Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Imperial measurements

why are we still using archaic empiric measurements? only US and Burma are using them. How is it justified? thx 50.9.97.53 (talk) 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 Wikipedia should provide both systems of measurement. By the way, the UK still uses miles. Peter coxhead (talk) 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 50.9.97.53 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What proportion of Indians have English as their mother tongue? Peter coxhead (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

According to List of countries by English-speaking population, 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. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 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. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 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 50.9.97.53 (talk) 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+. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

sorry I clearly missed some zeroes. it is, of course estimated 250 million internet users (2012). 50.9.97.53 (talk) 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%. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 00:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Wikipedians: "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%)." —sroc 💬 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 Wikipedia reside in the United Kingdom, where we also commonly use and understand Imperial measurements (no matter what our official units may be). -- Necrothesp (talk) 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. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 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) 50.9.97.53 (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case, note that imperial units are only preferred in "non-science US-related articles" (WP:UNITS), 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. —sroc 💬 01:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes sroc, but to clarify, I think that 20% is US editors within the entirety of Wikipedia. Only English Wikipedia uses those conversions. I am sure the percentage of English Wikipedia editors who are from the US is much higher. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 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. —sroc 💬 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. SchreiberBike talk 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 this search 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. SchreiberBike talk 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 this chart at the article English Wikipedia for en:WP edits by country and this chart for en:WP page views by country. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 01:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The page views of English Wikipedia 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. Michael Glass (talk) 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. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 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 Wikipedia. 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. Michael Glass (talk) 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 WP:SNOWBALL --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 05:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the missing American readers are reading Conservapedia? It's well-known that Wikipedia is a hotbed of dangerous un-American liberals. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2013 (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 pints 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. -- PBS (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Peter coxhead (talk) 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 Combined Bomber Offensive but don't specify whether it is short ton or long ton (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 Final Act of the Congress of Vienna (a Rhineland Ruthe)--that when reviewing old sources (particularly about international matters) there is no such thing as a standard mile, (or rod (unit), league (unit) 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 Wikipedia text a guess or original research. -- PBS (talk) 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 measurement ton, 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. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2013 (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. -Rrius (talk) 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. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

May I put the Indian figures into perspective. About 250,000 Indians use English as their mother tongue, but the Times of India prints 7.6 million copies a day - more than double any UK or US newspaper. Martinvl (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

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? Michael Glass (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

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. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2013 (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. Michael Glass (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (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. Kahastok talk 17:06, 15 August 2013 (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. Michael Glass (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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. My proposed amendment is the only way I can see to steer clear of conflicts like the one on (for example) Talk:Edinburgh_Trams, 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 Wikipedia 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. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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 [1] p petrol "miles per liter" gives about 1,430,000 results while we get about half that[2] when we search for "miles" per gallon. Dougweller (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 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 km exclusively for describing fuel consumption. Given all this, I'm not sure how useful it actually is for Wikipedia 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 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). Archon 2488 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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 (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:

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

So it looks as if

• for miles per hour we should add something like " for road vehicle speeds", and
• for miles we should add something like "for road distances (but not in a scientific, civil-engineering or similar context)".

Perhaps the information should actually be presented as a table.--Boson (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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 110 kilometres per hour (70 mph)" 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. Wikipedia is not the British tabloid press, slavishly converting metric to Imperial, to the ludicrous extent of writing things like "1100 yards" instead of "1 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 List_of_UK_fuel_economy_ratings give L/100 km precedence over MPG, presumably for this reason. Archon 2488 (talk) 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. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 km race is a 10 km race, not a "6.2 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 km was the nominal length given by the Council). Archon 2488 (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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, Wikipedia 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).--Boson (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) away, but 8 miles (13 km) away by road, or comparing a 200 km/h (120 mph) train with a 70 mph (110 km/h) car.

We don't need to worry about engineering in that case because it refers to geographical distances.

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).

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.

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.

I'd add that the current wording is based on the style guide for the Times - chosen as the UK's newspaper of record. Unfortunately, it has been moved behind the paywall, but the most recent version before the paywall went up is available through the Wayback Machine here Kahastok talk 19:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"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 Wikipedia pages on Crossrail correctly give precedence to the 42 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 Wikipedia should be expected to Bowdlerise this by putting Imperial first).

I'm not convinced how appropriate it is to tie Wikipedia'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 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)[sic!] 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.

The "absurd position" you refer to is exactly the absurd position we're in in modern Britain; if Wikipedia reflects this, its only crime is being true to reality. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2013 (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.

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 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) long, all 7.5 miles (12 km) of which is along roads.

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.

In terms of miles per gallon, the standard means of doing this is based on usage, not legislation. This is as applied all over Wikipedia. There are several newspapers out there, some primarily using metric, others primarily using imperial. The Times is most appropriate because it is newspaper of record. 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. Kahastok talk 20:52, 19 September 2013 (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. --Boson (talk) 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 cm³ like everywhere else. Archon 2488 (talk) 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. RGloucester — 📬 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. Tony (talk) 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. RGloucester — 📬 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Archon 2488 (talk) 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 (Kin). 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. RGloucester — 📬 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 Catherine Ashton or Samuel Pepys 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. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be geographic distances excluding articles related to civil engineering FWIW.

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 Wikipedia, 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. Kahastok talk 06:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If we are to refer to the Times Guide we should bear in mind this quotation from it:

"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:

• imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including....

to this:

• imperial units can still be used as the main units in some contexts, including....

I believe that this small change in wording would address the concerns that have been raised by Archon 2488 and Boson here. It would not stop editors from putting consistency first in cases where different sources use different units. Michael Glass (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is my point exactly. Given that British people are not consistent in the real world, I question the wisdom of a Wikipedia 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 Michael Glass 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 Wikipedia 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).

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.

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. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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. Kahastok talk 17:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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 Munro, specifically this earlier draft [3]. 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 Munro 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. Wee Curry Monster talk 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, Forth_Road_Bridge and Queensferry_Crossing). 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 - Superconducting_supercollider 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. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that We Curry Monster has raised the issue of the Munro 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 Munro 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? Michael Glass (talk) 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 WT:MOSNUM 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 Brunel worked in the imperial system, so for examples such as the Clifton Suspension Bridge the guidance suggested may be inappropriate. Wee Curry Monster talk 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. Wee Curry Monster talk 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 Munro 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. Kahastok talk 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. RGloucester — 📬 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 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)". Archon 2488 (talk) 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):

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

with a footnote appended to the first two: "except in articles concerning civil engineering projects conceived in metric units". Kahastok talk 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. Kahastok talk 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 (44 kilograms (97 lb)), but imperial units can still be used as the main units in some contexts, including:

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

I believe that this wording would work for all, whatever their views on units of measure. Michael Glass (talk) 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. RGloucester — 📬 22:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Metric tendencies? I love it! But never fear: Wikipedia 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 MOSNUM talk, 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 style guides of British publications such as Times Online (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. Michael Glass (talk) 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: [4] [5]. And you're still going through article converting imperial units to metric - this 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 WP:UNITS 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. Kahastok talk 07:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, Even when I put cited information into Wikipedia 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. Michael Glass (talk) 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 WP:UNITS (which I note was has not substantively changed in the intervening period) and come to their own conclusions. Kahastok talk 12:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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. Wee Curry Monster talk 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 WikiProject Aviation.

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). Kahastok talk 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. Martinvl (talk) 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. RGloucester — ☎ 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 Michael Glass 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. Archon 2488 (talk) 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. Kahastok talk 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? RGloucester — ☎ 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? Michael Glass (talk) 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? Kahastok talk 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. Michael Glass (talk) 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 Wikipedia rules are subject to consensus if there is a good reason to ignore them.

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. Kahastok talk 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 Sheffield_Supertram - 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. Archon 2488 (talk) 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), Wikipedia should use non-metric units. If the engineers used metric units, we should use metric units. Kahastok talk 15:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Nice to see you're speaking up for source based units, Kahastok. Michael Glass (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not. The fact that you can find a source that gives the wingspan of a Supermarine Spitfire in metres would not change the fact that we would be giving it in feet. Kahastok talk 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. Michael Glass (talk) 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. Kahastok talk 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. Michael Glass (talk) 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 [my emphasis] 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. --Boson (talk) 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 Kahastok'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., Kahastok'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. Archon 2488 (talk) 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? Kahastok talk 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 Wikipedia 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. Archon 2488 (talk) 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. RGloucester — ☎ 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. Archon 2488 (talk) 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.176.12.107.140 (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've put a sample of how I think the revised style guide section should look in my sandbox. RGloucester — ☎ 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 driver location signs 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. Martinvl (talk) 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. RGloucester — ☎ 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? RGloucester — ☎ 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. RGloucester — ☎ 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". Kahastok talk 14:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and shall remove it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree Looks fine to me. Wee Curry Monster talk 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. Martinvl (talk) 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. RGloucester — ☎ 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.
• "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 bold and restored the reference to the text. Michael Glass (talk) 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 M69, the driver location signs give numbers well over 100, and on the M18 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. Kahastok talk 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? Wee Curry Monster talk 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? Wee Curry Monster talk 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). Martinvl (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• You guys might want to remember the 1RR prescribed here by the Arbitration fellows. 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. RGloucester — ☎ 18:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, apparently those sanctions finished ages ago…regardless, still a good idea to discuss before reverting. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A revert is a standard part of WP:BRD FWIW, and my comment above was my implementing the "D" (for discuss) of that principle. Kahastok talk 19:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I know, that was meant to be a polite reminder and not an admonishment. RGloucester — ☎ 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 driver location signs."

• 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 The distance in kilometres from the start of the motorway. 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 too little known 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. Michael Glass (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the question that should be asked is whether WP:MOSNUM 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. Wee Curry Monster talk 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. Michael Glass (talk) 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. Michael Glass (talk) 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? Jc3s5h (talk) 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. Martinvl (talk) 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. RGloucester — ☎ 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. Kahastok talk 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 United Kingdom' England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Apart from the articles Falkland Islands and Isle of Wight, 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 Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Hampshire, West Sussex, East Sussex and Kent, 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. Martinvl (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because these articles use metric doesn't mean that that's the consensus. Someone could well have gone along and changed the lot. I don't think we can change the units policy on a whim. RGloucester — ☎ 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. RGloucester — ☎ 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, "[s]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 WP:UNITS. Isle of Wight for example, is primarily metric-first, but for distance is primarily miles-first - exactly as it should be. Kahastok talk 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. RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Example of Martin enforcing metrication against the MOS, 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. Kahastok talk 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 Wikipedia'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. Martinvl (talk) 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 User:Wee Curry Monster and myself are.

They may also wish to review whether Martin's arguments for metrication of that article are in accordance with WP:UNITS. Does WP:UNITS 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 WP:UNITS that we follow British usage on UK-related articles inherently violate WP:NPOV? Kahastok talk 20:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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 WP:LAME, 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 WP:MOSNUM where warranted I give precedence to the imperial unit in the manner prescribed. Editing against WP:MOSNUM, 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. Wee Curry Monster talk 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 Falkland Islands working group. RGloucester — ☎ 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. RGloucester — ☎ 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 United Kingdom). 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. Kahastok talk 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 location marker posts 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. Wikipedia 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. Martinvl (talk) 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. Kahastok talk 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. RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is nothing to be gained from further discussion. [6] A prime example, why some UK articles do not conform to WP:MOSNUM. It really does irk me to have to point this but its precisely because User:Martinvl will edit counter to policy as noted earlier by User:Kahastok. 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 WP:MOSNUM 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. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:39, 1 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? Michael Glass (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The find function reveals the following:

• metre, 12 matches; meter, 5 matches [excludes one reference to "meter" being the American spelling]
• kilometre, 4 matches; kilometer 1 match Michael Glass (talk) 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. Michael Glass (talk) 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? Tony (talk) 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 "the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long" should remain as it is because it is an Australian example
• The text "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 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. Martinvl (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. Michael Glass (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long"—I'd choose another example if it grates. But the clause could come from an article written in AmEng on river lengths worldwide. Tony (talk) 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. Jc3s5h (talk) 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 template:convert/doc indicates that both variants are supported by that template. LeadSongDog come howl! 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. Tony (talk) 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. Michael Glass (talk) 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.—Odysseus1479 07:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like an opinion in support of applying American spelling. Is that right? Michael Glass (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes concerning the body text, presuming that’s normal for MoS pages in general and despite my personal preference; 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.—Odysseus1479 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)? Michael Glass (talk) 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. TheFeds 04:22, 22 September 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. Startswithj (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There has been no end of discussion on the matter. Please check talk archives. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 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. Jc3s5h (talk) 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 – I just haven't seen any increase in usage. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

MusicBrainz use YYYY-MM-DD see [musicbrainz.org/artist/e9fb8bad-ec0e-4cf1-aa82-a7e04a34b278 this example] (top right in desktop mode) . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 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. --MASEM (t) 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." Startswithj (talk) 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 de rigeur on articles they work on. Then will begin the edit warring and never-ending jostling for the validity of the format. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 18:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this argument is that it ends up with "only those choices preferred by [any user ]". 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!). Peter coxhead (talk) 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. Martinvl (talk) 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. Startswithj (talk) 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. Jimp 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 Wikipedia 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. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 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:

• Calendar_date'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, Startswithj (talk) 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, WP:CITE allows one to follow printed style guides, several of which are named. Some of these call for other date formats in particular situations, including APA Style'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. (An RfC trying to determine whether date format in citations is controlled by WP:CITE or WP:MOSDATE was inconclusive.) Jc3s5h (talk) 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. Jimp 10:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Falklands units

Kindly take note that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a similar discussion on the Falkland Islands talk page. Michael Glass (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

kB (or kbit/s) or KB is not ambigious

For purposes of writing English Wikipedia articles, does ambiguity exist about whether kB means 1000 bytes and KB means 1024 bytes? 16:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See recent revert of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%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 Kilobyte and maybe the discussion on my talk-page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Comp.arch#kB_vs_KB

They will see that it is a good change. I know kilobyte is ambigious and megabyte, but written down, just as kbit/s = 1,000 b/s, and KB = 1024 B and the recent change to decimal kilobytes mandated kB=1000 B. The binary prefixes are only "controversial" for MB and up. comp.arch (talk) 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, IEC 60027, 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. Jc3s5h (talk) 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. −Woodstone (talk) 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? comp.arch (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

k/K is ambiguous. Enough said.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See, Kilobyte, I and DrSeehas (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). WP:COMPUNIT 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. comp.arch (talk) 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 CPU cache sizes. It is just wrong there and nothing wrong with using kB only in decimal context. comp.arch (talk) 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.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 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. comp.arch (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The MOS currently states:

[...]

Follow these recommendations when using these prefixes in Wikipedia 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.

[...]

What, if we make this the first item in the list and change it as follows:

[...]

Follow these recommendations when using these prefixes in Wikipedia 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.

[...]

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 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 Apple A7 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/w/index.php?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. comp.arch (talk) 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. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Problematic binary prefix paragraph

While editing Kilobyte user Comp.arch has misinterpreted this paragraph:

Wikipedia follows common practice regarding bytes and other data traditionally quantified using binary prefixes (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 2²⁰ and 2¹⁰ 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 SI prefixes (e.g. mega- and kilo-, meaning 10⁶ and 10³ respectively) from the binary ones, consensus on Wikipedia currently favours the retention of the binary prefixes in computing-related contexts. Use 256 MB of RAM, not 256 MiB of RAM.

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. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What I actually put in Kilobyte (that you reverted along with more that I hadn't put in):

Wikipedia standard uses kilobyte to mean KB = 1024 bytes unless 'kB' or 'KB', or other method is used is used to state intended meaning. It also recommends kilobyte over kibibyte.

I'm referring to the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia or for not citing anything? comp.arch (talk) 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.

Wikipedia style conventions are not suitable as subject matter for articles. One reason is that a reader who has not participated as a Wikipedia 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. Jc3s5h (talk) 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. ⇔ ChristTrekker 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. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Migratory seasons

I was wondering why there is an exception to the WP:SEASON guideline: "Season names are preferable, however, when they refer to a phase of the natural yearly cycle (migration to higher latitudes typically starts in mid-spring)." To me this makes no sense at all for pelagic species, such as the Sooty Shearwater, which traverses both hemispheres during its migration. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 21:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just read more of B.d.mills' treatise on hemispheric bias, and in particular the section on the talk page about bird migration in which 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. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 22:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)