Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:21, 13 September 2008

Archives

General 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, vote, 6, 7, 8, 9 (AD/CE), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14a, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 49a, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 Binary prefixes B0, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, B15, B16, B17 Years and dates D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 See also Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dates Misplaced Pages talk:Date debate Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (calendar dates) Misplaced Pages talk:Timeline standards Misplaced Pages:Measurements Debate Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting Complete rewrite of Units of Measurements (June 2008) Dec. 2008 RfC on Date linking/autoformatting (three proposals) Dec. 2008 RfC on Date linking/autoformatting (detailed)

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Date format

There has been much discussion recently about matters connected with dates. The main issues are as follows:

• What to do about autoformatted dates. These are linked dates of the form January 19, 1988 or 19 January 1988, which have traditionally been used in Misplaced Pages articles, purely for the purpose of making the autoformatting tool work (this allows logged-in users to select a preference as to how such dates are displayed). This has now been deprecated (i.e. it is no longer the recommended style). The manual of style page itself currently states the reasons for this decision (basically it's because the benefits are minuscule, and it leads to massive overlinking) and also contains a reference to the discussions which led to the decision to deprecate. Please do not come here asking when or why this happened unless you have trouble understanding that information.
• What format to use for dates. With the deprecation of the autoformatting links referred to above, people came to realize that we don't have very clear guidelines on what date format should be used in articles (basically whether - and in what situations - month should precede day, as in January 19, or day precede month as in 19 January). Discussions and polls on this matter can be found at /Archive 110. (Changed "/Date format" to "/Archive 110" because I moved the page. Teemu Leisti (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

Summary of date format polls

My proposal is that this polling (at /Date format) now be closed and we decide how to proceed next. This is how I personally would summarize the results of the polls (others may differ):

• The idea that our date formats should depend on the date format used in non-English languages (option D in the poll) has been rejected.
• The idea of making date format an element of English variety (so that - to simplify - June 1 goes with American spelling and 1 June goes with UK spelling) was well supported (option A), slightly more so than what is effectively the status quo (option B, which allows date formats to become established in articles independent of US/UK spelling).
• The most popular (though not overwhelmingly so) approach was (option C) the idea of preferring the day-month style in all articles which do not have a specific connection to the U.S. (or other English-speaking countries which do it the other way). This will be considered a radical move in some quarters (which haven't necessarily been fully aware of the implications of this poll).

I would suggest the most logical way forward would be to establish first whether there really is community consensus for this last option. A well-publicized and precisely-worded proposal would do it. If such a proposal fails (unfortunately I suspect it will, though who knows...) then we could come back and look at option A again, which (being relatively uncontentious) might well gain consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the polls, they are well-supported, and the tabular format worked well. There were some attempts to influence voting and interpret results, but there is a clear winner in Option C, which led with an average of 2.26 over the runner up (Option A) on 1.75. The run-off poll shows an even larger winning margin.

Accordingly, I think we can insert the strongly supported text into the MoS. However, the wording needs work, though not to the extent that it transforms into a less-popular option. --Pete (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course you do; but this was not a vote. There is no consensus for your crusade, and only one of these perpetual polls even shows a slight majority preferring your chosen option over an alternative. Concentrating on it alone, with its flaws, is cherry-picking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we move the discussion to the subpage, as the text at the top says? Teemu Leisti (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it doesn't. Kotniski's question is "what do we do now?" and should be answered here, if not somewhere even more public. This concerns a lot of articles, and should be done in the light. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Also, see new section #Archived /Date format as /Archive 110 below. Teemu Leisti (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Teemu Leisti: The best venue for this next, critical step, is to keep this poll in this high-profile venue so the maximum number of editors can participate. One of the shortcomings of Misplaced Pages’s procedures is how controversial discussions have in the past been moved to remote backwater venues where it tends to drop off editors’ radar. That’s not good. The more controversial the issue, the more we need to foster the greatest participation by the Misplaced Pages community to ensure we are getting a good measure of the community’s mood. So let’s keep the voting here, well out in the open where the maximum number of editors can voice their opinion and discuss this matter.

Very well, I see your point. Teemu Leisti (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Concealed links

The music project says:

• Do not use piped links to years in music (e.g., do not write: The Beatles Please Please Me came out in ]). Instead, sparingly use parentheses after years mentioned in the article, such as The Beatles released Please Please Me in 1963 (see ]).

The film project referred to the music guideline and suggests formulas like:

• Foo is an American political thriller that was ] and starred...
• Snatch is a ] ...

Now the aircraft project is discussing the same issue at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Template:Avyear. The music project and film project suggestions are not specific to just music or films. I think they have good suggestions that MOSNUM readers may find useful as options. Does anybody agree? Lightmouse (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be pleased for advice to be written into MOSNUM that the practice of piping to what looks like a single year generally be avoided. A few examples of how such pipes can be reworded might be provided, so that editors see that there are more skilful ways of linking. I'd also like MOSNUM to point out that it's unnecessary to link more than one or two "year in blah"s, since all years in blah can be accessed through just one. Tony (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A similar issue is present in Brian Boru, where years link to YYY in Ireland. I think it would be better to write in a style that gives readers a better idea of what they will find when they click on the link. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A good general rule is to make sure a masked link includes more than one word or term in the text, so that users have some reason to believe they're not just going to be transported to the article 963 or whatever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Anderson. Maybe that should be included as advice in MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong support, as it were. I do this all the time (see my edits last night/this morning (depending on your time zone) to Steve Davis for an example. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone like to add this now? Lightmouse (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Text formatting math section merge proposal

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (text formatting) serves no purpose at all, as it is simply rehash of WP:MOS (and in one place WP:MOSNUM). To the extent it may say anything distinctive that point should be added to MOS/MOSNUM, but otherwise this is just a blank-and-redirect-to-MOS. See also the closely related discussion at WT:MOS#Text formatting merge proposal. The merge-from page is inconsistent on many points with both target pages, and its talk page is evidence of a great deal of confusion being sown among editors as a result of this break-away "guideline"'s existence. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: I have edited a few bits of it to comply better with MOS/MOSNUM, but much of it is still messed up. There are probably a few points in it not presently in either of the controlling guidelines (which is why I suggested merges instead of just wiping it). One of the most important of these (one that I just added) is that variables should be marked up with <var>variable</var> (variable), not ''variable'' (variable). They both will typically visually render the same (depending upon user-side CSS), but the former actually has a semantic meaning, while the latter is just presentational hooey (notably, by the time it hits the user's browser, MediaWiki has converted the latter into <span style="font-style: italic;">variable</span>, not <i>variable</i>, because it has zero meaning at all from a content/semantics point of view). As with much else in MOS*, the average editor will ignore it and do what is convenient, but math editors (definitely not me) and cleanup gnomes (definitely me) should get this right. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 06:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Any objections? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it. I support the merge, and so do all others who have commented on the MOS talk page. Teemu Leisti (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving the provision here seems reasonable. I have seen a good many math articles, and I strongly expect that any requirement of <var></var> will be ignored; math editors will contine to use '' in-line and <math></math> for full-line formulas as they always have. The chief purpose of wiki markup is presentational hooey; and any effort which depends on regularity in the production of such hooey is likely to fail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to this undiscussed change of a policy that belongs in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (mathematics) and not in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and I will revert it if I don't get a reply very very fast to my objection expressed on the manual's talk page. "SMcCandlish", you really need to take this discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (mathematics) and also to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics. It's already being discussed on the latter page. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Julian dates and templates

I have an interest in dates on Wikipeida, in relation to birth (and death) dates for hCard and start and end dates for hCalendar microformats.

Is it not possible that the existing date templates could be used,; modified so that, if a date before a certain point is entered, a prominent warning is generated, requiring a "calendar" flag be set, and, depending on the flag, the date be rendered as "DD MM YYYY (Gregorian) or "DD MM YYYY (Julian), using any DD-MM-YYYY order/format as suits the user? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone edits articles with the edit box, so it wouldn't be possible to raise an interactive warning flag. All that could be done is to refuse to save edits that don't meet requirements. Also, indicating Gregorian or Julian with every date in an article would be excessive. A single statement of the convention followed in a certain article would suffice. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There can be on-page warnings, like those generated, say, when coordinates are entered wrongly. Perhaps the indication could be shorter - say "DD MM YYYY (J)"? We don't seem to have a problem with repeating "BC" (or whatevr0 in articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We probably should not; on such articles as Pericles, where there is no possible question on almost all of them, one BC per section or less would be enough. But it is sufficiently short and commonplace (and, above all, does not interrupt the syntax) that it is not deeply intrusive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Possible, yes: but that's in the sense that a Turing machine can perform any computable operation. Several widely supported requests have been made to the developers to change autoformatting in various ways; none have been acted on.
• Prominent warnings can be produced without affecting the software, although one which is triggered by an unlinked July 15, 1581 would be difficult to imagine.
• But is this desirable?
  • It would not affect dates between 1582 and 1752 in the English-speaking world, which are a large proportion of the problem, and which may actually need clarification.
  • It would not affect dates which mention only October 14 with the year understood,
  • On the other hand, it would force parenthetical explanations on every date in Battle of Hastings which mentions the year. This is bad writing, especially if there is a footnote explaining the calendar, as some articles have. Even without, who ever imagined that October 14, 1066 was not Julian? (Some readers have never considered the question, but they are merely confused; they will in all likelihood remain confused by the parenthesis.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Several widely supported requests have been made to the developers to change autoformatting in various ways; none have been acted on." — for the record, I have acted upon every single technical request that has been pointed out to me, usually within a few hours. I have submitted three patches to modify the behavior of date autoformatting, all in response to requests made here or on the bugzilla site. The WikiMedia system administrators (who are not properly called "developers" though most of them also happen to be developers as well) will no doubt be happy to put in place whatever patches the community decides are appropriate. The problem is (and always has been) getting a broad consensus on what should be done. Stop blaming the developers and/or system administrators for the inability of editors to come up with a sensible plan. --UC_Bill (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Using templates for dates and date ranges

In line with the concerns over mass-delinking of dates that would leave such dates difficult to relocated via computer searches (not impossible, just difficult), I really think we should consider the replacement of dates in articles with a templated version which provides many benefits. The template itself should be simple/stupid: {{d|2008|9|13|int}}, for example, as to make it easy to type as well. Use of the template is not required, but as shown by the benefits below, it can easily help an article maintain an article-consistent date format per MOS. An equivalent template can be made for date ranges. (Note that this is not an ISO date, the date is entered as described in the correct calendar format per the MOSNUM section).

The template would not have to link dates so we don't have over-linking, and the template would have a field for the date format specifier so that regardless of how it is determined what date format to use for an article, the template can put out dates in either format; such a format could also be easily changed in one shot in an article via automated tools like AWB and so forth (just by changing the template parameter in all dates in an article). No DA would be used at all, so the end page results are still the same for anon user and logged in user. The template can be used in main and footnote areas as to normalize the date format (the "cite" template family would need modification for this, but it needs modification anyway for date format equilivalence between text and footnotes). Bots and script tools that are already stripping dates can likely be easily modified to replace linked dates with the template version.

The key benefit is that very likely, if a DA solution is found that addresses all the concerns that others have against it (nonlinking result, anons are shown date format best suited to them (geographical-based or article-based), etc.) only the template has to be modified to bring in the DA solution. Now, there's a likelihood that a proper DA solution may not work with the template, but now we have the other benefit of using a template: a bot can go through and convert the templates to whatever format the DA needs.

The only drawback for this is that we will have a very widely used template, assuming full usage, at least 2 million times (once per page if not more). It would likely need full protection to prevent IP vandal harm, but that's not a huge concern. --MASEM 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Archived /Date format as /Archive 110

I've done some archive-related changes in the last hour or so.

The newly created subpage "/Date format" had some discussions that were unrelated to the subject. Some of them seemed finished, with no updates in the last couple of days, so I moved them to /Archive 109. Some others had updates in the last couple of days, so I moved them back to this main talk page.

Even after these moves, "/Date format" remained huge. I thought it would be best to archive it as /Archive 110, even though the latest updates to some of the discussions were within the last couple of days. If anyone finds it necessary to continue on any of the individual discussions of that page, perhaps they could copy the text they wish to discuss back to this talk page. In any case, the poll among four choices had been closed, and the runoff poll hadn't been updated for over a day.

D7 in the archives box on the right also points to /Archive 110.

In any case, it's perhaps better to just discuss things just on this main talk page, to avoid any "hiding" of discussions, as a couple of people have pointed out above. Teemu Leisti (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Final up/down vote on guideline for writing fixed-text dates

Template:RfCstyle.

This is the final step in choosing the MOSNUM guideline to assist editors in determining the most suitable fixed-text date format to use in Misplaced Pages’s articles.

The results of the runoff poll, as of the vote by Pete, are as follows:

A = 1.31
C = 2.48
e = 1.48

So option C advances with a clear super-majority. Option e (each editor suggest an alternative solution) had a variety of opinions however, many editors voted with a non-zero value on e but did not add a ref-comment as to what they specifically had in mind. It seems that many treated e as “do nothing”, which would be applied as “keep the current wording.”

• Please look up the word supermajority and see what it means. Two plans were under discussion at that poll; the present text is neither of them. 8 !votes opposed A and supported C; 4 supported A and opposed C. 2 !votes supported A and C and chose between them. 5 !votes opposed both of them. 10-9 is the best claimable here, and to call that a supermajority is to deprive super of all meaning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The next step is an up or down vote. Now that subsections on Talk:MOSNUM has been archived and the past voting moved to a subpage, we have freed up a lot of room here. The best venue for this next, critical step, is to keep this poll in this high-profile venue so the maximum number of editors can participate. One of the shortcomings of Misplaced Pages’s procedures is how controversial discussions have in the past been moved to remote backwater venues where it tends to drop off editors’ radar. That’s not good. The more controversial the issue, the more we need to foster the greatest participation by the Misplaced Pages community to ensure we are getting a good measure of the community’s mood. So let’s keep the voting here, well out in the open where the maximum number of editors can voice their opinion and discuss this matter.

Most everyone in the runoff poll did a great job of registering nuanced votes (a surprising number of 1, 2, and 3 votes), posted thoughtful and constructive vote comments, and debated without rancor. The general consensus in the previous voting, debate, and discussion was that option C was preferable to the other new options. But is option C better than what we currently have? Let’s see if we can push this to a natural conclusion and arrive at a general consensus now.

The options are as follows:

(C) Default to international unless U.S. and its territories—listed countries for editors’ convenience:

• For articles on, or strongly associated with, the U.S. or its territories (or countries listed in this guideline that use U.S.-style dates: Micronesia and Palau), editors should use the U.S.-style date format (“February 2, 2008”), otherwise, editors should use the international date format (“2 February 2008”) in articles.
• New articles on or strongly associated with Canada should use the international format but, for existing articles related to Canada, whichever format was used by the first major contributor shall be retained.

(R) Retain present guideline:

• Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
• If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. there is consensus that there is good reason for changing it, such as strong national ties to the topic.
• In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic there is consensus that there is good reason for changing it, such as strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

This is an up-or-down vote. No “0–4” values for voting; just an “X”.

Run-off poll comments

1. The new wording (option C) seems to me to be much clearer and less ambiguous than the present wording. The guideline is simple as it gives a very simple test: if the article is closely associated with specific countries listed right there in the guideline, use U.S.-style dates, otherwise default to international dates. Under the current wording, if I had used U.S.-style dates in Kilogram (and I used American-English too), that article would have been “grandfathered” in with American-style dates. Fortunately I didn’t. As an American, I use American-style dates in daily life. But in writing for an internationally read encyclopedia, I use international-style dates in articles not closely associated with the U.S. And, of course, I use U.S.-style dates in articles closely tied to the U.S. Whatever is most natural for the most readers who will be reading the article. I think this guideline will be easier for editors and will be better for our readers as it is better optimized to be sensitive primarily to the subject matter of the articles.
2. The present language does not have the implication Greg suggests: it says exactly Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently. Kilogram does not. We should therefore stay with the format it now possesses, which happens to be the European style.
3. There is no ambiguity between the two date formats of month-day-year and day-month-year. An article without strong national ties to an English speaking country should be allowed to be written in either format consistently. Defaulting to the international style, when no clear tie exists, may alienate our American editors or other editors who use the "American format" and feel more comfortable with it. The same would, more than likely, be true if we defaulted to an American style. I see our ultimate goal as providing consistency in an articles format and preventing format edit warring. When I write an article, my choice would be to use the style I was taught. Of course, if it was about a subject with a strong tie to a specific English speaking country, I would use the relevant style.

Run-off poll Discussion

Septentrionalis: With regard to your vote comment, come-on, we can read. The current guideline states “articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country…” Now clearly, the Kilogram article is about the kilogram. It could be argued that the French invented the thing, but France is not an English-speaking country and the article is not about France. So the article clearly has no “strong ties to a particular English-speaking country.” Accordingly, the current guideline requires that “the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used”. So if I had used American-style dates, those would have been grandfathered in. That was the point of my vote comment: if I had used an inappropriate date format,  the article would have been stuck with American-style dates under the current guideline, which is ill-advised and needs, IMO, to be updated. It’s not all about we editors. The style in articles should be more strongly based on what is most natural for the likely readership. That’s all. Greg L (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC

And where does the present language, which is one of the alternatives I support, suggest that Kilogram should be changed? As for your hypothetical, it is much more simply dealt with by limiting the last clause to unless there is reason to change it.

The hypothetical case involves articles which have almost entirely written by American editors who have not seen reasons to use European dates: kilogram is not one of these, and those which are usually have reasons, weak or strong, to use the format they do. Solving this hypothetical (are there instances?) by imposing the International style on almost all articles is opening an egg with a sledgehammer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please read and understand my point. I’m an American editor. I use American English. I use American-style dates in daily life. If I had used American-style dates, the current guideline says those would stay. Right? That’s not best editorial practices for making the best-reading articles on Misplaced Pages. We need a simple guideline that says “if the article is specifically about these listed subjects, do this.” All very simple. And it makes articles that read best for the greatest possible number of readers throughout the world. Greg L (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • To quote another American: "For every problem, there is a solution which is simple, direct, obvious, and wrong." If this were cost-free, we would be doing it now; changing the date format on hundreds of thousands of articles to address a hypothetical problem is a recipe for intergroup strife. As it is, consensus on any article can ignore MOS; all we need do here is to acknowledge this, as we should do more widely. I'll go do that; this poll can then be closed. If we need to refine the section on not date-warring, we can return to this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In addition, the assertion that it serves the majority of readers begs a question. We exist for readers of English, and the majority of Anglophones live in North America (the talk page includes much discussion that we go too far, and September 13 is customary in Canadian English; certainly it reads as well as the alternative); native speakers of other languages are best served by their own Wikipedias - that's why we have them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, as a native speaker of another language, I have still always felt welcome here, and quite frankly I practically never use sv; although it's one of the larger, it simply cannot compare with en. I think we're quite a bunch who reason this way. Anyway, your conclusions still work on me. When I first signed up and assumed that setting an autoformatting preference would be a good idea, I chose the month-day format. Why? Well, pin it down to American "cultural imperialism" or the sheer fact that most professionally-written English probably emerges out of North America, but that's what I was used to seeing in English. The idea that "13 September 2008" should somehow feel more natural than "September 13, 2008" because I consistently read and write "13 september 2008" in my native Swedish never crossed my mind. Why would it? -- Jao (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And why do you think Americans are less likely to be reading about kilograms than anyone else? (Incidentally, I'm not participating in the poll since I really don't mind which option is chosen, but I'm not sure if the poll itself is a great idea, presented as it is. We need to ask the editing community at large the question: are we ready to abandon our traditional impartiality between the two date styles, in favour of one which is felt to be more appropriate for international articles. And make sure everyone knows about it. And put it on a separate page, or this one will get overwhelmed by this issue again.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• This poll needs to stay here on this page, Kotniski, so as to not be moved off the radar screens of editors. This poll needs the widest possible input from Misplaced Pages’s editors. No matter how much attention this issue receives here, this topic couldn’t possibly grow this page to anything remotely as large as it’s been on many occasions in the past. And to address your question “and why do you think Americans are less likely to be reading about kilograms than anyone else?”: You know full well that’s not the premiss of my position. The facts of who reads en.Misplaced Pages have been well established on this page by others. Greg L (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)