Talk:Kilometres per hour: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Béal Orna (talk | contribs)

13 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)
Bots, Page movers
2,583,701 edits
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Kilometres per hour/Archive 2) (bot
Béal Orna (talk | contribs)
13 edits
No edit summary
Line 235: Line 235:


:::Ah, I've not been clear. We have a table of archaic abbreviations in the article and above we have that table along with "abbreviations that aren't official but that you might still see around". Hmmm... to be consistent, those cites should be to a reasonable date for "first use". Let me see what I can dig up along those lines. [[User:Garamond Lethe|<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond</span>]][[User_talk:Garamond Lethe|<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe</span>]] 17:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Ah, I've not been clear. We have a table of archaic abbreviations in the article and above we have that table along with "abbreviations that aren't official but that you might still see around". Hmmm... to be consistent, those cites should be to a reasonable date for "first use". Let me see what I can dig up along those lines. [[User:Garamond Lethe|<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond</span>]][[User_talk:Garamond Lethe|<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe</span>]] 17:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is the first one mentioned in the kph page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kph. Please add '''kph''' to the introductory section as it is probably the most common abbreviation used for this.

Revision as of 22:55, 4 December 2013

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

Suggestion

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:
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]

Going forward (symbol and abbrev)

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[1], the compound unit of speed "kilometers per hour" was first observed no later than 1866[2]. "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===

  1. ^ Historical and current abbreviations of "kilometres per hour". Historical first use no later than date indicated. Note current dictionaries list here may contain idiosyncratic abbreviations for other standardized units as well.
Historical Current

"k. p. h." (1889),[3] "km:h" (1895),[4] "km/h" (1898),[5] "km./hr." (1899),[6]

"km./hr" (1899),[7] "km/hr." (1900),[8] "k.p.h." (1902),[9] "K.P.H." (1911),[10]

"K. P. H." (1912),[11] "km. hr." (1914),[12] "km/hour" (1915),[13] "km.-hr." (1915)[13]

"km. per hour" (1916),[14] "km/hr" (1919),[15] "K.p.h" (1921),[16] "KPH" (1933),[17]

"km/h",[18][19][20][21]

"kmph", [19][22]

"kph",[23][24][25][26]

"KMHR",[27]

"KPH",[27][28]


===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]

Middot replacement

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]
You may both be right. I too thought that Quondum had inserted dashes and when I look very closely at my monitor I see the sdot displayed as two pixels wide and one tall. If I then zoom the display it varies; sometimes it's clearly a dot, as tall as it's wide, and sometimes it's clearly wider than it's tall, while the middot retains equal height and width throughout. I don't think my setup is particularly unusual. I suppose it may be a bit different to those in common use when that part of the MOS was written, which leads to the horrid thought that it might be better to avoid the sdot even in scientific and mathematical contexts. NebY (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the <gallery> section work fine if they're moved outside of the gallery, but {{reflist}} isn't processing them correctly within the gallery. My first inclination is to try moving the references within the reflist (like Parable of the Sunfish) but that's a pretty drastic change. Other solutions? GaramondLethe 06:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have solved the problem, but I used the difficult way - I formatted the citations myself. I know from experience that when multiple templates are used, all sorts of wierd conditions come up and it is often quicker to ditch the template than to find a work-around. Martinvl (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought of several solutions, all of which were more complicated than that. Nice work! GaramondLethe 20:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of kph

The following was posted on my talk page:

If it is of sufficient importance to have a section, then the contents of that section should be summarised in the lead per WP:Lead. It is also of benefit to those readers who understand usage such as kph to see it in the lead. Removing it from the lead might be seen as a POV action, as though there was an attempt to suppress such usage. We need to ensure that our articles give a robust appearance that we are not being selective about which common expressions we approve of! SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Placing this in the first paragraph is giving it undue weight. If you feel strongly about it, then work it into the final paragraph of the lead, along with the bit about "klicks", but however you word it, make it clear that even if the Daily Mail uses "kph", official and academic publications (including school work) should use "km/h". Martinvl (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Should"? I don't follow you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And I am unclear about "undue weight". Some clarification of your concerns would be helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Should" as in "You should use the symbol Fe for the element iron." Other symbols and abbreviations have existed and some abbreviations may still be in use, but if you're working with the government or doing science or engineering then the expectation is to use the relevant international standards. GaramondLethe 01:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of, Martin, we had a list of "current" abbreviations (scroll up a bit to see it). I like the look of that table. Was there a reason we decided not to go with that version? I can't remember. GaramondLethe 01:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Garamond
As far as I can recall, the reason was that we could not find any authoritative sources that required the use of "kph" etc (upper or lower case) - the OED (and other English language dictionaries) recorded that at some time in the past, "kph" has been used. On the other hand, the CGPM (since 1960) and ISO (since 1992 or earlier) have specified that one "should" use "km/h" or "km · h-1 internatioanlly, NIST (since 2001 or earlier) recommend the use iof "km/h" within the United States and EU directives (since 1972) makes it a legal requirement for any purpose associated with the Internal Market.
Martinvl (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've not been clear. We have a table of archaic abbreviations in the article and above we have that table along with "abbreviations that aren't official but that you might still see around". Hmmm... to be consistent, those cites should be to a reasonable date for "first use". Let me see what I can dig up along those lines. GaramondLethe 17:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the first one mentioned in the kph page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kph. Please add kph to the introductory section as it is probably the most common abbreviation used for this.

  1. ^ "The Oxford English Dictionary". Retrieved July 13, 2012.
  2. ^ Frazer, John F. (1866). Journal of the Franklin Institute of the State of Pennsylvania for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts. Vol. LII. Philedelphia: Franklin Institute. p. 314. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Number= ignored (|number= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Harrington, Mark W., Rotch, A. Lawrence and Herdman, W. J. (1889). American meteorological journal: A monthly review of meteorology, medical climatology and geography. Meteorological Journal Company. p. 226. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Volume= ignored (|volume= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Pell-r, G. (?) (1895). "Power consumed on electric railways". The Street Railway Journal. 11 (2): 116–117. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Bulletin - United States Geological Survey, Volumes 151-152. USGS. 1898. pp. ix.
  6. ^ Whipple, F. J. W. (1899). "The Stability of the Motion of a Bicycle". The Quarterly Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics. 30: 342.
  7. ^ Whipple, F. J. W. (1899). "The Stability of the Motion of a Bicycle". The Quarterly Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics. 30: 333.
  8. ^ Launhardt, Wilhelm (1900). The Theory of the Trace: Being a Discussion of the Principles of Location. Lawrence Asylum Press. p. 55.
  9. ^ Swinburne, J. (1902). "The Electrical Problem of Railways". The Railway Engineer. 23 (6): 184. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  10. ^ Ball, Jack (1911). "Foreign Notes on Aviation". Town & Country: 26. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  11. ^ Brooklyn Daily Eagle Almanac. Brooklyn Daily Eagle. 1912. p. 504.
  12. ^ Dodd, S. T. (1914). "A Review of Some European Electric Locomotive Designs". General Electric Review. 17 (1): 1141. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  13. ^ a b "Data on Mixed Motor Fuels of Interest for American Export Trade". The Automobile. 33 (15): 709. 1915. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  14. ^ "Tractive resistance tests with an electric motor truck". Engineering and Contracting. 46 (25): 560. 1916. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  15. ^ Eason, Alec B. (1919). Flow and Measurement of Air and Gases. Charles Griffin and Company Limited. p. 222.
  16. ^ Cooper, S. B. (1921). "The Paulista Railway Electrification". Railway and Locomotive Engineering. 34 (1): 306. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  17. ^ Aircraft Year Book. Aerospace Industries Association of America, Manufacturers Aircraft Association, Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce of America. 1933. pp. 391–393. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |Volume= ignored (|volume= suggested) (help)
  18. ^ Barr, Chris (2010). The Yahoo! Style Guide. St. Martin's Griffin. p. 528. ISBN 031256984X.
  19. ^ a b American Heritage Abbreviations Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin. p. 160.
  20. ^ The Rosen Comprehensive Dictionary of Math. The Rosen Publishing Group. 2008. p. 118.
  21. ^ "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" (PDF). US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2003. pp. A-15. Retrieved July 14, 2012.
  22. ^ Webster's II New College Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin. 2001. p. 1292. ISBN 0395708699.
  23. ^ Associated Press (2011). The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law 2011. Basic Books. p. 154.
  24. ^ Vlietstra, Jakob (2001). Dictionary of Acronyms and Technical Abbreviations: For Information and Communication Technologies and Related Areas. Springer. p. 332. ISBN 1852333979.
  25. ^ The US Department of Defense (2009). The Dictionary Of Military Terms. Skyhorse Publishing. pp. A-83.
  26. ^ Websters Guide to Abbreviations. Merriam Webster. 1985. p. 289. ISBN 0877790728.
  27. ^ a b United States Defense and Intelligence Abbreviations and Acronyms Handbook. International Business Publications. p. 120.
  28. ^ Cutler, Deborah W. and Cutler, Thomas J. (2005). Dictionary of Naval Abbreviations. Naval Institute Press. p. 215.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F584597238