Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC Tmcft in convert template?

[edit]

Should the {{Convert}} template support the unit Tmcft?

Joe vom Titan (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background: this issue has been discussed in multiple places. E.g.
None of these discussions reached a consensus. Joe vom Titan (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified #Tmcft, Template talk:Convert and Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.
Is there another place where this RfC should be advertised? Joe vom Titan (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Of course it should. Tmcft is an obscure unit that is nevertheless used by reliable sources in India, as shown in the linked discussions. MOS says to use SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic; tmcft is apparently such a unit. For our readers around the world, we should convert tmcft to SI units. The easiest way to do that is with {{convert}}. That template supports dunam and tsubo and pondemaat [nl] and horsepower-hour and barrel of oil equivalent. Why should tmcft be any different? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Why not? Nobody will have to use it, if they don't feel the need. Gawaon (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual issue is that editors have not wanted to support text like "123 thousand million cubic feet". The question for MOS is how that should be written. Is it "123 thousand million" or "123 billion" or "123 billion" or what? Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not relevant for the RfC question, as far as I can tell. Gawaon (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's not relevant for the people who want someone else to fix it. But that's the question. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Thousand million" is unambiguous, and it is what the sources use. "Billion" is ambiguous, and the sources don't use it. If the sources routinely use "thousand million" as part of a unit, all we have to do is display it and (using {{convert}}) also display unambiguous SI units alongside it. "Billion" doesn't enter into the conversation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If billion is ambiguous, we should avoid it everywhere, and not just in this context. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually not ambiguous, though. Gawaon (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is also my impression, which is why I suggested billion cubic feet from the beginning. If a conversion is included to an SI unit of volume, that would then be understood understood by all. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC seems somewhat out of place. It's asking a change to a template, not a change to how quantities are written in Wikipedia.MOS:BILLION does not endorse "thousand million" but does not outright forbid it either. So perhaps the RFC should have asked for a change to make "thousand million" acceptable when used with "cubic feet". If that change is adopted, then it would make sense to support it in the convert template. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I was thinking of. It's easy to add a unit to convert to see how it goes. However, each unit needs a code (Tmcft), a symbol (Tmcft), a name (thousand million cubic feet?), and a link (Tmcft). Once something goes in a template it seems to have an official blessing. The question is not whether convert should support the unit. The issue is what text should appear in articles where the unit is wanted. That is, what is official. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tmcft says it's "the abbreviation of thousand million cubic feet" so that will be the name (long form), quite obviously. Gawaon (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have an article about the cubit but that doesn't mean we would use it in an article. Similarly we have an article about ways of writing large numbers, "Long and short scales" The existence of articles about units, or how numbers are written, does not mean those units or ways of writing numbers should be used in Wikipedia articles (except the articles about those specific units or numerical notations). Jc3s5h (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure it doesn't. Did anyone say otherwise? Gawaon (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this RfC is not ideally placed on the MoS page. Anyways, I put it here because the main discussion took place here on this talk page. I have notified Template talk:Convert. Joe vom Titan (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the question about "123 thousand million cubic feet": I think 123 tmcft should be written as 123 tmcft, as in many (most?) WP:RS about the subject, as far as I can tell. Readers who are not familiar with the unit (e.g. because they're not from India) can click the link, or they can ignore the unit and instead read what Convert produces. Just as I have to ignore units that I'm not familiar with, e.g. "acre-ft" in articles about US dams. (Frankly, most US units seem bizarre to me, but that's just my European bias.) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC has gotten few responses.
 ———  Joe vom Titan (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My position is unchanged from previous responses on the other pages mentioned. If billion is universally understood as a synonym of thousand million then all occurrences of tmcft can be replaced with billion cubic feet. The abbreviation 'tmfct' can then be placed where it belongs, a history book. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why a history book? The unit tmcft is used all the time in reliable sources from India, just like US/UK units are commonly used in reliable sources from the US/UK. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that tmcft is understood only in one place and in one context. No one else uses it. Not a good unit for an encyclopaedia with a wide readership. Wikipedia should use a unit that is widely understood. I question the assertion made by others that billion cubic feet might be misunderstand by an English speaking readership to mean 1012 cubic feet, but let's just accept that assertion for the sake of argument. In that situation we can use thousand million cubic feet instead, which will be understood by all. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"understood only in one place and in one context" – Sounds like you're taking about acre-feet. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If billion is universally understood ..." – It isn't. Read the article you linked to: "Other countries use the word billion to denote either the long scale or short scale billion." — Chrisahn (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If billion is ambiguous, we should avoid it everywhere, and not just in this context Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, {{Convert}} should support Tmcft. MOS:UNIT recommends "units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic". In reliable sources about dams in India, tmcft is a very common unit, probably the most common one. MOS:UNIT has special cases for non-scientific articles with strong ties to the US / the UK. Of course, the same applies to non-scientific articles with strong ties to India. (In case there's any disagreement on this: There's no reason to have special cases for the US and the UK but not for India. This is the English Wikipedia, not the US-and-UK Wikipedia. There are more English speakers in India than in the UK. A bias towards the US and the UK and against India is incompatible with Wikipedia's basic goals and policies.) Of course we should use tmcft for dams in India, just as we use hand for height of horses, as recommended by MOS:UNIT. As mentioned several times in these discussions, "billion" may be ambiguous in India, and that's likely why the convention of using "thousand million" came about. But even if it wasn't ambiguous – tmcft is what WP:RS use. It would be a disservice to our readers and our editors to use "billion cft" or "billion cubic feet" etc. instead. That would only cause confusion when most WP:RS use tmcft. Just as it would be a disservice to use inches or cm instead of hands for height of horses. (Since it came up somewhere in these discussions: There is no need to spell out tmcft, just link to it, and let {{Convert}} do the rest.) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, we have four options:
A. Status quo: Allow using tmcft, but don't {{convert}} it. Not good. Most editors don't add a conversion from tmcft manually (too much work), and the information is rather useless for readers who are not familiar with the unit.
B. Ban the use of tmcft, require SI units instead. Pretty awful choice: 1. Editors would have to convert the unit manually (lots of work, won't happen). 2. Editors and readers would have difficulties verifying the information against what's written in WP:RS. 3. Editors and readers who are familiar with the unit (which is likely if they've read one or two WP:RS about dams in India) will be confused. 4. Won't work. Editors who create or improve articles about dams in India will keep using tmcft as long as WP:RS use it.
C. Ban the use of tmcft, require billion cubic feet instead. Also pretty bad: 1. As far as I can tell, few WP:RS about the subject use that unit. Wikipedia would basically introduce its own unit for capacity of dams in India. 2. The word "billion" may be ambiguous. 3. There is no common abbreviation, we'd have to write "billion cubic feet" every time. See the example in #Tmcft above. 4. Editors and readers have to understand that Wikipedia's "billion cubic feet" is supposed to be a synonym of tmcft used in WP:RS. Confusing. 5. Won't work. See option B.
D. Let {{Convert}} handle tmcft. Clearly the best choice: 1. Simple and clear for editors and readers who are familiar with the unit. 2. Readers who are not familiar with the unit (e.g. because they're not from India) can ignore it and read the SI unit data produced by Convert. 3. All editors and readers can easily use and verify information in WP:RS.
Another disadvantage options A, B and C have in common: It would be difficult to explain why the English Wikipedia allows (and converts) all kinds of US- and UK-specific units (and many other subject-specific units), but not an India-specific unit. It would look like we have a Western bias.
— Chrisahn (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great summary Chrisahn, I support option D. Keep in mind that double conversion for tmcft will be desirable, eg "tmcft (m3; acre.ft)". I know it is messy, but it will satisfy WP:V, SI readers and Americans. I don't ever see a need to spell out "thousand million", the first instance of tmcft would be linked if someone is curious.
The double conversion concept is not unique. In Australia megalitres (ML) is used by water authorities and newspapers for dams, see Wivenhoe Dam (the Reservoir infobox section and article prose).
I don't believe the MOS has guidance on the conversion choices and imperial gallons is an interesting one there as a result. Commander Keane (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Wivenhoe Dam I suppose the MOS dictates that the first usage is spelled out in all cases, so my remark about that above is incorrect. Commander Keane (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Spelling out the first use of tmcft in the text seems reasonable. (But not in the infobox, I think. Not enough space.) — Chrisahn (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What should {{convert|123|Tmcft}} display? Do you really want "123 thousand million cubic feet (3.5 km3)"? That is the question for MOS. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should generally be "123 tmfct (3.5 km3)". Only the first occurrence should be spelled out. (Or maybe the first occurrence should simply link to tmcft instead of spelling it out. Might be nicer for online use. Doesn't work well though for offline use, e.g. printed.) — Chrisahn (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, with a few decisions I could add the unit as a trial for people to try to see how it works. However, while tmcft is used at Tmcft, a couple of comments above seem to want "thousand million cubic feet". If not that, would the name be "tmcft" or "Tmcft"? Another decision is whether the code (what is entered in {{convert}}) should be "tmcft" or "Tmcft". Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"tmfct" seems to be most common. I've never seen "Tmcft" in the sources. "TMC", "tmc feet" and other variants are also used, but less frequently than "tmcft", if I'm not mistaken. Sources: A few dozen random articles from these Google results: site:thehindu.com reservoir, site:deccanherald.com reservoir, site:hindustantimes.com reservoir, site:indiatimes.com reservoir. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Convert should produce "tmfct" with abbr=on and "thousand million cubic feet" with abbr=off. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the {{Convert}} template should support tmcft. This is the only option that promotes consistency among articles as well as readability for locals, experts and internationals. Chrisahn has laid out this reasoning in more detail in his option D in the previous response. The template should by default convert to the SI unit cubic meter and to nothing else (e.g. no acre-feet).
Joe vom Titan (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a US default conversion will be required. US readers are internationals. Looking at the previous discussions, the readability for locals is not valued if those locals are Indian.
There are particpants that have made article edits so that only Americans can understand the units and said they want to relegate tmcft to the history books, but Wikipedia is writen using history books and this unusual abbreviation will be encountered.
123 tmcft (3.21×109 m3; 1.23×1011 cu ft) could be the default.
I am still hoping that worldwide readers will be able to understand Srisailam Dam with conversions one day.
With no {{convert}} support are we looking at 1.23×1011 cu ft (3.21×109 m3) everywhere, with the first usage spelled out as "billions"? This is not terrible, but I am worried about editor uptake and verifiability if exponential notation is not natural for all. Commander Keane (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely unnecessary to convert to cu ft simce that is almost the same unit. We have the Systeme International for international readers; in articles with subcontinent subjects there is no need to cater to Americans specifically. If we did that, we should convert all American dam articles to tmcft to keep things even. Joe vom Titan (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Screwing Americans isn't how Wikipedia operates and won't get this RfC passed.
It is about most people being able to understand what tmcft is. Wikipedia has to cater for the majority. We don't try to cover everything due to avoiding a ridiculous number of distracting conversions and no excellent software solution.
Most people understand metres and feet. Sources are using tmcft.
I am sure some Australians would better understand megalitres (not SI) on American dam articles, Indians tmcft, Americans might like gallons or acre-feet, some media like number of Olympic swimming pools. I have been wondering what people in the UK would better understand.
Tmcft and cu ft are the same unit and it is an odd situation, but we need a workable solution. Commander Keane (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a random thought that an option would be to render {{convert|123|Tmcft|abbr=on}} as "123×109 ft3 (3.21×109 m3)" and {{convert|123|Tmcft}} as "123 billion cubic feet (3.21×109 m3)". Verifiability will have to be done by viewing the edit box but it will be easy for editors to write articles. I am not sure how this works in VisualEditor. However, looking at Hoover Dam exponential notation is not welcome. What about {{convert|123|Tmcft|abbr=on}} as "123 billion cu ft (3.21×109 m3). I would say "billion" is not ambiguous in current times, thousand million developed historically. All solutions are messy it seems, but some sort of {{convert}} support would be good.--Commander Keane (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is heading in the right direction. While "123 billion cu ft (3.21x109 m3)" is acceptable, I would prefer "123 billion cu ft (3.21 km3)." Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Cubic km is the form I have seen in general use. 10n notation is not widely used outside specialist publications. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With this approach we will need to keep in mind small and typical tmcft values, but I think km3 is good and 10n notation should be avoided as JMF mentioned. The default could be over-ridden if needed.
In Srisailam Dam:
  • the smallest value is 1 tmcft which is 0.03 km3 or 30,000,000 m3
  • the biggest is 235 tmcft which is 6.65 km3 or 6,650,000,000 m3
(sorry if this comment isn't at the bottom, edit conflict and DiscussionTools) Commander Keane (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
tmcft will be linked. There is no need to convert to cu ft in addition to that. Joe vom Titan (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "billion" part is heading in the wrong direction. The only advantage of using "billion" instead of "thousand million" is that the latter is a bit unusual. But it's perfectly clear and unambiguous. Even if "billion" is not ambiguous anymore, it's not used by the sources about the subject. Changing "tmcft" in articles about Indian reservoirs to "billion cubic feet" would make as much sense as changing "megaliter" in articles about Australian reservoirs to "million liters". It doesn't help our readers or editors in any way. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Badly formed RfC. Any editor could draft the change, by editing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Convert/sandbox&action=edit#editform and then any template editor can put it in place. I see no editing, let alone edit warring, so RFC as written is inappropriate. Other than that, I second what Gawaon wrote. The RFC cannot deem consensus for or against a change to how quantities are written in Wikipedia, no matter how the vote goes, because it doesn't ask about that. RememberOrwell (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even easier is that I or any of the other Template talk:Convert regulars would be happy to add a unit to test how it goes if people could come up with a proposal for the unit symbol and name. That is where opinions differ. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: What about bn? I'd say bn and cu and ft are about equally recognizable abbreviations, on average?
Oh, and I edited tmcft in accord with Chrisahn and my findings on capitalization. And I second all Chrisahn's suggestions+thoughts on this topic. RememberOrwell (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see there are lots of options for how to apply MOS:UNITS in each individual case. However, AFAIK for the convert template we only need to agree what the unit's abbreviation and spelled out form should be and what to convert to by default. @Johnuniq is that all? My suggestion is to use "tmcft" as unit code and abbreviation, spelled out "thousand million cubic feet" with default conversion to km3. Then in Srisailam Dam one could use on the first mention {{convert|178.74|abbr=on|lk=in|order=flip}} to produce "5.0614 km3 (178.74 tmcft)" and later omit the link: {{convert|215.8070|abbr=on|order=flip}} rendered as "6.11027 km3 (215.8070 tmcft)". That's how I would do it. However, lots of editorial choices remain available to the editor: converting to billion cubic feet, adding an extra conversion to acre-feet for the Americans, changing the order, et cetera. We don't need to hash out all the options here and can let editors decide each case based on MOS:UNITS.
@RememberOrwell my RFC specifically asks whether to support tmcft in the convert template at all because some editors have expressed categorical opposition to that — see links in the intro. It's a simple yes/no question. How is that badly formed? Joe vom Titan (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything useful is going to come out of this RfC because it has gone for over two months with no agreement on what tmcft should do. As a trial, I have added two variations of the unit for people to experiment with. This RfC should be withdrawn or closed. Please put any further comments at Template talk:Convert#Tmcft. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about closing the RfC. It's going nowhere.
But a view expressed by multiple editors (or perhaps by one editor multiple times) is that "billion" is ambiguous in India. If there is evidence to support this view (is there?), should mosnum guidance can be tweaked to recognise this ambiguity? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the current guidance in the huge table of specific units says: "Write five million cubic feet, 5,000,000 cu ft, or 5×106 cu ft, not 5 MCF." — Joe vom Titan (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fish size

[edit]

I noticed some users choose ftin (just like human height) for fish size (e.g. Skipjack tuna), instead of just inches (or feet for larger fish). Is there a guideline?-- Carnby (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. When telling the angling club about "the one that got away", always add 10% to 25%, depending on how many people were there and how much you've drunk since. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a fan of metric units, I'd suggest millimiles for really large fish, especially those that got away. Gawaon (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<Snort> RememberOrwell (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
30 attoparsecs is about 1 yard.  Stepho  talk  05:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time ranges

[edit]

The guidance is silent on time ranges. For the 12-hour clock and for a time range not within running prose, if something starts during the am and finishes during pm, it's obvious: 10 am – 3 pm

Within running prose, the endash would be replaced by "to" and the whole thing preceded by "from", but I wonder what to do with time ranges not within running prose. What do we do when both times occur within the morning, say? What should it be?

  • 10 am – 11:30 am, or
  • 10–11:30 am

Your thoughts would be appreciated. Schwede66 00:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Off the top of my head, I think the following are all OK, though offhand I can't decide whether they should be restricted, generally, to tables and other places where brevity is desirable -- whether the service was available 5–7 March seems natural but the hotline was open 9-11 am doesn't.
    • 10-11 am
    • 10 am - 11 am
    • 10:00 - 11:00 am
    • 10:00 am - 11:00 am
    • 10 am – 11:30 am (I think this looks OK)
    • 10:00–11:30 am (but not 10–11:30 am -- somehow looks lopsided -- but I'm not sure on that)
EEng 02:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What seems unnatural about "the hotline was open 9-11 am"? That is exactly how I would say it in my dialect. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it too. But I wouldn't write it in formal running text -- only where space was limited, like a table. EEng 18:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably write 9:00 - 11:00 am, but previous discussions here have shown me that others don't see the difference in formality between the two variants that I do. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in my own writing it would be 09:00 - 11:00 AM. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

...not 2010–present but beginning in 2010 or since 2010. Terms likely to go out of date include best known for, holds the record for, etc. Per this content, should we replace "1988–present"-like words with "Since 1988" in artists' Infobox? (The | years_active = parameter) Camilasdandelions (talk!) 05:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not explained very well but that advice is for prose. {{Infobox_person}} in the years_active field explains the correct format for infoboxes.  Stepho  talk  09:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to follow up on this. It seems like a recent change, and have seen it occur on a couple of band articles so far. I don't want to tred on any toes, and if so, I apologise. However, to me, putting "Since 2025" as a header looks like the start of a sentence, rather than a header. What is the reason for wanting to change anything that says "2025—present" to "Since 2025"? In my opinion, this doesn't look as professional as a header for a segment. Additionally, is this really that approrpriate for an infobox? Any artist (or band) who has retired/disbanded would have "1996—2025" (Sum 41 as an example), so I imagine people would largely prefer to have things consistent to years and dashes as per to timelines, which is usually the idea for segments of history and concurrent events. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers&oldid=1313907124"