WikiProject Manual of Style | |||||||||||||
|
External image | |
---|---|
Kliban: Converting feet to meters |
Comma after year
Apparently, this guideline says we don’t have to use a comma after the year if we write “On 5 May 1822 the act became law” but we do have to use a comma after the year if we write “On May 5, 1822 the act became law”. This seems like a really silly distinction. Is it for real? Even in an article title? This issue has arisen today at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it's for real. The comma is not needed in the context of DMY dates, but "May 5, 1822" is an MDY date, not a DMY date. For MDY dates, MOS:DATE says "A comma follows the year unless other punctuation obviates it". And MOS:DATECOMMA says "Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year", and examples are provided:
Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands. Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.
- — BarrelProof (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:BarrelProof, I think you are conflating two different usages. Sometimes a date is used as a noun, in which case you are correct, but sometimes it is used as an adjective. See here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- At the risk of stating the obvious, Wikipedia has not adopted Garner's Modern American Usage as its style guide. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Has Wikipedia addressed the situation where a date is used as an adjective? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Its prescription is unconditional in that regard. So in my view it has addressed that situation by not making a special exception for it. However, it is often best to avoid the construction, e.g., by rephrasing as "The court reconsidered its privilege order of July 12, 2001." But the comma question has been contentious. You can find some prior discussions in the archives of this talk page and the main WP:MOS talk page. I don't know whether anyone has previously suggested treating the adjective usage as different. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- BarrelProof is correct. The comma belongs there for structural reasons as part of a pair of bracketing commas. It's there for the same reason that one comes after "Oklahoma" in the same example text. (And it would still need to be there if "Chattanooga, Oklahoma," were being used adjectivally.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps you have not considered that, if we do not limit this rule to the type of examples given, then we would have to include a comma at the end of this title: Attack on the U.S. Capitol of January 6, 2021, right? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not unless it's part of a longer phrase. I don't think anyone would argue that such a title should end with a comma. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, that’s an exception then (unless we consider the examples to be limiting). Anyway, thanks for the discussion, gotta go now. There would be little purpose in giving examples if they are not limiting. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have you ever seen a sentence end in a comma? (Notwithstanding your crazy example) Primergrey (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Of course not, User:Primergrey. As I understand, User:BarrelProof has argued here that we should follow what the rule literally says, regardless of whether the examples are limited to dates that are used as nouns, and the rule literally says “A comma follows the year unless other punctuation obviates it”. There is no punctuation to obviate the need for a comma in the article title Attack on the U.S. Capitol of January 6, 2021, so a comma would be needed at the end according to his insistence that we read the rule literally without regard to the examples. In contrast, my view is that the examples are limiting, so this policy only applies to dates in text, not in titles, and especially not to dates in titles when the date is used as an adjective rather than a noun. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant is attempting a reductio ad absurdum and should not be entertained any further. No one sane would expect an article title to end in a comma, so this discussion should not even have begun much less continued. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Of course not, User:Primergrey. As I understand, User:BarrelProof has argued here that we should follow what the rule literally says, regardless of whether the examples are limited to dates that are used as nouns, and the rule literally says “A comma follows the year unless other punctuation obviates it”. There is no punctuation to obviate the need for a comma in the article title Attack on the U.S. Capitol of January 6, 2021, so a comma would be needed at the end according to his insistence that we read the rule literally without regard to the examples. In contrast, my view is that the examples are limiting, so this policy only applies to dates in text, not in titles, and especially not to dates in titles when the date is used as an adjective rather than a noun. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Have you ever seen a sentence end in a comma? (Notwithstanding your crazy example) Primergrey (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, that’s an exception then (unless we consider the examples to be limiting). Anyway, thanks for the discussion, gotta go now. There would be little purpose in giving examples if they are not limiting. Cheers, Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Surely you would never think proper a title that says Capitol attack of January 6, 2021,
As I said on the talk page the editor is referring to, this is a bad faith, literalist interpretation of the DATECOMMA. Obviously all titles on Wikipedia do not have ending punctuation. Thrakkx (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)- Some titles end with exclamation points. Others end with parentheses. But I agree we should not interpret DATECOMMA to require it in this case, because the examples given in DATECOMMA do not suggest it. Nor do the examples suggest using a comma after a date when the date is used as an adjective. There’s nothing “bad faith” about wanting to follow the examples. (And if you had a decent argument, I doubt you’d be flinging around accusations of bad faith.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The adjective/noun form of the date is irrelevant here. The year is a parenthetical, and must be set apart from the larger phrase by commas. Your examples are misleading; the explanation point in Wham! is part of the duo's official name, and parentheses are a Wikipedia-specific convention for disambiguation. Thrakkx (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your observations about Wham and disambiguating are correct, but that doesn’t make what I said “misleading” or “bad faith”. I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect to say that “Obviously all titles on Wikipedia do not have ending punctuation.” Some clearly do. It should be possible to have a civil conversation without personal attacks. Anyway, thanks for the discussion, and I am outta here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The adjective/noun form of the date is irrelevant here. The year is a parenthetical, and must be set apart from the larger phrase by commas. Your examples are misleading; the explanation point in Wham! is part of the duo's official name, and parentheses are a Wikipedia-specific convention for disambiguation. Thrakkx (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Some titles end with exclamation points. Others end with parentheses. But I agree we should not interpret DATECOMMA to require it in this case, because the examples given in DATECOMMA do not suggest it. Nor do the examples suggest using a comma after a date when the date is used as an adjective. There’s nothing “bad faith” about wanting to follow the examples. (And if you had a decent argument, I doubt you’d be flinging around accusations of bad faith.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not unless it's part of a longer phrase. I don't think anyone would argue that such a title should end with a comma. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Its prescription is unconditional in that regard. So in my view it has addressed that situation by not making a special exception for it. However, it is often best to avoid the construction, e.g., by rephrasing as "The court reconsidered its privilege order of July 12, 2001." But the comma question has been contentious. You can find some prior discussions in the archives of this talk page and the main WP:MOS talk page. I don't know whether anyone has previously suggested treating the adjective usage as different. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Has Wikipedia addressed the situation where a date is used as an adjective? Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- These guidelines do not consider the date being used as a noun or adjective, but rather the fact that the year in a month–day–year format is a parenthetical, which is set apart from the rest of a phrase or sentence with commas. This is clearly explained in DATECOMMA:
The [year] is treated as parenthetical.
Thrakkx (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)- I don’t think it’s a coincidence that all the examples use the date as a noun. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a coincidence. The cabal leaves these little clues to torment us. But do you have a proposal to change the MoS regarding adjectival uses and any examples of cases where applying the current MoS to adjectival uses has caused problems, disputes or unfortunate results? The "on"+date and "of"+date examples above are all noun uses. NebY (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I’ll leave guideline edits up to the cabal. I was more interested in whether we should treat the current rule as confined to the type of examples given, or instead should be read literally as extending to further situations, or should be read some other way. The argument at article talk was about whether the title January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol requires a second comma, and I said no. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thrakkx (talk · contribs) is correct; it is a parenthetical comma, and the second comma is required: January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is the correct form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I’ll leave guideline edits up to the cabal. I was more interested in whether we should treat the current rule as confined to the type of examples given, or instead should be read literally as extending to further situations, or should be read some other way. The argument at article talk was about whether the title January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol requires a second comma, and I said no. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- The noun/adjective form is irrelevant here as Hawkeye7 and I have already pointed out. Why are the examples missing adjective form? Because it's an awkward writing convention that editors clearly borrow from journalese.
She was frustrated with her December 15, 2021, jury duty.
- is clearly inferior to
She was frustrated with the jury duty she served on December 15, 2021.
- Same applies for other parentheticals used in adjective form:
Waco, Texas, physician John Smith...
- is vastly inferior to
John Smith, a physician from Waco, Texas, ...
Thrakkx (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a coincidence. The cabal leaves these little clues to torment us. But do you have a proposal to change the MoS regarding adjectival uses and any examples of cases where applying the current MoS to adjectival uses has caused problems, disputes or unfortunate results? The "on"+date and "of"+date examples above are all noun uses. NebY (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t think it’s a coincidence that all the examples use the date as a noun. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- At the risk of stating the obvious, Wikipedia has not adopted Garner's Modern American Usage as its style guide. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:BarrelProof, I think you are conflating two different usages. Sometimes a date is used as a noun, in which case you are correct, but sometimes it is used as an adjective. See here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Adding a line on the South Sudanese pound plus miscellany
The South Sudanese pound has no unique symbolic abbreviation, it exclusively uses an unadorned £. For distinction I recommend advising £10,000 SSP be used, with the ISO code appending the numerals.
Discussions on several pages have concluded that ₤ is merely a stylistic choice and is not regarded as a distinct separate sign from £ in general usage, and that the only reason for its inclusion as a separate character from £ in Unicode is for compatibility with a legacy character set (HP Roman). I recommend noting that and advising against its use anywhere due to compatibility problems that would arise.
The Egyptian pound sign displayed on this page is also a point of contention. E£ was taken out of the Egyptian pound's article after it was found to lack any reliably sourced citations (the correct sign is £E or LE).
And my last point on currency is that Wikipedia's sign for the Australian dollar, A$, is not recommended by style guides and is not used by the Reserve Bank of Australia, these sources use $A. Countries with a recent strong British heritage usually place the disambiguating abbreviation after the currency sign, not before it. It is a minor swap, but not all currencies use the US dollar's abbreviation as a template. The Australian and New Zealand dollars inherited this practice from their £sd-based currencies, which were abbreviated £A and £NZ respectively.
Finally (you can all breathe a sigh of relief), I believe it is probably more efficacious for UK-centric articles to always display the imperial units first followed by an SI conversion. The BBC recommends this usage in their style guide. Especially as it is likely more use of imperial will be made in the future.
TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Late final!!! I strongly disagree. We should follow the sources. Just because the Minister for reinstatement of the nineteenth century thinks it a good idea to return to primitive weights and measures (and £sd too, allegedly), does not mean that it is going to happen. He got a chorus of disapproval from industry. So all that will happen is that it will be legal for market traders to have price cards that say "Banana's £2 a pound" without an (unenforced) legal obligation to have a subtitle that says "£4.40 a kilo". Transport engineers will continue to specify in SI units as they have done for at least 50 years and then some jobsworth will be paid to translate the numbers for US visitors and
slow learnersTory party members. Strong oppose any change to the MOS to reflect this passing phase. - Re ⟨£⟩, just to clarify for the rest of the world: the symbols in question are U+00A3 £ POUND SIGN and U+20A4 ₤ LIRA SIGN. For background, see Pound sign#Double bar style, Dollar sign#One stroke vs. two strokes, Endianness#Etymology and other Culture wars. (And btw, ⟨₤⟩ had no official status in Italy, it was just a transitional arrangement for HP.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Do I at least have approval on the Egyptian pound's sign?
- I am also simply trying to be NPOV on the units due to widespread official use and comprehension by the public, one gauges altitude in feet, your shoes are in barleycorns, your screen size is in inches, one measures fuel consumption in miles per gallon and one walks 500 miles! TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comments. First, if you think saying
I believe it is probably more efficacious for UK-centric articles to always display the imperial units first followed by an SI conversion
means we can allbreathe a sigh of relief
, you're mistaken. You've basically just whacked a hornets nest with a stick. I strongly oppose making such a change in this area.
- On the rest, before approving such changes, I would like to hear what Australian editors and New Zealand editors have to say about this before recommending a change, bearing in mind that when giving style guidance we are generally more interested in what people actually do than what is officially considered correct. I am not aware of any great movement by Australians or New Zealanders telling us that our current advice is wrong. I would also question whether it is necessary to list every currency on the planet on this page and what symbol should be used, which is the implication to my mind of insisting on listing the South Sudanese Pound. Kahastok talk 19:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- I only meant a sigh of relief that that was my last point. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless of the hot-button issue I seem to have pressed, do I at least have approval for changing E£ to £E and correcting the issue with the double bar pound sign? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest U+20A4 ₤ LIRA SIGN is anything more than a character for compatibility with a legacy character set and is not a truly distinct sign. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Can you just cool it [1] and wait for consensus? EEng 03:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm trying, but a single point I made seems to have obscured it unfortunately. I'm eager because these consensuses were established on the relevant pages. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the article Egyptian pound and the talk page discussion, and I can't see a single source on any of them that demonstrates your point, except for the image on this Numista page, which is user-generated content. Even if it weren't, inferring modern common usage from a single instance of usage on a 90-year-old banknote is some fairly extreme WP:OR. I see you claiming to have provided "extremely good reliable sources", but none appear to be actually cited - this was the first substantive alteration to the talk page since October 2013. I note that your claim
consensuses were established on the relevant pages
seems inaccurate on the case of Egyptian pound, where the "consensus" is the WP:WRONGVERSION from when you were blocked for edit warring. Kahastok talk 07:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)- The article was restored to a point before the edit war, before my references were added. I had included examples such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica and in the talk page I provided examples of sources such as Egyptian stamps, such as this stamp of 2002. The consensus we reached was that the most common sign for the currency is LE and if the pound sign is used at all for the Egyptian pound, it should be in the form of £E. In the edit war I was actually trying to respect the consensus and establish LE as the main symbol in preference to using the pound sign, £ is just a stylised L afterall. I also took out pound sign references that were unsubstantiated for examples such as the Israeli pound, which was almost always abbreviated IL. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why you don't feel able to provide a link either to the discussion where such consensus was reached, or to any reliable source that supports your claim? Kahastok talk 16:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Here: Talk:Egyptian pound. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- I see. So when you refer to "sources", what you mean is two images of unknown provenance, plus a post that you wrote on a Wikipedia talk page declaring that you provided sources. There's nothing else here. And when you refer to "consensus", what you actually mean is that the other guy didn't continue edit warring straight after coming back off block.
- Here: Talk:Egyptian pound. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why you don't feel able to provide a link either to the discussion where such consensus was reached, or to any reliable source that supports your claim? Kahastok talk 16:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The article was restored to a point before the edit war, before my references were added. I had included examples such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica and in the talk page I provided examples of sources such as Egyptian stamps, such as this stamp of 2002. The consensus we reached was that the most common sign for the currency is LE and if the pound sign is used at all for the Egyptian pound, it should be in the form of £E. In the edit war I was actually trying to respect the consensus and establish LE as the main symbol in preference to using the pound sign, £ is just a stylised L afterall. I also took out pound sign references that were unsubstantiated for examples such as the Israeli pound, which was almost always abbreviated IL. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the article Egyptian pound and the talk page discussion, and I can't see a single source on any of them that demonstrates your point, except for the image on this Numista page, which is user-generated content. Even if it weren't, inferring modern common usage from a single instance of usage on a 90-year-old banknote is some fairly extreme WP:OR. I see you claiming to have provided "extremely good reliable sources", but none appear to be actually cited - this was the first substantive alteration to the talk page since October 2013. I note that your claim
- I'm trying, but a single point I made seems to have obscured it unfortunately. I'm eager because these consensuses were established on the relevant pages. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Can you just cool it [1] and wait for consensus? EEng 03:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Given the lack of apparent evidence for the claim you wish to make, given that it's based on a claimed consensus that does not appear to exist in reality, I oppose this change. Kahastok talk 19:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- So you support retaining an unsourced claim? The Central Bank of Egypt uses LE, demonstrably from their own website, may I use this at least? E£ is completely unsourced and likely constitutes a WP:HOAX.
- Given the lack of apparent evidence for the claim you wish to make, given that it's based on a claimed consensus that does not appear to exist in reality, I oppose this change. Kahastok talk 19:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The Central Bank of Egypt, showing their present-day use of "LE"
- 1911 Britannica, which uses "£E"
- Egypt Daily News article of 2008, using both "LE" and "£E"
- Statesman's Year-Book 1899, using "£E"
- US Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, 1947, citing "£E"
- US Congress Senate Committee on Finance, 1937, citing "£E"
- Page 135 of the World Bank's 2020 style guide gives "LE" as the sign for the Egyptian pound
- The CIA World Factbook 2000 citing "£E" as the sign
- Are none of these reliable sources? I would greatly prefer LE be used instead of E£. While £E is not as common as it once was, E£ is never used at all. I used Numista for the banknote source because the Wikimedia Commons file of the same banknote was lower resolution.
- TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Kahastok Just giving you a ping. The banknote and stamp were only the pictorial references I cited (I actually also cited another Egyptian stamp, a revenue stamp prominently displaying £E), I cited text references as well (including the Britannica article, the Statesman's Year-Book and the Central Bank of Egypt linked above). I and @John Maynard Friedman worked together to find a consensus: that being that LE is most commonly used, £E is mainly used in historic material and that E£ is completely wrong and has no reliable verifying sources. I initially preferred £E but discussing with JMF persuaded me to side with LE, which is what triggered the edit war. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- As I have been mentioned in dispatches, I should clarify the background a little. MatthewS. validly pointed out on the article talk page that consensus means that the agreement or assent of those opposed to change has been secured, unless there is a preponderance of opinion towards one interpretation. With only we three participants in the discussion, that option was not realistic and it was a mistake to suppose that MatthewS's [actually rather brief] silence signified assent. I tried to open a discussion on the points of difference but, by the time I looked again, a full scale edit war had broken out and both editors got a 48-hour block. Personally, I don't intend to participate further in that debate as I don't consider the issue one of any great significance. What we have is a content dispute that should be resolved in good faith and cooperatively at the article talk page, not here. The first line of escalation should be to the relevant WikiProject, again not here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have now withdrawn my comments save for the point about resolving the issue with the explanation of the double-bar pound sign and the use of the unsourced E£ glyph, as these are clearly flaws demonstrable by all known evidence. For the former, no evidence has been found these two Unicode characters have any true real-world distinction beyond being separately encoded for compatibility with a legacy character set on a series of old HP printers. There is no evidence that either has ever enjoyed an official status as an independent sign from the other. And for the latter E£ appears in no reliable source anywhere as far as anyone has been able to establish besides unofficial use by certain FOREX websites, certainly no use by any banks or media outlets.
- This is all I seek to establish consensus on now, the changing of things that are clearly and demonstrably incorrect as they have no decent supporting citations. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- On the specific point of the example we give at MOS:NUM#Currencies, {{tq|"(e.g. the Egyptian pound, E£)}"}, I agree with TCG that this is a bad example. Searching online, I can only see it being used by those many currency-conversion sites (what is their business model? hosting Google ads?) and i strongly suspect they have lazily got it from Wikipedia. I can't find an authoritative and current modern source stating that £E is correct, though the CIA's World Factbook had it in 2000. In short
- (e.g. the Egyptian pound, E£) is either weird and unsafe or just plain wrong
- (e.g. the Egyptian pound, £E) would be historically sound but now unusual
- no example at all would be fine - Egyptian, Lebanese and Syrian practice has largely or maybe completely moved away from using the £ symbol, and my first impression is that Sudan and South Sudan have too. NebY (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- In the light of NebY's comments, I see I missed in my earlier response (00:12, 13 August 2022 above) the fact that there is also a problem with the wording of the MOS and that it is not just a content dispute at the Egyptian pound article. In case I'm not the only one to have missed the original point of this discussion, the relevant text is at MOS:£ and reads
For the British pound sterling (GBP), use the £ symbol, with one horizontal bar, not the double-barred ₤ (which is used for Italian lira). For non-British currencies that use pounds or a pound symbol (e.g. the Egyptian pound, E£) use the symbol conventionally employed for that currency.
- I agree with NeBy: the MOS section should be revised to read
For the British pound sterling (GBP), use the £ symbol, with one horizontal bar, not the double-barred ₤ symbol ("lira sign") (Whether a pound sign uses one or two bars is purely a type-design choice.) For non-British currencies that use pounds, use the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for that currency, if any.
- Does that clarify matters? (BTW, U+20A4 ₤ LIRA SIGN was not particularly used for the Italian lira: it only exists in Unicode because the Consortium allocated a code-point to provide a migration path for HP printers. Users of the Cifrão are rightfully miffed that they were not offered the same concession.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- I am broadly in agreement with @NebY and @John Maynard Friedman. The Egyptian pound seems to have largely stopped using £E by the early 2010s and now almost exclusively uses LE. I agree that those currency conversion sites appear to have taken their references from Wikipedia rather than using actual sources.
- My proposal for the re-wording is this:
For the British pound sterling (GBP), use U+00A3 £ POUND SIGN, not U+20A4 ₤ LIRA SIGN (the latter being a code-point for a legacy character set. Whether a pound sign uses one or two bars is purely a type-design choice.) For other currencies named "pound" or similar, use the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for that currency, if any.
TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)- I have fixed the template {{GBP}} that the default display is just the pound sign, and requires adding "long=yes" to display "GB" before that. This should not require any other change across pages that use it. --Masem (t) 03:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- @TheCurrencyGuy: That's clearly incorrect on the Australian Dollar. The Australian Government Style Guide states "If users could be confused about the currency being referenced, place ‘A’ before the ‘$’. Don’t insert a space between them.". The RBA glossary states "A$ – Australian dollar; ISO 4217 currency code AUD". ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I was unaware this style was infact supported by state sources. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- @TheCurrencyGuy: That's clearly incorrect on the Australian Dollar. The Australian Government Style Guide states "If users could be confused about the currency being referenced, place ‘A’ before the ‘$’. Don’t insert a space between them.". The RBA glossary states "A$ – Australian dollar; ISO 4217 currency code AUD". ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think I can support the last version of the wording, above. Even "use the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for that currency, if any" is fine; "A$" (in the side point above), like IR£ is simply the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for the Australian dollar (or Irish pound/punt, respectively). If we feel it necessary to do so, then add a concise example:
For the British pound sterling (GBP), use U+00A3 £ POUND SIGN, not U+20A4 ₤ LIRA SIGN (the latter being a code-point for a legacy character set; whether a pound sign uses one or two bars is purely a type-design choice). For other currencies named "pound" or similar, use the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for that currency, if any – e.g. IR£ for Irish Pound (IEP).
- — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have fixed the template {{GBP}} that the default display is just the pound sign, and requires adding "long=yes" to display "GB" before that. This should not require any other change across pages that use it. --Masem (t) 03:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- On the specific point of the example we give at MOS:NUM#Currencies, {{tq|"(e.g. the Egyptian pound, E£)}"}, I agree with TCG that this is a bad example. Searching online, I can only see it being used by those many currency-conversion sites (what is their business model? hosting Google ads?) and i strongly suspect they have lazily got it from Wikipedia. I can't find an authoritative and current modern source stating that £E is correct, though the CIA's World Factbook had it in 2000. In short
Meanwhile
The broader issue (below) will take a lot longer to resolve so unless anyone objects, I propose to change the MOS to read:
- For the British pound sterling (GBP), use the £ symbol with one horizontal bar (U+00A3 £ POUND SIGN), not the double-barred ₤ symbol (U+20A4 ₤ LIRA SIGN) (Whether a pound sign uses one or two bars is purely a type-design choice.) For non-British currencies that use "pounds", use the symbol or abbreviation conventionally employed for that currency, if any.
I don't think that the MOS needs to go the history of Unicode as TCG proposes. If anyone wants it, the linked articles provide it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- This appears to have been surpassed by revision proposals in the sub-thread above this one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Early April's Fool proposal, let's use country code + # to indicate pounds. Say goodbye to £ and GBP/EGP, say hello to BR# and EG#. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- GiBP. NebY (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Heh. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- GiBP. NebY (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Broader issue
It seems to me that a broader issue here is that TheCurrencyGuy is interested in "cleaning up" currency notation across a wide variety of Wikipedia pages, and he is often running into conflicts because the notation he chooses isn't always exactly right, or doesn't quite have consensus. I know that MOS creep is an issue but, since currencies are used on a wide variety of Wikipedia pages, it doesn't seem absurd to me to have a subpage (or just somewhat expand the section of this page) where the actual notations are listed for a variety of currencies.....then people interested in cleaning up currency notations on Wikipedia could get consensus for the style there before deploying it on many pages. I think the situation is not always clear. For example, in languages that don't use the Latin alphabet, the currency notation that is generally used "in the wild" is not always the one that is used in English-language sources.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Are there, or do we expect there to be, a lot of "people interested in cleaning up currency notations on Wikipedia"? I rather get the impression that TCG has found so much to do because no-one else has been.
- It's an interesting suggestion but my first thought is that the talk page for a currency (eg Australian dollar) is usually the best place to discuss it, and if one doesn't exist then the country's talk page, if only because that's where you'll find other editors familiar with or interested in that currency. NebY (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance, but doesn't the World Bank or IMF or ISO someone have a list of the all the names / abbreviations / symbols / codes? WP can't be the first organization to have faced this problem. EEng 14:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes and no. ISO 4217 provides alpha (USD, GBP, EUR etc) and numeric (840, 826, 978 etc) codes, allowing for unambiguous identification and trading. That means there's no need for agreed standard symbols, and various countries have several in common use eg Egypt's LE, £E and ج.م, perhaps less commonly L.E., a stylised .S.E. on early notes while still under British hegemony, and who knows what else - maybe plain £ in some contexts in the late 19th or early 20th century? The World Bank and the IMF have no need to keep track of all these usages (and of course no power to impose standards or even require consistency) so long as ISO 4217 codes can be used. NebY (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- The World Bank do have a style guide which includes a list of suggested currency abbreviations/symbols on page 134.
- The World Bank's list seems to be largely complete and accurate and I would not be opposed to using it as a basis for Wikipedia's style. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- We could think about referencing this as a good resource in the MOS. CapitalSasha ~ talk 12:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes and no. ISO 4217 provides alpha (USD, GBP, EUR etc) and numeric (840, 826, 978 etc) codes, allowing for unambiguous identification and trading. That means there's no need for agreed standard symbols, and various countries have several in common use eg Egypt's LE, £E and ج.م, perhaps less commonly L.E., a stylised .S.E. on early notes while still under British hegemony, and who knows what else - maybe plain £ in some contexts in the late 19th or early 20th century? The World Bank and the IMF have no need to keep track of all these usages (and of course no power to impose standards or even require consistency) so long as ISO 4217 codes can be used. NebY (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- List of circulating currencies does have a column of symbols, but I don't know how good it is or how constructive it would be to link to it from WP:MOSNUM. The article seems fairly stable and the talk page comparatively quiet; it's possible a lot of relevant work on individual currency or country pages isn't echoed there. NebY (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Currency symbol also has a list of symbols. However it seems that no one (that I have heard in the discussion) wants to use the non-Latin alphabet symbols (e.g. ج.م). Also, for many currencies, there are several alternatives. One that has come up in TheCurrencyGuy's editing is the use of /= as the symbol for the shilling in East African countries - it is not 100% clear to me that this is actually being used as a currency symbol, versus the slash being a separator" and the equals sign representing "no cents." CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- The slash is a solidus, essentially a hyper-stylised letter s, standing for "shilling", so it does constitute a currency sign. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- It would be a fine point whether in pre-decimalisation UK usage, the slash in 10/6 was a mere separator or also the sole currency symbol. (Don't believe the poster; it was about two years since they'd first played together.) However, since usage such as £2/10/6 for pounds, shillings and pence was normal, it's hard to see the slashes as stylised letters s. NebY (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
On reflection, I think the / in 10/6 is a signifier (that it's a price) and a separator, but not a symbol, as also in £2/10/6 as opposed to £2 10s 6d. NebY (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)cratch that NebY (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)- Its actually quite a complex question to answer to be honest, given how, yes, "/" often also separated pounds and pence. The East African currencies directly inherited their notation from the sterling notation for shillings (with "cents" substituting pence) this Kenyan stamp for example gives its denomination as 1/20. I think the issue might be that the wedge shape solidus is not supported by unicode. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- It would be a fine point whether in pre-decimalisation UK usage, the slash in 10/6 was a mere separator or also the sole currency symbol. (Don't believe the poster; it was about two years since they'd first played together.) However, since usage such as £2/10/6 for pounds, shillings and pence was normal, it's hard to see the slashes as stylised letters s. NebY (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- The slash is a solidus, essentially a hyper-stylised letter s, standing for "shilling", so it does constitute a currency sign. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Currency symbol also has a list of symbols. However it seems that no one (that I have heard in the discussion) wants to use the non-Latin alphabet symbols (e.g. ج.م). Also, for many currencies, there are several alternatives. One that has come up in TheCurrencyGuy's editing is the use of /= as the symbol for the shilling in East African countries - it is not 100% clear to me that this is actually being used as a currency symbol, versus the slash being a separator" and the equals sign representing "no cents." CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance, but doesn't the World Bank or IMF or ISO someone have a list of the all the names / abbreviations / symbols / codes? WP can't be the first organization to have faced this problem. EEng 14:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
ordinal dot
EEng, regarding your comment in the summary of this edit, i think the second counterexample in the first column ("9. June") suggests that the "dot to the day" was referencing the ordinal dot. however, now that "to the day or" has been removed, i am admittedly somewhat worried that readers who see the second counterexample and its associated comment may be confused about how abbreviated months are relevant to the counterexample "9. June". would it have been more helpful to, for example, link "to the day" to the description of the ordinal dot? alternatively, the cell in the third column containing the comment can be split into two rows, one for each of the two counterexamples. dying (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
'(since 1980)' or '(1980–)' or either?
I couldn't find that in MOS:TOPRESENT. — Guarapiranga ☎ 01:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Prose forms such as before 1980, since 1980, in the middle of 1980 and so on aren't covered here because there's not been contention about them requiring guidance here and we try to avoid cluttering Wikipedia's style guide with general advice on writing English. "1980–" isn't in WP:TOPRESENT because consensus is against that usage on Wikipedia, and this has been discussed and reaffirmed repeatedly over the years. If you're interested in reading some of those past discussions, search for "present" in the archives searchbox above. NebY (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Where Neby says
if you're interested
, I'd change that to "If you're interested and prepared to be bored to tears". EEng 15:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)- EEng is entirely correct on this. NebY (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- That goes without saying, of course -- see User:EEng#correct. EEng 15:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- 😂 — Guarapiranga ☎ 08:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- In a table, or list entries, I'd favour (1980–present). In prose, since 1980. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- In tables and lists, I'd favour (1980–); less wordy. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Did you find the previous discussions interesting? NebY (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Very. Dull and delightful. Especially this one, in which SMcCandlish and EEng were particularly participative. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Did you find the previous discussions interesting? NebY (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- In tables and lists, I'd favour (1980–); less wordy. — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- In a table, or list entries, I'd favour (1980–present). In prose, since 1980. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:20, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- EEng is entirely correct on this. NebY (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Where Neby says
2022–present
Hey everyone, I hope you are all well.
Over the years this issue has come up again and again: whether it is okay to use "2022–present" (or whatever the current year is; last year it was "2021–present", next year it will be "2023–present" etc). This used to not be an issue as on soap articles etc we would format ranges like "2022–", "2021–", "1991–2009, 2011–" etc, but now several editors are opposing to "2022–present" due to 2022 being the present, and to put "2022" on list articles (e.g. List of Days of Our Lives cast members). However, this causes many issues such as:
1.) Putting simply "2022" suggests that the event has already been completed, especially as in the past "2022" would mean that the stint is already finished whereas "2022–" or "2022–present" means that it is ongoing. This is especially true in things such as lists of characters, as many cast members appear in guest stints and thus "2022" suggests that the stint has already ended/is confirmed to end this year. For example "1999–2008, 2022" looks like the stint in 2022 has already been completed, whereas "2022–present" illustrates that it is still ongoing.
2.) This is inconsistent with other wikipedia lists, where "2022–" or "2022–present" is used in lists
3.) It is inconsistent with the MOS technically as the MOS says to use "–present" and not just "2022" if it is the current year
4.) Often they are not updated the following year and thus this makes it incorrect as wrong (e.g. I recently found an article which said just "2020" instead of "2020–present"/"2020–"
In the past I have tried to avoid unambiguity by using "Since 2022" in tables, but this is quite unusual as it differs from other articles. Even though we are in 2022, "2022" is also not technically the present - January 2022 is not the present, and even August 18 is not the present. Hence, I have started this discussion to allow the use of "2022–present" and avoid the ambiguous use of simply "2022" for ongoing events/durations. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- We're discussing that two topics above. — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Just refactor them into one thread. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Done. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not the same – what I am asking is there to be clarity on whether "2022–present" (or even "2022–") to be used as some editors keep reverting it to simply "2022" but this is extremely ambiguous DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- This was discussed in 2019, under the heading 2019 vs. 2019–present. As Stepho-wrs put it then,
"Unfortunately, MOS:DATETOPRES does not cover what happens when the start year is the present year."
It still doesn't. Suggestions included adding the month, or (updating the suggestions) "beginning 2022" or "since 2022". I agree that "2022-present" looks weird in 2022, and it's little comfort that it'll look better in a few months. NebY (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Magazine issue dates
Currently this guideline MOS:SEASON says magazine issue dates should be lower-case -- there's an example given: details appeared in Quarterly Review, summer 2015. I think this should be changed. The sources I use for magazine articles invariably capitalize the initial letter of the season in these cases. Some examples:
- "In the sixteen issues that appeared until Spring 1942, Tales of Wonder published..." (Tymn & Ashley (1985), Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines, p. 654.)
- "...'Up There' (Science Fiction Quarterly, Summer 1942), which spoofs..." (Ashley (2000),The Time Machines, p. 163.)
- "In Spring 1955, as the most popular magazine..." (Malcolm Edwards, in Nicholls (1978) Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, p. 569.)
I also tried looking in Google Books for "fall 1943 issue" to see what the usage is. The genre uses appear to be exclusively uppercase, but the non-genre magazines vary. I found:
- "a Fall 1943 issue of Boston and Maine Railroad magazine"
- "first appeared in the Fall 1943 issue"
- "writing in the fall 1943 issue of Tropiques"
- "reached print in the Fall 1943 issue of Thrilling Wonder Stories"
- "The magazine I had purchased then was the Fall 1943 issue of Startling Stories"
- "it would first appear in the Fall 1943 issue of"
- "and the story appeared its fall 1943 issue"
- "in the Fall, 1943, issue of Planet Stories"
- "Diana Prince transforms herself in the Fall 1943 issue of"
- "writing in the fall 1943 issue of Illinois Conservation"
- "concluding in the Fall 1943 issue of the Chronicle"
Eight with uppercase, three with lowercase. I think we could change the guidance to say either "upper or lower case is OK", or we could say upper case is preferred. I don't think we can say "follow the source" because here we have two sources differing in referring to the same magazine. And I don't think it should stay as lower case; that's clearly not the customary usage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- It appears I inserted the details appeared in Quarterly Review, summer 2015 example back in 2016 [4], but (as seen in that diff) with Summer capitalized. It was decapped earlier this year [5], and I've reverted that. EEng 20:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- The usual convention in running text is lower case. But in the style guides I've checked, it's upper case when giving publication dates in citations. I don't think I've seen any style guide address the question of magazine publication dates in running text. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- And I don't trust the data above, since it's skewed to the mid-20th century, when capitalization of random stuff was a lot more common. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's easy enough to try it with any year eg "fall 2019 issue". I looked at more than 50 results before I found one lower-case instance, and I still haven't spotted one in a simple DuckDuckG search. NebY (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- And I don't trust the data above, since it's skewed to the mid-20th century, when capitalization of random stuff was a lot more common. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- The usual convention in running text is lower case. But in the style guides I've checked, it's upper case when giving publication dates in citations. I don't think I've seen any style guide address the question of magazine publication dates in running text. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- It appears I inserted the details appeared in Quarterly Review, summer 2015 example back in 2016 [4], but (as seen in that diff) with Summer capitalized. It was decapped earlier this year [5], and I've reverted that. EEng 20:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)