Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Tmcft

In Srisailam Dam I just came across the use of Tmcft as a volume unit throughout the article. {{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: [1]), 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. :-) Commander Keane, I don't know much about {{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 {{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: Its capacity is 178 billion cubic feet (tmcft). Plus it should certainly be converted into metric units too, like 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 {{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 {{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 {{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)

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)

1802617499785.3. --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 Google news search shows extensive recent Indian newsmedia usage, often in the title of articles (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 {{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 {{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 {{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, [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 {{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

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 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: 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 ({{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 In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United States and 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, 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 {{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:

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)

== Template:Convert has an RfC==

Template:Convert has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

The RfC question is: Should the {{Convert}} template support the unit Tmcft? Joe vom Titan (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Date range: clarify usage of to as in "from 1890 to 1893"

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 Use an en dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both: from 1881 to 1886 (not from 1881–1886);  between June 1 and July 3 (not between June 1 – July 3) .

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

• from 1881–1886) and between June 1 – July 3 are not coherent uses within running prose, and I really don't to see any instance where use of them should ever be tolerated. -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 12:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  Your point being what? The guideline already forbids such constructions. EEng 12:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Season and episode numbers

I wanted to ask the policy to reflect standard consensus regarding how to format season and episode numbers in articles. after copyediting the article for Winx Club, I noticed that it used phrases like season eight which I found unpleasant, although the opposite phrasing eighth season was fine by me. below is a suggested bullet point to add to exceptions for WP:SPELL09 (feel free to change the wording, as I am bad at these finer details):

Seasons and episode numbers should be spelled using numerals for consistency: season 1, not season one. However, when using ordinals, it is accepted to write using words: first season.

Juwan (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Sorry, but why does this qualify under WP:MOSBLOAT? EEng 12:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Concern over adjacent numbers of different values in motor racing article titles

There are many titles of annual racing articles with a year number next to an event name number, thus contrary to various points at MOS:NUMNOTES, which makes sense since they are excessively awkward and difficult to read. Articles include those at Category:24 Hours of Le Mans races, Category:24 Hours of Daytona, 24H Series#Official FIA seasons, Category:Nürburgring 24 Hours, Category:Spa 24 Hours and many others, including some that are 4 or 12 hours. Should these be moved so the year is in parentheses at the end? That seems like the simplest remedy. An example would be moving 2024 24 Hours of Daytona to 24 Hours of Daytona (2024). Left guide (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Judging by what I see at WP:YEARS, there are a lot of articles in WP with years at the start of the title. I don't see a big problem with this. A reader looking for a particular year but not knowing the title system would probably look at 24 Hours of Le Mans, search for the year within that and then follow the link. Or go to the bottom, click on the cat and then click on the appropriate year. Not a problem.

If you want to see it in the search box, then we can add redirects like 24 Hours of Daytona (2024) that points to 2024 24 Hours of Daytona.  Stepho  talk  00:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Starting an article title with a year is totally common, fine, and normal when there are no other numbers involved, for example 2025 NBA Finals. This inquiry is about the specific circumstance of a year number and event name number being adjacent to one another. Left guide (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It's also common, fine, and normal even when there are numbers involved. I oppose any changes to article titles. Stepho-wrs suggested a good solution. RegalZ8790 (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

From WP:MOTORSPORT. Don't see an issue here. Would also go against WP:CONSISTENT. MB2437 00:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

As a motorsport editor (not a grammar geek by any means) I don't think that it would be worth moving them. Although I do see the concern, and it does sound a little awkward with the double number, I personally don't feel that it is severe enough to warrant moving hundreds of pages. As per Mb, it would kind of ruin the consistency between motorsport race articles ([year] [race name]), and could even cause confusion for readers. Not worth the change in my opinion, even if it does sound a little weird. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Spelling 24 is not an option, as it's part of a proper name (MOS:NUMNOTES). Perhaps this is just WP:COMMONNAME / WP:IAR e.g. "When and Where to Watch the 2025 24 Hours of Le Mans" (Car and Driver), "Here’s the entry list for the 2025 24 Hours of Le Mans" (Yahoo).—Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I would say that our current practice is a little jarring, but not "excessively awkward and difficult to read". If we were composing literature here, I'd suggest a change for aesthetic purposes, but we are an encyclopedia, not art. It would require many changes to move dates to the end in parentheses and I don't think it would be either worth the effort or a significant improvement. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Year adjacent to numerical value

I'm having some trouble finding a 'clean', grammatically correct reconstruction of this sentence (from Uranium hexafluoride), in order to separate the year from the numerical value immediately adjacent:

"In 2005, 686,500 tonnes of D-UF₆ was housed in 57,122 storage cylinders located near Portsmouth, Ohio; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Paducah, Kentucky."

I first thought of moving the year to the end of the sentence a la '[...], as of 2005', but then it leaves the sentence opening with a numerical value. I then thought this might be a solution:

In 2005, D-UF₆ in the amount of 686,500 tonnes was housed in 57,122 storage cylinders located near Portsmouth, Ohio; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Paducah, Kentucky.

Which satisfies the criteria, but it's a bit stilted. I'd be interested if some 'fresh eyes' on it might come up with a more graceful construct (notwithstanding that it's a highly technical article, so an artful presentation of the information isn't truly necessary!). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

How about starting the sentence with "About 686,000 tonnes of D-UF_6 were housed ..."? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

As is typical for me, Occam's razor eluded me. It's obviously not a strict value, so 'about' does the trick very nicely. Thank you! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Non-breaking hyphen

At Template talk:Convert#Nowrap, we've been talking about whether {{Convert}} might use a non-breaking hyphen in e.g. generating 8.4-metre from {{convert|8.4|m|ft|adj=on}}. The warning at Help:Line-break handling#Non-breaking hyphen wouldn't seem to apply, as editors wouldn't see an awkward ‑. However, our example "a 10-centimeter blade" in MOS:UNITNAMES uses a plain hyphen. Johnuniq quite reasonably suggested we ask here if that's somehow intentional; better to ask before considering changing code. NebY (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, the question concerns what kind of hyphen should be used in "10-centimeter blade". Currently it is U+002D hyphen-minus in the MOS documentation linked above, and in {{convert}}. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

There's no problem with a line break after a hyphen like this. It's the same kind of hyphenated modifier as "matter-of-fact comment". An ordinary hyphen-minus is just fine. I don't think any scientific publishers try to avoid line breaks in these constructions. Indefatigable (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, a normal hyphen seems perfectly fine. Gawaon (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

In effect you are declaring that a "normal minus" is perfectly fine.

What is a reader to make of 10-

centimetre blade? "Ten minus ... eh? what?".

Minus and hyphen are not the same and why should the reader expect a mathematical formula in running text anyway? Gawaon (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Compare and contrast witk {{snd}}. Good practice doesn't have to be mandated but it can certainly be included in templates like {{convert}}. We don't have to collude with unprofessional typography where we have an easy way to avoid it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC) tweaked --13:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Different users have different setups. We cannot hope to satisfy everybody; we cannot predict where the right margin might lie, so we should not second-guess that it might coincide with a hyphen. I don't think that people will misunderstand if a linebreak coincidentally occurs between the two components of a compound adjective. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know of any compound adjective where the dash could reasonably be read as a minus. Just as we don't formally deprecate using a 'spaced hyphen-minus' in running text but we do encourage editors to use {{nbsp}}{{ndash}} (or {{snd}}, same thing) – why? because it is good typography never to begin a new line with an orphaned ndash. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we can accept line-breaking in a compound adjective but acknowledge that line-breaking after "10-" can be momentarily confusing. Print typographers use various strategies to make reading smoother, as described at Hyphen#Justification and line-wrapping, which aren't available to us. We do have a small tweak available here, using a non-breaking hyphen in {{Convert}}. We don't need to impose it on editors otherwise in MOS:UNITNAMES, merely accept its use, so it would be effortless for everyone but Johnuniq - but if they're willing to do it, can we not accept that gladly? NebY (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Infobox "at least" symbol

@Drdpw: An infobox had "37+" changed to ">37". I've seen "≥" elsewhere. Should we standardize the symbol? 174.138.212.166 (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

We should not standardize it. I think whenever possible, writing out and above or at least is by far the preferred presentation. (What I do wish we could do is recommend against using c. for figures other than dates.) Remsense 🌈 论 12:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

We already tend to write "and above" / "at least" in prose. What about infoboxes, where that never happens? 174.138.212.166 (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking about the in-between of media captions, mostly. Over is sometimes feasible. I've done ≥ before to be fancy, but if I'm being honest outside topics in mathematics + is likely more effortless for the greatest number of people to read. It really does depend on the specific presentation. Remsense 🌈 论 12:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC Tmcft in convert template?

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

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

Background: this issue has been discussed in multiple places. E.g.

• Template talk:Convert/Archive 3#Tmcft
• #Tmcft (Closure request refused because the discussion "focused on multiple different issues")

None of these discussions reached a consensus. Joe vom Titan (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I've notified #Tmcft, Template talk:Convert and Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.

Is there another place where this RfC should be advertised? Joe vom Titan (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. Of course it should. Tmcft is an obscure unit that is nevertheless used by reliable sources in India, as shown in the linked discussions. MOS says to use SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic; tmcft is apparently such a unit. For our readers around the world, we should convert tmcft to SI units. The easiest way to do that is with {{convert}}. That template supports dunam and tsubo and pondemaat and horsepower-hour and barrel of oil equivalent. Why should tmcft be any different? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. Why not? Nobody will have to use it, if they don't feel the need. Gawaon (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• The actual issue is that editors have not wanted to support text like "123 thousand million cubic feet". The question for MOS is how that should be written. Is it "123 thousand million" or "123 billion" or "123 billion" or what? Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  That's not relevant for the RfC question, as far as I can tell. Gawaon (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  I agree it's not relevant for the people who want someone else to fix it. But that's the question. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  "Thousand million" is unambiguous, and it is what the sources use. "Billion" is ambiguous, and the sources don't use it. If the sources routinely use "thousand million" as part of a unit, all we have to do is display it and (using {{convert}}) also display unambiguous SI units alongside it. "Billion" doesn't enter into the conversation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  If billion is ambiguous, we should avoid it everywhere, and not just in this context. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  It's actually not ambiguous, though. Gawaon (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  That is also my impression, which is why I suggested billion cubic feet from the beginning. If a conversion is included to an SI unit of volume, that would then be understood understood by all. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  The RFC seems somewhat out of place. It's asking a change to a template, not a change to how quantities are written in Wikipedia.MOS:BILLION does not endorse "thousand million" but does not outright forbid it either. So perhaps the RFC should have asked for a change to make "thousand million" acceptable when used with "cubic feet". If that change is adopted, then it would make sense to support it in the convert template. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  That's what I was thinking of. It's easy to add a unit to convert to see how it goes. However, each unit needs a code (Tmcft), a symbol (Tmcft), a name (thousand million cubic feet?), and a link (Tmcft). Once something goes in a template it seems to have an official blessing. The question is not whether convert should support the unit. The issue is what text should appear in articles where the unit is wanted. That is, what is official. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Tmcft says it's "the abbreviation of thousand million cubic feet" so that will be the name (long form), quite obviously. Gawaon (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  We have an article about the cubit but that doesn't mean we would use it in an article. Similarly we have an article about ways of writing large numbers, "Long and short scales" The existence of articles about units, or how numbers are written, does not mean those units or ways of writing numbers should be used in Wikipedia articles (except the articles about those specific units or numerical notations). Jc3s5h (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Sure it doesn't. Did anyone say otherwise? Gawaon (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  I agree this RfC is not ideally placed on the MoS page. Anyways, I put it here because the main discussion took place here on this talk page. I have notified Template talk:Convert. Joe vom Titan (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding the question about "123 thousand million cubic feet": I think 123 tmcft should be written as 123 tmcft, as in many (most?) WP:RS about the subject, as far as I can tell. Readers who are not familiar with the unit (e.g. because they're not from India) can click the link, or they can ignore the unit and instead read what Convert produces. Just as I have to ignore units that I'm not familiar with, e.g. "acre-ft" in articles about US dams. (Frankly, most US units seem bizarre to me, but that's just my European bias.) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This RfC has gotten few responses.

• Tagging participants of the two previous discussions linked above who have not commented here: @Commander Keane, @Dondervogel 2, @Chrisahn, @NebY, @Redrose64, @Kbrose, @Avi8tor, @Donald Albury, @Hawkeye7
• Repeating myself: Is there another place where this RfC should be advertised besides the three places mentioned above?

 ———  Joe vom Titan (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

My position is unchanged from previous responses on the other pages mentioned. If billion is universally understood as a synonym of thousand million then all occurrences of tmcft can be replaced with billion cubic feet. The abbreviation 'tmfct' can then be placed where it belongs, a history book. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Why a history book? The unit tmcft is used all the time in reliable sources from India, just like US/UK units are commonly used in reliable sources from the US/UK. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that tmcft is understood only in one place and in one context. No one else uses it. Not a good unit for an encyclopaedia with a wide readership. Wikipedia should use a unit that is widely understood. I question the assertion made by others that billion cubic feet might be misunderstand by an English speaking readership to mean 10¹² cubic feet, but let's just accept that assertion for the sake of argument. In that situation we can use thousand million cubic feet instead, which will be understood by all. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

"If billion is universally understood ..." – It isn't. Read the article you linked to: "Other countries use the word billion to denote either the long scale or short scale billion." — Chrisahn (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If billion is ambiguous, we should avoid it everywhere, and not just in this context Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, {{Convert}} should support Tmcft. MOS:UNIT recommends "units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic". In reliable sources about dams in India, tmcft is a very common unit, probably the most common one. MOS:UNIT has special cases for non-scientific articles with strong ties to the US / the UK. Of course, the same applies to non-scientific articles with strong ties to India. (In case there's any disagreement on this: There's no reason to have special cases for the US and the UK but not for India. This is the English Wikipedia, not the US-and-UK Wikipedia. There are more English speakers in India than in the UK. A bias towards the US and the UK and against India is incompatible with Wikipedia's basic goals and policies.) Of course we should use tmcft for dams in India, just as we use hand for height of horses, as recommended by MOS:UNIT. As mentioned several times in these discussions, "billion" may be ambiguous in India, and that's likely why the convention of using "thousand million" came about. But even if it wasn't ambiguous – tmcft is what WP:RS use. It would be a disservice to our readers and our editors to use "billion cft" or "billion cubic feet" etc. instead. That would only cause confusion when most WP:RS use tmcft. Just as it would be a disservice to use inches or cm instead of hands for height of horses. (Since it came up somewhere in these discussions: There is no need to spell out tmcft, just link to it, and let {{Convert}} do the rest.) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we have four options:

A. Status quo: Allow using tmcft, but don't {{convert}} it. Not good. Most editors don't add a conversion from tmcft manually (too much work), and the information is rather useless for readers who are not familiar with the unit.

B. Ban the use of tmcft, require SI units instead. Pretty awful choice: 1. Editors would have to convert the unit manually (lots of work, won't happen). 2. Editors and readers would have difficulties verifying the information against what's written in WP:RS. 3. Editors and readers who are familiar with the unit (which is likely if they've read one or two WP:RS about dams in India) will be confused. 4. Won't work. Editors who create or improve articles about dams in India will keep using tmcft as long as WP:RS use it.

C. Ban the use of tmcft, require billion cubic feet instead. Also pretty bad: 1. As far as I can tell, few WP:RS about the subject use that unit. Wikipedia would basically introduce its own unit for capacity of dams in India. 2. The word "billion" may be ambiguous. 3. There is no common abbreviation, we'd have to write "billion cubic feet" every time. See the example in #Tmcft above. 4. Editors and readers have to understand that Wikipedia's "billion cubic feet" is supposed to be a synonym of tmcft used in WP:RS. Confusing. 5. Won't work. See option B.

D. Let {{Convert}} handle tmcft. Clearly the best choice: 1. Simple and clear for editors and readers who are familiar with the unit. 2. Readers who are not familiar with the unit (e.g. because they're not from India) can ignore it and read the SI unit data produced by Convert. 3. All editors and readers can easily use and verify information in WP:RS.

Another disadvantage options A, B and C have in common: It would be difficult to explain why the English Wikipedia allows (and converts) all kinds of US- and UK-specific units (and many other subject-specific units), but not an India-specific unit. It would look like we have a Western bias.

— Chrisahn (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the great summary Chrisahn, I support option D. Keep in mind that double conversion for tmcft will be desirable, eg "tmcft (m3; acre.ft)". I know it is messy, but it will satisfy WP:V, SI readers and Americans. I don't ever see a need to spell out "thousand million", the first instance of tmcft would be linked if someone is curious.

The double conversion concept is not unique. In Australia megalitres (ML) is used by water authorities and newspapers for dams, see Wivenhoe Dam (the Reservoir infobox section and article prose).

I don't believe the MOS has guidance on the conversion choices and imperial gallons is an interesting one there as a result. Commander Keane (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Wivenhoe Dam I suppose the MOS dictates that the first usage is spelled out in all cases, so my remark about that above is incorrect. Commander Keane (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Spelling out the first use of tmcft in the text seems reasonable. (But not in the infobox, I think. Not enough space.) — Chrisahn (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

What should {{convert|123|Tmcft}} display? Do you really want "123 thousand million cubic feet (3.5 km³)"? That is the question for MOS. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

No, it should generally be "123 tmfct (3.5 km³)". Only the first occurrence should be spelled out. (Or maybe the first occurrence should simply link to tmcft instead of spelling it out. Might be nicer for online use. Doesn't work well though for offline use, e.g. printed.) — Chrisahn (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, with a few decisions I could add the unit as a trial for people to try to see how it works. However, while tmcft is used at Tmcft, a couple of comments above seem to want "thousand million cubic feet". If not that, would the name be "tmcft" or "Tmcft"? Another decision is whether the code (what is entered in {{convert}}) should be "tmcft" or "Tmcft". Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

"tmfct" seems to be most common. I've never seen "Tmcft" in the sources. "TMC", "tmc feet" and other variants are also used, but less frequently than "tmcft", if I'm not mistaken. Sources: A few dozen random articles from these Google results: site:thehindu.com reservoir, site:deccanherald.com reservoir, site:hindustantimes.com reservoir, site:indiatimes.com reservoir. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd say Convert should produce "tmfct" with abbr=on and "thousand million cubic feet" with abbr=off. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, the {{Convert}} template should support tmcft. This is the only option that promotes consistency among articles as well as readability for locals, experts and internationals. Chrisahn has laid out this reasoning in more detail in his option D in the previous response. The template should by default convert to the SI unit cubic meter and to nothing else (e.g. no acre-feet).

Joe vom Titan (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I think a US default conversion will be required. US readers are internationals. Looking at the previous discussions, the readability for locals is not valued if those locals are Indian.

There are particpants that have made article edits so that only Americans can understand the units and said they want to relegate tmcft to the history books, but Wikipedia is writen using history books and this unusual abbreviation will be encountered.

123 tmcft (3.21×10⁹ m³; 1.23×10¹¹ cu ft) could be the default.

I am still hoping that worldwide readers will be able to understand Srisailam Dam with conversions one day.

With no {{convert}} support are we looking at 1.23×10¹¹ cu ft (3.21×10⁹ m³) everywhere, with the first usage spelled out as "billions"? This is not terrible, but I am worried about editor uptake and verifiability if exponential notation is not natural for all. Commander Keane (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It's completely unnecessary to convert to cu ft simce that is almost the same unit. We have the Systeme International for international readers; in articles with subcontinent subjects there is no need to cater to Americans specifically. If we did that, we should convert all American dam articles to tmcft to keep things even. Joe vom Titan (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Screwing Americans isn't how Wikipedia operates and won't get this RfC passed.

It is about most people being able to understand what tmcft is. Wikipedia has to cater for the majority. We don't try to cover everything due to avoiding a ridiculous number of distracting conversions and no excellent software solution.

Most people understand metres and feet. Sources are using tmcft.

I am sure some Australians would better understand megalitres (not SI) on American dam articles, Indians tmcft, Americans might like gallons or acre-feet, some media like number of Olympic swimming pools. I have been wondering what people in the UK would better understand.

Tmcft and cu ft are the same unit and it is an odd situation, but we need a workable solution. Commander Keane (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I had a random thought that an option would be to render {{convert|123|Tmcft|abbr=on}} as "123×10⁹ ft³ (3.21×10⁹ m³)" and {{convert|123|Tmcft}} as "123 billion cubic feet (3.21×10⁹ m³)". Verifiability will have to be done by viewing the edit box but it will be easy for editors to write articles. I am not sure how this works in VisualEditor. However, looking at Hoover Dam exponential notation is not welcome. What about {{convert|123|Tmcft|abbr=on}} as "123 billion cu ft (3.21×10⁹ m³). I would say "billion" is not ambiguous in current times, thousand million developed historically. All solutions are messy it seems, but some sort of {{convert}} support would be good.--Commander Keane (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Comparable values

Regarding Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, does "near one another" include in the same sentence, for example "a total of 10 people were rescued, 35 bodies were recovered, and [four or 4] people were missing", or is the guidance meant for values separated only by commas? Celjski Grad (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

There's some judgement involved but the same sentence and generally even the same paragraph would count as near.  Stepho  talk  10:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

l would think that in the actual article under discussion, Sinking of the Wonder Sea, the preference would be to spell out the occasional large number, if mixed digits look jarring. Qwirkle (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

That article currently contains this paragraph:

By 17:00 on 19 July, 10 people were rescued; seven by border guards and three by local fishermen. The number of initial survivors rose to 12, of whom 2 died later after being hospitalized, while the death toll reached 28, including 8 children.

The choice of words vs. figures seems rather haphazard. My personal preference in this case would be to spell out all one- or two-syllable numbers, i.e. up to twelve, and write only 28 in digits. But I must admit my choice is only partly based on policy. I just think it would look better. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

These should all be spelled out, and BTW under no circumstances should text like on 19 July, 10 people ever appear in an article. EEng 20:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Do you think twenty-eight should also be spelled out in this case? — Chrisahn (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. To be clear, it's a judgment call about what will read most smoothly. EEng 21:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

For that text, I would have used all digits. But I look at numbers all day. Either way is fine and both are quite readable to the general population - just be consistent.  Stepho  talk  01:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

De gustibus non est disputandum. EEng 02:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Anybody says a word about Gazondom and I’m shutting it down. Qwirkle (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)