Measurement (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

As recommended by WP:BRD I have reverted a recent change to the image caption. If we are to change it, we need to agree the wording first. There are a number of problems with the wording change that Martinvl made.

The original wording was: "Irish speed restriction sign showing km/h"

Martinvl's updated wording: "Sinced the text "km/h" on this Irish speed limit sign is a symbol, not an abbreviation, it represents both "kilometres per hour" (English) and "ciliméadar san uair"(Gaelic)"

• We have already seen in the discussion above that "km/h" is an abbreviation first, and a symbol only in the eyes of the SI
• The Irish language is called "Irish", not "Gaelic"
• I proposed a word change prior to the recent dispute about abbreviations and symbols which has been lost

My updated wording was: "Irish speed limit signs clarify the speed unit to avoid confusion with non-united miles-per-hour signs that were used until 2005"

How about a compromise, combining the essentials of the two versions:

"Since metrication, Irish speed limit signs show the speed unit to avoid confusion with the old miles per hour signs which did not display the unit. By using the SI symbol for "kilometres per hour" it is not not necessary to add the full unit text in both English and Irish"

If that can be slimmed down a bit, but without losing any of the information, I'd be more than happy with that too.

Ornaith (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources that back up your proposed change? GaramondLethe 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Garamond, what part or parts do you think need a reference other than references already used? Ornaith (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Garamond, didn't you see this one? I've reverted it back to the original as is apparently normal when changes are still being discussed. Ornaith (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following sentences until we can clarify exactly what it is trying to put across:

"EU directive 75/443/EEC^[1] regulates the layout of speedometers within the European Union. The directive requires speedometers be marked in km/h. Speedometers manufactured for sale in nations using Imperial units may, subject to certain restrictions, also be marked in mph (miles per hour)."

Are they saying just that EU speedometers must be marked in kilometres per hour, or that the scale must use the "km/h" abbreviation/symbol? Are they saying that speedometers in the UK only have to have kilometres per hour on them, even though they still use miles per hour there? Either way, can we make the sentences unambiguous please. Ornaith (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a citation specifically so that you could check the accuracy of the summary yourself, rather than guess. Here's what the source says:

4. SPECIFICATIONS

4.1. The speedometer display shall be situated in the driver’s direct field of vision and shall be clearly legible both by day and by night. The range of speeds indicated must be large enough to include the maximum speed given by the manufacturer for the type of vehicle.

4.2. Where the speedometer has a scale, as distinct from a digital display, it shall be clearly legible.

4.2.1. The graduations shall be of 1, 2, 5 or 10 km/h. The values of the speed shall be indicated on the dial as follows:

4.2.1.1. when the highest value on the dial does not exceed 200 km/h, speed values shall be indicated at intervals not exceeding 20 km/h;

4.2.1.2. when the highest value on the dial exceeds 200 km/h, then the speed values shall be indicated at intervals not exceeding 30 km/h.

4.2.2. In the case of a speedometer manufactured for sale in any Member State where imperial units of measurement are used, and where transitional arrangements in accordance with Article 5 are in force, the speedometer shall also be marked in mph (miles per hour); the graduations shall be of 1, 2, 5 or 10 mph. The values of the speed shall be indicated on the dial at intervals not exceeding 20 mph.

4.2.3. The indicated speed value intervals need not be uniform.

GaramondLethe 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Garamond, would you agree with my reading of that, that it doen't say that the text "km/h" must be used and it says miles per hour "shall" be included, rather than "may" and "subject to certain restrictions"? Assuming you do, should we put the sentences back as:

"EU directive 75/443/EEC^[1] regulates the layout technical requirements of speedometers within the European Union. The directive requires speedometers be marked at least in km/h. kilometres per hour, and if for use Speedometers manufactured for sale in nations using Imperial units may, subject to certain restrictions, to also be marked in mph (miles per hour)."

Ornaith (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the paragraph covering this has been embelished with even more irrelevent data and even more original research added, all without reference to this discussion - or is that another figment of my imagination? Ornaith (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to revert changes mad by User:Martinvl. They are undermining discussions above, including the one about the image caption and the one about the speedometer rules. Ornaith (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy, may I quote you from an earlier section here:

"[This] edit was disruptive.

First, it violates the basic Wikipedia principle that while there is an ongoing content dispute, the page stays at the last stable version. See WP:BRD... Second, the edit summary was completely misleading."

What about this edit. It also violated the principle about an ongoing dispute, and had a completely misleading edit summary. I reverted it, but Martinvl restored it again, and now he, and others, are suggesting it is me being disruptive! What exactly are the rules here again? Ornaith (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good question. The answer is that was/am doing two different things, first, if I personally see someone who is violating a policy, I tell them. If they stop, that's good and we move on. That does not imply anything one way or the other about any other behavior. For example, it could be that Martinvl made one or two mistakes and has otherwise been perfect while you, Ornaith, are willfully violating policy right and left. I wouldn't know because I have not gone through either of your edit histories to check. Or it could be that Martinvl is willfully violating policy right and left while you, Ornaith, have been perfectly well behaved. Again, I wouldn't know because I have not gone through either of your edit histories to check. You really can not draw any conclusions from my telling one person that he is doing something wrong. It is random which things I happen to notice. BTW, I do things wrong as well, and I get corrected when I do. That's all part of learning how to work together.

The second thing I am looking for is how many involved editors say someone is being disruptive. Just because a lot of people say it, that doesn't make it true. For example, I am pretty sure that some of the global warming pages are dominated by a group of editors all of whom chime in and call someone disruptive when all they are doing is disagreeing with the groupthink. Or the majority opinion could be spot on. Nobody is going to be criticized solely on the basis of other involved editors thinking they did something wrong. They are, after all, involved editors. Sooner or later, the folks making the accusations need to come up with some actual evidence.

Speaking of evidence, I did not bother following the "what about this edit" link above, just as I did not bother following previous links that allegedly were about your behavior. I am not a judge and I don't render verdicts. I am just an ordinary editor with no special authority who happens to have some experience mediating disputes like this one. Anyone can ignore me if they choose to do so.

What I am working towards here is advising anyone who cares to listen as to the right place to seek a resolution. It is starting to look like maybe WP:WQA is the right place, but I have to be frank with all of you and say that, collectively, you all have a very bad habit of not answering simple questions like "how many editors are on each side of this dispute?" That's really not going to go over well at WQA, just as it didn't go over well at DRN. Pissing off and frustrating those who want to help really isn't such a good idea.

So the answer to the question "Disruptive behaviour, or not" is "I don't know and I don't care, but there are some fine folks at places like WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U and WP:ANI who do care". The answer to the question "What exactly are the rules here again?" (implying inconstant enforcement) is "Yup. Totally inconsistent on my part. I only comment on what happens right under my nose." That being said, once you get away from the false idea that I am a judge, noticeboards like WQA, RFC/U and ANI will consider all of the evidence. It should be noted that none of them are going to crawl through the page history either. What they are going to do is to ask the two sides of the dispute to provide diffs showing examples of the behavior. But that all comes later. Right now I am just trying to get you folks pointed in the right direction. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy, thanks for the detailed reply. I wasn't getting at you, but was honestly puzzed by the apparent sudden change of mood here from one day to the next. Ornaith (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you were getting at me. I thought it was a very good question.

I am going to repeat one point, (addressed to everybody, not just Ornaith):

I have to be frank with all of you and say that, collectively, you pretty much all have a very bad habit of not answering simple questions like "how many editors are on each side of this dispute?" That's really not going to go over well during RFC, WQA, or ANI, just as it didn't go over well at DRN. Pissing off and frustrating those who want to help by posting responses that completely ignore direct questions is a Very Bad Idea. The first person who becomes responsive to direct questions is very likely to win the dispute simply because non-answers are not very persuasive. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that one of you should put up a talk page RfC to get some more opinions and make the consensus clear. See

Wikipedia:Requests for comment

and

Wikipedia:RFC#Request comment through talk pages

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy, thanks for the suggestion. Things have taken a disturbing turn for the worse (and not just here, but in Stone (unit) too!). Blatant reversions and ignoring of the discussion and the excellent progress we have made here with that. Wild and disgusting allegations, misleading and even dishonest edit summaries, additions of incredibly transparent POV and OR as if following some pre-existing and non-negotiable agenda. And then, as if trying to polish a turd, dressing it up by dotting the i's and crossing the t's! I'll start reading up on the RfC stuff, any help with it would be appreciated as I've got a busy weekend ahead of me. Ornaith (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot depends on what problem we want to address first. If the consensus on the content is close to evenly divided, an RfC will bring in new opinions so we can arrive at a clear consensus and start applying sanctions to anyone who refuses to abide by that consensus. If the consensus is clear already we can go right to dealing with anyone who refuses to abide by it. This starts at WP:WQA and escalates if that does not work. If the behavior problems are bad enough that they will interfere with an RfC, then going to WP:WQA before running the RfC might be best. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I see it, needs more than an RfC. We don't so much have a simple difference of opinion which we are discussing, but can't agree on. We can't actually get one of the editors involved to engage in a reasoned discussion, without him going back and re-imposing his will unilaterally and without engaging further, and then throwing in inflammatory and insulting remarks and dishonest edit summaries too. This has happened for the text of the abbreviations section and again for the image caption. Is that a case best suited to WP:WQA, do you think? Ornaith (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ornaith aka User:DeFacto is quite right - one of the editors is uncooperative - Ornaith. Here is a list of discussions that we had before (s)he was banned undeR the name Defacto. You don't need to read them, just count the number entries - they all related to one paragraph in one article:

• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 4#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 2#ASDA
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#Asda report - 12 October update
• Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#MedCab mediation offer
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 107#Using reports of market research surveys
• Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 34#Polls and surveys

Martinvl (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. A repeat of the discussion that has been going on on the article talk page, repeating many of the same arguments. I never saw that one coming...

(Note: the above is just some good-natured kidding about the way we humans think, not a criticism targeted against one side.)

No, I am not going to look at any threads or make any determination that one editor is right and another is wrong. That would only make the situation worse.

Earlier, when this was at WP:DRN I tried to get you folks to simply give me a count of who is on each side. (No, I am not going to crawl through the talk page history and try to figure it out.) I am going to ask again: how many sides? Two? Seven? How many editors on each side? One vs. one? Twelve vs. eleven? One vs. three vs. twenty seven? Surely one of you can give me a count. Note: if I get two different counts my next question will be "name them" and if needed asking each editor named.

With this information I can give you better advice about how to resolve this. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy: The discussions that I listed were concerning the article Metrication in the United Kingdom, not kilometres per hour. Issues from that discussion have now been resolved - DeFacto has been banned from Wikipedia and the article given an overhaul. I listed then to put DeFacto's (Ornaith) comment into perspective that it was (s)he, not me who was the disruptive party.

As long as Ornaith does not take part (disrupt) any discussions, I think that we can now resolve issues between ourselves, so may I thank you for the help that you have given. Martinvl (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? I am sure that if I asked him, Ornaith would say that this can be resolved if you do not "take part (disrupt) any discussions".

Also, stop accusing Ornaith of being DeFacto. There is an ongoing investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto and it is against Wikipedia policy to accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet unless there has been a finding at WP:SPI saying he is one. We resolve questions of sockpuppetry at SPI, not on article talk pages. Besides, we all know that you are actually Justin Beiber ... or was that Lady Gaga? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Martinvl's appraisal. There wasn't a content issue here (certainly not one that involved weighing competing reliable sources). There was an editor issue, and once Ornaith is no longer participating I don't see any disputes going forward. GaramondLethe 08:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so far I have two editors (Martinvl and Garamond Lethe) who say that Ornaith's behavior is the problem and one editor (Ornaith) who says that some other unspecified editor's behavior is the problem. That's a good start on solving this -- if everybody agrees that we have a behavior problem (even if you disagree about who), I can help you to resolve that. Two to one is a very weak consensus though. Anyone else want to weigh in so I have some more solid numbers? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I have been involved and I have continued to observe. But a while ago I recognised that this was developing into a war of attrition far too vividly reminiscent of the trouble DeFacto caused. I cannot dedicate time and effort to another such struggle right now; I have worse to deal with in RL and more depending on it. At least I've managed to resolve the undisplayed refs issue. NebY (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be fair to say that the count is now three to one? Or am I misinterpreting your comment? If it is three to one, that's significant. Sometimes two editors both come to the same false conclusion about a behavioral problem, but three? With no editors disagreeing? That's a pretty clear consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. NebY (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent an inordinate amount of time reading this talk page, I may as well add that, without the ability to read minds the two editors seem equally willing to opportunistically attempt to get what they want (i.e, 'someone random editor broke a link in this subsection, I fixed it and also happened to change the lead to what I want whoops'). While it's true that removing either editor would end the issue (as can be noted when one disappears for a few too many hours and then a change is made because they 'aren't discussing'); blaming it on either editor specifically strikes me as silly. All in all, this experiment in virtual trench warfare interests me enough that I have to disagree with the sudden conclusion that it's all Ornaith's fault. Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked a random sample of edits, and I tend to concur. It's far from being the worst such behavior I have seen seen, but neither side is blameless. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were getting close to agreement, until Martinvl broke away and started apply his undiscussed and unagreed changes. I thought it was Martinvl who was being disruptive by reverting agreed text, applying his preferred text against the consensus and his dishonest edit summaries and then capping it with an outrageous allegation about me impersonating someone else (more about that later when I've recovered enough to get my thoughts together). But apparently it was all a figment of my imagination. Can Garamond, NebY and Martinvl please describe where they think I was being disruptive in this discussion? Ornaith (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather wait for the SPI process to run its course before starting that conversation. GaramondLethe 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Garamond, that's "sockpuppet investigations", I've just discovered. Yes, I'm just trying to find out what that's all about. Ornaith (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where we are. we have:

One editor (Ornaith) who says that the problem is Martinvl misbehaving.

Two editors (Darryl from Mars and Guy Macon) who say that the problem is Martinvl and Ornaith both misbehaving.

Three editors (Martinvl, Garamond Lethe, and NebY) who say that the problem is Ornaith misbehaving.

We have a WP:SPI in progress (no, we are not going to discuss the details here!) which is awaiting checkuser. For those of you who aren't wikigeeks like me, that means that somebody thinks somebody who is banned from Wikipedia is using another identity to evade the ban. "Checkuser" means that Wikipedia keeps logs that only a few people can see (admins can't see them) and which will tell us if the accusation is true. This will take a few days, but is worth waiting for, as it will either result in a name being cleared or a sockpuppet being banned.

After that, I suggest that someone here open a case at WP:WQA. Anyone can file, but I will note that if either of you (Martinvl or Ornaith) files and we see the same "wall of text" we just saw at SPI, you are going to experience what it is like walking into a buzzsaw.

You need to learn how to write a complaint that is concise, dispassionate, concise, to the point, concise, fact-based, concise, backed up with diffs showing the behavior you describe, concise, calm, cool and unemotional, and concise. Did I mention concise?

Either that or you can ramble on about how you are good and pure and the other editor is vile and corrupt, only to be torn apart while the rest of us laugh at you for not listening. See WP:BOOMERANG.

After WQA I will post another count like I did above with additional names from WQA, and we will discuss the next step in conflict resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point. WP:SPI determined that Ornaith si indeed a sockpuppet and applied an indefinite block. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose that the abbreviation work be de-emphasized (and as I was the one who contributed most of the text and all of the cites for that, I don't think that should be too controversial). I'm envisioning keeping the paragraph that describes the history of the term, a note that will segregate the ugly list of abbreviations and dates somewhere near the end of the article, and then immediately lead into the history of the formal defintions as a symbol. I would prefer that the word "abbreviation" not appear in the lede. I'll be posting proposed text in this thread within the next twelve hours or so. Comments, of course, are welcome. GaramondLethe 18:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we go back to this version and salvage what we can.

• I propose that the section "Abbreviations in current use" be merged into the section "Abbreviation development" and that this section be rewitten, noting the large number of abbreviations and drawing to attention the use of "kph" by UK journalists and "k.p.h." by US journalists.
• As Garamond suggested, the list should be trimmed down. I suggest that we keep "k.p.h", "KPH", "km/h", "km./hr" and "km per hour" as a representative sample of the variations found.
• I would also like to draw to attention that the style manuals which advoate kph also advocate "C" or "F" instead of "xC" and "xF".
• I invite Garamond's and Guy's comments on whether we shoud seek to shorten the sections "Kilometers per hour as a symbol" and "Regulatory use".
• We should standardise on either "kilometer" or "kilometre". Since historically this artcile used UK spelling, then under WP:ENGVAR, we should keep it that way.

Martinvl (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur on which version to start from.

• Would like to discuss further once I finish coding up my proposed text. I'm thinking of merging the abbreviation and symbols sections into a "History of Notation" section and tuck the "abbreviations in current use" into the notes section. But I'm not wedded to the idea.
• Concur. Just to clarify: I think the complete list of abbreviations is interesting (well, for certain values of "interesting") but having it in the main body invites questions of wp:undue. I'm hoping the full list finds a discreet home in the notes section. A small handful of historical abbreviations in the main body is fine.
• Concur. Style manual notes sounds good.
• Concur. As to shortening the other sections: I find the standardization of the symbol to be interesting (mostly because I had no clue about the distinction before starting this process), but yes, we can probably tighten that up a bit. The regulatory issues are also interesting to me, but less so, and well outside my area of expertise, so I'll probably just stand aside for those.
• Concur on "kilometre".

(n.b. corrected signature) GaramondLethe 21:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, before we go on, there is just one question I didn't see answered. Was km/h in use before the SI definition as a symbol? Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was in use as early as 1898 along with a dozen other abbreviations. GaramondLethe 00:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, turns out reading through the selected revision answers the question better than the current one. Anyways, the chosen revision does seem like a good place to work from. How do you feel about the way it uses abbreviation in the lead though? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as how we've had a multi-week discussion over just that question that went to DRN and back and resulted in the banning of two accounts as a sockpuppets, I feel you'll probably want to dance through this particular minefield very, very carefully.... In the domain of international standards, legal regulation and academic research, "km/h" is a symbol (and "symbol" is defined to have a very particular meaning, including "not an abbreviation"). In several dictionaries and colloquially, "km/h" is referred to as an abbreviation. Tom Stoppard observed "We are limited by a language that makes up in obscurity what it lacks in style", which I considered not wholly irrelevant...

So there's a judgement call to be made: is this an article about the international unit of measurement or about linguistic categories of official and unofficial word use? In trying to mediate an existing dispute I went for "both". Since that time I've become the world's leading expert on the history of the abbreviation of "kilometers per hour" (the 20 citations to that effect are all mine, I think) and, in my newly-professional opinion, the word "abbreviation" doesn't belong in the lede.

You may have a different opinion, of course, but it might be best to hold off until the article stabilizes in a couple of days, and then make use of an unusually high level of civility. GaramondLethe 00:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, as a show of good faith/self-preservation I have no intention of actually going in to edit this article, so you could easily disregard me at will. The lead in that revision struck me as notably fair though; there's a set of SI defined symbols which represent it, and a set of English abbreviations; all are in use for some portion of our readers, and the string 'km/h' happens to be in both sets for independent and either well sourced or patently obvious reasons. From an encyclopedic stand point, that gives everyone all the accurate information.

Ah, but did you mean to remove the set of abbreviations form the lead, or just replace the word 'abbreviation'? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the lede more or less intact is certainly a possibility (more so now that you've expressed a preference) and it's a version I'm happy to live with. I would prefer leaving the use as an abbreviation out of the lede altogether, but that may be an invitation to fight this battle all over again and so on practical (and humanitarian) grounds including both may be the better choice. Dunno. Let me get the notation history proposal up and we'll figure it out. (BTW, I commend your finely-honed self-preservation instincts.) GaramondLethe 01:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the text; that will change. I'd like feedback on whether a table in the notes section like this one is a reasonable path forward. Thanks, GaramondLethe 02:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

===Notation===

Although the unit of length kilometer first made its appearance in English in 1810^[2], the compound unit of speed "kilometers per hour" was first observed no later than 1866^[3]. "Kilometers per hour" did not begin to be abbreviated in print until many years later, with several different abbreviations existing near-contemporaneously.^{[Note 1]}

===Notes===

Historical	Current
"k. p. h." (1889),[4] "km:h" (1895),[5] "km/h" (1898),[6] "km./hr." (1899),[7] "km./hr" (1899),[8] "km/hr." (1900),[9] "k.p.h." (1902),[10] "K.P.H." (1911),[11] "K. P. H." (1912),[12] "km. hr." (1914),[13] "km/hour" (1915),[14] "km.-hr." (1915)[14] "km. per hour" (1916),[15] "km/hr" (1919),[16] "K.p.h" (1921),[17] "KPH" (1933),[18]	"km/h",[19][20][21][22] "kmph", [20][23] "kph",[24][25][26][27] "KMHR",[28] "KPH",[28][29]

===References===

{{reflist|close}}

It seems like there's a lot of empty space between the lines that isn't strictly necessary, becuase all the entries are made <small>? That's a detail of formatting I'm unfamiliar with though. Looks good otherwise. Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinvl, thanks --- that looks great! GaramondLethe 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to show where middots were replaced by dashes. The first one that I saw was on line 2. I have not yet looked any further. Martinvl (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little more research - WP:MOSNUM recommends the use of middot when multiplying symbols - moreover middot produceds a slightly larger chanracter than sdot. Please reinstate the middots. Martinvl (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably your line 2 includes:

The unit symbol is km/h or km·h⁻¹.

Which I replaced with

The unit symbol is km/h or km⋅h⁻¹.

This was a replacement of middot (·) with sdot (⋅), not with a dash as you stated. The MoS is not fully consistent; however, review Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#Multiplication sign – it makes some mention of the sdot where multiplication is intended. This fits more closely with the Unicode wording accoding to my memory.

OTOH, on the presumption that you do not consider article to be scientific (it is clearly not mathematical), I will replace the sdots with middots again. You clearly prefer the larger dot (though I personally don't see the point). — Quondum 16:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]