Wikivoyage talk:Measurements/Archive 2004–2013

Metric? Imperial? or both?

Moved from Project:Travellers' pub by (WT-en) Evan

So, I'd like to start a measurements formatting guideline for the manual of style. The main issue, I think, is metric versus imperial measurements.

I think we're going to have to give both: "It's 15 mi. (24 km) to the next village...", but I'm wondering which should go first. Our spelling guideline is to use American spelling for consistency. This suggests one of two courses: we use imperial (American) first for consistency with that, or we use metric first for fairness and just because overall it's a better system.

Comments? --(WT-en) Evan 13:36, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I think whatever is locally used should go first, and then the alternate should be in brackets. The reason is that the local used one is likely to be the 'official' measurements for things and the other is just an approximate conversion. I also think the conversions should be soft conversions. IE if something is approximately 15miles then the soft conversion (given that we are probably talking about 15 miles +/- 2 miles 25 km is a good approximation of that). However, if something is 15.0 miles then we would call it 24.1km. The conversion should not imply a higher degree of accuracy than really exists. -- (WT-en) Webgeer 13:49, Sep 27, 2004 (EDT)

Agree with you totaly, Webgeer. Driving a rented car in the USA means thinking in miles. Vice versa in the rest of the world. -- (WT-en) Hansm 14:07, 2004 Sep 27 (EDT)

Like Webgeer, I think the local standard is the most important. I mean, it'd be nice for us Americans to have all the French distances written in miles, but does it really do us any good? If we don't understand kilometers, we're going to be in a world of hurt reading road signs and reading the speedometer. Likewise, anyone visiting the US should plan on having a basic understanding of milage (i.e. 100km=60m, 100km/h=60mph). (Must. Resist. Urge to make fun of measurement system in which you cannot simply divide by the second prime number). -- (WT-en) Colin 14:15, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

So, I think I suggested that both imperial and metric would be listed. The question is which comes first. I'm very, very resistent to having local rules, and I'm much more interested in global ones. Is there a reason that "15 mi. (24 km)" would be useless in France? Or that "24 km (15 mi.)" wouldn't work in the USA? I think both are perfectly usable, but I'd prefer to do one universally. --(WT-en) Evan 14:29, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Yes, having a universal rule for which comes first is a Usability Issue. A guide should provide the Most Usable number first. Consider four cases of usage:

• A Eurpoean travelling in Europe and we print metric first. Reading our guides is easy and natural.
• A European travelling in Europe and we print miles first. Each time the traveller looks for a distance, he reads it, and then says "doh! not that number! I need the one in parenthesis!". A hardship with no purpose.
• A European travelling in the US, and we print miles first. While the traveller may sometimes consult the kilometers translation in parens to double check his math, he will be mostly paying attention to miles anyway. He has to deal with miles on signs, miles per hour on the speedometer, so he's getting used to this whole miles thing even though he thinks it's pretty stupid.
• A European travelling in the US, and we print metric first. Whenever he reads the guides, the traveller mostly pays attention to the metric and ignores the silly miles stuff. But he gets a headache from switching back and forth between the miles on his speedometer, the kilometers in the guidebook, and the milage on the road signs.

So yes, I would argue against even having a second distance standard in parens. But I don't care that much really. What I do really care about is that we use native-standard first. I object equally to using kilometers-first for the US articles, and using miles-first for European articles. -- (WT-en) Colin 17:10, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Worse than useless. I think if you were in France and asked someone for directions, showing your printed Wikivoyage France guide with miles first, you would get a serious beating -- and rightfully so! :) (And vice-versa in Rednecksville, USA.) Seriously, not putting metric first in the non-US world is a silly, awful idea. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 21:33, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Surely the compromise solution of listing both forms of measurement is the most practical.... - and why not resort to "local rules" / local usage for articles? "When in Rome....." (!) I tend to think that insisting on some 'universal' means of quoting measurements will only serve to niggle / alienate some contributors for no good purpose.... (Playing Devil's advocate: If we must select a priority 'universal' form, however, shouldn't we go for metric, as the system used most overwhelmingly widely and by the vast majority of the world's population?) As someone who was raised in metric, yet still speaks / thinks of himself as being 5ft 11" in height, I say: Let's go for the compromise + local rules! (WT-en) Pjamescowie 16:14, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Metric is clearly superior and should always go first. -- (WT-en) Mark 08:72, 6 Vendémiaire an 213 de la Révolution

To be serious though, I think this is a situation where we should sacrifice universality for usability, so I'm with Colin. Local is good for this one thing. My own experience is that when I am in Europe I think of temperature in metric, and when in the US in farenheit, but I really cannot do the conversion in my head. I know what hot and cold is.

I have to assume that driving speeds and distance are similar. So yes, please, let's sacrifice universality and consistency for this one thing. -- (WT-en) Mark 17:15, 27 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Evan, you're clearly in the minority on this one, and I will personally revert out any miles I see creep up outside the US. The traveller goes first, right? Metric is the worldwide standard, so kilometers alone shall suffice, but for the US X mi (Y km) should be used. Same goes for temperatures. And oh yes, for good measure I still object to the universal American spelling thing as well. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:21, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Before we get too carried away with puritanical zeal over this issue, can I ask please that nobody undertake blanket reversions for miles used in all contexts outside the USA? Rather, that we use the compromise of stating both metric and imperial (if you can't be bothered finding / doing the conversion, then someone else eventually will....), with priority given to local usage? It's not as simple as all that: the UK, for example, still employs miles for road distances on road signs, road atlases, etc. (for reasons best known to themselves) and such an approach will surely create confusion and aggravation. There may be other examples of this residual usage elsewhere in the world (anyone?)..... Let's be sensible here, effect a "traveller's compromise" and quote both, with respect to "quaint local customs" (such as retaining an outmoded system of measurements for everyday usage). (WT-en) Pjamescowie 01:50, 28 Sep 2004 (EDT)

In menues in Canadian restaurants I often see boottled beers measured in ml and draught beer in Oz. -- (WT-en) elgaard 08:23, 2004 Sep 30 (EDT)

First draft

So, taking into account the discussion above, I started a first draft of this document. I think I captured the consensus opinion, but please review.

One exception: some people seem to think that providing distances in miles or height in feet at all outside the US is wrong. I think that Americans traveling outside the US will be better served with converted units provided in parentheses; I don't see a good reason for omitting them.

Finally: I tried to take into account the improbable situation that a country uses neither metric nor imperial units, but I couldn't think of an example. If anyone can come up with one, it'd be appreciated.

Comments and criticisms welcome. --(WT-en) Evan 13:29, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

It looks great and is easy to understand the way you've described it. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:20, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Good stuff. I believe that reason and practicality has prevailed. I've just made a few corrections to British usage.... I know for a fact that some European countries also retain the 'pound' in various informal ways, but this probably won't affect the average traveller, so I'll not pursue this one.... (WT-en) Pjamescowie 16:38, 30 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Accuracy

I added a few words on the accuracy of measurements and made some minor changes to the examples so they show accuracy appropriately. -- (WT-en) Huttite 19:38, 2 Oct 2004 (EDT)

Populations

For example: "Population 32,207,113 (July 2003 est.)" from Canada. I dont think the exact number of canadians some unspecified day last summer is very interesting. Maybe "32 million" or "32,2 millons"

Populations always change, and are probably a year out of date if they are from a census. Also what population are you talking about, Resident Population, Visitors too? Those there overnight or there for the day? Statistians get awfully anal about this. I think the nearest million is enough, or 1 - 2 two significant digits in other cases. Enough to give an idea of size. Within 20% in other words. We should avoid decimal points and commas. - (WT-en) Huttite 20:18, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)

Digits or Words?

Should we express measurements in Digits (0-9) or Words?

My thought is we use Digits (0-9) and make this a recommendation. Here are my reasons for this suggestion:

• Numbers are easily translated.
• Numbers appear on signs.
• It is easier to match symbols.

-(WT-en) Huttite 20:18, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)

One thing that prompted me to make this an issue was (WT-en) an anonymous user made edits to Altiplano (Bolivia) that changed numbers into words. There are some arcane gramatical or style rules that suggest that numbers be written as words in text. One style guide I have suggests:

• Use words, not figures at the beginning of a sentence and for numbers one to nine. Otherwise figures should be used for numbers greater than nine, and they must always be used before a symbol.

I take this to mean that measurements should always be expressed as numbers, since the measurement unit is able to be expressed as a symbol. -- (WT-en) Huttite 21:57, 3 Jan 2005 (EST)

Uh-oh. It isn't true that the US uses the Imperial system. Check wikipedia. The clue is the term "Imperial" - it's a UK system. The US standard system is similar, but differs in some important respects. In the UK a pint is 20 fl oz, not 16. So, a pint of beer is going to be bigger than you might expect, and your tank won't hold as many gallons of fuel. You'll get more miles to the gallon, though! User:(WT-en) Ianeiloart

Capitalization

Starting from mega, the prefix symbols are capitalized. A tonne is a megagram, 1 Mg, and Charlotte is 7.3 Mm from Belo Horizonte.

The symbol for liter is either L or l. Originally it was l, since it's not derived from someone's name, but for typographical reasons L is allowed. Until the CGPM decides one way or the other, I think we should allow both.

The symbols for volt and hertz, which appear in electrical sections, have the first letter capitalized. -(WT-en) phma 20:53, 24 February 2006 (EST)

Conversions

I had no idea until today that we had a policy which states that measurement conversions should be provided in an article! There has been no action on this page for four years, and it seems to me that this policy is not being implemented at all. In all the star nominations I have seen or been involved with for example, not once has there been a request for a conversion of units to be shown in brackets after the local norm. I see this is also the case with at least some older star articles.

It seems that this is a policy which has fallen on hard times and nobody seems to miss it. In this day and age is there really anyone out there who cannot relate 5 km to a distance in miles, or vice versa? I would like to propose this need for a conversion in brackets is removed as a guideline. Thoughts?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 22:13, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Bump. Maybe it is just my tidy mind being over-obsessive, but I really would like to sort this out. Apart from anything else, if including conversions is still a formal formatting guideline, then we have a pile of star articles that do not meet the "perfectly formatted" criterion.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:15, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

I think it would be fine to strike that section. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 22:06, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Is there a consensus now to strike this? A user is adding style tags to the Lord Howe Island article, demanding compliance with this conversion thing. I understand when you say it is 800km from Sydney to Melbourne, than a conversion is a nice thing to have, but when I say it is 2 miles from the beach to downtown, a conversion is pointless, yes? --Inas (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to amend this section and have everything using just the SI system (with the caveat that a non SI system conversion may be stated afterwards in brackets for those limited areas of the globe - principally US articles - that use a minority system). That way our printed guides are shorter and it will be just those editors that feel the need to use miles and gills, etc that will need to provide those tedious conversions.

My position is simple and consistent. If policy is wrong or obscure it should be changed and clarified rather than flouted (or policy compliant edits reverted).

I suspect that there will be a lot of opposition from US based editors, if this policy change is widely canvassed, but here is my proposed policy change:

==Provide conversions when using non metric measurements==
Where the local system is '''not SI''' (metric), provide metric measurements in 
parentheses after the local, non-SI measurement.<br />

Don't repeat conversions unnecessarily.

===Accuracy===
There is no need to convert between units to the ''n''th decimal place. If you convert 
between units, only state the conversion to the same number of significant digits as 
the original measure. If you want to show decimal places or be more accurate than a 
single unit allows, consider going down to a smaller unit. Remember, these measurements 
are going to be used by travellers, not scientists.

I would suggest canvassing the proposed policy change down the Pub and at rfc.

Our "Examples" section will also need to be changed appropriately. -- Alice^✉ 23:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anything approaching a consensus to standardise on SI units, and I don't support it. My only point is in 99% of cases, no conversion between units is given in articles current - including our star articles. So, lets just scrap this policy. People can add conversions where they are necessary and useful. --Inas (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Since it is basically only the US and Burma that exclusively use non SI units, conversions will always be both necessary and useful for travellers in articles where non-standard units are used. My policy change would mean that, for example, your Lord Howe Island article would not need to provide conversions into the US system, but our Chicago article would continue to have to provide conversions into the (almost) universally used metric SI system. -- Alice^✉ (edit conflict) 00:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversions are almost always useful; I'd be fine walking the advice back a bit and saying that while conversions aren't required (and certainly not for every last measurement), they can be useful and should be considered for inclusion. Provide some examples of when conversions are necessary ("Mount Everest's peak is 8,848 metres (29,029 ft) above sea level") and when they aren't ("Horse-drawn carriages ply routes along the Magnificent Mile (1.6 km)"). Offer suggestions on best practices (significant figures, non-breaking spaces, abbreviations). No need to excise the section entirely. LtPowers (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we agree on the outcome. Perhaps I'm just hopeful that without a section saying that conversions are mandatory, people will continue to add them where they are useful. However, I'm happy to go with a set of examples along the lines you suggest. --Inas (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I condensed the conversions section pretty drastically and took out the "required" bit, which is not a practice we ever adopted. Does it look OK? --Peter ^Talk 02:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with that too. --Inas (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Did I miss a putsch here or something? Surely these pages are where we discuss changes to policy and reach consensus. Peter says conversion is "not a practice we ever adopted" but is he using the "Royal we"? I've worked on a whole bunch of articles where editors laboriously converted SI measurements into the US system because of what was written up as our policy for more than eight years until a few hours ago. If we are going to continue to feature the weird US and Burmese measurement systems in articles dealing with those countries, then I definitely think that a conversion will almost always be both necessary and useful for travellers in articles where non-standard (ie non-metric) units are used. The wording Peter arbitrarily just introduced (without widely canvassing the change first) is far too weak: "It's occasionally useful to provide conversions..." is just plain wrong from most non US travellers' perspective when encountering the hogsheads, cwts, bushels, gallons and tiny tons in our US articles and having to whip out a (perhaps non-existent) calculator. I thought one of our goals was that the print version matters? -- Alice^✉ 07:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are more important things to do than start a debating society on how to display measurements, abbreviations, etc. --Peter ^Talk 07:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So we're no longer a collegiate endeavour? You just make non-trivial changes to a long-standing policy effecting almost every article on the project without a debate and without canvassing opinions more widely and lengthily just because you think you can? I think I've seen this sort of attitude on another travel wiki... -- Alice^✉ 07:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I assumed you would be the only one to raise a fuss about my wording, which allows people to just use their own good sense in deciding when to provide a conversion.

As my impression is that your principal purpose here is to push trivial formatting changes in hopes of bogging people down in inane discussions, flaming people who don't play along, and generally trying to waste people's time and create drama, I tend to discount your objection. --Peter ^Talk 08:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems very off-topic at this page, but since you are an admin and bureaucrat I'll answer your ad hominem attack here where you made it: I don't accuse you of being a sockpuppet of IBobi even when you exhibit his characteristics. At the talk page you reference above, Frank told you the score very clearly and asked you a direct question - which you never dared answer. If you seriously think I'm his sockpuppet (or anyone else's) then:

1) I challenge you to ask a steward to run a checkuser on me

2) I stand ready to produce my passport(s), driving licence(s) and security passes - all with photographs in person to a named admin who will promise me confidentiality as to my family name and address etc after they have confirmed that I am not a German pensioner living in Glasgow! -- Alice^✉ 09:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There has already been a checkuser investigation into your account, which resulted in your being blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. --Peter ^Talk 18:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, getting back to the relevant topic here on this page, how about you remove the "occasionally" from your latest edit of "It's occasionally useful to provide conversions from local systems of measurements to the metric system." ? -- Alice^✉ 10:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

mm vs. cm for precipitation

The unit that precipitation levels are in should be mm, as it is much more commonly used than cm in this context. 96.45.9.28 23:44, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

I moved this over from Template talk:Climate, figuring this was the better place for a discussion. I'm in agreement with the anonymous user: centimeters are customary only for snowfall, but millimeters for both rainfall and combined precipitation measurements, the latter of which tends towards "rain equivalent" numbers for snow. The Big Wiki also uses mm in their standard climate template. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 02:02, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

I also agree. Besides that mm is pretty much the standard everywhere as far as I'm aware, whenever I see a precipitation level number, I almost unconsciously compare it with the 576 mm of rainfall my hometown receives annually, to get an idea of how much rain the number in the table represents. I guess there should be many other people doing this as well, so I'm in favour of switching to mm. – (WT-en) Vidimian 03:33, 2 October 2010 (EDT)

For reference, this change is now complete. — (WT-en) D. Guillaime 01:43, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Decimal marks/Delimiting

Decimal marks by country. Blue=Full stop/period ("."); Green=Comma (","); Red=Backslash ("/" with Eastern Arabic numerals); Grey=No data available

I don't see any discussion above regarding the use of a comma/period for decimal marks. I suggest the current policy is amended to reflect local usage (see map). There is a good amount of info about this available at "Decimal mark" on Wikipedia. If there is no particular local style, we can then default to the US-standard of using a period for the decimal point and commas for 1000s separators (which is the Wikipedia MoS style).

With regards to the WP MoS, the use of a comma vs. space to separate 1000s left of the decimal mark ("delimiting") is extensively discussed, with support of using either a comma or a template which inserts small gaps (as opposed to typing a space). On the other hand, I cannot find where the use of a decimal mark was discussed (there are over a hundred archive pages!). Since WV is focused on the Traveler's perspective, we have a little more freedom to use different standards on different pages based on their location and thus I think the MoS for decimal points should be based on local usage.

So to sum up what needs to be addressed:

• Use of decimal marker: full stop/period (".") or comma (",")

• Use of delimiting mark (separating 1000s): full stop/period (eg. 10.000.000), comma (ie. 10,000,000), gap (eg. 10 000 000), and apostrophe (ie. 10'000'000; sometimes used only for millions, ie. 10'000,000)

• Which countries will use which decimal mark (and should we have a list of countries explicitly stating which style to use or leave it to editors)

• Which countries will use which delimiting style and will this be limited to a gap, the opposite of the decimal mark (so comma when decimal mark is period), and will we also allow mixed delimiters when it is the local custom (ie. some Latin American countries use a comma in thousands place and apostrophe in millions—"10'000.000" is ten million)

AHeneen (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't mind what style we use as long as it's consistent here on the English version of Wikivoyage and does not change from article to article.

The current standard of using a comma to separate groups of a three digits before a decimal point ("thousands") and a full stop to separate integers from following decimals has been a long standing practice here on the English version of Wikitravel that forked to become Wikivoyage - presumably dating from its US founders - although only made explicit for the first time in February 2006: http://wikitravel.org/wiki/en/index.php?title=Wikitravel:Currency&oldid=213127.

However, this style is also prevalent in almost all the English language publications of these countries: Australia, Anguilla, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, China, the Cook Islands, Dominica, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jersey, the Koreas, Liberia, Malta, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Montserrat, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, the Philippines, the Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom and the United States of America.

It is widely used, especially by the educated elite and is officially sanctioned in Botswana, Cameroon, Eritrea, Fiji, the Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Samoa, the Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somaliland, South Africa, Southern Sudan, the Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu and Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Our current style has no official approval, but is widely used by the educated elite in Brunei, Cyprus and Malaysia.

The map you introduced from Wikipedia in your edit above is actually misleading in many areas of the world (since it depicts overall national practice rather than the national practice of English language publications in the country depicted). For example, South Africa is showing the prevalent practice adopted by the (mainly Afrikaans speaking) former apartheid regime and this was never the prevalent practice in English , Xhosa or Zulu publications. On the other hand, most of the former French, Portuguese and Belgian colonies of Africa retained the alternative francophone style of decimal separation using a comma and they should not be coloured grey - English language publications in those former colonies are rare and often follow the prevalent local ("continental") style of using a comma as the radix point.

I do think that using the "space style" (a "space to separate 1000s left of the decimal mark for separating") will be making a tedious editing rod for our own backs since frequent editors will be for ever having to go back to casual editors edits and add the " " which they either forgot to use or were (understandably) ignorant of. A nightmare!

Finally, for a travel guide and with one exception, much of this is only of marginal importance for Wikivoyage editors since, using the SI system, we will rarely cite most SI units in more than a thousand or more precisely than a whole number. That exception, of course is money and prices - which is where this discussion started. -- Alice^✉ 05:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No question. The only internationally correct format in English is 123,456.00. Pashley (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviations & other miscellaneous policy changes needed

1)Always abbreviate? This policy needs to be changed. While it is more visually appealing most times to abbreviate, there are times where it will look odd—namely, in prose or plural. For example, consider the following statements:

• Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867 by an act of the British parliament (making it younger by nearly 100 yr), and is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.
• Recorded Japanese history begins in the 5th century, although archaeological evidence of settlement stretches back 50,000 yr and the mythical Emperor Jimmu is said to have founded the current Imperial line in the 7th century BCE.
• The massive influx of money, administrators, troops, engineers, and forts to protect the capital during the war transformed the formerly sleepy capital into a busy urban center, set to grow for the next 150 yr into one of the nation's largest metropolises.
• After passing the lodge, you'll face a grueling 35° incline (versus: 35-degree) up to Wikivoyage Pass.

2)I'm not 100% for or against this idea, but, in line with US vs. Commonwealth English, we could allow for use of "sq" or "cu" for square & cubic measurements in non-SI units (eg. "sq mi" or "sq ft") to reflect common usage. This notion could also be extended to plural US units which are commonly suffixed with an "s" (namely "lbs" for pounds and "yds" for yards...brought up here & bottom of this discussion). On a related note, the common & proper metric abbreviation for kilometers per hour is km/h (not km/hr, if you follow current guidelines), the SI symbol for second is "s" (should we use "sec"), and the common abbreviation for acres is "ac" (should current policy to use "acres" be changed?).

3)Conversions. Current policy reads: [I]t's best to provide conversions for measurements into both metric and imperial, the two systems most widely used in the English-speaking world. Should that be U.S./Imperial units? When would it be appropriate to pick U.S. or Imperial when converting or can multiple conversions be appropriate/permissible? Example 1: "A-Z Rent-A-Car is the only rental agency in Wikivoyage city to offer the Honda Hybricar, with fuel economy of 3.8 l/100 km (74 mpg_-imp; 62 mpg_-US)." Example 2: Street vendors along Ocean Blvd are limited to selling alcohol in 500 mL (about .9 pt-Imp or 1.05 pt-US) or smaller containers. When is it ever appropriate to convert units to something other than a unit used in sale? Example: "Gas prices in the U.S. are around $3.00-$3.50/gal ($0.79-0.92/L; $2.50-2.90/gal_-Imp)."

4)We also need to consider the need for other minor style/formatting issues concerning numbers/measurements, such as when to hyphenate, proper use of multiplied/divided numbers, delimiting (see above discussion), different measures with the same common name (statute/nautical mile, short/long/metric ton, fluid/dry ounce, US/Imperial gallon), and much more. And just because a rule may apply to something that will rarely be used on WV, don't mean that it shouldn't be added.

Not that we need to/should follow Wikipedia, but their policy concerning the above issues is below. That said, the Wikipedia MoS Dates & Numbers policy covers a lot of topics we should add to the Wikivoyage Measurements policy.

• In prose it is usually better to spell out unit names, but symbols may also be used when a unit (especially one with a very long name) is used many times in an article. However, spell out the first instance of each unit in an article (for example, the typical batch is 250 kilograms ... and then 15 kg of emulsifier is added), except for unit names which are hardly ever spelled out even in publications for general audiences (e.g. the degree Celsius).
• Where space is limited, such as in tables, infoboxes, and parenthetical notes, and in mathematical formulas, unit symbols are preferable.
• When they form a compound adjective, values and unit names should be separated by a hyphen: for example, a five-day holiday.
• Values and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space. The {{nowrap}} template or the   character can be used for this purpose. For example, use 10 m or 29 kg, not 10m or 29kg.

• Exceptions: Non-alphabetic symbols for degrees, minutes and seconds for angles and coordinates and the percent sign are unspaced (for example, 5° 24′ 21.12″ N for coordinates, 90° for an angle, 47% for a percentage, but 18 °C for a temperature).

• When unit symbols are combined by division, use a slash to separate the symbols (e.g. for the metre per second use the symbol m/s, not mps) or use negative exponents (m·s−1). Exceptions include mph for the mile per hour, psi for pounds per square inch, etc.

• There should be no more than one slash per compound unit symbol (e.g. kg/(m·s), not kg/m/s or kg/m·s).

• The abbreviations sq and cu (e.g. 15 sq mi and 3 cu ft) may be used for US customary and imperial units but not for SI units. AHeneen (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

1) I agree that the "nutshell" current policy advice here is couched in too prescriptive and inflexible language. In fact, one of the current examples exemplifies exactly your point: "Just 2 miles (3 km) down the road in Glasgow you can get very good pints of beer." (although, personally I would prefer "Just two miles (3 km) down the road in Glasgow you can get very good pints of beer.")

I suggest we change to Consider abbreviating units, especially in listings

2) Again, I broadly agree. However the devil may be in the detail. eg we won't often need to use s, or sec or seconds in a travel guide and, if we do just an s may be confusing. However, if we change (1) above that will take care of that...

3) Fine. The US and Burma are isolated outliers in their systems. Suggested replacement text: "It's easier for travellers to understand measurements if they're converted to their own system - so provide conversions for measurements into both the metric (SI) and US styles.

If the preferred units are metric (SI), provide US conversions in parentheses after. If the preferred units are US, provide metric measurements in parentheses. If, for some reason, the local unit is neither metric nor US provide first metric, then US (separated by a comma) in parentheses, afterwards.

Don't repeat conversions unnecessarily."

4) Again, broad agreement. -- Alice^✉ 07:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite your alert in the Pub, it seems that either nobody else is interested or they all agree with us - so I'll go ahead and make the necessary changes. -- Alice^✉ 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nautical miles?

Do we need to include the abbreviation nm for nautical miles? -- Alice^✉ 08:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

While I can't really conceive of a situation where nanometers would be used on WV (maybe a description of a museum exhibit?), "nm" is officially the abbreviation for nanometers. Per w:Nautical mile#Unit symbol, the most commonly used symbol is M; while in aviation, the symbol NM is used. The symbol nmi is occasionally used. Since we can't have differing use depending on context (M in seafaring, NM in aviation), I think M should be used. This is mainly because the most common use of this unit will be in sailing (such as Get in#By boat sections) and for other navigation uses (say a polar explorer), M is also the international standard symbol. As far as aviation use, I don't really think there will be any instances where the need will arise to give instructions for pilots and travelers will be much more familiar with km/mi. So a listing would be "Paradise Island is about 100 km (60 mi, 55 M) or about a 45 min flight south of the capital." AHeneen (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I raised this issue here because "nm" was being used in our Palmyra Atoll article.

However, I do agree that it is only likely to be used very rarely and, because of the conflicting abbreviations (and because some of the abbreviations used for nautical miles, including "nm", conflict with other recognised abbreviations) my suggestion would be that it is ALWAYS spelt out in full.

If we follow our usual advice, the measurement in nautical miles would then be followed by first the metric conversion in km, then US in mi (separated by a comma) enclosed in the same parentheses, afterwards.

I'll go and change our Palmyra Atoll article accordingly... -- Alice^✉ 06:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Temperature ranges

How should a range of temperatures like 20s or 50s be handled? I guess this could be avoided by providing a specific range, but when writing prose in a climate section, "in the low 30s" looks better than 30°C-35°C. Which, by the way, brings up the other issue of whether to use 30-35°C or 30°C-35°C (I prefer the former). Consider the following statement: Summers are hot and humid, with highs in the low 90s and lows in the mid-70s. This looks a lot nicer (except there's no conversion and no units...obviously Fahrenheit, unless you're in Mordor) than the alternative: Summers are hot and humid, with highs around 90-95°F (33-35°C) and lows around 74-78°F (23-26°C). Any thoughts on how to handle these two issues? AHeneen (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly as you suggest -- Alice^✉ 06:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Alice, what are you agreeing with? And you edited while I was working out another issue:

Another idea would be to allow an exception and leave off units for the range with the "s" suffixed (not confusing, since we'd really only ever use F or C, and units used would be based on locale) and put the conversion in parentheses. Example: "Lows in the 30s (0-5°C) are common after cold fronts and there are usually a handful of lows below freezing each winter." Which, once again, brings up another topic: ranges involving negative numbers. How would, say, -5-0°C be handled? In this case, maybe units would be required after each value? Example: -5°C-0°C. Or using raised negative signs, eg. ^-10°C-^-5°C which probably need bigger negative signs (which would be burdensome for format editors and even more so for other editors) ^-10°C-^-5°C or minus sign ⁻10°C-⁻5°C or just use word "to" or "and". Example: "between -5°C and 0°C" or "Expect highs of just -15°C to -5°C". I think that a conjunction should be used rather than a dash whenever a temperature range involves a negative...much easier for editors than using supertext or even supertext minus sign or large supertext. AHeneen (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agreed with what you wrote at the time you added your signature and just a few minutes before I agreed and added my signature. And I also agree with your latest points.

As far as your latest point goes, I suggest that again we allow maximum flexibility in prose (eg "lows in the 30s" OR "lows in the 30's" OR "lows in the thirties") but suggest that a conversion in the form (-1°C to 5°C) be provided afterwards. Because of the difficulty you describe of distinguishing a range marking hyphen from a negative, I agree that we should use the (very slightly longer) preposition "to". -- Alice^✉ 06:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 

Presumably having been edited by the one user who adds tons of  s to articles sitewide, this article advises to always use a   between numbers and their units of measurement. That makes for a ton of HTML gunk that is meaningless and confusing to new editors. That to me seems like a disadvantage that outweighs the very small advantage of having to read a unit of measurement on the next line. Do others (obviously not Alice/Frank) feel similarly? If I'm alone in thinking this, is there a way for us to have a non-breaking space without putting HTML code right in the wiki markup? --Peter ^Talk 06:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Normally the wiki way would be to use a trivial template, but the result would probably be just as long (and "confusing"?). Also, some editors are intrinsically opposed to trivial templates proliferating willnilly.

If this is a real and pressing problem, it may be about to get a whole lot worse now that some prolific editors have started to use labour saving tools. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 10:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm undecided about whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Either way, the editing window is already scary so random HTML gunk can't make it that much worse. Bring on the Visual Editor, I say! James A ▪ talk 10:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is one of those rare occasions when Peter rather than Alice is more correct. I shall try and stop adding this type of "HTML gunk" - we do not want to discourage editors from adding useful content. The exceptions should probably be the A, m and V abbreviations for amperes, metres and volts which may look even more confusing or like typos if they're orphaned on a new line. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 10:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks really bad to have units of measurement on a separate line, I'd hate to give it up. I may be underestimating how confusing the HTML entities are, though. I guess I'd favor leaving it suggested but not required. LtPowers (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it discourages new editors a lot. It shouldn't be forced upon them when they add information, but as AWB searches for it automatically, I think it's worth having. Units of measurement on a separate line is bad for readers, which are probably just as important as editors. Globe-trotter (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it hopeless to want a character-based solution? Like — instead of — or & instead of &? Measurements are one of those really basic things we want non-tech savvy editors to be able to update. That sort of microedit is/should be a great gateway to learning more about wiki editing, and it would be a shame to drive away potential contributors (to wikis in general, not just ours) with an inscrutable bit of code right in the middle. --Peter ^Talk 19:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I fear it is. And it is indeed a shame, for precisely the reasons you state. However, make a plea in the Pub. Perhaps we'll find a miracle worker in there. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 21:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Conversions in prose

The dog sat on the tuckerbox, nine miles (14.5 km) from Gundagai. I believe it has always been the case here than we don't convert or abbreviate units used as prose, where the actual measurement isn't key to understanding, and it just serves to interrupt the flow rather than add meaning. --Inas (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That certainly seems like an obvious corollary of our tone policy. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 23:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Excessive detail

As I see it, this article is far too long & detailed.

The current text gives abbreviations for various units that are not widely used — peck, bushel, hundredweight and gill — and I'd say deleting those is a no-brainer. There are also a lot of units like cubic mm that I cannot imagine using in a travel context. Why are they given?

Also, why the prescriptive stuff? There is some excuse for "Note: Never use quotation marks (' or ") to signify feet or inches." since some readers might not know that use of those symbols. I see no reason at all for "Note: Never use centigrade to mean Celsius!". Pashley (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Much of the length and complication is caused by having to deal with (at least) two systems of measurement and the criteria for choosing between them and conversion advice. While we have at least two systems, it's difficult to see how this MoS page can be substantially shortened. At least it follows best practice by (generally) having the most applicable stuff first, followed by rarer advice and then exceptions to the general rule.

It could be simplified if we did a U-turn on our general advice and said we have a mild preference for NO space between the amount and its units. As well as having tiny SEO benefits it would get rid of the problematic HTML entity and advising about wv:aou. What would we lose (apart from some ampersands and nbsp;s) ? --W. Frank^email_talk 23:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well lets start by removing the peck and the gill, and see where that takes us? It would be a little ridiculous the use those units in the first place, and even more to abbreviate them if we did. --Inas (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that simple and short is best where abbreviations are concerned - otherwise why bother?

After going back and re-reading some of the policy pages after my long absence, I feel a bit miffed that I did not find this proposal before I added "a ton of HTML gunk that is meaningless and confusing to new editors" with this edit. I do so agree that we should do a U-turn on our general advice and now write instead that we have a mild preference for NO space between the amount and its unit. The only people I've seen disagree are those that blithely ignore the fine points of our MoS anyway, and can't be bothered to add those pesky non-breaking spaces! Alice.

Alice, do you include me in the people you are referring to in your last sentence? By the way, welcome back. Where have you been all this time? Nurg (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No, of course not, Nurg. Right from the very first days of Wikitravel, you have always been punctilious (if not to say pedantic) in the finer points of grammar and our style guide. I thought you knew a team from SIA had been assigned to help with Typhoon Yolanda? --61.29.8.41 02:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case you may have not seen that I'm in favour of keeping the preference for having a space. (Sorry, if I did know about the SIA team, I forgot it.) Nurg (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't. Since you wrote there that "the policy does not express a strong preference, let alone a rule" would you strenuously object if we shortened the policy in the way proposed? ie change to We have a mild preference for not separating the number from its associated unit, but:? I'm really sick and tired of going around inserting non-breaking spaces and I'd like instead to just delete ordinary space where nobody has bothered to insert the non-breaking space HTML. -- Alice^✉ 02:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have stated my opinion that we should not change the policy in that way. Nurg (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

mL

Current text says to always use capital 'L' for liters. I've never seen that before, and would consider lowercase 'l' standard. If I had seen "mL" in any article except here, I'd have immediately corrected it to "ml". To my surprise, Wikipedia says both forms are acceptable.

Checking further, I find 'l' was the original 1879 abbreviation but 'L' was added 100 years later. I guess I am just out-of-date. Still. I think the prescriptivity should go. Pashley (talk)

I've always heard capital 'L' should be used for liters. Given Wikivoyage uses a sans-serif font, I think mandating the capital is prudent. LtPowers (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@Pashley, LtPowers: mL is what they use in the United States, and ml is what they use in the United Kingdom. I believe this wiki uses American English. 82.3.185.12 09:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)