Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Revisions to MOS:SEASON

@Premeditated Chaos, Gog the Mild, Mike Christie, SchroCat, and FrB.TG: I've made several changes to MOS:SEASON following our discussion on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oyster dress/archive1. Hopefully the revised guideline is clearer, but please do feel free to edit further. Also thanks to @Gawaon for helping clean up the text. Edge3 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the guidance for magazine issues could be clearer. For example, this is the Summer 2012 issue of Startling Stories; it would go against usage in reliable sources not to capitalize that. Can we restore the Quarterly Review example? On the other hand, if you're simply talking about an issue that came out in the (northern hemisphere) summer of 2012, there's no reason to say "summer 2015 issue" as you now have it; it would usually be better to say "mid-2015" instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed Quarterly Review because it hasn't been published since 1967, so "Summer 2015" is factually incorrect. I suppose you could change it to a historically correct example, such as "Summer 1966". But going to the crux of our issue, Amazon really isn't a reliable source because the product description page was written by the publisher of Startling Stories, so it's not independent. MOS:CAPS looks at usage in "independent, reliable sources" (emphasis added). Edge3 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

See this archived discussion for numerous examples from reliable sources, and in particular see NebY's comment at the end. The few counter-examples given look to me like cases where the writer was not referring to an issue titled that way, so I'm not even sure all of them are counter-examples. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh interesting! I didn't realize you had previously brought up this issue in 2022. Thanks for sharing it now.

I think we're always going to find cases where one publication uses capital letters, and others use lower case. For example, Stanford Social Innovation Review refers to its own "summer 2015 issue" (lower case) in running text, even when the issue is titled "Summer 2015". Edge3 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are certainly exceptions, but there was a strong preponderance of evidence in those examples -- unanimity for genre examples, and majority for others. Given that the previous discussion was closed with a consensus to retain the capital letters for magazine seasonal issues, would you mind reverting that part of your changes while this discussion continues? I think, given the previous discussion, we'd need to demonstrate a new consensus before we could make the change you've made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but my concern about the historical inaccuracy of "Quarterly Review, Summer 2015" still applies. Do you have a specific example that you like better than that? Edge3 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

How about one of the first two given in that earlier discussion? Either "Spring 1942, Tales of Wonder" or "Science Fiction Quarterly, Summer 1942" depending on whether you prefer an example with the date before the title or vice versa. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Mostly these examples seem to be treated as titles, meaning that the usual rules of title case are applied, and so every major word is capitalized. No surprise here. Only the "summer 2015 issue" example mentioned by Edge3 is not title-cased, hence no capital letters. It would be odd to talk about "the Summer 2015 Issue of Whatever Magazine" or "the Summer 2015 issue of Whatever Magazine". No, this is running text and so lowercase letters are called for: "the summer 2015 issue of Whatever Magazine". But when the issue date is mentioned as part of the title, title case is fine: "Whatever Magazine, Summer 2015". Gawaon (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps two examples, so that those cases can be distinguished? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added the examples per both of your comments. Feel free to revise further. Edge3 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, looking back at the list of examples from the 2022 discussion, it seems many of the running text examples also use upper case, so I'm not sure I fully agree with that part. My main concern was that we keep an example using title case as that's helpful when (as has happened to me) someone contests that. Personally I think it would be OK to have "the Fall 1943 issue of Thrilling Wonder Stories" which is certainly supported by reliable sources, and if you truly mean "the issue that came out that summer" that in itself is a violation of SEASON and should be rephrased. But let's wait and see what others think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing some more examples I've removed the "running text" part. It doesn't correspond to the usage in the sources I have. I'm aware that we don't always comply with the usage in other sources, but I think we need more of a consensus to vary from that usage than we have here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe the exception makes sense and have reverted your proposed change. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

idea to help prevent disruptive invocation of WP:ERA

As written, it is quite easy for editors to misuse this policy to disrupt an article in which they have no interest beyond the imposition of their preferred era style. I see that this policy has been debated ad nauseam in the past, and that this problem might not be as easy to fix as I had initially assumed. Nevertheless, I have a proposal. The sentence at issue is the following:

An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed.

The problem, as I see it, is that it is entirely unclear what constitutes reasons specific to its content. None of the previous proposals for clarification seemed to go anywhere in past discussions, which I am sure no one wants to revisit. But what if, instead of seeking a positive characterization, we modified the language to instead include a negative prohibition. I have in mind something along the lines of the following:

Reasons that contradict the earlier policy language stating that The default calendar eras are Anno Domini (BC and AD) and Common Era (BCE and CE). Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context. are to be disregarded in article talk space discussion. It is a violation of WP:SPURIOUSPROTECT to invoke a policy only to litigate against that very policy. Consensus as to what constitutes relevant article context must be established with reasons specific to the subject matter of the article itself.

My hope is that this, or something like it, would reduce the number of disruptive interventions by editors not actually there to improve the article under discussion. It would, at minimum, make it much more difficult for editors (whether involved in the development of the article or not) to effectively shut down discussion with a wall of irrelevant considerations likely recycled from previous such debates.

Thoughts, suggestions, criticisms all most welcome! My goal here is just to limit disruptive editing. (The best solution, of course, would be for the MOS to just pick one or the other of these interchangeable styles. But apparently we can't have nice things.)

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have examples of this disruptive editing you speak of, by editors who have actually read the guideline? --Trovatore (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Trovatore,

Yes I do, and I notified them on their talk page, detailing my objections to their editing practice, and offering a chance to provide a more sympathetic account. This was more than two weeks ago, however, and they have not responded or made any other edits since. Anyone who wants can find this through my edit history, but I would prefer to keep this discussion at the policy level. If it goes nowhere, I will consider ANI (it's not their first offense), but I'd much rather just amend the language here to help prevent it from happening again by clarifying the language of the policy. Pursuing sanctions on a case by case basis just eats up more of everyone's time.

To the second part of your question: yes, and this is the problem. I changed BC to BCE throughout an article (two, actually). I thought this was just a copy edit, and I explicitly described what I was doing in my edit description. According to WP:ERA, however, anyone can come in at any time in the future and change it back – with no content-specific justification – unless there was first a talk page consensus established under the heading "era". Since hardly anyone is familiar with the policy, this empowers drive-by editors to selectively revert per WP:ERA and then throw up roadblocks to any actual effort to engage in a collaborative discussion.

In the archived discussion to which I link above, no consensus was reached with respect to limiting this policy-protected right to revert (not with respect to article-involvement, stability, or time-frame). The intention of my suggestion here is to instead insist that any discussion subsequent to such a revert be kept narrowly focused on the actual article and its context, per the policy as currently written. Anyone who doesn't care enough to engage on these terms could then be easily reverted by anyone who cares enough to provide a context-specific justification for changing it back on the talk page—subject, of course, to the normal policy on consensus.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did you change from BC to BCE in the first place? Gawaon (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Per current policy, that's a discussion to be conducted on that article's talk page in terms specific to its subject matter and the relevant context. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The best way to avoid disruptive editing on ERA is not to change the era style without getting the change agreed on the Talk page first. And in fact, where there is a consistent era style in the article, a lot of effort can be saved by leaving the existing era style in place. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sweet6970,

I am not proposing that we remove the requirement of prior discussion, which would be a policy change. The issue I raise concerns the current policy-restricted scope of the required talk page discussion.

Per the explicit assumptions of this policy, there are two acceptable styles, and at least sometimes there are good reasons to make a change in one direction or the other. (It was an option to simply forbid such changes; this did not achieve consensus.)

It is also a fact that editors, whether aware of this policy or not, believe they have such good reasons.

My point is that, any argument that, if sound, would apply just as much to all articles as to the article in question is, for this reason, in contradiction with this very same policy, which states that there are actually two at least more-or-less equally acceptable practices.

Therefore any such argument should be disregarded in that context. Because, again, any universal argument to adopt one style over the other is an argument that violates this same policy's stipulation that talk page discussion be conducted in terms specific to the content of the article.

If anyone does have such an argument in favor of either style, I suppose I should add, I would be happy to see it prevail so that the MOS could be revised to simply stipulate which to use. Until then, however – and since, apparently, the normal bold policy and consensus procedure are insufficient for this weirdly charged issue – we must work with what we have. And that is what I take myself to be doing.

My proposed rewording of the current policy, if I understand it correctly, only makes explicit what is already included, but which is less than immediately apparent as currently articulated.

If there is a flaw in my reasoning – or if there is some other justification for not drawing attention to this implication of the policy – could someone please explain?

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

PatrickJWelsh I think you have rather fundamentally misunderstood WP:ERA. For there to be an "established style", there does not have to have been "a previous discussion under the heading 'era'". If all occurrences (or the overwhelming majority) were BC before you changed it, then that was the established style, and your edit violated WP:ERA. --Trovatore (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That's what I fear as well. It sounds like the needlessly disruptive type of edit which WP:ERA is meant to avoid. Gawaon (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No need for fear! I most definitely violated ERA with my edits. This policy is a very specific exception to the usual WP:BRD, of which I was not aware. Once made aware, however, I attempted to engage in the requisite discussion.

For a variety of reasons, I do think that this is a bad policy we would all be better off without. All of my remarks, however, accept it as given. The amended wording that I propose would not change that I violated the policy. It would only, if it works I suppose, have kept the talk page discussion focused on what was best for the article in question.

My intention is only to make it more burdensome to invoke this policy in order to pursue what is, apparently, for some people a culture war issue, but which interferes with making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

I assume this weird exception to standard practices was implemented in order to prevent folks overly passionate about era styles from causing pointless disruption. It's specificity, however – not just talk page discussion, by talk page discussion under a specific heading! – makes it ripe for abuse. So, in the spirit of the policy itself, let's do our best to minimize that on the terms of the policy itself.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see any reason to change the current wording. It says that the era style should not be changed without discussion, and that the reasons used in the discussion should be specific to the article. You say The problem, as I see it, is that it is entirely unclear what constitutes reasons specific to its content. Well, being realistic, there probably are very few such reasons. This means that once a style is established, it is likely to stay. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing against the policy itself. No?

It is stipulated that there are some. This is a discussion about the proper procedure in the event of a disagreement. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No reasons are ‘stipulated’. And no, I am not arguing against the policy, as such. I am just pointing out the way it works out in practice. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No specific reasons are stipulated as decisive in either direction (which is part of why it is a poor policy). It does however stipulate that there in some cases some such reasons. Otherwise the policy would instead state that once established, era style should never be changed. Which it does not. If you think it should, by all means advance such a proposal. It's less good of a solution than deciding on one style to be preferred by default, but it would address my concern about disruptive edits. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• I endorse most of the comments above that are not by Patrick J. Welsh. I'd just add that the level of invalid changes of era, and spats over them, seems a good deal lower than a few years ago, and that most people starting them are pretty clearly unaware of WP:ERA. Many think, or claim to think, that BCE/CE are the preferred or mandated style. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• I would support removing the "by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed". I think a talk page discussion with the heading "BC vs. BCE" with a lengthy opening comment would be just fine, if it led to consensus to change the established style. I would not support adding additional language about which arguments are acceptable in such discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Firefangledfeathers,

  I am concerned that requiring that a discussion take place under any specific header makes this policy subject to abuse by those passionate about era styles for reasons unrelated to any specific article. Is there any reason not simply to require prior talk page discussion?

  I'm also inclined to think that the policy should not specify whether the initial justification be brief or lengthy. This is subjective, and I would expect it to be ignored with impunity. For that reason, however, I don't think it particularly matters.

  Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. I only brought up "BC vs. BCE" as an example of a perfectly adequate heading that would be inappropriate under the current rule. Again, my preferred outcome here is removing "by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, and briefly stating why the style should be changed". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, I misunderstood! That does not go as far as I would like, but I do believe it would be an improvement.

  I will add that my ideal outcome, whatever the best means to achieve it, would be to redirect editors with a strongly held universal preference away from individual articles to instead hash things out at the Village Pump.

  If policy allowed, I would strongly support reopening a RfC on revising the MOS in either direction with the further stipulation that, should there be no consensus, it be decided by the coin toss of an uninvolved admin.

  The two styles are interchangeable. It's frankly embarrassing that we can't just pick one so that we can all get on with making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  That won't happen, and for the same reason that we don't postulate that all of Wikipedia be written in American (or British, or whatever) English. Gawaon (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is no intrinsic difficulty preventing the MOS from taking a stance. Doing so is a large part of the point of having such a thing at all. What I'm proposing, however, is a clarification of what is already there. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Some of us have participated in several discussions on this subject, and we know from experience that they are a waste of our virtual breath. The question is not going to be resolved in the foreseeable future. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry? In any case, please don't feel obliged to waste any further breath. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're not the first person to think that there should be a project wide standard for this, but developing a community-wide consensus has not happened. What is currently in the MOS is a compromise, and until something shifts it is going to be around for a while. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @MrOllie,

  Yes, I understand and accept that, however unfortunate.

  As best I understand it, however, the language of this compromise policy already excludes from article-specific discussion such general reasons such as "this is standard", "this is traditional", or "this is more neutral".

  If my understanding is correct, then making this explicit in the wording of the policy might help prevent talk page discussions from devolving into an irrelevant culture war debate.

  Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think the best approach to pursue here is simply not to start any talk page discussions on the subject. If the current era style used in an article is inconsistent, you are free to clean it up anyway. But if there is a clear dominance of one or the other style detectable, just clean up whatever inconsistencies remain. That's the best usage of everybody's time. Gawaon (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're almost certainly right that it is a waste of time to argue about anything so trivial. The current policy, however, says that that is what you must do if you think a change should be made. Which some people do.

  If you want to propose a policy change to "always retain established style per first use of either convention", I would reluctantly support that as at least better than what we currently have. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just act is if that already is the rule (I think it essentially is, for most practical purposes), and you won't go wrong. Gawaon (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I could get on board with adding something like "or another expressive heading" after "using the word era". I decidedly don't think that the requirement for a preceding talk page discussion should be dropped. Gawaon (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  @PatrickJWelsh: The first post in this thread fails to state when the language being complained about was first put into the policy. Obviously the language does not apply to any consensus reached on any talk page before the language first appeared in the guideline. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Johnbod,

  Yes, thanks, I hadn't thought about that, but it makes sense (no ex post facto). I would support adding the qualifier "before [date]" to the language in order to prevent particularly egregious abuse of the policy.

  Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I just looked up the bit that it looks like you two are talking about; it says [...]by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era[...]. I don't think that was ever meant to be a legalistic requirement; it's just a helpful hint to open a discussion that other discussants can easily understand and join. If we're talking about it as something that has to be grandfathered to take into account earlier discussions, then it's just being misinterpreted and we should remove it. The intent is just, if you want to change the era style away from an established one, you need consensus first. --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Patrick J. Welsh changed BC to BCE on the Aristotle article, Crumpled Fire reverted, Patrick J. Welsh changed BC to BCE again, Crumpled Fire reverted again, and it was discussed .on the talk page with participants Patrick J Welsh, Andrew Lancaster, Crumpled_Fire, Peter Gulutzan (i.e. me), 86.6.148.125. Patrick J. Welsh also posted what looks like a warning on Crumpled Fire's talk page. I continue to support the reversion, and will support any other reasonable actions that might persuade Patrick J. Welsh to stop, or at the least to ping all participants when moving to a new forum. By the way, WP:ERA is not a policy but a guideline, as is WP:TALKHEADPOV. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Peter Gulutzan,

I quote myself from the talk page discussion:

Thanks for weighing in! The emerging consensus does seem to be "what is wrong with you people and why are you arguing about this?"...Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 5:26 pm, 18 February 2024, Sunday (1 month, 6 days ago) (UTC−6)

And then I dropped the matter and left it BC/AD.

I am not here to change the style of the Aristotle article back to what I consider a very slightly preferable convention. The policy is correct in stating that both conventions are fine.

What I am attempting to do is to raise the barrier to entry for people who do not care about the article in question, but are just gunning for a fight.

Please do share here any considerations you might have in response to the concerns I raise above. If your problem, however, is with my individual editorial conduct, it would probably be more appropriate to raise that on my talk page.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any need to raise barriers to entry. People care about articles for different reasons, it isn't up to us to question people's motivations. MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No kidding. Masterhatch (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MrOllie,

I should not have expressed myself that way. In both this discussion and in the Aristotle discussion I have made a conscious effort to avoid imputing bad faith motives to individual participants, and doing so in this more general way did no one any favors. I apologize to all concerned.

With respect to "barriers to entry" I should clarify that the only barrier I am proposing is that participants in a discussion about changing era style provide reasons more specific to the article in question than those general reasons that have been proposed and that have failed to achieve consensus in a more general forum. For what less than this could reasons specific to its content be construed to mean?

That said, however, I am satisfied that I have had my say, and I acknowledge that I appear to persuaded precisely no one that this is, in fact, a little bit of a problem that we could easily do a little bit to fix. So, unless someone speaks up in support of this or a related proposal, I will drop the matter. (On pain of rank hypocrisy!)

I am glad that this discussion appears to have at least resulted in a consensus to clarify that the talk page header does not literally need to be "era". If no one else makes the change, I'll swing back around and implement the language suggested by Gawaon and link to this thread in the edit description.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The current text does not say that the header must be merely "era". "Change era style from BC to BCE" and other headers using the word era would also be compliant. NebY (talk) 13:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Seasons in magazine titles in running text

Dondervogel 2 reverted this edit of mine, which removed the bolded text in the sentence below, about the use of seasons in magazine titles:

They are capitalized when part of the title of a work (Science Fiction Quarterly, Summer 1942), except when referring to a seasonal edition in running text (the summer 1942 issue of Science Fiction Quarterly).

The example was added about a month ago without much discussion; see further up this talk page. I removed it for two reasons:

1. Sources that discuss magazines mostly do capitalize the season name even in running text; and
2. The use of the lower-case season in this way is against the advice of SEASON in any case, since if we're not using the formal title of the issue, "Summer 1942", then we should be avoiding the use of season names.

It appears that the sources capitalize in this way when they are referring to a specific issue that has that title. I started to compile a list of usage by source, but it's easier to simply go to Google Books and search for "the summer 2019 issue". The first fifteen results have ten with "Summer" and five with "summer". I think the example that Dondervogel 2 reinstated should be removed again: it advises a usage that doesn't agree with what reliable sources do; it makes no allowance for the writer wishing to refer to a specific issue with that formal title; and it conflicts with the main point of SEASON. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

My point is that "summer" in "the summer 1942 issue" is not a proper noun, so I see no reason to capitalise. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's not a proper noun. The reason it's capitalized is that it's part of the formal title of that issue of the magazine. The example in the first half of the sentence uses upper case; if a writer is referring to that issue of the magazine, they can use the title of the issue if they wish -- and from a look in Google Books it's evident that's what most writers do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Instead of removing it, I've now replaced it with text saying "if a mention of a seasonal edition does not capitalize the season name, avoid using the season name because of the ambiguity". That avoids implying that it should always be capitalized or always uncapitalized in running text, and also avoids giving an example that uses a lower-case season name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted that, since I don't think it's an improvement. It's totally unclear what's meant by "a mention" (in Wikipedia? in a RS?) and "avoid using" is not useful advice if you don't know how else to refer to the issue in question. Gawaon (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think that when such an issue identifier is mentioned in running text it's often unclear whether it's indeed part of the title (which calls for capitalization) or just a generic identifier similar to "the second issue of 1942". Maybe because of this ambiguity, we could simply allow either capitalization and write something like "except that seasonal editions may be lower-cased in running text (the Summer/summer 1942 issue of Science Fiction Quarterly)"? Gawaon (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

My main concern is that the prior wording forbade the use of upper case in running text, so that would work for me. Is it a problem that the example you give uses "summer", which we're trying to avoid recommending? We do say it's "appropriate when it is part of a conventional name or designation"; I think here the "conventional name" would be the magazine issue's title, and that would be upper case. I think the usages one can see of lower case "summer 2019 issue of" in Google Books are season references of the type we discourage. But other than that your wording seems good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change to your wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I object to the change because if "the Summer 1942 Issue" is interpreted as a part of the title, then "Issue" would also be capitalised. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can say "issue" is part of the title; the phrase "Summer 1942" will typically appear on the cover and contents page and sometimes the masthead of a magazine, but it is never accompanied by the word "issue". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. The magazine cover will probably just say something like "Science Fiction Quarterly – Summer 1942", the magazine title being the main title, and the issue identifier something like the subtitle. The word "issue" probably won't appear on the cover and so is not part of the title. (I had already largely written this when Mike Christie's comment appeared, so I'll let it stand despite the repetition.) Gawaon (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree the word "issue" is not normally considered part of the title, in which case it should not be capitalised. My point is that if "issue" is not part of the title, then neither is "summer 1942". It's just text describing which issue we are referring to. Just because "Summer 1942" can be part of the title, as in Science Fiction Quarterly, Summer 1942, does not imply it always is. It depends on the construction. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's the other way round -- the only difference between the two constructions (the writer is using the title of the issue vs. the writer is mentioning the time of year when the issue appeared) is the capitalization. If it's capitalized, the writer is using the issue's title. The revised wording suggested by Gawaon allows for both, which is in line with actual usage in the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. "Summer 1942" is how the publisher named the issue, as well as being how others refer to it. It may or may not bear any particular relationship to the season in which it was actually published or even indicate when it could be taken off sale and returned. NebY (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like I am in a minority of one. For that reason I withdraw my objection. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Dondervogel 2 that we should default to lower-case in running text. Let's consider a non-season example. Our MOS would recommend using Science Fiction Quarterly, Third Edition when referring to the edition as a title, but on the other hand we would state third edition of Science Fiction Quarterly in running text. I don't see a compelling reason to do anything differently just because we're now dealing with a season name.

For what it's worth, I initiated the discussion above because of an MOS discussion at the 'Oyster dress' FAC, which actually concerned a fashion collection rather than a periodical title. Over there I was a so-called "minority of one". Just as an FYI to you, Dondervogel 2, that you're not alone in your position. I maintained my objection in that discussion because I could not find an MOS-based reason to support capitalization despite my best efforts.

I like the wording that @Gawaon and @Mike Christie added. It gives flexibility based on how reliable sources handle capitalization. However, I do have two recommended changes.

1. The new text currently states the Summer/summer 1942 issue, but in the MOS we usually provide separate instances of an example to avoid ambiguity. We're not telling people to actually write down Summer/summer; we want them to pick one or the other. So I think the text should be fully expanded to say "the summer 1942 issue of Science Fiction Quarterly or the Summer 1942 issue of Science Fiction Quarterly". But this also might unnecessarily lengthen the guideline so I'd appreciate thoughts from others.
2. It also might be helpful to remind editors of MOS:CAPS, which looks for a "substantial majority" of such sources to support capitalization. Of course, "substantial majority" is still an imprecise term so I don't know how helpful it would be on the more contentious cases.

Edge3 (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

For #1, a shorter magazine title would help. How about "the summer 1985 issue of Interzone or the Summer 1985 issue of Interzone"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me. But we should probably keep the capitalized form first. Gawaon (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate my changes for #1 and #2, along with the feedback here. See edit. It's a somewhat complex change, so feel free to revise further! Edge3 (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I have partially reverted that since it's not what we agreed on and would put an undue burden on editors, who cannot be expected to research "substantial majority" distributions for every issue title they mention. Let's keep it simple and allow both case forms without prejudice. Gawaon (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I've changed the date for the Interzone example to 1985, since we might as well use an issue that really appeared as an example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to address my point #2 above to give guidance on when to capitalize. You both haven't talked about it yet so I'm happy to hear feedback. Edge3 (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that there's anything useful we can add on when to capitalize. It seems that in running text the seasons are more often capitalized than not, but as discussed above I think the only way to tell the writer's intent is from the capitalization -- that is, we're not going to be able say "if your sentence is like <this> then capitalize". I suppose we could say something like "if you mean to refer to the issue by its title, capitalize; otherwise if you are referring to the season of the year when the issue appears, then do not capitalize", but that seems a bit wordy. I think the lower-case usage does run into a problem with the main reason for SEASON in the first place so ideally we wouldn't mention it at all, but then we'd have to say something like "northern summer" which is just not how the sources do it -- they assume the context is the location where the magazine is published. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's not overcomplicate this. The current wording works. Gawaon (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The current wording may be fine for seasonal periodicals, but it still doesn't give clear guidance in other cases. Specifically for fashion-related articles, a majority of sources use lowercase, but our WP articles still capitalize based on a previous interpretation of the MOS. The phrasing "may be lower-cased" is permissive, while MOS:CAPS provides an explicit test: avoid capitalization unless supported by a "substantial majority" of sources. Edge3 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Uh, seasonal periodicals is what the wording is all about, so where shouldn't it be fine? Gawaon (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Edge3, if you're talking about fashion shows such as the Spring/Summer 2006 collection at which Neptune was shown, then I'd say the sources show exactly the same variation that source about magazines do -- when the writer is referring to the show by what they regard as the formal title they use the upper case version; when they are referring to the season they use lower case. Just as with magazines, the capitalization is what tells you their intention -- the fact that both occur doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong; it just distinguishes the two usages. Pinging Premeditated Chaos as I know this discussion began on one of her FACs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Mike, while I appreciate the ping, I'm not interested in participating in this discussion. Edge3 has consistently shown that he has no interest in listening to the opinions of other editors, as indicated by his single-minded dismissal of the clear consensus from something like a half-dozen-plus editors (including FAC coords!) who showed up at the Oyster dress FAC to tell Edge3 that his interpretation was incorrect.

I'll repeat the argument I made when Edge3 showed up at my next FAC to complain that I wasn't following the arbitrary change he made to MOS:SEASONS, despite the fact that the capitalization was actually correct under his arbitrary brand-new wording.

"Season names are generally not capitalized (a hot summer), except when personified (Old Man Winter) or when part of a formal name". A fashion season such as "Autumn/Winter 2008" or "Resort 2014" is a formal name for a particular period in the industry, so it is capitalized. Other editors clearly agreed with this interpretation in the last discussion, so although the MOS wording may have changed, the reality underpinning my reasoning has not.

I do not see the point in participating in a discussion with someone who has decided that consensus is irrelevant unless it's in his favor, who feels he can arbitrarily rewrite the MOS whenever consensus does not go his way, and who feels he can interpret his brand-new wording however he wants even when it actually supports my position despite his rewrites. I have zero intention of altering the capitalization for fashion seasons unless there is a strong consensus for this change from editors who are not Edge3. I am deliberately not watching this page, will not be reading any replies, and do not wish to be pinged back here to this or any further discussion on the topic, because I find attempting to speak to Edge3 on this topic exhausting and frustrating, and I would prefer to do literally anything else with my time than argue about capital letters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Numbers

Under the Numbers section, it states:

"Generally, in article text:

Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."

I wonder why is "from zero to nine" instead of "from zero to ten"? We humans have ten fingers, we learn how to count from one to ten since we were little kids. If we learn a foreign language, the first thing we learn is words like hello, thank you, good bye, and count from one to ten. It doesn't make sense that only integers from zero to nine shoulde be spelled out in words. It should be integers from one to ten. 120.16.218.233 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but cats have nine lives, so it makes perfect sense actually. GiantSnowman 17:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

LOL. You must be joking. 120.16.218.233 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

...weren't you? GiantSnowman 17:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope. I really think that in article text, integers from zero to ten should be spelled out in words (i.e. ten years ago not 10 years ago). 120.16.218.233 (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't say that "only integers from zero to nine shoulde be spelled out in words". We do say that Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words and proceed to qualify that in several ways, allowing for either "10" or "ten" to be used as appropriate. NebY (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I’ve thought this for a long time, so agree with you. Numbers expressed as words are easier to read and don’t visually interrupt a sentence in the same way as does sticking figures in the middle of it. IMHO figures should only be used when multiple words are needed to express the quantity. MapReader (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"Numbers expressed as words are easier to read". My experience is the opposite. I find it much easier to express numbers as numerals always. I only express them in words when English convention says Thou Must Use Words For Small Numbers but I never liked it. Mind you, I spend most days writing software and doing engineering stuff, so I may not represent the typical reader.  Stepho  talk  11:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We should be looking to REDUCE the instances of "numbers as words", not increase them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

While I have no strong preference one way or the other, adding ten to the numbers for which words are preferred would be fine with me. Ten is indeed just one more character than 10, so it's the number easiest to spell out. Gawaon (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Some other style guides:

• The BBC News Style Guide has "For the most part, we use words for single-figure numbers, digits for anything above nine (ie eight, nine, 10, 11)" followed by various exceptions.[1]
• The Guardian and Observer style guide has "Spell out from one to nine; numerals from 10 to 999,999 ...."[2]
• According to this 2005 discussion here in WT:MOSNUM, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 25#Numbers written as words, the Chicago Manual of Style has (or had) "According to Press style, the following are spelled out in ordinary text: Whole numbers from one through ninety-nine; Any of these followed by hundred, thousand, million, etc."
• According to the same discussion, the Oxford Style Manual (2003) had "In non-technical contexts, OUP style is to use words for numbers below 100."
• Fowler's Modern English Usage (4th edn) has "Figures should be used when the matter consists of a sequence of stated quantities [e.g.] The past 12 months show an increase of 5 tons" and "In descriptive matter, numbers under 100 should be in words, but write 90 to 100, not ninety to 100."

I haven't tried a proper search in MOSNUM's history – I doubt a straightforward Wikiblame search would help – but it looks as if the core one-to-nine rule's been stable since Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 73#Proposed revision of "Numbers in words" in 2007. NebY (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal The IP user brought up an interesting point. Why "from zero to nine"? Why not "from zero to seven, eight, ten, or eleven"? I propose that we change the rule to "Integers from zero to twenty are spelled out in words". If we can express a number in a single, simple English word, then use the English word. If more than one word or a hyphen is involved (e.g. twenty-one, one hundred and one), use the numerals. N. Mortimer (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Against - Existing form (words for single digits, numerals for more) works fine. Examples for each:

1. There 14 reasons to object.
2. There are fourteen reasons to object.

The numeral form is so much more compact, quicker to type, quicker to read, requires less effort to understand and the quirks of spelling for 11-19 are avoided for our English as a second language audience (why is 11,12 different to 13-19; why is 13-19 different to 23-29, etc?). Keep it simple.  Stepho  talk  01:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

So you also support my proposal of adding "ten" to the mix? Thank you. Ten is a very simple word, I think all people with a basic understanding of English know this word.

By the way, even if we use "14" instead of "fourteen" in your sentence example, we can't really omit the "are", but I agree with you that numbers greater than ten should be written in the numeral form. 120.16.218.233 (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to type in "are" for the first example. My mistake.

Oh dear, it looks like only 1 of us knows how to count up to 2. "10" is not a single digit, so "words for single digits, numerals for more" means I support "10", not "ten".  Stepho  talk  10:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you support "ten"? "Ten" is shorter than "three", "seven" or "eight". People like to group things in even numbers, not odd numbers (because they are odd 😂). 120.16.218.233 (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Because "10" is not a single digit. Am I saying this wrong? Should I type slower? Should I use words with one syllable or less?  Stepho  talk  00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Spelling out such simply words is already allowed, it shouldn't be required. It's very hard to see why 17 should be treated differently than 27, and if this rule were adapted, it would logically have to apply to thirty, forty etc. as well. Gawaon (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it should logically apply to thirty, forty etc. And the reason is obvious; single spelled words are easier to read than interrupting a sentence with digits, but that advantage weakens when multiple words are required to spell out a number. MapReader (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I find "The applicants' ages ranged from seventeen to seventy" harder and less convenient to read than "The applicants' ages ranged from 17 to 70". Especially, in latter sentence the numbers stand out, making them very easy to detect when one skims a text quickly, which is not the case in the former sentence. Gawaon (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

That's why we should make "ten" the cut-off point:

Zero

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

Eight

Nine

Ten

11

12

13.... 120.16.218.233 (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No. As spelt out in the very next sentence after Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, we already allow that Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words, both subject to and extended by the following notes and exceptions. This is appropriately flexible; the mere fact that single words exist for some numbers does not meant they are always the best way for readers to take in quantitative information, even when reading the text closely rather than skimming it for key points – as many encyclopedia readers do. Our manual is in keeping here with at least some other major style guides, and has served as stable guidance and a sound reference point for Wikipedia editors for many years. NebY (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

"Mos:DOB" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mos:DOB has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Mos:DOB until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hyphenation in spelled-out fractions

Per MOS:FRAC: Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated.

Should this always be so? I noticed One half doesn't abide in its title, and there are potential ambiguities in use. Remsense诉 05:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

See existing (but closed) discussion at Talk:One half, on a failed proposal to move it to one-half. In particular, there, jacobolus wrote MOS:FRAC is straight up wrong here, and should be changed. Whether to add a hyphen depends on the grammatical context. Some others (myself included) agreed. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Right, it seems to make more sense to add a hyphen when they are used as modifier (adjective), but not when used as noun. Gawaon (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

On this basis there is clearly no consensus for the rule as stated, so I removed it until there is agreement on what it should be replaced by. My view is that of Gawaon. For example

• A one-half octave is one half of an octave.
• Seven eighths of a mile is 1,540 yards.
• Three tenths of a kilometre is 300 m.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Hyphenate a spelled-out fraction used as a modifier" or similar seems like a fine rule to include. –jacobolus (t) 16:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I had WP:BOLDly edited the page and suggested the following wording: "Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated before a noun (They won a two-thirds majority), but not when used stand-alone (The distance was seven eighths of a mile)." That change was reverted so it seems more discussion is needed. Gawaon (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the latest Fowler's Modern English describes real-world usage of the hyphen as "chaos", notes it's on the wane "even in British English", identifies some main uses (creating a single unit of meaning (dry-clean); phrases in front of nouns (up-to-date record, well-known man); with prefixes (ex-husband, re-cover); in lists (two- or three-fold); to avoid misinterpretation (extra-marital sex); with phrasal verbs, as a mistake; in printing,to break a word) but doesn't address this question directly.

Two-thirds majority fits Fowler's first and second usages; I think seven-eighths of a mile fits Fowler's first, a single unit of meaning, especially considering its other representations (0.875, 7/8). NebY (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think I've got the energy to stick with this discussion, but let me point something out. In he walked three quarters of a mile, I'm not sure the phrase "three quarters" is a fraction; seems to me it's 3 quarters, if you get my meaning. EEng 17:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do, but though that works in I ate three quarters of the quattro stagioni (but not the mushrooms) or even he ran three quarters of the mile (but walked the third one), by itself he walked three quarters of a mile is no more than he walked 3/4 mile. NebY (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just throwing this out: "he played three quarters of the basketball game" (it has four quarters), versus "he watched three-quarters of the movie". Just wondering. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Would you really write them differently? I would tend to write them the same (both without a hyphen). Gawaon (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  What would you say if the sentence is, "he played in three quarters of the basketball game"? To me, that reads that he played in at least part of each of three quarters of the games (say, from the middle of the second quarter to the middle of the fourth quarter), but not necessarily for a full three-quarters of the games. A bit contrived, but edge cases test rules. Donald Albury 16:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  True, I'd say that "he played in three quarters of the basketball game" might mean that he played less compared to "he played three quarters of the basketball game", which is more likely to give the total length of his play. However, I'd say if the use or non-use of a hyphen should depend on such subtleties, we're overcomplicating things. According to the rule I favour, no hyphen should be used in either case. Gawaon (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Would it make a difference with fourths instead of quarters? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure. To be honest, I was quite sleep-deprived when I made that post and I'm not sure now how exactly I thought it would clarify anything. :( What about the case of "one half"? There's no "one twoth". EEng 07:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  "One half" is somewhat an exception because it is used so commonly (cf. first, second, third, instead of oneth, twoth, threeth). The same goes for "one quarter" (though "one fourth" is an accepted alternative). I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "three quarters of a mile", that's just 3*(1/4) mi = 3/4 mi. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 10:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't say there's anything wrong with it. I was just pointing out, since this discussion is nominally about fractions, that it may not be clear that "three quarters" (and so on) actually is a fraction. EEng 20:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's clear that a "quarter" is 1/4. A quarter of an hour is 15 min. A quarter of a dollar is 25 cents. I'm sorry, I'm not sure where the confusion lies. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 09:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, since you press the point: no, it's not clear. "Three quarters" might be a fraction (3/4), or it might be three times a fraction (3 · 1/4), but not itself a fraction. EEng 09:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  3/4 and 3(1/4) are both the same, just expressed differently. One can choose interpret "three quarters" as the former and the problem would be solved. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 09:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC); edited 09:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  • 3/4 and 3(1/4) are both the same, just expressed differently – Wow, and to think I spent all that money on a degree in applied math from Harvard, and they never taught me that. If what you're saying is really true, then I'm going to ask for my money back! Next you'll be telling me that (1/x) · x = 1.
  • One can choose interpret "three quarters" as the former – You're contradicting yourself. If the two things are the same, then choosing between them makes no sense, since (says you) they're both the same -- there's no choice to be made. But they're not the same. That's the point. One's a fraction and one is an integer times a fraction, in which case the question of "how to write fractions" doesn't apply to it.

  EEng 09:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying that "one eighth" is a fraction, but "three eighths" isn't? That would be a highly original interpretation of "fraction". Gawaon (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  No. If we interpret "three eighths" not as a fraction, but rather as an integer followed by a fraction, then "one eighth" is also not a fraction. EEng 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  How silly of me! All those Aristotlean logic I learned for nothing! ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 10:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  All those grammar, too! EEng 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not necessarily. The fraction 3/4 can be seen as indicating a cohesive part. While 3(1/4) would equal the same amount, it might not be a single "thing". For example, imagine a cake cut into 8 equal parts (labeled 1-8 in clockwise fashion). If I eat pieces 1-6, then I can be said to have eaten 3/4 of the cake and also to have eaten 3 of the quarters of the cake. However, If I eat pieces 2-4 and 6-8, then I can be said to have eaten 3/4 of the cake but not to have eaten 3 of the quarters of the cake. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  ^ This guy gets it. EEng 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think rarely in articles, you would dig into the nitty-gritty of how it came to 3/4. In the original example (he walked three quarters of a mile), no reader would be perplexed as to if he walked three (quarters of a mile) or (three quarters) of a mile. If you really want to specify that he either walked in quarter miles, taking breaks along the way, or walked 0.75 miles in one go, then say it.

  In User:Khajidha's example, there is a fraction in both cases: said to have eaten 3/4 of the cake and also to have eaten 3 of the quarters of the cake (here, 3/4 is "three quarters"); and have eaten 3/4 of the cake but not to have eaten 3 of the quarters of the cake (also 3/4 aka "three quarters"). So "three quarters" is a fraction either way. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  I.e., basically what Chicago is saying in the passage I quoted below? (And using the same example, incidentally!) Graham (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  As for "used stand-alone", that is when the denominator of the fraction is not an attribute, that's when it shouldn't be hyphenated (according to the discussion). An attribute is optional, so if you remove it, it still makes grammatical sense. For example, They won a three-quarters majority (not standalone), if you remove "three-quarters", it makes grammatical sense; whereas They won a majority of three quarters (standalone), if you remove "three quarters", it makes no sense. Thus, NebY's example above (seven-eighths of a mile) should not be hyphenated because there, the attribute is "of a mile". ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  That was my proposal (also suggested by others), and I still think it makes a lot of sense and reflects widespread usage fairly well. EEng, if you think the used wording was unclear, maybe you have a suggestion on how to improve it? Gawaon (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  We could explain it linguistically and note that hiding attributes would still make grammatical sense: Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated when it is used as an attribute (They won a two-thirds majority), but not when used stand-alone (The distance was seven eighths of a mile). Rule of thumb: hyphenate if removing the fraction would still make grammatical sense. Instead of "when used stand-alone", we could dig deeper into linguistics and say "when the denominator is used as the head noun of the phrase", but I doubt that would be any more clear. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC); edited 11:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm. I might not hyphenate if the emphasis was on the denominator, but that's a more narrow exception and perhaps more traditionalist. NebY (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  The suggested wording sounds fine for me. Gawaon (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Lol1VNIO's suggestion makes sense to me too. I would just replace "when it used" with "when used". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

If we were writing here for The New Yorker or some other highfalutin publication, we could, perhaps, follow a more complex style, but in the encyclopedia anyone can edit, simple rules are better. It's like the comma after a mdy date. Sometimes there is no need for a comma after May 20, 2024, but it is so much easier to always use it and it doesn't hurt anything. Let's stick with the hyphen in written out fractions. One half may or may not be correct, but we can live with some inconsistency.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  11:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with others that I don't think it makes sense to hyphenate fractions where they are being used as compound modifiers. However, to maintain consistency with MOS:HYPHEN, I would suggest that we further specify that we only use hyphens with fractions where it is being used as an attributive or substantive modifier (which is what I think most of us have in mind anyway) rather than a predicative modifier. Graham (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That matches my intuition. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Our manual of style has to be plain and direct, providing easily understood guidance to all editors who need it, not only those who are trained in the use of high-falutin' terms like attributive, substantive, predicative and modifier. NebY (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we amend MOS:HYPHEN? Graham (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The Australian style guide says Use a hyphen in fractions written out in words (eg two-thirds). I oppose any change to the MOS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

What's "the Australian style guide"? Anyway, our old rule stating the same has already been thrown out. The question is now what to replace it with. Gawaon (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That's here, along with Write fractions in full in running text, and use a hyphen. The Australian govenment's style manual has Hyphens link parts of a fraction.[3] NebY (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The BBC News Style Guide has simply three-quarters (and other fractions).[4] NebY (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Purdue has a collection of style guides; I only found Use a hyphen with compound numbers: forty-six, sixty-three, Our much-loved teacher was sixty-three years old.[5] NebY (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not really relevant to fractions. Graham (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant when the only guidance on compund numbers is to hyphenate; that includes fractions. Back in 2007, we stated it as Spelled-out two-word numbers from 21 to 99 are hyphenated (fifty-six), as are fractions (seven-eighths)[6] (it may have been on some other MOS page before then). NebY (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Graham11 reports The Chicago Manual of Style also prescribes the hyphenated form, even when the term is used as a noun.[7] NebY (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The most relevant passage is 9.14:

9.14 Simple fractions. Simple fractions are spelled out. For the sake of readability and to lend an appearance of consistency, they are hyphenated in noun, adjective, and adverb forms. In the rare event that individual parts of a quantity are emphasized, however, as in the last example, the expression is unhyphenated. See also 7.89, section 1, under fractions, simple. For decimal fractions, see 9.19.

She has read three-fourths of the book.

Four-fifths of the students are boycotting the class.

I do not want all of your material; two-thirds is quite enough.

A two-thirds majority is required.

but

We divided the cake into four quarters; I took three quarters, and my brother one.

Graham (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In short, Chicago supports our Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated with one minor exception. NebY (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Collins English Dictionary's entry for two-thirds begins with two-thirds of.[8] NebY (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster online gives for three-quarters Three-quarters of the class will be going on the trip and three-quarters of an hour, plus many "Recent Examples on the Web", each using three-quarters of, hyphenated: nearly three-quarters of those using the feature (WSJ); three-quarters of lawmakers (Anchorage Daily News); three-quarters of a percentage point (Los Angeles Times) and more.[9] NebY (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Full, unambiguous signifier" for currencies

Do we have a list somewhere of "full, unambiguous signifier[s]" for currencies? MOS:CURRENCY links to List of circulating currencies, but nowhere can we find "A$" or "US$" there, which MOS:CURRENCY recommends us to use. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 10:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@LightNightLights: See Currency symbol#List of currency symbols currently in use. That article deviates heavily from the World Bank Group's editorial guide (p. 134) that lists uncommon symbols like $A. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@LightNightLights: I've just discovered that templates that are titled after ISO 4217 codes standardize the signifiers on enwiki. Use {{AUD}}, {{CAD}}, {{USD}} etc. or {{Currency|value|code}} with codes at Module:Currency/Presentation ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC); edited 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lol1VNIO Thank you. I do not consider myself as someone who writes or contributes to style manuals so I do not know the answers to these questions, but:

• Should MOS:CURRENCY link to Currency symbol § List of currency symbols currently in use?
• Should MOS:CURRENCY recommend editors to use the templates (instead of checking a list?) in the MOS?

LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@LightNightLights: The guide already links to Currency symbols, specifically to #dollar variants, though a link to the page after "full, unambiguous signifier" wouldn't be a bad idea. As for templating every currency, not really. It makes sense in some (฿100) but others you can just enter on your keyboard. Often, you're familiar with a set of currencies that you don't need to look up, anyway. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lol1VNIO I swear that I fully read MOS:CURRENCY multiple times, but I didn't notice the Currency symbols link. I am not sure how to correctly add the link after "full, unambiguous signifier", so I am okay with you adding it. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 10:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps add suggestions to consider using {{currency}}, {{USD}} and similar.  Stepho  talk  06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)