|
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Information.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:Template:Convert]]''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Tmcft in convert template?|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you.
:The RfC question is: Should the {{tl|Convert}} template support the unit [[Tmcft]]? [[User:Joe vom Titan|Joe vom Titan]] ([[User talk:Joe vom Titan|talk]]) 20:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
== Date range: clarify usage of ''to'' as in "from 1890 to 1893" ==
For editors that are trying to discover if "to" or "and" can be used within a date range, that guidance is really hard to understand.
The MOS currently says {{green| Use an en dash, or a word such as ''from'' or ''between'', but not both: {{xt|from 1881 to 1886}} (not {{!xt|{{nobr|from 1881{{ndash}}1886}}}});{{nbsp}} {{xt|between June{{nbsp}}1 and July{{nbsp}}3}} (not {{!xt|{{nobr|between June{{nbsp}}1{{snd}}July{{nbsp}}3}}}}) }}.
I think it is trying to say: {{green|Words ''to'' or ''and'' may be used instead of a dash only when used with words like ''between'' or ''from''. As in {{xt|from 1881 to 1886}} or {{xt|between June{{nbsp}}1 and July{{nbsp}}3}} }}
Even if my interpretation is wrong, caan the wording be improved to clearly explain when "to" or "and" can be used instead of a dash? [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 15:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
: I've tweaked the wording to make it clearer, though it remains to be seen whether it stays tweaked (direct changes to the MOS are often challenged, and I expect that the wording can be improved further). See whether this makes it clearer to you. —[[User_talk:Quondum|Quondum]] 16:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Quondum|Quondum]] That is better, thanks. I think it could still be a bit clearer.
::Here is what happened: I wrote an aritcle with "from 1723 to 1728". A reviewer, in Peer Review, posted a note ''"[[MOS:YEARRANGE]] says you have to use a dash".'' So I viewed the [[MOS:YEARRANGE]] section to see if the reviewer was correct. I started reading, and after ten bullets emphasizing how wonderful dashes were, I came to the conclusion that "to" was prohibited. I was ready to bail out and change my article, when I stumbled on a bullet that kinda sorta permitted the word "to". It took me about 60 seconds of reading and re-reading to make sure "to" was permitted.
::It would be nice if the guidance came out and explicitly said ''"The words ''to'' or ''and'' can be used ...[subject to these limitations]." ''[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 17:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
::: I think I see what you're saying. Even though the bullet that I modified essentially explicitly allows words, the first bullet effectively negates this for year-only ranges because it says {{xt|A simple '''year–year''' range is written using an ...}}, and does not include use of words in its allowed list. I see no reason to disallow words in this case, as it should be up to the editor. I would like more discussion from others before changing this, as I'm not familiar with the agreed intent behind that bullet. —[[User_talk:Quondum|Quondum]] 17:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Another editor just improved that section to make it clearer. Looking pretty good now. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 19:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Just to say, I prefer to work behind the scenes. So don't tell anyone it was me. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::: Ha! Such false modesty from a very visibly present editor in the MOS. I like the revised version. Thanks. —[[User_talk:Quondum|Quondum]] 20:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Darn. I thought I was on the secure channel. Now the Secretary of Defense's wife is gonna know, and you know what blabbermouth ''she'' is. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
*{{!xt|{{nobr|from 1881{{ndash}}1886}}}}) and {{!xt|{{nobr|between June{{nbsp}}1{{snd}}July{{nbsp}}3}}}} are not coherent uses within running prose, and I really don't to see any instance where use of them should ever be tolerated. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 12:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Your point being what? The guideline already forbids such constructions. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 12:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
== Year adjacent to numerical value ==
I'm having some trouble finding a 'clean', grammatically correct reconstruction of this sentence (from [[Uranium hexafluoride]]), in order to separate the year from the numerical value immediately adjacent:
{{tq|"In 2005, 686,500 tonnes of D-{{chem2|UF6}} was housed in 57,122 storage cylinders located near [[Portsmouth, Ohio|Portsmouth]], Ohio; [[Oak Ridge, Tennessee|Oak Ridge]], Tennessee; and [[Paducah, Kentucky|Paducah]], Kentucky."}}
I first thought of moving the year to the end of the sentence a la '[...], as of 2005', but then it leaves the sentence opening with a numerical value. I then thought this might be a solution:
{{tq|In 2005, D-{{chem2|UF6}} in the amount of 686,500 tonnes was housed in 57,122 storage cylinders located near [[Portsmouth, Ohio|Portsmouth]], Ohio; [[Oak Ridge, Tennessee|Oak Ridge]], Tennessee; and [[Paducah, Kentucky|Paducah]], Kentucky.}}
Which satisfies the criteria, but it's a bit stilted. I'd be interested if some 'fresh eyes' on it might come up with a more graceful construct (notwithstanding that it's a highly technical article, so an artful presentation of the information isn't ''truly'' necessary!). cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 22:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:How about starting the sentence with "About 686,000 tonnes of D-UF_6 were housed ..."? [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk:Dondervogel 2|talk]]) 22:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::As is typical for me, Occam's razor eluded me. It's obviously not a strict value, so 'about' does the trick very nicely. Thank you! cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 22:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
== Non-breaking hyphen ==
| 