Talk:Kilometres per hour/Archive 1

pagename
Should this page's name be changed to "Kilometres per hour"? Vancouverguy 22:45, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Yes it should, I'll change it now. WikiSlasher 03:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Why has someone changed the spelling from kilometre to kilometer. Kilometre with the "tre" is the standard worldwide spelling only Americans spell it that funny way G-Man 23:00, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * No, in german it is also spelled Kilometer. --Thomas
 * It's not just German and American English. You only have to hover of the language box on the left of the article to see that it's "meter" in many languages. --Multiplexor (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

kph
kph is a measurement of speed, not velocity

kph is a measurement of nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.140.55 (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In the metric SI system:


 * k is a prefix "kilo" and represents a multiplier of 1,000
 * p is a prefix "pico" and represents a multiplier of 1/1,000,000,000,000
 * h is an accepted abbreviation for hour


 * Ignoring for the moment that it is not accepted practice to combine prefixes, the presumed literal interpretation of kph is: (1 hour/1,000,000,000) OR 3.6 microseconds.


 * As is currently, this section reads as an attempt to legitimize a misuse of the SI system. While sometimes this is seen, this does not make it an acceptable representation of kilometres per hour.


 * I therefore propose that this be amended to acknowledge that while kph is sometimes mistaken as the abbreviation for km/h, that the correct usage is, in fact, km/h and NOT kph (or, for that matter, kmph).
 * Enquire (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The use of "kph" has raised its head again. It shoudl not be mentioned in the lede unless its use is properly clarified - legally it may not be used within the EU for matters pertaining to the "Internal Market" (prior to 2010 it could not be used for economic, public administration, public health and public safety" purposes).  Unless we can get this into the lede, it is best to remove all references to the use of kph from the lede.  In Ireland, a knock-on of this might well be that a speeding ticket for travelling at "100 kph in a 60 kph zone" is invalid as it would fall foul of the EU directive.  Martinvl (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed references to the use of "kph" from the lede. We have no citations to show how much it is used, so tho state that it is "often" used is POV.  If kph is going to be mentioned in the lede, then it must be properly qualified.  There, either mention it with qualification or not at all.  Martinvl (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Scalar versus vector
I was under the impression that vectors require a direction. If so km/h could not be a vector, it would need to be 'x km/h, north' or something like that. I made an edit on that basis but it was reverted. Can this be clarified? Bobblewik (talk) 4 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)


 * As the article force tells us, "A force can be represented by a vector with two properties: magnitude and direction." That doesn't mean that it would be wrong for it to say, as it does, that the "SI unit used to measure force is the newton," does it?  Nor for newton to say that it "is the SI unit of force"?


 * Why in the world would you think that velocity would be any different? As its own article says:
 * "It is thus a vector quantity with dimension length/time. In SI units this is metre per second."
 * Gene Nygaard 4 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)


 * I don't know the answer. The following seemed plausible:
 * The Difference Between Speed & Velocity A scalar quantity is one which can be fully described by its size. Length, mass, temperature, energy, speed and volume are all scalar quantities. For example 20kg fully describes the mass of an object. A vector quantity is one where you must also mention its direction.  Force, velocity, displacement and acceleration are all vector quantities.  For example a force of 20N can only be fully described by quoting its direction.  20N upwards will be different than 20N to the left.
 * Direction may be implicit in many cases, but if that source is correct, a vector quantity without a direction is incomplete. Bobblewik (talk)  22:07, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

m/h
At Knot (speed) someone changed 'm/h' to 'metres per hour' because it looked too much like 'miles per hour'. That's fine with me, but I was wondering. Isn't that usually written as mph? Which would solve the ambiguity. And is 'm/h' an acceptable notation for 'metres per hour'? I suppose it is because in the metric system you can combine anything with anything. Although km/h and m/s are more common. DirkvdM 09:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are right. The unit 'metres per hour' is correctly written as 'm/h'. The SI website clearly lists the:
 * official symbol for 'metre'
 * and the
 * official symbol for 'hour'. Note that the SI unit of time is the second, not the hour. The hour just happens to be 'accepted for use' with SI units.


 * As you might expect, the Wikipedia articles Metre and Hour repeat the official symbol. So there is no reasonable ambiguity with 'm/h' and it is incorrect to claim that there is.


 * There are no internationally agreed symbols for 'miles per hour' so I cannot advise you on that. Note also that 'mph' is language dependent. One of the benefits of the metric system is that it does not depend on knowing the language, just as the international symbol for mercury is Hg. For example, 'miles per hour' and 'kilometres per hour' would be 'mao' and 'cao' in Italian.


 * However, Wikipedia articles appear to accept 'mi/h' and 'mph' as forms for miles per hour. I think I have also seen 'mi/h' on speedometers. Either of those abbreviations work for me. Bobblewik 16:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Just because the official symbol for meters is m, and the symbol for hours (at least when used with SI) is h, that would only show that m/h can mean meters per hour, not that it cannot mean miles per hour. Good grief, even among the SI and units acceptable for use with it, we have the symbol 'rad' which can stand for two different units, rad and rad.  We also have "nm" used for nautical miles, as well as the SI unit of lenghth, nanometers.
 * For miles per hour, mi/h is better than mph, IMHO.
 * But you will almost never see m/h used for miles per hour in current usage, so there is no real ambiguity. For that matter, you are probably even less likely to run into meters per hour in actual usage.  So enough of this tilting at windmills.  Gene Nygaard 17:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose the '1852 metres per hour' in the article really should be changed to '1,852 km/h'. There is no need to use the uncommon 'metres per hour'. Also notice my use of a comma. I read in one thread that the SI rules say you can use either a comma or dot here (and the thousands-separator is a space). But don't worry, I'll use a dot :).
 * As for something like km/h being the same in all languages. That is alas not entirely true. Prefixes like 'kilo' are. And afaIk the same goes for the 'm' in all western languages, because the equivalents of 'metre' all happen to start with an 'm' (which isn't a total coincidence of course). But the 'h' isn't universal. It works in Spanish (hora) and French (heure) and I imagine in all Latin languages. But not in Dutch, where the word for 'hour' is 'uur', so it's 'km/u'. which made me wonder about German, inwhich the word for 'hour' is 'Stunde'. Which rather inconveniently starts with an 'S' (capital, but still). So I looked up the German article on km/h and it turns out they write it with an 'h'. Well, they had little choice. But then I looked up the same article in Dutch and there it is also written as km/h. Which surprises me, because most people (though not all) use km/u, even including me, and I am a very strong supporter of standardisation. I'll amend my ways forthwith :) . This however seems to be the only problem with SI base units (in western languages and as far as I know). 'Gram' starts with a 'g' in all languages, as does does 'second' with an 's'. And the others (A, K, mol, cd) seem to be too recent to have different names in different languages.
 * I also Googled this. In Dutch pages km/u is just a little more common than km/h. I can't make a comparison for German because I wouldn't know what to test against, but km/h scores close to 2 million hits. So at least it's common. DirkvdM 07:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am really supriced that the Dutch would have any ambiguity about this! The km/h is the international standard and the individual abrivitions don't come from the language of the particular country. F.ex. in Finland hour is "tunti", still kilometriä tunnissa is km/h as per SI (which itself stands for "Kansainvälinen yksikköjärjestelmä" in Finnish as in English although its a French acronym), day, "päivä" is d, year, "vuosi" is a and so forth, like in (scientific) English. And I assume the prefix "micro" is abrevieded with the Greek letter mu (μ) in Dutch too?82.181.150.151 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Residential Limit
I was under the impression that residential areas are usually 20 or 25 mph, or about 30 or 40 km/h. Are they actually 50 km/h in metric countries? 50 km/h (about 30 mph) is a bit fast for a neighbourhood... koolman2 08:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In the UK residential limits are 30mph. In Australia residential limits are 50km/h (though 40km/h limits apply past schools during certain posted hours). YMMV! Graham 09:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting! Thanks- koolman2 18:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Traffic accident research shows that the risk of death resulting from a pedestrian being hit by a vehicle rises dramatically (five times) when comparing an impact at 50 km/h (31.25 mph) to 30km/h (18.75 mph). In other words, the risk of death or major injury at 30 km/h (say, 20 mph) compared to 50 km/h (say, 30 mph) is 20% or one fifth).  See, for example:




 * As a result, various municipalities around the world are experimenting with and/or implementing reduced speed limits for residential and./or school zones.


 * Enquire (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Germany (or at any rate Frankfurt) tends to use 50 km/h is normal urban areas, but 30 km/h is residential roads that are nor designed for through traffic. Martinvl (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Image

 * What the speed 50 km/h looks like on a normal bicycle

Does anyone else think that this is not really necessary. Firstly, what it looks like on the photo despends on the shutter speed of the camera. If the shutter speed is different, then the image would look very different too.

Also, does the image add any meaning to the article? Is it easier to picture what km/h means? Richard B 18:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, the image is worthless. Removed as per WP:BB Graham 11:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

kph abbreviation
Is it really wrong? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kph http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kph http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=kph http://www.google.com/search?q=kph

All say kph is kilometers per hour.
 * No, it's not wrong. Following standard practice for abbreviations, kilometres per hour = kph; if the standard abbreviation, km, is instead used for kilometres, then kilometres per hour becomes kmph; these are perfectly valid abbreviations.  Unfortunately, an editor has, at some point, labelled them as incorrect because they are not the accepted standard abbreviations used in scientific discourse.  (Just to be clear, this is not an anti-science comment; I am a scientist who uses kmh-1.)  However, not being part of a standard does not make something incorrect—if it did we'd all be using metres per second anyway. ObfuscatePenguin 18:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends exactly what your definition of "wrong" is; one can argue that no misspelling etc is "wrong", just "non-standard". However for practical purposes, "non-standard" equals "wrong". Certainly no high quality publication (ie not the Metro or other error-filled rags) would regard "kph" as acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.52.217 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never seen "kph" on a car's speedometer - as explained in the article, "kph" is specifically an English abbreviation, not an internationally accepted symbol whereas "km/h" is used internationally. Martinvl (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: "One can argue that no misspelling etc is 'wrong', just 'non-standard'. However for practical purposes, 'non-standard' equals 'wrong'.", If we decide to use non-standard fleemishes, the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur!  Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh.  Blorgk?  Blorgk!  Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should titles of article on units of the form "X per Y" be singular or plural?
''I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions; the two of us (myself & User:Piercetheorganist) could have this discussion forever, and get nowhere fast. Hopefully, more people have that page on their watchlist, and will contribute.'' Oli Filth(talk) 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki converter
I would add an wiki online convertion page (to change from km/h to mph and viceversa).

Something similar to :

but applied to conversions :

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac (talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 February 2008‎ (UTC)

conversion section
Is there a standard on Wikipedia for which side of the equation the page's subject should be on? The section here lists km/h on different sides for different lines, which is confusing. 205.167.180.131 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Italics
The article states "the official recommendation from the BIPM is to use km/h" (km/h in italics). The use of italics here is unfortunate. The BIPM specifically states: "Unit symbols are printed in roman (upright) type regardless of the type used in the surrounding text" http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.49.137 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

De-italicised "km/h" as per suggestion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.17.54 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of translations
I think we should remove these. We already have interwiki links for many languages and having a translation for a dozen random ones doesn't add to the article. It is a weird criteria: as well. - SimonLyall (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The following are translations of the text "kilometres per hour" where either "km" or "h" do not appear in the text.


 * I added this section originally in response to the insistance of many parts of the British press to use "kph" rather than km/h for "kilometres per hour"; to show that this is incorrect and why it is incorrect. Simon, I notice that you have contriubuted a number of New Zealand related articles - I don't know how much time you have spent in the UK, but what I have written is aimed at UK and US readers rather than English-speakers who use the metric system in most aspects of life. Martinvl (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the need for all the translations. The rest of the text says what the correct abbreviation(s) are and cite 3 official bodies. The translations do not add to this. BTW using kmph is not unknown in New Zealand although since people see the correct way written all the time it is much less common. - SimonLyall (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assertion that the translations do not add to the article, but I agree that 12 is probably too many. I suggest that we reduce the list to maybe three or four and have a note of explanation next to each.  Typically, we could write:
 * Dutch: kilometer per uur - The dutch word uur (hour) does not contain an "h".
 * I would choose German ("hour" = "stunde"), Portuguese ("kilometre" = "quillometreo") and Greek - non-latin script.
 * Martinvl (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused as to what the translations are for. Are they "Look these languages spell it this way but still use km/h " or "Looks a some translations of km/h " or is it something else?. In both the cases I list I really don't see the point. Seriously who cares that germans write Kilometer pro Stunde but use km/h as an abbreviation? - SimonLyall (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that the Germans write "km/h" even though the letter "h" does not appear in the German longhand. The British press continues with "KPH", even though it meets no standards.  Moreover, if the Germans are prepared to use the interational standard even if does not map onto their language, then English speakers should also be willing to do so, especially as all the letters "k", "m" and "h" map onto the English longhand. Martinvl (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The section already has 3 standards bodies saying kmph is a bad think. Saying what non-english languages do is a weak argument to add to the others and makes the section twice as long as it needs to be. I think we can just remove it and it will make the section cleaner and get it's point across better. - SimonLyall (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've chopped down the section so it now mentioned a couple of the translations in the text rather than a list - SimonLyall (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

EU directive
I gave removed the "citation flag" because it has certainly been published, albeit in a round about manner: If you look at the refernece given, you will see:
 * ANNEX
 * Chapter I 1.1 - Catalogues the "metre" as a permissable unit with symbol "m"
 * Chapter I 1.3 - Catalogues the prefix "kilo" as a permissable perfix with symbol "k"
 * Chapter I 2 - Catalogues the "hour" as a permissable unit with symbol "h"
 * Chapter I 5 - permits the combination of units in catalogued in Chapter I.

Since the way in which units may be combined is not spelt out, one should look at the recital for guidance (which is why the recital is there). Here we see the paragraph "Whereas units of measurement are the subject of international resolutions adopted by the General Conference of Weights and Measures (CGPM) set up by the Metre Convention signed in Paris on 20 May 1875, to which all the Member States adhere; whereas the ‘International System of Units’(SI) was drawn up as a result of these resolutions;",one should look at the SI brouchure for guidance (Extract here).

Finally an example of what this means can be found this EU direcitve. Martinvl (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As you say, in a very "round about manner"! There is though a difference between it being required that way and it actually being done that way. You don't need to look far, even on the Irish government's own website (and for sure on the UK's too) to see that. Ornaith (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

EU directive 2
The term "km/h" is a symbol, not an abbreviation. The text that was removed was crafted to avoid using either term. It was also crafted to emphasise "offical" documents. That is the reason why I reverted the changes. Martinvl (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a number of comments about Ornaith's changes:
 * The EU directive uses the word "symbol" consistenly throughout the document, the phrase "as the abbreviation (or "symbol" as the SI define it)" is inaccurate.  As explained in the article, there is a fundemental difference between a symbol and an abbreviation.
 * When Ornaith rewrote the text, he added the phrase "...are frequently used by both the Irish and the British." Does he mean "official documents", "popular press" or "everyday language". Unless he adds a qualification (with citation), what was written is meaningless. Martinvl (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

EU Directive - 3 July 2012
I have reinstated the older version because: Martinvl (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "Symbol" appears in the text of the English-language version of the relevant EU directive (directive 80/181/EEC) 36 times - the word "abbreviation" does not appear at all. Why was the word "abbreviation introduced into the text"?
 * The text as I wrote it only mentions "official documents". This was removed.  Why?
 * The <<... "kph" and "k.p.h." are frequently used in both Ireland and Britain>> had no citation. I repeat my question from an earlier posting - was the editor refering to offical documentation or the popular press.  He should note that the picture of the "50 km/h" used "km/h", not "kph".
 * By all means make corrections, but please don't keep reverting everthing I do. I re-inserted the "official documents", as you could have yourself, without the need to revert the image caption and other changes I made to improve and add depth to the content. That the EU choose to use the word "symbol" to describe for their favoured abbreviation of "kilometres per hour" does not mean that we have to. And it does not mean you need to revert all my other changes if you insist on denying the use of "abbreviation" as a valid description in English for the shortening or contraction of the phrase "kilometres per hour" to "km/h". As for the extent of use of "kph", how do you suggest we qualify it? A google count? Examples of a cross-section of government documents, press documents, websites, &co in which it appears? What should we do if we find its use is more frequent in all areas than "km/h"? Ornaith (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a fundemental difference between "abbreviation" and "symbol". If you read the rest of the artcile, you would see that the symbol "km/h" is applicable to all languages (see also Metric system), whereas abbreviations are language specific.  Do you honestly think that the EU would mandate the use of abbreviations where symbols are available? (To clarify things, VAT is an abbreviation, it is called TVA in France).  The EU did not mandate the use of abbreviations, it mandated the use of symbols, so it is improper to write that the EU required the use of abbreviations.
 * I agree that clarifying the use of the abbreviation "kph" does pose problems - using a Google count is WP:OR, so is not an option. That is why I stopped short an only wrote about official publications.   If you can find an authoritative reference that quantifies the use of kph, please do so, but don't do the analysis yourself.
 * Martinvl (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you answer the following please:
 * Why did you revert my change to the picture caption?
 * The symbol is used as an abbreviation (except where, probably more commonly, kph is used), so why not use the word? I'll not labour that point though.
 * Do you disagree that kph is frequently used?
 * Do you have evidence that km/h is used more often than kph in official documents?
 * Ornaith (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was quicker than to pick and choose.
 * The symbol is not, repeat not used as an abbreviation - the symbol is "km/h" and the abbreviation is "kph". Which part of that statement do you not understand?
 * I can's speak for Ireland (I assume that you are Irish), but informal searches that I have done in Britain indicate that the "popular press" use "kph" (but usually mph) while official publications generally use "km/h". Both the UK and Ireland are subject to identical EU directives. BTW, if any of your friends are changed with doing "80 kph in a 50 kph zone", may I suggest that you advise them to see a lawyer who will probably get them off the charge on a technicality.
 * Martinvl (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "It was quicker than to pick and choose"? An unbelievable attitude in a collaborative enterprise!
 * The "symbol", as you like to call it, is alpha-numeric text. It is a short-hand, or abbreviated way, of writing the phrase. It is an abbreviation. It might appear as not some of abstract graphical symbol to those who do not use the latin alphabet, but this is the English Wikipedia, and "km" is an abbreviation of kilometre and "h" is an abbreviation of hour.
 * You seem to agree then that "kph" is frequently used. Why not include that statement then? Ornaith (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ornaith (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way
 * An abbreviation is a shorthand of the word made by removing certain letters - for example Value Added Tax.
 * A symbol is a shorthand of the word which made be nade in any convenient manner - for example °C for "degrees Celsius" - the symbol "°" denoting "degrees", even though the word "degree" does not contain it.
 * I have reinstated the earlier version, but have improved the caption of the 50 km/h sign and also made the picture bigger so that it was not dominated by the caption. Martinvl (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That the abbreviation is also a symbol in other contexts does not stop it being an abbreviation.
 * I have reinstated the clearer version and the version without incorrect terminology in the image caption. Ornaith (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The text used the word symbol, not abbreviation. Which part of that statement do you not understand?  Please reinstate the version which uses that language. Martinvl (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the statement in its entirety. In the international context that the SI/BIPM deal in, it is convenient for them to describe what is clearly an abbreviation in one language (from the French originally?) as a symbol for those whose words do not match the letters. However, when its origin is clearly the abbreviation of the full phrase (or do you suppose that it is just a coincidence that the letters "k", "m" and "h" were chosen?), it is not incorrect to describe it as such. Also the clarification of the usage of the word "symbol" in my wording adds valuable information to the article. Why not offer an alternative which encompasses your and my expectations, and let's see if we can reach a compromise. Ornaith (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are advocating is WP:OR - something which, if done intentionally, goes against one of the pillars of Wikipedia. For the unteenth time, please reinstate the original text. Martinvl (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's all factual, so I have restored it. If you disagree, please offer a reasoned explanation, referring to the appropriate policy clauses, for how each of the following phrases that you reverted could be considered to be "WP:OR":
 * "Irish speed limit signs clarify the speed unit to avoid confusion with non-united miles-per-hour signs that were used until 2005"
 * "Although a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation (or "symbol" as the SI define it) for kilometres per hour in official documents in all its member states"
 * ""kph" and "k.p.h." are frequently used in both Ireland and Britain."
 * Ornaith (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have partially reverted. My responses: Please desist from stating that "Although a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation ..." becasue this has never been required. If you want to say something abotu the use of "kph" vis-a-vis "km/h", get an authoritative source to back up what you say. Martinvl (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not going to get too streesed about your caption for the road sign, but I would prefer not to use the word "ununited" - it looks untidy. I will however not poress that point.
 * Please look at the EU directive and count the instances of teh word "symbol" and count the instanes of the word "abbreviation". Alternatively check what I wrote earlier - "symbol" - 35 occurences, "abbreviation" - 0 (and in case you done understand number, in text form - nil, zilch, zero, náid).   Why then do you persisit in trying to introduce that word - it is a total misrepresentation of the EU document.
 * I agree that that kph is use in many document in the UK, mainly the tabloid press - governemnt documents tend to use "km/h", so unless we can quantify things, it is best to say nothing.
 * There was no need to revert at all. Here is why:
 * If you can think of a better word, then replace it: but don't just revert the whole lot again. How about "non-united"?
 * Why do you think that, in the summary to the contents of an English Wikipedia article, we should limit ourselves to the vocabulary available in an English translation of a French primary source document? The summary should be in our own words, and not necessarily in theirs. I attempted to make it clear that they call that abbreviation a "symbol", so what is the big deal?
 * Why the preocupation with "official" documents? If "kph" is widely used, and we all know that it is, we should say it, not hide it. Why not?
 * Have you now abandoned your original excuse for reverting, that it was WP:OR? Ornaith (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just had to revert another unreasoned change. Ornaith (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that Ornaith does not understand the meaning of WP:OR.  It means "No Original research".  The text which describes the restriction says "The term 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist".  There are a whole host of references that discuss the difference between symbols and avbbreviations - Ornaith  seems to have realised that SI uses symnbols, not abbreviations.  The EU directive used the word "symbol" exclusively and if one trawls through the various languages in which the directive was printed one sees the same symbols repeated time and time again.  If Ornaith compares this version of the directive with this version of the directive he might see what the EU were getting at and why they specified the use of symbols rather than abbreviations. He might also realise that the sentence "Although a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation" which he insists on placing in the article is utter bullshit - "km/h" cannot ever be an abbreviation in in Greek, but it can and certainly is a symbol in Greek.


 * In order to remove this bullshit, I have reverted. Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the difference between a "symbol" and an "abbreviation", and I can clearly see that an abbreviation could, for the sake of convenience and consistency, be called a "symbol", particularly when it is also used in the same form and with the same meaning in a language in which it is clearly not an abbreviation of the word or phrase used in that language. None of that though stops an abbreviation being an abbreviation.


 * What we need to remember here is that this is the "English" Wikipedia (not the "Greek" or the "European") and the article is about "kilometres per hour", not the language used by the EU in their directives. And in the English language "km/h" is clearly an abbreviation for "kilometres per hour". As there is no original research involved in that fundamental example of English usage I do not believe that a source is required. If you would like some sources though for your own benefit, here are some to browse through:
 * : Irish Department of Transport: Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8: Abbreviations on page 8: "km/h - Kilometres per hour"
 * : Dictionary.com: "km/h - abbreviation for kilometres per hour"
 * : Scramble: General Abbreviations: "km/h kilometres per hour"
 * : Collins English Dictionary: "km/h abbreviation for kilometres per hour"
 * : Wiktionary: "Abbreviation km/h 1.kilometres per hour"
 * : MathsIsFun: "km/h An abbreviation of "kilometers per hour". A metric measure of speed."
 * : IEEE : "Unit or term": "kilometers per hour": "Abbrviation": "km/h"
 * I hope that helps you to realise your mistake. Ornaith (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ornaith, you will notice that this article has now been blocked. If you wish to get a third party's input, please read Dispute resolution and let me know how you wish to proceed. If, on the other hand you wish to walk away from this dispute, (See WP:DEADHORSE) that is also fine by me.  Martinvl (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you still objecting to my proposed changes? If so, for what reasons now? Ornaith (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I am - I have ennumerated my reasoning ad nauseum. If you want a neutral third opinion, I will cooperate, but I am not going to repeat things again and again and again.  If you wish to continue the discussion, please write out what changes you wish to make taking particular note that Admin User:EdJohnston wrote "It is possible that User:Ornaith is adding unsourced material to the article" when he responded to my complaint about your reversion.Martinvl (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you still clinging to the belief that, despite the reasoning (and evidence) I've supplied to show the contrary, the use of the word "abbreviation" to describe "km/h" is WP:OR? Surely you aren't, but if you are please provide your explanantion as to why you are dismissing my arguments. Ornaith (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerend, your explanation is a load of bollocks. I have tried to guide you through the principals behind Wikipedia, but you have a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. At risk of repeating myself: If you want a neutral third opinion, I will cooperate, but I am not going to repeat things again and again and again. If you wish to continue the discussion, please write out what changes you wish to make taking particular note that Admin User:EdJohnston wrote "It is possible that User:Ornaith is adding unsourced material to the article" when he responded to my complaint about your reversion. Martinvl (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please confirm then that you are still claiming the use of the word "abbreviation" to be WP:OR so that I can understand where we have got to with this. Ornaith (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I am. Martinvl (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if you reject the logic based on my knowledge of the English language, why do you reject the 7 references I provided above which confirm what seems clearly obvious to me? Ornaith (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

None of the references that you gave relate to the use of the word "symbol" in the context where it was used, so in this context they are worthless. Martinvl (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have got muddled up with something else here, let us review what we are discussing here:
 * The phrase you contest: "Although a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation (or "symbol" as the SI define it) for kilometres per hour in official documents in all its member states,..."
 * Fact 1: "km/h" is an abbreviation of "kilometres per hour" as confirmed by common sense knowledge of the English language and by the numerous references I provided when you threw doubt on that fact.
 * Fact 2: The SI/BIPM call that abbreviation a "symbol" as seen in their document.
 * Where is the impasse? Ornaith (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please continue this discussion in on eplace only. Martinvl (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That [one place] presumably being <-here, for the sake of anyone else reading this who doesn't know about that. Ornaith (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Post-DRN proposal 0
Welcome back from DRN. I'm going to be posting a few collections of facts. I am not (necessarily) arguing that they need to go into the article, and I'm not (necessarily) arguing that they need to go into the article in their current form. I'm not proposing that these replace any fact, citations or summaries that were rolled back recently.

Instead, I'd like to hear your opinion on whether or not y'all consider these to be accurate, sourced correctly (as per WP:RS) and do no fall afoul of WP:OR. If there are any problems in those areas, we need to get those thrashed out before we start talking about what should be included in the article. If I hear an argument along the lines of WP:UNDUE or similar I'm going to assume there are no WP:RS and WP:OR issues.

I would usually present these serially. In presenting them simultaneously I want to reassure Ornaith that I am taking her point of km/h-as-abbreviation seriously as well as reassuring Martinvl that I'm taking his point of km/h-as-symbol seriously.

Finally, I was very pleased with the level of civility everyone displayed in DRN (although coming from talk.origins my expectations aren't that hard to meet). I'm looking forward to that continuing here.

And with that, let's do some editing....

Garamond Lethe 02:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Post DNR Proposal 1
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A desire for standarization of weights and measures across international borders led to the creation of the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) whose first conference in 1889 sanctioned international prototypes for the meter and the kilogram. In 1927, the seventh CGPM conference further refined the definition of the meter and, with the seventh resolution of the 9th conference (1948) several symbols were associated with units, including the symbol m for meter and h for hour. The 11th conference of the CGPM (1960) selected six units, including the meter, to be considered as an International System of Units (SI) along with a standarized set of prefixes and their corresponding symbols (including kilo (k) for a multiplying factor of 1000). Note that while the second was defined as the base unit of time during this process, the hour was not defined as either a base unit or supplemental unit and is defined instead as a Unit in use with the International System along with minute and day. There are two methods for indicating a compound unit is the quotient of two or more units. A solidus may separate the units, thus producing km/h, or a negative exponent may be used along with either a space or a dot between units, thus $km h^{-1}$. Note that conformance to the standard requires use of a Roman (upright) font. The symbol must not be changed to indicate a plural and no space should be left between a unit symbol and its prefix.

The SI explicitly states that unit symbols are not abbreviations and are to be written using a very specific set of rules. M. Danloux-Dumesnils provides the following justification for this distinction:

"It has already been stated that, according to Maxwell, when we write down the result of a measurement, the numerical value multiplies the unit. Hence the name of the unit can be replaced by a kind of algebraic symbol, which is shorter and easier to use in formulae. This symbol is not merely an abbreviation but a symbol which, like chemical symbols, must be used in a precise and prescribed manner."

Post DNR Proposal 2
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Current accepted abbreviations of "kilometers per hour" are:


 * "km/h"


 * "kmph"


 * "kph"


 * "KMHR"


 * "KPH"

Post DNR Proposal 3
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In 1988 the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration promulgated a rule stating that "MPH and/or km/h" were to be used in speedometer displays. On May 15, 2000 this was clarified to read "MPH, or MPH and km/h". However, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 101 ("Controls and Displays") allows "any combination of upper- and lowercase letters" to represent the units.

Post DNR Proposal 4
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

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


 * 1889: "k. p. h."
 * 1895: "km:h"
 * 1898: "km/h"
 * 1899: "km./hr."
 * 1899: "km./hr"
 * 1900: "km/hr."
 * 1902 "k.p.h."
 * 1911: "K.P.H."
 * 1912: "K. P. H."
 * 1914 "km. hr."
 * 1915: "km/hour"
 * 1915: "km.-hr."
 * 1916: "km. per hour"
 * 1919: "km/hr"
 * 1921: "K.p.h"
 * 1933: "KPH"

Post DNR Proposal 5
If anyone else would like to submit a body of facts for consideration this would be a reasonable place to do it. Garamond Lethe 02:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

New sturcture for "Use of kph" section
I would like to see the following changes to the section "Use of kpm":
 * Section name be changed to "kpm or km/h?" (I am happy to listen to any other suggestions)
 * The section be structured as follows:
 * A short lede - suggested text
 * Although "kph" and "km/h" are often used interchangably as a shorthand for "kilometres per hour", there is a difference between the two notations:
 * "kph" is an English-language abbreviation for "kilometres per hour" somewhat analagous to "mph", the abbreviation for "miles per hour".
 * "km/h" is an internationally-agreed symbol for "kilometres per hour" constructed as per the rules in the SI brochure.
 * Development of kph and km/h
 * This section would use Garamond's material - see preceding section on this page.
 * Current useage
 * This section would discuss the use of "km/h" with reference to the SI brochure, EU legislation and academic style guides.
 * It would also discuss the use of "kph" with reference to various dictionaries, and newspaper style guides (Guardian, Telegrah, AP).

Martinvl (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martinvl.

I like the overall direction you're going with this. I don't think the focus should be on "kph" as the primary abbreviation, though: it's just one of many (although it probably is the easiest one to find examples of).

Perhaps two sections instead of one?


 * Abbreviations of kilometers per hour
 * History
 * Style guides


 * Kilometers per hour as a symbol
 * History of the standardization effort (including "not an abbrev.")
 * Use in government regulation
 * Europe
 * US
 * Use in science
 * Use in industry
 * Style guides (that emphasize uses as a symbol)
 * Style guides (that emphasize uses as a symbol)

I'm conflicted whether the abbreviation section should go first or not. There's a nice logical/historical flow with this ordering (why did we standardize? because there were a dozen different abbreviations floating around!) but I think this only works if it's clear in the overall article lede that the symbolic meaning is important. I think we can pull that off, but if you're not comfortable with the abbreviation section coming first I think we can figure out a way to work around that.

One way of handling that problem would be to name the entire section Symbols and Abbreviations, put your explanatory text in as the lede, and then make the two sections I described subsections.

Your thoughts?

Garamond Lethe 07:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Are you happy with my suggested lede?  When I did some technical writing some years ago the house standard was to always have at least one sentence between any heading and the first subheading and I think that this lede sumamrises things.  IMHO, Rreferences of course need only go in the body of the section.  Martinvl (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm.... If we can get "kph" out of the lede I think I'll be fine with it. Perhaps:


 * There are two broad classifications for the several shorthand notations that exist for "kilometres per hour"
 * "kph", "km/hr", and "kmhr" are examples of English-language abbreviations for "kilometres per hour" somewhat analagous to "mph", the abbreviation for "miles per hour".
 * "km/h", "$km h^{-1}$" and "$km•h^{-1}$" are internationally-agreed symbols for "kilometres per hour".
 * The remainder of this section describes the history and significance of this distinction.


 * Meh. That still needs some work.  I removed the "SI brochure" wording per your note that we don't need citations in the lede.  We might be able to get rid of the "analagous" phrase as well.  Is that cutting things down too much for your preference?


 * Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe 08:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am happy with that, but I woudl remove the sentence "The remainder ..." - it will be self-evident from the sub-headings that follow. Martinvl (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'm going to leave off doing anything else with this until morning to give Ornaith a chance to comment (and because I need to get some sleep).  If you get impatient go ahead and do a mock-up.  Probably best to keep it here in the talk pages for now.  G'night, <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe  08:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Going to bed? The sun is up and parts of the sky are blue!   :-)  Martinvl (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Replacement of "Use of kph" section
I don't think the section should be called "Use of kph" (or that there should be two separate sections covering the abbreviations). All abbreviations can be covered in a single section called simply "Abbreviations". I like Garamond's ideas and would support sub-sections for each of the following (based on Garamond's research):

Sub-section: Abbreviation development Brief description based on Garamond's proposal 4.

Sub-section: The SI convention A summary of this, based on Garamond's proposal 1, with the rationale of their two different symbols.

Sub-section: Legal and quasi-legal To cover known legal requirements such as from the US (cf Garamond's proposal 3) and states' implementations of the EU directives.

Sub-section: Abbreviations in current use Based on Gaamond's proposal 2, describing diverse current use.

I agree with Martinvl that the section needs a brief introduction, but do not support the use of the word "shorthand" as it is more specifically used to mean a method of taking notes quickly. I can't see any problem using the standard term of "abbreviation", which covers symbols too. Also it is important that the introduction (and the section in general) remains neutral, without giving undue weight to the preferences of the SI over the preferences of habits of others. Ornaith (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We seem to be back at the abbreviation/symbol argument which, in my view, is the hub of all the discussion to date. Ornaith presented the "abbreviation” argument on the basis of English Language usage.  I presented the "symbol" argument on the basis of the world-wide view. May I suggest that she (and all other editors) familiarise themselves with this page.  This page certainly promotes the view that Wikipedia should be looking to avoid English-language bias.  If you visit WP:ENGVAR you will see practical examples of how to handle UK/US differences.  The use of the word "symbol" rather than "abbreviation", all other things being equal, is merely an extension of this policy. Martinvl (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In English, the correct word to describe these things IS "abbreviation". "Shorhand" is not so accurate, it is more concerned with quick note taking and "symbol" is usually concerned with something that is less clearly an abbreviation and more an alternative representation (e,g, musical notation). Look at the list in Garamod's proposal 4, they are all abbreviations. This is nothing to do with "bias", it is to do with accuracy. Why make do with a not-quite-right word, when we have a word that means precisely what we intend? Please explain your apparent assertion that "K.P.H.", "km per hr", &co should not be termed abbreviations to avoid English bias, and your clear strong personal aversion to the word "abbreviation". Ornaith (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We have been around this loop many times. We are not going to agree and we need to open this discussion up. That is why, on Friday, I modified the caption of the image and invited you to raise an RFC.  In so doing, the argument would have been narrowed down to a single word and any interested party could have voiced their opinion. Do you have a problem with that? Martinvl (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What loop? What is your objection to calling "k.p.h." an abbreviation? Ornaith (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no ojection to calling "k.p.h" an abbreviations. I do however have an objection to calling "km/h" and abbreviation. Can you come up with a better collective noun than "shorthand" that describes both "k.p.h" as an abbreviation and "km/h" as a symbol? Martinvl (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (Taking off my dispute resolution volunteer hat and putting on my regular editor hat so I can have an opinion) km/h simply is not an abbreviation. From Wiktionary: "Abbreviation: A shortened or contracted form of a word or phrase, used to represent the whole: Dr." In German, the word for "hour" is "Stunde" but they use km/h, not km/s. Whatever the solution is, it must avoid calling something an abbreviation if it isn't a shortened or contracted form of a word or phrase. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Guy, we have four reliable sources attesting to "km/h" as an abbreviation. See "Post_DNR_Proposal_2", above.  We also have reliable sources that attest "km/h is not an abbreviation".  See "Post_DNR_Proposal_1", above.  We also have two enthusiastic editors who are making arguments from what is true and correct rather than from what is reliably sourced.  In my opinion, the best way to resolve this is to make sure article itself does not take a position on symbol vs. abbreviation, but scrupulously limits itself to what has been sourced.  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe  18:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Guy, Where do you suppose the letters "k", "m" and "h" were chosen from then, if not by abbreviating the words? Or do you think their correspondance is just coincidental? And how would you explain away the plethora of references defining "km/h" as an abbreviation? And what about the use of it prior to the founding of the SI? How about "e.g." it is defined as an abbreviation, even in English, and even though it is an abbreviation of a Latin phrase, not an English one. Ornaith (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Martinvl, you didn't say why you object, just for "km/h", amongst that long list of abbreviations. Ornaith (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the above argument, which boils down to saying that the dictionary is wrong, WP:NOTLEX has this advice:

"When edit wars occur over the lead paragraph of a controversial topic, people may turn to more NPOV sources, like the dictionary. The dictionary is one source among many that is generally considered more authoritative than personal opinion."

"When faced with a dictionary definition that you disagree with, your alternatives are limited; you can either find a better dictionary with a better definition, or you can cite reputable sources that discuss the changing meaning of a given word." --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I stopped after finding four "better" dictionaries.... ;-) <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe 18:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ornaith, welcome back!


 * Would it help if I said I think you're both wrong?


 * Ornaith, you've got the stronger argument on the merits on the wider question. Just because some tin-eared standardization committee decides that "this abbreviation is no longer an abbreviation but will henceforth be a symbol" does not necessarily change how the world works.  We now have plenty of citations that attest to this.  This point of view will be incorporated into the article.


 * The question in front of us is a little different, though. We also have citations from that tin-eared standards committee that says "km/h is not an abbreviation".  We need to communicate to the reader in the lede that the upcoming section is going to contain two very different ways of looking at the world.  If we summarize both as "abbreviations" or both as "symbols" then it looks like we-speaking-as-editors have decided one or the other is correct and the other... isn't. (e.g., "Here are two sets of abbreviations.  One set claims it isn't an abbreviation.")


 * Ornaith, at this point you might be grumbling "But it is an abbreviation, and the standards committee got it wrong!". You may be correct (and I would probably agree that you are correct), but as a matter of what goes into an encyclopedia we're limited to what we can find in reliable sources, even when those sources get it wrong.  (WP:TRUTH has a good discussion about this.)


 * Martinvl, you're making a very similar mistake arguing for "symbol" "on the basis of the world-wide view". We can probably dig up a few citations that state "km/h" is used as a symbol worldwide, and if we're talking down at the pub that will probably carry the argument.  Here, though, we also have several reliable sources where "km/h" is specifically labelled an abbreviation.  At the pub, you can argue that those sources got it wrong.  Here, we don't have that privilege.  Both kinds of sources will (I hope) find their way into the article and as editors we need to find a neutral way of saying "here are two reliably-sourced ways of looking at the world; we-as-editors do not take an opinion as to which is correct."


 * As to the actual word, I've seen "shorthand" used in a generic sense, but I do see where I might cause confusion. "Representation" was suggested at DRN; how do both of you feel about that?


 * Due to time constraints I'll comment later on Ornaith's thoughts on the organization of the section.


 * <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe 17:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume that you have in mind an introductory sentence something like «Both "km/h" and "kph" are often used to represent "Kilometres per hour"...» Martinvl (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Martinvl no, I have in mind an opening sentence for the new section something like:


 * "There are, or have been, several different abbreviations in use for "kilometres per hour" in the English language. The SI, as an international body, has decided that its preferred abbreviated representations ("km/h", "$km h^{-1}$" and "$km•h^{-1}$") should be used identically in all languages, and in its convention refers to them as "symbols". The SI convention has been incorporated into legislation in some jurisdictions, and so the SI "symbols" are mandated for use in some specific situations."


 * Ornaith (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm.... I think we're converging. There's still a shade of implication that symbols are a subclass of abbreviations, but changing the first "abbreviation" to "abbreviated representation" takes care of that.  With that change I'm not sure the word "abbreviated" adds much (as representation implies abbreviation), so with that change and a little tightening up the first two sentences might look like:


 * "Several representations of "kilometers per hours" have been used since the term was introduced and many are still in use today. For example, dictionaries list "km/h", "kmph" and "km/hr" as English abbreviations and the symbols "km/h", "$km h^{-1}$ and $km•h^{-1}$ are defined as SI units.


 * I think I can dig up a cite for SI units being accepted in all but a handful of countries, but I don't know if that particular fact belongs in the first paragraph. I don't have a cite for symbols being symbols so they can be identical across languages; you'd think that would be something relatively simple to find but I've not located anything yet.  Looks like Martinvl just fixed that --- nice!<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe  07:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)  And for "mandated for use in some specific situations": I'm not as familiar with citations for mandates, but I'm concerned that this understands the coverage.  Are there mandates outside of the US for measuring speed in units other than km/h?  I don't know, but I can find out.


 * I ran across some contact info for someone at NIST who works in this area. I'll ping him and see if he has any advice for "mandate" cites.


 * Ornaith, if you're ok with using "representations" for "abbreviations" (with the understanding that symbols may really be abbreviations outside of wikipedia and outside of this article) then I think we're down to questions of emphasis and digging up more cites. If you're not comfortable with the edits I've made I'm happy to discuss this further.
 * I don't have an opinion yet whether I prefer this version to Martinvl's, but that's not a decision we have to reach right now.
 * <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Garamond, did you read the reference that Martinvl used to support his "... the text "km/h" on this Irish speed limit sign is a symbol, not an abbreviation..." assertion in his misdescribed update that I just reverted? It is very clear, paragraph 1.1.52 says: "It should be noted that abbreviations such as 'm', 'km' and 'km/h' are Système International units...". Note the use of the word "abbreviations", and no use at all of the word "symbol" for this context. I do not support the replacement of the word "abbreviations" with "representations", but I can accept "abbreviated representation" when describing the SI position on the abbreviations that it calls "symbols". Ornaith (talk) 08:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ornaith, I agree that the Irish traffic signs manual does indeed call 'km/h' an abbreviation.
 * I didn't follow your last sentence. I thought "abbreviated representations" (or just "representations") would describe the class that consisted of both SI symbols and dictionary abbreviations.  If I'm reading what you say correctly, you're proposing we replace any mention of SI-symbol with "abbreviated representation"  Is that what you intended?  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe  09:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Garamond, what I'm saying is that they are all abbreviations, including "km/h", so should be described as such (and not pander to the "tin-eared committee" by watering down the English to "representations"). When we introduce the SI concept of "symbols" we can describe it something like "The SI, as an international body, has decided that its preferred abbreviated representations ('km/h', '$km h^{-1}$' and '$km•h^{-1}$') should be used identically in all languages, and in its convention refers to them as 'symbols'". Ornaith (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ornaith, I'm hearing you loud and clear that you consider all of these strings to be abbreviations. But I can't in good conscience use "abbreviation" to describe SI symbols when the SI itself says they are not abbreviations.  That's substituting my judgement as to what the correct word should be instead of reporting what the reliable source says.


 * Let me also make a more pragmatic argument. If you were to ask for a third opinion on this question, I would be phrasing the question along the lines of "Should km/h as defined by the SI be described as an abbreviation despite the SI stating that km/h is not an abbreviation?"  I don't think that's a winnable argument.  If you want to try making that argument I'm certainly not going to stand in your way (I'm all for learning experiences) but I'm not sure it's a good use of your time.  I think Guy is hanging out here; if you'd like to demo your argument and I'll present the counterargument that might be a quick way of getting a reading on what the wider community would find persuasive.


 * Alternatively we can duck the entire issue. Instead of trying to fit both abbreviations and SI-symbols under one heading we can have completely separate headings, one called "Abbreviations" and one called "Symbols".  That way you don't have to try to convince me to use "abbreviation" and I don't have to try to convince you to use "representation".  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe  09:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Garamond, I am in agreement with you. In my text about the SI's symbol I do not use the word "abbreviation". I say their "abbreviated representaion". We could put it like this (is that what you meant?): "The SI, as an international body, has decided that its preferred representations ('km/h', '$km h^{-1}$' and '$km•h^{-1}$') should be used identically in all languages, and in its convention refers to them as 'symbols'". Ornaith (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ornaith, first, a small point: the SI is a standard, not a body, and so far as I know there's no discussion in the SI about language-independence. There's also not a sense of "preferred" in the document. So fixing these points we might have: Either one of those work for you? I've just sent you a copy of IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997; I didn't know if you had found a free online version or not. Martinvl, I'm happy to send you a copy as well if that would be useful. <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The SI representations are the symbols 'km/h', '$km h^{-1}$' and '$km•h^{-1}$'.
 * The SI representations are 'km/h', '$km h^{-1}$' and '$km•h^{-1}$' and are classified as symbols.
 * @Garamond, point taken about the SI and I can live with your second suggestion. Do we have agreement on what the new section should look like now? If I'm keeping up with this, we now have:

Abbreviations and symbols

Several representations of "kilometres per hour" have been used since the term was introduced and many are still in use today. For example, dictionaries list "km/h", "kmph" and "km/hr" as English abbreviations and the SI representations are 'km/h', '$km h^{-1}$' and '$km•h^{-1}$' and are classified as symbols.

Abbreviation development

[Brief description based on Garamond's proposal 4.]

The SI convention

[A summary of this, based on Garamond's proposal 1, with the rationale of their two different symbols.]

Legal and quasi-legal

[To cover known legal requirements such as from the US (cf Garamond's proposal 3) and states' implementations of the EU directives.]

Abbreviations in current use

[Based on Gaamond's proposal 2, describing diverse current use.]


 * Ornaith (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's have Martinvl speak to this version of the lede before we start discussing headers. Martinvl? I'm happy with Ornaith's proposed lede and I was happy with yours as well.


 * So here are the two proposals:


 * There are two broad classifications for the several shorthand notations that exist for "kilometres per hour"
 * "kph", "km/hr", and "kmhr" are examples of English-language abbreviations for "kilometres per hour" somewhat analagous to "mph", the abbreviation for "miles per hour".
 * "km/h", "$km h^{-1}$" and "$km•h^{-1}$" are internationally-agreed symbols for "kilometres per hour".
 * "km/h", "$km h^{-1}$" and "$km•h^{-1}$" are internationally-agreed symbols for "kilometres per hour".


 * and




 * Several representations of "kilometres per hour" have been used since the term was introduced and many are still in use today. For example, dictionaries list "km/h", "kmph" and "km/hr" as English abbreviations and the SI representations are 'km/h', '᙭᙭᙭' and '᙭᙭᙭' and are classified as symbols.




 * Regarding the former, Ornaith, I know you didn't prefer "shorthand notation" and, looking at it afresh, I could take or leave "analogous to 'mph'".


 * Regarding the latter, I could take or leave "and many are still in use today".


 * I realize that both of you probably think you've compromised enough already, but I'd like to ask for just a bit more effort to get these two merged. Hang in there, we are making progress.... <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe  19:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is nornmal to finalise the lede after the body has been written so that the lede draws one into the body of the section. I have tried to add as much information as possible into the lede - in particular the emphasis on "English-language" and "internationlly agreed" and I beleive that what I wrote could stand alone as a totally WP:POV-neutral piece of text.  I was planning on writing a full paragraph (at least) on each representation where I would have expanded on the description of dictionaries etc. May I suggest a few days whiel I prepare a text for the whole section and then we can see how the lede works into the text. Martinvl (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that finalizing the lede normally happens after the body is written, and that's the case here as well: the lede is based around the several pieces of text I've written for the body.  If you find them at least marginally acceptable I'd like to get them into the article and mark this dispute as resovled, then take up your changes as you finish them.  If you don't find them acceptable I'd prefer to discuss this now rather than wait a few days and restart the dispute process from scratch.  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe  23:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Martinvl, the proposed wording includes Garamond's proposed content for the detail. The lede is a summary of that.
 * @Garamond, I'm happy to change "and many are still in use today" to "and more than one of them are still in use today". As they obviously are.
 * Are we ready to go with this now? If not, what are the problems still? Ornaith (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One big problem - we have not yet agreed what the body of the section would look like. We cannot have an introduction until we know what we are introducing. Martinvl (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Martinvl, there are two separate issues here and I want to make sure we're discussing the same one. There was a dispute over "abbreviation vs. symbol", and unless you tell me otherwise I think we can consider that to be resolved (with all the credit going to Guy, of course ;-P).  There will be discussion over the rest of the text of the article, but that can be handled by the usual WP:BRD cycle, and we can continue that process by adding the text and introduction that have been discussed here.
 * I understand that you're more comfortable creating a draft of the entire section, and that's fine; we'll certainly discuss it when it's ready.
 * <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe 07:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Garamond, would you be prepared to replace the current section in the article with the outline from above, and fill in the detail from your excellent numbered points further up? That way we could see it all in the flesh, and take it from there. We might even be able to close this discussion then and leave it to develop naturally from there! Ornaith (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're ready to move forward, yes. Guy, I think we can go back to regular editing now that we have a resolution to "abbreviation/symbol".  Any objections?  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe  17:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am currently preparing a proposed text for the section. If anybody want to look at it to see what it will look like, it is at User:Martinvl/Sandbox/km per h, but be warned, it is currently a building site.


 * @Martinvl, what don't you like about the one we've been working on here, and don't you think we can put it in as we have it now, and then let the normal process resume? Ornaith (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
[This] edit was disruptive.

First, it violates the basic Wikipedia principle that while there is an ongoing content dispute, the page stays at the last stable version. See WP:BRD. I once again Restored the 8 April 2012 23:12 (UTC) version as edited by LonelyGreyWolf. It was almost identical to the result after the latest edit/revert, but I wanted to make it crystal clear that I am not favoring either side of the dispute with my edit. Second, the edit summary was completely misleading.

Settle your differences on the talk page. Make an RfC if you can't agree and need more voices. Do not attempt to get your way through edits to the article without first getting consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Guy. <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe  16:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I have taken the liberty of reinstating the citation that I added to the lede regarding the source of the slang term "click". As this citation is outside the area that is being discussed, I trust that no-one objects. Martinvl (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Martinvl, would you do me a favor by reverting and then getting a consensus here before adding it back? It's not a question of that particular edit being controversial so much as it's an easy way to build up goodwill.  Thanks.  <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe  22:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Does anybody object if I replace the "citation needed" flag to the last sentence of the article lede:
 * "In Australian and North American slang and military usage, km/h is commonly pronounced, and sometimes even written, as klicks or kays (K's), although these may also be used to refer to kilometres{Citation needed}.
 * I need to save this citation (which is taken from the OED) somewhere and the best place is in the article itself. I do not beleive it to be contraversial.
 * Martinvl (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with it, and I see no evidence in the previous talk page discussions that it is controversial. Also, citation needed tags are pretty much universally acceptable. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Page updated
This version is informed by the previous discussion. I certainly expect the discussion will continue. <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe 09:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good job Garamond! I just adapted the section structure order to match even more closely that as discussed above. It's looking great now! Ornaith (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


 * Do you have any reliable sources that back up your proposed change? <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe  17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Garamond, what part or parts do you think need a reference other than references already used? Ornaith (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Garamond, didn't you see this one? I've reverted it back to the original as is apparently normal when changes are still being discussed. Ornaith (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * I provided a citation specifically so that you could check the accuracy of the summary yourself, rather than guess. Here's what the source says:
 * 4. SPECIFICATIONS
 * 4.1. The speedometer display shall be situated in the driver’s direct field of vision and shall be clearly legible both by day and by night. The range of speeds indicated must be large enough to include the maximum speed given by the manufacturer for the type of vehicle.
 * 4.2. Where the speedometer has a scale, as distinct from a digital display, it shall be clearly legible.
 * 4.2.1. The graduations shall be of 1, 2, 5 or 10 km/h. The values of the speed shall be indicated on the dial as follows:
 * 4.2.1.1. when the highest value on the dial does not exceed 200 km/h, speed values shall be indicated at intervals not exceeding 20 km/h;
 * 4.2.1.2. when the highest value on the dial exceeds 200 km/h, then the speed values shall be indicated at intervals not exceeding 30 km/h.
 * 4.2.2. In the case of a speedometer manufactured for sale in any Member State where imperial units of measurement are used, and where transitional arrangements in accordance with Article 5 are in force, the speedometer shall also be marked in mph (miles per hour); the graduations shall be of 1, 2, 5 or 10 mph. The values of the speed shall be indicated on the dial at intervals not exceeding 20 mph.
 * 4.2.3. The indicated speed value intervals need not be uniform.


 * <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Garamond <span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.8em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">Lethe 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * "EU directive 75/443/EEC regulates the layout technical requirements of speedometers within the European Union. The directive requires speedometers be marked at least in km/h. kilometres per hour, and if for use Speedometers manufactured for sale in nations using Imperial units may, subject to certain restrictions, to also be marked in mph ( miles per hour ) ."
 * Ornaith (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


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