Jump to content

Talk:Year: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Undid revision 1061385782 by 2605:B100:510:424D:CCBF:B838:D3F0:4E8B (talk) rvv
Line 3: Line 3:
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Years|class=C|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Years|class=C|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Time|class=c|importance=.
{{WikiProject Time|class=c|importance=top}}


Je
{{WikiProject Measurement|class=c|importance=Top|VA=yes
{{WikiProject Measurement|class=c|importance=Top|VA=yes
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = no

Revision as of 11:37, 21 December 2021

Template:Vital article

American billions

I agree with the removal of the ancient E notation, though it is still seen on some calculators, but should we not retain long-scale words for our international readers who use the words billion and trillion differently. Dbfirs 19:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the right page to discuss this. I suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. That page calls for only using short scale. On this page, the exponential notation and the use of SI prefixes removes any ambiguity. Also, since The Guardian uses billion with the same meaning as in the US (example), I think international readers have learned to cope. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have lots of European readers who might not be familiar with The Guardian, but I have to agree that the meaning is sufficiently clear in this article to avoid confusion with their biljoen, bilion, Billion, biljoona, billioner, biljon, bilión, etc. all of which are a thousand times bigger than the American billion. Dbfirs 13:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... specifically, [[365 Days of Astronomy|365 days]], has no place in this article. I've removed it twice, so far. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No italics in units

Section Year#Symbols gives:

a = 31556925.445 seconds

But units normally should receive no italics:

a = 31556925.445 seconds

For example, MOS:UNITSYMBOLS says:

Write unit names and symbols in upright (roman) type, except where emphasizing in context.

Here MOS:EMPHASIS would seem to allow italics but MOS:WORDSASWORDS actually discourages it in this case:

When italics could cause confusion (such as when italics are already being heavily used in the page for some other purpose, e.g., many non-English words and phrases), double quotation marks instead may be used to distinguish words as words.

So I propose rewriting Year#Symbols to avoid italics in general for "a" and using double quotes when necessary. fgnievinski (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]