This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Yes. Of course it should. Tmcft is an obscure unit that is nevertheless used by reliable sources in India, as shown in the linked discussions. MOS says to use SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic; tmcft is apparently such a unit. For our readers around the world, we should convert tmcft to SI units. The easiest way to do that is with {{convert}}. That template supports dunam and tsubo and pondemaat [nl] and horsepower-hour and barrel of oil equivalent. Why should tmcft be any different? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The actual issue is that editors have not wanted to support text like "123 thousand million cubic feet". The question for MOS is how that should be written. Is it "123 thousand million" or "123 billion" or "123 billion" or what? Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Thousand million" is unambiguous, and it is what the sources use. "Billion" is ambiguous, and the sources don't use it. If the sources routinely use "thousand million" as part of a unit, all we have to do is display it and (using {{convert}}) also display unambiguous SI units alongside it. "Billion" doesn't enter into the conversation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC seems somewhat out of place. It's asking a change to a template, not a change to how quantities are written in Wikipedia.MOS:BILLION does not endorse "thousand million" but does not outright forbid it either. So perhaps the RFC should have asked for a change to make "thousand million" acceptable when used with "cubic feet". If that change is adopted, then it would make sense to support it in the convert template. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking of. It's easy to add a unit to convert to see how it goes. However, each unit needs a code (Tmcft), a symbol (Tmcft), a name (thousand million cubic feet?), and a link (Tmcft). Once something goes in a template it seems to have an official blessing. The question is not whether convert should support the unit. The issue is what text should appear in articles where the unit is wanted. That is, what is official. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article about the cubit but that doesn't mean we would use it in an article. Similarly we have an article about ways of writing large numbers, "Long and short scales" The existence of articles about units, or how numbers are written, does not mean those units or ways of writing numbers should be used in Wikipedia articles (except the articles about those specific units or numerical notations). Jc3s5h (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the question about "123 thousand million cubic feet": I think 123 tmcft should be written as 123 tmcft, as in many (most?) WP:RS about the subject, as far as I can tell. Readers who are not familiar with the unit (e.g. because they're not from India) can click the link, or they can ignore the unit and instead read what Convert produces. Just as I have to ignore units that I'm not familiar with, e.g. "acre-ft" in articles about US dams. (Frankly, most US units seem bizarre to me, but that's just my European bias.) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My position is unchanged from previous responses on the other pages mentioned. If billion is universally understood as a synonym of thousand million then all occurrences of tmcft can be replaced with billion cubic feet. The abbreviation 'tmfct' can then be placed where it belongs, a history book. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why a history book? The unit tmcft is used all the time in reliable sources from India, just like US/UK units are commonly used in reliable sources from the US/UK. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that tmcft is understood only in one place and in one context. No one else uses it. Not a good unit for an encyclopaedia with a wide readership. Wikipedia should use a unit that is widely understood. I question the assertion made by others that billion cubic feet might be misunderstand by an English speaking readership to mean 1012 cubic feet, but let's just accept that assertion for the sake of argument. In that situation we can use thousand million cubic feet instead, which will be understood by all. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If billion is universally understood ..." – It isn't. Read the article you linked to: "Other countries use the word billion to denote either the long scale or short scale billion." — Chrisahn (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, {{Convert}} should support Tmcft. MOS:UNIT recommends "units as are conventional in reliable sources discussing the article topic". In reliable sources about dams in India, tmcft is a very common unit, probably the most common one. MOS:UNIT has special cases for non-scientific articles with strong ties to the US / the UK. Of course, the same applies to non-scientific articles with strong ties to India. (In case there's any disagreement on this: There's no reason to have special cases for the US and the UK but not for India. This is the English Wikipedia, not the US-and-UK Wikipedia. There are more English speakers in India than in the UK. A bias towards the US and the UK and against India is incompatible with Wikipedia's basic goals and policies.) Of course we should use tmcft for dams in India, just as we use hand for height of horses, as recommended by MOS:UNIT. As mentioned several times in these discussions, "billion" may be ambiguous in India, and that's likely why the convention of using "thousand million" came about. But even if it wasn't ambiguous – tmcft is what WP:RS use. It would be a disservice to our readers and our editors to use "billion cft" or "billion cubic feet" etc. instead. That would only cause confusion when most WP:RS use tmcft. Just as it would be a disservice to use inches or cm instead of hands for height of horses. (Since it came up somewhere in these discussions: There is no need to spell out tmcft, just link to it, and let {{Convert}} do the rest.) — Chrisahn (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, we have four options:
A. Status quo: Allow using tmcft, but don't {{convert}} it. Not good. Most editors don't add a conversion from tmcft manually (too much work), and the information is rather useless for readers who are not familiar with the unit.
B. Ban the use of tmcft, require SI units instead. Pretty awful choice: 1. Editors would have to convert the unit manually (lots of work, won't happen). 2. Editors and readers would have difficulties verifying the information against what's written in WP:RS. 3. Editors and readers who are familiar with the unit (which is likely if they've read one or two WP:RS about dams in India) will be confused. 4. Won't work. Editors who create or improve articles about dams in India will keep using tmcft as long as WP:RS use it.
C. Ban the use of tmcft, require billion cubic feet instead. Also pretty bad: 1. As far as I can tell, few WP:RS about the subject use that unit. Wikipedia would basically introduce its own unit for capacity of dams in India. 2. The word "billion" may be ambiguous. 3. There is no common abbreviation, we'd have to write "billion cubic feet" every time. See the example in #Tmcft above. 4. Editors and readers have to understand that Wikipedia's "billion cubic feet" is supposed to be a synonym of tmcft used in WP:RS. Confusing. 5. Won't work. See option B.
D. Let {{Convert}} handle tmcft. Clearly the best choice: 1. Simple and clear for editors and readers who are familiar with the unit. 2. Readers who are not familiar with the unit (e.g. because they're not from India) can ignore it and read the SI unit data produced by Convert. 3. All editors and readers can easily use and verify information in WP:RS.
Another disadvantage options A, B and C have in common: It would be difficult to explain why the English Wikipedia allows (and converts) all kinds of US- and UK-specific units (and many other subject-specific units), but not an India-specific unit. It would look like we have a Western bias.
Thanks for the great summary Chrisahn, I support option D. Keep in mind that double conversion for tmcft will be desirable, eg "tmcft (m3; acre.ft)". I know it is messy, but it will satisfy WP:V, SI readers and Americans. I don't ever see a need to spell out "thousand million", the first instance of tmcft would be linked if someone is curious.
The double conversion concept is not unique. In Australia megalitres (ML) is used by water authorities and newspapers for dams, see Wivenhoe Dam (the Reservoir infobox section and article prose).
Good point. Spelling out the first use of tmcft in the text seems reasonable. (But not in the infobox, I think. Not enough space.) — Chrisahn (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What should {{convert|123|Tmcft}} display? Do you really want "123 thousand million cubic feet (3.5 km3)"? That is the question for MOS. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should generally be "123 tmfct (3.5 km3)". Only the first occurrence should be spelled out. (Or maybe the first occurrence should simply link to tmcft instead of spelling it out. Might be nicer for online use. Doesn't work well though for offline use, e.g. printed.) — Chrisahn (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, with a few decisions I could add the unit as a trial for people to try to see how it works. However, while tmcft is used at Tmcft, a couple of comments above seem to want "thousand million cubic feet". If not that, would the name be "tmcft" or "Tmcft"? Another decision is whether the code (what is entered in {{convert}}) should be "tmcft" or "Tmcft". Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the {{Convert}} template should support tmcft. This is the only option that promotes consistency among articles as well as readability for locals, experts and internationals. Chrisahn has laid out this reasoning in more detail in his option D in the previous response. The template should by default convert to the SI unit cubic meter and to nothing else (e.g. no acre-feet).
I think a US default conversion will be required. US readers are internationals. Looking at the previous discussions, the readability for locals is not valued if those locals are Indian.
There are particpants that have made article edits so that only Americans can understand the units and said they want to relegate tmcft to the history books, but Wikipedia is writen using history books and this unusual abbreviation will be encountered.
123 tmcft (3.21×109 m3; 1.23×1011 cu ft) could be the default.
I am still hoping that worldwide readers will be able to understand Srisailam Dam with conversions one day.
With no {{convert}} support are we looking at 1.23×1011 cu ft (3.21×109 m3) everywhere, with the first usage spelled out as "billions"? This is not terrible, but I am worried about editor uptake and verifiability if exponential notation is not natural for all. Commander Keane (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely unnecessary to convert to cu ft simce that is almost the same unit. We have the Systeme International for international readers; in articles with subcontinent subjects there is no need to cater to Americans specifically. If we did that, we should convert all American dam articles to tmcft to keep things even. Joe vom Titan (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Screwing Americans isn't how Wikipedia operates and won't get this RfC passed.
It is about most people being able to understand what tmcft is. Wikipedia has to cater for the majority. We don't try to cover everything due to avoiding a ridiculous number of distracting conversions and no excellent software solution.
Most people understand metres and feet. Sources are using tmcft.
I am sure some Australians would better understand megalitres (not SI) on American dam articles, Indians tmcft, Americans might like gallons or acre-feet, some media like number of Olympic swimming pools. I have been wondering what people in the UK would better understand.
I had a random thought that an option would be to render {{convert|123|Tmcft|abbr=on}} as "123×109 ft3 (3.21×109 m3)" and {{convert|123|Tmcft}} as "123 billion cubic feet (3.21×109 m3)". Verifiability will have to be done by viewing the edit box but it will be easy for editors to write articles. I am not sure how this works in VisualEditor. However, looking at Hoover Dam exponential notation is not welcome. What about {{convert|123|Tmcft|abbr=on}} as "123 billion cu ft (3.21×109 m3). I would say "billion" is not ambiguous in current times, thousand million developed historically. All solutions are messy it seems, but some sort of {{convert}} support would be good.--Commander Keane (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is heading in the right direction. While "123 billion cu ft (3.21x109 m3)" is acceptable, I would prefer "123 billion cu ft (3.21 km3)." Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Cubic km is the form I have seen in general use. 10n notation is not widely used outside specialist publications. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With this approach we will need to keep in mind small and typical tmcft values, but I think km3 is good and 10n notation should be avoided as JMF mentioned. The default could be over-ridden if needed.
The "billion" part is heading in the wrong direction. The only advantage of using "billion" instead of "thousand million" is that the latter is a bit unusual. But it's perfectly clear and unambiguous. Even if "billion" is not ambiguous anymore, it's not used by the sources about the subject. Changing "tmcft" in articles about Indian reservoirs to "billion cubic feet" would make as much sense as changing "megaliter" in articles about Australian reservoirs to "million liters". It doesn't help our readers or editors in any way. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even easier is that I or any of the other Template talk:Convert regulars would be happy to add a unit to test how it goes if people could come up with a proposal for the unit symbol and name. That is where opinions differ. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: What about bn? I'd say bn and cu and ft are about equally recognizable abbreviations, on average?
Regarding Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, does "near one another" include in the same sentence, for example "a total of 10 people were rescued, 35 bodies were recovered, and [four or 4] people were missing", or is the guidance meant for values separated only by commas? Celjski Grad (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By 17:00 on 19 July, 10 people were rescued; seven by border guards and three by local fishermen. The number of initial survivors rose to 12, of whom 2 died later after being hospitalized, while the death toll reached 28, including 8 children.
The choice of words vs. figures seems rather haphazard. My personal preference in this case would be to spell out all one- or two-syllable numbers, i.e. up to twelve, and write only 28 in digits. But I must admit my choice is only partly based on policy. I just think it would look better. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These should all be spelled out, and BTW under no circumstances should text like on 19 July, 10 people ever appear in an article. EEng20:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For that text, I would have used all digits. But I look at numbers all day. Either way is fine and both are quite readable to the general population - just be consistent. Stepho talk01:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. When telling the angling club about "the one that got away", always add 10% to 25%, depending on how many people were there and how much you've drunk since. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance is silent on time ranges. For the 12-hour clock and for a time range not within running prose, if something starts during the am and finishes during pm, it's obvious: 10am – 3pm
Within running prose, the endash would be replaced by "to" and the whole thing preceded by "from", but I wonder what to do with time ranges not within running prose. What do we do when both times occur within the morning, say? What should it be?
Off the top of my head, I think the following are all OK, though offhand I can't decide whether they should be restricted, generally, to tables and other places where brevity is desirable -- whether the service was available 5–7 March seems natural but the hotline was open 9-11am doesn't.
10-11 am
10 am - 11 am
10:00 - 11:00 am
10:00 am - 11:00 am
10 am – 11:30 am (I think this looks OK)
10:00–11:30 am (but not 10–11:30 am -- somehow looks lopsided -- but I'm not sure on that)
