U., au, ua) i added this simpler option to address SMcCandlish 's criticism of the other three. Dondervogel 2 ( talk ) 09:45, (UTC) Discussion edit for as long as the isq iso 80000-3 'quantities and Units - space and Time' prefers ua, what is the reason for mosnum to prefer au? Dondervogel 2 ( talk ) 18:21, (UTC) The isq is a system of quantities, not units. It does not prefer. A non-normative appendix in a standard that describes part of the isq uses. ( talk ) 21:38, (UTC) I was using the term "ISQ" as a shorthand for iso/iec 80000 quantities and Units, which is about units as well as quantities. I have now spelt it out in full. How can we be sure the same informative annex will not find it's way into the 2018 (or 2019) revision?
How to Create a business Plan Investors Will love - entrepreneur
U., ua) The preferred option au is recomended by the bipm 1 and the iau, 2 and is called for in the publications of the aas ( aj and ApJ essay ) 3 and the ras ( mnras ). Au remains an acceptable option as it is a commonly used symbol in both popular and professional articles. author Instructions: Manuscript Preparation, american Astronomical Society, retrieved may 14, 2018 monthly notices of the royal Astronomical Society; Instructions to authors, oxford University Press, retrieved may 14, 2018 - stevemcCluskey ( talk ) 15:43, (UTC) Oppose for the same reasons as above. — smcCandlish 02:24, (UTC) 3 Proposal preferring au and not au (but not deprecating AU) edit how about this: guidelines on specific units Group Name symbol Comment Length, speed astronomical unit au ( not. U., ua) The preferred option. An alternative. Articles that already use au may choose to switch to au or continue to use. I prefer this wording because it makes it clear au is preferred, permitting au during the transition (to au) but not promoting. Also, we do not normally include the reason for our choices in mosnum. I think this is to keep it short. Dondervogel 2 ( talk ) 18:31, (UTC) 4 Proposal preferring au and deprecating au edit fourth proposal: guidelines on specific units Group Name symbol Comment Length, speed astronomical unit au ( not.
Au is a commonly used symbol for this unit, both in popular and professional articles. References cite error: The named reference si brochure was invoked but hotel never defined (see the help page ). "Resolution B2 on the re-definition of the astronomical unit of length" (PDF). author Instructions: Manuscript Preparation, american Astronomical Society, retrieved may 14, 2018 monthly notices of the royal Astronomical Society; Instructions to authors, oxford University Press, retrieved may 14, 2018 - stevemcCluskey ( talk ) 14:42, (UTC) Oppose : mos is not an article and does not. And wp is not an advocacy platform of any kind, especially over a tiny bits of style trivia, most especially never in the furtherance of some internecine bickering between a field's institutions for which one has longer authoritativeness junk to wave. Furthermore, more times we say "do a or do B" we are making a mistake, and failing as a style guide, and setting up future pointless disputes. We should never, ever do this, unless there's a site-wide completely failure, repeatedly, to come to consensus on something after wide editorial input. This little matter generally has no input from much of anyone but people in astronomy or a closely related field, who favor this organization's specs versus that one's. — smcCandlish 02:23, (UTC) 2 Proposal discussing options au and au edit here is a revision which indicates the preferred option, responding to the discussions below: guidelines on specific units Group Name symbol Comment Length, speed astronomical unit au, au ( not.
Right now I do not support any change based on speculation. Instead we should wait until tc 12 either publishes or withdraws the draft standard presently under development. Dondervogel 2 ( talk ) 06:49, (UTC) we also know the draft has reached stage.99 ; it has been published as a dis and approved for registration as an fdis. It is available for purchase now but is expensive. 2 the committee has a virtual meeting next week, and provisionally will meet in Helsinki in October. 3 But does that matter, given that iso tends to follow bipm and wikipedia is bound by neither? Can we move instead to considering what's actually in use, per wikipedia's general principles and the specific 2015 close that the "issue can always be revisited at a later date if the iau preferred "au" version becomes the more widely adopted unit symbol in the. ( talk ) 12:23, (UTC) Proposed draft edit 1 Proposal to allow au or au edit rather than discussing an abstraction, i'll propose a specific change for the table, drawing on the discussion to date: guidelines on specific units Group Name symbol Comment Length, speed. U., ua) au is recomended by the bipm 1 and the iau, 2 and is called for in the publications of the aas ( aj and ApJ ) 3 and the ras ( mnras ).
Essay lib zip codes - doing cover letter
Or does it need a letter from iau? (I know several person there, but also the president because he was the President of my msc thesis Committee) skz ( talk ) 21:25, (UTC)I recently checked that the Astronomical journal in its manuscript preparation instructions calls for "au". I take this as an indication that adoption of this version is not merely a few international organizations, so i support "au". Jc3s5h ( talk ) 21:51, (utc dondervogel 2 : suggested above that the use of "ua" in iso 80000 was "possibly to avoid a clash with the symbol au to mean atto dalton." Lacking any citation to support this hypothesis, it is much more submitted reasonable. This also suggests that since the iso was following bipm practice in its 2006 revision, it will follow current bipm / iau practice in it forthcoming revision. stevemcCluskey ( talk ) 02:22, (UTC) All we know for sure is that the current (2006) iso standard favours ua and the current (2014) bipm standard favours.
Iso tc12 is presently developing a final draft (fdis) of iso 80000-3, which means that it is highly likely to be updated shortly. There are five things that can happen, in (my perception of) order of decreasing likelihood: the fdis is approved, and makes no statement about the astronomical unit; the fdis is approved, and switches to au, following bipm; the fdis is approved, and continues to use. When the choice of au was made, it was the worst out of the 3 available (either ua or au would have been better but I supported au because it achieved uniformity across wikipedia. In my opinion we should wait for tc 12 to take its course. In the two most likely scenarios, the de facto international standard becomes. If it comes out in favour of au we should definitely adopt that symbol, but what if it doesn't?
Given this agreement among the authoritative international organization on weights and measures and the primary national and international organizations on astronomy, wikipedia should follow suit by changing its Manual of Style to reflect accepted practice. stevemcCluskey ( talk ) 20:00, (UTC) For info: A long discussion now at wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 151Symbol for astronomical units (again) was closed on supporting the addition of au to the table of units. The note excluding "au" was not explicitly discussed then; it was added on 1 The close ended "Note that "AU". "au" in the table issue can always be revisited at a later date if the iau preferred "au" version becomes the more widely adopted unit symbol in the literature." ( talk ) 21:20, (UTC)The symbol preferred by iso 80000 is ua, possibly to avoid. Whatever the reason there seems to be no strong consensus amongst standards bodies, so i think we should make a choice and stand by that choice. Has that much changed since we chose au in 2015?
Dondervogel 2 ( talk ) 23:06, (UTC) Dondervogel, you are terribly wrong! I cite the wikipedia page itself: In 2006, the International Bureau of weights and measures (bipm) recommended ua as the symbol for the unit. In the non-normative annex C to iso 80000-3 (2006 the symbol of the astronomical unit is "ua". You cannot use a decision of 2006 to overthrow a decision of! Especially since is a non-normative annex! You have to follow the last decision! And as a member of the Astronomical Community, i would like that wikipedia considers more important the decision of iau than the opinion of an user!
Kid reviews for The girl on the Train common Sense media
So report this was proposed and discussed a couple of years ago at Template talk:Birth based on age as of dateIncompatible with WP:mosnum but nothing was done at the time. Maybe time to empire re-visit? Kendall-K1 ( talk ) 02:13, (UTC) Abbreviation for astronomical unit once again edit au (mixed case, initial cap) is the symbol for gold i am raising, once again, the issue that au (not AU) should be used as the abbreviation for astronomical unit. It has been discussed both here and on the talk page for Astronomical unit. About five years ago i recommended allowing both abbreviations to be used in the article on the Astronomical unit until the issue was sorted out by appropriate defining authorities. At that time the situation stood as follows: The 2012 iau resolution b2 on the re-definition of the astronomical unit of length, recommends "that the unique symbol au be used for the astronomical unit." It looks like we've got a difference between the iau (2012). I suspect the bipm and the iau will sort this out, but for the moment we probably should let both stand with the more recent iau recommendation getting some priority. stevemcCluskey ( talk ) 17:43, (UTC) Since that time, the situation has changed. The 2014 Supplement to the eighth edition of the bipm brochure on The International System of Units and the draft ninth edition (forthcoming 2019) recommended the symbol au in both English and French texts, citing iau resolution B2, 2012 which recommends "that the unique symbol.
worry about. (Obviously in changing the template a new parm would be introduced which would allow getting the old punctuation.). E eng 21:10, (utc slashes are a bad idea. If someone was born on 1702" it is stating that the person was born on (. So using slashes can be confusing for years before 1752 and before march 25 of those years for dates given within Britain and the colonies. Pbs ( talk ) 17:41, (UTC) The proposal is to move away from slashes as the default, so not sure what your point. E eng 00:11, (UTC) Yes I did read the proposal, i am pointing out another reason ( dual dating ) why it is a sensible change to make. pbs ( talk ) 00:32, (UTC) Thanks for clarifying. E eng 02:06, (UTC)I have this on my list of things to do in my copious spare time.
Kendall-K1 ( talk ) 16:07, (UTC). Um, late to this discussion but mos1 added to the report template with this edit quite some time ago. See the template's documentation. —, trappist the monk ( talk ) 17:59, (UTC). I agree with, kendall-K1. Jc3s5h ( talk ) 17:25, (UTC). Kendall-K1, jc3s5h, can either of you add usage examples to mos:approxdate?
British empire essay - have your Research Paper Done
This page falls within the scope. Wikiproject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the. Unofficial anagram of the manual of Style. Contents, approximate birth from dates based on age as of date edit, waiting for changes to default behavior of a template. Mos:approxdate says if you have two possible birth years based on an as-of date, you should say for example "born 1912 or 1913". But we have a template for this, template:Birth based on age as of date, that instead uses a slash: "1912/1913". You can add a param to make the template comply with mos, but shouldn't that just be the default?