Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#WP:COMPUNITS

In Srisailam Dam I just came across the use of Tmcft as a volume unit throughout the article. {{tl|Convert}}'s documentation doesn't say it supports Tmcft.

Both this MoS style page and the convert template are UK/US orientated, but this unit is apparently used in India so sources from there probably use it. Commander Keane (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for pointing this out. What a bizarre unit. I replaced it with billion cubic feet so at least Americans can understand it. For the rest of the world it still needs converting to something more user friendly (maybe km^3?). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::That's not a solution (and your edits on the article should be reverted). The unit may seem bizarre at first sight, but it's used all the time in WP:RS about Indian dams (random example: [https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2025/Mar/15/tn-budget-2025-chennai-to-get-sixth-reservoir-with-16-tmcft-capacity]), so we have to use it in our articles about such dams as well. And when you look at this list of volume units, the unit won't seem so bizarre anymore. :-) {{u|Commander Keane}}, I don't know much about {{tl|Convert}}, but the intro here says "Units should be discussed at Template talk:Convert". I guess that's what you want to do. I think it would make perfect sense to add an entry for this unit, and if I understand that list of volume units correctly, the required change is very simple: just add a line mapping "tmcft" to "=e9cuft". — Chrisahn (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I strongly disagree. We have enough units in circulation. This one has zero benefit. If there are other articles that use tcmft, they should all be given the same treatment. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Articles about dams in India should use the same unit as almost all WP:RS about dams in India, and that unit is tmcft. This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. There are over 200 million English speakers in India. Not much less than in the US, and several times more than in the UK. There are different variants of English, and different systems of units. We use country-specific units in articles about American or British topics, so of course we also use country-specific units in articles about Indian topics. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::P.S. Once {{tl|convert}} can handle tmcft, the unit will become much less bizarre because we can convert it to km³ (or whatever is appropriate in a given context). (Imperial units in general are rather bizarre. Cubic feet mean nothing to me, never mind the factor of a thousand million or billion...) — Chrisahn (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Just remember it's a little over 7 gallons. --Trovatore (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Actually it's not a unit at all, but (as the article about it correctly says) just as abbreviation. "km" and "kilometres" are not two different units, but one is the abbreviation of the other. So is "tmcft", if a fairly bizarre one (why not "bcft"?). Should this specific abbreviation be useful in certain cases, I'd suggest to introduce it in parentheses after the spelled-out form, as is customary for not universally known abbreviations: {{xt|Its capacity is 178 billion cubic feet (tmcft)}}. Plus it should certainly be converted into metric units too, like {{u|Dondervogel 2}} pointed out. There can be no excuse not to convert – like we also convert miles into kilometres (in parentheses) in articles referring to the US. "It's the local custom, so nobody outside the country needs to understand it" is not a good rationale. Wikipedia is meant for a worldwide audience and should be understandable to anybody who speaks English, regardless of the variety one is accustomed to. Gawaon (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree, it definitely should be converted using {{tl|convert}}. But since all WP:RS about Indian dams use this abbreviation, it would be confusing for readers and editors to use e.g. "billion cubic feet" instead. I think the convention for not generally known units is to link them to their article, in this case tmcft. – Regarding the question, "why not billion": Probably because of the fairly bizarre mess with long and short scales. It's simply not always clear what "billion" means. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Similar case: Our articles about horse racing use the bizarre unit furlong (without an explanation, except maybe a link to furlong), because that's what all the sources use. See e.g. Secretariat (horse), Northern Dancer, etc. We don't say, "that's bizarre, we'll replace that by km or miles". We do what the sources do. Anything else would be confusing for our readers and our editors. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::We do not do what the sources do; our articles would be an awful jumble if we did. MOS:UNIT describes what we do. When specifying capacity in cubic metres, we might provide a parenthetical conversion to cubic feet, but that should use a notation that general readers both in and outside India can understand. NebY (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::By that logic, we should specify the distances in articles like Secretariat (horse) in kilometers, and maybe provide a parenthetical conversion to miles, so that general readers both in and outside horse racing can understand. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We certainly should convert them into kilometres too. If we don't yet, that's a shortcoming that'll hopefully be fixed sooner or later. We're writing for a general audience, not just the specialists, so even if the specialists in any given area use some specialized unit nobody else is using (whether furlongs or tmcft or anything else), it's our job to convert them into more accessible units. The RS might not to that because they aren't written for a general audience. Nevertheless, it remains our job to rectify that. Even in India, while the dam builders might know what a tmcft is, I suspect if you ask a random person on the street they won't be able to tell you much about it. Gawaon (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Horse racing: Yes, we should {{tl|convert}} furlongs, but telling editors to replace all occurrences of "furlong" in Secretariat (horse)#Racing statistics by some other unit would be disruptive rather than useful. In the same vein, we shouldn't require editors to replace tmcft in articles about Indian dams. We should enable them to {{tl|convert}} it.

::::::::Regarding "random person on the street" – People who have read about such a topic will know the unit, and they'll at least understand the numbers in relation. Example quote: "...permitted Goa to use 24 tmcft (excluding the 9.395 tmcft prevailing uses), Karnataka to use 5.4 tmcft (including 3.9 tmcft for export outside the basin) and Maharashtra to use 1.33 tmcft..." That's close to what the sources write. Using a different unit would only confuse a "random person on the street".

::::::::Articles about US dams use the even more bizarre unit "acre•foot". A "random person on the street" won't be able to tell you much about that unit, yet we're fine with it. If we let Americans use their bizarre units, we should let Indians use theirs as well. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Sure, we can let them use their bizarre units, just as long as we convert them too. I'm all for using the convert template for that purpose, I don't say we should omit the originally specified units. Gawaon (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{small|Even so, I'm now curious how many furlongs per fortnight the speed of light actually is. We should certainly use that time-honoured unit more often!}} Gawaon (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{#expr:299792458 * 1209600 / 201.168}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::So about 1803 thousand million furlongs per fortnight (tmfpfn). Thanks! Gawaon (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::No we do not do what the sources say verbatim. We also do not repeat text from sources verbatim, but we make an equivalent statement. If there is a need, the ref can include a note on first appearance that specifies the unit conversion. kbrose (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I requested on Template talk:Convert. The MOS:UNIT section mentions strong national ties and discusses non-scientific usage for US units, UK units and then puts Hands as an example (a UK/US unit) for all other articles. I would swap Hands for Tmcft as the example, or something else to make it clearer. Commander Keane (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It states in the article Tmcft that the "cubic kilometer (km3) is the standard unit used by the Central Water Commission of the Government of India". As this is primarily of interest to people in India, and India has a government policy of using the System International only, see Metrication in India the sources listed must be more than 60 years old. I personally think there is probably no need to even list TMCFT. It's just a confusing unit. Avi8tor (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::A [https://www.google.com/search?q=tmcft&tbm=nws Google news search] shows extensive recent Indian newsmedia usage, often in the title of articles ([https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2025/Mar/15/tn-budget-2025-chennai-to-get-sixth-reservoir-with-16-tmcft-capacity example given above, one week old]). Commander Keane (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Oh dear. Are we going to have the whole lakh/crore thing again? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:The corresponding unit in the US would be the acre-foot, which would be known to those concerned with US dams and reservoirs, but unknown to the general public and probably to water professionals from other countries. According to "List of dams and reservoirs in the United States" there are an estimated 84,000 dams in the United States; it's inconvenient to figure out how many of those have Wikipedia articles. But if we look at the articles that transclude the "Acre-foot" article, it's only about 150, and roughly half of those are about units of measure, not bodies of water. So I infer that articles about US dams and reservoirs don't usually mention acre-foot. So perhaps articles about similar bodies of water in India shouldn't mention Tmcft. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Until yesterday I hadn't heard of Tmcft or acre-foot. Hoover Dam uses acre-foot. I am not aware of the lakh/crore thing. I am just concerned about article writers being able to input a value from a source, editors easily being able to verify that value from the source and for readers to understand that value (through conversion). Commander Keane (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I've known about acre-feet for many years. More than 50 years ago I helped a couple of mathematicians figure out how much an acre-foot weighed by reciting "a pint's a pound the world around" (they had gotten to how many gallons there were in an acre-foot, but didn't know how much a gallon weighed). Donald Albury 00:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I will just add that Wivenhoe Dam uses ML for reservoir volume and converts it to both imp and US gallons. I can anticipate the troubling temptation for Indian editors to add Tmcft there if {{tl|convert}} is updated. And should km3 be added as well? We need some MoS guidance on this. Meanwhile Srisailam Dam is difficult to read. P.S. some guidance on m3 versus cumecs would be good also. Commander Keane (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::"I infer that articles about US dams and reservoirs don't usually mention acre-foot" – I don't think that's correct. (All you can infer from your data is that few of these articles transclude acre-foot.) I clicked half a dozen random blue links in List of dams and reservoirs in the United States to check the units for capacity. I found US gal, acre-feet, acre-feet, no capacity given, m³, acre⋅ft. Based on this random selection, it looks like many (maybe a majority) of these articles use acre-foot. — Chrisahn (talk) Chrisahn (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Searching for variants: acre-foot 114 articles; acre-feet 1,419 articles; acre-ft 2,867 articles. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Is there still opposition to adding Tmcft to {{Tl|convert}}? Code: tmcft; Alternate: Tmcft; Display tmcft.

::::Looking above, @Avi8tor, @Dondervogel 2 and @NebY expressed concern, but that may have been resolved if they read over the comments.

::::The state of reservoir/dam units is a mess across Wikipedia with acre-feet, megalitres, million tons and tmcft all getting used and converted to various other units. What to primarily display and convert to can be tackled in the future, at the moment I just want to resolve {{Tl|convert}} regarding Tmcft. Commander Keane (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::My position on tcmft has not changed. This unit has zero benefit. It can be replaced by billion cu ft in all articles that use tcmft.

:::::One editor stated that "billion" is ambiguous in India. If that statement is accurate, my position (on the use of "billion" throughout Wikipedia) would change. Is it accurate? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Re ambiguity, I read that as a reasonable guess about the origins of tmcft rather than as a statement that "billion" is currently ambiguous in India. OTOH, a note to our Long and short scales says it still varies, but on the third hand that statement's not sourced. NebY (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The Manual of style states litres primary with whatever suffix is appropriate and then a conversion to a listed unit. I think adding a unit used only in india that looks to be obsolete does not benefit the worldwide readers of Wikipedia. I second Dondervogel 2 Avi8tor (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The fundamental question is whether MOS:UNITS should be extended to allow use of tmcft, and if so whether to allow it as a primary unit (as various of the units mentioned above are) and/or as a secondary, parenthetical unit. You haven't gained consensus for adding it to MOS:UNITS as a primary unit, either by itself or as a general provision for units used in India, and it hasn't been added. It's very hard to imagine consensus being reached for it to be added as a secondary unit, either by itself or as a general provision for units used in India, and certainly there's been no such addition. Adding tmcft to {{tl|Convert}} would to some extent give the impression that its use was MOS-compliant and would facilitate its use, even though that use is contrary to MOS:UNITS as it stands. NebY (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::@NebY: as it stands MOS:UNITS says {{bq|In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (such as kilograms), non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic}} (emphasis mine). There is no need to write in a provision for every country and usecase, it is already covered. Unless you interpret that passage differently? I agree that secondary units are not needed.

::::::@Avi8tor: I don't see how it is obsolete, I already linked to [https://www.google.com/search?q=tmcft&tbm=nws Google news] above which has since been updated to show tmcft used in the title of an article two days ago. Also, I don't think Wikipedians use obsolete units to be purposefully obscure. I am not sure what your comment on litres was about.

::::::@Dondervogel 2: {{tq|This unit has zero benefit}}, the unit's (or abreviation's) benefits are for article writers to put in the value from source and editors to check that value, all without knowing what a tmcft is ({{tl|convert}} will take care that). It is incidental that Indian readers will understand the value. Commander Keane (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That part of MOS:UNITS does not prescribe that we change primary units according to what the sources on that subject use in different countries. We do provide for changing units according to country {{tq|In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States}} and {{tq|In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom}}, but that is all. We set great store by uniformity in the expression of quantities across the encyclopedia.

:::::::As for your third point, we do not choose which units appear in our articles for the benefit of editors. We do it for our readers. If it is as you say, {{tq|incidental that Indian readers will understand the value}}, then there is no case for using tmcft in our articles. NebY (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It has zero benefit because we have a perfectly good equivalent unit that most readers will understand without needing to click on a link. If you are looking to a change to MOSNUM, I suggest adding this clarifying text to make things crystal clear:

:::::::*"Where there is a choice between an obscure unit (e.g., tmcft) and a widely understood unit with identical meaning (e.g., billion cu ft), use the widely understood unit with identical meaning."

:::::::Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I have a better understanding now. Tmcft is not a unit, it is an abbreviation. MOS:UNIT (talking about units) prescribes SI or SI-accepted for primary units of volume (excluding the US) unless the sources use something else. Verifiability exists for editors and readers alike and it says we have to be able to check information, which rules out editors converting tmcft in their calculator and using km3 as the primary unit. The primary unit is ft3.

::::::::That leaves us with billions of ft3. This will make verifiability a little harder and result in verbose wording and/or exponential notation. I think the choice to accept that should be up to each article but I also see the logic in avoiding tmcft altogether.

::::::::The MoS could say "abbreviations obscuring the base unit should be avoided" which would resolve tmcft and cumecs (m3/s) that I mentioned above.

::::::::I will leave it at that I think. Commander Keane (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Sounds reasonable. Gawaon (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:The purpose of the {{tl|convert}} template is to convert the units in the sources to metric. If the source says acre-feet, that should be used. According to NIST, acre-feet is the standard US conventional unit for this purpose. Under no circumstances should it be converted to billions of cubic feet. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have not noticed a suggestion to convert acre-feet to billions of cubic feet. Whose comment are you responding to? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::My point is that the reader checking the source should be able to find it there. The MOS is clear: metric first, then the source unit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::According to MOS:UNIT, for non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States, the primary (first) units are US customary. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:"Tmcft" has a serious advantage over "billion cubic feet": the former is a lot shorter. The length is even worse if we also provide conversion to km³ – as we should since Indian authorities use that unit too. Using the long spelling makes our content difficult to read:

:{{blockquote|Srisailam right main canal (SRMC) is constructed with 44,000 cusecs capacity at Srisailam reservoir level of 269.22 metres (883 ft) MSL to feed Veligodu reservoir (16.95 billion cubic feet), Brahmamsagar Reservoir (17.74 billion cubic feet), Alaganoor reservoir (2.97 billion cubic feet), Gorakallu reservoir (12.44 billion cubic feet), Owk reservoir (4.15 billion cubic feet), Gandikota Reservoir (26.86 billion cubic feet), Mylavaram reservoir (9.98 billion cubic feet), Somasila reservoir (78 billion cubic feet) and Kandeleru reservoir (68 billion cubic feet) with nearly 235 billion cubic feet total storage capacity.}}

:This is just one sentence from Srisailam Dam#Irrigation and it now takes 13 lines on my phone after @Dondervogel 2 "helpfully" changed everything from tmcft to billion cubic feet.

:As @Commander Keane and @Chrisahn point out, tmcft is often used in the WP:RS. Hence, that's what our articles should use per MOS:UNITS (@Chrisahn helpfully quoted it above). We may also have readers that are familiar with tmcft but that do not immediately realise that they are equivalent to billion cubic feet. These are plenty of reasons to add tmcft to the {{convert}} template. I do however think that cusecs are better spelled ft³/s and cumecs as m³/s as that would be both clearer and shorter. Joe vom Titan (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! I agree 99%, except that the claim "tmcft are equivalent to billion cubic feet" is incorrect, because the word "billion" is ambiguous, particularly in India. See e.g. Long and short scales#Using neither: "Outside of financial media, the use of billion by Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani English speakers highly depends on their educational background. Some may continue to use the traditional British long scale." I think that's the main reason why India chose the "weird" number "thousand million" in the unit tmcft: "billion cubic feet" would be ambiguous. Replacing "tmcft" by "billion cubic feet" is incorrect and should be reverted. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems ridiculous to me that this needs to be discussed, but I'm seeing it regularly in articles about sportspeople and bands, particularly, to describe something that started this year and has not yet ended. "2025–present" is a nonsensical daterange because 2025 is the present. It's like saying "2025–2025". The second date must surely be after the first, or else it makes no sense. Also, it implies that whatever is being referred to will continue beyond this year, which would be predicting the future.

Can we have something in the MOS to disallow this practice? Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:For the automobile project we rely on Template:Infobox_automobile#Production. This says "However, 2025– is preferable to 2025–present while we are still in 2025." It would be nice to have something in MOS rather than a template's instructions.  Stepho  talk  00:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Something can only begin at one moment in time—how much precision to use when specifying when that moment was is largely a pragmatic choice. When we say something began in 2025, we mean it began at some specific point during that calendar year. Remsense ‥ 论 00:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, and if it began, it began in the past. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:I would rather not see a watchlist flooded on 1 Jan 2026 with updates changing "2025–" to "2025–present". "{currentyear}–present" is just fine and I don't see an issue. Indefatigable (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:2025-present is future proofing the article in case no one edits it past 2025. — Masem (t) 01:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::Despite the fact that it makes no sense now? What does the "present" actually refer to that differs from "2025"? Is guessing that whatever it is will go beyond 2025 more important than the possible risk of it going out of date? Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Everyone take a look at WP:PRESENT. EEng 02:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Now, {{xt|2025–present (as of 2025)}} would look particularly ridiculous. After reading that section, I'm still not sure what the favourite solution is, assuming there is any? Gawaon (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Per Gödel's incompleteness theorems, it is inevitable that any attempt to describe the world in a uniform manner will include inelegant statements. (With apologies to Gödel.) NebY (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:The intended meaning of "2025-present" seems clear to me. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::What do you consider it to mean? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I interpret it to mean "between some time in the past (in the year 2025) and the present". I see no other logical interpretation. Do you? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:2025 is NOT the present. Most of it is the future, and every second of 2025 that is not in the future is in the past. Once you subtract the past and the future, what is left is less than a nanosecond. It's also less than a quectosecond. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::If the date isn't going to be narrowed down any further than "2025", it absolutely is the present. What other year could be the present year? If you clarify the date further, e.g. "February 2025", sure, that's the past. "15 July 2025" is the future. "2025" is the present, if the year is all you're going to give. Whatever the "intended meaning" may be, and it will differ from reader to reader, it needs to be a lot clearer than "2025 to present" in order to be meaningful. If a sportsperson has a contract which began in January and is ongoing, or if their contract begins in August and is open-ended, then by your logic, the subheading "2025–present" suits both scenarios, even though they're describing completely different things. Don't rely on a reader to understand your "intended meaning". Just be clearer, it's really easy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I accept readers' interpretations can differ, so it's better to be explicit. What is your proposed easy and explicit alternative? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Simply being more explicit by adding the month of the year would suffice. After the end of 2025 it could be left as is, or reduced simply to 2025, it would not matter either way. So it would be future-proofed, which was a concern of other editors. "2025–" would also work for me, although I know others are not keen on that. Honestly, I would prefer practically any other solution. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::So if an event starts on Tuesday (1 April 2025), would you write "April 2025–" on Wednesday? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::In that case, "2025–" would suffice. "April 2025–present" seems nonsensical to me, but at least it's more explicit than "2025–present" and would read a lot better once April was over. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::MOS:DATETOPRES says {{tqq|do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as {{nobr|{{!xt|1982{{ndash}}}}}}}} —Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:We should avoid having open ranges per MOS:DATETOPRES. I agree that "2025–present" (while we're still in 2025) is nonsensical, so I regularly replace it with "Since 2025". It's future-proofed even once we hit 2026 and doesn't have the MOS:RELTIME issue officially requiring the

: {{tq|2025–present (as of April 2025)}}

:hideosity—I mean, I get the intent there but that is just a really, really awful construction. In active articles, of course, "Since 2025" would quickly get replaced with the "2025–present" range once 2026 rolls around. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::But why? "Since 2023" is still perfectly fine, and will remain so, until there is reason to add an a specific end date because there is one. Gawaon (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::"Since 2025" seems to me to be much more ridiculous than "2025-present" in situations like this. "Since 2025" seems much more explicit about 2025 being in the past, while "2025-present" can be read as "starting in 2025 and continuing to the present) regardless of whether the present is also in 2025. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tqq|We should avoid having open ranges per MOS:DATETOPRES}}: The "open date range" it rejects is {{!xt|1982–}}. For present, it refers to MOS:DATED, which prefaces its caveat with: {{tq2|Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly ...}} —Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

(Would post this on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), but there're many more watchers here.)

Per {{slink|Talk:Fifth-century Athens#Requested move 8 April 2025}}, it would be internally consistent to title the article Athens in the fifth century BC, but I'm not aware of any articles using spelled-out ordinals for centuries, and many other articles that spell out ordinals nevertheless use numeral forms in the article title. What's correct here? If AD{{\}}CE labels are anything to go by, we would prioritize in-article consistency, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) strongly suggests otherwise. Remsense ‥ 论 19:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There's a dispute over date formats on a page.

MOS:DATETIES reads: {{tq2|Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country (see {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Strong national ties to a topic}}) should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country.}}

Basketball player Luka Dončić was born in Slovenia, played in Spain from 2015 to 2018, and has since played in the United States. The US appears to be the English-speaking country that he has ties to. Moreover, the MDY format has long been the standing format on his page, created in 2015 with the MDY format.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luka_Don%C4%8Di%C4%87&oldid=660663748] MOS:DATERET reads: {{tq2|If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page.}}

{{u|GiantSnowman}} has twice attempted to alter Dončić's date format from the US-standard MDY to DMY:

1. edit summary: {{tq|... he is not American}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luka_Don%C4%8Di%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=1285087208]
2. edit summary: {{tq|List of date formats by country}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luka_Don%C4%8Di%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=1285097334]

What date format should Dončić's page be?—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Note: Notification of this discussion was placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association.—Bagumba (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Per MOS:DATERET (and as clarified at WP:DATEOVER item 2), the date format should not be changed without consensus on the talk page. Slovenia is not an English-speaking country, and the date format used in Slovenian is irrelevant to an English-language article about a topic with a connection to Slovenia. Doremo (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

• Taking the above facts as-is and cursory read of his page:

1. Slovenia is non-English speaking, so this does not affect it - there have been RFCs recently to change this but they failed.
2. He current works and lives in the US but is not a US citizen. That's a weak tie because next year he might move to another country. So doesn't count. Becoming a US citizen would make that a strong tie.
3. The article has been MDY for a long time, so WP:DATERET says keep it unless there is an overwhelming reason to change - the above points say there is no overwhelming reason.

:So it pains me to say it but keep it as MDY.  Stepho  talk  02:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::So are you saying that if he moves to UK/Australia, and spends a certain amount of time working there, we change to DMY? GiantSnowman 06:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::From the indentation level it looks like you are replying to me. But the content is the opposite of what I was saying. Please clarify who you are addressing.  Stepho  talk  08:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It was a response to you, saying it should be MDY... GiantSnowman 09:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::In which case you have completely misunderstood what I said. If he spent some time living in Australia then that would be a weak tie (just like his time in the US) and therefore would not count. WP:DATETIES does not apply (there are no strong ties), so WP:DATERET still applies to continue using what the first author used.  Stepho  talk  10:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with your logic but not your conclusion. Why can't we use DMY per List of date formats by country? WP:IAR and all that. GiantSnowman 10:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Because you've been told a million times why not, and yet you keep wasting scores of other editors' time pretending no one's told you why not [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1263068026#Let's_go_back_to_just_Question_1] and trying to drag in List of date formats by country yet again (e.g. in the edit summary here [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1285097334]) -- that's why not. WP:CIR and all that. EEng 03:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, DATERET, if nothing else, clearly calls for the retention of MDY unless there is consensus to change it to DMY (which doesn't seem to be the case). Gawaon (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Per List of date formats by country, Slovenia uses DMY. The fact he has spent a few years in the US does not matter. GiantSnowman 17:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Since Slovenia is not an English-speaking country, its date format is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the appropriate date format in an English Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Then why do the majority of Japanese articles use MDY? GiantSnowman 06:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Japan is also a non-English speaking country, so most Japanese articles can be either MDY or DMY according to whatever the original author favoured. Any bias is only due to there being more US authors creating articles in the early days of Wikipedia. There are plenty of Japanese articles in both formats.  Stepho  talk  08:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oops. I was notified of your revert but didnt look at my watch list until now. There was no link here from the edit summary. In the meantime, I had started Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#MOS:DATETIES_and_Luka_Dončić, which has some input. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::(edit conflict) @GiantSnowman: you said "So are you saying that if he moves to UK/Australia, and spends a certain amount of time working there, we change to DMY?", but re-read Stepho-wrs' point #2: unless he moves to Australia and becomes Prime Minister (a strong tie) the article's dates won't change, and maybe not even then. It is strange to me to have an article about a Slovenian athlete using month, day year - but if there were recent RfCs (big community discussions) about it - Stepho-wrs' point #1 - then look in the RfCs for reasoning, someone will find them for you. The Japan situation is also weird, if someone links to the RfCs ping me too and I will take a look. Commander Keane (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Commander Keane {{tqq|It is strange to me to have an article about a Slovenian athlete using month, day year}}: At a minimum, the article creator chose MDY, so WP:DATERET applies. Dončić's notability is primarily from his play as an adult in the United States, which is the only English-speaking country he arguably has ties to. So that would be the only country WP:DATETIES could reasonably be applied. There is no P&G rationale to change the format now merely because he is Slovenian (or "not American"). —Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::DATERET is nonsense where it is patently incorrect. By that logic, I can create loads of articles about American people using DMY and they have to stay that way. GiantSnowman 09:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{U|GiantSnowman}}, repeating here something which, it seems, can never be repeated too often when it comes to you and DATERET and DATETIES and how they work together: you've had this explained to you over and over and over (most recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1263068026#Let's_go_back_to_just_Question_1 last June]), and yet not a year can go by that you aren't back here pretending that you don't understand. This got beyond tiresome long ago and, indeed, took us into CIR territory long ago as well. You should be topic-banned from edits related to date formats. EEng 03:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You will note from this discussion I am not a lone voice shouting in the dark, as you might like to think. GiantSnowman 08:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You managed to momentarily confuse another editor. Good on you. EEng 09:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::And now you've confused me. Good on you. GiantSnowman 11:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I really can't take all the credit. You practically do the work for me. EEng 02:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::No, because WP:DATETIES would have precedence. {{tqq|DATERET is nonsense}}: Feel free to establish a new consensus to change the guideline. —Bagumba (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Then why quote DATERET? GiantSnowman 09:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It's a guideline. I did not refer to it as "nonsense", but WP:CCC is a policy. —Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Bagumba: well the MoS is strange then. Not your fault, you are just following it. I thought the MoS's intention was not to constantly flip date formats over for neutral topics like Cake or Television. If I start an article about a Japanese topic using a foreign date format I wouldn't expect that format to live on forever just because I got in first. Similarly, when I read an article about a Japanese topic I don't want to scatch my head wondering why I am reading a US date format. There are reasons, like arguing over who invented the "cake" first, but it can be strange nonetheless. Yes the MoS should change. Commander Keane (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, I wasn't involved in that part of the MOS, so I take it at face value that it is the best compromise (perhaps consistent with MOS:TIES and Eng vars?) —Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{@|Bagumba}} - Re "because I got in first". Yes. If there is no other deciding policy then first wins. Eg, Toyota is MDY because an American got in first and Nissan is DMY because a Brit got in first. There is no other deciding factor because Japan does not speak English.

::::::For any given article we look to see if WP:DATETIES applies for strong ties to an English speaking country. Strong ties are typically was born there or immigrated (ie became a citizen) or lived for a very long time (more then a just few years) or did some major, major event there (eg, assassinated a president or prevented an assignation). If we can't find a strong tie to an English speaking country (ie WP:DATETIES does not apply) then the first date format used become set in stone according to WP:DATERET.

::::::The purpose of these 2 policies is stop editors coming in and changing the format to their own preference and starting edit wars. If there is a strong tie then it wins. Otherwise first wins and there is no flipping back and forth. However, if he became a US citizen next month then that would solidify the MDY format, as per WP:DATETIES which now takes precedence. Similarly, if he became an Australian citizen next month then that would solidify the DMY format because he would then have a strong tie to Australia,, as per WP:DATETIES.

::::::To sum up, if he has a strong tie to an English speaking country then WP:DATETIES applies. If not, then first wins, as per WP:DATERET.

::::::This is the best system that we have found to stop Brits and Yanks (and occasionally others) from edit warring for no gain. If you have a better suggestion then we are always ready to consider a reasonable proposal. Note: "do it my way in every article", "English is from England, so use DMY" and "Wikipedia is registered in the US, so use "MDY" have always been shot down in flames.  Stepho  talk  10:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|prevented an assignation}}{{snd}}I'm not sure you'd get very far with a DATETIES argument based on preventing an assignation. EEng 02:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It's to avoid arguments like this that the ISO YYYY-MM-DD format was introduced, but that's always been shot down in flames in Wikipedia, too. Skeptic2 (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Not quite. "The purpose of this document is to provide a standard set of date and time format representations for information interchange, in order to minimize the risk of misinterpretation, confusion and their consequences." (BS ISO 8601-1:2019 p. vii; this British Standard is the British version of ISO 8601-1:2019.) It is poorly suited for Wikipedia because it does not allow dates to be in the Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Would you expect a Slovenian Wikipedia article on an American athlete to use the American style date? No? Then why would you expect the Slovenian style date to be a controlling factor on the English Wikipedia? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::No-one in Slovenia writes their dates halfway backwards, whereas tons of English speaking people write their dates forwards, like the rest of the world. So that isn’t a good example. MapReader (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Commander Keane While I don't remember a recent RFC on dates in articles connected with Japan, perhaps you'd like to review some of the recent discussions here touching on dates in Japan-related articles. They include discussions of Japanese eras and Japanese use of YMD, as well as of DMY and MDY, and you'll find within them similar discussions about DATERET among similar groups of editors.

:::Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 163#mdy on pages that have nothing to do with america

:::Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 162#Dates, months, and years / Formats

:::Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 162#Date format for non-English speaking country

:::Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 162#Inconsistency

:::Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 162#Discussion on other talk page and project started as link to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 193#MOS on date format by country but developed into another discussion here

:::Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 161#Date Formatting for non-English speaking countries

:::Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 161#Discussion at Talk:Keiji Nishikawa § Date format

:::Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 160#In a discussion over era style, is it a correct interpretation that those supporting the status quo don't have to give a reason? NebY (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for digging up all those links! Some familiar faces steering the bus in those discussions for sure. My take was that the MoS is strange for a reason, that being the truce between the English language superpower's date preferences means we stick with the first editor's choice (the coin flip). The "strongly and solely US" reasoning I saw was probably what I expected us to use, but at the end of the day we are spelling out months anyway (I hope) so no need to cause an upheaval. And when it comes to spelling out months I was surprised to see publications in English in countries like Japan and others using the US format. I guess to reduce my surprise in non-US Wikipedia articles I will have to start some myself ;-). So I will leave Luka Dončić alone. Commander Keane (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::My experience (anecdotal of course but from living in Asia, working with Asians and being married to an Asian) is that spelling and date format used often depends on the background of their English teacher (who could be a Brit, Aussie, Kiwi, American or Canadian or an Asian taught by one those) or the country that is a company's biggest market (eg, for Japanese car companies, the US is the biggest market, so they favour US spelling and date formats). There was also Microsoft, which for many years had spelling checkers and date format which only supported their own formats. Even now MS products default to US formats and many people simply leave it as default - even in Australia I find many people using US spelling, date format and US paper sizes simply because they don't know how to change to the Australian settings. Add on top of that the influence from American magazines, American websites and American movies and you get this massive swing to copying Americans.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes. Editors whose primary language is English and who have not been expats in a country where English isn't primary might not realize that it's not necessarily "automatic" how date formats are written there in English. —Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Something tells me that ‘copying Americans’ might be about to become less popular… MapReader (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

One can visit Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and enter DATERET in the archive search box. One will find fifteen matches. The most recent is from 6 April 2025. —Jc3s5h (talk) 09:32, pridie Idus Apriles MMXXV (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midi_E_3301&curid=56635463&diff=1286753043&oldid=1263788990 This] is an edit supported by policy here, replacing 16⅔ with {{tlx|frac|16|2|3}} to give 16⅔ and {{frac|16|2|3}}. Yet is this really an improvement? Typographically it's a mess. Why does {{tl|frac}} change the text size like this? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Unicode only has a small selection of precomposed fractions. The frac template supports any numerator and denominator you want. It would look messy to have some fractions with the smaller size and some with the larger. Even if the current version of an article only has fractions available in Unicode, in the future it may be edited to include fractions not supported by Unicode.

:Personally, I think the default font size in Wikipedia isn't easy to read, and I often increase the size. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:You can get a nicer looking fraction with 16{{nnbsp}}2{{frac}}3. This renders as 16{{nnbsp}}2{{frac}}3 but it may show the digits 2 and 3 in full size on systems without proper unicode support. Joe vom Titan (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I have proposed to clarify which MOS guidelines apply to citations. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal to clarify which MOS guidelines apply to citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Posting this here as WikiProject Manual of Style is inactive. Just a quick notice to say there is an open Request for comment regarding date format (especially MOS:DATETIES, MOS:DATERET, etc) which can be found at Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a question that is important in a current RFC, on dates in Pope Leo XIV, about ties between an article and English-speaking countries. The guideline only refers to ties between the article topic and particular English-speaking countries, and is silent about ties between an article topic and non-English-speaking countries. Does this mean that a strong association with a non-English-speaking country that uses DMY dates need not be considered. Is that conclusion a correct interpretation of the guideline as written? Is that the intent of the guideline, or should the guideline be revised?

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, I have always interpreted DATETIES as applying to English-speaking countries only, highlighted further by the guideline's use of italics: {{tq2|Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country (see {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Strong national ties to a topic}}) should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country.}} —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Involved in the RFC. Yes, the intent is that date formats used in non-English-speaking countries should not be considered. This is emphasised by a later part of the text, which says {{tq|In articles without strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, the choice of date format... is unrelated to the topic's ties to particular countries}}. Kahastok talk 08:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note The related RfC is at Talk:Pope Leo XIV/RFC: Date format.—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|1}}

That answers the first part of my question. The second part of my question was not stated clearly, so I will restate it. Is it indeed the intention of the guideline that the date usage in non-Anglosphere countries should be ignored with regard to the date choice for an article? I may be mistaken, but I think that some of the editors responding in the RFC are expressing frustration or irritation that the date preference of most of the non-Anglosphere world is being ignored. I will point out that if the rule on national usage in extended to non-Anglosphere countries, many existing articles will be affected, such as History of Greece, which uses MDY dates. So my question is whether the responses in the RFC mean that editors are satisfied with the current guideline, or whether editors think that the guideline should be revised. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Usually there is no issue with editors picking their own format for non-English articles. A conflict only occurs when a series of articles uses one format and there is a desire to make an outlier conformant. We don't have a mechanism for resolving this short of an RfC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tqq|A conflict only occurs when a series of articles uses one format and there is a desire to make an outlier conformant}}: I could respect that position. Unfortunately, it get buried in cries to to remove "English-speaking", arguments that "some" English is used in another Country X, or a non sequitur that Person Y isn't all that American when MOS:DATERET anyways would retain an existing MDY. —Bagumba (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, it is the intention of the guideline that date style usage by non-English-speaking countries is ignored. I wouldn't say that editors are "satisfied" with the current guideline; it's one of our most controversial guidelines. Like MOS:TIES, it's tailored more toward reducing edit wars over minor issues than satisfying all editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• You asked {{tq|Does this mean that a strong association with a non-English-speaking country that uses DMY dates need not be considered?}} That puts the situation too weakly; it would be more appropriate to say that any association to a non-English-speaking country (regardless of what date format that country uses) is irrelevant to an article's date format; that's what the last three bullets of DATETIES are there to make clear. Should the guideline suggest considering ties to any of the world's 200 countries, we'd have to have 200 debates on what each country's date format is -- and for many countries, that question is far from clear.

:With this in mind, the pope-date debate has been completely wrongheaded:

:*If the article has strong ties to any English-speaking country, that can only be the US, and that leads to MDY. (Claims that Vatican City is an English-speaking country are untenable -- Languages of Vatican City is helpful on that, BTW.)

:*And if the article lacks strong ties to an English-speaking country, then DATERET applies, and again you're at MDY.

:So either way, MDY QED. EEng 23:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'd be wary of reinventing the wheel. This has played out before for "world" topics, like at {{section link|Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup/Archive 1#Date format is in British English}} for the upcoming World Cup, in which the U.S. is the main host country. The article even uses soccer. It's not a bug, it's a feature. —Bagumba (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Why would you expect the conventions of non-English speaking countries to have any relevance to writing in English? I find it hard to believe that these same people would agree that articles about US related topics on other language Wikipedias should be written using US conventions. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::That argument gets weaker when you consider English’s steady march towards becoming the leading global language, used increasingly as an international lingua Franca in so many fields. And particularly so in countries where English is effectively already a second national language, like Norway or the Netherlands (where interview segments with British or Americans are very often not translated, on radio and TV). When almost everyone in the Netherlands speaks English, in what sense is it not now an "English-speaking country"? MapReader (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It is not the native language of the populace, it is not the primary language of commerce, education, or government. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• What's badly needed is an essay on why DATETIES and DATERET are exactly the way they are. Someday I'd like to write that. But in the meantime: to anyone's knowledge, is there such an essay? Or anywhere in the archives of Talk:MOSNUM where someone (maybe I, for all I know) set out the background? DATETIES/DATERET, for all their surface arbitrariness, are actually an excellent case study in how a guideline was crafted to bring peace to what had been a very troubled part of the project -- one of those situations where not everyone is happy, exactly, but pretty much everyone can learn to live with it. EEng 20:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I've struggled to find anything like that. Even a list of prominent discussions here might help show that this is something whose bases, ramifications and edge cases have been repeatedly explored – but there have been so many discussions. You're right, it is an excellent example of attaining and maintaining peace. On first meeting, it's not the most attractive guideline in the room, but you can come to really love it. NebY (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::That's one of the strengths and difficulties of Wikipedia. We've reached a compromise consensus on this and many other things that is kind of ugly, but works and works well. New editors may only see the problems and don't have the perspective to see how it is the best solution. An essay explaining that would be great. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::: I personally would love to get rid of DATETIES (and TIES for that matter) entirely. They're fine in clear cases, but in anything remotely borderline, they just invite distasteful nationalistic arguments. I wish we could push the needle much closer to RETAIN in both cases. (Actually I would be fine with standardizing on dmy, in much the same way and for many of the same reasons as logical quotation, but I guess that isn't going to happen.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Beland|FaviFake}}With respect to recent edits, math articles with {{stylized LaTeX}} markup would normally use \times, not ×. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:As of the May 1 database dump, there were 648 articles using {{code|×}}, 3 of which I changed to ×. The remainder all use {{tag|math}} markup. I have been asked to leave named HTML entities in place on math articles that mix LaTeX and HTML like that so that editors can search on "times" and find both "×" and "\times" in the wikitext. If anyone would like to convert those articles to only use LaTeX, I can provide a list. -- Beland (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::If an article only uses &times; and no <math> markup I would not change to the Latex markup. I'd expect to find this situation in an article that is not science or math oriented, or is aimed at the primary school level. I wouldn't want to force editors of such an article to become familiar with Latex. (And if that's not the official way to write Latex, that's because I was using SCRIPT during the time that Latex was becoming a thing. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I have already changed {{code|×}} in all such articles to {{code|×}}, and do so twice a month if any new ones pop up. -- Beland (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Time in LaTeX -- great title for an erotic novel! EEng 00:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Or your autobiography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Or both. EEng 02:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

A discussion at Template talk:Val#Spacing around ± points out that {{tl|val}} puts 0.3em space before ± and 0.15em space after. {{tl|±}} was changed over four years ago to use the same spacing. The templates should follow MOS so I am looking for opinions—what spacing should be used? Here are two examples from the val discussion:

• {{val|5|3}} → {{val|5|3}}
• {{val|149597870700|3|u=m}} → {{val|149597870700|3|u=m}}

Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps the usage is different in mathematical formulas than in expressing measurements?

:In mathematical formulas, like pretty much all mathematics symbols, it should be spaced the way LaTeX spaces it. In this case, in LaTeX, ± is a mathbin, much like + or −. When used as a binary operator it should have space on both sides of it, somewhat thinner than relation symbols like =. LaTeX appears to use 0.22em as a default (compared to 0.28em for a relation) but it also allows some stretch or shrinkage of the space. When it is at the start of an expression or preceded by a relation, there is no spacing after it. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::If LaTeX is the effective standard in the scientific community, and since LaTeX is already widely used on Wikipedia as well, I vote we follow the LaTeX standard. — SkyLined (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::While I have no objection to following LaTeX for this specific purpose, it is not "the effective standard in the scientific community". (The main alternative I am aware of is ISO/IEC 80000, which agrees in some aspects with LaTeX typography and conflicts in others). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: I consider the '±' here semantically as a binary operator with context-specific interpretation, which would suggest balanced spacing. Because of pervasive use of LaTeX in WP, matching it might make sense. The current half-way in between typesetting looks like an unintentional mistake or sheer clumsiness. Our examples at MOS:UNCERTAINTY have balanced spacing. I would suggest that if no-one can produce a survey showing reasonably common authoritative unbalanced use elsewhere, we should make it balanced. —Quondum 11:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

For editors that are trying to discover if "to" or "and" can be used within a date range, that guidance is really hard to understand.

The MOS currently says {{green| Use an en dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both: {{xt|from 1881 to 1886}} (not {{!xt|{{nobr|from 1881{{ndash}}1886}}}});{{nbsp}} {{xt|between June{{nbsp}}1 and July{{nbsp}}3}} (not {{!xt|{{nobr|between June{{nbsp}}1{{snd}}July{{nbsp}}3}}}}) }}.

I think it is trying to say: {{green|Words to or and may be used instead of a dash only when used with words like between or from. As in {{xt|from 1881 to 1886}} or {{xt|between June{{nbsp}}1 and July{{nbsp}}3}} }}

Even if my interpretation is wrong, caan the wording be improved to clearly explain when "to" or "and" can be used instead of a dash? Noleander (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

: I've tweaked the wording to make it clearer, though it remains to be seen whether it stays tweaked (direct changes to the MOS are often challenged, and I expect that the wording can be improved further). See whether this makes it clearer to you. —Quondum 16:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Quondum That is better, thanks. I think it could still be a bit clearer.

::Here is what happened: I wrote an aritcle with "from 1723 to 1728". A reviewer, in Peer Review, posted a note "MOS:YEARRANGE says you have to use a dash". So I viewed the MOS:YEARRANGE section to see if the reviewer was correct. I started reading, and after ten bullets emphasizing how wonderful dashes were, I came to the conclusion that "to" was prohibited. I was ready to bail out and change my article, when I stumbled on a bullet that kinda sorta permitted the word "to". It took me about 60 seconds of reading and re-reading to make sure "to" was permitted.

::It would be nice if the guidance came out and explicitly said "The words to or and can be used ...[subject to these limitations]." Noleander (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::: I think I see what you're saying. Even though the bullet that I modified essentially explicitly allows words, the first bullet effectively negates this for year-only ranges because it says {{xt|A simple year–year range is written using an ...}}, and does not include use of words in its allowed list. I see no reason to disallow words in this case, as it should be up to the editor. I would like more discussion from others before changing this, as I'm not familiar with the agreed intent behind that bullet. —Quondum 17:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Another editor just improved that section to make it clearer. Looking pretty good now. Noleander (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just to say, I prefer to work behind the scenes. So don't tell anyone it was me. EEng 20:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Ha! Such false modesty from a very visibly present editor in the MOS. I like the revised version. Thanks. —Quondum 20:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Darn. I thought I was on the secure channel. Now the Secretary of Defense's wife is gonna know, and you know what blabbermouth she is. EEng 20:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)