Talk:Kilometres per hour

Symbols in official use.

@Woodstone: and @DeFacto: I would just like to create a little discussion regarding my addition. Firstly, since the article is about the unit of velocity and not the SI symbol, I do think it is appropriate to include other symbols besides "km/h" that are in official use in other countries. So I would like to thank DeFacto for supporting my addition.

Secondly, regarding Thailand, I hold several PDFs from the Thai Department of Rural Roads. They provide specifications for bilingual road signs which use both กม./ชม. and km/hr, so I think both should be included. Woodstone, I hope this meets your requirements for a source of the English abbreviation.

One other note, Norway uses km/t on its road signs, while Sweden uses km/tim, so I would like to add those as well. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources to support that those abbreviations are used then I support their inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest if these abbreviations are used on official road signs (supported by documents from the respective ministries of transport), that should meet the reliable requirement.

Also another observation. Thailand and China both have national languages that are not based on the Latin alphabet, however China uses the SI symbol despite that, whereas Thailand has created an abbreviation in the native Thai alphabet. So I think that กม./ชม. should be given equal footing with Latin variations such as km/j used in Malaysia. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Abbreviations in the introduction

Should we really include non-standard abbreviations in the intro of the article, and thereby encourage their use? (For example kph, kmph and km/hr). The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit names and symbols says "only the slash or negative exponent notations are used with SI (and other metric) units., and has even listed kph as unacceptable. I suggest to only include km/h as an abbreviation in the intro of the article. Non standard abbreviations can instead be mentioned further down in the article, including k. p. h., km:h, km./hr., kms./hr., k.m.p.h., KMph., km ph, K.P.H., km. hr., km/hour, km.-hr., km. per hour, kms/hr., Kmph, KPH and kmph and others. Sauer202 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sauer202: that sounds like you want to use the article to promote the SI conventions above standard English usage, which goes against Wikipedia policy. They are not "non-standard abbreviations", they are just common abbreviations which are found in the literature, and only the most prevalent ones are covered in the lead anyway. And the manual of style for units is just that, the manual of "style" - a guide to how unit usage is standardised when used in articles, and not the manual of what real-world conventions and practices can and cannot be covered in articles. Also, the SI are not the arbiters of Wikipedia, let alone of the English language. They may offer a preferred "symbol" for units, but they do not (and cannot) offer a list of preferred abbreviations, or even of any abbreviations. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, I edited the introduction of this article from

The kilometre per hour (SI symbol: km/h; abbreviations: kph, kmph, km/hr) is a unit of speed, expressing the number of kilometres travelled in one hour.
— User:DeFacto 16:10, 31 mar 2020 (UTC)

to

The kilometre per hour (SI symbol: km/h; non-SI abbreviations: kph, kmph, km/hr) is a unit of speed, expressing the number of kilometres travelled in one hour.
— User:Sauer202 16:18, 31 mar 2020 (UTC)

, which was reverted. I disagree with the revert, since the article as it stands now implies that the mentioned abbreviations are encouraged by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) and General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM), who manages the International System of Units.

Although the mentioned abbreviations may be somewhat common, I think it's a fair statement to note that they are not endorsed by the SI. I would however prefer not to mention any non-SI abbreviations in the introduction at all, and instead have only km/h mentioned as an abbreviation in the introduction:

The kilometre per hour (SI abbreviation km/h) is a unit of speed, expressing the number of kilometres travelled in one hour.

It could also be discussed whether km/h is really a symbol, as it stands now, since it consists of four characters. But it is still clearly the most commonly used abbreviation internationally both in science and daily life.

As it stands now, the article may imply a false impression that the abbreviations kph, kmph and km/hr are approved by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, which they are not.

Sauer202 (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Reviving this thread given the recent revert: I somewhat agree with @Sauer202. We're not denying that there are abbreviations in use for kilometres per hour; we're just saying that they don't belong in the lead. They are covered in detail and comprehensively in their own section, which is sufficient for that case. I don't know what including the non-standard abbreviations in the lead achieves, other than lack of completeness and somehow condoning that the abbreviations are more official than they are. Many countries use other non-standard abbreviations (for various reasons) such as "kgs", "mts", etc., but those articles are not acknowledging those abbreviations (at least, not in the lead). I don't see why this article has to be any different. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Getsnoopy, what's your obsession with 'official' and 'standard'? And if you think there are abbreviations missing in other articles, why don't you go to those articles and add them? We shouldn't be 'condoning' either SI symbols or common abbreviations, we should be documenting them per due weight and without bias. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Well...the SI is an international standard that is official in all the countries that adopt it. I'm getting a bit of deja vu with this discussion in relation to the other discussion about BIPM vs. IBWM. Again, the point isn't that they're not being documented; it's that they're being documented in the lead in bold as if they're official in some sense (and again, the lead is not for enumerating all possibilities, which the current lead doesn't do anyway). As for weight, having them in a section below is in fact the weight they deserve: km/h is indeed overwhelmingly the most commonly used representation because (unsurprisingly) it is the official SI symbol. That is what should be in the lead; any variants that are marginally used can be in the body. This pattern is used for practically any article you'll find on WP. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Getsnoopy, the bold does not suggest they are 'official', which is meaningless in common use anyway, it signifies that those redirects target this article (or a dab page where it will be found). Try them: kilometre per hour, km/h, kph, kmph, and km/hr. If you are going to ration the space in the lead it should be by weight, and not by whether the BIPM condone it anyway. But for now, I'd prefer to see them all in the lead as they are all in everyday and common use. That things happen differently in other articles may be because they need further development, but is irrelevant anyway. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Not all redirects need to be highlighted in bold, let alone in the lead. Dab pages pointing here make no sense to be included in the lead since the reader gets a note about which page they might've been looking for anyway before clicking on it. And what sources are you using to measure if they're in "everyday and common use"? None of the sources I could find would place them anywhere near km/h in terms of prevalence or use. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Getsnoopy, there's no need not to use them though. Think of it as a courtesy to readers who have followed that path to the article - it helps them to know they've arrived. A couple of the least likely ones are on road signs, so in 'official' use too. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Which is exactly the reason they should not be there. What about the courtesy to readers about every other possible permutation of abbreviations? And again, what are you sources? Because without substantial evidence that they're common, it doesn't make any sense to have them there. Again: if a reader has been redirected after typing something in, it's not necessary to have that redirect term in the body of the article. There are plenty of redirects which are just misspellings, capitalization errors, etc. The fact that they've landed on this page after being redirected is clear enough to anyone already looking for the page on "kilometres per hour" to realize that they're in the right place. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Getsnoopy, it sounds like you are on a crusade to rid Wiki of stuff that is not condoned by the bureaucrats responsible for the SI metric system. I know you've openly revealed on Wikipedia that you worked for the US Metric Association (USMA, a single-issue pressure group pushing for metrication in the US) and have worked with "the director of the BIPM" (the initialism of the French name for the International Bureau of Weights and Measures) so I suggest you read WP:COI, and refrain from making edits which might be seen to be pushing the USMA agenda, or that of the BIPM. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Getsnoopy: It is not a crusade in any way. In fact, given past experience, I would characterize it as your crusade to include obscure and esoteric variations which are uncommonly used by people in an effort to include them just because "they've been used before", which would make for WP:UNDUE. This is not a conflict of interest in any sense, given that this is an issue about WP policy of giving uncommon things undue weight and not the content of article itself. Like I already said, it is fine to have this content in the body of the article like it is already there, with the rest of the other abbreviations. Moreover, given that there have been numerous attempts to get rid of those abbreviations from the lead, this is hardly my idea. I'm merely supporting it based on the evidence and WP policy. Given the way the other similar issue went, I'd actually recommend you relent and reflect. Getsnoopy (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for description of the non-SI abbreviations as "non-standard" or "non-scientific"

I have re-inserted the claim that the abbreviations should not be used with the International System of Units, because I believe it is well-sourced, and I do not immediately see any sources or argumentation in the above discussions that contradict it (i.e. that the abbreviations are commonly seen in scientific use or that they are official/standardized within the SI).

For the same reason, I believe that they should be described as non-standard or non-scientific in the lead. I chose those terms specifically to navigate around 'unofficial', which there have been some more or less reasonable objections to, namely how exactly to determine what body makes something 'official'. However, it seems to me that the terms non-standard or non-scientific may be more precise, since both the metre and the second are standardized in the SI brochure, and the terms do not seem to be widely used in scientific fields (as supported by the sources).

Quotes from the SI brochure:

It is not permissible to use abbreviations for unit symbols or unit names, such as [...] mps (for either m/s or metre per second). The use of the correct symbols for SI units, and for units in general, as listed in earlier chapters of this brochure, is mandatory. In this way ambiguities and misunderstandings in the values of quantities are avoided.

And from the Oxford Learner's Dictionary:

The forms kph and kmph are widely used, but the correct scientific form in the SI system is km/h.

Courtesy ping previous discussion: DeFacto, Getsnoopy, Sauer202, Fry1989 — LauritzT (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made a minor clarification as those rules only apply to those who choose to adhere to the style guide provided by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I disagree – the quoted document is not a style guide, it is the standard specifying International System of Units. There is no SI without that document. (There is indeed a metre and a second from earlier definitions but that is not the SI).

To clarify the parts I disagree with:

• The addition of by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, because it implies that there is an International System of Units standardized by other bodies, which is not the case. Note also that the OALD simply says "in the SI system".
• The removal in non-scientific fields, because of the reasons and sources mentioned above. As far as I can tell, no source claims that the abbreviations are widely used in scientific fields.
• The change of other representations to other abbreviations, because it implies that km/h is an abbreviation rather than a symbol.

— LauritzT (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I echo this; the SI brochure is not a style guide, but quite literally the definition of the SI. This is even explicitly stated by sources like the US Metric Association:

The points above are not subject to a house writing style nor limited to scientific/technical contexts, but are the only way to properly use the SI in any writing context. The SI does not distinguish between “scientific contexts” and “everyday contexts”; it is “à tous les temps, à tous les peuples” (“for all time, for all peoples”).

Getsnoopy (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let me reword that: ...those rules only apply to those who choose to adhere to the "Writing unit symbols and names, and expressing the values of quantities" (style guide) section in SI brochure provided by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. Are we sure there are no scientific uses that are not 100% compliant with the SI brochure style guide? The IBWM symbols are also abbreviations per the normal meaning of that word.

We musn't forget that Wikipedia is not an organ of the SI, and that our duty as Wiki editors to comply with Wiki policies, including WP:NPOV, and so we cannot portray the views of other organisations as incontrovertible. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone not adhering to the SI brochure is not using the International System of Units. They may be using something close, but it cannot be called "the International System of Units", because that system is defined by the SI brochure.

Are we sure there are no scientific uses that are not 100% compliant with the SI brochure style guide?

No, but that's not the point. The point is that those abbreviations are not commonly used in scientific fields.

Regarding your last paragraph: That is indeed true. That is why I am not arguing for those abbreviations to be removed completely, even though I think they should never be used. I am simply asking for the article to reflect what I believe is factual and presented in reliable, published sources because I believe it is necessary to ensure that the article is not misleading. — LauritzT (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

By your definition, I doubt if anyone is actually using the International System of Units then. We need to be honest and pragmatic and accept that in the real world, some organisations may be further from the 100% compliance line than others, but that does not mean that they are not, for all intents and purposes, using it. Per WP:VOICE we cannot assert that the idealistic vision has already been achieved. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

[...] some organisations may be further from the 100% compliance line than others [...]

I am not claiming that that is not the case. But that does not change what the SI is.

I do not understand how it could be non-neutral to state that those abbreviations are disallowed in the SI, when that claim supported by the document that defines the SI. — LauritzT (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for lifting this discussion again, LauritzT. I wholeheartedly think that only km/h should be used, and as laid out I think the manual of style supports this. The manual of style aside, my personal opinion is that Wikipedia should not be used as a platform to dilude standards, but rather to unite. The whole point of standards is that you don't get the freedom to choose, giving us freedom to think about other things. I view, and this is again my personal opinion, the practice of using non-standard SI abbreviations as anti SI. If you don't care for the SI (and with you I mean people in general), please stay away and use your time on improving other measurement systems. I hold that those non-SI abbreviations may deserve a passing mention in the the article, but not in the lead. Sauer202 (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

DeFacto, Getsnoopy, LauritzT, Fry1989, Following no new updates in this matter since November 9, I have yet again re-inserted in the article introduction that the listed non-standard abbreviations are non-standard. Sauer202 (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What was added was factually incorrect, so I removed it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, and it seems like you are in minority on this issue. Would you like to explain more on how the BIPM is not the official authority on standardising the metric system? Sauer202 (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The edit that I reverted changed "abbreviations" to "non-standard abbreviations". It also changed "With no central authority to dictate the rules for abbreviations" to "With no central authority to dictate the rules for abbreviations (other than the official km/h symbol dictated by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures)".

How can an abbreviation be "non-standard", or even "standard"? Who defines "standard" abbreviations in the English language? The answer is "no-one", and it certainly isn't the BIPM, because the English language is not regulated. The only thing the BIPM can dictate is what is written in their brochure, and even there they don't try to dictate what abbreviations can be used. All they do is recommend a symbol, for those who choose to comply. The recommendations in that brochure are purely optional outside of specific regulated disciplines, and normal English usage is not one of those regulated disciplines.

English Wikipedia should not be used to imply that the BIPM dictate the standard or official abbreviations that are allowed to be used in English, as that is totally untrue. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my edits, and find this ridiculous. As this discussion has reached a stalemate, this is a good time to bring in the opinions of other editors. Sauer202 (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Not only is that not true, seeing as Wikipedia is not reporting that "mtr" or "mtrs" is an abbreviation for the metre, for example, but given that that abbreviation is used in the world, not listing that in the lead (along with the myriad other abbreviations) would be what's inconsistent. So why aren't we listing "kmtrs/sec" or something like that in the lead? I frankly don't know why this is even a discussion still: WP doesn't have to report on all the various ways people incorrectly write SI symbols, and certainly not in the leads of articles. Writing things as "kph" or "kmph" only deserve passing mentions in the body because that reflects the weight they have in the real world: they're in the overwhelming minority. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to find myself here again - I should probably remove this article from my watchlist - and seeing DeFacto as a persistent disputant but again a lone one (Ornaith and Béal Orna in archive 2 were socks of DeFacto). Those complaints about the BIPM are a red herring. Who defines "standard"? In the UK, it's the British Standards Institution (BSI), which has long given only km/h. NebY (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@NebY, as you surely know, the BSI do not dictate abbreviations to be used when writing in the English language, and even if they did, it would not apply outside the UK anyway. This is getting ridiculous, we seem to be saying that the English language is regulated, and that there are official and unofficial usages.

(And the use dirty tricks and smears are never an honourable way to conduct yourself.) -- DeFacto (talk). 19:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Getsnoopy, as you surely know, Wikipedia is written by volunteers, and the fact that one article isn't up to scratch does not mean that others cannot be more accurate. And you seem to be conflating symbols and abbreviations again, which is misleading. The BIPM don't dictate the word, or the "official" abbreviations to be used in any other language, so what makes you think they do that for English? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sauer202, this isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think my fact is better than yours, so I think we have reached a stalemate, and need others to come into the discussion from a neutral point of view to decide. Your assumption along the lines that no one can standardise the language.. This got me thinking.. Do a long list of abbreviations really belong in this article body? Doesn't that conflict with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary? Sauer202 (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As a related side-track to this discussion, I can mention that I have also now re-introduced similar discussion that the involved authors have had in the past regarding the ISO 2848 article about the basic module (defined as 100 mm). I will create a separate RfC for that topic at Talk:ISO 2848. Sauer202 (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I have filed an edit warring report [1], so I will stay out of this discussion until it has been reviewed. Sauer202 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC about whether unofficial SI abbreviations can be referred to as non-standard abbreviations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editors made good points that the BIPM does not determine "standard" English, that kilometers per hour are used in scientific SI, scientific non-SI, and non-scientific contexts, and that it is important to note which notations are compliant with the SI "standard". I have changed the word "non-standard" to "non-SI" which hopefully conveys both sentiments. -- Beland (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Given that km/h is the official SI symbol for kilometers per hour, is it acceptable to refer to any other variants of abbreviations as non-standard? Sauer202 (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd correct you slightly: any abbreviation is by definition non-standard in the SI. Getsnoopy (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the source and correction. I want to clarify that my main point is that the lead of an article on an SI derived unit should avoid giving undue weight to nomenclature other than that which is approved by BIPM, which are only kilometers (or the alternative spelling kilometres) per hour and km/h. Sauer202 (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Again, thank you Getsnoopy for the link you provided to section 5.2 Symbols in the SI Brochure, and particularly the last paragraph of that page which captures exactly the reason why I'm not budging on this topic. Sauer202 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• No, that is not acceptable. The fact that the BIPM provide guidelines for referring to SI units using 'symbols' (their style-guide if you like) does not mean that those who choose not to adhere to, or who are unaware of, those guidelines are using 'non-standard' language. The English language has never been regulated (unlike French, which is the primary language of the BIPM) and it evolves naturally with time. Abbreviations are common in English and there is no 'standard' applied to their creation or use. And there can be more than one abbreviation for the same word or term. Take a look at these websites for some of examples of non-BIPM 'symbol' abbreviations being used the signify kilometres per hour.

• Using KPH": National Safety Signs (Australia), BBC News (UK)
• Using "km/hr": TimesDrive (India), PA Now (Canada)

-- DeFacto (talk). 20:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The point isn't that abbreviations aren't used in the world; it's that they're in the minority of usages in this case, which would be giving them undue weight to put them in the lead. This is not to mention the BBC article actually goes against their own style guide (not to mention being incorrect according to the SI), so it's presumably a typographical error. Similarly with the NSS Australian website, which goes against road safety regulations within Australia. Getsnoopy (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Getsnoopy, that doesn't address the RfC question though. The question is can we call the abbreviations "unofficial", not should they stay in the lead. The latter already has a long-standing consensus, it is the former which does not have a consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The latter already has a long-standing consensus Where? There has been no such consensus; the § Abbreviations in the introduction section and the regular edit warring has been proof of this. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• No, confusing. hour isn't SI anyway, right? I would copy the style at hour :

  "(symbol: km/h; also abbreviated km/hr and kph)"

with a footnote in there if needed. – SJ + 01:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The hour isn't SI, but it's accepted for use with the SI, which means it's part of the wider metric system (like the litre or tonne). A symbol exists for it, which means it's incorrect to use "hr" to refer to it. Getsnoopy (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strong yes. This is the SI we're talking about; it's indisputable fact that anything that is not using SI symbols is by default non-standard. But I think that's not really up for debate; it's more that the abbreviations shouldn't even be listed in the lead because that would be giving them undue weight. Getsnoopy (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Getsnoopy, there is no such thing as an "unofficial" abbreviation in the English language. The USMA or the SI might not favour the use of abbreviations, but that is their problem, not ours. Wikipedia is not the place to promote their case. Here we say it as it is, not as we, or they, wished it would be.

And this RfC question is not "should the abbreviations stay in the lead"", it is "can we call the abbreviations 'unofficial'? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Then I propose a compromise to remove the controversial material until a talkpage consensus is reached. That is: Only use km/h in the lead until talkpage consensus is reached. Sauer202 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sauer202, I happily support the removal of "non-standard" to restore the status quo version as it was prior to this edit of yours which caused this dispute to arise, as it won't be until this RfC is closed that we will know if there is a consensus to keep that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not what I wrote. Sauer202 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sauer202, you wrote that you propose to remove the controversial material until a talkpage consensus is reached. The controversial material is "non-standard", per this RfC. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You're making it seem as if having those abbreviations in the lead was arrived at via consensus, which it clearly hasn't; hence, these edit wars. If anything, the last known consensus version of the article would be the one where only the SI symbol was in the lead. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This RfC is asking whether to add "non-standard" in the lead, nothing more. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you are selectively reading what you want. The controversial material is the use of abbreviations in the lead which are not approved by the BIPM. This is pretty clear after these long discussions. Sauer202 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sauer202, the RfC question is precisely Given that km/h is the official SI symbol for kilometers per hour, is it acceptable to refer to any other variants of abbreviations as non-standard? I read all of that, and concluded that the question this RfC is seeking an answer for is: "is it acceptable to refer to any other variants of abbreviations as non-standard?"

I do not see any mention of the use of abbreviations in the lead there. I have a feeling that you are reading more into that than is actually there, especially given it was this edit of yours, in which you replaced "abbreviations" with "non-standard abbreviations", that triggered this dispute. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I think your conclusion is right, but irrelevant, and an informal fallacy. The scope of the discussion is not limited to the letters in a header. In my opinion you have yet to refute the central point that controversial material without reliable sources should be removed. That is: Only km/h should be used in the lead. Sauer202 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sauer202, how are readers supposed to guess what the scope is then? And where did that become the "central point"? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it seems like this has been an issue for years here, reading through the history pages of this discussion page and searching by your username. 'But sure, you can read the current RfC to the letter, if you'd like, and base your discussion on that. Then I can open a new RfC one in a week with a tiny adjustment. I, however, think it is better to work forward now with what we have, solve the issue, and move on. It is my opinion, and many others, that this article on an SI derived unit, as maintained by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), should not give undue weight in the lead to non-standard abbreviations not approved by the BIPM. Sauer202 (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sauer202, I think that is called "moving the goalposts". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I would rather phrase it as being solution-oriented. :) Sauer202 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes "non-standard" is an appropriate description of those abbreviations and helpful to our readers. "Official" and "unofficial" are not the subject of this RFC.

NebY (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@NebY, the title of the RfC is RfC about whether unofficial SI abbreviations can be referred to as non-standard abbreviations - note the use of the word "unofficial". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@NebY, what's your rationale for saying "non-standard" is appropriate, and what in your opinion differentiates "standard" from "non-standard"? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

See above, WP:SATISFY and indeed all of WP:BLUDGEON. NebY (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

So avoiding the question then, how can we discuss, or an RfC closer draw conclusions, if you don't supply your rationale in this discussion? And please AGF, and avoid the snide links, I'm sure we all want a stable article at the end of the day, and the best way to get that is to agree content. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"Stable article" may sound nice on the surface, but it is not a goal of mine, per se. My goal is that Wikipedia should be and stay the best encyclopedia in the world, and to become and stay the best, things need to evolve. It is not informative to clutter the introduction with non-standard nicknames (which are thoroughly handled in the main body anyway), and even less when they are not clearly labelled as the non-standard nicknames they are, giving the false impression that they are endorsed by the SI. Anyway, I look forward to the conclusion and this thing being closed, so that we all can focus our energy on more productive things. Sauer202 (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "stable" as opposed to "unstable" (likely to change suddenly). I agree that we want the best encyclopaedia in the world, which is why I think it needs to be cover the real-word breadth of the topic, and not just present the science text-book version or the utopian idealist dream of the how it should be. There is no "standard" or "official" version of the English language so therefore it is incorrect to portray this as if there was. Sure have a section on the BIPM's take on it, but they do not own the English language or have any power to dictate how the English language is used. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• No, that is a bit too far. One might say it as "alternate" abbreviations since many are in common use and may be mandated by something official other than the BIPM. For example, the DOD Dictionary uses kph for kilometers per hour. And the speed limit signs shown in the article have Samoa shown with "kph". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess you all are tired of me already, but I would argue that "alternative" also would be misleading, since it is not an alternative according to the SI. I would also argue that DOD is not a standardisation organisation with authority on the matter, and therefore that it would be acceptable to refer to their style as non-standard. You might have another version of the DOD Dictionary, but in the 2021 November DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms the kph is not mentioned, however they use km for kilometre, which is according to the SI. Sauer202 (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Sauer202 The United States government certainly is another source for "official", which was the wording I used. The article notes other forms exist that are widely used, shows them in official government usage, and says there is common usage for kph which would make it a de facto standard. Certainly km/h is the SI standard and the correct scientific form, but as a summary of the article calling all other forms "non-standard" seems going too far in emphasizing SI versus the content internal to the article and the external facts when the US military standard is "kph".

My DoD example did not source from that fas.org (Federation of American Scientists) site, I used the .mil site of Defense Technical Information Center, the DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms which links to PDF page showing 12 terms versus the 8 at FAS, including "kph kilometers per hour". Overall, I agree with the Oxford Learners Dictionary 'The forms kph and kmph are widely used, but the correct scientific form in the SI system is km/h.' So perhaps 'other' is better than 'alternate', but 'non-standard' seems just too far. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi again Markbassett, The International System of Units (SI) are not only scientific units used by scientists, they are normal people units (used by people across all of the world, including America) which have dimensions according to a fixed structure suited for dimensional analysis by the common person for everyday tasks. The abbreviation kph is not suited for such dimensional analysis, and I could not find it in the SI Brochure. kph may be called a de facto standard by some, but I would rather call it "common, but non-SI". I would say that a dictionary entry on its own might not satisfy what I would consider a standard. Saying that the dictionary entry makes it standardised in the U.S. military for example would imply that kph is the standardised spelling in the United States military. My point is that with a standard some things are fixed and set, so we can agree on that and focus our time and energy on other things. Other ways of doing it is perfectly fine, but it would be outside of the standard. I would argue that when there are several ways to do something, there is not a standard way. You might still not agree, but if so, are you open for other alternatives? Would "common but non-standard abbreviations" or simply "non-SI" be better? Sauer202 (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Sauer202 I could see ‘other common abbreviations’. Yes, kph is the mandated standardized usage for the U.S. military, by regulation and publications. Again, SI is simply not the only standard or usage. So kph is by another standard (and just de facto usage) and km/h is outside that standard. I can agree there is not ‘a standard’, there is more than one. But calling kph ‘non-standard’ or saying SI as ‘the’ standard is simply too far, it is factually wrong phrasing and violating WP:NPOV. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I find it really hard to believe that kph is the standardised spelling of kilometers per hour in the U.S. military. Do you have any sources on that? Counter example: Why isn't "mtr" given attention in the lead of the meter article? This article is about an SI derived unit, and I feel it is very wrong to give undue weight to non-standard abbreviations which do not satisfy the requirements in the SI system, especially when it is not labelled clearly as such in the lead. There is no discussion of whether kph is a non-standard spelling according to the SI system or not, the question is whether Wikipedia should be a dictionary of the English language, or an encyclopedia, in this case with an article on a physical unit, which internationally has been agreed upon (the U.S. has signed the metre convention). Therefore I still hold that labelling kph as a non-standard spelling according to the BIPM is not far fetched at all. Actually I would rather prefer to remove kph entirely from the lead. The kph and other abreviations are extensively covered in its own section, but it can be discussed whether that is encyclopedic or if it belongs in wiktionary. Sauer202 (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• No. I agree with previous comments that there are no "standards" for the English language.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Eldomtom2, My intent was not to imply standards of the English language, but that km/h is the standard expression according to the measurement system which the unit in the article belongs to. Does that change your opinion, or do you have any other suggestions of how my intent could be expressed clearer? What do you think about other alternatives such as "non-SI"? Sauer202 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Organisations do not have the power to dictate how their inventions are referred to.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but if they have defined a standard, I hold that other ways of referring to it is "non-standard". Sauer202 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Anyone can define a standard. I could create a standard right now that says that distances should only be measured in nautical miles, and call the use of kilometres at all "non-standard".--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I could create a standard right now that says that distances should only be measured in nautical miles Sure, but what has that to do with this article, which is about the unit kilometers per hour? Exactly, everyone can create a standard. Sure you can create an alternative system of units, and if that system becomes notable, the definition by the authorative body (you) may be referced to as a "standard" on Wikipedia. But this article is not about a fantasy standard, it is about a unit which is internationally standardised by the reputable BIPM. Sauer202 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Conveniently, Wikipedia has a whole article about standards organizations. The standards they produce are recognised as standards. Yours may not be. NebY (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. It's hard to relate this to Wikipedia policies, since things like WP:FALSEBALANCE don't really apply to terminology standards. But the need for standards for scientific units isn't arbitrary, and I wouldn't compare them to attempts to "regulate" language like the French do. Scientists need standard units to avoid misunderstandings, miscommunication, and real-world accidents. This article isn't just about speed on the road; it's about the scientific unit; so given that the unit in charge of defining these units has expressed a clear view, it's beneficial to stick to it. There's a clear standard, let's acknowledge that. DFlhb (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  @DFlhb, sure, scientists may choose to adhere to the BIPM style guide, yes, and their employers, or publishers, or customers, or whoever, may insist that they use it, but that does not mean that the other 99.9% of humanity needs to be misled to believe that the BIPM has any power or say in how they should use the English language in their walk of life. Don't you think? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  My point is that it's by-definition a scientific unit; the fact that it's widely used doesn't make it a colloquial term. Scientific units have precise definitions and terminology, which are not determined by popular usage. BTW, if you check Google search hits (an approximation, I know), "km/h" seems vastly more used anyway, so there doesn't seem to be much of a war between scientists and the common folk on how to spell these scientific units. DFlhb (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  'Kilometres per hour' is not exclusively a "scientific unit", and there is no need for us to pretend otherwise, or try to sanitise the way we describe how it is used. Why does anyone other than a regulated user (one who is obliged for some contractual or regulatory reason to adhere to the BIPM style guide) need to be led to believe that there is a right way and a wrong way of abbreviating it in English? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's completely irrelevant that it's used in non-scientific contexts.

  The International System of Units (SI), as maintained by the General Conference on Weights and Measures, has been adopted as the official system of weights and measures in every country in the world except three. One of those three (the United States) doesn't mandate the use of the metric system, but does mandate that the GCWM's definitions be followed whenever the metric system is used. Since the official brochure issued by the GCWM says that the official abbreviations are mandatory, and any others are not permissible, and since practically every country follows the GCWM's authority in issuing such definitions, it is objectively and self-evidentally a standard. DFlhb (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  But neither the U.S. Department of Commerce nor the GCWM have the authority to mandate that for any activity that falls outside of their jurisdictions. Where does the US guide say that it does mandate that the GCWM's definitions be followed whenever the metric system is used? Well of course it only mandates it for those who have agreed to be bound by it, and to say or imply otherwise is disingenuous. Or do you believe that they mandate that any recipe book written by my grandmother must comply with it? Or that the UK's daily Telegraph newspaper must adhere to it?

  They may each be "standards" in their own realms, but, per WP:VOICE, neither can be said to be or even implied to be the standard, without being fully qualified as to who they are specifically the standard for, in Wikipedia's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  The NIST guide notes that a 2007 amendment mandates it for all U.S. government agencies, when interpreted in concert with the 1988 Omnibus Trade Act. Same with cars that use metric speedometers (federal standard FMVSS 101) and metric road signs (the MUTCD). By your logic, what would count as a standard? If every government minus three-ish doesn't count, then what does? What's your threshold for a standard, and why do you feel it hasn't been met? Incidentally, the NIST, which mandates "km/h" (NIST SP 330§5.2) used to be called... the National Bureau of Standards.

  BTW, both newspapers that use non-standard abbreviations, Reuters and The Economist, are based in non-metric countries (even today, the UK uses imperial for vehicle speeds), and so have very good reasons to deviate from the standard, for reader clarity. But the article currently states that there is no central authority to dictate the rules for abbreviations, which just isn't true. DFlhb (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  So NIST does not mandate that the GCWM's definitions be followed "whenever" the metric system is used, only when it is used in certain narrowly defined and regulated situations.

  And that's the whole point here, that the "standards" we are talking about only apply to certain realms, and as long as we make it very clear, and without undue weight, what those realms are when we describe them, that's fine. But to imply that any of those mentioned "standards" apply to the general use, by humanity as a whole, of the English language, is wholly wrong and unsupportable. There's no such thing as "non-standard abbreviations" in the English language in general, although there might be abbreviations that are not accepted for certain regulated or otherwise controlled uses.

  Another point worth noting is that the BIPM does not regard "km/h" as an abbreviation, they don't allow "abbreviations" to be used at all in their world. They 'mandate' that the abbreviations that they define can only be called "symbols". So there are not any BIPM-condoned "standard" abbreviations at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is sliding into WP:BLUDGEON territory. Let the discussion breathe. Cessaune (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed change in wording

User Defacto's revert of my change was fair; the change should be discussed. So here goes. Which do people prefer?

Current wording

With no central authority to dictate the rules for abbreviations (other than the official km/h symbol dictated by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures), various publishing houses have their own rules that dictate whether[...]

Proposed wording

Though the International Bureau of Weights and Measures dictates the use of the official km/h abbreviation, various publishing houses have their own rules that dictate whether[...]

My arguments are already stated above, and in my edit summary, so I won't repeat them; just putting it here so others can discuss. DFlhb (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I reject the proposal because it implies that the IBWM have some authority over the use of abbreviations in the English language, which they manifestly do not, given that they ban what they call abbreviations altogether.

However, I would accept something like:

There is no central authority to dictate the rules for abbreviations in the English language in general. However, many organisations choose, or are mandated by regulation, to be bound by the style guide provided by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, which prescribes a list of symbols which must be used instead of any abbreviation and which proscribes the use of abbreviations, and various publishing houses have their own rules that dictate whether[...]

Which makes it clearer the role that style guides fulfil. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The repetition of "dictate" is and would be troubling, playing to notions of fascist/NWO dictators imposing SI. The "km/h" symbol is not the only SI-compliant one for kilometres per hour and the SI Brochure does not specify it. "Official" is at best superfluous and again suggests that "km/h" is the only SI-compliant construction. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) doesn't decide on SI units, prefixes, symbols or definitions; the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) does and the BIPM documents the outcome. NebY (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that word either; I just tried to keep my changes as minimal as possible, thinking that would make them non-contentious. DFlhb (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I support the wording proposed by DFlhb since I find it clear, factual and succinct. The wording proposed by DeFacto I honestly find a bit hard to read and understand, I mean that it is superfluous to mention in any article(s) that there is no central authority dictating any language(s). If that were the case, then I wonder why we don't state the same disclaimer or put similar clauses in articles such as the meter (mtr?), liter (ltrs??), or any other article on Wikipedia for that matter. Sauer202 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing abbreviations from lead

Until the RfC above resolves, I propose removing the abbreviations from the lead, which are giving them undue weight and is a separate topic anyway. Unless there is mass opposition to this, I will be doing this in 7 days. Getsnoopy (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Getsnoopy, they are abbreviations, and it is normal to put those in the lead. I oppose your suggestion. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Well the premise of this proposal is that those were added in by you without consensus, so it was more addressed to everyone else. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems like they've been there at least 4 years. I'd say that qualifies as the log-term consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

They've been in dispute since 2019, which is 4 years ago, with no resolution and you've been reverting people's reverts; that's not consensus. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)