Talk:Saanich

Abbreviations in prose

My own preference, since our print version is also important and people may wish the printed version to be compact/economical, is always to favour brevity over prolixity where it does not compromise intelligibility.

However, it's also important to recognise that there are other viewpoints and not to unnecessarily copy-edit other editors' words when they are expressed in a style that is both unambiguous and commonly recognised.

I feel that to write (in an edit summary) that "No-one thinks that numbers this large should be written out" is an exaggeration.

For example, the Wikipedia Manual of Style would recognise the phrase: "With a population of over one hundred thousand," as valid since it states:

• When expressing large approximate quantities, it is preferable to write them spelled out, or partly in figures and part as a spelled‑out named number; e.g. one hundred thousand troops may be preferable to 100,000 troops when the size of the force is not known exactly;

Wikipedia is not a lone voice in this approach to approximations:

• Spell out an approximate number if it can be expressed in a few words.
• Nearly a thousand, half a million, about four hundred

is what the University of Montana School of Journalism and North Idaho College teach.

The venerated Chicago Manual of Style (9.2-4, 9.8) has a different approach to the Associated Press in this regard:

• Spell out whole numbers up to (and including) one hundred (e.g., zero, one, ten, ninety-six, 104).
• Spell out whole numbers up to (and including) one hundred when followed by "hundred," "thousand," "hundred thousand," "million," "billion," and so on (e.g., eight hundred, 12,908, three hundred thousand, twenty-seven trillion).

I see no reason to change the current "With a population of over 100,000," back to "With a population of over one hundred thousand," but equally I do think it's important to recognise that there are genuinely held differences of opinion on this topic and it may be premature to say that somebody who differs is trolling... --210.246.33.93 00:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Other Updates & Content

I have no definite opinion about the abbreviations as discussed above. My gut reaction woulod be to aim for readability, especially since we're talking about content that most people won't spend too much time on anyway.... Right now, I'm trying to find more content to add. Thanks for correcting some of my errors, by the way. I'm using a small netbook computer and the keyboard isn't what I'd like. It will have to do since I'm away from home, in the Saanich area, as it happens. Dave.mcc (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, wv:abbr is a boring and trivial topic for most folks, but you should know by now that I mostly do copy-editing, Dave, and it certainly rankles when some people that should know better seem to flip-flop in first wanting well recognised abbreviations spelled out in full in prose (such as km/kilometres/kilometers for distance measurements & m/metres/meters for heights) and then come in and needlessly change prolix formulations in prose.

It's very easy to make typographical errors on screens of all sizes and I certainly welcome Ikan Kekek correcting the errors that I make very often - I also often work on tiny devices and I'm thinking of getting bifocals... 118.