text:
Burzum (album)

Burzum is the debut studio album by the Norwegian black metal solo project Burzum. It was released in March 1992, through Euronymous's label Deathlike Silence Productions. Six of the songs were later re-recorded in 2010 and released on the album From the Depths of Darkness, as Varg Vikernes was dissatisfied with some of the original vocals and production.

Most reissues of the album have been released as Burzum/Aske which includes the Aske EP as the final three tracks. Only the Aske version of "A Lost Forgotten Sad Spirit" was included on this edition.

Track listing
All music and lyrics by Varg Vikernes except "Ea, Lord of the Deeps", words taken from the Necronomicon.

Burzum/Aske
Note: Burzum/Aske renames track 3 as "Spell of Destruction" as Vikernes claims the word "Black" was added to the title by Euronymous without his knowledge. Track 2 is also amended to "Ea, Lord of the Depths".

Personnel
Burzum

 * Count Grishnackh – vocals, guitar, bass guitar, drums, synthesizer, production

Additional credits
 * Euronymous – guitar solo on "War", gong on "Dungeons of Darkness", production (Only the original and 2022 pressings list the "Co-Producer" credit.)
 * Pytten (Eirik Hundvin) – engineering, mastering, production
 * Jannicke Wiese-Hansen – album artwork (artwork is a partial re-creation of The Temple of Elemental Evil's cover art.)

title: Burzum (album)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 16

Linking of "Month Year" vs. Month "Year"
Recently got into a debate about linking "April 1992" as April 1992 or April 1992. The MoS's position is at Manual of Style %28dates and numbers%29:

 * December 1983 (note that December is not linked)
 * December 1983

The only thing I find in the discussion archives is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style %28dates and numbers%29/archive12 where it ended with no support of the MoS's position of not linking to "Month Year" but rather going ahead and leaving red links so that it shows up under "What links here".

In short, I see no good reason to not link to "Month Year" (e.g., April 1992) except as an absurd MoS guideline. I find no indepth discussion for why it exists and find no indepth discussion debating it: so here it is, discuss away.

Reasons for linking as April 1992:
 * One can find anything associated with a "month year" just like for, say, September 4th. Believe it or not, I have browsed these lists before as a sort of "random page" reason but for some correlation of randomness.  I'd be shocked if I was the first to do this.
 * One can find the degree of need for a red linked page to exist. I see a perfect scenario as having all these as valid pages (really, what else was happening in April 1992 besides Linux getting it's first file system: ext?)
 * It's no different than linking to April 2 except there's more of them

Reasons for not linking as April 1992:
 * Red links = bad (but I disagree as explained above)

I guess I'm really calling for a discussion on this and possibly a vote (if needed) for removing the quoted MoS tidbit. Please, discuss away. Cburnett 08:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see a need for either. Maurreen 09:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I also do not see a need for either. Furthermore, if it weren't for this linking being tied to the preferences settings, I'd like to see a whole lot less linking to full dates as well.  That's the only justifiable reason for linking all the full dates, including repetitions within an article; otherwise, only those of particular significance would need to be linked to.  Gene Nygaard 11:35, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

 * Contrary to your claim, it is different from linking to April 2 April 2 or to 2 April 2 April in one very significant way; if you have your preferences set for either 15 January 2001 or January 15, 2001, both of those will look the same, but April 1992 April 1992 and 1992 April 1992 April will not look the same.
 * Compare also 1992 April 2 1992 April 2 vs. 1992 April 2 1992 April 2 and 1992-04 1992-04 vs. either 1992 04-02 1992 04-02 or 1992-04-02 1992-04-02). Gene Nygaard 11:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Is there any way to determine how often (if at all) readers of articles follow date links? The claim is that they're useful, but I doubt whether people actually use them. Certainly, I've always found them completely superfluous (unless the date is a significant part of the article), not to say messy — which I assume is Maurreen's point. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * No to excessive date-linking. I agree with Gene Nygaard most date-links are unnecessary for the context of the article and are provided solely for the purpose of expressing date preferences appropriately. So since there is no need related to date preferences, month-year combinations should not be linked. older ≠ wiser 15:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * I also doubt whether readers use date links. Before I looked at Wikipedia, I did look up things in an encyclopedia and online. I was curious about many things but I cannot recall ever been curious about a date such as March 12, 1822, 1820s, or 19th century. Even worse is when the same date is linked multiple times. The trouble is that adding links to dates (and low added value nouns or phrases) is popular, removing them is not. I would welcome any initiative that discourages low added value linking. Bobblewik  (talk) 16:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I read the linked dates and decades and centuries for the same reason I read timelines - to find sometimes surprising relationships. No one is asking anyone to follow any links, only providing them to allow for different users different needs, preferences and learning styles. Rmhermen 18:49, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

This topic has just appeared on the Village pump. I thought people might be interested. Bobblewik (talk) 21:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich
Bobblewik, here is the start of the discussion you asked for. My position is (1) that the MoS is just a guideline, and that there is nothing in it that states all units must be repeated in metric and Imperial; (2) that the page on Reich is written in American Engoish, and therefore American usage applies; and (3) an "800,000-meter estate" is not common usage or good writing. On the basis of these points, jointly and separately, I disagree with your edit. SlimVirgin 22:10, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Here are my two cents:
 * This is dictated by the fact that we do indeed have an "International System of Units" and SI units are always appropriate, in any article. It is also an interdisciplinary system, so even in those cases where non-SI units are common usage in a particular industry or academic field, SI conversions are also appropriate.
 * American English includes SI. Bobblewik used m², so we don't have to argue about the spelling of meters.
 * This specific example would be much better as either "80 hectares" or as "0.80 km²"—if you had put 80 hectares in in the first place, I'd certainly back you up if Bobblewik tried to change it. This is a classic example of a situation where the hectare, which is declared to be acceptable for use with SI, is appropriate.  When you get into thousands or millions of hectares, I agree that they are better expressed in square kilometers.
 * Your arguments are sufficient for the retention of acres, along with the metric conversion. But Bobblewik didn't delete the acres, so that isn't an issue.
 * Gene Nygaard 22:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Gene, thanks for your comment. I'd have a lot less trouble with hectares, for sure. However, I would also like to make the point here that the MoS is not policy; it is a guideline, which states of itself quite clearly that it is not binding, so I feel it is a little inappropriate of editors to repeatedly revert when other editors are not keen on the addition of metric units, especially when the editor making the addition has not otherwise been involved in editing the article. It's not the initial addition I object to (Bobblewik has as much right as anyone to edit Reich), but I would prefer more of a consensus approach once an objection has been raised, rather than it simply being inserted again. Having said that, I do value Bobblewik's work on Wikipedia and his views, and don't want to be intransigent. I would certainly agree to compromise with hectares instead of meters, if Bobblewik would. Thank you for making the suggestion. SlimVirgin 23:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * "This is dictated by the fact that we do indeed have an "International System of Units" and SI units are always appropriate, in any article." - this is complete rubbish. What is appropriate is the use of term that the majority of readers will understand and/or is current in the article's subject matter. The fact that a system exists whose inventor wanted it to be 'international' does not, in fact, make it commonly understood, any more than if I were to create a spelling system completely at odds with standard English and call it the 'International 80.255 system for spelling English words' I could argue that all spellings in wikipedia must be changed 'cos my system's International!
 * We should take account of the fact that English wikipedia is largely read by people from the UK and the US, neither of whom are familiar with abstruse metric units such as hectares (which aren't even SI, in any case!). Accordingly, these units should not be used preferentially, and certainly shouldn't be used in isolation. Any encyclopaedia that deliberately uses such units when better understood alternatives are available has a very twisted view of its own raison d'être. 80.255 01:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm confused here because it was Bobblewik who said I should start this discussion on a public page, and now he hasn't responded, yet continues to alter texts as though no one is objecting. I agree with the above (80.255). But I'd say better still to leave things to the individual editor and/or to make things appropriate to the country that's being written about, and not go doubling up on units of measurement in especially in articles where the units are not really an issue. SlimVirgin 04:53, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I can see why you are only half-there, 80 (since we Americans are even more informal, we often use first names). Sure you could make up your own "international" spelling system.  But the difference between that and the International System of Units is that the latter is indeed the international system in fact as well as in name.  They are less appropriate for large areas, though sometimes used in "thousands of hectares" or "millions of hectares" for things like large forest fires.  In those cases, square kilometers are usually more appropriate.  But the big advantage of any of the metric units is that those who'd like it in hectares can easily figure out in their heads how many  hectares it is, to the same precision as the original, just from looking at a figure in square kilometers.  But the same isn't true with Fred Flintstone Units.  When the area of Yellowstone National Park is given as "2,219,799 acres", can you tell me what that is in square miles, to the same precision, without using a calculator?  You probably couldn't even do it with a pencil and paper, and certainly wouldn't be able to do so without a calculator.  It is given, but to only three significant digits rather than seven, in that article.

 * One thousand acres is aproximately 1.5 square miles. It isn't difficult to come up with an aproximate mental conversion! It took me about 5 seconds to get c. 3300 [(2,200,000/1000)/3*2], which is a reasonable aproximation of the true value. And since 0.25 acres is 40 square rods, it isn't difficult to convert the vale into square feet.
 * But you miss the point. In real terms, most people do not have an accurate perception of the extent of a hectare or a square kilometre, so being able to easily convert one to the other is of little use. Most people do have an accurate perception of an acre and a square mile, and so these are units to which people can relate to in real terms. 80.255 14:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Once you do that, can you also calculate the area in square feet to the same precision? I bet you are like the vast majority of those "people from the UK and the US" you are talking about—you don't know beans about those units you use just because they are sound so comfortable to you. That's all you are talking about with your "familiarity" arguments—not that they understand the units they use, just that they feel more comfortable with the sound of their names.  Would you have to look up the number of square feet in an acre in some reference book or web page before you could figure it out?  Most of those people you talk talk about would.

 * Of course, Wikipedia, and even specifically the English Wikipedia, has a much broader audience. Gene Nygaard 13:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hectares are officially declared to be acceptable for use with SI, and their use in the Wilhelm Reich article is exactly they type of use for which they are generally accepted. That doesn't mean that they are always the most appropriate choice; but when they aren't appropriate, or even when they are, the alternatives are square meters or square kilometers.  To expand on this, hectares are appropriate for small, identified tracts of land, and for agricultural yields per hectare.

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks for bringing the issue over here. I was paying attention and taking note of what you said here. I also have read your amendment of the manual of style. I don't agree with it but have not done anything about it. I am interested in the views of others on this general issue. This topic has been raised quite a few times so I am not particularly surprised by any of the angles that are raised. In case you think I am avoiding the debate, let me add a couple of angles that I agree with that have also been raised before. Firstly, we do not restrict units to the nation. Forbidding metric units in 'articles relating to a non-metric country' would presumably mean that we should forbid non-metric units in 'articles relating to a metric country'. That would be bizarre. Secondly, it is not true to suggest that 'American articles' are only permitted to be read by Americans. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a reference for anyone with web access. Bobblewik (talk) 10:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * But if it's worth knowing to seven significant digits in acres, it's worth knowing to seven significant digits in square miles. Of course, that premise is debatable in the first place, but it is one of the artifacts of using those units, that when adding them up, some people just hang onto the whole number figures without rounding them appropriately.
 * More directly to your point about approximations, however. I have an accurate mental picture of 220 acres.  But since we farmers are getting to be few and far between, most Americans do not. They could not mark off a tract of 220 acres on a map, nor on the ground.  On the other hand, I do not have an accurate mental picture of 2,200,000 acres even when I round off that precisely stated value, and I do not know anybody at all who would have an accurate mental picture of that area.  I can however, easily get a pretty good picture of 900,000 hectares or 9000 square kilometers; a rectangle 90 km by 100 km, or 30 km by 300 km, etc., or with a precision similar for what you found acceptable for converting acres to square miles, a 100 km square.  Gene Nygaard 14:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not the person to take your last point up with. I largely agree with you. But the main Manual of Style says that the usage of the country the article is "specific to" should be used. So an article about the U.S. should deploy U.S. usage. Now "usage" has not been defined; and the MoS is not policy, so individual editors in reality may do as they choose, but in the event of an edit dispute, the MoS is supposed to be used as guidance. My point is that it is not policy that every unit must be doubled up. It's not a question of "forbidding" metric units. That is too strong. It's a question of commonsense. There is simply no need to double up most of the time, and particulary when it comes to acres, converting that to thousands of meters. So I'm not arguing in favor of forbidding; simply against unnecessary doubling up. If readers are desperate to know what an acre is, they can look at Acre, but people reading Wilhelm Reich are probably not reading it in order to find out what the meter equivalent is. SlimVirgin 12:26, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia policies or guides are vague, this makes room for editorial judgment. I'm always weary of policy bloat that takes away this judgment. The case of dual units is a good example; I write a lot of technical articles, where dual units fit right in. The mind is attuned to it and they fit right in. Bobblewik has added dual units to articles I have started many times and it has always made a very nice improvement. Bobblewik's dedication to consistency is another point to note; its something you don't appreciate until its gone. Imagine an encyclopedia where the presentation of units involves every combination, permutation and variation possible! And compare this to an encyclopedia with consistent unit usage and dimensioning schemes down to the punctuation mark. I think we could use a style guide of suggested unit usage aimed at consistency and dual unit schemes (I've seen bits and pieces here and there, but not collected in one place, someone point me to it if there is one).

However, some articles have a flow and feel that that is very different than technical articles, and in this example the dual units detract from the flow of the words. Other topics have unique units with additional meaning and significance that don't translate well. I think there are occasional examples where dual units aren't really called for. SlimVirgin's mentioned less objection to hectares, is this an acceptable compromise? I wouldn't object to removing the dual units on this page. But I think dual units should be pushed on wikipedia.

One more thought; many people object to dual units because they aren't conformable with one of them. Over time, however, people do become accepting of dual units. Especially if they are presented in a consistent fashion. I think having a style guide that presents this would be very valuable -- Duk 17:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

areas
"Areas of land should be given in km², which can be entered as km².

"When describing areas of agriculture, forests, parks, wilderness, etc., hectares are an acceptable (not mandatory) alternative to square kilometres."

What is point of this rule? Most people in Britain and America have little familiarity with hectares, and the term doesn't have much meaning in a practical context. Since English wikipedia is largely used by British and American readers, what is point of using an little-known continental unit? Giving land areas in acres is far more sensible, or, at the very least, it should be ensured that both units are provided. The same is true for square kilometres. I should imagine most people from Britain and America make sense of this unit simply by thinking of it as square miles less a small ammount; in other words, the values would be more useful if expressed in square miles, and insisting on expression in square kilomtres is pointless lunacy. If this were the French wikipedia, whose readers are all likely to know and understand these units, then such a policy would be sensible. But it isn't; and nor is it a scientific context that acrues any benefit from it in terms of simplicy of conversions.

To summerise: 80.255 01:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I see no reason why areas of land should be expressed in square kilometres. The unit is not commonly used in either the UK or the US, and there is no justification for using it when values can just as easily be expressed in the better-known unit of square miles.
 * 2) The 'hectare' is a near-unknown unit to most people in both these countries (from which the bulk of the English Wiki readership is drawn) and any mention of it should be manditarily supplemented with an understandable value in acres. There is no excuse for encouraging the use of a unit which so many people do not understand. Giving data in the most commonly-understood form should be the first priority, not adopting some quasi-politicised policy of metrication!

 * The above is a very sad story of American imperialistic thinking. The only thing of interest is how they do it. You should realise that far more poeple are not familiar with square feet than with m². Even among English speaking people. −Woodstone 10:38, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

 * As a matter of interest, what makes you think that? SlimVirgin 12:28, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Woodstone. It is a marvellous example of the silly and unhelpful mentality I wrote against. I couldn't have come up with more dogmatically deluded obduracy in the face of all reason if I tried. I particularly like the way you try to brand the use of units most people understand with the meaningless slogan of 'American Imperialism'. Using square feet is just like invading Iraq, isn't it just? Your reply consists of a sloganising attempt to cast aspersions on any opposition to your viewpoint, and, more significantly, absolutely no factual evidence to support it. Do you or do you not accept that the majority of the English wiki readship is drawn from the UK and USA? The fact that readers from the USA should have access to information in units they understand is not 'imperialism' by any strange, perverse interpretation of the word. In Britain, numerous surveys have consistently revealed that most people do not think in metric units and better understand their own measurement system. A survey involving over 10,000 people from Feb 2002 revealed that 95% prefered the Imperial system.  Even in Australia, a country which has 'officially' used metric since the 60s, use of and support for the system is anything but overwelming. In a survey carried over a decades after metrication, 60.8% said the metric system harder to understand and 90.6% said they thought in feet and inches, rather than metres and centimetres - and this 'metric Australia'! And as for Canada:
 * Canada's move to metrics ground to a halt in 1983 when the government issued a Moratorium suspending compulsory metric conversion. Since then, it has been Canada's policy not to enforce the country's Weights and Measures Act requiring that metric be more prominent than traditional units. As a result, retailers continue to price and sell fruit, vegetables, meat and other weighed items in imperial units. Metric equivalents are offered only in tiny print. The purpose of One Metre is reverse the Moratorium, thereby compelling retailers to display metric units more prominently than imperial units. One Metre notes, "Without enforcement, the completion of metric conversion will never happen". Quite."

So, all in all, the notion that the average wikipedia reader prefers metric is complete nonsense! At the very least, a very substantial proportion of readers does not prefer the system, and the provision of equivalents in imperial measurements should be obligatory and demanded in this style guide. I don't object the metric units being given in parentheses, but I do strenuously object to abtruse units like 'hectares' being used in isolation, when the majority of readers far better understand acres. Does that make me an "American Imperialist"? Not even being American, I find the accusation laughable! Why is it that you are determined that articles use units with which most people are either not familiar or dislike?

"The scientists adopted the decimal system on the basis of the meter as unit. Nothing is more contrary to the organisation of the mind, memory and imagination. The new system will be a stumbling block and source of difficulties for generations to come. It is just tormenting the people with trivia." Napoleon Bonaparte

80.255 14:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Enough of the spewing of anti-metric British Weights and Measures Association nonsense like your italicized, offset quote above. In Canada, all prepackaged goods are metric only. Even the soft-converted sized do not list any pounds or pints. The scales for items weights in the store measure in grams and kilograms.  Even if some stores to list the price per pound prominently, it is the price per kilogram which controls.  Canada does indeed have areas where English units remain fairly common, but this isn't one of them.  Gene Nygaard 14:26, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * That quote was merely to demonstrate that imperial measurements are understood well by many people in Canada, and additionally prefered by a significant proportion. You yourself admit that there are "areas where English units remain common" - so, should people from these areas visit wikipedia, they should be able to find measurements listed in their prefered system. If Canada's pro-metric lobby group complains that "without enforcement, the completion of metric conversion will never happen", it's pretty reasonable to deduce that it hasn't been 'completed' yet, and hence many people still prefer the imperial system. This isn't 'nonsense' - it's common sense; and wikipedia certainly shouldn't unfairly discriminate against those people who don't use metric.
 * In any case, Canadians do not constitute the majority of wikipedia readers - most from the the UK and USA, where preference for and better understnading of imperial measures is beyond question. The examples I gave from Canada and Australia simply showed that offering the choice of both cannot be a bad thing even in supposedly metric countries. 80.255 14:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, in respect of Canada again, you might be interested to read this article, which has nothing to do with the BWMA! 80.255 16:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If one thing is abundantly clear, it's that big numbers of people are not familiar with either one of the measurement systems. So let the authors put in units according to their custom. Others can add conversions if required. Can we not just agree never to delete the "other" unit? −Woodstone 22:32, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

 * My original post called for pretty much this; specifically that arcane metric units such as hectares be supplemented with values in acres as a matter of policy. I'm not trying to get the hectare cast out into darkness, but merely ensure that the majority of readers who are not familiar with this unit in real terms have an alternative rendition in better-known units. As it stands, however, policy implies that a value given solely in hectares (or equally unhelpful square kilometres) is acceptable, and I dispute that it should be. I'm all for providing both systems, provided that the principle is not fanatically instituted to extremes in situtions running contrary to common sense (for an example of this, see !). 80.255 22:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * That isn't what you were claiming originally.
 * When you get everyone to stop calling a 90 mm floppy disk a 3½ inch disk, let us know. Then no further explanation will be necessary in that article—we can just take out all the 3½ inch references.  Gene Nygaard 23:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It is actually what I originally wrote--"The 'hectare' is a near-unknown unit to most people in both these countries (from which the bulk of the English Wiki readership is drawn) and any mention of it should be manditarily supplemented with an understandable value in acres". 'Supplemented', not 'replaced'.
 * The floppy disk edit is an example of a suprememly idiotic persuance of conversions in a case where the metric equivalents are both unused and irrelevant, and clutter up the text with pointless repetitions. I not entirely sure what you point is regarding it. 80.255 23:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The point is that it is the 3½ inches which is the conversion, not the 90 mm. If it were 3½ inches, it would only be 88.9 mm.  Just look up the standard.  Or use your eyes, and a cheap ruler.  It's not very hard to see.  Gene Nygaard 23:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I concede this, and it is mentioned in the article. However, the disk is called a 3½" floppy; it is sold as a 3½" floppy and to all intents and purposes it is  3½". To call it a '90 mm floppy' is a description, not a name, just as the Palace of Westminister could be described as a 'big gothic-revival building not far from St. Paul's', but its name remains the Palace of Westminister. Similarly, to augment all references to Westminister Palace with parenthetical blather about big gothic edifices, though they may be absolutely correct, does not add any useful information to articles.
 * Moreover, your reasoning clearly wasn't behind the edit I mentioned, because the 'converter' merrily apended imprecise metric values to 5½" disks, the name of which, descriptively, also precisely reflects their length.
 * But this line of discussion is going off on a tangent. I note that you have yet to make any constructive comment on my proposal regarding areas in the manual of style. Have you any? 80.255 00:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Is it that hard, guys? The English Wikipedia is by far the largest and is thus consulted by many non-native English speakers, among other reasons as a source for localised articles. I won't make a guess whether native or non-native English speakers are in the majority. In all countries, including the US, the metric system is legally allowed, used and taught, in most of them exclusively (more or less even in the UK). Therefore there is no reason to not use it, including the units just "accepted to be used with SI'', like the minute, liter or hectare.
 * For English/British/Imperial/US customary/Fred Flintstone/whateveryoucallthem units, the situation is quite different: knowledge of them is pretty much limited to US Americans and older citizens of many former English colonies and the UK itself (plus some metrologists and people interested in the field), furthermore knowledge of the entire "system(s)" is limited even among these people. Anyhow, sources from this areas sometimes use these units and so they should be noted in Wikipedia articles that use these sources, but accomplied by metric values for all the other readers, who are not familiar with the English units (or sometimes a particular one that is rarely used). Where the source is metric, on the other hand, there is absolutely no need for another, English value.
 * To aid readers you are of course welcome to hyperlink the relevant magnitude links like this: "14.3 ha".
 * Christoph Päper 18:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the American readers, have you ever looked at your national law? I hope I do not violate copyright by quoting (bolding by me Woodstone 12:46, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)):

 * Metric Conversion Act, Dec. 23, 1975

 * § 204. Metric system authorized. - It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system. (14 Stat. 339, Adopted July 28,1866)

 * § 205b. Declaration of policy. - It is therefore the declared policy of the United States-

 * (1) to designate the metric system of measurement as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce;

 * (4) to permit the continued use of traditional systems of weights and measures in non-business activities.

Quite apart from Imperial / metric difficulties in expressing area, there is a problem with the Wikipedia advice. km² is not an SI unit. Also, it is ambiguous: does it mean 1000 m² (a literal, but wrong, reading) or 1,000,000 m² (correctly, if such an expression can ever be correct)? m² and km² are different by six orders of magnitude giving rise to very large or very small numbers. Some people even think "square kilometre" is ambiguous: does 10 square kilometres mean an area of 10 km² or of 100 km² (a square of side 10 km)? Because of all these difficulties, I think the hectare (and the acre) have a great deal to commend them for "agricultural" purposes (preferable to m² and km²) and, for countries etc., "square kilometre" should be used and never km². Where scientific exactitude is required, SI units (i.e. m²) should be used Thincat 15:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * According to the SI standard, the expression km2 is not ambiguous. It is explicitly defined that a prefix (like k) combines with the following single symbol (like m) to form a new symbol (like km), which can be raised to a positive or negative power. Units like cm3 and μs-1 are quite commonly used. The unit ha is excellent for agricultural or urban areas, but on the small side for countries. −Woodstone 17:37, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your correction. km² is indeed a valid expression for a unit of area using an SI prefix and a power of an SI unit. It has many awkwardnesses but http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-4.html confirms it is technically correct. Thincat 13:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"As of"
I don't like the way people use "as of" links. The intended meaning is confusing.

An example:
 * As of 1947, the Air Force has been a separate branch of the military.

vs.
 * As of 2005, the Air Force is a separate branch of the military.

The second use is just wrong. People like to use it to say "as of right now", which I think is pointless. That's implied.

Since I made up that example, here's a real world example:
 * A National Hockey League labour dispute began in 2004 and, as of March 2005, remains unresolved.

Do we really need to say "as of March 2005"? Can't we just say "remains unresolved"? It's implied that it's "as of now". When the lockout is resolved, the article will be changed.

 * will it? Do I as a reader know if someone is watching this article and keeping it up to date? When I read "the dispute, as of March 2005, remains unresolved." I know exactly how recent this information is, and if the time is long past, am alerted to check if the condition is still the same. I think this usage is significantly better than the one you seem to favor. "as of" is a way of puitting part of the history into the article, and often a good one, IMO. (like anything it can be overused or mis-used.) DES 17:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the secomd usage of the phrase is confusing. "As of" should be used to mark a definite point, not to qualify something that's a current event. That's really unnecessary.

– flamurai (t) 17:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with DES about the value of letting the reader know that more recent events might not yet be reflected in the article. In fact, I would use "as of" only in that situation.  For your first example, I'd write, "In 1947, the Air Force became a separate branch of the military." JamesMLane 09:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree as well. But then, in my dialect, "As of" carries very little connotation of something having changed at that point... +sj  +  16:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Category talk:Life peers

Untitled
Many of the articles listed here do not use the life peerage title. This is deliberate, because many life peers are notable mainly for events before they become peers, and much less notable after their peerages, so their notable and well known names are used. --Henrygb 10:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Female life peers subcat
Is the new subcategory really the most appropriate way to divide the category? I am not convinced - and there should at least be a male counterpart anyway. Party affiliation, year of appointment or even ethnic/national background are more useful options. These are not mutually exclusive, but I think they would make the female category redundant. Although to be honest, I'd be happy if this wasn't broken up into subcats at all. Mtiedemann 09:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. It seems ridiculous to have a separate category for female life peers and no counterpart for males. Isn't this supposed to be the 21st century with no discrimination on grounds of gender?  J Rawle  (Talk) 15:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there are far more male life peers than female, hence it makes sense to make the male section the default. As to the value of having a subcat, it is a fact that people are going to be interested in specifically female life peers, so it does make sense to have a subcat so they can be grouped together. We already have many cats specifically for women, ethnic minorities etc. Why should this be any different? The criterion should surely be whether or not they are valuable to the user, and in this case I think they are. -- Necrothesp 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality states that categories by gender should be avoided generally, with exceptions where notable. I guess this is where we would have a difference of opinion, but I still hold that this ghettoises female life peers and is a less interesting and valid subcat. The page also suggests that articles do not necessarily always have to be removed from parent categories where that can reduce their accesibility and status - I hold that to be the case in this instance, with female life peers remaining in the main cat; the fact that this may be contraversial is a reason I don't like this way of breaking up the category.

 * Perhaps we should put this through the CfD process in a friendly way to guage opinion in a wider context. Mtiedemann 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC) - Oh I see the CfD discussion has started, I've made my contributions. Mtiedemann 18:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Subcategory:Labour Party life peers
A discussion of this subcategory may be found here.  J Rawle  (Talk) 22:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Life peers


text:
Robert Hecker

Robert Hecker (born March 7, 1965), is a guitarist, singer, and songwriter with the bands Redd Kross and It's OK!

Hecker was born in Hermosa Beach, California. He played lead guitar and sang with Redd Kross from 1984 to 1991, and again from 2005 to 2012,  in addition to occasional on-stage reunions throughout the 1990s. He has also played guitar and sang with the band It's OK! since 1992.

Equipment
With Redd Kross during the Teen Babes from Monsanto era, 1984–1985, Hecker's main guitar was a 1979 Gibson The "SG", played through any number of different amplifiers (Peavey, Acoustic Control Corporation, Sunn, Hiwatt, Traynor, Randall).

In the mid-to-late 1980s, he played a pair of Carvin guitars: first, a red DC125, which would be enshrined at the Hard Rock Cafe in 1987; and after, a green DC200, 'Cal', which had the lower horn removed.

By 1986, and throughout the Neurotica era, he was playing through a Marshall JCM 800 driving a Carvin 4x12 cabinet. In 1988, he switched to a Mesa/Boogie Quad preamp running through a Mesa/Boogie 295 Simul-Class power amp driving a pair of Mesa/Boogie 4x12 cabinets. He would use this set up throughout the Third Eye era.

Since 1990, Hecker's main live guitar has been a custom built Ibanez, 'Ike', built by Mace Baily at the Ibanez Custom Shop in North Hollywood. It is an S body outfitted with a 24 fret Wizard neck, with the lower horn removed to facilitate full access to the 24th fret. This guitar was painted orange in 2006.

During the It's OK! Dream and Redd Kross Researching the Blues eras, his amplifier rig consisted of a Mesa/Boogie Triaxis preamp run through a Mesa/Boogie 20/20 power amp driving a pair of Mesa/Boogie 1x12 EV Thiel cabinets, and a Marshall JMP1 preamp sounding out through a pair of Marshall 1912 1x12 Celestion cabinets. For tours he would often just rent a pair of Marshall JCM 900s driving two Marshall 4x12 cabinets.

Hecker is now an official ZT Amplifiers artist; he plays through a stereo rig consisting of two ZT Lunchbox amps running through two ZT Lunchbox cabs.

Albums

 * Redd Kross – Neurotica
 * Redd Kross – Third Eye
 * It's OK! – It's OK!
 * It's OK! – Dream
 * Redd Kross – Got Live if You Must! (DVD)
 * Redd Kross – Researching the Blues
 * It's OK! – Cubed
 * It's OK! – 4

Athletics
In 1983, Robert Hecker ran the 110 meter high hurdles in 14.56 seconds, a Mira Costa High School (Manhattan Beach) school record for 23 years, until Drew Johnston (whom Hecker taught to hurdle) clocked 14.39 seconds at CIF prelims in 2006. Hecker ran the 60 meter hurdles in 8.1 seconds as a member of the El Camino College track team, and was the Exemplary Physical Education Major of the Year at California State University, Dominguez Hills. He was runner-up in the 110 meter high hurdles at the USA Track & Field Masters Western Regionals in 2004. In addition to his career in music, he teaches science, physical education, health, and music, and coaches track & field (the Daily Breeze called him the 'hurdles guru coach') in the South Bay area of Los Angeles.

title: Robert Hecker


text:
Category:Sacral architecture

Sacral architecture is the design of buildings, structures and space worldwide  associated with any religious practices and spiritual practices.

title: Category:Sacral architecture


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 17

Excessive wikilinking dates?
I've noticed some articles have an excessive amount of wikilinking especially when it comes to dates and years. Is it an explicit wikipedia policy that *EVERY* date and year in an article should be wikilinked? For a biographical article the majority of dates and years after the intro paragraph are needlessly wikilinked in my opinion. Should years be redundantly wikilinked even if the same year is wikilinked in the line above? Based on my experience excessive wikilinking slows wikipedia down and can damage the overall look and feel of an article (there are additional examples of excessive wikilinking outside the scope of dates and years). For a current date wikilink policy controversy see the Julia Stiles article's references section. zen master   T  23:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Sheesh, he calls me a vandal and carries discussion in no fewer than three places...

 * Manual of Style (links) says:

 * In tables, unlike in paragraphs of text, it is useful to link relevant terms in every entry of the table, regardless of whether or not the same terms appear as links elsewhere in the article. Tables are often searched to find information of interest, and the reader might ignore everything except one particular entry in the table, so it is useful if the entry that the reader focuses on contains all the relevant links.

 * I consider a list of references no different than a table. Both contain repetitive data and both are things I don't want to have to search elsewhere for links, notable dates.  Whether or not Zen-master here finds them useful is irrelevant to if someone else finds them relevant.  Considering I have and will use them, I think that voids his irrelevancy position.

 * I won't go so far to call his actions as bad faith, but he's using the references section of Julia Stiles to paint a broader brush of "excessive" wikilinking since, after all, it was the references section that brought him to post this here. Cburnett 23:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With that said, I will agree that excessive linking is bad. I generally go with "if it's already linking on the visible part of the page or section then don't link it again." So I'll link the same thing multiple times if it shows up in different sections of the same article (e.g. Archer linking on Star Trek: Enterprise). As a viewer, I don't want to back track or hit the search function of my browser to find a link. Same thing goes for dates.

However, if it's in tabular data or repetitive data or data that one seeks a specific entry (like a reference list) then I'll opt to link every time for the same reason: I found exactly what I want and I don't want to back track or search or (*gasp*) type in the link myself. Cburnett 23:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The wikilinking criteria should not be whether a date "term" is inside a table/list or not, the criteria should be whether any specific term is relevant to an article. Random dates inside a references section that just link to say June 5 (because one reference happened to mention something about the article's subject that day) can not possibly have any relevance (you still have not defended your original check in comment claim that the date wikilinks in this case are somehow relevant to the article?).  So you agree we should disallow wikilinking the same year twice in an article or sub section?  zen master    T  23:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * You may think a linked date is irrelevant, and I disagree. I already stated this.  If I want to see what else happened on June 5 or 2004 then that's my prerogative.  Maybe I want the dates to display according to my preference, is that now irrelevant as well?  I think you need to step out of your box and realize there are people different from you.

 * NO NO NO NO NO, I'm not saying anything about making linking twice a "no no" in the MoS. Twice is no where near "excessive." Like with my summary, and now discussion here, you're incorrectly reading into what I say. Cburnett 23:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The point is the date June 5 is NOT relevant to the original article where it is being wikilinked. To be considered wikilinkable a term should have a greater than zero relevance factor within an article. The source article is where this wikilink has 0 relevance, not necessarily the target.  Perhaps dates should be presented in the format they are presented in in their original source or where the subject comes from.  Wikipedia uses both british and american english now so it probably can handle different date formatting. This is especially true within say a reference section where an linked article reference would use one date format while someone's preferences may display the date in a different format.

 * I wasn't clear about what you were saying Cburnett so I asked, thanks for clarifying. zen master   T  00:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not about links it's about the visual presentation and the formatting of the links. I very much dislike seeing US-style mm dd yy and have my preferences to avoid that - something that only happens when dates are wiki'd. Policy is that all dates (not years) are wiki'd and you should follow the MoS. violet/riga (t) 23:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * What if a reference link is to a source that displays dates in a format other than the one you use? I believe en wikipedia uses both british and american english now so why not date format as well?  Can date formating be handled some other way besides wikilinking?  Perhaps articles should be written with less irrelevant dates so your concern wouldn't even be an issue? zen master    T  00:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * There are currently no ways around it other than linking them. If there was a system in place that allowed the language type to be changed between BE and AmE (and the others) then that would be great, but there isn't that option.  We can at least do it with dates.  I very much dislike excessive wikilinking and fix it where possible, but date linking is a good thing.  No, most people won't click on the date (especially if it's not particularly relevant to the context), but it does fix the formatting issue.  More importantly it is set in the Manual of Style.  As for slowing the system down I think you'll find that it has very little effect indeed. violet/riga (t) 00:16, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you may be missing my points, formatting dates within a *reference* section in many cases does not make sense. For hypothetical example say the June 5 edition of the U.S. version of Rolling Stone contains a relevant quotation used in an article, so it's *NOT* the 5 June edition of that magazine (so why wikilink at all in this case since the alternative format would get the version of the magazine wrong?).  Secondly, I am saying that if date wikilinking is excessive in an article then perhaps, in some cases, the date should be removed from the article entirely, rather than merely de-wikilinking?  What about my suggestion that dates on wikipedia should be formatted on an article by article basis?  If a brit is reading a biographical article about an american then american date formatting should apply, I wouldn't mind it if all british related articles used the alternative date format.  We should all learn alternative date format just as we are all learning alternative spellings.

 * Side note: The majority of my edit to the article in question (which was reverted) was de-wikilinking years, not dates. So, to be clear, there is currently no wikipedia policy that says all years have to be wikilinked, is there?  zen master    T  00:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * No, no, no. Seeing the "wrong" format as defined by a users' preferences is a very bad thing indeed. I do a double-take every time I see a date in AmE format. We had a very long discussion about this nearly 2 years ago before the current solution was adopted, and I strongly advocate sticking to the current MoS standards. As for not wikilinking years, remember that the ISO date format (2005-03-16) is one of the user preferences offered and the year has to be wikilinked as well as the day and month. -- Arwel 02:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Even with the spelled out months in either format, it doesn't work right without linking the year as well as the month and day; there's the presence or absence of that intermediate comma. Maybe that earlier comment referred to years not connnected to a year and month.  Linking years standing alone is a different story, and I strongly think they should only be linked when significant, and when that year isn't already linked in the article. Gene Nygaard 03:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree with you. -- Arwel 03:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Formatting concerns should not force things that shouldn't be linked linked in my opinion, I wouldn't care if all dates on wikipedia were in an alternative format, excessive links are worse than potentially misformatted dates. Perhaps the articles in question should be rewritten to remove date links altogether to avoid misformatting and excessive linking concerns. Note this is not an issue of formatting regular dates in an article, this is a matter of formatting the reference section, date format should be preserved for a particular publication as far as reference sections go.  Anything that reduces wikilinks on wikipedia should be encouraged. zen master    T  03:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Stand-alone years I can agree shouldn't be over-linked, but otherwise I'm not in agreement with you and you don't seem to be attracting much support for your viewpoint. -- Arwel 03:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not trying to radically change policy, I just don't see how errantly formatted dates within a reference section matter for an article which is likely already using alternative english spellings. I still say the format of dates inside a reference section should be reference source specific for exactness reasons.  As far as the section of the article in question goes it should perhaps be rewritten to remove the need for dates, direct citations are generally better than a reference section anyway, especially when excessive wikilinking is an issue. zen master    T  06:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * If that magazine officially calls it the "June 6 edition" then that is fine. However, they don't.  It's a statement to show the date that that edition was released and is not different from any other date.  violet/riga (t) 08:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * In fact even that I don't really like - the date should be used in preference to the edition number. violet/riga (t) 08:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * In general, I think there's too much wikilinking of dates and years. If the only value is to save people from occasionally being jarred by an unfamiliar format, it's not worth the time.  As a side note: With many U.S. magazines, the cover date isn't the release date; it's the last date through which that issue is current.  Regardless of how the magazine picked the date, though, that is the official designation of the issue.  (The Village Voice is among those that use the range format, e.g., "August 4-10, 2004" is the designation of an issue.  I can see that some people might dislike it, but that's the correct name.  It's like somebody in the U.S. wanting to see Tony Blair identified as a member of the Labor Party.  JamesMLane 09:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * And there you've shown a failing with the wikification - date ranges. I could accept "August 4-10, 2004" because that is the identification of that individual issue, not a date per se. violet/riga (t) 12:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fwiw (which is prolly nothing), I'm a firm believer in the current MoS standards. Like Arwel, seeing dates in non-preference format is just jarring (and potentially confusing, given that AmE and BE use contradictory formats). When it comes to date ranges, I don't have a problem with them being listed like  (so long as the month name is used), I guess. But I really need a cigarette, so that might be a stupid idea ;o) — OwenBlacker 13:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * To avoid the possibility of date formatting issues, I propose that all dates use sentence form. E.g. the 17th day of March in the year 2005, or, in mid March of 2005, or the second thursday of March etc etc.  Wikipedia uses sentence capitalization which looks silly initially so sentence form dates shouldn't be that strange.  In places where sentence form dates don't work we could put the specific publication's date in quotation marks like Rolling Stone "June 5, 2000" or italics so it's clear to alternative date format users that we aren't trying to force our format upon them (and vice versa).  What do people think?  zen master    T  07:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I appreciate you coming up with suggestions but think the way it is right now is the best way. Sentence form is horribly long, and the other part of your proposal is still using the (wrong!) US format. violet/riga (t) 08:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * My point is when reference dates are italicized or quoted it's not a "wrong" format issue so no one should be offended.... For british articles we can write in year 45 of her majesty Queen Elizabeth's reign etc :-)  The italics or quotes should be enough to explicitly signify that this date has an exact coupling to the referenced source. zen master    T  08:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excessive linking of dates - an example?
I found the following example of excessive linking. Take a look at: List of hereditary baronies

The Manual of style says: ''An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:
 * 10% of the words are contained in links
 * it has more links than lines
 * a link is repeated within the same screen (40 lines perhaps) of text that appears in paragraphs.
 * more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist.''

It goes on to suggest that the definition does not apply to tables, but that is an unnecessary restriction of scope. The amount of linking permitted by the definition is huge. Examples such as List of hereditary baronies illustrate the point. The restriction of scope in the definition should be removed. It is very generous. I can't see how anyone would want more links than are permitted by the definition, in text or in a table. -- User:Booblewik

 * The page you cite (List of hereditary baronies) being a list rather than an article, IMHO it's reasonably wikified. There may some wikilinks missing in the rare cases where the surname should be linked as well (see list of popes for a sample). -- User:Docu

 * I was referring only to dates, not names. What do you think of the duplicate linking of years? Bobblewik  (talk) 22:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. Docu, was there a particular reason why you modified my signature for my last comment? Bobblewik (talk) 22:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally, I think it's debatable if the second column should be wikified. Personally, I don't always wikify this type of column, but I would think it excessive to wikify a given year just once. (PS I added, not modified your sig.) -- User:Docu

 * I think we agree that List of hereditary baronies is an example of overlinking. It has far too many duplicate links. Do you agree with me that tables should not be exempt from the very generous definition of overlinking above? (PS I now see that you did add, not modify my sig. Thanks). Bobblewik (talk) 10:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree with you. The rules are and should be different for lists. Gene Nygaard 13:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * So (a) do you think that the dates in List of hereditary baronies are overlinked and (b) even if you don't, what is the stopping rule for duplicate links in lists? Bobblewik (talk) 13:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * You don't read lists the same way you read regular articles.
 * When people use the lists, they are often interested in only one row, or a small number of rows. The available, relevant links should be linked in that row.  (And that bookmarklet mentioned in that other reply, which I haven't looked into, may also be relevant.)
 * However, the linking of dates seems to serve a different primary purpose. It is more often used as an aid for those looking for interesting things that happened in a particular year.  So I think reducing excess linking of year-only dates would be acceptable--or not linking them at all in lists unless they are associated with a red-link entry, since the ones that link to actual articles should have those dates in that article as well.  Gene Nygaard 14:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * To express differently what I said before, I don't think it's unreasonable to wikify the second column entirely, but personally I don't generally wikify it.
 * It would be a bit complicated to ask people to wikify just the first occurrence of a a year, especially since in this table, the first occurrence isn't more important than subsequent ones.
 * BTW did you try the table sort bookmarklet ? Works much better if the column is uniform. -- User:Docu

Per cent (%)
The Manual of Style currently constrains the use of '%'. This surprising constraint is in a section called [|Number names]. The symbol '%' is widely English and other language text. It is language independent. I see no benefit in forbidding it and several benefits in using it. If the style guide has a statement on this, I would have expected it promote the symbolic form '%'. We even use it several times right here on this talk page. What do others think? Bobblewik (talk)

 * I think the percent symbol isn't banned, it's simply good style to write it out in words in body copy. It's just like you would usually write out numbers under ten, like three and seven, but use figures for larger ones, like 21 and 1,306.  Imagine if the Sherlock Holmes story was called The Seven% Solution. The symbol is probably perfectly appropriate to use in in tables and lists of figures.  —Michael Z. 2005-03-20 16:22 Z

 * What a silly example. It would be The 7% Solution.  The symbol is only appropriate for use with numerals, not with spelled out words.  Similarly, in technical writing, there is a strong preference for measurements to be expressed in numerals, no matter their size, and symbols for units of measure rather than spelled out words—that preference is based on the international and interlanguage nature of those symbols for both the numbers and words, something we struggle with on Wikipedia all the time.
 * See, for example, NIST Special Publication 811, Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI)'':
 * This Guide takes the position that the key elements of a scientific or technical paper, particularly the results of measurements and the values of quantities that influence the measurements, should be presented in a way that is as independent of language as possible. This will allow the paper to be understood by as broad an audience as possible, including readers with limited knowledge of English. Thus, to promote the comprehension of quantitative information in general and its broad understandability in particular, values of quantities should be expressed in acceptable units using
 * the Arabic symbols for numbers, that is, the Arabic numerals, not the spelled-out names of the Arabic numerals; and
 * the symbols for the units, not the spelled-out names of the units.
 * Gene Nygaard 17:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with generally spelling out "percent". That is cusomary in formal writing. I also agree that there are exceptions, such as lists and tables. Maurreen 18:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, The 7% Solution certainly wouldn't look as good on the frontispiece of a book as The Seven Percent Solution. —Michael Z. 2005-03-20 20:45 Z

 * I don't mind "percent" but would prefer to avoid "per cent". Personally I'd choose "percent" when the number is written out (such as "seven percent") and the symbol for the numeric version. violet/riga (t) 19:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then, it's "percent" when the number is spelled out and "%" in the other cases? -- User:Docu

 * Support That would be a 90 % improvement on the current guidance. I note that the the NIST treats it somewhat like a unit symbol in that they recommend that it is preceded by a space character. Bobblewik (talk) 20:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think we're voting on any formal proposals here. And this is a matter of writing style;  you can't just declare a simplistic rule and expect to apply it to 100 percent of the possible cases.  —Michael Z. 2005-03-20 20:45 Z

 * I think that we can indeed make it much clearer.
 * I think that the trend is towards "percent" as one word, with "per cent" also still used and the older "per centum" and "per cent." with a dot to indicate abbreviation are pretty much obsolete.
 * I'm not sure, but some might consider "percent" best when used as an adjective and "per cent" when used as a noun. I favor "percent" in all cases, but have no problem with this MoS accepting either "per cent" or "percent".
 * When the symbol is used (and ignoring for now the spacing issue), it should always be used with numerals and not spelled out words.
 * When "percent" is spelled out, the small numbers should be spelled out, up to ten or twelve at least. I have no problem with spelling out "thirty percent" or "ninety percent" or "one hundred percent" (and maybe even the sports jargon "one-hundred-and-ten percent").  But I think that 43 percent would be acceptable in text (not tables), and preferred over "forty-three percent" and that even 31.6 percent would be acceptable in running text (but almost never with the number spelled out in cases like this example).
 * Whenever lots of numbers are given as percentages, the numeral and symbol form should be preferred. Gene Nygaard 17:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Gene, I'm not sure that much detail is a good idea.
 * I'm not sure we need any changes on this at all.
 * The style is of The Associated Press is not to use the percent symbol in body copy, and to only use it with figures.
 * What do other style guides on formal writing (not scientific or technical writing) say about the matter? Maurreen 18:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Journalism style is not more relevant than technical style. Gene Nygaard 20:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * We don't necessarily need that much detail on the MoS page. We need it on the talk page, if we are seriously going to consider the issues.
 * One big difference about AP style is that it is aimed primarily at newspapers within the U.S. The intended international audience of Wikipedia makes it more like the same considerations NIST mentions in recommending the use of numerals and symbols, the fact that they are easily understood even by those with a limited command of English.  Gene Nygaard 20:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The Wikipedia Manual of style mentions the Guardian Manual of style as a source. The Guardian is a British national newspaper. It says "% in headlines and copy". Bobblewik (talk) 21:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia has long passages of text, but many article sections with lots of figures and formulae. I think ultimately this question has to be left up to the discretion of individual editors.  But I would at least recommend usually using "percent" with written-out numbers, and un-spaced "%" with figures.  If you follow this simple guideline, you can't go too terribly wrong (I think), and your writing won't clash with 85% of what's already there.  —Michael Z. 2005-03-26 22:33 Z

We have a variety of opinions, but I go along with Michael's suggestion to leave it to individual editors. Maybe if the style guide is going to change, we could compromise to that. Maurreen 23:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would not want to see a statement that went against the ISO recommendation for a space character. If there is disagreement about that issue, I can accept making no comment about the space and leaving it up to editors. Otherwise the suggestion of Michael appears to match what Docu suggested. I would accept that. Bobblewik (talk) 09:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Percentages and number names
This is copied from the project page. Maurreen 15:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Use the symbol % rather than a written form. If you choose to write numeric values in full, such as 'seven', then you may choose to write the percentage term in full as 'seven percent'. For example 'seven percent'. Do not mix the formats. For example 'seven %' or '7 percent'.
 * Percentages

The preferred style is to leave a space between the value and the symbol e.g. '95 %' rather than '95%'. This is in accordance with ISO 31. In this respect, '%' is like a unit symbol because they also require a preceding space.

The preferred style is to use the term 'percent' rather than 'per cent'.

The preferred style is to use digits ('17') rather than words ('seventeen'). This makes reading easier. It is appropriate for an international audience and simplifies the job of translators. If you choose to write numeric values in full, then limit this to non-technical body text. Try to limit use of the word format to values below 10 and ensure that the format is consistent throughout the article.
 * Number names

I don't see any consensus for these changes. I believe they are against what is customary in formal writing. So I'm reverting them. Maurreen 15:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * This was added to the article:

 * The preferred style is to leave a space between the value and the symbol e.g. '95 %' rather than '95%'. This is in accordance with ISO 31. In this respect, '%' is like a unit symbol because they also require a preceding space.

 * * This is contrary to standard typographic style (e.g. in the book The Elements of Typographic Style)
 * * This is contrary to the way it's generally used in Wikipedia.

 * Standardization is great, but not when it artificially imposes non-standard usage. I'm going to remove or alter the passage.  —Michael Z. 2005-03-26 15:48 Z

Adjectival use of unit measurementns
The following example is given under Style for numbers, weights, and measures:

 * The 155 mm diameter projectile offers a wide range of options for battlefield usage.

I think this is definitely fine when referring to a measurement as a noun: The calibre of the gun is 20 mm, for twenty millimetres. But when used as an adjective, shouldn't this be hyphenated: They brought up the 20-mm guns (twenty-millimetre guns)? On the other hand, as part of a name, it seems to look okay to write about a 20 mm Oerlikon, or an Oerlikon 20 mm.

These measurements/names also show up in tables like the infobox at T-34. I'm not sure what looks best here. There are also lists of names, like List of artillery.

Incidentally, in publications about guns and armoured vehicles where calibre is used as an adjective hundreds of times, it is common to join the number and unit, as in "76mm gun". I would prefer to avoid this special exception to the rule, and use standard English style consistently throughout Wikipedia.

Any thoughts? —Michael Z. 2005-03-31 23:43 Z

 * Hyphen with spelled-out words, space with symbols. Gene Nygaard 04:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That rule would disregard the difference between unit phrases as nouns and adjectives.  It definitely wouldn't work in many cases, for example "There are ten-centimetres in a decimetre."  —Michael Z. 2005-04-1 17:20 Z

 * That centimetre is a noun, not an adjective. No hyphen. Gene Nygaard 02:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I see. It's not as consistent, but it seems like a good compromise because the number formatting will always be the same.  Reads okay, and editors can apply the same rule everywhere.

 * I did find a situation where it seems kind of awkward though, when it's used as part of a longer adjectival statement. Found the example in this sentence, from KV-1:  It was soon put into production, both as the original 76 mm-armed KV-1 and the howitzer-mounting assault gun, the KV-2.  Maybe that should be 76-mm-armed in this case only?   —Michael Z. 2005-04-10 20:52 Z


text: Talk:Bracero Program

title: Talk:Bracero Program


text:
Duncan Norvelle

Duncan Norvelle (born 2 April 1958, Hoton, Loughborough, Leicestershire, England) is an English comedian in the variety tradition, who appeared on British television from the early 1980s. He was often referred to as Duncan "Chase me" Norvelle, stemming from his catchphrase "Chase me!" His act was based on appearing to be a stereotypical camp homosexual.

Entertainment career
In the mid 1980s, he hosted an unscreened pilot dating show called It's a Hoot for London Weekend Television. The series was eventually re-titled Blind Date and hosted by Liverpudlian singer and entertainer Cilla Black. In 1991, Duncan appeared on the ITV comedy panel game show Through the Keyhole. 2008 saw him go out on tour as part of the Ricky Tomlinson Laughter Show. Norvelle spent the 2009 pantomime season playing Buttons in Cinderella in Doncaster, South Yorkshire.

In 2011, he appeared on Celebrity Come Dine with Me with Sean Hughes, Gina Yashere and Paul Tonkinson.

Health
Norvelle was hospitalised in 2012 after suffering a stroke, leaving him paralysed down the left side of his body. After nine weeks in hospital, he cancelled his summer season with comedy duo Cannon and Ball, and was replaced by Stu Francis.

In 2015, Norvelle chose the Embassy Theatre, Skegness, as his first performance after over three years off-stage, promising that funds from his show would be allocated to the Stroke Association.

title: Duncan Norvelle


text:
DesktopX

DesktopX was a shareware desktop enhancement program that allowed users to build their own custom desktops. Amongst its features was a complete widget engine for Windows as well as a desktop object system. User creations could be exported as .desktop files or as widgets. The program was distributed with Object Desktop as well as stand-alone.

DesktopX was released by Alberto Riccio in 1999 as VDE (Verona Desktop Enhancer), and bought in 2000 by Stardock. Mini-applications created with it were called "object packs" but later rebranded as "widgets" to standardize the term.

Most users used DesktopX to build alternative desktop environments. The mini-application creation ability was there from the start but did not gain widespread use until the release of DesktopX 2 in 2003. Current versions run on Windows 2000 and above.

DesktopX is no longer for sale by its author and is not actively supported.

Overview
DesktopX supports the creation of three different types of widgets:
 * objects; loaded into a running DesktopX environment.
 * widgets; groups of objects packaged into executables that require DesktopX (equivalent to Yahoo! Widget Engine widgets).
 * gadgets; totally standalone widgets provided as applications.

Objects may be controlled by scripts written in either VBScript or JScript, although they are not always required.

Many common actions are provided for as in-built object functions, such as:
 * running a program.
 * displaying a menu containing the contents of a folder.
 * emptying the Recycle Bin.

Similarly, animation, sound and variation depending on the object's state (for example, mouseover or clicking) can be modified without scripting.

DesktopX plugins also avoid the need for scripting common tasks, by offering extra functionality such as media player displays and controls (currently available for iTunes, Winamp, CoolPlayer, an internal version of Windows Media Player and Stardock's own ObjectMedia) and access to Windows Management Instrumentation.

As users often wish to have a uniform desktop style, a common practice is to create several widgets as a coherent theme. A few popular artists sell themes in the WinCustomize store.

As of 2010 there are three main standalone divisions of DesktopX:
 * DesktopX Client, which allows the use of desktops, widgets and objects.
 * DesktopX Standard, which includes the DesktopX Builder that creates objects and widgets as well as desktops.
 * DesktopX Pro, which allows the creation of gadgets that may be sold as separate applications or used to promote a website.

DesktopX Standard may also be obtained as part of an Object Desktop subscription. Corporations may purchase DesktopX Enterprise, allowing the creation of secure desktops.

Gadgets
In 2003, Stardock released DesktopX 2 Pro, which allowed developers to export their creations as stand-alone programs called "gadgets". This feature was enhanced with DesktopX 3 and the price on DesktopX Pro lowered to make it more mainstream.

Version history
An (incomplete) list of releases:
 * August 2000: First beta versions released to Object Desktop subscribers.
 * June 2001: DesktopX 1.0 released.
 * April 2002: DesktopX 1.1 released - adds scripting support.
 * October 2003: DesktopX 2.0 released - includes IconX.
 * March 2005: DesktopX 3.0 released - better support for gadgets, internationalization.
 * July 2005: DesktopX 3.1 released - new APIs for developers, new UI for users.
 * July 2008: DesktopX 3.5 released - full Windows Vista support with the ability to export to Windows Desktop Gadgets

Libraries

 * DesktopX object, themes and widget libraries on WinCustomize
 * DesktopX Themes at Customize.org

title: DesktopX


text:
Talk:Atrial action potential

Untitled
Is this a stub. I can't help but wonder if it should be a redirect to Cardiac_action_potential but on reading that article, I couldn't find any reference to Atrial. Anyone braver than me or able to explain the difference? L-Bit 10:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Atrial action potential


text:
Template talk:Alaska-geo-stub

Icon
I've changed the stub icon - even though Alaska has one of the US's best state flags, the stars tend to disappear when it's reduced to icon size, leaving just a blue rectangle. The map's a pretty distinctive one, so it should do just as well. Grutness...  wha?  10:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Alaska-geo-stub


text:
Talk:List of Caulfield Grammar School people

Untitled
This list is designed to work as a compilation of famous Caulfield Grammarians, and also means that an organised list can replace the one that was cluttering the main school article. Harro5 10:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * The Caulfield Grammar School's Internet hookup is User:203.94.146.234, from which all edits of the last 100 have been vandalism, laboriously reverted. The exceptions are additions to this "list": it is impossible to verify any names on this list. All redlinks at this article can be especially expected to be hoaxes and should be deleted. A Caulfield Grammar School connection for all the others is highly unlikely. The official list of Caulfield Grammarians is not available at

 * The Caulfield Grammarians' Association (alumni association)

A semi-official list is at
 * Caulfield Grammarians in the AFL

All red-linked names on the list are too dubious to be retained at Wikipedia. --Wetman 06:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In response to Wetman, many of the redlinks in this article were for people added to the list by me. A Google search of most, if not all - I remember sifting through many sites, along with Caulfield Grammar School should have a legitimate source (often a biography) on the person verifying both their achievements and that they attended CGS. Harro5 07:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Harro5. I got a bit confused/forgetful. One of my old schoolmates went to Wesley College for a while and told me about it, but I got the schools mixed up. I've been around I while so I hope you'll trust that it wasn't a purposefully mischievous edit.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitive list
See here. Harr o 5 05:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dane
Anyone know anything about this? I can't trace him as being at CGS.149.171.240.62 (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

More "people in red"
Over the last couple of days I have added a number of eminent individuals to the "CGS people" listing. I recognize that the greater preponderance of the additions are "red"; however, given the obvious eminence of most of those that I have added, it should be considered to be a Wiki-problem -- namely, they have not yet created articles for these people, several being "knights of the realm", another a Rear-Admiral (all far from being "non-eminent") -- and that they certainly warrant a place here. We can just hope that they get dedicated articles soon. I have done my best to give some leads on where biographical information may be found.

Also, in my foraging, I came across a biography of one James Kerr Johnston (1888-1984) -- CGS 1903 (incorrectly listed as "JohnstonE" at Webber (1981), p.299) -- which has a photo of a school prize certificate issued by W. M. Buntine in 1903, as well as some recollections of travel on the CGS horse bus. 149.171.240.62 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Caulfield Grammar School people
Why does this section have this title, rather than either "List of Caulfield Grammar School Alumni" or, even better, "List of Caulfield Grammarians"?

The reason for my question is that, given its present title, it seems inevitable that, for example, "John Morrison (Australian author) John Gorden Morrison (1904-1998)", who worked for so many years as a gardener at the East St Kilda campus, must be included in any list of CGS "people"; because he was certainly such a person.149.171.240.62 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the preceding comments should not be interpreted in such a way that I am accused of not thinking that John Morrison would be "appropriate" for inclusion in the list; with his large hat, spectacles and pipe, I can still see him today, and hear his voice. It is just that, if it really is for CGS "people", it is my view that he should be one of the first to be so listed. If it is not for CGS "people" then the title of the article ought to be changed to something more suitable to its purpose.149.171.240.62 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Caulfield logo.gif
Image:Caulfield logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Future references
Here.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Caulfield Grammar School people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009001324/http://www.caulfieldgs.vic.edu.au/default.asp?contentID=157 to http://www.caulfieldgs.vic.edu.au/default.asp?contentID=157
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414013231/http://www.caulfieldgs.vic.edu.au/default.asp to http://www.caulfieldgs.vic.edu.au/default.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414042648/http://www.caulfieldgs.vic.edu.au/default.asp?contentID=156 to http://www.caulfieldgs.vic.edu.au/default.asp?contentID=156

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Caulfield Grammar School people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706102639/http://www.cgfc.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=33 to http://www.cgfc.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=33
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100728004534/http://www.richmondfc.com.au/david%20astbury/tabid/15507/default.aspx to http://www.richmondfc.com.au/david%20astbury/tabid/15507/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104190722/http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=featurestories to http://richmondfc.com.au/default.asp?pg=featurestories&spg=clubfeatstorydisplay&articleid=182222
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051022004329/http://www.mcc.org.au/default.asp?pg=sections&articleid=792 to http://www.mcc.org.au/default.asp?pg=sections&articleid=792
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312014932/http://sportsaustralia.com/articles/news.php?id=246 to http://sportsaustralia.com/articles/news.php?id=246
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720041252/http://www.limina.arts.uwa.edu.au/past_volumes/volumes_15/volume_2?f=73926 to http://www.limina.arts.uwa.edu.au/past_volumes/volumes_15/volume_2?f=73926

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of Caulfield Grammar School people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070917104618/http://amo.org.au/artist.asp?id=210 to http://www.amo.org.au/artist.asp?id=210
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831044635/http://users.tce.rmit.edu.au/e03159/ModMelb/mm2/modmelbprac2/dg/dgbio.htm to http://users.tce.rmit.edu.au/E03159/ModMelb/mm2/modmelbprac2/dg/dgbio.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212135550/http://www.tas.alp.org.au/people/tas/kons_steven.php to http://www.tas.alp.org.au/people/tas/kons_steven.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313162552/http://www.unimelb.edu.au/unisec/calendar/honcausa/citation/landy.html to http://www.unimelb.edu.au/unisec/calendar/honcausa/citation/landy.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215103621/http://www.nova100.com.au/site/shows/dylan_lewis.aspx to http://www.nova100.com.au/site/shows/dylan_lewis.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723203201/http://www.olympics.com.au/Athletes/TheTeam/tabid/343/Athletes/TheTeam/tabid/344/Default.aspx?cId=14524&teamId=31 to http://www.olympics.com.au/Athletes/TheTeam/tabid/343/Athletes/TheTeam/tabid/344/Default.aspx?cId=14524&teamId=31
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101233015/http://www.unimelb.edu.au/about/seniorexec/mcphee.html to http://www.unimelb.edu.au/about/seniorexec/mcphee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015183148/http://caulfield-glen-eira-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/former-caulfield-grammar-principal-receives-award/ to http://caulfield-glen-eira-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/former-caulfield-grammar-principal-receives-award/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501202457/http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/newsfeatures/news/newsarticle/tabid/5586/newsid/131795/default.aspx to http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/newsfeatures/news/newsarticle/tabid/5586/newsid/131795/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116224251/http://www.australiaday.vic.gov.au/events_ambassadors_details.asp?view=418 to http://www.australiaday.vic.gov.au/events_ambassadors_details.asp?view=418
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915085347/http://home.vicnet.net.au/~thompson/yourmp/index.htm to http://home.vicnet.net.au/~thompson/yourmp/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627162401/http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/about/council/ullin to http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/about/council/ullin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


text: Talk:Shopko

title: Talk:Shopko