664:
delete it myself as I was on useability patrol not PoV patrol). If I'm reflexively reverted on this cleanup spree, I urge others to actually look at the changes I made and reintegrate as many of them as possible without a flame/revert war ensuing, especially a) the reduction of utterly pointless geekery and organizational name tossing, and b) the much more consistent language so that we always know precisely what set of units is being discussed in what clause. There were many other clarifications and grammar/wording twiddles as well. I.e., it would be a mistake to revert the lot because someone disagrees with three details of the 50-something-detail overhaul. —
633:
either a) government incompetence, b) bad programming, or c) (most likely, really) that the points of measurement were different, e.g. from the furthest possible point to still be considered "on target" to the opposite furthest point, vs. the exact inverse of that determination. The underlying question is necessarily an approximation anyway, because we are not talking about geometric points, but landmarks. How far is it from my house to the mall? You'll get at least as big a variance as you are seeing in your data if you consider "my house" and "the mall" to be the center points of each, or the property boundaries of each on the inner side of the measurement. —
1265:(2), intolerant of current, which is irrational: There isn't anything special about content "X" just because it is parentheses; for example "(Jones ain't gonna play in the 2007 championship)" is unacceptable inside parens as outside; parens do not magically transform the nature of the content inside them in any way. Furthermore, we have longstand principles elsewhere that the first occurrence of an acronym, or another form of shorthand, is given in full. And other concerns. The point is, the current text is conflicting with standard WP practice. —
2660:. Writing "4x4" for "four-by-four" actually helps disambiguate, for actual measurements, "4 in x 4 in", the space would be required, so maybe just say "use spaces", period. My main thrust with this was that x="by" and ×="times" are not the same thing and shouldn't be confused. It's another one of those things, though, that if the MOS recommends something wrong, people will just ignore it, and MOSwarriors will use AWB to "fix" it, and people who know it is wrong will revert that, etc., etc., and people will fight over something trivial. —
346:. And this has nothing to do with "web style" whatever that might be. It's simply modern style. The argument you present is essentially the same for sub-scripting numerals like "3" and "9" because that is how typefaces in the eighteenth century printed them. We don't use "older books" as our style guide mentors for a reason. What was considered good style in 1872 often is not what is considered good style today (or rather "to-day" if we were going by "older books"). —
304:
that has fortunately be given the finger by WP, and is on the decline offline as well, but not fast enough for my tastes; or using curly quotes in print, and to my chagrin more and more online, which add no functionality/disambiguation at all, just because they look "pretty". 2) Percentages are not actually a unit of measurement, but rather a phrase; it's simply latin for "out of each one hundred" – "2%" is simply a funky abbreviation for "two
42:
437:
e.g. regarding ligatures.) Non-breaking spaces are harder to enter than normal or no spaces; thin spaces (breaking or not) are not only harder to enter, but also are not that well supported (not as bad as few years ago, but still not well enough). The pragmatic approach therefore is no space between a number and a percent sign – some argue the same way for other symbols, like ‘kg’ – or between dots and letters in abbreviations (e.<
2540:. The former are dimensions (among other things, as in automotive usage), not mathematical formulas or formula fragments. If I smack you in da head wit' a big chunk o' wood, that headache generator was a "two-by-four" (if you were lucky; could have been a 4x6!), a "2x4", which is not spaced and uses a normal "x", not a "two-times-four", which is "2 × 4", spaced and with a different symbol. Don't confuse math and phrase. —
2636:. Find it, SMcC? They're just after the big black word "Insert". Now, I understand the distinction you've made, which is going to be hard for many readers to understand. But I agree that the distinction is worth making if there's consensus to adopt it. Three issues: (1) is it established usage, and does any other authority suggest its use?, and (2) it's a very bunched-up look, (3) does
1433:
the advantage of not altering line spacings, and copy-pastes better than an ordinary superscript. I'm curious, do you mean you cannot read it because it is too small, or because it does not display correctly for you? As for the question of superscripts, I would like a little better definition of what is being discussed. All superscripts on units, or only on non-metric ones? —
1481:
symbols) be used. Therefore, I think that it is best to contrast between systems, e.g. {{sq mi to km2|10|abbr=yes}}, {{convert|1250|sqft|m2|abbr=on}}, 10 cu yd (7.6 m²). I also think that because these are the most commonly seen ways of abbreviating imperial and metric units, it would be easier to gain consensus for this proposal than trying to
450:
replaced for different reasons. A major obstacle to general improvement are standardised keyboard layouts which seem hard to change. Previously it also was encoding and font availability, but at least the former has mostly gone with the advent of UTF-8 (the reasonable mapping to
Unicode), the latter varies.
930:
The binary prefix section was mired in a ferocious dispute for 6 months and had just become stable. I was concerned that the technical errors would start another dispute. I only voiced my concerns on the talk page and not by editing the main page. I asked
Fnagaton to look at the binary prefix section
819:
You removed the fact that the historical prefixes were an official standard. For the past two years this style guideline has portrayed the choice between common usage and the "standard" prefixes. The choice is between the previous standard and a new standard. The guideline should say the industry is
768:
Earlier version of this style guide implied that the traditional binary prefixes were haphazardly chosen by conniving marketers and slipshod engineers. That is not the case; the traditional binary prefixes were codified in ANSI/IEEE standards. The standards originations have attempted to convince the
2875:
Forgive my questioning attitude, please: convince me that these templates are useful in the normal scheme of things. Isn't it easier to simply type the date? Will other editors know how to use them. (Mostly not, I think.) And do the templates work with IE 6? And since the subsection goes to pains to
2613:
Oh, duh. I was looking below that in the "Symbols" section. I don't see the point of having two lines of click-to-insert symbols, myself. Honestly, I really don't use that thing down there at all; I have a menu bar popup widget that lets me insert characters into whatever field I'm in in whatever
1547:
SandyGeorgia notes above that the superscripted characters are too small to read on her screen, and I find that when I load IE (with basically all default settings, at a reasonable text size) they are in fact quite hard to read. Restricting editors to use only that way of writing superscripts would
332:
well that's not resolved: I was not aiming at something may be called "web-style". I think we try to come nearer to the good style of printing nice books. And if you take a look to older books, then you will see that there are mostly spaces in front of the %. Even better - the wikipedia now supports
303:
Less flippantly, there are two not necessarily conflicting ways of looking at this: 1) It's simply a typesetting convention like putting end-punctuation inside quotations even if it doesn't belong to the quoted material, an incredibly stupid and annoying
American habit (I can say that; I'm American)
1480:
use the superscripts because they are rarely encountered with the superscripts (outside of wiki, anyway). Whereas, metric/SI units are commonly encountered with the superscripts. In fact, NIST and SI handbook prescribe that only the superscript way of showing these abbreviations (actually they're
1337:. I didn't want to fiddle with the requirement for converted units; I suspect that the rationale for abbreviating in every instance, including the first, is that the foregoing main unit and value and the parentheses are sufficient highlighting for even the dumbest reader to realise that a converted
445:
I think it still is the best approach for
Knowledge (XXG), being mostly read in web browsers, to omit the space before ‘%’ and ‘°’ (with ‘′’ and ‘″’), but if this was primarily a seldomly edited print product non-breaking thin spaces would probably be preferable. They are both representing units of
1432:
That particular page uses an unusual character that is a superscript 3 (³), rather than making a superscript out of an ordinary 3 (), which is a fairly unusual way to go about it. The special character (which is available under "Symbols" in the Edit Tools box below the page-editting box) does has
839:
The opening sentence is totally wrong. The historical prefixes are not the current IEEE prefixes. That is what the conflict is about. The style guideline from before your current edits is factually correct. Your current wording is not. You should have proposed your changes on the talk page before
449:
This is not at all saying we should embrace technical limitations as “modern style”, because typography is about readability, i.e. aiding the readership. We’re in a transitional phase where recent common tools slowly approach the utility of traditional professional ones, which they already largely
861:
I have corrected the opening and reduced the waffle. The guideline is not the place to have a history lesson, that should be for articles instead. I've also clarified the section about consensus because it was misleading and added confusion by mentioning both types of prefix in the same sentence.
632:
The difference is so insignificant I could run that distance in under a minute. Just approximate. That's what we have to do when we have two "reliable" sources that differ in their calculations. Just average the distance and call it "approx. x.yz". NB: I suspect that the cause of the error is
436:
What some may call web-style is indeed a result of (partially just perceived or previous) technical restrictions, a successor to typewriter-style that brought us straight quotes and apostrophes among other ugliness. (Any print text actually makes a lot of compromises compared to handwritten text,
1942:
on this issue. The problem really only comes up with
English measures and the sense of the earlier discussion was to discourage decimalizing them because of the problem of “false precision”. Certainly 2.75 in isn’t a problem since it’s a nice, neat conversion, but when you get to 2-3/8 it gets
762:
In the late 1990s various standards organizations defined new units that were codified by the IEC. These new units clarify the difference between decimal and binary but have not been adopted by the vast majority of the computer industry. In 2005 the IEEE recommended using the IEC units but even
663:
I changed any facts or nuances about where things stand right now, or balance (though I note a very challenging HTML comment in there from a GiBi-booster that should probably come out (not only because it's PoV-pushing, but because extended commentary on rationales belongs on talk pages); didn't
2071:
Exact opposite opinion as Jimp; many do in fact write "2-3/4"; this has been standard style since long before I was born. The unicode fraction are an accessibility problem for many (I don't just mean screen reader; they are so small that many cannot read them even with their glasses!), and the
1723:
I don't think "feet squared" (and similar expressions) are all that common in WP, but I could be wrong. They aren't hugely common in
English, to begin with. 3 meters squared would be 9 square meters, or 9 m. The exponent indicates the unit is squared, not the unit and the quantity. —
1915:
All things being equal, 2.75. Is there some particular case where fractions, improper fractions, or mixed fractions are preferable for some reason? Unless that is extremely common, I would say it is enough to say "avoid fractions unless you have a good reason" and be done with it. —
1252:(1) It's nothing to do with laziness; it's from the reader's point of view. (2) No one is suggesting compulsion—just permission if (as always implied) there's consensus among contributors to an article, and usage is consistent within it. Can you revisit your comment in this respect?
992:
I'm keen to implement the draft soon at MOS and here: it's taken a lot of my time and I have to get on with real life. What we have is an immense improvement on the existing situation. However, there are a few remaining issues. I'm calling for prompt, definitive feedback on these.
2885:
They are actually getting a lot of buy-in in infoboxes. It's not such much whether J.Q. Editor will use them, but people who care about microformats will, with AWB. And some of us (my hand is raising) do it manually when editing anyway. I don't think MOS should tell people they
752:
In the 1950s, K was used for 1024 as in 8K words. By the 1970s, kilobyte (KB) and megabyte (MB) were common as binary units. In 1986 the IEEE (and ANSI) codified the computer industry's usage of binary units. In the 1990s several more standards affirmed the usage. The IEEE 100,
532:
wants to use the trip planning software to calculate intermediate distances to exits, but I don't think it's valid, because a primary source that measures its own roadways disagrees with a third-party source that has numerous places in the process that errors can enter.
2782:
rather than the mulitiplicadtion sign, but we've all been compromising in this overhaul.) It does say only that it's "acceptable", after talking of the real multiplication sign (which below is billed as spaced). So I'd say it's not wrong to write
118:
It would be great to have a source, why there is no space between a number and the % - as far as I know, in good typesetting there should be a small space - so a space is far better than no space. Well a source for that rule would be great. --
2800:
would write "64x64 pixels", Yankee style, but write in a math context "64–×–64=..." If I encounted "64–×–64 pixels", I wouldn't wig out. Might change it, but I wouldn't grumble in the process (and yes I would if I found "64x64=..." in a math
2106:
examples, and the numerator ‘5’ could be a ‘3’ for all I can tell. The {{frac}} template seriously messes up line spacing. The hyphen – with no spaces – has long been the standard way to write mixed fractions, in my experience.
2395:
what VNEA is; the zeroless format is used in sporting broadly and generally (oh, and it is the Valley
National Eightball Association, which is doubly misnamed since it has branches in Europe and Australia now, and they also have
1285:
I have no problem with allowing the writing out of units with their first usage; it is consistent with the rest of our style guides and probably proper usage, if we think about it. However, should not the example for Option 2
1814:
1537:
function, which yields a huge superscript, making the lineage lumpy. MJC has used ... yes, it's there down the bottom, a little "2" superscript in the edit tools. Why not make this compulsory for 2 and 3 (not m but m²)?
377:
a modern style but just a workaround - and if the workaround no longer is necessary, it's a style of nescience (which definitly is the case with a lot of german writers) or maybe ignorance. (Not) By the way: even the
2658:, I'd wager, but I don't have it on my lap right now to be sure. Re: #2/#3 which seem to be the same question/issue, when referring to "four-by-four", the use of the mult. symbol as in "4 × 4" is simply "incorrect
689:(and if the binary prefixes article were heavily revised). Neither of those is likely to happen without stirring up a new, massive fight though; so finding a better phrase than "IEEE prefixes" will have to do. —
1123:
Waitaminit! I barely had time to sleep... (4) or (3). Option 4 is barely behind option 2 in acceptability level with my input counted, and one day is not long enough to gauge consensus on something like this. —
192:
I don't think so; Knowledge (XXG) is no longer a child, and is quite able to formulate its own style guide to suit its own unique mode, readership and functions. Please log on if you want to debate the matter.
283:(4th ed.) is silent on the matter, suggesting (as it is the most concise of the world-renowned style guides) that the matter has never been seen as controversial or even confusing enough to bother mentioning.
1293:"The bridge, only 10 metres (33 feet) across, stretched for 8 kilometres (5 miles) across the bay", and subsequently "The other bridge, only 5 m (17 ft) across, stretched for 10 km (6 mi) across the bay"
2640:
look bad, and will it be misunderstood in context? I ask the first question because, although WP is quite capable of making its own style decisions, I'd be less comfortable if we were "going it alone".
461:
features (or similar smart font techniques). They always belonged to the font and had not to be done manually by the typesetter. I’m actually reading WP with
Georgia as my default font which uses them (
1191:"The bridge, only 10 metres (33 ft) across, stretched for 8 kilometres (5 mi) across the bay", and subsequently "The other bridge, only 5 m (17 ft) across, stretched for 10 km (6 mi) across the bay"
778:, Seventh Edition, 2000 is a good example of the previous standards. If the Eight Edition uses the IEC prefixes, the industry may still follow the units that were defined in the Seventh Edition. --
105:
100:
95:
83:
78:
70:
1817:
concerning how we can more neatly express 27 m × 27 m. Aluvus, how then, do you express three square metres when it's abbreviated in brackets? (As opposed to 3 metres squared, or 9 square metres.)
2654:
style guides even recognizes any difference between "x" and "×", so the question is kind of moot. You won't find that even in a truly huge and comprehensive modern general-usage style guide like
2340:
number style guide and don't find mention of it. Also, I like the "and common usage" phrasing; oviates the need to keep adding exceptional examples every time someone thinks of a plausible one. —
2296:
I was trying not to sound US-centric, and expecting that baseball would not be the only sport to which this applied. Not sure it has to be specified, since no one else will use the 'concession'.
1872:
I'm not feeling that strongly on it either way. I was addressing more the possibility of if we "banned" sup for square footage/meterage, not to ban it for math usage. Moot point, I think. —
2034:
but none of that nonsense is necessary: we've got the tool box & the frac template. Note that the tool box is no good for denominators five, six, seven or anything greater than eight.
1239:
passage. Perhaps it's just the feeling of my old
English professor looking over my shoulder saying that if you use abbreviations in this manner it shows the laziness in your writings. —
1078:(2) or (4). I'm flexible, but I've gotten used to the no-dots look and it gives better consistency in appearance throughout ... not to mention that simple rules are easiest to remember.
890:
Right. Per
Fnagaton just above, I "should" have done just what I did, and you "should" have simply fixed any unintentional errors in it, instead of going on an on about it, SWTPC6800.
2787:
under the new wording, and I'd do that myself. But the bunched-up ex now acceptable; therefore, there's no grounds for complaint at the FAC page. Others please correct me if I'm wrong.
1701:
Thanks on the "cubitc"—done. Confused as to which term to use for the system; and as to whether sq ft and ft squared are an issue. 3 metres squared is 9 square metres, yes? And when
1052:(2) is my preference; (3) I could tolerate, but don't like the jarring of dot-free metrics and dotted conversion straight after; (4) would be better than (3); (1) is unacceptable.
1613:
OK, I'm updating the draft accordingly. Will avoid using the nice edit tool, and won't even mention it: surprised it's been included down there, frankly, if IE screws it up.
769:
industry to use the new IEC prefixes but the industry does not see a benefit and has stayed with the previous standards. Use of IEEE and IEC standards is strictly voluntary.
21:
2876:
say that, at the start of an article, the dates of birth and death shouldn't be tangled up with location (and presumably age at death, too, it confuses things, doesn't it?
2362:
They are used broadly in sports, so don't limit to baseball (though a batting average example would be familiar to most American and Canadian readers); for example my VNEA
1353:. It's only an option where contributors agree, and is intended for articles in which a unit is repeated again and again. See what you think when it's pasted into MOSNUM.
582:
This seems like a "no original research" issue. As much as your colleague would like to do better, this is primarily an instrument for reporting third-party information.
528:
and its talk page. The West Virginia Department of Transportation gives a length of 160.52 miles. But, when using trip planning software, the length comes out as 159.75.
604:
is primarily an instrument for reporting existing information, rather than new, fresh, original research (i.e., the results of which haven't already been published).
465:) and they are in general preferable in prose for their alignment wiht lowercase letters, but not in tables or code where a common or fixed width is recommended.
1648:
AND MORE: Should the subsection be called just "Unit symbols" rather than the current "Unit symbols and abbreviations"? MCJdetroit says that the abbreviations
379:
681:
Your changes imply (through use of the phrase "IEEE prefixes" and phrases like it) that the IEEE continues to endorse the use of decimal prefixes, which is
1043:
OPTION 4: (Tony-modified version of Option 3): no dots after metric abbreviations; dots after imperial units are acceptable, but dot-free is recommended
757:, Seventh Edition, 2000 is the most current one to defined KB, MB, and GB as binary units. This just recognizes the computer industry's common usage.
524:
All that I can find about precision deals with conversions and geographical coordinates. But what about precision in measuring? The specific case is
543:
So can you state your question in precise terms; unsure what we should be deliberating on—are you proposing that a new point be incuded in MOSNUM?
2861:
indicating the correct way to use them, and mentioning that they are required, if birth dates are to be included in hCards produced by infoboxes.
446:
dimension 1, which of course also applies to ‘rad’ for instance, and they are not made of letters, unlike ‘rad’. That is what makes them special.
774:
A rewrite should explain the benefits of the IEC prefixes and note that the historical prefixes were also codified in standards. The IEEE 100,
685:
especially true. I personally suspect the MOSNUM would be just as well off if that entire first paragraph were excised in favor of a link to
506:
Is this the source you are looking for? "When is used, a space is left between the symbol % and the number by which it is multiplied ...".
257:(subscriber link) specifically notes that no space should be used. Knowledge (XXG) is not at all alone in the way it handles percentages. —
1455:
I can't see it; too small. Can you fix it? That article appears on the main page next week, and the main editor is no longer on Wiki.
2435:
1144:
You're the only one, SMcC. Let's list this as an issue that needs to be resolved SOON. I'm keen to implement the text in MOSNUM alone.
2529:; "4x4", etc. do not mean "four times four" they mean "four-by-four"; in purely mathematical situations, the phrases are ultimately
1939:
1961:
There is a ¾ in the edit box along with a ½, a ⅓, a ⅔, a ¼, a ⅛, a ⅜, a ⅝ and a ⅞. So 2¾ can be entered directly. Otherwise, use
58:
27:
17:
2778:
is now the sole example for dimensional expressions in the text of MOSNUM (I'm unhappy about the visual appearance and the use of
373:
well ... what I wanted to say is, that because of the technical restrictions of the www a style may have established, which is
2464:
must not be used for a multiplication sign, which is rendered by clicking on the symbol in the edit tools below the edit box.
2901:
2880:
2869:
2791:
2768:
2742:
2733:
2709:
2671:
2645:
2625:
2608:
2584:
2551:
2520:
2468:
2450:
2411:
2386:
2377:
2351:
2320:
2300:
2291:
2276:
2238:
2223:
2188:
2171:
2152:
2116:
2093:
2058:
2049:
2013:
2004:
1952:
1933:
1909:
1883:
1866:
1846:
1837:
1821:
1788:
1741:
1718:
1709:
1696:
1668:
1617:
1608:
1580:
1565:
1542:
1507:
1489:
1467:
1450:
1427:
1406:
1357:
1324:
1308:
1276:
1256:
1243:
1230:
1203:
1164:
1148:
1135:
1116:
1107:
1087:
1073:
1056:
966:
955:
935:
909:
871:
844:
824:
806:
782:
738:
722:
706:
675:
644:
617:
608:
595:
591:
The thing is that it is third-party information: use the program and tell it to go from the beginning to the interchange. --
586:
577:
537:
514:
496:
486:
469:
419:
394:
368:
337:
319:
274:
234:
187:
176:
123:
408:
2614:
app, and I've used it for years, so I've never felt a need to learn a new and less functional way of doing that on WP. —
1928:
1736:
1664:
a huge difference between 15 square miles and 15 miles squared (= 15 mi × 15 mi). Should this distinction be mentioned?
1560:
1445:
701:
269:
727:
Done. Changed "IEEE" used as an adjective to "historical". Also, removed the combative HTML comment mentioned above. —
249:
using a numeral and percentage sign with no space in between. This is standard usage in all web copy; I cannot recall
2852:
2830:
747:
The historical binary prefixes should not be called IEEE prefixes. The rewrite reads better but it is factually wrong.
565:
215:
155:
2009:
I'm very happy to insist on the use of the edit box for fractions, and to ban the hyphen (2-3/4 yuck). How about it?
1858:
SMcC, you think it's worth cluttering the "Common mathematical symbols" subsection with a statement not to spell out
333:
automatic non-breakable spaces in front of the %. So please don't always argue with circle references. Greetings, --
1333:: all the same. The proposal is to allow the main units to be abbreviated as well, but only after first occurrence:
2485:
2266:
2039:
1994:
1686:
1598:
1097:
49:
960:
Thank you SWTPC6800. :) I also agree with SMcCandlish about the namedropping in the guideline, it was a bit much.
2102:
The Unicode fonts are indeed a problem on IE6. I can only make out clearly the denominators ‘2’ & ‘4’ among
1826:
Concur with MJCdetroit, and would also make it clear that superscripts are preferred in mathematical formulas. —
1183:
OPTION 1 (as now and in the new draft): spell out main values throughout, abbreviate converted values throughout
2281:
It is referring to baseball, not cricket. There would be very few batting averages in cricket between 0 and 1.
1572:
Well, IE gets in the way of a lot of improvements. I hate it. It wouldn't be a Bill Gates invention, would it?
2866:
1536:). MJCdetroit's entry here brings up another point: I'm continually irritated by the use of the <sup: -->
1179:
This has just been raised by SMcCandlish and has previously been supported by him and Tony, unsuccessfully.
1033:
OPTION 3: (SMcCandlish's proposal): dots optional after imperial unit abbreviations, but not after metrics:
1153:
Huh? I count 2 before me saying (4) would be okay. It's still out-!voted, so I'll let it lie this round. —
553:
399:
well, I removed the "resolved" with the unproofen claim -- even in the Knowledge (XXG) it's not clear, see
223:
Amen to that latter too, if I may get Wikipolitical for a moment. Anon editing, don't get me started... —
203:
143:
2764:
2604:
2516:
2446:
2219:
2168:
2148:
1463:
1423:
1226:
1069:
493:
1622:
Is this OK? "Squared and cubed metric-unit abbreviations are always expressed with a superscript number (
334:
184:
120:
2234:
2112:
1948:
1503:
1304:
1083:
840:
making a radical change. If the facts are wrong a revert to the previous stable version is in order. --
357:
10:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC) PS: If you still feel it is not resolved, then remove the "Resolved" tag. —
2438:, we find: Sprites can be 8x8, 16x16, 32x32, or 64x64 pixels, ... is that correct and is it covered?
2255:); an exception is made for performance averages in sports where a leading zero is not commonly used."
1777:
That one seems kind of silly to me. Who on earth is going to think that 3 m means 9 square meters?!? —
1652:
symbols. And thus, instead of "squared imperial-unit abbreviations, we have "squared imperial symbols"?
1842:
Isn't cubic feet often shorted to cu ft, not cubic ft? (Seriously confused about all the indenting.)
457:, they’re not only still common in typefaces they fit in, but are seeing a comeback currently due to
246:
2841:
2819:
2812:
The section "Dates of birth and death" should , I feel, make some reference to the four templates:
1188:
OPTION 2 (change in policy): allow (not force) abbreviated main values on subsequent appearances:
656:
2862:
2308:, when expressed in inches (as they often are), are also an exception here. It's always "caliber
867:
791:
Huh? This has already been fixed. A big long history lesson isn't helpful here. Please read the
343:
2247:
I've added to the point thus: "*Numbers between minus one and plus one require a leading zero (
492:
Wikimedia did that for the French, if you read the bug report closely. We have no need for it.
2757:
2597:
2560:
2509:
2478:
2439:
2288:
2212:
2141:
2134:
1456:
1416:
1219:
1062:
511:
2681:, which is input by clicking on it in the insert box beneath the edit window or by keying in
2573:
be there, under "Symbols", but I don't see it. No true-minus, division sign, etc., either. —
1036:"The bridge, only 10 metres (33 ft) across, stretched for 8 kilometres (5 mi) across the bay"
1026:"The bridge, only 10 metres (33 ft) across, stretched for 8 kilometres (5 mi) across the bay"
891:
2893:
2725:
2663:
2617:
2576:
2543:
2403:
2369:
2343:
2325:
Quite so; thank you. So check my addition of "an exception is .... and common usage such as
2230:
2108:
2085:
1944:
1922:
1875:
1829:
1780:
1730:
1576:
07:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC) PS Does it get in the way of the "frac" template suggested below?
1554:
1499:
1439:
1316:
1313:
Good point; I wasn't going to go there this round, but I've been thinking that all along. —
1300:
1268:
1212:
1156:
1127:
1079:
947:
901:
798:
730:
714:
695:
667:
636:
383:
360:
349:
311:
263:
254:
226:
168:
2595:
Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted.
2333:
2313:
895:
1495:
1486:
1240:
931:
which he did. I think the edits that you and Fnagaton made have improved the section. --
686:
561:
476:
Even better - the wikipedia now supports automatic non-breakable spaces in front of the %.
211:
151:
2714:
Yes, but for typo, "×". Fixing it would probably require a new sentence at "Do
1681:& do keep in mind that the imperial system & the US customary one are different.
2269:
2042:
1997:
1689:
1601:
1100:
932:
841:
821:
779:
507:
2124:
2076:
1965:
962:
864:
614:
592:
574:
534:
525:
2282:
1715:
483:
466:
454:
416:
404:
391:
2484:
which is really ugly on my screen): RAM is accessed at 3.072 MHz, with accesses
2569:
PPS: Where do you see the mathematical "×" in the stuff below the edit box? It
2456:
It's incorrect: well, it will be in 10 hours' time. Common mathematical symbols
2332:
I'd mention it here anyway; it may be convered with regard to article titles at
1917:
1725:
1549:
1434:
690:
382:
couldn't decide - but they did last year, as I have seen a minute ago: in their
258:
165:
Haw! Good one. I laugh longtime. Even if you are being at least half-serious. —
57:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2206:
Numbers between minus one and plus one require a leading zero (0.02, not .02).
1388:
OPTION 2 (change in policy): discourage superscript ("are normally written as")
1023:
OPTION 2 (as currently in the new draft): no dots after any unit abbreviation:
659:, in plain English that is parseable by someone without an EE degree. I don't
308:" which is a strictly speaking unnecessary Latinism for "2 of each hundred." —
2877:
2788:
2739:
2706:
2642:
2465:
2383:
2363:
2297:
2272:
2256:
2185:
2055:
2045:
2010:
2000:
1906:
1863:
1818:
1706:
1692:
1665:
1657:
1614:
1604:
1577:
1573:
1539:
1403:
1354:
1253:
1200:
1145:
1113:
1103:
1053:
605:
583:
557:
400:
207:
147:
2397:
2263:
2103:
2036:
1991:
1683:
1595:
1412:
1094:
682:
529:
2382:
Whatever VNEA is ... The current draft wording embraces this. Please sign.
2054:
Does IE screw up the frac template too? I don't have IE 6 to test it with.
1815:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured_article_candidates/Chicago_Board_of_Trade_Building
2317:
2209:
1843:
795:
version and explain briefly if you find anything still wrong about it. —
458:
479:
2890:
use these things, by any means. That's what gnomes and bots are for. —
2305:
2208:
Except batting averages, which are never written with a leading zero.
1705:
abbreviated, I'm presuming that these words are all fully spelled out.
944:
to the amount of geeky, off-topic detail and namedropping in it. :-) —
2756:
So, is the Nintendo example (above) correct, or does it need spaces?
412:
940:
Understood. I believe that the bulk of that swampy argument was due
711:
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but the IEEE thing is a good point. —
2774:
Good question; we don't agree on this as individuals. The unspaced
482:) -- just give it a try! Thanks for your comment and Greetings, --
390:-- great, that's new to me too, well and also my point of view! --
28:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 77
2316:
so I don't know if it needs to be mentioned in this guideline. --
1411:(2), the superscripts are often hard to read. I was just editing
1476:
I would say (as I did above) that only the imperial measurements
1415:
to prep for main page, and there is a superscript I can't read.
1862:? I'd have thought anyone writing such sumbols would know that.
544:
194:
134:
2650:
The problem with #1 is I don't think any authority outside of
2309:
1112:
I think, then, that (2) wins the day; no change to the draft.
388:
When it is used, a space separates the number and the symbol %
36:
1331:
8 kilometres (5 mi) across, then 16 kilometres (10 mi) across
1714:
What's the abbreviation for 3 metres squared? Is it (3 m)?
1548:
probably be an inconvenience to the majority of readers. —
1393:
OPTION 3 (change in policy): ban it ("are spelled out ..."
1855:
Thanks, CR7, will change (later: Detroit beat me to it.).
1630:); squared imperial-unit abbreviations are rendered with
253:
seeing a space inserted, in any web page. Additionally,
2632:
I hope IE 6 doesn't screw up the multiplication sign as
2336:, but people will be confused if they coming looking in
1329:
Well, no: I'm assuming that current policy is that it's
1813:(Outdent) Epbr123 is referring to a debate going on at
2184:
Then why don't we just remain silent on this, as now?
2366:
average this season is .73 (as of last Tue.) :-) —
1335:
8 kilometres (5 mi) across, then 16 km (10 mi) across
1762:, yes? And that if they want to, they can write out
776:
The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms
755:
The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms
1660:08:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC) AND another point: there
1524:be permitted for imperial-unit abbreviations ("use
2677:Does this do it? "*For a multiplication sign, use
2261:Do we know of any such sports other than cricket?
1383:OPTION 1 (as now and in the new daft): say nothing
763:their publications still use the traditional ones.
2589:When in edit mode, there's a line beginning with
2312:" and never "caliber 0.22". But that falls under
2018:I'm with you there. Would anyone actually write
613:Simple computations are not original research. --
1897:How to write two and three quarters as numerals?
415:are not of little account in these things. --
1774:. I'll insert this unless there's a problem.
295:(Burchfield's Oxford rev. hardback 3rd ed.):
8:
2262:
2035:
1990:
1682:
1594:
1520:So the proposal, then, is that superscripts
1093:
183:no, that's something you missunderstood! --
245:I had no trouble finding an example of the
1593:use them for imperial/US customary units.
1092:(2) the best solution, clear & simple
820:still following the previous standard. --
1199:Prefer Option 2; would tolerate current.
651:IEEE/IEC binary prefix mess...less messy!
2460:be spaced on both sides, and the letter
1901:We say nothing on this: you people tell
997:Dots after imperial-unit abbreviations (
2566:this is ugly, and should be deprecated.
2022:? Ban it: it looks too much like "two
2391:The point kind of was that it doesn't
2210:http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/stats/index.jsp
1589:use superscripts for metric units but
1218:has a field to control abbreviation.
55:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2229:Concur. Tradition is tradition here.
2082:template is a hideous abomination. —
7:
2163:How about "II et III/IV", since the
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style
2436:Super Nintendo Entertainment System
2167:of numerals was not specified? ;-)
1750:important that we tell people that
1655:No, it's needed for imperial units.
279:More sources: Strunk & White's
1368:Proscribe superscript squared etc?
35:
1372:Just been raised by SMcCandlish.
1235:I'm not comfortable removing the
2738:Thanks; I think it's right now.
2697:is accepted as a substitute for
40:
2593:right below the line that says
2533:, arithmetically, but they are
2026:three-quarters". I rather see
1175:Abbreviated units in main text?
1018:OPTION 1 (current): say nothing
1:
1485:superscripts for SI units. —
898:exists for a reason. :-) —
515:16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
293:Fowler's Modern English Usage
985:Decision time for this draft
508:NIST Special Publication 811
247:Chicago Manual of Style site
2430:How to write "four by four"
344:circular about my reasoning
291:(sec. 9.17, pp. 384-385).
287:(15th hardback print ed.):
2920:
967:09:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
956:04:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
936:01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
910:17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
872:08:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
845:02:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
825:02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
807:00:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
783:00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
549:04:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
497:02:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
487:22:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
470:23:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
420:10:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
395:11:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
369:10:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
338:09:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
199:03:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
139:01:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
2902:06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2881:00:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2870:17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2792:14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2769:14:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2743:13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2734:09:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2710:09:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2672:06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2646:00:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2626:06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2609:20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2585:20:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2552:20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2521:15:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2469:15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2451:15:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2412:06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2387:00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2378:06:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2352:21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2321:11:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2301:09:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2292:08:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2277:07:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2239:04:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2224:03:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2189:00:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2172:00:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
2153:21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2117:20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2094:20:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2059:09:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2050:07:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2014:06:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2005:06:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1953:05:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1934:03:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1910:02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1884:06:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1867:01:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1847:23:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1838:20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1822:11:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1789:06:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1742:10:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1719:10:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1710:09:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1697:09:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1669:08:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1618:08:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1609:08:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1581:07:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1566:06:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1543:06:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1508:04:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1490:04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1468:03:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1451:03:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1428:02:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1407:02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1358:01:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1325:06:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1309:21:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1277:20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1257:06:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1244:03:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1231:02:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1204:02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1165:06:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1149:01:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
1136:20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1117:11:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1108:08:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1088:04:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1074:02:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1057:02:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
739:20:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
723:20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
707:22:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
676:13:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
657:WP:MOSNUM#Binary prefixes
645:13:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
618:12:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
609:11:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
596:07:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
587:06:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
578:04:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
573:I'm asking for advice. --
538:04:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
320:14:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
275:04:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
235:14:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
188:01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
177:14:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
124:01:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
2808:Dates of birth and death
342:There is nothing at all
2693:. (However, the letter
2400:leagues. Go figure.) —
1237:spell out units in text
285:Chicago Manual of Style
1532:be used for metrics (
281:The Elements of Style
53:of past discussions.
2867:Talk to Andy Mabbett
2556:PS: Concur that the
2488:between the SPC700 (
2474:Also, this (it uses
1938:There has been some
600:Sorry, I meant that
474:(repeating myself:
2853:death date and age
2831:birth date and age
1940:related discussion
455:old-style numerals
384:actual SI-brochure
2701:in such terms as
2527:Strongly disagree
2327:.22 caliber rifle
2237:
2169:Chris the speller
2115:
1951:
1634:, and cubed with
1506:
1307:
1086:
894:(and the related
570:
556:comment added by
494:Chris the speller
220:
206:comment added by
160:
146:comment added by
111:
110:
65:
64:
59:current talk page
26:(Redirected from
22:Dates and numbers
2911:
2896:
2857:
2851:
2846:
2840:
2835:
2829:
2824:
2818:
2761:
2728:
2666:
2620:
2601:
2579:
2565:
2559:
2546:
2513:
2507:
2506:
2502:
2497:
2496:
2492:
2483:
2477:
2443:
2406:
2372:
2346:
2275:
2233:
2216:
2201:Batting averages
2145:
2139:
2133:
2129:
2123:
2111:
2088:
2081:
2075:
2048:
2003:
1988:
1987:
1983:
1980:
1974:
1970:
1964:
1947:
1931:
1925:
1920:
1878:
1832:
1783:
1764:3 metres squared
1739:
1733:
1728:
1695:
1607:
1563:
1557:
1552:
1502:
1460:
1448:
1442:
1437:
1420:
1402:Prefer Option 2
1319:
1303:
1271:
1223:
1217:
1211:
1159:
1130:
1106:
1082:
1066:
989:Dear colleagues
950:
904:
801:
733:
717:
704:
698:
693:
670:
639:
569:
550:
547:
464:
363:
352:
314:
272:
266:
261:
229:
219:
200:
197:
171:
159:
140:
137:
92:
67:
66:
44:
43:
37:
31:
2919:
2918:
2914:
2913:
2912:
2910:
2909:
2908:
2892:
2855:
2849:
2844:
2838:
2833:
2827:
2822:
2816:
2810:
2759:
2724:
2718:use the letter
2689:use the letter
2662:
2616:
2599:
2575:
2563:
2557:
2542:
2511:
2504:
2500:
2499:
2498:) and the DSP (
2494:
2490:
2489:
2481:
2475:
2441:
2432:
2402:
2368:
2342:
2214:
2203:
2143:
2137:
2131:
2127:
2121:
2084:
2079:
2073:
1985:
1981:
1978:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1962:
1929:
1923:
1918:
1899:
1874:
1828:
1779:
1772:9 square metres
1760:9 square metres
1756:3 square metres
1737:
1731:
1726:
1585:I would agree:
1561:
1555:
1550:
1458:
1446:
1440:
1435:
1418:
1370:
1315:
1267:
1221:
1215:
1209:
1177:
1155:
1126:
1064:
1015:
987:
946:
900:
797:
729:
713:
702:
696:
691:
687:binary prefixes
666:
655:I just rewrote
653:
635:
551:
545:
522:
467:Christoph Päper
462:
359:
348:
310:
270:
264:
259:
225:
201:
195:
167:
141:
135:
116:
88:
41:
33:
32:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2917:
2915:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2904:
2859:
2858:
2847:
2836:
2825:
2809:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2796:Works for me;
2785:64 × 64 pixels
2754:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2712:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2567:
2554:
2472:
2471:
2431:
2428:
2425:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2330:
2242:
2241:
2202:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2175:
2174:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2097:
2096:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2052:
1973:{{frac|2|3|4}}
1956:
1955:
1936:
1898:
1895:
1893:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1871:<shrug: -->
1856:
1850:
1849:
1840:
1824:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1721:
1699:
1611:
1569:
1568:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1409:
1398:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1288:
1287:
1280:
1279:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1247:
1246:
1233:
1206:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1185:
1184:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1139:
1138:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1090:
1076:
1059:
1048:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1020:
1019:
1014:
995:
986:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
812:
811:
810:
809:
786:
785:
771:
770:
765:
764:
759:
758:
749:
748:
744:
743:
742:
741:
725:
652:
649:
648:
647:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
521:
518:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
451:
447:
443:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
335:217.84.168.130
325:
324:
323:
322:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
185:217.84.150.117
181:
180:
179:
121:217.84.150.117
115:
112:
109:
108:
103:
98:
93:
86:
81:
76:
73:
63:
62:
45:
34:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2916:
2903:
2900:
2897:
2895:
2889:
2884:
2883:
2882:
2879:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2868:
2864:
2854:
2848:
2843:
2837:
2832:
2826:
2821:
2815:
2814:
2813:
2807:
2799:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2790:
2786:
2781:
2777:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2744:
2741:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2732:
2729:
2727:
2721:
2717:
2713:
2711:
2708:
2704:
2700:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2670:
2667:
2665:
2657:
2653:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2644:
2639:
2635:
2631:
2627:
2624:
2621:
2619:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2583:
2580:
2578:
2572:
2568:
2562:
2555:
2553:
2550:
2547:
2545:
2539:
2536:
2532:
2528:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2487:
2480:
2470:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2448:
2444:
2437:
2429:
2427:
2413:
2410:
2407:
2405:
2399:
2394:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2385:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2376:
2373:
2371:
2365:
2361:
2353:
2350:
2347:
2345:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2328:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2299:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2290:
2289:
2286:
2285:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2274:
2271:
2268:
2265:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2240:
2236:
2232:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2211:
2207:
2200:
2190:
2187:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2173:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2161:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2136:
2126:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2105:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2095:
2092:
2089:
2087:
2078:
2070:
2069:
2060:
2057:
2053:
2051:
2047:
2044:
2041:
2038:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2012:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2002:
1999:
1996:
1993:
1967:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1941:
1937:
1935:
1932:
1926:
1921:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1908:
1904:
1896:
1894:
1885:
1882:
1879:
1877:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1848:
1845:
1841:
1839:
1836:
1833:
1831:
1825:
1823:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1811:
1790:
1787:
1784:
1782:
1776:
1775:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1740:
1734:
1729:
1722:
1720:
1717:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1698:
1694:
1691:
1688:
1685:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1656:
1653:
1651:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1616:
1612:
1610:
1606:
1603:
1600:
1597:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1570:
1567:
1564:
1558:
1553:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1541:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1488:
1484:
1479:
1475:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1449:
1443:
1438:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1414:
1410:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1392:
1391:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1367:
1359:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1270:
1264:
1263:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1214:
1207:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1190:
1189:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1174:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1158:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1129:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1091:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1061:(2) no dots.
1060:
1058:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1042:
1041:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1031:
1025:
1024:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
994:
990:
984:
968:
965:
964:
959:
958:
957:
954:
951:
949:
943:
939:
938:
937:
934:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
911:
908:
905:
903:
897:
893:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
873:
870:
869:
866:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
846:
843:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
826:
823:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
808:
805:
802:
800:
794:
790:
789:
788:
787:
784:
781:
777:
773:
772:
767:
766:
761:
760:
756:
751:
750:
746:
745:
740:
737:
734:
732:
726:
724:
721:
718:
716:
710:
709:
708:
705:
699:
694:
688:
684:
680:
679:
678:
677:
674:
671:
669:
662:
658:
650:
646:
643:
640:
638:
631:
619:
616:
612:
611:
610:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
594:
590:
589:
588:
585:
581:
580:
579:
576:
572:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
548:
542:
541:
540:
539:
536:
531:
527:
526:Interstate 79
519:
517:
516:
513:
509:
498:
495:
491:
490:
488:
485:
481:
477:
473:
472:
471:
468:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
435:
434:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
397:
396:
393:
389:
385:
381:
376:
372:
371:
370:
367:
364:
362:
356:
353:
351:
345:
341:
340:
339:
336:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
321:
318:
315:
313:
307:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
273:
267:
262:
256:
252:
248:
244:
236:
233:
230:
228:
222:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
198:
191:
190:
189:
186:
182:
178:
175:
172:
170:
164:
163:
162:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
138:
132:
128:
127:
126:
125:
122:
113:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
91:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
60:
56:
52:
51:
46:
39:
38:
29:
23:
19:
2898:
2891:
2887:
2863:Andy Mabbett
2860:
2811:
2797:
2784:
2779:
2775:
2755:
2730:
2723:
2719:
2715:
2702:
2698:
2694:
2690:
2686:
2682:
2678:
2668:
2661:
2659:
2655:
2651:
2637:
2633:
2622:
2615:
2594:
2590:
2581:
2574:
2570:
2548:
2541:
2537:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2473:
2461:
2457:
2433:
2426:
2408:
2401:
2392:
2374:
2367:
2348:
2341:
2337:
2326:
2287:
2283:
2252:
2248:
2205:
2204:
2164:
2140:are horrid.
2090:
2083:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
1902:
1900:
1892:
1880:
1873:
1859:
1834:
1827:
1785:
1778:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1702:
1678:
1674:
1673:It would be
1661:
1654:
1649:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1590:
1586:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1494:Concur with
1482:
1477:
1397:
1377:
1373:
1371:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1321:
1314:
1273:
1266:
1236:
1208:Don't care;
1178:
1161:
1154:
1132:
1125:
1047:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
991:
988:
961:
952:
945:
941:
906:
899:
863:
803:
796:
792:
775:
754:
735:
728:
719:
712:
672:
665:
660:
654:
641:
634:
601:
523:
512:Thunderbird2
505:
475:
438:
405:Percent sign
387:
386:, they say:
374:
365:
358:
354:
347:
316:
309:
305:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
250:
231:
224:
173:
166:
133:the source.
130:
117:
89:
54:
48:
2894:SMcCandlish
2726:SMcCandlish
2664:SMcCandlish
2618:SMcCandlish
2577:SMcCandlish
2544:SMcCandlish
2486:multiplexed
2404:SMcCandlish
2370:SMcCandlish
2344:SMcCandlish
2231:Askari Mark
2109:Askari Mark
2086:SMcCandlish
1945:Askari Mark
1876:SMcCandlish
1830:SMcCandlish
1781:SMcCandlish
1500:Askari Mark
1317:SMcCandlish
1301:Askari Mark
1269:SMcCandlish
1157:SMcCandlish
1128:SMcCandlish
1080:Askari Mark
948:SMcCandlish
902:SMcCandlish
799:SMcCandlish
731:SMcCandlish
715:SMcCandlish
668:SMcCandlish
637:SMcCandlish
552:—Preceding
453:Concerning
411:(BIPM) and
407:-- and the
361:SMcCandlish
350:SMcCandlish
312:SMcCandlish
227:SMcCandlish
202:—Preceding
169:SMcCandlish
142:—Preceding
47:This is an
2842:death date
2820:birth date
2683:×
2531:equivalent
2364:eight-ball
1679:cubed feet
1675:cubic feet
1644:3 cubed ft
1496:MJCdetroit
1487:MJCdetroit
1478:should not
1241:MJCdetroit
463:1234567890
401:Percentage
299:(p. 584).
106:Archive 80
101:Archive 79
96:Archive 78
90:Archive 77
84:Archive 76
79:Archive 75
71:Archive 70
2801:context.)
2538:identical
2398:nine-ball
2028:2&3/4
1943:dicier.
1413:Mauna Loa
1351:kilometre
933:SWTPC6800
842:SWTPC6800
822:SWTPC6800
780:SWTPC6800
520:Precision
480:Bug 10334
459:Open Type
129:Dude, we
2561:fraction
2479:fraction
2306:Calibers
2135:fraction
1766:, which
1758:and not
1746:So it's
1640:15 sq mi
1528:"), but
963:Fnagaton
942:directly
566:contribs
554:unsigned
306:per cent
297:no space
289:no space
216:contribs
204:unsigned
156:contribs
144:unsigned
20: |
2899:‹(-¿-)›
2888:have to
2760:Georgia
2731:‹(-¿-)›
2669:‹(-¿-)›
2656:Chicago
2652:science
2623:‹(-¿-)›
2600:Georgia
2582:‹(-¿-)›
2549:‹(-¿-)›
2512:Georgia
2442:Georgia
2409:‹(-¿-)›
2375:‹(-¿-)›
2349:‹(-¿-)›
2215:Georgia
2144:Georgia
2091:‹(-¿-)›
1881:‹(-¿-)›
1860:squared
1835:‹(-¿-)›
1786:‹(-¿-)›
1716:Epbr123
1459:Georgia
1419:Georgia
1376:versus
1322:‹(-¿-)›
1274:‹(-¿-)›
1222:Georgia
1213:convert
1162:‹(-¿-)›
1133:‹(-¿-)›
1065:Georgia
1005:versus
953:‹(-¿-)›
907:‹(-¿-)›
892:WP:BOLD
804:‹(-¿-)›
793:current
736:‹(-¿-)›
720:‹(-¿-)›
673:‹(-¿-)›
642:‹(-¿-)›
510:, p20.
484:Schusch
417:Schusch
392:Schusch
366:‹(-¿-)›
355:‹(-¿-)›
317:‹(-¿-)›
232:‹(-¿-)›
174:‹(-¿-)›
50:archive
2591:Insert
2571:should
2393:matter
2334:WP:UCN
2314:WP:UCN
2251:, not
2235:(Talk)
2113:(Talk)
2104:Jimp’s
1975:gives
1949:(Talk)
1919:Aluvus
1754:means
1727:Aluvus
1587:always
1551:Aluvus
1504:(Talk)
1483:outlaw
1436:Aluvus
1349:means
1341:means
1305:(Talk)
1084:(Talk)
896:WP:BRD
692:Aluvus
413:ISO 31
260:Aluvus
2758:Sandy
2722:". —
2685:; do
2638:4 × 4
2598:Sandy
2510:Sandy
2440:Sandy
2284:Gizza
2213:Sandy
2142:Sandy
2032:2+3/4
2024:minus
2020:2-3/4
1770:mean
1636:cubed
1591:never
1457:Sandy
1417:Sandy
1378:sq ft
1345:, or
1220:Sandy
1063:Sandy
661:think
558:Tony1
441:: -->
301:Next.
255:15.65
208:Tony1
148:Tony1
16:<
2878:Tony
2789:Tony
2765:Talk
2740:Tony
2707:Tony
2705:)."
2643:Tony
2634:well
2605:Talk
2517:Talk
2466:Tony
2458:must
2447:Talk
2384:Tony
2298:Tony
2257:Tony
2249:0.02
2220:Talk
2186:Tony
2165:kind
2149:Talk
2130:and
2125:frac
2077:frac
2056:Tony
2011:Tony
1966:frac
1907:Tony
1864:Tony
1819:Tony
1768:does
1748:very
1707:Tony
1677:not
1666:Tony
1658:Tony
1646:)."
1628:2 cm
1624:5 km
1615:Tony
1578:Tony
1574:Tony
1540:Tony
1530:must
1464:Talk
1424:Talk
1404:Tony
1374:ft/m
1355:Tony
1343:mile
1254:Tony
1227:Talk
1201:Tony
1146:Tony
1114:Tony
1070:Talk
1054:Tony
1009:and
1001:and
868:aton
865:Fnag
606:Tony
584:Tony
562:talk
546:Tony
530:JA10
442:g.).
439:here
403:and
380:BIPM
251:ever
212:talk
196:Tony
152:talk
136:Tony
2776:4x4
2716:not
2703:4x4
2687:not
2535:not
2508:).
2434:At
2338:the
2318:Jao
2310:.22
2253:.02
2030:or
1971:.
1844:CR7
1752:3 m
1703:not
1650:are
1534:km²
1522:not
1286:be:
1003:ft.
999:in.
683:not
615:NE2
593:NE2
575:NE2
535:NE2
375:not
131:are
2865:|
2856:}}
2850:{{
2845:}}
2839:{{
2834:}}
2828:{{
2823:}}
2817:{{
2780:ex
2767:)
2720:ex
2699:by
2695:ex
2691:ex
2607:)
2564:}}
2558:{{
2519:)
2482:}}
2476:{{
2462:ex
2449:)
2329:"?
2222:)
2151:)
2138:}}
2132:{{
2128:}}
2122:{{
2080:}}
2074:{{
1989:.
1969:}}
1963:{{
1905:!
1903:me
1662:is
1642:,
1632:sq
1626:,
1526:sq
1498:.
1466:)
1426:)
1347:km
1339:mi
1229:)
1216:}}
1210:{{
1072:)
1011:ft
1007:in
602:WP
568:)
564:•
533:--
489:)
409:SI
218:)
214:•
158:)
154:•
75:←
2798:I
2763:(
2679:×
2603:(
2515:(
2505:3
2503:⁄
2501:2
2495:3
2493:⁄
2491:1
2445:(
2273:p
2270:m
2267:ɪ
2264:J
2218:(
2147:(
2046:p
2043:m
2040:ɪ
2037:J
2001:p
1998:m
1995:ɪ
1992:J
1986:4
1984:⁄
1982:3
1979:+
1977:2
1930:c
1927:/
1924:t
1738:c
1735:/
1732:t
1693:p
1690:m
1687:ɪ
1684:J
1638:(
1605:p
1602:m
1599:ɪ
1596:J
1562:c
1559:/
1556:t
1462:(
1447:c
1444:/
1441:t
1422:(
1225:(
1104:p
1101:m
1098:ɪ
1095:J
1068:(
1013:)
703:c
700:/
697:t
560:(
478:(
271:c
268:/
265:t
210:(
150:(
114:%
61:.
30:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.