Neonumbers (talk | contribs) archives 29 through 32, hope no-one minds |
Neonumbers (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
*Note that the exixting Mos version endorses the use of either "to" or "through" it does not say that "through" is prefered. I have expereinced people findign "to" ambigious, but I can't say how widespread that view of things is. I find the en-dash noticably larger than the hyphen or minus sign (whn the special character for the latter is used) in most standard web fonts that i see. If you want to make the advide to use a word and not a dash stronger than my version, that might not be a bad idea, but we should still indicate that a dash is an acceptable usage except where it is likely to cause confusion, IMO. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC) |
*Note that the exixting Mos version endorses the use of either "to" or "through" it does not say that "through" is prefered. I have expereinced people findign "to" ambigious, but I can't say how widespread that view of things is. I find the en-dash noticably larger than the hyphen or minus sign (whn the special character for the latter is used) in most standard web fonts that i see. If you want to make the advide to use a word and not a dash stronger than my version, that might not be a bad idea, but we should still indicate that a dash is an acceptable usage except where it is likely to cause confusion, IMO. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 23:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC) |
||
::It would make sense that an en dash could be used if and only if there is no possible confusion with the minus sign given the context. (I personally prefer it to be spelt out "to" or "through" to avoid symbol abbreviations but never mind that that's just me.) Don't know about the to versus through thing, I'd say it's arbitrary. Hyphens must be discouraged from number ranges, and editors allowed to edit articles accordingly. |
|||
::In terms of linking this and the mos on dashes, as long as the two pages are consistent (last time I checked which was more than a month ago, they weren't) it should be okay, ''but'' (there's always a but) there's every chance someone will change one without changing the other. If someone wants to merge the two pages, or remove the duplicate on one, I'll be behind them, but I won't push for it too hard. [[User:Neonumbers|Neonumbers]] 11:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Years== |
==Years== |
Revision as of 11:10, 17 November 2005
Archives at: /archive1 - /archive2 - /archive3 - /archive4 - /archive5 - /archive5a - /archive6 - /archive7 - /archive8 - /archive9 - /archive10 - /archive11 - /archive12 - /archive13 - /archive14 - archive14a - /archive15 - /archive16 - /archive17 - /archive18 - /archive19 - /archive20 - /archive21 - /archive22 - /archive23 - /archive24 - /archive25 - /archive26 - /archive27 - /archive28 - /archive29 - /archive30 - /archive31 - /archive32
See also:
- Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates)
- Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards
- Wikipedia:Measurements Debate
Number ranges
The text says:
- Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "4–7" for the numbers 4 through 7. Use an en dash for these when possible. It is often preferable to write this out (for example, "4 to 7" or "four through seven") to avoid confusion with "four minus seven". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) for more information.
I think it is easy to miss the point about negative numbers. It could be made more explicit. Here is one possible revision:
- Dates ranges can be expressed as 1982 to 1988 or 1982 - 1988.
- Number ranges can be unambiguously expressed using to e.g. 4 to 7. A dash or hyphen can also be used if negative values or subtraction is not valid. [... possibly provide examples e.g. temperatures, tolerances etc ...]
Other suggestions welcome. I don't know whether this section belongs here or in the section on dashes. Perhaps these two pages should be brought together. What do others think? Bobblewik 16:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Since an en-dash is signoficantly differnt from a hyphen or a minus sign/subtraction symbol, it can be used even if negatives or subtraction are possible, but it might in those casaes be better avoided. Also, "through" is slightly less ambigious than "to" IMO, as some people use "to" for "up to, but not including", whereas "through" i think always means "up to and including" Howw about:
- Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "4–7" for the numbers 4 through 7. When writing ranges in this form, use an en dash. However, it is often preferable to write this out (for example, "4 to 7" or "four through seven") to avoid confusion with "four minus seven", or with a list including negative numbers, such as "four, negative seven". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) for more information.
- Note that your version above lost the specific suggestion of an en-dash, as opposed to a hyphen. DES (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I thought through was merely a synonym for to. What you say about inclusiveness is interesting. I would like it to be true. Can we confirm this?
- The term through is alien to me because it is a variant of english that I don't use. I would have no personal problem with standardising on it, particularly if it has a less ambiguous meaning. But:
- I suspect it would be hard to get other non-US editors to use it because of the english variant.
- All editors seem to prefer the brevity of a dash. The use of to uses more space but it seems to be accepted sometimes. I wonder if many would accept the extra space used by through.
- The term through is alien to me because it is a variant of english that I don't use. I would have no personal problem with standardising on it, particularly if it has a less ambiguous meaning. But:
- I did not remove the en-dash on principle. It was partly lazy drafting of the text and partly that I don't get it. I rarely notice the one or two pixel difference. If I do notice, it just seems as meaningful as the difference between km² and km2. I don't know why people bother, but it does no harm. If people think it adds value, keep it in. Bobblewik 12:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- In many fonts the hyphen is much shorter than the en dash. The en dash in this case is a more widely supported substitute for the figure dash (U+2012). The figure dash, hyphen-minus (U+002D), and minus sign (U+2212) are supposed to occupy the same width as one numeric decimal place in vertical alignment, eg, in a table or complex equation. —Michael Z. 2005-11-9 20:31 Z
- Note that the exixting Mos version endorses the use of either "to" or "through" it does not say that "through" is prefered. I have expereinced people findign "to" ambigious, but I can't say how widespread that view of things is. I find the en-dash noticably larger than the hyphen or minus sign (whn the special character for the latter is used) in most standard web fonts that i see. If you want to make the advide to use a word and not a dash stronger than my version, that might not be a bad idea, but we should still indicate that a dash is an acceptable usage except where it is likely to cause confusion, IMO. DES (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- It would make sense that an en dash could be used if and only if there is no possible confusion with the minus sign given the context. (I personally prefer it to be spelt out "to" or "through" to avoid symbol abbreviations but never mind that that's just me.) Don't know about the to versus through thing, I'd say it's arbitrary. Hyphens must be discouraged from number ranges, and editors allowed to edit articles accordingly.
- In terms of linking this and the mos on dashes, as long as the two pages are consistent (last time I checked which was more than a month ago, they weren't) it should be okay, but (there's always a but) there's every chance someone will change one without changing the other. If someone wants to merge the two pages, or remove the duplicate on one, I'll be behind them, but I won't push for it too hard. Neonumbers 11:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Years
Hi, I'm a new user with a question. I read here that years on their own should not be placed in square brackets unless they are important, so for example 1974 does not need to be written 1974. However, when I removed the brackets from an article, another editor told me it should be written 1974. Does anyone know which is correct? The Manual of Style says "If the date doesn't contain a day and a month, then date preferences won't work, and square brackets won't respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there's no need to link it. This is an important point: simple years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there's a strong reason for doing so." Thank you. Pintele Yid 08:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- So, what's your question? What that is saying is that we don't need to be linking everything just because it can be linked (but there are different considerations if it is a full date with month and day, because of the additional use of the linking for the purpose of user preferences--something that many wish could be done some other way, but that's the way it is now). If a solitary year is linked, there should be some reason for either someone going to the year article to get to the article in which the year appears (some notable event associated with that year), or some special reason for someone reading the article to follow the link to see what else was happening in that year. Otherwise, it's no big deal for someone wanting to look up the year to enter the number in the Go box. Gene Nygaard 13:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Date of birth / death plus location (re biographies)
What is the proper formatting to use for date of birth or date of death that also specify the location? The article Ben Abruzzo is what prompted me to raise the question. First off, is it appropriate to place the location with the dates? If so, what formatting should be used? Currently it is (b. June 9, 1930 at Rockford, Illinois, d. February 11, 1985 at Albuquerque, New Mexico). I think (June 9, 1930 at Rockford, Illinois – February 11, 1985 at Albuquerque, New Mexico) follows the date-only guidelines more closely. --Dan East 05:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)