Talk:Long and short scales

Mixed usage in British English

If memory serves from my days with free access to the Oxford English Dictionary, modern british usage has adopted shortscale but only up to and including a billion. A trillion and beyond use the long scale. I decided not to edit directly until somebody can check this. Shadebug 17:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OED2 (i.e. the 1989, most recent version) says billion is "commonly" a million millions in Britain, but "increasingly" a thousand millions in Britain. The identical distinction is drawn for trillion and quadrillion, but not for quintillion, though the word is rare enough that I doubt that that's very informative. Coldchrist 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

According to that unreferenced history, 1974 is when Britain changed from long scale to short scale entirely. Its funny really, since I wasn't even born until the next year, yet I have never once heard of short scale being used in any school. Yet apparently since 1974 it has been used in all English speaking countries. Strange that. I've never met anyone who uses short scale, and I know a lot of people younger than me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. In over 20 years, I have never met anyone in the UK who uses the long scale. I have never seen the long scale used in any field, whether government, media, science, finance, industry nor anywhere else. Suggesting that people may be confused due to poor education may or may not be true, but is surely irrelevant. Billion always means 10^9. Trillion always refers to 10^12. I have never ever seen milliard used. The long scale is now a historical curiosity. Bobcousins 13:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add further confusion, I agree with Zordrac. If Bobcousins has never met anyone in over 20 years in the UK who doesn't use the long scale he's not talking to many people! I was taught at school that a billion is a million million, and that it was "a curiosity" of the US that they called 1,000 million a billion, and I've lived my whole life believing that. And I'm only 22! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.169.193 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, as I've never used nor been taught to use the short scale (in England). In a sense it is good that the British media, particularly science magazines, use the short scale – but at the same time it misleads a lot of British people reading them who, for example, think that a world population of 6 billion means 6 million million rather than the correct 6 thousand million.  — Lee J Haywood 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there are some confused people around ;-) A recent BBC article documents what I believe is modern British usage http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/6625545.stm. I made a search of online UK usage of billion, and could not find *any* that used 10^12, apart from dictionary entries and individuals claiming that 10^12 is the "correct" usage, or is what is "taught in schools". Style guides for the Times, Guardian, BBC etc all indicate 10^9 is the preferred meaning of billion. I could not find any resources relating to UK schools that indicated usage of 10^12. It may well be true that schools teach the 10^12 usage, but that appears to be an anomaly. Academics appear to be the least willing to adapt to current usage. If you can find any examples of modern UK publications that actually use 10^12, I would like to see them - I don't mean dictionary definitions, but actual use in the field. Bobcousins 10:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite erroneous statements here and in the main article the British use of short scale 10^9 to mean a billion is universal and has been for decades. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply mistaken. Of course you can find confused people who have no clue about any issue you care to name but anyone sufficiently sentient to understand 10^9 would refer to it as a billion, nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.63 (talk) 10:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to meet anyone who uses or teaches Short scale. I've been through three separate secondary schools (I moved around a lot when younger) and three colleges - and all the Maths and Physics teachers taught us Long scale. I'm frankly surprised as I've only ever seen Short scale used by the media, most people refer to it a "American style". I'm very surprised though, to see that a country adopting European notations for most measurement is moving away from SI units in other areas. Not that it matters. I continue to get good marks on my course for correct use of Long scale so it doesn't affect me. As for the claim that "anyone sufficiently sentient to understand 10^9 would refer to it as a billion, nothing else" - You'd be AMAZED at the number of people ho would refer to it as a trillion - the majority of laymen seem to have little understanding of numbers above a million at all, they just guess the word based on those they have heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.188.60 (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

19 years old here, have been taught the 10^12 definition of billion through school, and had the 10^9 known as an "American billion"... That, and I've asked/been asked quite a few times "an English billion or an American billion?" Trust 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I find it impossible to believe you and am struggling to find some charitable explanation. A billion meaning 10^9 has been absolutely universal in Britain for over 30 years. TheMathemagician (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can remember it happening. The British Government *did* order that one billion should be the short scale for official government publications in about 1974. I clearly remember this being announced in the mass media at the time. It was about then that 1000 million was a figure that actually started to get some use in finance, and that these large scales had previously been a rarely used curiosity. I also remember clearly that the BBC, ITN, and *all* the newspapers *immediately* started using a billion for 1000 million. It is true however, as some people have stated here, that much of the public (and perhaps some schools) continued to use the long scale for quite some time after that, as the British are wont to do with their "traditional values".--Farry (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Farry you are quite right as I remember it too. The switch was universal and has been ever since. I am still baffled by the comments above from people claiming to have never been taught that a billion was 10^9 or even met anyone using it that way. They are either genuinely confused or just making mischief. Every single reference to a billion that I have ever seen or heard since the mid-70s has been 10^9. There is really no possibility of any school continuing to teach that a billion is 10^12. This complete fallacy of believing the old usage lives on in Britain today needs to be laid to rest. TheMathemagician (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite your personal bias, if you'd do a bit of googling, you could find that there are still a number (albeit a minority) of people confused about the usage of "american" and "british" billions. Of particular note, in my opinion, is the OED.com definition:

1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions. (= U.S. trillion.)

2. In U.S., and increasingly in Britain: A thousand millions.

Tr00st (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I can also confirm that I was taught a billion as being long-scale when in school in the UK (1991-1996). We were, however, taught that a financial billion was 1000 million but that this was an Americanisation. As further evidence of the mixed usage in the UK please see this link - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/magazinemonitor/2008/10/your_letters_517.shtml.Geoccountant (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When I was at school in about 1989-1990 we were taught (although not in a core subject) that there were two definitions flying around but that 10^9 was now the modern form. Later that was the same usage in science and economics. I can't remember the word trillion being used for anything more specific than "super big number" but then the amounts involved rarely reached 10^12. For all the talk of past UK usage, there wasn't actually that much of it. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my 2-pence, as a 30 year old British man I was taught that a billion is a thousand million over two decades ago in school. I don't know anyone who still uses the old system; certainly all of the British computing and science publications from the last 20 years that I've read have used short scale. Then again, computing and the sciences have been heavily influenced by the United States, so British publishers in those areas would've been some of the first to switch. 78.105.234.140 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that many posts on here have said that the UK media doesn't EVER use the long scale, I have to say that the BBC does fairly regularly use 'a thousand million' and 'a thousand billion', but EXCLUSIVELY in the context of dealing with pounds sterling. i.e. when referring to US$1,000,000,000 they will say a billion dollars, but when referring to £1,000,000,000 the phrase 'a thousand million pounds' will be used. Marthiemoo (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Would they use "thousand billion" to mean 10^15 (long scale) or 10^12 (short-scale synonym for trillion)?

Consider this: If you in some context (counting dollars, pounds, euro, the number of people on our planet, or whatever) discuss numbers like 400 000 000 (four hundred millions), 700 000 000 (seven hundred millions), and 1 200 000 000 (one short-scale billion and two hundred millions), it will be natural for uniformity to use a short-scale synonym like "one thousand two hundred millions" for the latter number. This does not mean that you are suddenly somehow using the long scale.--Noe (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 The biased formulation in the article should be changed:
Obviously, when schools are teaching the long scale, and it is given primacy by OED, it is incorrect to claim that Britain "officially" uses the short scale, and that other views (including OED) are "traditionalist". I think the trouble stems from an overestimation of Wilson's decision. If you see the quote, he does not illegalise the long scale; he states that the ministeries will use the short scale, but make sure that this is what they intend. (Incidently, in his argumentation, he seems to equalise "international usage" with "American usage"; this is a not uncommon opinion, but I don't share it.) This is not the same as deciding that from now on a billion means 1000000000 in the UK. Probably, there are norms or recommendations for what to be taught in schools; this has at least as much relevance, and would be worth to investigate and source. The point is not just what is decided at top level, but how far down the decisions are implemented. I think this somewhat parallels the usage of the metric system in the USA. If you only look at the formal legislation (which AFAIK never was revoked), you could claim that USA employs the metric and the imperial systems on an equal footing since 1866. In practise, of course, this is nonsense. The metric system has e.g. not been tasught in the schools until fairly recent times, and even if the law since 1866 explicitly permits government employees to present statistics or legislation in metric units, their employer hasn't permitted it. In other word, the situation in the UK is mixed; it thus should be explained as such in the article, not as "using only the short scale, except for some traditionalists". Harold Wilson was not the emperor of Britain; and even if he had been, just his words would not have been sufficient for changing the language: Cæsar non supra grammaticos - or at least, he would have to make much clearer attempts to implement his orders, if they were to take effect completely. JoergenB (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

the bbc don't: google "thousand-million" site:bbc.co.uk, mostly user content, this conversation and one use of "hundred thousand million million million million atoms". You can definitely find people in the UK who are confused about this, but neither billion means anything to them -- Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.211 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was always taught at school that a billion was 1,000,000,000,000 ie Long Scale. Its always seen as an americanism to call it short scale. Either way you should move britain into the mixed category.78.105.185.89 (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese

I removed the sentence "Particular number names exist up to a billion" becuase I think it looks like a joke.

1. up to which billion?
2. The cite given Japanese_numerals#Basic_numbering_in_Japanese says no such thing; the later cite Japanese_numerals#Powers_of_10 contradicts it. jnestorius^(talk) 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they actually exist up to much higher than that (an American quindecillion, by the looks of it), but only in myriads, not thousands. Honestly, until coming here (I've a tiny bit of instruction in the language) I'd thought you just said "myriad myriad." Twin Bird 08:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Most other countries?"

Isn't it kind of arrogant to say this, when you mean "most linguistic descendends of Europe or Southwest Asia?" Admittedly, this is a fair bit of the world, but it leaves out a chunk of Africa, several Pacific Island nations, and most of South and Southeast Asia. India, China, Japan, and Korea are mentioned as exceptions, but these are only the countries most familiar to Americans - do Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka use the long scale? (I honestly don't know; please don't try to break my case by pointing out that one or two of them do when the article says "most.") What about sub-Saharan African countries that use Khosian or Bantu languages? What about Malaysia, Indonesia, and the various independent Polynesian states? Not to mention all of the sub-national linguistic entities in Russia, Canada, the US, China, Australia, and India especially, among many other countries - it's not as though they never use large numbers. I mean, it really does seem very Eurocentric. Twin Bird 08:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it only says most, not all. But how can we list every country in the world when quite frankly no one here really knows ? It is just a shorthand phrase. Suggest something better if you wish - but to avoid another edit war (!), let's discuss it here first ! If any users from countries not listed know the word for billion in their languages, add them to the list. The Yeti 02:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Amended terminolgy now. Hope this helps The Yeti 22:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good point. In Chinese numbers are based on ten-thousand's(10⁴.(pronunced as "Wan" in Mandarin) So hundred thousand is called "shi wan" (ten ten-thousand), million 10⁶ is called "bai wan" (hundred ten-thousand), 10⁷ as "qian wan" (thousand ten-thousand), and the next level is Yi 10⁸, the cycle repeats adding the ten, hundred, and thousand in front of the level. However since SI prefixes are in thousand's 10³, the government(both Taiwan and mainland) made translations that are inconsistant with daily usages. (enclosed with Chinese SI prefixes, at least you can check what they are). [[1]] p.s: As far as I know, Koreans have the same system as Chinese, with different prounaciations. Oscar Liu at 7:03 May 14, 2007 GMT

The lead begins:

The long and short scales are two different numerical systems used throughout the world:

And the lead does not mention that other scales are used in e.g. China. I think this info should somehow be included in the lead, or at least a small opening should be made. Suggestions?--Noe (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, please, please, a source

• "most people outside financial spheres in the UK continue to understand and use the long-scale more effectively than what many still regard as USA usage."

We've had gobs and gobs of personal testimony by Wikipedians on both sides of this point. What we have not had is any good source citations to back up any of it.

What does the word "billion" really mean to the average Briton who is not closely connected with finance? Does "billion" really mean 10¹² to the average person? Is it a hotly debated "culture war" item, like "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays" in the U. S.? Or is it just a concern of older people who, having had it drummed into their head in school and now resent its not being drummed into younger heads? Or what? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the above text from the article pending discussions / citation / resolution here. Ian Cairns 18:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am British, live in Britain, and am nearly 40. I've never heard in 20 years billion to mean anything but the short scale. I can imagine some in the older generation (over 70) maybe using it, but even then it must be rare. The long scale is not even mentioned now at schools. Let's look at it this way, who is going to use the word billion except in official or mass media usage ? Where could you colloquially use billion as an exact number (rather than generally, eg billions of grains of sand) except in official/mass media usage, where they default to the short scale. Basically, I agree, unless a cite/ref can be shown to prove the long scale is in use somewhere in the UK, I would recommend deleting any text stating it is in constant use, etc. The best I would say (as the article currently does) is occassional usage.

The Yeti 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Noting some of the above paragraphs, I was also taught in Australian (NSW) schools in my youth. Billion, when mentioned, was virtually always the 'American' use. To say otherwise would be disingenious The Yeti 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

---

(moved from User talk:81.86.138.31)

You write: the "traditional usage" of a billion to mean 10¹² is [...] normally taught in many sectors of education. I find this extremely implausible. Can you give an example? – Smyth\^talk 18:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I work in education, that I have had two generations of my own children in full-time education and that all these experiences taught / used / still use traditional (and correct) European long-scale usage. I write from experience, not some theoretical wish-point.

I deduce from this that with the mention of 'two generations of your my own children' that you are of the 'older' generation, where the long scale may still come to mind more often than the short scale. However, the article is mostly trying to clarify the commonest current language usage among British people. The use of "correct meaning" is meaningless in this context. Which sector of education are you in ? The Yeti 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "correct" meaning; this is a question of usage. Are you saying that you teach, and your children were taught, that "billion" is 10^12, to the exclusion of 10^9? Or are you simply saying that children are taught that both meanings of the word are in use and so they should be careful? I'm sure nobody would disagree with the latter. – Smyth\^talk 16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree about your idea of correct v. usage. Mathmatically I contend that 10 to the power 12 IS correctly designated as the "next" division above a million, and that 10 to the power 9 is no more significant than a thousand times 100 (100,000).

Sorry this is twaddle, and irrelevant to the article. This article does list both long and short scale terms for 10⁹ (under the paragraph 'Comparison'). What the current argument is about is not the mathematical terminology, but its use in UK common language. Please prove that your usage in language is "correct" and that the short scale is not, and please do so using references. Besides, no-one thinks 10⁵ is significant enough for a new name; but 10⁶ is designated 'million', and one can argue (as in the USA) that 10⁹ would also have a new name (in this case short scale 'billion'). The Yeti 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

However, leaving that aside: - In the UK children ARE commonly taught that both meanings are in use: further they are taught that the 10 power 9 usage is predominatly USA and that one should take care because it is a)in existance b)possible to confuse c)possibly an incorect usage mathmatically.

The "incorrectness" to which you refer is surely etymological, not mathematical. It would certainly be more consistent if (Greek prefix)-llion meant 10^(6*(Greek prefix value)) rather than 10^(3 + 3*(Greek prefix value)), but there are many worse inconsistencies in the English language, and if an overwhelming majority of people uses a less consistent definition then you just have to live with it (or avoid the word completely)

You never answered my original question: what are children taught about 10^12? Are they taught that this is the "real" meaning of the word "billion", and that they should actually use it as such? Or are they simply taught to avoid the word because of its ambiguity? – Smyth\^talk 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I had thought I HAD answered your question, and quite clearly too.

No you had not. The question asked was "Are you saying "billion" means only 10¹² and is taught/used to the exclusion of 10⁹? Or are you saying that children are taught that both meanings of the word are in use, and so they should be careful?" The former needs citations, but the latter no-one has argued with. (And as I am British & live in Britain, the former seems unprovable to my experience). The Yeti 21:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A source, a source, a source, please. If children are taught that both meanings are in use and they should be careful, surely someone, somewhere has published this in a curriculum guide or a school textbook. If there are conflicting sources, we can cite both.

I grew up in the U. S. and have no vested interest at all in this matter. I can easily believe any of the following:

• that children are taught that a billion is 10⁹
• that children are taught that it is 10⁹ but that older books and older people may use it to mean 10¹²
• that it can mean either and they should be careful
• that there are a few schools that teach that it is 10¹². For all I know, there may be schools that teach children how to perform financial calculations in pounds, shillings and pence because, well, it's good mental discipline (like learning Latin) and you never know, they might come back someday

Personal testimony from individual experience is interesting, but doesn't resolve the question of what should go in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding swedish usage

The statemets reagarding swedish usage in this article is wrong. It says "Sweden, where 10^9 is commonly called Milliard, a long scale term, but the short scale is used for 10^12 and above", but 10^9 is called "miljard", not milliard, and long scale is indeed used, 10^12 is called biljon for example. Battra 10:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Change it then it's wikipedia =) -Skether

thousand million should go....

I know Wikipedia follows a non-partisan policy with regard to spelling and word-usage, but there comes a time when excessive loyalty to this principle can become a fetish and a burden, and such is the case here. There is such a thing as the natural atrophy of usage where customs, experience and new needs combine to favour some usages over others. In such cases, some variants become first “rare”, then “obsolete', then “archaic”. Over time, the “American” use of million, billion and so on, has comprehensively displaced the notion of “milliard” and “billiard”, the latter excluded from many dictionaries.

There is an excellent reason for this, whose meaning has exercised me of late, but wherefore I know not. I began to notice that there are numerous instances where the “American billion” makes itself useful, but comparatively few, outside of astronomy, where the old “English billion” does so, although I am not quite sure why. The Earth's population is about 6 billion for example, and having to say 6 thousand million is a nuisance. The populations of China and India are both about a billion (US). Virtually every numerous aspect of Planet Earth can conveniently be expressed in US billions and (occasionally) trillions. Had the English / French system prevailed, and considering that milliard never took off, there would be no new word to deal with numbers between a million and 999 thousand million, a silly state of affairs. I would be interested to hear any views about why so many parameters can employ US billions, from social and economic and financial studies (one can have US “billionaires” but hardly English ones for example), and the natural sciences, and so few are amenable to the English billion and its offshoots.

Please, let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand thoughts contend on Wikipedia, but let's not flog a dead horse. Some things are better left to rest in peace. The only reason that ambiguity arises today is because some diehards insist on persevering with an outmoded system. Myles325a 10:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, so what? Just because you wish to delete the long scale terminology does not mean the rest of the planet is going to. Even if the (English speaking) world is slowly adopting the short scale use, it is not universal. And the article is not here to try and define one usage over another, but to report that there are two different systems, and where they differ. The usage of 'thousand million' is pretty clear and does not allow for ambiguity. The use of 'billion', in Australia, and particularly elsewhere, still does. The Yeti 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Thousand million" was very, very widely used in print before 1990 or thereabouts. If there's evidence that it's truly obsolete and not seen any more, the article should say that, but there's no reason to delete what was a very common usage within living memory of many readers. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have only ever come across people using the long-scale system when discussing it as a historical curiousity in the UK, and I think the article is right in stating that apart from a few confused older folk, everyone who uses the word billion here means 10^9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colostomyexplosion (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thankyou for describing me as a confused older folk. I never accepted Harold Wilson's decree! Dbfirs 18:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

English Billion a THOUSAND times greater than US Billion

For a subject as well-masticated as this one, it is surprising that an important detail has not been more adequately dealt with. Experiment: go and ask a naïve subject: “Which is bigger, an American Billion or an English Billion?” If they reply correctly that the English one is, then ask them “By how much?” You will probably find that most people don't know. In fact, from my experience, most people, hearing the phonemic set “illions”, just assume that the amounts are very large, but there is not much to be made of it. In fact, an English Billion is a THOUSAND TIMES larger than the one adopted by her erstwhile colony. That would throw anybody's paperwork out. The gap grows more immense as the numbers become larger. The English Trillion is a full MILLION times larger than that of the US. And so it goes, the discrepancy between the English and American variants grows exponentially as the hierarchy ascends. This fact is the most salient in the whole discussion, and while it is implicit in the material included in the table, it would be illuminating to add a column on the far right which would spell out the scope of the discrepancy. Myles325a 10:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be more clearly spelled out, but I don't know how salient it is in the workings of the world, because once you're off by a factor of 1,000 who cares if it's actually a factor of 1,000,000? Both are so staggeringly wrong that the difference is a detail. Numbers greater than the British billion are never used in reality, except perhaps in physics or the occasional hyper-hyper-inflated currency, so it doesn't affect anything. But it is an interesting point that's worth pointing out, since you're correct that it can be easily missed in the current layout/discussion. ... and so I've added it, and while I was there I redid the definitions slightly since I think they left out the key point, how each new term increases the total by a set amount. - DavidWBrooks 11:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The myth wont die but there has been no such thing as an English billion for over 30 years. Really. TheMathemagician (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The myth won't die because it's not a myth and the "English Billion" is not yet dead! ( - though I agree that it is becoming less common) Dbfirs 18:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

What do you think of merging this article with "Names of large numbers"? Mdotley 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This article describes two different schemes for naming large numbers. As such, it is outside the Names of large numbers article. Why do you think these articles can be merged? Ian Cairns 22:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Subject is entirely different, and is not do with the names of large numbers, but rather the names of large number in different countries. The Yeti 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'names' article has to rehash much of this info to explain why there are different names. This article has to give many of those names as examples of what it is talking about. So, they may technically be different subjects, but there is a whole lot of duplication between them.

Besides which, the whole issue here is that there are two different systems for the names of large numbers. OK, so we give the two different sytems in one part of the article and the names in another part. Both articles have to do both things. Why should the whole issue have to be rehashed on each of two different pages? Look at both pages, and you'll see what I mean. Mdotley 02:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Still disagree. The article, whether there is duplication or not (and I think the duplication is minor) have different foci and intentions (which you've just admitted). The Names of Large Numbers article is already long enough without lumping this one into it, and does not clearly explain the difference between the long & short scales. Why do you wish to merge ? It is a clumsy attempt to tidy things up when they don't need it. The Yeti 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right that it doesn't explain them clearly -- but it doesn't make sense without it, and the current attempts to explain it are poorly done. By the time that page could be fixed up, IMHO, you'd have most of the good content from this page. In any case, there doesn't seem to be any consensus for the change -- or against it for that matter, as you and I are the only ones discussing it.

Why merge? B/c that there is enough overlap that the merge would consolidate the good information and ease the anti-vandalism maintenance burden. Mdotley 04:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the merge. The overlap isn't onerous and the articles are sufficiently different in scope to remain separate, I think. - DavidWBrooks 12:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you guys probably spend more time here than I do, anyway. Informal proposal withdrawn. Mdotley 00:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, I've stopped watching this page, so please leave a note on my talk page if you want to drag me back into the discussion. :-) Mdotley 00:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Flags

A quick note to say that I added quite a lot of changes tonight, including several copyedits and numerous flags, to the article. Perhaps I should have discussed this here beforehand - however, I hope that other interested editors can agree that the flags add a certain international flavour to this important article. If the flags do not receive general approval, then please be careful in rolling back the edits - some of the copyedits added grammatical corrections to the article. Thanks, Ian Cairns 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in adding flags, but I'm not going to remove them unless at least a few people agree with me. Also, I propose to disgroup countries using the same spelling for a word, as imho it makes them look like they share a language or something (yes, the list will grow, but if we remove the flags, less space will be used). Jalwikip 08:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, 'disgroup'? Please explain what you plan to do ?? Examplise it here first please. The Yeti 20:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not usually a fan of graphics in articles, but I think the flags are perfectly fine. And I think the current grouping of countries is fine, too - I didn't see any erroneous implications. - DavidWBrooks 22:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to say (sorry for being absent a while) is that because of the grouping of countries that just happen to have the same written words for 'milliard' and 'billion', it looks like they somehow share a language, or share something else. It's currently a non-issue though, as now each country is listed separatly. Jalwikip (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

1 000 000 000 000 / Trillion

(ie) 10^12, billion or trillion depending how you look at things. The page 1000000000000 (number) page has been redirected from a page similar to 1000000000 (number) to Orders of magnitude (numbers). If you disagree with this redirect (or agree), please comment here. This comment will self-destruct in a few days ('cos it'll be redundant then). The Yeti 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion has now moved on to HERE. Please comment. The Yeti 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Another day, another poll ... this time on whether to keep the trillion page as is, or to redirect to names of large numbers. Please comment HERE. The Yeti 02:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Usage Section

The usage section is pretty inconsistent with the rest of the text. The long scale subsection lists countries that use short scale. The definition used also indicates short scale. The section called short scale, lists long scale countries and has the same definition as the short scale. Confusing. --Miw 09:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Italian use

"Colloquially, bilione can mean both 10⁹ and 10¹²": actually I'm Italian, and I've never heard people using bilione meaning 10⁹

Table

I've removed this from the historical table

1994

Italy confirmed their official usage of the long scale. (Direttiva CE 1994 n. 55, page 12 Template:It icon (ref: Direttiva CE 1994 n. 55, page 12). Template:It icon ).

The reference uses the words, but does not describe the usage:

                         Fattore          Prefisso Simbolo

1 000 000 000 000 000 000 = 1018 trilione esa      E
    1 000 000 000 000 000 = 1015 biliardo peta     P
        1 000 000 000 000 = 1012 bilione  tera     T
            1 000 000 000 = 109  miliardo giga     G
                1 000 000 = 106  milione  mega     M
                    1 000 = 103  mille    chilo    k

so it's certainly good evidence that the long-scale is in official use in Italy, but cannot be said to be confirmation in the way that a statement like "In all official documents, 10^12 is to be described as bilione and 10^9 as miliardo" would be. jnestorius^(talk) 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Estonia, respectively the post-Soviet states and the former Warsaw Pact states

Anyone knows which system Estonia use? I am Danish, but I still want to know. --[Svippong - Talk] 11:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Refered to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Estonia. MrZaius^talk 12:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Edited the article and answered your question. H2ppyme 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Soviet Union decided  (in which year and by which act?; maybe by Stalin?)  to align the US-americain short scale usage, therefore,
in all these the post-Soviet states and former Warsaw Pact states, the short scale is latently present: "Big brother watched!"

However, since the long scale is well the common european scale (excepting Soviet Union and now the "pushover UK") the status of Latvia, Estonia and Bulgaria is unclear.
Just like actually in UK. Although financial circles, including media nowadays aligned to the short scale. "To be billionaire" sounds much better than "to be a milliardaire".

In the case of Turkey – one bets – this was a decision of the turkish "inflation" central bankers, without any legal act.

In the case of Iran: Was it a thankful act of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who decided to align to the US usage? No one knows.

I place value on this declarative statement:  There is no primary anti-americanism in my assessments. Not on your life !

Notwithstanding, the short scale will perish, because the hexadecimal billion is long-scale,  i.e. 1, 048 576 to the power two !
Modern logarithmic. Just like the good old Chuquet. None can imagine a hypothetical hexadecimal billion as 0x 400,00000 !!?

Modern binary numeration logic is stronger, even than all these US-Dollar pseudo-billionaires; e.g. like this 20th billionaire ;-)

-- Gluck 123 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

United Nations (UN)

Is there an official use on the United Nations? Some documents in english by UN use Billion meaning 10⁹, but the documents in spanish use sometimes "Mil Millones" (thousand millions). Godot 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

clearer intro

As "bi" and "tri" mean powers of two and three, I made the logic of the long scale clear in the intro:

""billion" means "a million squared" (10^12), "trillion" means "a million to the third power" (10^18), and so on."

However, it may be just as clear to keep "million million":

""billion" means "a million million" (10^12), "trillion" means "a million to the third power" (10^18), and so on."

Harald88 09:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting. I wrote a series of programming examples for a class I was preparing to teach. The examples involved choosing which base to use for short scale (1,000) or long scale (1,000,000). Some of my East Asian students need to use "4-digit scale" (10,000); see below. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Error

"In written communications, the simplest solution for moderately large numbers is simply to write the full amount- i.e., 1,000,000 rather than 1 milliard or 1 billion." - That should be 1,000,000,000, shouldn't it? 62.113.159.156 17:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

East Asian countries

This might not fit in "long and short", because it's not based on 10^3 or 10^6 but I've run into it many times over the last 30 years.

Korea and Japan use numbering systems based on 10^4 (yes, that's ten thousand = 10,000).

Korean example

• 1 il
• 10 sip
• 100 baek
• 1,000 chun
• 10,000 man

So 54,000 would be 5 man 4 chun. And 987,000 would be 98 man 7 chun

It really gets interesting with larger numbers:

• 9,234,678 is 923 man + 4 chun 6 baek 7 sip 8
• 25,548,324 is 2,554 man + 8,324 chun

1. Should we call this the East Asian scale?
2. Translation problems are easy to make, because the 3-digit grouping of the non-Asian world and the 4-digit grouping can lead to a power-of-ten error. A large number can be inflated or deflated by a factor of 10 or 100 if the translator is in a hurry (and they usually are, at conferences). --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thousand, Million, etc

Amended the long scale definition to read "every new term greater than million", and clarified re million.

Although "thousand" doesn't fit within the "-llion" naming scheme, it is an integral part of the short scale, "thousand, million, etc". This is particularly implied by the table, and "every new term is 1 000 times greater than the previous".

The existing long scale definition did not make it explicit that million is the same in both scales. For anyone not familiar with the powers-of-10 clarifications in brackets, there is some chance that they might come away thinking that "million" is thousand x 1 000 000. HexAmp (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a linguistic issue

The discussion taking place here is a mathematical one, but shouldn't it rather be a linguistic one? The system of "numbers", as distinct from "number words", is a simple base 10 one (as are the oriental systems below incidentally). The issue under discussion here arises out of different concepts for the system for the naming of the numbers.

In the English language, in common with many others, numbering started off with unique words for the numbers from 0 to 9. The next order or magnitude was then constructed from these words with the suffix -teen or -ty added, to signify "ten". In the first half of the second millenium there was a steady evolution of the terms "hundred"s, then "thousands"s and then "million"s. It should be remembered that the gross national product of the UK in was

The general "rule" of extension of the number-labeling system is to avoid doubling up words. Labels such as "ten ten" or "ten twenty" were avoided and instead a new word was coined, such as "hundred", and the label would become "one hundred" or "two hundred" instead. Well that WOULD have been the sytem, and it would have led to the creation of a "double order" naming system.

However, in the first half of the second millenium, a complication arose. Perhaps circumstances were in a way similar to this current debate on "billion", but at that time time it revolved around the everyday usage of the term "thousand". You can still see the issue today. It is common to say "fifteen hundred" instead of "one thousand five hundred", or "nineteen hundred and sixty four", and not "one thousand nine hundred etc", or even: "fifteen hundred pounds" rather than: "one thousand five hundred pounds". But however it happened, the "two orders of magnitude" language system mutated into the "three order" system we have now, and which is today denoted by the use of commas to separate the groups of three.

Using these rules the extension of the British numbering system is logical and consistent. All was well until the "billion" issue, which comes from the needs of global economics and inflation. It also coincided pretty much with the rise of American influence after WWII. And unfortunately America is a lot bigger than Britain!

The American system simply chose to lose touch with its roots, and to start a new system over at the million point. Why? Well perhaps because if a billion means only a thousand million then you get to be a billionaire a lot faster! :P

LookingGlass (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"then you get to be a billionaire a lot faster!"   That's true.

Even Warren Buffett has to multiply his wealth by sixteen before, he'll be a true dollar-billionaire. So, currently, they are all feigned, masqueraded as "billionaires". But, it sounds good.

-- Gluck 123 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Italian usage

The claim that Italy uses the long scale is probably technically true, but it's kind of misleading because the word bilione is very rare. Ordinarily one says instead mille miliardi ("thousand milliard"). --Trovatore (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Source for billiard

The word billiard (1000 billions, long scale) is mentioned a couple of times in this article. I haven't found any reliable source stating that this word with this meaning actually exists at all. It seems to be a long-lived and hard-to-kill myth that there is such a word, probably inspired from a particular game in the world of sports. If noone can find a reliable source, I think the mentioning of this word should be deleted. The same goes for trilliard, and so on. Mårten Berglund (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be right that these words have no reality in any English-speaking country (I don't know). But they certainly exist in e.g. Danish (and I'm pretty sure in Swedish too - your name looks Swedish?). Of course, they are rarely used, as so large numbers rarely occur outside of the sciences, where power-of-ten notation or SI prefixes often are used instead. - Googling for billiard gives a lot of hits about pool-like games; googling for trilliard gives loads of dictionnary pages and such (e.g., in Danish, http://www.glemsom.dk/talmaal/danskemaal.htm), or pages where trilliard is used for an unspecified huge number (like 40 and 1001 are used in Arabian Nights). So rare, but real.--Noe (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You must be thinking exclusively of the Amercian English language of today, otherwise I couldn't see why you would think that the word billiard could be a myth, as proof that the word exists in other languages, maybe spelled slightly differently, isn't hard to find. In fact, the word does exist in your own language, Swedish. In German, like in Swedish (as far as I can tell), the suffix -illiarde (Milliarde, Trilliarde, Quadrilliarde...) is used whenever 1000 -illion is meant: 1000 Millionen = 1 Milliarde (10^9), 1000 Quadrillionen = 1 Quadrilliarde (10^15). AFAIK, the suffix -ard (as in billiard) was also used in British English. I don't exactly know why I'm telling you all this, as it's already mentioned in the article. I don't know why you'd scent a hoax. (62.152.162.207 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny typesetting for "base 2", "base 10"

In the main page the numbers are set as subscripts sans intervening space e.g. "base₂" I don't thing this is proper. I think the proper typing is simply "base 2", base 10" or "base two", "base ten", or even "binary base", "decimal base". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.27.136 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent bot run

A recent bot run has adjusted the interwiki links fro this article away from the various Long and Short scales articles in various languages - across to the corresponding 'List of numbers' articles. This is incorrect. I have reverted and alerted the bot's owner. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nielsen quotation

In the lead section, I think it's important to mention that the subject of long versus short scales is controversial and arouses emotion. This is a simple "fact about opinion." To illustrate it, I'm quoting from a British author writing in 2005 who, I think, uses language very typical of adherents to the older system. It's there merely to illustrate the controversial nature of the issue, not to prove that the long scale is better or anything of the sort.

Is that clear enough from the context, or to people think it is important to dig out an example of someone arguing in favor of the short scale? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that quote supports the paragraph very much, personally. It comes across as one guy saying, quite calmly, that there are different ways of looking at some words - hardly a patriotically inspired controversy. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Even though the language is civil and the argument is rational, I thought "the elegant and logical British system" and "in the American system, the nonsense starts..." expressed both a value judgement and a national connection. I'll see what else I can find. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Usage in Serbia

People in Serbia do not use long scale. Some time ago, I was talking with my friends about how they are naming numbers, and everybody was saying this (and this is what we learn in school):

One
Thousand = 10^3
Milion = 10^6
Miliard = 10^9
Billion = 10^12
Trillion = 10^15
Quadrillion = 10^18
etc...

Only one guy, who was in some kind of math specialized high school, was mention billiard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.207.176 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... the above needs a proper source, if it's really true. I hope it isn't - it's confusing enough to have a long and a short scale; this is a third version. (E.g., short scal trillion = 10^12, serbian trillion = 10^15, long scale trillion = 10^18).--Noe (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will try to contact somebody from Faculty of Math or other valid source to confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.207.176 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Was this ever resolved? This makes usages of quadrillion meaning 10¹², 10¹⁵, 10¹⁸ and 10²⁴. It's a bit like "zillion"! - With this amount of confusion, I suggest we just use powers of ten for anything above a million. Dbfirs 11:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Commas

Judging from the terminology, I'm guessing long scale goes as follows [Note: Reads best in Edit mode for some reason...]:

1 = one

10 = ten

100 = hundred

1,000 = thousand

10,000 = ten thousand

100,000 = hundred thousand

1,000,000 = million

10,000,000 = ten million

100,000,000 = hundred million

1000,000,000 = thousand million

1,0000,000,000 = billion

10,0000,000,000 = ten billion

100,0000,000,000 = hundred billion

1000,0000,000,000 = thousand billion

1,0000,0000,000,000 = trillion

10,0000,0000,000,000 = ten trillion

100,0000,0000,000,000 = hundred trillion

1000,0000,0000,000,000 = thousand trillion

1,0000,0000,0000,000,000 = quadrillion

10,0000,0000,0000,000,000 = ten quadrillion

100,0000,0000,0000,000,000 = hundred quadrillion

etc...

Am I right? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. A long scale billion is 1×10¹², so the sequences after

1,000,000,000 = thousand million

goes

10,000,000,000 = ten thousand million

100,000,000,000 = hundred thousand million

1,000,000,000,000 = billion

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian usage

I distinctly recall Australia officially adopting the short scale during the term of Prime Minister Bob Hawke, 11 March 1983 – 20 December 1991. I believe this change was legislated. Unfortuantely online Hansard indexes are only available from 2006 onwards.

Galaxiom (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian Standards AS1000 (appendix AA) states that the Engineers are to use long scale (Billion = Million Million) as outlined in "The 9th General Conference of Weights and Measures (CGPM) in 1948". However, in 1982 they realised it would be difficult to enforce this and have recommended "that the scientific engineering use be avoided". 203.91.84.7 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of use of squares sytem?

I had been taught (in Australia) that the long system was actually based on squares - that is that a billion is a million million (10 to the power 12), a trillion a billion billion (power 24) etc. In counting you thus 'use up' each name - hundred, thousand, million, billion,trillion etc before you use the next one, so that for example you would have one hundred thousand million billion trillion quadrillion quintilian as the name of 10 to the power 191, and one sextillion the name of 10 to the power 192. I understnad one system of naming large numbers in Chinese follows this system. Cartophilatelist (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

THAT would require a source! Honestly, I think an Australian maths teacher here just imagined what the long scale MIGHT have been like, as a (quite ingenious, actually) alternative to the short scale that as far as I understand from the article is the prevalent in Australia.--Noe (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is anything in Archive 3, top of page, of any use ? The Yeti (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's about Ausralian usage; I've now read most of it. But I haven't found anything on the squares system there; I still think that is a misunderstanding.--Noe (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

long scale terminology

I'm a little confused about long scale terminology. Would someone complete the following:

1,000,000 = one million
10,000,000 = ten million
100,000,000 = hundred million
1,000,000,000 = THOUSAND MILLION (MILLIARD)
10,000,000,000 = TEN MILLIARD
100,000,000,000 = HUNDRED MILLIARD
1,000,000,000,000 = THOUSAND MILLIARD (BILLION)
10,000,000,000,000 = TEN BILLION
100,000,000,000,000 = HUNDRED BILLION
1,000,000,000,000,000 = THOUSAND BILLION (BILLIARD)
10,000,000,000,000,000 = TEN BILLIARD
100,000,000,000,000,000 = HUNDRED BILLIARD
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = THOUSAND BILLIARD (TRILLION)
10,000,000,000,000,000,000 = TEN TRILLION
100,000,000,000,000,000,000 = HUNDRED TRILLION
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = THOUSAND TRILLION (TRILLIARD)
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = TEN TRILLIARD
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = HUNDRED TRILLIARD

And just for the heck of it, to make the long scale even more clear, how about taking a stab at the following odd numbers:

2,560,101,000,000 = two billion, five hundred sixty thousand, one hundred and one million**
22,560,101,000,000 = twenty two billion, five hundred sixty thousand, one hundred and one million**
922,560,101,000,000 = nine hundred twenty two billion, five hundred sixty thousand, one hundred and one million**
16,922,560,101,000,000 = sixteen thousand, nine hundred twenty two billion, five hundred sixty thousand one hundred and one million**
6,333,012,110,808,000,000 = six trillion, three hundred thirty three thousand, twelve billion, one hundred ten thousand, eight humndred and eight million**
**NOTE (answers provided by a Canadian that was educated long scale, as the newspapers did also. Many were taught not to use the "and" but it is grammatically incorrect not to use "and" before the final item in a list)

For me, using the short scale, it's bone simple. But the long scale has me confused. I understand the long scale definition of million, billion and trillion.... but what about everything in between and how is it written out?

And once those definitions above are written out, I think it would be good to expand the chart in the acticle with this information. Thanks. JBarta (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I do not live in a country that uses the long scale, I'd guess it's 'bone simple' as well: the powers of 10 between a thousand million and a billion are written "ten thousand million", and "hundred thousand million". 2,560,101,000,000 is "two billion, five hundred and sixty thousand one hundred and one million". Does that resolve the confusion? Shreevatsa (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see it written out just for clarity. For someone who never heard of it before, it's a little confusing. Plus, how would you say 22,220,000,000? Twenty-two thousand million two hundred twenty million? JBarta (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question, either "twentytwo milliards twohundred and twenty millions" (e.g., in Danish, "toogtyve milliarder tohundredetyve millioner"), or "twentytwo thousand twohundred and twenty millions". What to put in the article, I don't know.--Noe (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1,000,000 = one million
10,000,000 = ten million
100,000,000 = hundred million
1,000,000,000 = one milliard
10,000,000,000 = ten milliard
100,000,000,000 = hundred milliard
1,000,000,000,000 = one billion
10,000,000,000,000 = ten billion
100,000,000,000,000 = hundred billion
1,000,000,000,000,000 = one billiard
10,000,000,000,000,000 = ten billiard
100,000,000,000,000,000 = hundred billiard
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one trillion
10,000,000,000,000,000,000 = ten trillion
100,000,000,000,000,000,000 = hundred trillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one trilliard
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = ten trilliard
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = hundred trilliard

2,560,101,000,000 = two billion five hundred six milliard hundred one million
22,560,101,000,000 = twenty two billion five hundred six milliard hundred one million
922,560,101,000,000 = nine hundred twenty two billion five hundred six milliard hundred one million
16,922,560,101,000,000 = sixteen billiard nine hundred twenty two billion five hundred six milliard
hundred one million
6,333,012,110,808,000,000 = six trillion three hundred thirty three billiard twelve billion hundred
ten milliard eight hundred eight million

This is how it goes in the Hungarian long scale version (at least i think, i don't use such numbers every day :)). Billion is "Bi+million", so it is 1 000 000^2. Trillion is "Three+million", so it is 1 000 000^3. etc. The "*-iards" between them replace the "Thousand *-ions" of the "simple" long scale version.

Such big numbers are usually only found in financial news, but numbers larger than a milliard are usually written like "15 000 milliard". --CyberDragon777 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Geez that's confusing. Thank-you for filling in those numbers. It goes a long way towards fleshing it out. At least using "-illiard" tends to simplify it a bit. I'm wondering how those same numbers would be written out using the long scale without "illiard". JBarta (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Geez is semitic language, so mention of it here is offtopic. 83.10.103.166 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's Ge'ez. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The last one, for example, is 6 trillion 333,012 billion 110,808 million. The six-digit groups are pronounced the same as in short scale (using the word "thousand"). --Keith111 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hansard

Now added: the link to the online Hansard referencing Harold Wilson's 20 Dec 1974 decision to make the UK Government use the short-scale 'billion'. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

commas and {{gap}}s

This article does not refer to a mathematical or scientific context; it refers to common usage. If it were a scientific context, one billion would be 1×10⁹ or 1×10¹² in the short or long scales. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the need for improvement tags

I've been looking at the reported problems on this article, which I believe is otherwise one of the most informative webpages on the subject to be had anywhere on the Internet - and should have a higher profile / rating within WP. As far as I can tell, there are 3 tags in the article, and I ask for opinions about how we can work to eliminate the need for these tags. Are they still needed? Is there a form of words that we can agree in order to remove one or more of these tags?

#English language countries - There is a 'Who' tag attached to the sentence "Because of this history, some long scale use persists and the official status of the short scale in these countries is sometimes obscure"

1. Indonesian usage
   a) There is a 'Who' tag attached to the sentence "Occasionally some youngsters may substitute the English billion (understood as meaning milyar) in their conversation"
   b) Although no additional tags have been used (yet), there is also an internal inconsistency: Indonesia is included under "Short Scale with Milliard" (with supplied reference) yet the Indonesian Usage section states that Indonesia is a long scale country... These are contradictory. Can anyone sort this out please? If not, I suggest commenting out parts of the Indonesian Usage which contradict the supplied reference....
2. Italian usage - There is a 'Citation needed' attached to the sentence "Colloquially, bilione can mean both 10^9 and 10^12; trilione both 10^12 and (rarer) 10^18 and so on"

Together these tags cover all the hidden categorisations of the article. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of "thousand milliard"

The section Use of "thousand milliard" reads:

In those countries using the term "milliard", the term "thousand milliard" is occasionally used, but only in budgetary contexts. One milliard currency units has become the major budgetary unit, as in the national debt of Germany at the end of 2004 was about 1418 milliard euros. In all other contexts in these same countries, 10¹² is always termed "billion" and not "thousand milliard".

Is this a correct interpretation of usage, and noteworthy? When discussing the population of various countries, I may say that Denmark has 5 million inhabitants, and (for ease of comparison) India has 1200 million. In other contexts, I might prefer to say that India has 1.2 billion. Discussing years, I may say "nineteen hundred forty-nine" instead of "one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine" - arguably for ease of comparison with e.g. year nine hundrer seventy-six. Is there anything beyond this phenomenon involved in the statement about the national debt of Germany?--Noe (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the use of 'billion' vs. 'thousand milliards' is more often dictated by the purpose. If you speak in thousand milliard, the number simply looks bigger. If you want to make the number appear smaller, use billions. This is not limited to budgetary contexts anyway, it's just a question of what you want to achieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.248.203 (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As a German, I'd scratch that discussion. "Thousand milliards" is not commonly used in any context. People might possibly use a term like that and it would be understandable, but it would be just as unusual as Americans talking about "a thousand thousands" or "a thousand million". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.166.41 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll now remove the section in question.--Nø (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Population numbers

Using the most recent numbers in the Wikipedia articles on each country, I've compiled the following. Of course, most totals are at best correct to nearest million only.

Australia....	   21 855 016
Hong Kong	    7 008 900
Ireland Rep	    4 422 100
New Zealand	    4 315 800
Phillipines..	   91 983 000
Singapore..	    4 737 000
UK............	   61 113 205
USA..........	  307 293 000
English language-speaking countries and regions, total
		  502 728 021

Brazil........	  191 241 714
Bulgaria.....	    7 605 551
Estonia.....	    1 340 415
Indonesia...	  229 965 000
Iran...........	   74 196 000
Israel.........	    7 411 000
Latvia........	    2 231 503
Lithuania...	    3 555 179
Romania....	   21 498 616
Russia......	  142 008 838
Turkey.......	   74 816 000
Wales.......	    3 004 600	(counted in UK too)
Other short scale languages and countries, total
		  758 874 416

Grece........	   11 257 285
Short scale use but with other terminology, total
		   11 257 285

Short scale countries, total
		1 269 855 122	(counting Wales only once)

Andorra.....	       84 484
Argentina...	   40 482 000
Austria......	    8 356 707
Belgium.....	   10 665 867
Bosnia+Herz	    4 613 414
Chile.........	   16 928 873
Colombia...	   44 982 970
Costa Rica	    4 509 290
Croatia......	    4 489 409
Czech Rep	   10 476 543
Denmark...	    5 519 441
Dominican Rep	   10 090 000
Ecuador....	   13 625 000
El Salvador	    5 744 113
Finland......	    5 342 344
France......	   64 303 482
Germany...	   82 060 000
Guatemala.	   14 000 000
Hungary....	   10 020 000
Iceland......	      319 756
Italy..........	   60 088 880
Liechtenstein	       35 446
Luxembourg	      493 500
Mexico......	  111 211 789
Monaco.....	       32 965
Netherlands	   16 500 156
Norway......	    4 833 665
Paraguay...	    6 349 000
Peru..........	   29 132 013
Poland......	   38 130 302
Portugal....	   10 707 924
Serbia.......	    7 365 507
Slovakia....	    5 379 455
Slovenia....	    2 053 355
Spain........	   46 661 950
Sweden.....	    9 236 872
Switzerland	    7 739 100
Uruguay....	    3 361 000
Venezuela.	   26 814 843
Long scale countries, total
		  742 741 415	

Canada.....	   33 766 000
Puerto Rico	    3 994 259	(counted in USA too)
South Africa	   49 320 000
Both long and short scales countries, total
		   87 080 259

Long or short scales countries, total
		2 098 687 137	(counting Puerto Rico only once)

People's China	1 345 751 000
India..........	1 198 003 000
Pakistan....	  180 808 000
Bangladesh	  162 221 000
Nepal........	   29 331 000
Burma.......	   50 020 000
Japan........	  127 590 000
South Korea	   48 379 392
North Korea	   23 906 000
Neither short nor long scale countries, total
		3 166 009 392

Total population accounted for
		5 261 691 929

Total world population
		6 781 000 000

Population unaccounted for
		1 519 308 071

False friends

Wikipedia is not a dictionnary, so we should not go on about number names in other languages, unless there is a point to it. The point, in this case, is, as I see it, that e.g. "billion" is an example of what linguists call false friends between modern English and a number of other languages. I have included a sentence to this effect in the lead, but been reverted twice. Perhaps it should be included in a different way, but to include it was neither "vandalism" nor merely a "good faith edit" - it is adding information that belongs in this article. Of course, a source would be good - at least for the part of my addition saying this is a frequent source of errors of translation. I have googled a bit and found several relevant hits, but no perfect citable source.

I'll leave it to others to fix this.--Noe (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It was reverted because it came across as a "this seems plausible to me" statement made by a single person, rather than the statement of something that's commonly known or accepted. "False friends" as a source of numerical confusion sounds reasonable, but lots of things that turn out not to be true also sound reasonable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat embarassing, I just noticed that in the following sentence in the lead:

The two systems can be a subject of misunderstanding or controversy.'

, the word "misunderstanding" links to "False friend". This makes sense, but is also a slightly obscure way of using piped links - I'd prefer the term "false friends" (which is what this whole article is all about - or nearly so) to appear explicitly. For now, I've added it to the "See also" section. Not a perfect solution, I think, but then at least it is there.

Plausible stuff without explicit sources is what most of wikipedia is made up of. Of course, the burden of providing a source lies on anyone insisting on inclusion of a certain factoid, but reversion of obviously relevant material with a meaningful wiki-link as "vandalism" or "good-faith edits" is unfriendly and unneccesary.

In this case, several relevant hits are found by googling e.g. "false friend billion". However, I have not been able to single out any particular hit as a sound citable source. Of course, whenever inclusion of a factoid is controversial or disputed (and I've no idea why this one is or should be), just having some homepage mentioning your factoid is NOT sufficient documentation.--Noe (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI - "good faith edits" is a default key for reverting an edit in the friendliest way possible; I followed it in the Edit Summary with my thinking. It certainly wasn't meant to be dismissive and I'm sorry if it came out that way. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, I don't think this is an example of "false friends" at all. This isn't similar words that accidentally have different meanings in different languages, which is what "false friends" means linguistically - it's the exact same word that can be interpreted differently even within the same language. Nobody is mistaking, say, "billion" for another word - they're choosing to define it differently. I don't know what the term would be for that phenomenon. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

False friend within ONE language (British English) is of course a special phenomenon. But comparing modern English and e.g. Danish, "billion" are false friends in the normal sense of that term. Compare e.g. to the false friends "eventuelt" (Danish, meaning "possibly") and "eventually" (English, "in the end"). Ethymologically identical, but different meanings. The fact that they (unlike "billion") have different endings is insignificant here - that's just because they obey some morphological rules in the two languages. Much of English vocabulary is similar to Danish because of shared roots - some in Norse, some in Latin. And especially for the Latin ones, there is in many cases a close similarity in meaning, allowing for word-by-word translations - but with "eventu..." and "billion", you may get it terribly wrong translating word-by-word.--Noe (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe they're quite false friends either. There is no black and white answer if they're false friends or not. (And I doubt any reliable source would weigh in one way or the other). The term false friends seems best applied to similar words in two (or more) languages that have acquired important differences in meaning over time ... billion is still a number, it's not like billion in one language means "number" and in another it means say, "medicine". Those would clearly be false friends. Yes, they differ by in amount/magnitude a great deal but they still both refer to number and the fact that different countries use different scales is fairly well known. It's not black and white, I understand the point of view that they refer to different amounts so to some readers appear to be false friends. I don't think there is any obvious answer other than to say "Is the page improved by the addition?" Is it an improvement to add the term false friends in addition to the discussion already present in the article of the similarity of many terms in different languages? There is subjectivity involved in calling them false friends and I find adding the term is only distracting rather than illuminating. BobKawanaka 18:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobKawanaka (talk • contribs)

Despite my earlier argument I think it's fine to have the term as a "see also" at the end of the article (as Noe has placed it), because it's close enough to raise interesting questions. Raising interesting questions is a good thing! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree "see also" is a good place for the term. BobKawanaka 21:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobKawanaka (talk • contribs)

I must admit I never saw ANY reason why "billion" / "billion" should not be considered false friend. I've now added it again, and linked a source.--Nø (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Milliard into this article

I've copied below the text of the Milliard article so that can be closed down. Much of the content is already in the LASS article - so there should be little to move across. I'd suggest closing down this section / striking through this text, as and when text is dealt with. I can find no other confirmation of the alleged use of nickel, and suggest this is vandalism. Please provide a reference befroe copying into the main article. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

" Milliard is a French-derived numeral word meaning the number 1,000,000,000 (10⁹; one thousand million; SI prefix giga) and which is used in France, Germany ("Milliarde"), Italy ("Miliardo"), Russia ("миллиард"), Bulgaria ("милиард"), Ukraine ("Мільярд"), the Scandinavian countries (Norway and Denmark) ("Milliard"), Sweden ("Miljard"), Finland ("Miljardi"), the Netherlands ("Miljard"), Romania ("Miliard"), Poland ("Miliard"), Slovenia ("Milijarda"), Hungary ("Milliárd"), Iran, and Israel (מיליארד).

"Millardo" is sometimes used in Spanish-speaking countries but "mil millones" is used more frequently. The word "Billón" is sometimes incorrectly used in those countries more influenced by the United States but it is considered unacceptable Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas). Although the "milliard" unit is known in English-speaking countries, use of the term is rare or unknown due to the British habit of saying "thousand million" and the American habit of saying "billion".

During the 20^th century, the short scale "billion" superseded "thousand million" to become the normal term in most of the English-speaking world. In languages in which "milliard" is common, a "billion" often refers to a thousand "milliard" or 1,000,000,000,000, which is a trillion elsewhere. This scheme continues in these countries, so "billiard" means quadrillion, "trillion" means quintillion and "trilliard" means sextillion.

In financial markets, yard (derived from milliard) is still often used instead of "billion" to avoid ambiguity between "million" and "billion". When South Africa adopted the metric system in 1971, "milliard" was recommended by the Metrication Board, but has often been ignored in practice. A negative "yard" or "billion" in the financial markets is commonly known as a nickel.

Translation errors are often caused by not knowing the difference between the long and the short scale usages of these large numerals. "

Resentment?

Does anyone else think the lede sentence "Usage changes can evoke resentment in adherents to the older system, while national differences of any kind can acquire jingoistic overtones" has a pretty feeble source for an encyclopedia article? The source is one individual voicing an opinion, and any estimate of whether 1% or 10% of the population still feels this way is pure speculation and therefore unencyclopedic. Does anyone object to simply deleting it? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparison table wording

The comparison table says "thousand million (sometimes milliard)". Why only "sometimes"? Isn't the word "milliard" used in almost every European language except English? Therefore it is not only used "sometimes" but is actually a very common word. Neither does English use it "sometimes", since English doesn't use it at all (according to this article.) I propose dropping the word "sometimes" since it is misleading, or changing it to "(in many languages: milliard)". Offliner (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you do about this, please note that accordint to the section Long and short scales#Long scale countries, Spanish speaking countries (as well as Portugal and Andorra) mostly use mil milliones or the like.--Noe (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Very long scale?

I live in Argentina, so I use the long numeral scale. However, here most people use another system (indeed, I didn't hear of the long scale until reading this article, and most mathematics professors I asked didn't know about it anyway), where "ions" go between n and n², for example:

100.000.000.000	Thousand Million (appears to be a typo)
1.000.000.000.000	Billion
10.000.000.000.000	Ten Billion
100.000.000.000.000	Hundred Billion
1.000.000.000.000.000	Thousand Billion
10.000.000.000.000.000	Ten Thousand Billion
100.000.000.000.000.000	Hundred Thousand Billion
1.000.000.000.000.000.000	Million Billion
(...)
100.000.000.000.000.000.000.000	Hundred Thousand Million Billion
1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000	Trillion

Has anyone ever heard about this scale? --Fixman^{Praise me} 14:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

  This is the "long scale". I see no differences.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.149.54 (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC) 

Note discussion of textual changes...

...in the still going strong thread about mixed uses in British English. JoergenB (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

milliard - again

At least Germany we have - in addition to milliard 1⁹ - a billiarde 1¹⁵ and a trilliarde 1²¹ and to on. I expect it is the same for the other long scale countries. --Krischik ^T 19:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Table widths

My problem with Long and short scales is with the two charts under

3.3 Both long and short scales countries

3.4 Neither short nor long scale countries

They fit quite well on standard screens before your edits. If you'll restore those charts I'll make no fuss about your other edits as long as they're verifiable. --Glenn L (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Glen, I have replaced all fixed '880' table widths with '95%' (or less) table widths, which has been in the article for some time now (over a year) and are clearly more acceptable as a variable width display. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I reset four tables to 100% and adjusted the column ratios to what fits the best. --Glenn L (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article (FA)

I am grateful to User:Pyrotec for his recent award to this article of 'Good Article' status. Ever ambitious, I am interested in obtaining a gap report of deficiencies for Featured Article status. Although we have had substantial recent work wrt the Good Article rework, we are not far from the Featured Article status, and I would really like to see some qualification / quantification of the work involved in obtaining the FA status. I am aware from Google that this article is quoted / used regularly to resolve issues with the word 'billion', and it would be good to bring this together.... Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada

Canada has never used the short scale officially. The problem comes with being so close to the USA in so many social and political functions that we tend to lose our own identity and culture.

A reference to a CBC news article misusing the term billion is not a valid reference for definition purposes, here. Please supply a valid reference, either way. The history chart refers to a time when the long scale was our standard in Canada. No later enactment or entry has been shown, only poorly educated news reporters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.170.70 (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Canada has never used the long scale officially. However, if you can find a reference for use, I would be willing to reinsert it as a former use in Canada. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but that statement is not correct. Canada was a British colony and followed their system, which was long scale, until 1974. The Canadian press began using short scale reports due to US influence similar to incorrectly using the other US systems. ie. ounces, pints, quarts, gallons and other odd measurements not used in other parts of the world. Using a news report misuse for reference is not a valid reference and just editorially immature. If you can demonstrate a valid reference I would be glad to allow the changes to our reported system on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.170.70 (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you would need to provide evidence that Canada ever used long scale. They don't, now. Even when Canada was a British "colony". and when what is presently the United States were British colonies, the language was different, although I don't have good references supporting what was used in the New World then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I agree with you that the news source, which shows only that that source used short scale, is not helpful. In fact, however, well-educated Canadians use short scale. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

It would appear I have to concede this item at this time. I have found a Canadian government website definition of "billion" that currently supports your argument of split usage between the language cultures in Canada. <see link>

http://btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv2alpha/alpha-eng.html?lang=eng&i=&index=frt&__index=frt&srchtxt=billion&comencsrch.x=12&comencsrch.y=10

In the 1950s to 1970s Canadian students were taught that a billion was 10^12 and many news articles published, supported the concept with the usage of the term "thousand million" in headlines and article bodies. Since we are an imperial country and the British have supported the long system ubtil 1974 I would be sure that Canada also followed this style of numbering systems. No official Canadian decree or mention can be found and it should be noted on the wiki page that references are needed instead of a poor refernece to a reporter's opinionated headline. Canadians are strongy influenced by their southern brothers and it continually degrades their cultural standards, spelling and measurement systems.

I have included some references I came across that support the usage of the term "thousand million" in older Canadian articles and books including one by a Canadian official political official.

My apologies for any confusion this may have caused. You need to identify yourself when co-responding initially in future. I just figured you were another nasty.

Best wishes on the good work. Some repairs to the page are in order.

R. G. MCKEE, Deputy Minister of Forests, British Columbia, Canada http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5393e/x5393e02.htm

http://outreach.lrh.usace.army.mil/Industries/Grain/Grain%20GL.htm

Reference to coal quantities in a history book: Canada ToDay and Tomorrow" Pg. 187 http://books.google.ca/books?id=dqrCBbhyZWoC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=Canada+%22thousand+million%22&source=bl&ots=nIHhjprjr1&sig=Qmi8vq9Zo5WBmWBPT288BKOYxlA&hl=en&ei=wKafTJDnMomlnQfnsOC0DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Canada%20%22thousand%20million%22&f=false

Canadian Government site referenceing multiple Canadian library books using the phrase "thousand million" http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/lac-bac/results/lib?FormName=Fed+Simple+Search&SourceQuery=&PageNum=1&SortSpec=score+desc&SearchIn_1=&SearchInText_1=%22thousand+million%22&Operator_1=AND&SearchIn_2=&SearchInText_2=&Operator_2=AND&SearchIn_3=&SearchInText_3=&Sources_1=amicus&Sources_2=mikan&Sources_3=genapp&Sources_4=web&soundex=&cainInd=&Sources=amicus&ResultCount=10&MaxDocs=-1

Newspaper articles using the term "thousand million" Based on this search result http://manitobia.ca/cocoon/launch/en/newspaper_search_result.xml?query=%22thousand+million%22&searchNewsPapers=Search&pos=0 http://manitobia.ca/cocoon/launch/en/newspapers/WPT/1943/03/29/articles/252.xml/iarchives?query=thousand million http://manitobia.ca/cocoon/launch/en/newspapers/TVC/1915/02/19/6/Ar00600.xml/Olive?query=%22thousand million%22 http://manitobia.ca/cocoon/launch/en/newspapers/DNW/1896/06/20/4/Ar00400.xml/Olive?query=%22thousand million%22 http://manitobia.ca/cocoon/launch/en/newspapers/WPT/1941/01/06/articles/56.xml/iarchives?query=%22thousand million%22 http://manitobia.ca/cocoon/launch/en/newspapers/TMT/1898/09/28/5/Ar00510.xml/Olive?query=%22thousand million%22 http://pi.library.yorku.ca/dspace/bitstream/handle/10315/915/HSH00004.pdf;jsessionid=B6594CD314155DFAE5D78976029B81A1?sequence=4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.170.70 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We may all like the Canadian information to say certain preferences. However constant random editing of the information, without any substantiation or cites, only cheapens the wikipedia article and makes it untrustworthy, whether done by a rogue administrator, or troll. Speaking for **ALL** Canadians is a foolish statement and cannot be made in an honest manner without some special authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.12.221 (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Notes on Canada were deleted. administrator(s) obssession with control made the paragraph useless and only contained repetitive information for three other occurances on charts. Interesting **NOTES** from various users were not allowed for Canada. Some maturity of those n power needs to be exercised here, from an onlooker's perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.149.54 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Myanmar

Although a citation was requested for the short-scale status of Myanmar, the supplied citation is for Burmese English. We currently have a link to Indian numerals, which states that these are in common use in Myanmar. As a result, I understand that Myanmar should have a dual status as short scale in its English-speaking population and Indian numerals in the remainder of the population. I intend to adjust the article accordingly. Can anyone provide citations to contradict this situation? Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The citation is in Burmese, not Burmese English. (I just looked up a recent Burmese publication but it's found in any publication today. it's common usage.) Burmese English still occasionally uses the term lakh for 100,000 (even that is used by older people). But as far as all the numbers above 10^7--the Burmese language doesn't have any terms any number greater than 10^7--the numbers are directly transliterated from English to Burmese. So the name Template:My is a direct translation of billion and Template:My is trillion. So the Burmese usage has become short scale because the prevailing usage in English has become short scale. If the English usage were long scale, the Burmese usage would have been long scale too. Hybernator (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

incorrect claim for Pelletier's use of "milliard"

The following is wrong according to Jacques Pelletier du Mans:

Jacques Pelletier du Mans used the name milliard (“milliart”) for "Million de Millions", i.e. 10¹².

Apparently the following is also wrong and apparently an incorrect and OR interpretation of what Google shows from David Eugene Smith's History of Mathematics:

The majority of scientists either continued to say "thousand million" or changed the meaning of the Pelletier term, milliard, from "million of millions" down to "thousand million". --Espoo (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added {{cn}}s as needed. I don't believe it - and the OED strongly suggests otherwise. We should also note that their first citation for milliard is from the American ambassador to France, discussing French finance in 1789; their first citation for billion is from Locke, a century earlier, and introducing long scale to replace "millions of millions", "millions of millions of millions", and so on. In the sixteenth century, English was neither short nor long. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Terrorism

Forgive me if the format is not up to standards (newbie) bit I have noticed some real problems with the wiki concept.

Why not just lock all articales down and people submit revisions to be evaluated by the police force before incorporation into the articles? This may save a lot of agravation for the may agrravators (the administrators). Many good revisions have been submitted to correct the constant repetative statements used in this article and yet the theme that apperas to prevail is

User edit Administrator revert...no discussion User or another user "undoes" the revert with an explanation Administrator gives warning without any notice of who or what they are. No explanation in the discussion page are given. User or another user endoes the revert again. Administrator dislikes the emotional challenge, acts like a child and blocks the user without any discussion or cites for the new information, valid or not. I have witnessed this many times on quite a few articles. Although a lot of policing needs to be done and it is a big, and hard, task some policing of the police needs to be done to avoid the (as one user put it) "rogue administators on an ego trip.

This tends to discourage user input and in the end discourages usage letting the website eventually drift away for a more progressive and friendly site in the future.

    Please note this is a discussion page and attempts to hide the discussion of the wiki concept only further exemplify the above comments--174.118.149.54 (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)