit scheduling), and sometimes scientific and a few other contexts, and that's true inside and outside the US. It's a completely abnormal format outside of those kinds of contexts, and people don't use it on an everyday basis (that I know of; maybe there is some English-using country in which it has been so aggressively imposed that it's become an everyday norm there and people don't know what "3 pm" means any more, but I'm not aware of such a place). MOS:NUM grudgingly permits its use, but 24-hour format verges on "user-hateful" and should be avoided in most circumstances (i.e. where it's not an established norm for the subject in question).
   • On JMF's side point about "12:00 pm", MoS could easily have a rule about this, just to settle the confusion, which is common among the general populace, but not among reliable sources on time and writing, in which it virtually always corresponds to "12:00" in 24-hour time, with "12:00 am" being "00:00". MoS saying something about it, though, should be to avoid it in favor of "midnight" and "noon", because confusion among everyday people persists. (My city is gradually changing all of its "No Parking 12 AM – 6 AM, Street Cleaning, Tu, Th" signs to "No Parking 12:01 AM – 6:01 AM, Street Cleaning, Tu, Th" because of this factor).
2. Meaningless, confused question. As Stepho-wrs explained, UTC is an offset, not a format. There's a standardized way of writing the name of a UTC time-zone offset, e.g. as "UTC+05:00", but that's not relevant to how times are used or referred to (in various styles) for typical human consumption. Likewise, the Unicode name of "@" is "U+0040 @ COMMERCIAL AT", but this has no implications for use of the symbol or for plain-English references to it; writing "the at-sign" is not an error. When WP puts "3:05 pm, February 3, 2002 (UTC)" in someone's sig to conform to their date settings in the WP "Preferences" panes, that is also not an error.
   • Stepho-wrs (which surprises me, given the above) wondered why UTC offset names use a +. It's because the offsets run both directions, e.g. "UTC−05:00" is US and Canadian eastern standard time, and rendering the positive ones as "UTC 05:00" or "UTC05:00" would be problematic for humans and automation alike in various ways. The + isn't any more superfluous than the leading 0 on 00–09.
3. A Canada–US squabble over ordering: A) Who cares? We have {{convert}} for a reason. B) This is a pretty good argument (from Stepho-wrs): "If you have multiple countries with a mix of units then you have multiple weak ties and no strong ties. Therefore we default to metric first, as per WP:UNITS." B) If that argument were not persuasive, then MOS:STYLEVAR still already covers this: When there are two competing acceptable styles, do not change from one to the other without an objectively defensible reason. Try to establish consensus on the article's talk page about which should be preferred, if you are convinced a change should happen. Iff such a consensus cannot be reached, then default to whatever was used in the first post-stub version of the article (same as with ENGVAR disputes, and CITEVAR ones). So, we are not missing any rules.
4. It's "1.33 m" (not "1 m 33 cm") primarily because that is how the metric system is internationally standardized and how it is used in the real world, rather consistently. The two-units version is also less concise, and annoyingly repetitive because of how the units are named. And the system is designed to be decimal from the ground up. Thus Steoph-wrs observation: "Once we learnt that writing it as 1.33 m or 133 cm made conversion between them trivial (just shift the little dot), we dropped the complication of mixed units." It's not WP's role to treat occasionally-attestable but very disused variants away from a near universal system as if they had become norms and must at all costs be permitted. (Much of MoS's role is eliminating unhelpful variation that is confusion or which causes cyclic dispute, even if we settle on something arbitrary; but most of MOS:NUM is not arbitrary but standards-based.) As for US customary (or "imperial" units, never mind the British empire doesn't exist any longer and what's left of it metricated a long time ago), you can find decimal uses of it for various purposes in real-world publications (e.g. "0.35 in"), but it tends to be for special purposes, like establishing margin widths when printing on non-metric paper, and in electronic media when calculation or sorting might be needed. But the typical use of such units is in "3 ft 7 in" form because they are unrelated units, and because the two-unit split format is deeply conventionalized, including in various industries like construction. That's not true of "3 m 7 cm".
   • I don't buy Dondervogel_2's "multiplication implied" argument. Virtually no one outside of some particular ivory towers (and even then only in specialist material that was explicit about it) would ever interpret any "# unit1 # unit2" construction, in any context, as a multiplication operation. The real world routinely uses formats like this and never means multiplication by it. E.g. look at the fine print on any laptop's or other device's power-brick; you'll likely see back-to-back, undivided measurement-and-unit-symbol pairs, like "12 W  3.7 A".
5. Skeptic2's add-on ISO-dates question: WP doesn't use 2024-12-23 format (except for special purposes) because it is not a norm, anywhere (as an ENGVAR or other geographical or dialect consideration). It's only standardized within specific industries, systems, processes, organizations, and other specialized usage spheres. (I use it very, very frequently in web development and other coding. But it's not something I'd use in a letter or a novel or an op-ed, because it's a format for computers, and for precision and cross-language exchange among engineers and scientists, not a format for everyday communication.) I've never seen one iota of evidence of broad and increasing acceptance of ISO among the general public for daily use, in regular writing (though ability to parse it has likely increased in the last 30 years because of the Internet and the amount of people's exposure to code that uses it). But it does not match anyone but maybe an ultra-nerd's English-language parsing. If you're American, probably (unless you are older and rural) what you think and say aloud to express today's date is "December 23, 2024" or perhaps "December 23rd, 2024". If you're not American, you probably (some Canadians are an exception too) would express it as some variant of "23 December 2024", "23rd December, 2024", or "the 23rd of December, 2024", depending on your age, social background, country of origin, etc. (American yokels often use the last of those; I have relatives in the Deep South who do it habitually.) These correspond closely (between exactly and too-close-to-matter) to MOS:DATE's two "M D, YYYY and "D M YYYY" formats. An ISO date does not. It's very unnatural. It requires the reader (most readers, anyway) to stop and "translate" it in their heads, thinking about which block of numbers means what, and so on. (I've been using ISO dates on a daily basis since around 1990, and I still have to think about it a little, and once in a while get it wrong, especially shortly after transferring from narrative work to coding work.) Worse, many people do not know at all whether that represents YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY-DD-MM; lots of non-geeky non-Americans mistakenly think it's the latter because they are used to D M YYYY order otherwise, and the idea of the month coming before the day is foreign to them, an annoying Americanism. I run into this problem in a great deal of online content.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Official documents in South Africa are YYYY-MM-DD, I personally use it to name bank statements etc. on my computer because they are easier to find. It depends on what you are used to. Avi8tor (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t however very readable, on articles of prose. MapReader (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate a distinction that's not potentially reducible to cultural acclimation, it's clear that purely numerical formats are less natural in prose. Remsense ‥ 论 18:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Unit formatting

Are any of these formats correct?

• a 10-cm blade
• a 10 cm blade
• a 10-cm-long blade
• a 10 cm-long blade
• a ten-cm blade
• a ten-cm long blade

And why numbers are not spelled out before unit symbols, and why unit symbols are used more with metric than imperial units, where unit names are typically written in full? --40bus (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

In answer to your first question I suggest choosing between "a 10 cm blade" and "a ten-centimetre blade".

To the second, there is no internationally accepted standard describing symbols for the imperial unit system. Perhaps that is the reason. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You can also consult our {{convert}} template which deals with all these edge cases: {{convert|10|cm|adj=on|abbr=on}} produces 10 cm (3.9 in), per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS.

Also, is there a reason you're not just consulting the MOS directly? It more or less covers your questions so far. Remsense ‥ 论 15:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This is possible to output: {{convert|10|cm|adj=on|abbr=on}}, and it produces: ten cm (3.9 in). So, why it is not used? And a sixth question, why fractions are not usually used with metric units? Fractions would be useful indicating repeating decimals, such as one-seventh of a meter, as things like "0.142857142857... m" or "0,142857 m" would look ugly, so 1⁄7 m would be only option. --40bus (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a real world example illustrating your concern? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

How would 1⁄7 be the "only option"? You yourself just used the obvious other one: simply writing "one-seventh", which isn't broken in any way, and is probbaly easier to read for most people, than 1⁄7, which can mess with line height. It actually copy-pastes as 1⁄7, with inconsistent display on various systems. The use of the Unicode fraction-slash character is interpreted by some OSes, including my Win11 box (but not my Mac, or any Linux I can remember using), as an instruction to superscript the 1 in nearly unreadably tiny font and do the same to 7 but as a subscript. (Win11 even does this to me in a <code>...</code> block!) I'm not convinced we should have that template at all, since the Internet has done just fine with 1/7 for decades. Regarding the other material, Remsense is correct that there's a standard way of abbreviating metric units (and there's also a lot of systemic enforcement of that), but there isn't an entirely standardized approach to other units (perhaps better called "American traditional" at this point), and they are often unabbreviated in the real world. So, despite MoS providing a standard way of abbreviating them (based on ANSI or whatever, I don't remember), there's less editorial habit and desire to bother with it, while editors steeped in metric (everyone but Americans) are habituated to the short symbols. Nothing's really harmful about any of this, with regard to reader comprehension, so we have no need to firmly impose a rigid rule to do it this way or that. (We do have such a rationale for settling on particular American/"Imperial" unit abbreviations, though, since use of conflicting ones from article to article would be confusing for readers and editors alike, and some of them found "in the wild" are ambiguous and conflict with actual standards (e.g. using "m" to mean 'miles' instead of 'metres/meters'). As for the original question, yes it's "a 10 cm blade", and the output of {{convert}} is MOS:NUM-compliant. A construction like this is taken as an strongly conventionalized exception to the MOS:HYPHEN rule of hyphenating compound modifiers (writing "a 10 cm-blade" or "a 10-cm-blade" isn't really any clearer, and probably less so). In long form it would be "a ten-centimetre-long blade" and Dondervogel is correct that "-long" would usually be omitted for concision, unless it was necessary to indicate length versus width of something (which isn't the case with a knife or sword or whatnot, but would be with a shipping box).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Mixed spelled/figure format

How did we come to this guidance?

Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32.

This goes against the AP Stylebook that pretty firmly enforce that the numbers nine and below should be spelled out, while figures should be used for 10 and above. I’m not as aware as other style guides, is this a case of AP being the odd one out… or is Misplaced Pages style the odd one? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The example shows it very well. Mixing both types in one sentence like ages were five, seven, and 32 looks very amateurish.  Stepho  talk  05:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but as the MoS is the only style guide I've perused at length, I'd naturally be inclined to. I wonder what the provenance of this guideline is also—and that of other guidelines of note as well if anyone knows and cares to waste time telling me. Remsense ‥ 论 05:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Saying it “looks very amateurish” is very much a subjective opinion.

But to focus this on my more real-world concerns, this question was prompted by in connection to coverage of the jet crash in Kazakhstan. So in keeping with that, I present how the New York Times handles three such sentences on one article on the topic: Kazakhstan’s Emergency Situations Ministry said that at least 29 people had survived, including two children … Kazakhstan’s transportation ministry said that the flight’s passengers included 37 Azerbaijani nationals, 16 Russians, six Kazakh citizens and three Kyrgyz nationals. … The airline’s last major episode was in 2005, when an An-140 plane crashed shortly after takeoff, killing 18 passengers and five crew members.

Because of editors closely following our current MOS, our introduction on this same topic reads: On 25 December 2024, the Embraer 190AR operating the route crashed near Aktau International Airport, Kazakhstan, with sixty-two passengers and five crew on board. Of the sixty-seven people on board, thirty-eight died in the crash, including both of the pilots and one flight attendant, while twenty-nine people survived with injuries.

If we adopted AP style it would read: On 25 December 2024, the Embraer 190AR operating the route crashed near Aktau International Airport, Kazakhstan, with 62 passengers and five crew on board. Of the 67 people on board, 38 died in the crash, including both of the pilots and one flight attendant, while 29 people survived with injuries.

In my opinion, the AP style is vastly superior to what is suggested by our current MOS. RickyCourtney (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The present guidance not to mix forms has consensus here. If you want that to change you'll need to propose a change to the wording, and explain why it is better. Saying "AP does it that way" seems unlikely to change the consensus. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Long time editor, but this is definitely the first time I’ve encountered a MOS rule that I found so out of line with how I am used to writing (as you can probably surmise, I use AP in my day job). Frankly, I was just trying to get insight into why this was the consensus. I’m happy to propose something, is this the correct venue? Does it need to be in a formal format? RickyCourtney (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead and suggest an improvement. This is the right place for it. Indeed it is the raison d'etre of this talk page. There is no formal format. Just make sure the proposed change is clear, and explain how it results in an improvement. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear they're suggesting the AP style, right? I don't think it'll catch on here, though. However, one point in its favor one could argue is it doesn't depend at all on the surrounding context. Remsense ‥ 论 08:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree the verbatim AP wording, including “You should use figures for 10 or above and whenever preceding a unit of measure or referring to ages of people, animals, events or things”, would be unlikely to gain acceptance here, mainly because of its far-reaching consequences for other parts of MOSNUM. Let’s judge the proposal when it comes. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

No one has yet replied to the "why?" question. One would need to check the archives to be sure, but I imagine one reason is to avoid bizarre combinations like "the sum of 11 and two is 13". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I suspect a significant part of the answer to “why?” is that, unlike other publications that set down a preferred style which they then use universally, Misplaced Pages explicitly tolerates a variety of styles across its ‘publications’ - most obviously for the national varieties of English, and date formats, but also in many other respects (‘AD’ or ‘CE’ being just one example) - with the MoS itself being guidelines that are widely respected, but not policy that can be rigidly enforced. This is a pragmatic compromise, given our global reach and multitude of editors of all ages and nationalities, and the practical impossibility of enforcing any single way of writing. But it does make consistency a policy issue for WP, which it simply isn’t for any other publisher (since by definition their style guides ensure that everything is consistent). Thus WP guidelines put a lot of emphasis on style choices being internally consistent within articles, because they aren’t between articles. When it comes to number format this means using either words or figures, but not a confusing jumble of both. Personally, I think this is a sensible guideline and would expect to oppose any proposed change, unless the argumentation is exceptionally convincing. MapReader (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that Of the 67 people on board, 38 died in the crash, including both of the pilots and one flight attendant, while 29 people survived with injuries is absolutely fine and in agreement with our guidelines. The numbers one and 29 are so far from each other that there's just no reason to consider them "comparable" (except in the trivial sense that you can compare anything with anything, but that's certainly not the intended one here). I'd also consider with 62 passengers and five crew on board as fine since crew members and passenger numbers aren't really comparable either – there'll likely to be an order of magnitude or more away from each other, as in this case. That's very different from people's ages (the example given), which all come from a population's age distribution and rarely exceed 100. Gawaon (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I would argue the present guidance should result in "62 passengers and 5 crew", not "62 passengers and five crew". I have the impression RickyCourtney would like to change the guidance to reverse that preference. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

62 passengers and 5 crew is certainly possible if we consider this as falling under the guideline. However, Of the 67 people on board, 38 died in the crash, including both of the pilots and 1 flight attendant, while 29 people survived with injuries is certainly too odd to consider! My point, of course, was that these sentences don't fall under the guideline anyway, due to these numbers not really being "comparable". Gawaon (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: 'Saying it “looks very amateurish” is very much a subjective opinion.' Sure. But your follow up of "in my opinion" is also subjective. There are no objective measurements here. The alternatives are:

• Existing MOS: "with 62 passengers and 5 crew on board" or the equally allowed "with sixty two passengers and five crew on board". Both are consistent and do not require me to do a mental switch between styles. I like the all numbers version and hate the all words version - subjectively of course ;) The disadvantage is that it disagrees with a couple of major US style guides - which WP is not required to match anyway.
• AP/Times style: "with 62 passengers and five crew on board" Advantage is that it is the same as a couple of major style guides used in the US. Do British style guides agree? Disadvantage is it requires that mental switch halfway through the sentence.

It is entirely subjective whether the mental switch or matching an outside style guide is more important to you. If you like consistency (like me) then consistency is more important. And naturally, if you grew up in the US then matching major US style guides is possibly important.

Re: 'The numbers one and 29 are so far from each other that there's just no reason to consider them "comparable"'. They are in the same sentence and are comparing similar things (people). Why would you consider crew and passengers as different when listing fatalities?

Re: 'Of the 67 people on board, 38 died in the crash, including both of the pilots and 1 flight attendant, while 29 people survived with injuries certainly too odd to consider.' Why too odd? Its the form that I personally prefer and allowed by the current MOS.  Stepho  talk  13:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

29 only has meaning to me in that it is comparable to 1. Remsense ‥ 论 13:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn’t just “US style.” AP is US-based, but they serve news organizations across the world. Reuters, which is UK-based, uses the same style in this article. As does Euronews. As does the Irish Mirror. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough - not just US. But still an external style that is just one among many and one that we are not necessarily compelled to match.  Stepho  talk  22:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gawaon this is an extremely helpful interpretation. Thank you. I wonder if you and others would weigh in on another sentence in the Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 article: The aircraft was carrying sixty-two passengers. Of those, thirty-seven people were citizens of Azerbaijan, sixteen of Russia, six of Kazakhstan, and three of Kyrgyzstan. Four minors were on board. My preferred way to rewrite this would be: The aircraft was carrying 62 passengers. Of those, 37 people were citizens of Azerbaijan, 16 of Russia, six of Kazakhstan, and three of Kyrgyzstan. Four minors were on board. That would be in alignment with how it’s been written in the New York Times, Euronews and the Irish Mirror. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

But is more readable as it was. MapReader (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

My choice would be all numeric: The aircraft was carrying 62 passengers. Of those, 37 people were citizens of Azerbaijan, 16 of Russia, six of Kazakhstan, and 3 of Kyrgyzstan. 4 minors were on board. No mental context switch required between numeric and spelt out words within closely related sentences — which could easily be a combined: The aircraft was carrying 62 passengers. Of those, 37 people were citizens of Azerbaijan, 16 of Russia, six of Kazakhstan, and 3 of Kyrgyzstan — 4 minors were on board.  Stepho  talk  22:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

+1 to this, though I admit my preference is biased because I've been taught in business correspondence to write related numbers either in words or figures, with figures taking precedence if the largest number is at least 10. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so I did some more research this morning and found the answer I was looking for. This is a case of journalists adopting a style different from academics, and the MOS adopting the academic style. The APA has strict rules about consistency within categories, requiring numerals for all items in a list if any number is 10 or above. But it appears our MOS most closely matches the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires consistency, but allows for context-specific judgment if numerals or spelled-out numbers are used. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Acceptable Date Format: Month Year

Right now, "Month Year" is listed as an acceptable format, with an example of September 2001, but this is *bad grammar*, violating the basic rules of English. There are two acceptable ways to convey this, grammatically:

1. Month of Year (September of 2001), which is listed as unacceptable but is correct grammar in the form Noun of Noun, e.g. Juan Esposito of Peru.
2. Month, Year (September, 2001), also listed as unacceptable, but again, correct grammar, of the same shape as general dates (September 1, 2001), which *is* listed as acceptable, which is correct but inconsistent, because September, 2001 and September 1, 2001 are two uses of the *same format and grammar*.

"September 2001" is bad grammar and an unacceptable format and should be labeled as such. Quindraco (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• It’s common English usage, both in the UK and US, so on what authority are you suggesting it is bad grammar? MapReader (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with MapReader, this is standard. GiantSnowman 15:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with MapReader. Chicago Manual of Style 18th ed. ¶ 6.41 states "Commas are also unnecessary where only a month and year are given...." and gives the example "Her license expires sometime in April 2027." Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• There ain't nothin' wrong with September 2001. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, that particular month was not one of unalloyed pleasantness, but the formatting has nothing wrong, anyway. EEng 21:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Quindraco: You're about twenty years too late to change the guideline. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, yes. The very well-respected defense of "we've been doing it the wrong way for so long, lord knows we mustn't stop now." Quindraco (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Except you haven't shown it to be wrong in the first place. "Month Year" dates have always been taught to be correct in my experience. If you think about it, requiring "July, 1776" would also require "4 July, 1776". I have noticed that my computer's available date formats include a few oddities that I was always taught were flat out wrong. Is that where you are getting this idea?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yep. Just checked. Windows has "Wednesday, 5 April, 2017" and "5 April, 2017" listed as date formats. Commas should only be used within the date when it is not in either "day-month-year" or "year-month-day" order. I've sent feedback about this, but I doubt that anything will be done about it.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• The OP's complaint is, I regret to say, just so much WP:MISSSNODGRASSism. EEng 21:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with MapReader. "September 2001" is perfectly acceptable in formal written English and was acceptable long before I was born. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• It's recognised to be standard usage in Canada. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• "January 2018" is the official usage in Australia: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/numbers-and-measurements/dates-and-time ("Incomplete dates" section).  Stepho  talk  00:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with those above; "September 2001" is perfectly acceptable. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

MOS:CENTURY appears to be incorrect

I'm surprised that this hasn't been fixed already but MOS:CENTURY currently incorrectly claims that "the 17th century as 1601–1700", for example. I was about to fix the 21st century article which incorrectly claims that the 21st century started in 2001, not 2000, but then noticed that it's only like that thanks to this MoS guideline!

There have been quite a few news articles analysing the 21st century recently, many of them because the first quarter of the century (2000-2024) is now over: Guardian, Bloomberg, Billboard, IFIMES, New York Times.

I can only assume the current MOS wording came out of the mistaken assumption/hypercorrection that a century must begin in a year ending in "1" thanks to the lack of a year zero in the calendar system, but that is of course not how the term is actually used in any sources. Thoughts on the best way of fixing this? I imagine quite a few articles will be affected by this error given it's somehow ended up in the MOS. Chessrat 13:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• If it ain't broke, don't fix it. MOS:CENTURY is correct. Ask yourself when the 1st century CE (using the proleptic Gregorian calendar ) began and then work your way forward. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  But there wasn’t such. The dating system was invented many years later (and incorrectly, as it turned out) and applied retrospectively. Such that it doesn’t matter whether there was a year zero, or not. Centuries nowadays are commonly recognised as 1900-1999, 2000-2099, and it’s only the WP pedants that hold out for 1901-2000. MapReader (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Where did you hear that. I was taught for 60 years it was 1901-2000. Did schools change their courses recently? I guess it wouldn't be the first time, but this sounds like since so many get it wrong we should make sure that Misplaced Pages follows that same wrong thinking. Like people following a printing error on the term "Blue Moon" so they think it's the second full moon of a month. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  That sounds like a case of Lies Miss Snodgrass told you. (I'm not saying it's actually a lie, but it's a lie that that's the only way in which centuries can be spliced.) Gawaon (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Chessrat didn't explain where they looked for sources to justify the assertion "but that is of course not how the term is actually used in any sources." Misplaced Pages guidelines do not need to cite sources, since they announce the community's consensus on various matters. It is articles that must cite sources. A number of sources are cited at "Century" including

"century". Oxford Dictionaries. Archived from the original on December 30, 2019. Retrieved 20 January 2021.

Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• “Incorrect” is not the way I would put it. Either you treat it as a style decision, with both systems being valid ways to designate the years (using either 1–99 or 1–100 for the first century) or you treat it as a logical / mathematical system, ending at 100 because you want every century to actually be 100 years, and the first year wasn’t 0. I could see it either way, but I don’t see a lot of sense trying to change it now.

What might be more sensible to pursue is a footnote that acknowledges and explains the two common ways of counting. — HTGS (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

+1 EEng 04:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any evidence that there are two different common ways of counting? As far as I can tell from looking into this, use of the term for the period beginning in a year ending in "1" is very rare, and the only sources that mention the "ending in 1" definition (such as the Oxford dictionary entry mentioned by @Jc3s5h: mention that it is a technical definition only and not used that way in practice. It is not the case that there were widespread celebrations of the new millennium both on 1 January 2000 and also 1 January 2001!

If there were two equally-used systems then I would agree with your comment, but that isn't the case; Misplaced Pages has a duty to provide accurate information even if it does take a significant amount of work fixing this across various articles. Chessrat 16:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

How many years were there in the 1st century? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

100, obvs. 1 AD to 100 AD. Next question please? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

My question was in response to Chessrat's post claiming that centuries start in 00, in which case they must end in 99. If the 1st century had 100 years, its first year would therefore have been 1 BC (and the 1st century BC would have ended in 2 BC). Alternatively, if the first year of the first century was 1 AD, it would have been a century with 99 years. Just trying to understand how it works (I don't know which of the two is more bizarre). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a matter of personal preference. I find it logical and satisfying that the 19th century ended with 1900 and the 20th century ended with 2000. There are many people, though, who are more comfortable with the 19th century consisting only of the years that began with 18-- and the 20th century consisting only of the years that began with 19--. I remember that Stephen Jay Gould, someone I have long admired for his adherence to logic, stated that he was willing to accept that the First century consisted of only 99 years (although I think he was wrong). We do need to be consistent in Misplaced Pages, however, and if anyone feels strongly enough about the current guidance being wrong, RfC is thataway. Donald Albury 22:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, the numbering of years AD/BC wasnt actually devised until over five centuries after the purported BC to AD break point, and such numbering was not widely used until over eight hundred years afterwards. And it was then applied retrospectively to historical events (with, historians now believe, an error of four years in terms of when they were trying to pitch the start), relatively few of which during that period can be fixed to a particular year in any case (not insignificantly because when these events were recorded, the AD/BC calendar system didn’t exist). So it’s an artificial construct and it doesn’t really matter what the first year was purported to have been. MapReader (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources are fairly clear that in common usage, a century starts with a year ending in –00, so yes, by implication that means that the 1st century had 99 years (albeit of course the Gregorian calendar did not enter use until far later so this is purely retroactive)

I didn't really expect that there would be any disagreement with this– will probably start an RfC to gain wider input as it seems like this will be a matter which there is somehow internal disagreement on. Chessrat 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Why should all centuries have the same length? Years haven't always the same length, so why should centuries be any different? Gawaon (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chessrat and Gawaon: A century doesn't have to be 100 years, but it must be 100 somethings, for example 100 runs in a cricket innings, or a military unit comprising 100 Roman legionaries. This is because the word "century" is derived from "centum", which is Latin for "hundred". If you had a span of 99 years, it couldn't be called a century. Also from "centum" we get words like "cent" for the hundredth part of a dollar. If I gave you 99 cents, you probably wouldn't give me a dollar in exchange. By contrast, the word "year" doesn't have a comparable derivation from 365 (or 366). --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Common usage having the 21st century starting in 2000 is utterly irrelevant to the Latin etymology of the word "century". The calendar system came into use long after 1 CE so analysis of the durations of past centuries is purely retroactive and simply a case of how society largely agrees to define it.

If one were to strictly assume Latin etymology is always fully indicative of how a word is used, then the article on September would say that it is the seventh, not the ninth, month of the year. Chessrat 07:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the argument by name origin is fairly weak, since actual meanings don't always live up to their origins – or certainly not exactly. Centurion say: "The size of the century changed over time; from the 1st century BC through most of the imperial era it was reduced to 80 men." So if a century can have just 80 men, surely it can have just 99 years too! Gawaon (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree the etymology argument is weak, but a century has 100 years, regardless of etymology. That's what we were all taught at school and that's what all credible sources say. Misplaced Pages should not take it upon itself to make up an exception. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chessrat:

1) I actually don’t hate the idea of doing it your way, I just don’t see the need or the community interest. As you point out, socially and culturally we do treat it this way; we did have a special party on 31 Dec 1999, and not so much 31 Dec 2000. But the effort to shuffle it all around still comes with the need for a footnote explainer for our choice of convention and that now the 1st century is just the “first century” in name, and covers only 99 years. Honestly this is (imo) not a big deal, just not a hill I’d be looking to die on, and such a change will need a whole bunch of annoying cleanup. As everyone else has said, the old way has the seductive logic that 100=100. This area of Misplaced Pages especially was built early and therefore done so by those net-denizens more inclined towards “logic” than social convention.

2) As far as I know, articles on the subject of centuries are either covering the entire period broadly, or just giving a timeline of events that occurred in such years (or really, both). Presumably there’s not much worry whether we start with 1900 or 1901 when the topic is “world war, atomic energy, the end of empire, mass telecommunication and the beginnings of the internet” (etc). Alternatively, the specific events occurring on those crossover years is just arbitrarily dumped into whichever list-like article we like, and if it has carry-over effects on future events, that should get a mention either way. I guess this point (2) actually cuts both ways though, in the sense of “both work fine”. — HTGS (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I assume by "we" you mean you personally. I also had a 31 Dec 1999 "2000" party, but my big millennium party for the century change came on Dec 31 2000. And my tickets to the event are on that date. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s honestly surprising to me. Whereabouts were you? I was in New Zealand, but my impression was that the big deal end-of-millenium in “Western” (global “North”? Anglosphere?) popular culture was 1999 to 2000. — HTGS (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a significant amount of work, but retaining an incorrect status quo is not desirable. If Misplaced Pages lasts to reach 2100, there would be the ludicrous scenario where it's impossible to cite the large number of sources stating the arrival of the 22nd century because Misplaced Pages policy defines the word "century" differently to the rest of the world.

You're probably right that regardless, a hatnote/explanatory note of some nature is needed. For instance, a lot of sources such as Reuters, The Telegraph, The Atlantic, The Guardian France 24, Times of Israel report that Emma Morano (1899–2017) was the last surviving person born in the 19th century. However, there are also a few sources such as Slate, the Washington Post, and Sky News which report that Nabi Tajima (1900–2018) was the last surviving person born in the 19th century, using the ending-in-1 definition.

At the moment, the implication of Misplaced Pages policy is that Tajima is described as having been the last person born in the 19th century on her article section, but Morano is not described as having been the last person born in the 19th century despite the numerous reliable sources stating that she was. The current policy effectively overrides any amount of sourcing of facts like that- every article treats the uncommon ending-in-1 definition as not only being a common definition but as the only definition. I don't see how a policy which arbitrarily overrides established facts and sources like that can possibly be justifiable. Chessrat 09:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

So your suggested change would also affect many other articles such as our own sourced 19th century article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Usage such as 20th century for 1900 - 1999 simply reveals the source as being unable to perform basic counting. Any such source is immediately rendered unreliable. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm usually one to say that we should accept that language changes and that we in the language police should go along with it, but in this case, many, especially the mainstream press, looking for headlines, are wrong. Saying the first century has 99 years, is like saying 99 cents is sometimes a dollar. Sometimes a misused word becomes acceptable, but not in this case. SchreiberBike | ⌨  14:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

As per WP:RS (with the emphasis on reliable), I asked Mr Google when does the new century start, then looked at any hit that seemed reliable (typically government or scientific time orientated organisations) and ignored anything like quora, mass media (I gave Scientific American a pass as they are scientific) and forums. The first 3 pages gave me the following list, plus I added the Greenwich observatory. Note, I choose them based on the sources before looking at what they said.

Organisation	URL	00 or 01
Hong Kong Observatory	https://www.hko.gov.hk/en/gts/time/centy-21-e.htm#:~:text=The%20second%20century%20started%20with,continue%20through%2031%20December%202100.	01
timeanddate.com	https://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html	01
Scientific American	https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-is-the-beginning-of/	01
US Navy Astronomical Applications Department	https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/millennium	01
US Library of Congress	https://ask.loc.gov/science/faq/399936 https://www.loc.gov/rr//scitech/battle.html (Battle of the Centuries)	01
Merriam Webster	https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/centuries-and-how-to-refer-to-them	says it used to be 01 but that public opinion is swinging
Greenwich Observatory	http://www.thegreenwichmeridian.org/tgm/articles.php?article=12	01

Seems like the scientific community has a solid consensus on new centuries starting in the year xx01. The "Battle of the Centuries" is a good read. To be fair, does anybody have any authoritative sources backing the xx00 change date?

This is, of course, counter-intuitive to the layman who just sees 1999 tick over to 2000 and therefore assumes that change in the 3rd digit means a new century. But as we all know, intuition and truth do not always agree.

So why did the world celebrate the new century on 1 Jan 2000 ? I'm going to digress into armchair philosophising but bear with me. Image that you are a major newspaper, news channel, magazine, etc and you want readers to buy/subscribe. You can research it, find out that 1 Jan 2001 is the correct date and make a big thing on that date. But your competitors celebrated way back on 1 Jan 2000 and the public goes "meh, we did all that last year - get with the times you out of date moron!" The big news companies know this, so they all go with the earlier date to avoid their competitors getting the jump on them. Never let the truth get in the way of profit! Joe public naturally follows the mass media and ignores the nerds saying "2001" - why listen to boring nerds when you can party now! Party, party, party!

So, here we are, arguing whether to follow the truth or to follow Joe Public with both of his brain cells following news companies who are chasing the almighty dollar.  Stepho  talk  11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• There are some known inconsistencies/anomalies in our treatment of centuries, including categories or articles covering decades. For example, Category:1900s in biology is a subcategory of Category:20th century in biology, but includes 1900 which the MOS puts in the 19th century. If we were starting again, I think it would have been better to avoid using century in categories or articles, e.g. use "1900–1999" instead of "20th century", but we are where we are. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're focusing only on the specific niche of science-related sources? If the scientific community chooses to adopt an unorthodox definition of the duration of the centuries, but most other sources follow the common definition, obviously the latter is more accurate. Chessrat 13:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chessrat: the century beginning in XX01 is not unorthodox, quite the reverse. As people above have said, it's the definition that has been taught for years, but one that I agree is increasingly being replaced by the century beginning in XX00 definition. Obviously the latter is more accurate, well, no – as pointed out above, this definition leads to the first century having only 99 years, so can hardly be called more accurate. Orthodoxy and accuracy are not the important issues in my view; the most important issue is what most readers now think 'century' means, which does appear to be the XX00–XX99 definition. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Back in 2000 it was suggested that a year zero be created with (since years have variable numbers of days anyway) zero days. That way the first century would have 100 years in it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

At least we can all agree that that would be the ugliest possible solution. — HTGS (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I am a little confused, as it is the first year after 0. It's not the same as 0.1 in numbers. A child's first year is everything from being born until they have their first birthday, which marks the end of their first year.

This also fits with the 20th century being the years containing all the 19XXs (including 1900) and the first century being all the ones with 00XX or just X, XX and XXX !!

That means that the years 01-01-00 to 31-12-99 = 100 years. So let's just agree tha the first century har 99 years instead of 100. Simples.

Is this purely a case of missing "(not inclusive)"? 1900-2000 to me, means that when the number 2000 first appears on the timepiece, that is the end of the 20th century, and the start of the 21st - so midnight on the cusp of 31-12-1999 and 01-01-2000 would be the end of the 20th century.

All the months have a fixed number of days, except one every four years ... I'm really happy just considering that the 1st century only had 99 years. It's so long ago, and doesn't really matter as long as we all do the same thing. Lets just say that 1 BC is 0AD and 0BC is 1 AD. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chessrat: Scientists put much thought into the matters that they comment upon, it's a poor scientist who states something as fact when they have no demonstrable evidence. So I would take a scientist's view over a newspaper's view any day. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I just had another thought on the “why did the media prefer 2000?” question. At the time, there was a lot of concern over the Year 2000 problem, which had nothing to do with the official change to a new millennium. It would be easy to confuse the two, and the drama of the “Y2K bug” could easily have fed into hype about the new century/millennium.

Of course this could all be irrelevant if anyone has a couple of newspaper stories from 1899 talking the same story. — HTGS (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The front page of the Daily Telegraph (a serious and respected global newspaper back then) from 1 January 1900, talking about the close of a century and the coming of a new one - largely in relation to Germany, it seems, with prescience given what was to come. MapReader (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I've already hypothesised on why the media preferred 2000 as the start of the new century but I will re-iterate. Assume you have smart employees that know 2001 is the real start and therefore your newspaper makes plans for a big celebration on 1 Jan 2001. Your competitors go with the 2000 date and the unwashed masses celebrate with them for many sales of their newspapers - yours gets mediocre sales because yours is boring. A year later you do celebrate but the unwashed masses say "we did that last year - loser!" Knowing that the unwashed masses will always go with the early date (no matter what the reason, any excuse for booze) and will ignore any repeat the next year (no matter what the reason), which is the better financial decision for the newspaper? Facts be damned, popular opinion makes money for newspapers!  Stepho  talk  09:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The analysis seems fairly straightforward to me:

1. It is pretty common for the inconsistent definition to be used, regardless of how respected its user is.
2. The inconsistency at the epoch generally goes unencountered, which means it is not a real problem. Nothing is meaningfully misunderstood by readers or writers most of the time.
3. Just because many don't run into the uncontroversial inconsistency, doesn't mean we are so lucky. We're enforcing style across the entire wiki, entailing thousands and millions of encounters with the epoch.
4. That means we each would like to understand what we're doing and why. Ergo, our choices tend to value logical consistency.
5. However, if we allow a convention, many editors will use it that do not fully understand it.
6. If we allow both the inconsistent and consistent definitions to be used, editors who see the former is valid usage in some locations will impose their preference elsewhere, leading to chaos and sorrow. This will occur regardless of whether the distinction is explained in the MOS itself.

Remsense ‥ 论 09:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC on the wording of MOS:CENTURY

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Language and linguistics When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should MOS:CENTURY specify the start of a century or millennium as a year ending in 1 (e.g. the 20th century as 1901–2000), as a year ending in 0 (e.g. the 20th century as 1900–1999), or treat both as acceptable options with the use of hatnotes for clarity in the case of ambiguity in articles? See the discussion above. Chessrat 14:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• The year ending in zero, which is nowadays the most common understanding. Whether or not there was ever a year zero is irrelevant, given that AD year numbering wasn’t invented until the 500s and wasn’t widely used until the 800s. MapReader (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• As the 1st century is 1–100, the 20th century is 1901–2000, as its article says. Let us not turn this into another thing (like "billions") where English becomes inconsistent with other languages. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I do not understand what "hatnotes in case of ambiguity in articles" should mean: whenever any article uses the word "20th century", it should have a hatnote explaining whether it follows the centuries-old convention of numbering centuries or the "starts with 19 is 20th century" approximation? Perhaps it would be easier to outlaw the word "century". —Kusma (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  In short, oppose change. —Kusma (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• First year of a century ends in 01, last year of a century ends in 00. This has been extensively discussed above. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• The RfC does not make clear what specific change is being proposed to MOSNUM wording, and I fear will lead only to a continuation ad nauseum of the preceding discussion. For what it's worth, I oppose any change resulting in a century of 99 years. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose change Century and Millennia begin in 01 and ends Dec 31, 00, like it always has and per the discussion above. Just because people make errors, like with Blue Moon, doesn't mean an encyclopedia has to. Why would we change from long-standing consensus? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Treat both as acceptable options. Century already explains both viewpoints, without describing one of them as "correct". Generally our business it not to arbiter truth (which in this case doesn't exist anyway, as either viewpoint is just a convention), but to describe common understandings of the world, including disputes and disagreements where they exist. Century doesn't privilege a particular POV here, and neither should MOS:CENTURY. Gawaon (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  All of our articles on individual centuries mention only the traditional point of view where the first century starts in year 1 and each century has 100 years. There is no need for MOS:CENTURY to do anything else. —Kusma (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. If this matters to you, convince the academic sources to adopt the change, then Misplaced Pages can follow. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose change I prefer centuries to begin with --01 and end with --00. I'll not bother with any arguments, since I think this boils down to personal preference. I do oppose allowing both options, as that leads to confusion and edit wars. Donald Albury 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why is it personal preference to favour 1-100 AD over 1 BC-99 AD? The latter choice leads to the first century BC running from 101 to 2 BC. I find the asymmetry highly unorthodox (and hence hard to justify). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  You wouldn’t start at 1BC for the first century AD in either case though. You would just treat “century” as the name for the period, and ignore that it only has 99 years. — HTGS (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  You seem to be saying the choice between a century (the first, whether AD or BC) of 99 or 100 years amounts to personal preference. Do you have credible sources showing they are equally valid? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose treating both as acceptable This would lead to endless confusion. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose change; century starts at ###1 and ends ###0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose any change resulting in more than one definition of a century. The reasons seem self-evident, and others have spelt them out above. In a nutshell, such a change would be a retrograde step, against the spirit of the MOS. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Just use '00s. Why on Earth should MoS ever encourage using wording that will be misunderstood by many or most people? To most people, "20th century" means 1900-1999. To pedants of history, it means 1901-2000. Cool. We should try to not confuse either of those groups. If I had to pick one, I'd say confuse the pedants, but fortunately we don't have to pick, because a third option exists: "1900s" (etc.). That's the phrasing I've always used on Misplaced Pages, for this exact reason. It's consistent with how we refer to decades (see vs. ). It's universally understood. It avoids silly arguments like this one. Let's just do that. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  And to put this in terms of what the wording should be, I would suggest something like

  Because phrases like the 18th century are ambiguous (sometimes used to mean 1700–1799, sometimes 1701–1800), phrases like the 1700s are preferable. If the former is be used—for instance, when quoting a source—an explanatory note should be included if the two definitions of nth century would lead to different meanings.

  -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is this a joke? Sorry if I ruined it by asking. — HTGS (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  No? From any descriptive point of view, there is no widely-accepted definition of "nth century". Some Wikipedians thinking there should be a widely-accepted definition doesn't make it so. And MoS should not be in the business of encouraging ambiguous wording. Instead we should encourage solutions that avoid ambiguity, much as we do with ENGVAR. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, sorry. This is all just not the question at hand though, and it directly contradicts current (well-positioned) guidance.

  In any case, I’m sure we’re better off with the ambiguity between 1900–1999 and 1901–2000, which, in most cases, is not really a problem. Your idea introduces an ambiguity between 1900–1910 and 1900–. This is explicitly called out by MOS:CENTURY, of course. And does “1700s” even solve the issue of which year to start or end with? It implies that the century starts with 1700, but not explicitly. — HTGS (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  We should avoid use of "1900s" to mean anything other than 1900-1909. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  What's funny is I have never heard people talk about the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s or 1900s, as anything except Jan 1 00 to Dec 31 99. Always 100 years. I checked and I'm shocked our wikipedia article only covers 1900-1910. The only time it gets used as a decade is when the parameters are specifically talking about the 1930s, 1920s, 1910s, and 1900s. Without that fine tuning it's always 100 year period. It would be used like the Library of Congress does, or US history lesson plans. Usually I would say the "first decade of the 1900s" with no other context. I would amend your comment to say we should never leave 1900s dangling without context. And that's only for 1900s, not anything else.Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose treating both as acceptable; otherwise indifferent to 31 Dec 1999 vs 31 Dec 2000. This is a style decision, but one that affects a lot of content. To use both would be a terrible solution. — HTGS (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose change; continue using "20th century" for 1901–2000 and "1900s" for 1900–1999. Doremo (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Bad solution. How will readers know which system we are using when we say 1900s? Will they presume that the period ends with 1999 or 2000, or even 1909? — HTGS (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose change - The n century is 01-00, you can feel free to use "the xx00s" for 00-99. Neither is prefered to the other, but the meaning is determined by which you use. Fieari (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Per the MOS, and as Dondervogel 2 most succinctly puts it above: We should avoid use of "1900s" to mean anything other than 1900-1909. — HTGS (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I somewhat disagree. It is a very ambiguous term so we should avoid use of 1900s at all without context, because obviously readers will be confused. I sure would since I would immediately think a 100 year period just like 1800s , 1700s, and 2000s (25+ years thus far). Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  You mean 24 years so far, right?

  And yes, “avoiding 1900s at all” also jives with what I said. — HTGS (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose treating them both as acceptable. I imagine this could lead to headaches concerning inclusion in categories, list articles, timelines, templates, etc. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose change People have been getting it wrong for centuries (pun not intended) and will probably continue doing so for centuries. Intuition says that the year 2000 was the start of the new century but intuition is wrong. Just like people believing that light-years and parsecs are a measure of time (doing the Kessel run or otherwise) or trying to learn relativity, intuition is simply wrong. All authoritative sources for measuring time say that the new century starts in the year xx01. WP is only suppose to report on this. If we try to say that the year 2000 is the first year of the new century then we are actively entering the battle and are try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  Stepho  talk  04:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep XX1 as the start of a decade, century, or any other unit of year. It sounds ridiculous to have only the first CE century be 99 years long while everything before and after it remains at 100. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think they consider the 1st century BC to also have 99 years. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It is high time to end this "minor imbecility":

When the encyclopedia of human folly comes to be written, a page must be reserved for the minor imbecility of the battle of the centuries--the clamorous dispute as to when a century ends. The present bibliography documents the controversy as it has arisen at the end of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, as well as a few skirmishes in the quarrel that has begun to develop with the approach of the third millennium.

The source of the confusion is easy to discern; ever since learning how to write, we have dated our documents with year designations beginning with the digits 19. Obviously, when we must begin to date them starting with 20, we have embarked on a new century! Haven't we? The answer is no, we have not; we have merely arrived at the last year of the 20th century. As historians and others involved in measuring time continue to remind us, there was no year 0. In fact, there has never been a system of recording reigns, dynasties, or eras that did not designate its first year as the year 1. To complete a century, one must complete 100 years; the first century of our era ran from the beginning of A.D. 1 to the end of A.D. 100; the second century began with the year A.D. 101.

While the period 1900-1999 is of course a century, as is any period of 100 years, it is incorrect to label it the 20th century, which began January 1, 1901, and will end on December 31, 2000. Only then will the third millennium of our era begin.

Those who are unwilling to accept the clarity of simple arithmetic in this matter and who feel strongly that there is something amiss with the result have developed some impressively convoluted arguments to promote their point of view. Baron Hobhouse, studying some of these arguments as set forth in letters published in the Times of London during the first few days of January 1900, found "that many of the reasons assigned are irrelevant, many are destructive of the conclusion in support of which they are advanced, and that such as would be relevant and logical have no basis whatever to maintain them in point of fact." He was one of several observers of the fray at the end of the 19th century who predicted that the foolishness would recur with the advent of the year 2000, as people began to look for ways of demonstrating "that 1999 years make up 20 centuries."

As a writer stated in the January 13, 1900, Scientific American, "It is a venerable error, long-lived and perhaps immortal." The shortness of human life is also a factor; as a century approaches its end, hardly anyone who experienced the previous conflict is still living, so we are doomed to undergo another round.

Astronomers have been blamed for some of the confusion by their adoption of a chronology that designates the year 1 B.C. as 0 and gives the preceding years negative numbers, e.g., 2 B.C. becomes -1, 3 B.C. becomes -2, etc. This system permits them to simplify calculations of recurring astronomical events that cross the starting point of our era, such as series of solar eclipses and the apparitions of periodic comets. However, this scheme affects only the years preceding A.D. 1 and cannot be used as a justification for ending subsequent centuries with the 99th year.

Some argue that Dionysius Exiguus made a mistake in his determination of the year of Christ's birth when he devised our present chronology in the sixth century, and that the discrepancy allows us to celebrate the end of a century a year early. However, even though the starting point of our era may not correspond to the chronologist's intention, it is still the point from which we count our centuries--each of which still requires 100 years for completion.

Nevertheless, as many of the entries in this list (from p. 45 on) will indicate, plans to celebrate the opening of the 21st century and the third millennium at midnight on December 31, 1999, have become so widespread that anyone who tries to call attention to the error is disparaged as a pedant and ignored. Perhaps the only consolation for those intending to observe the correct date is that hotels, cruise ships, supersonic aircraft, and other facilities may be less crowded at the end of the year 2000.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose change. Tony (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Don't break the calendar for exactly zero benefit – There's no need to stage a revolt against the counting numbers and anyone who wants to extend discussions back to the epoch or beyond. There is one system that is consistent, and it is the one we use and should continue using. There's not even a problem that needs to be addressed. Aren't we on Misplaced Pages? This is the place where many often learn that a thing is a certain way and why, and I am not sure why that didn't happen here. Remsense ‥ 论 12:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• To get literal, the current calendar under discussion pertains to the life of Jesus. Ideally it starts when Jesus was born, 00:00, and he turned one-year-old on January 1, 1. Now, say he lived a long life and made it to 100. He would have been 100 on January 1, 100. At that point, the second his clock turned over on January 1, 100, his new century would begin. The first century was literally over on January 1, 100, and a new one started immediately and ran from 100-200. etc. Saying the first century was 99 years is incorrect, it was 100, but then the second century started immediately. I'd have to go with a split-second past midnight on January 1, 2000, as the start of the 21st century, per logic and common sense. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nice theory, except for the minor detail that there was no year zero, meaning that on 1 January 1, your hypothetical Jesus would have been 1 day (not 1 year) old. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's one way of looking at it, and the other is that Jesus's birth started the clock rolling towards his turning 1-year-old on 1-1-1. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  So by your "other way" he was 1 year old throughout 1 CE. So in what year was he six months old? It would have to be 0 CE, but there isn't one. It simply doesn't work. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Unless our baby Jesus was born on 1 Jan of 1 BC (we have invented a fictitious baby so we can assign him any date of birth we want). Then we have a first century running from 1 BC to 99 AD. While highly unconventional, it could be entertained until you realise the 1st century BC would have to run from 101 BC to 2 BC. It works but it's silly, and (more to the point) lacks RS to support it. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  Insofar a he is likely to have existed, anyway, he was most probably born in 4 BC, since the calculations used five hundred years later to fix the BC/AD break point contained an error. So this is all nonsense, anyway; the first century was itself centuries in the past - probably eight or nine - before people started calling it that. And most people will continue to see 1900 as the start of the 20th C and 2000 as the start of the current one, whatever. MapReader (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  The bible is very clear on this point: he was born after the Roman census in 6 AD (Luke 2:1-4) and before the death of King Herod in 6 BC (Matthew 2) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think you mean the Census of Quirinius in 6 BC, while Herod the Great gives Herod's death as c. 4 BC. Donald Albury 14:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  That would make for a more consistent timeline. Forgetting our fictional baby, are you saying the Real McCoy was born between 6 and 4 BC? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's what many sources I've seen say. See Date of the birth of Jesus. Donald Albury 15:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  That make a lot more sense than being born before –6 and after +6. Although, if anyone could, surely it’s the son of God. — HTGS (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Why would Jesus be one year old throughout 1 AD? The year 1 means Jesus was 1-year-old, Happy Birthday on 1-1-1, one candle on the cake. When Jesus was six months old he was 1/2 AD. The point of using BC and AD, before Christ and Anno Domini, logically informs that the time before Jesus's birth, counting backwards, was "before Christ" (six months before his birth was 1/2 BC, etc.) The birth starts the count on both BC and AD. The "year" he was born would not matter, only the counting forwards and backwards. 1/2 AD when he was six months old, 3/4 AD at nine months old, etc., until reaching 1 AD and then beyond. Another point, since the 21st century was celebrated by the entire population of the Earth on January 1, 2000 - even most of the 2001 holdouts, never ones to pass up a good party, still celebrated on 1-1-2000 - that date is the "common name" for the start of the century and, per many of the reputable sources mentioned in the discussion preceding this RfC, and in all the reputable sources that recognized the date that the human race partied, Misplaced Pages probably should as well. But, then again, and Oppose, the scientific community differs and happily celebrated on January 1, 2001, ordaining that Misplaced Pages should keep the academic calendar as well and forego the obvious. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  You can keep discussing this forever. Come 2100, when almost all of us will no longer be editing on here, the large majority of people will be marking the turn of the century. MapReader (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nice crystal ball you have there. Donald Albury 15:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: For the sake of argument, if Jesus was born on 25 December 1 BC, he would have been six days old on 1 January AD 1, and one year old on 25 December AD 1. That would place the 100th anniversary of his birth on 25 December AD 100. Donald Albury 15:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  But 25 December is irrelevant, and is hence ignored by those faiths, such as Islam, that recognise Jesus as an earlier prophet. December 25 is an entirely fabricated date, chosen to override the pre-existing pagan midwinter festivals widely observed in Europe during the early Christian era. If early historians were four to six years out on the year Jesus was purportedly born, they are hardly likely to have any information whatsoever as to the date. MapReader (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  December 25 has nothing to do with this. The people who created this BC-AD concept were going by the moment that Jesus was born (or conceived, whatever they decided was the starting point), never mind the "correct date", in essence calling that Day One. Then, 365 days later, year 1 ended and year 2 immediately began. The same with BC, from the moment of Jesus' birth to everything that came before was BC, and one year previously was automatically 1 BC, ten years was 10 BC, etc. By calculating that the day of Jesus' birth was the start of the calendar, logic dictates that the first year ended on his first birthday. 1 A.D. Nothing is broken here, except that they made a guess at Jesus's birthday when they made the calendar. The first century of 100 years ends on the 100th anniversary of Jesus' birth, 1-1-100, and the second century began immediately. There is no "year 0", a year 0 isn't needed, when Jesus was six months old it was 1/2 A.D. The absence of a year 0 is incorrect, the creator of the calendar took it as a moment in time (a birth, then start the clock). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  "he turned one-year-old on January 1, 1".. No, that's not how that works. The year 1 AD is the equivalent of the first year of his life. He would not be 1 year old until it ended. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Only ignorant people think the century begins with the 0 year. Is it that difficult to appreciate that there was no year 0! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  However, few people will doubt that there was a year 2000. So the question of when the 21st century began it still unresolved. Gawaon (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  If the 1st century began in AD 1, then the 2nd century began in AD 101, the 3rd century in AD 201, etc, etc, the 20th century in 1901 and the 21st century in 2001! People a century ago were fully aware that the 20th century began in 1901. It's only in recent years that people have seemingly become unable to grasp the system. I should also point out that we naturally count in multiples of 10: 1 to 10, 11 to 20 and 21 to 30, not 10 to 19 and 20 to 29. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Looks resolved by consensus to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, this has consensus, but nobody has actually refuted my discussion points above. There is no need for a year 0, the "point of zero" was when Jesus was born (which started the clock). He was 1 year old on 1-1-1. And so on. Necrothesp calls me ignorant, so I'd like them to comment if they would on the analysis of why year 1 started exactly a year after the birth of Jesus. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  You presumably do know that the year before AD 1 was 1 BC? We're talking history here, not religion. Basing the calendar on the supposed year of Jesus's birth is pure convention. But the facts are that in the modern dating system 1 BC was followed by AD 1 with no weird gap. Therefore, the 1st century AD began on 1 January AD 1, and the new century has begun on 1 January AD X(X)01 ever since. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  BC literally means "before Christ". Year 1 B.C. would be a year before Christ. Year 1 AD would fall on his first birthday. There is no weird gap. BC was created without regard to previous calendars, it just shifted all of the years before Jesus' birth and after Jesus' birth to a new counting system. This has nothing to do with religion or the exact year or date that is now believed to be Jesus's true birthday, it was just how the people who created this system decided to place their 0: the moment Jesus was born. As I say above, I agree with the consensus here, mainly because science has, for some reason, gone along with 2001 etc. being the start of a new century. It wasn't, but that counting system has enough support to continue to represent this mistake in scientific and encyclopedic literature. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  There is I believe no year zero because the Roman's (whose numerals we used) had no concept of Zero, there was no zero year, it was 1 BC then 1 AD. Avi8tor (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  But whether or not there was a year zero is pretty much irrelevant, except to the pedants overrepresented amongst our editor base. People are quite happy that the ‘1930s’ refers to 1930-39 and the ‘1630s’ to 1630-39, yet if you follow that right back the first decade only had nine years. So what? Stuff that happened, or works that were produced, in 2000 are widely referred to - including in WP articles - as being of the 21st century, because that’s the way most people see it. MapReader (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are confusing 2 different systems. Decades are named cardinally, centuries are named ordinally. The 1930s refers to 1930-39 for the simple reason those are the only years of the format 193X. However, the "first decade" refers to the first ten years of the system. Thus it means the years 1-10, just as the first century means the years 1-100. Decades and centuries are handled differently and do not line up. The 1900s decade was the years 1900-1909, and included one year from the 19th century and 9 years from the 20th. The first decade of the 20th century was the years 1901-10. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yet, back here in the real world, nobody cares, and everybody ignores stuff like that. MapReader (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  The "real world" in your view presumably refers to "what I say" rather than "what is correct"! In my real world, the 21st century began in 2001! That's not being pedantic; that's being correct. In this fabled "real world", most people seem to get their "facts" from some nobody on TikTok; that does not make them right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  In the real world people also talk about things happening on "Friday night" when they actually occur in the early hours of Saturday. The encyclopedia still goes with the facts, though. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

mdy on pages that have nothing to do with america

ive been seeing lots of mdy on pages that have nothing to do with the usa, like on media that was only released in japan, like the fds and lots of japanese exclusive video games

i just want the mdy stuff to be ONLY on usa related pages...

idk why we have to use multiple date formats here anyway... its just stupid

why cant we use just one... dmy for long form and iso 8601 for short form

japanese date format looks similar to iso 8601 if youve seen it ZacharyFDS (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

i did change a couple, like on the pcfx and .lb pages but im backing out of others because i dont want to be involved in edit wars or be accused of vandalism ZacharyFDS (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The relevant guideline has a shortcut, MOS:DATEVAR. People who's main editing activity was to go around imposing their favorite date format have been indefinitely blocked. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

thats just stupid

idk about you but there should be an option for unifed date formats you can toggle in settings so users can use their perferred date formats without fighting over it. is it possible to yknow code something like this? ZacharyFDS (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is wishful thinking. We've looked into it many, many, many times before and it's just not doable with Misplaced Pages's current technology. One problem is that there are certain usages of comma with the mdy format that are really had to deal with when embedded in some sentences that use commas in certain ways - the computer just isn't smart enough to deal with it. The other is that we also have to handle users not logged in or without accounts - there is no preference to apply and it brings us back to which is the default and all the arguing that goes with that. Stepho  talk  06:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@ZacharyFDS: We did have such a feature, it was removed in 2008. I joined Misplaced Pages in May 2009, at a time when the clear-up was still going on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that I supported removing that feature because it only worked if you were logged in to WP with an account AND had specified what format you preferred in your preferences. That meant that the vast majority of readers saw the default format. It required linking dates in a specific manner, which looked unusual and could be disrupted by editors who did not understand what the links were for. Donald Albury 01:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• I believe this is covered at WP:JDLI. Doremo (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  This issue is covered in the Manual of Style which stipulates what countries have which date styles. Here is what it says: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that country (month-first for the US, except in military usage; day-first for most others; articles related to Canada may use either consistently). Otherwise, do not change an article from one date format to the other without good reason. Because English is not a legal language in Japan, you might find the Japanese use American date formats when writing English. Look for an English language Japanese newspaper and see what they use. Avi8tor (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's because in English prose there are 2 dominant date formats: MDY used mostly by Americans and DMY used by most of the British Commonwealth. Both sides think that their version is the only correct and reasonable way and that anything else is stupid and wrong. So an article created by a Brit with DMY dates gets "corrected" by an American to MDY. And then "corrected" by an Australian to DMY. And then "corrected" by another American to DMY. And so on until all parties have a deeply embedded hatred for each other.

WP:DATERET was created so that once an article gets a format then it generally stays in that form and we avoid WP:EDITWARs (mostly - there are always die hard "do it my way" people out there).

We don't use Japanese YMD dates because no native English speaking country uses YMD in prose. Which is a shame because I love YMD after living in China.  Stepho  talk  12:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Previous discussions on this talk page have made it clear that if a country isn't a predominantly English-speaking country, either MDY or DMY may be used. It just doesn't matter what the English-speaking minority within the country under discussion usually uses as their date format. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

all other countries use variants of dmy tho except for those east asian ones ZacharyFDS (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

No they don't. Many other countries use dmy. Some countries use entirely different calendars with different year numberings; for instance Iran still uses the Iranian calendars as its official calendar. Etc. Your assumption that "only that one country uses the other system and everyone else uses my system" is exactly the problem that WP:DATEVAR prevents. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging any Canadians: how annoyed does this discussion make you every time it happens? Remsense ‥ 论 20:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

oh yeah i forgot about iran (thats a variant of hijiri/islamic calendar)

im dumb can you forgive me ZacharyFDS (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries - it looks real simple until you actually get into it.  Stepho  talk  08:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Jc3s5h states the situation that has obtained back to the early days of en.WP. It keeps the peace: US editors can create articles that have little to do with any majority-Anglophone country, including the US, and expect that their initial choice will be retained. Same for vice versa. It's a reasonable policy and should be respected. My one issue is that if you try turning a US military article into dmy, sometimes you'll be shouted at. So I've learnt to leave the date formats in those articles as they are (even if they contain a mix of dmy and mdy). I wish they'd work out what they want. Tony (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes we need clarity on US military. GiantSnowman 09:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

US astronomers (or at least the communications of the American Astronomical Society) also appear to use dmy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The astronomers themselves might, but their websites also might not; e.g. Palomar Observatory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Professional astronomers generally use yyyy/mm/dd. In fact they may even have been the originators of this format back in the days of George Airy at Greenwich.Skeptic2 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The US Army's Center of Military History Style Guide still mandates dmy, which is used internally, but mdy is acceptable in PR. As Tony says, we generally retain the existing format. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment