Talk:Long and short scales/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

long scale terminology

I'm a little confused about long scale terminology. Would someone complete the following:

1,000,000 = one million
10,000,000 = ten million
100,000,000 = hundred million
1,000,000,000 = THOUSAND MILLION (MILLIARD)
10,000,000,000 = TEN MILLIARD
100,000,000,000 = HUNDRED MILLIARD
1,000,000,000,000 = THOUSAND MILLIARD (BILLION)
10,000,000,000,000 = TEN BILLION
100,000,000,000,000 = HUNDRED BILLION
1,000,000,000,000,000 = THOUSAND BILLION (BILLIARD)
10,000,000,000,000,000 = TEN BILLIARD
100,000,000,000,000,000 = HUNDRED BILLIARD
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = THOUSAND BILLIARD (TRILLION)
10,000,000,000,000,000,000 = TEN TRILLION
100,000,000,000,000,000,000 = HUNDRED TRILLION
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = THOUSAND TRILLION (TRILLIARD)
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = TEN TRILLIARD
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = HUNDRED TRILLIARD

And just for the heck of it, to make the long scale even more clear, how about taking a stab at the following odd numbers:

2,560,101,000,000 = two billion, five hundred sixty thousand, one hundred and one million**
22,560,101,000,000 = twenty two billion, five hundred sixty thousand, one hundred and one million**
922,560,101,000,000 = nine hundred twenty two billion, five hundred sixty thousand, one hundred and one million**
16,922,560,101,000,000 = sixteen thousand, nine hundred twenty two billion, five hundred sixty thousand one hundred and one million**
6,333,012,110,808,000,000 = six trillion, three hundred thirty three thousand, twelve billion, one hundred ten thousand, eight humndred and eight million**
**NOTE (answers provided by a Canadian that was educated long scale, as the newspapers did also. Many were taught not to use the "and" but it is grammatically incorrect not to use "and" before the final item in a list)

For me, using the short scale, it's bone simple. But the long scale has me confused. I understand the long scale definition of million, billion and trillion.... but what about everything in between and how is it written out?

And once those definitions above are written out, I think it would be good to expand the chart in the acticle with this information. Thanks. JBarta (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I do not live in a country that uses the long scale, I'd guess it's 'bone simple' as well: the powers of 10 between a thousand million and a billion are written "ten thousand million", and "hundred thousand million". 2,560,101,000,000 is "two billion, five hundred and sixty thousand one hundred and one million". Does that resolve the confusion? Shreevatsa (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see it written out just for clarity. For someone who never heard of it before, it's a little confusing. Plus, how would you say 22,220,000,000? Twenty-two thousand million two hundred twenty million? JBarta (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question, either "twentytwo milliards twohundred and twenty millions" (e.g., in Danish, "toogtyve milliarder tohundredetyve millioner"), or "twentytwo thousand twohundred and twenty millions". What to put in the article, I don't know.--Noe (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1,000,000 = one million
10,000,000 = ten million
100,000,000 = hundred million
1,000,000,000 = one milliard
10,000,000,000 = ten milliard
100,000,000,000 = hundred milliard
1,000,000,000,000 = one billion
10,000,000,000,000 = ten billion
100,000,000,000,000 = hundred billion
1,000,000,000,000,000 = one billiard
10,000,000,000,000,000 = ten billiard
100,000,000,000,000,000 = hundred billiard
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one trillion
10,000,000,000,000,000,000 = ten trillion
100,000,000,000,000,000,000 = hundred trillion
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = one trilliard
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = ten trilliard
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = hundred trilliard

2,560,101,000,000 = two billion five hundred six milliard hundred one million
22,560,101,000,000 = twenty two billion five hundred six milliard hundred one million
922,560,101,000,000 = nine hundred twenty two billion five hundred six milliard hundred one million
16,922,560,101,000,000 = sixteen billiard nine hundred twenty two billion five hundred six milliard
hundred one million
6,333,012,110,808,000,000 = six trillion three hundred thirty three billiard twelve billion hundred
ten milliard eight hundred eight million

This is how it goes in the Hungarian long scale version (at least i think, i don't use such numbers every day :)). Billion is "Bi+million", so it is 1 000 000^2. Trillion is "Three+million", so it is 1 000 000^3. etc. The "*-iards" between them replace the "Thousand *-ions" of the "simple" long scale version.

Such big numbers are usually only found in financial news, but numbers larger than a milliard are usually written like "15 000 milliard". --CyberDragon777 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Geez that's confusing. Thank-you for filling in those numbers. It goes a long way towards fleshing it out. At least using "-illiard" tends to simplify it a bit. I'm wondering how those same numbers would be written out using the long scale without "illiard". JBarta (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Geez is semitic language, so mention of it here is offtopic. 83.10.103.166 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's Ge'ez. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The last one, for example, is 6 trillion 333,012 billion 110,808 million. The six-digit groups are pronounced the same as in short scale (using the word "thousand"). --Keith111 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly how we pronounce those numbers in Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.86.86 (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Map Colors

The shades of blue, pink, and purple chosen for the map in the article are most unfortunate for those who are red-green colorblind (roughly 1 out of every 24 people). Just thought I would point this out. Winston Spencer (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note a small error in the world map. Most Canadians (Quebec excepted) use the short scale of one billion. On the map it is shown blue(long scale). It should be pink. Keith Davis, kjdavis100@sympatico.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.48.95 (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Translation of middle English poetry

In the following, might not Coueyte be better translated as Covet...same meaning as "do not wish for" but is closer to the original word used...and it is more poetic.

The word million entered the English language. One of the earliest references is William Langland's Piers Plowman (written c. 1360-1387 in Middle English),[17] with:

   Coueyte not his goodes
   For millions of moneye

Translation:

   Do not wish for his possessions
   for millions of money  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.179.89 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC) 

Lede

In the lead it now says:

• Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue. It refers to a system of large-number names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000 times the previous term: milliard means a thousand millions, billion means a million millions, billiard means a thousand billions, trillion means a million billions, and so on.
• Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte. It refers to a system of large-number names in which every new term greater than thousand is 1,000 times the previous term: million is a thousand thousands but instead billion means a thousand millions, trillion means a thousand billions, and so on.

But many long scale countries do not use (milliard), billiard, trilliard etc., so this description is off. Here's a suggestion:

Both scales are based on the "-ions", i.e. the words million, billion, trillion etc., but except for million, they have differing meanings.

• Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte. It refers to a system of large-number names in which every "-ion" following million is 1,000 times the previous term: billion means a thousand millions, trillion means a thousand billions, and so on.
• Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue. Here, every "-ion" following million is 1,000,000 times the previous term: billion means a million millions, trillion means a million long scale billions, and so on. Some languages using the long scale use the "-iards" milliard for a thousand millions, billiard for a thousand long scale billions, etc., while other long scale languages do not use the "-iards", instead using the phrases thousand million, etc.

--Nø (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good, except for three things. First, instead of "every -ion" (which seems awkward to me), perhaps something like "each new term ending in the suffix -ion" or something like that. Second, I don't think the first thing in each bullet should be the French term. The etymology of a word is much less important than what it actually means today, so I think the French terms should go at the end of each bullet. Lastly, I think the current bullets' use of numerals is good and should be kept. Maybe even using decimals rather than exponentials would be good! Just my two cents. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nø's point above, and have reverted back to a long-time agreed version while this is discussed further, as necessary. Itc editor (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. "Milliard" and "billiard" appear as alternatives in the large table. So they are already adequately discussed in this article. The table is extremely clear. The two indented paragraphs in the lede don't need to include the words "milliard" and "billiard", and because those paragraphs are not tables, they become hard to read if too much data is put in them. The "long-time agreed version" you reverted to is excellent, because the two paragraphs are extremely short and grammatically parallel to each other -- which means that even a newbie can read them both and see immediately what's going on. If this is a democracy, I vote to retain the "long time agreed version" you reverted to. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, but don't be surprised of someone changes it again, as it arguably as incorrect as it now stands. But yes, making it totally correct also makes it clumsy, heavy, unreadable. Unless, of course, someone can think up a more elegant solution.--Nø (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

million million (not million millions)

Some units in the English language do not naturally take a plural when used with numbers.

You can say "hundreds of people", but with a number it is "five hundred" and not *five hundreds. Similarly, "thousands of people", but "five thousand", and not *five thousands.

Other similar instances are pound, foot and stone. Five pound - £5. (People coming out of the education system today often say "five pounds", even in the UK, but most of these people would struggle to write a job application letter.) Five foot - is a height measurement ("five feet" are five feet with 30 toes on the end of five legs). Five stone - is a weight measurement, equivalent to 70 pound in weight ("five stones" are five pebbles or rocks or boulders).

Other instances, as here, are million, billion, trillion, and so on. It is correct to say five million, not *five millions.

If the long-scale billion is a million times a million, then it is "a million million". The phrase "a million millions" does not exist in the English language, or not in the standard tongue at any rate.109.151.116.247 (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument would be correct if both 'million's were being used as the same part of speech - but they are not. There is a slight structural difference between "I saw two cows" and "The number of cows I saw was two". In the first, 'two' is used as an adjective; in the second as a noun complement. I call as witness Mr Henry Watson Fowler and his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), as quoted verbatim approximately half-way down the article. He seemed to think it was perfectly acceptable Modern English Usage. Itc editor (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying, and I can't speak for pounds, but "5 feet" is correct, except in compounds, such as "five foot two". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

bad math

100 times 100 is not 1000, it is 10000. that sort of makes the argument, that "The original billion follows a mathematical progression though. In the original (true) numbering system it progresses by multiplying the first number of the unit group by itself to get the next unit group." invalid. the first paragraph sounds very strange anyway and is not backed up by any sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.78.192 (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mixed usage in British English

If memory serves from my days with free access to the Oxford English Dictionary, modern british usage has adopted shortscale but only up to and including a billion. A trillion and beyond use the long scale. I decided not to edit directly until somebody can check this. Shadebug 17:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OED2 (i.e. the 1989, most recent version) says billion is "commonly" a million millions in Britain, but "increasingly" a thousand millions in Britain. The identical distinction is drawn for trillion and quadrillion, but not for quintillion, though the word is rare enough that I doubt that that's very informative. Coldchrist 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

According to that unreferenced history, 1974 is when Britain changed from long scale to short scale entirely. Its funny really, since I wasn't even born until the next year, yet I have never once heard of short scale being used in any school. Yet apparently since 1974 it has been used in all English speaking countries. Strange that. I've never met anyone who uses short scale, and I know a lot of people younger than me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. In over 20 years, I have never met anyone in the UK who uses the long scale. I have never seen the long scale used in any field, whether government, media, science, finance, industry nor anywhere else. Suggesting that people may be confused due to poor education may or may not be true, but is surely irrelevant. Billion always means 10^9. Trillion always refers to 10^12. I have never ever seen milliard used. The long scale is now a historical curiosity. Bobcousins 13:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add further confusion, I agree with Zordrac. If Bobcousins has never met anyone in over 20 years in the UK who doesn't use the long scale he's not talking to many people! I was taught at school that a billion is a million million, and that it was "a curiosity" of the US that they called 1,000 million a billion, and I've lived my whole life believing that. And I'm only 22! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.169.193 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, as I've never used nor been taught to use the short scale (in England). In a sense it is good that the British media, particularly science magazines, use the short scale – but at the same time it misleads a lot of British people reading them who, for example, think that a world population of 6 billion means 6 million million rather than the correct 6 thousand million.  — Lee J Haywood 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there are some confused people around ;-) A recent BBC article documents what I believe is modern British usage http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/6625545.stm. I made a search of online UK usage of billion, and could not find *any* that used 10^12, apart from dictionary entries and individuals claiming that 10^12 is the "correct" usage, or is what is "taught in schools". Style guides for the Times, Guardian, BBC etc all indicate 10^9 is the preferred meaning of billion. I could not find any resources relating to UK schools that indicated usage of 10^12. It may well be true that schools teach the 10^12 usage, but that appears to be an anomaly. Academics appear to be the least willing to adapt to current usage. If you can find any examples of modern UK publications that actually use 10^12, I would like to see them - I don't mean dictionary definitions, but actual use in the field. Bobcousins 10:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite erroneous statements here and in the main article the British use of short scale 10^9 to mean a billion is universal and has been for decades. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply mistaken. Of course you can find confused people who have no clue about any issue you care to name but anyone sufficiently sentient to understand 10^9 would refer to it as a billion, nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.63 (talk) 10:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I've yet to meet anyone who uses or teaches Short scale. I've been through three separate secondary schools (I moved around a lot when younger) and three colleges - and all the Maths and Physics teachers taught us Long scale. I'm frankly surprised as I've only ever seen Short scale used by the media, most people refer to it a "American style". I'm very surprised though, to see that a country adopting European notations for most measurement is moving away from SI units in other areas. Not that it matters. I continue to get good marks on my course for correct use of Long scale so it doesn't affect me. As for the claim that "anyone sufficiently sentient to understand 10^9 would refer to it as a billion, nothing else" - You'd be AMAZED at the number of people ho would refer to it as a trillion - the majority of laymen seem to have little understanding of numbers above a million at all, they just guess the word based on those they have heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.188.60 (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

19 years old here, have been taught the 10^12 definition of billion through school, and had the 10^9 known as an "American billion"... That, and I've asked/been asked quite a few times "an English billion or an American billion?" Trust 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I find it impossible to believe you and am struggling to find some charitable explanation. A billion meaning 10^9 has been absolutely universal in Britain for over 30 years. TheMathemagician (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I can remember it happening. The British Government *did* order that one billion should be the short scale for official government publications in about 1974. I clearly remember this being announced in the mass media at the time. It was about then that 1000 million was a figure that actually started to get some use in finance, and that these large scales had previously been a rarely used curiosity. I also remember clearly that the BBC, ITN, and *all* the newspapers *immediately* started using a billion for 1000 million. It is true however, as some people have stated here, that much of the public (and perhaps some schools) continued to use the long scale for quite some time after that, as the British are wont to do with their "traditional values".--Farry (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Farry you are quite right as I remember it too. The switch was universal and has been ever since. I am still baffled by the comments above from people claiming to have never been taught that a billion was 10^9 or even met anyone using it that way. They are either genuinely confused or just making mischief. Every single reference to a billion that I have ever seen or heard since the mid-70s has been 10^9. There is really no possibility of any school continuing to teach that a billion is 10^12. This complete fallacy of believing the old usage lives on in Britain today needs to be laid to rest. TheMathemagician (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite your personal bias, if you'd do a bit of googling, you could find that there are still a number (albeit a minority) of people confused about the usage of "american" and "british" billions. Of particular note, in my opinion, is the OED.com definition:

1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions. (= U.S. trillion.)

2. In U.S., and increasingly in Britain: A thousand millions.

Tr00st (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I can also confirm that I was taught a billion as being long-scale when in school in the UK (1991-1996). We were, however, taught that a financial billion was 1000 million but that this was an Americanisation. As further evidence of the mixed usage in the UK please see this link - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/magazinemonitor/2008/10/your_letters_517.shtml.Geoccountant (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When I was at school in about 1989-1990 we were taught (although not in a core subject) that there were two definitions flying around but that 10^9 was now the modern form. Later that was the same usage in science and economics. I can't remember the word trillion being used for anything more specific than "super big number" but then the amounts involved rarely reached 10^12. For all the talk of past UK usage, there wasn't actually that much of it. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my 2-pence, as a 30 year old British man I was taught that a billion is a thousand million over two decades ago in school. I don't know anyone who still uses the old system; certainly all of the British computing and science publications from the last 20 years that I've read have used short scale. Then again, computing and the sciences have been heavily influenced by the United States, so British publishers in those areas would've been some of the first to switch. 78.105.234.140 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that many posts on here have said that the UK media doesn't EVER use the long scale, I have to say that the BBC does fairly regularly use 'a thousand million' and 'a thousand billion', but EXCLUSIVELY in the context of dealing with pounds sterling. i.e. when referring to US$1,000,000,000 they will say a billion dollars, but when referring to £1,000,000,000 the phrase 'a thousand million pounds' will be used. Marthiemoo (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Would they use "thousand billion" to mean 10^15 (long scale) or 10^12 (short-scale synonym for trillion)?

Consider this: If you in some context (counting dollars, pounds, euro, the number of people on our planet, or whatever) discuss numbers like 400 000 000 (four hundred millions), 700 000 000 (seven hundred millions), and 1 200 000 000 (one short-scale billion and two hundred millions), it will be natural for uniformity to use a short-scale synonym like "one thousand two hundred millions" for the latter number. This does not mean that you are suddenly somehow using the long scale.--Noe (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 The biased formulation in the article should be changed:
Obviously, when schools are teaching the long scale, and it is given primacy by OED, it is incorrect to claim that Britain "officially" uses the short scale, and that other views (including OED) are "traditionalist". I think the trouble stems from an overestimation of Wilson's decision. If you see the quote, he does not illegalise the long scale; he states that the ministeries will use the short scale, but make sure that this is what they intend. (Incidently, in his argumentation, he seems to equalise "international usage" with "American usage"; this is a not uncommon opinion, but I don't share it.) This is not the same as deciding that from now on a billion means 1000000000 in the UK. Probably, there are norms or recommendations for what to be taught in schools; this has at least as much relevance, and would be worth to investigate and source. The point is not just what is decided at top level, but how far down the decisions are implemented. I think this somewhat parallels the usage of the metric system in the USA. If you only look at the formal legislation (which AFAIK never was revoked), you could claim that USA employs the metric and the imperial systems on an equal footing since 1866. In practise, of course, this is nonsense. The metric system has e.g. not been tasught in the schools until fairly recent times, and even if the law since 1866 explicitly permits government employees to present statistics or legislation in metric units, their employer hasn't permitted it. In other word, the situation in the UK is mixed; it thus should be explained as such in the article, not as "using only the short scale, except for some traditionalists". Harold Wilson was not the emperor of Britain; and even if he had been, just his words would not have been sufficient for changing the language: Cæsar non supra grammaticos - or at least, he would have to make much clearer attempts to implement his orders, if they were to take effect completely. JoergenB (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

the bbc don't: google "thousand-million" site:bbc.co.uk, mostly user content, this conversation and one use of "hundred thousand million million million million atoms". You can definitely find people in the UK who are confused about this, but neither billion means anything to them -- Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.211 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was always taught at school that a billion was 1,000,000,000,000 ie Long Scale. Its always seen as an americanism to call it short scale. Either way you should move britain into the mixed category.78.105.185.89 (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The situation in the UK is not mixed at all. Billion has meant exclusively 10^9 for almost 40 years now. If anyone disputes this please provide a recent source from a government, BBC or newspaper where 'billion' is knowingly used to mean 10^12.TheMathemagician (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Netherlands uses the short scale

As a native speaker and Dutch citizen, my experience is that "miljard" equals one thousand million and "triljoen" equals one thousand billion. This is also standard practice when newspapers and politicians discuss things like the government budget. 195.169.213.92 (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please can you provide references for your experience. If this can be backed up, then I'm sure we can rework the Netherlands status. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk)

11:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Netherlands is a fully Long Scale country. See: http://www.encyclo.nl/begrip/Triljoen, http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triljoen & http://apps.nrc.nl/stijlboek/getallen-miljoen-miljard-biljard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.229.173 (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Does someone know which scale uses Wikipedia ?

For example here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_Peugeot_Citroën

Header text	Header text
revenue =	€59.912 billion (2011)
operating_income =	€1.315 billion (2011)
net_income =	€1.134 billion (2010)
assets =	€68.49 billion (end 2010)
equity =	€14.30 billion (end 2010)

I' can't just guess if it has been written by a long or short scale user or if he took the data from another scale.

Short and long scale usage throughout the world
(pink = short scale; blue = long scale; purple = both scales; yellow = other naming system; light gray = no data)

To always look at the source is also quite a burden.

I suggest to set a standard for Wikipedia pages.

I'm open to other points of view.

My suggestion is the following and compositions of them:

Header text	Header text	Header text
100	1	one
101	10	ten
102	100	hundred
103	1,000	thousand
104	10,000	ten thousand
105	100,000	hundred thousand
106	1,000,000	million
compositions	as	follow
107	10,000,000	ten million
108	100,000,000	hundred million
109	1,000,000,000	thousand million
1010	10,000,000,000	ten thousand million
1011	100,000,000,000	hundred thousand million
1012	1,000,000,000,000	a million of millions

--Bounty braveheart (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The table is inconsistent: "thousand million" v. "a million of millions" is just wrong. Depending on context, one could argue that the powers of 10³ should have "a" or "one" before "thousand" or "million", but one could also make a case for "hundred". "a ten" is just wrong, but "a(n) hundred", "a thousand", or "a million" are grammatically acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a standard already in the English Wikipedia. The expectation of any reader is that he / she is reading English. The value of Billion in English is unambiguous for a modern document. Itc editor2 (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The revenue link you give above to PSA Peugeot Citroën contains a dead link, so it is not possible to answer your question whether this is French Billions or English Billions. Itc editor2 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

History, 1514: Budé's error regarding myriads & a milliard

Does anyone know if David Eugene Smith has anther source for Milliard meaning 10^12? The quote from Budé says (translated) "this is ten myriad myriads, which in one word our students of numbers call Milliart, as if a million millions" however 10 myriad myriads = 10 * 10,000 * 10,000 = 1,000,000,000 only. (10 * 10^4 * 10^4 = 10^9, not 10^12). Does Budé go on to ever actually use milliart to mean a million million, or does he jsut mess this up in this one place? If DES has failed to take note of Budé's error, we might have no reliable source for milliard being initially intended to mean 10^12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vynce (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

On a separate note: there are almost certainly errors of transcription in the Latin as quoted. The title of the book is surely De Asse et partibus eius Libri quinque (where the supposed 'z' -- likely written much like a cursive 'z' [or almost a '3'] -- is an abbrevition mark for '-ue'; 'libri quinque' means 'five books': nothing else makes sense). And I suspect each time a word ends in '-u' in the quoted passage, there was in fact a horizontal bar over it (known as a 'macron'), which indicates a suppressed final 'm' -- that is, it probably should read: 'hoc est denas myriadum myriadas, quod vno verbo nostrates abaci studiosi Milliartum appellat, quasi millionum millione'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.161.51 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny typesetting for "base 2", "base 10"

In the main page the numbers are set as subscripts sans intervening space e.g. "base₂" I don't thing this is proper. I think the proper typing is simply "base 2", base 10" or "base two", "base ten", or even "binary base", "decimal base". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.27.136 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The subscript notation is completely standard. See Radix. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Iran and Greenland

The article is self-contradicting about Iran: once it states that Iran uses long scale, then that Iran uses long scale and on the map that Iran uses own system.

Greenland: the article Inuit numerals does not state anything about large numbers. Does a Greenlandic or other Inuit speaker to name a large number first have to convert it into vigesimal? Burzuchius (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Logic of Long vs. Short Scale

On the chart that describes the logic for each scale, the long scale is listed as 1,000,000², 1,000,000³, 1,000,000⁴ while the short scale is listed as 1,000x1,000¹, 1,000x1,000², 1,000x1,000³, etc. While technically correct, the short scale logic is not in its simplest form, while the long scale logic is. Both should be using the same rationale for the listings. Therefore, the change should be made from 1,000x1,000¹ to 1,000² and so forth. 107.193.200.172 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Perhaps 1,000¹⁺¹ rather than 1,000x1,000¹, but getting billion to correspond to an exponent of 3 needs explanation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel

Listing Israel as a Short System country is wrong. I'm Israeli and never heard the Short System used, only Long System. Nahum (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Long System in UK

I worked at several schools as a maths teacher and at a few of them they asked us to teach the long system. I've also seen other maths teacher teaching the long system. Although they use the short system. It might be worth mentioning? --151.224.254.144 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it might, but we would need a "reliable source" - which in an encyclopedia would not include an otherwise unpublished witness statement.

Anyway, when did these things take place?--Nø (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This never happened (unless it was the seventies). The UK has used short scale since the 1970s. There is absolutely no conceivable way that a school would instruct teachers to use the long scale.TheMathemagician (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Greek also has a "Traditional myriad system"

I'm wondering why Greek is put with the short scale countries yet it has a more similar system to the CJK countries. Now I'm not saying that these languages are similar is just that I find it weird that the way Greek makes/names numbers bigger than 10 000 is similar to the "Traditional myriad system" of the Chinese that was adopted by the others that fell under the Sinosphere yet is considered short scale. Unless explained to me why is it that Greek is a short scale country, yet linguistically it doesn’t work with the others in the short scale, I would like it to be added to the “Using neither” section of the article. -- Sion8 (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you follow the reference used in the Section, you find:

"Continuing beyond that, the Greek system uses the American English convention for billion, trillion, etc., i.e., a billion is a thousand million, a trillion is a million million, etc. The words beyond those (quadrillion, etc.) are seldom used in practice, except in some areas of science."

This was the reason. Yes, the words are built up using a base word myria - but the reference we had describes it as Short scale in other words. Itc editor2 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Original Research?

I removed the section entitled "Reason why the Long Scale (true billion) is mathematically correct and the Short Scale (economic billion) does not follow a useful numbering pattern". At a minimum, it appears to be WP:Original Research, unsupported by a single reference. It also appears to violate WP:NPOV, as can be seen just from the title. I also removed the words introducing the distinction that one scale is scientific while the other is economic, which were not written as sentences, and not accompanied by a citation. If the editor wishes to re-introduce this material, please provide valid references, and try to adhere to a more neutral point of view. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of metric unit names in tables Comment

An editor is systematically capitalizing the first letter in "Kilo" etc. in alle tables in this article, and also reverting reverts. So far, (s)he has not gone to work at e.g. the tables in Unit prefix. It seems to me to be a clash between two policies, one about tables in wikipedia, the other about how to write these names in general. Obviously (I think), if "kilo" is the first word in a sentence, it will be capitalized - and that principle may be carried over to the first word in table cells. In my opinion, it is misguided to do so; the table is more informative if it conforms to the norm for metric units. How do we settle this question?--Nø (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No reply for nearly a month, so I'll now revert again.--Nø (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply at the time. I was applying to grad school and so exceedingly busy in real life. (You know what applications are like.)

Anyway, I would agree with you concerning the abbreviations (which by the way appear after a number and would never be at the start of a sentence), but not the full names. The convention, taught in every Com. Tech. class, is to capitalize the first word in a bullet point or table cell provided only that it does not change the meaning of the information given.

In the case of the prefixes, it would change the meaning. For example, a Dm is a decameter, a unit of 10 meters, whereas a dm is a decimeter, a tenth of a meter.

In the case of the full names, the meaning would not change, and so the convention applies. "Kilometer" and "kilometer" do not have different definitions, and for that matter "decameter" and "decimeter" are spelled differently.

As with full names, so with full prefixes, "kilo" rather than "k."

The word "king" is not universally capitalized, either (when not referring to a specific office or officeholder), and yet, it is capitalized under this convention in the table at Monarch. So far, I don't see you or anyone else arguing that following the convention makes that table, or indeed countless others like it both on Wikipedia and outside Wikipedia in other places, less informative. Yet, this is actually no different.

To use another example, most copies of the Periodic Table capitalize the names of elements (the full names underneath the abbreviations) in the table cells. The words "hydrogen," "tin," and "bromine" are lower case in the middle of a sentence, but they are capitalized in the table cells on most printed Periodic Tables. Does this make the Periodic Table less informative? No? Well, neither does applying the convention here where the meaning stays the same as I explained above. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Canada

User:Nickjbor adds a CN because 'Current usage: Canada in particular uses the short scale, not "both". Cite it if you have an excuse for how it uses both.'. I note in passing that Nickjbor lives in Toronto, rather than, say, Quebec, and has Fr-0 linguistic skills.

I have no "excuse" to offer. However, he didn't follow the bilingual "explanation" given by the Canadian Government website in the attached reference. Given that this was already cited in the article, I intend to remove this CN in a week. 86.161.148.81 (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Antarctica, really?

There is no native population as far as humans are concerned and the penguins do not care about scales at all (well, maybe the ones on the fish they eat). The only users of scales are the visitors aka scientists, who presumably stick to the system of their home country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.17.5 (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There are kind of two mentions of antarctica: "French Southern and Antarctic Lands" in one of the country/region lists (probably OK), and Antarctica in the table of continents. I suppose you think that the second should go, i.e., the table shouldn't have a line on Antarctica at all - and I agree! Tourists speaking English in France do not mean we should list short scale use in France either.--Nø (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Greenland

In the section "Using neither" we have Greenland in the table, with a link to Inuit numerals, with the note "Traditional system". The linked article gives no indication how one would say a very large number in Inuit language; I doubt there ever was a system for numbers as large as 1000000000. Today I guess one would use either Danish long scale or English short scale for such numbers in Greenland. How is this situation best represented in the aritcle (and can anyone locate a source)?--Nø (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

History of "milliard"

The History sections seems to falsely claim that milliard

1. was introduced first as meaning 10¹²
2. was later redefined

The cited source does not say either of these two, it just says that at some point it was used as meaning either 10⁹ or 10¹².

Likewise the timeline item of Budaeus that on first sight seems to support the "redefinition" idea (because it is cited as the first mention of the word and uses the phrase "as if a million millions"), if anything seems to be an error of the cited author, because the definition he uses is "this is ten myriad myriads", which is 10¹⁺⁴⁺⁴=10⁹, and then compares it — apparently in error — with a million millions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.199.242.33 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

More Large Numbers

I found this list on a website. Any thoughts about its accuracy? Should it be added to the main article?

Legend of Large Numbers

1K	=	1,000	=	One Thousand
1M	=	1,000K	=	One Million
1B	=	1,000M	=	One Billion
1T	=	1,000B	=	One Trillion
1q	=	1,000T	=	One Quadrillion
1Q	=	1,000q	=	One Quintillion
1s	=	1,000Q	=	One Sextillion
1S	=	1,000s	=	One Septillion
1O	=	1,000S	=	One Octillion
1N	=	1,000O	=	One Nonillion
1d	=	1,000N	=	One Decillion
1U	=	1,000d	=	One Undecillion
1D	=	1,000U	=	One Duodecillion
1!	=	1,000D	=	One Tredecillion
1@	=	1,000!	=	One Quattuordecillion
1#	=	1,000@	=	One Quindecillion
1$	=	1,000#	=	One Sexdecillion
1%	=	1,000$	=	One Septendecillion
1^	=	1,000%	=	One Octodecillion
1&	=	1,000^	=	One Novemdecillion
1*	=	1,000&	=	One Vigintillion

--unsigned

Possibly a legend for a home-brewed notation used at that specific homepage. Unless we have a reliable source saying that this is a widespread notation, I don't think it belongs here or elsewhere on Wikipedia.--Nø (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I found it at https://www.clickerheroes.com/ and other game-related sites -- but not at any obviously notable reliable source.--Nø (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Britain and the Short scale

Hold on a minute, here in Northern Ireland we use the Long Scale but yous are saying that the UK uses the short scale. --86.133.62.150 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The UK officially, and in major English-language newspapers, uses the short scale. If you (or anyone) provides evidence that publications in Northern Ireland actually use long scale, it should be in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

D for deca?

Are there any reliable sources that use "D" for the prefix "deca"? The autority, BIPM, allow only "da". Benadikt (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Greenland Suggestion

As suggested by archive 5, there's nothing about naming large numbers in traditional Greenlandic numerals. I think the table on "Neither" should be about systems for naming large numbers that are neither long scale nor short scale - not about systems for naming numbers that do not have names for large numbers. Thus, I think Greenland should be removed from the table. I believe one speaking in Greenlandic would use loan words from Danish or pehaps increasingly English, i.e. either long or short scale - not "neither".--Nø (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

International Organisations Section needed

Thanks for a very informative article. But we could use a section on usage within various International organisations (UN, EU, etc), where it can presumably be a source of much confusion. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The map is inconsistent with the article, for the UK

According to the map, current usage in the UK is both long and short scales, whereas according to the article, current usage in the UK is exclusively short scale and has been since 1974. Can someone please correct the map? 86.9.85.159 (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I support the above request. I have occasionally found Americans confused by the British (or Irish) use of billion because they have been told that in Britain billion means a million million (and when writing stuff with an American audience in mind I have thus sometimes felt a mildly irritated need to add an otherwise unnecessary note to try to preempt any such possible confusion). Wikipedia should not be helping to perpetuate such confusion. You do very rarely find a (usually elderly or contrarian) British or Irish person who insists that a billion means a million million, but Wikipedia quite rightly does not try to mislead its non-British readers by portraying Britain as divided over the question of whether the Earth is round simply because somewhere in Britain there is a Flat Earth Society. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm planning to put in a map-change request, but I don't have time to check the procedure right now, and I may easily forget to do so later, so if somebody a few weeks (at least 4) from now sees that I have apparently forgotten, they might consider either putting in a request themselves or leaving me a reminder on my Talk page. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As a Brit, I agree too. The long scale 'billion' is never seen in the UK now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree. A British billion has been 10^9 for many decades now.TheMathemagician (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have now requested this change at the Graphics Lab here.Tlhslobus (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's now fixed (if it doesn't appear fixed on your computer, you may need to clear out your browser's image cache).Tlhslobus (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Map is wrong about Brazil

Brazil is depicted with the blueish red that means "short-scale (with milliard)", but we don't use milliard; we use simply the short-scale, exactly like the US. Brazil should be normal red, just like the USA. 187.181.176.138 (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now added your complaint to the requested change for the UK at the Graphics Lab here.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's now fixed (if it doesn't appear fixed on your computer, you may need to clear out your browser's image cache).Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

.SVG map added

Following earlier advice from the Wikigraphics department, a new format (.SVG) map has been created. It has some other changes which are mentioned in the conversation here. This also gives instructions on how to make any further desired changes to the map, tho it may also take you some time to find the instructions on how to upload any amended version.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(If the new map doesn't appear to show the above-mentioned changes on your computer, such as the Arab countries in the darker red of 'short scale+milliard', you may need to clear out your browser's image cache).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviations (Parenthetical)

Metric symbols are not separate concepts in any way, shape, or form. They are, quite simply, abbreviations of the respective prefixes. So why not treat them that way? Instead of a completely separate column, let's put them in parentheses after the prefixes, as I recently did in the Orders of magnitude Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be OK, though I'd write "M (mega)" and "μ (micro)" rather than "Mega (M)" and "Micro (μ)". I think the abbreviation (which I think is often referred to as a "symbol" rather than an "abbreviation") takes precedence; the word is just how it is pronounced. Leaving it as it is would be fine too, in my opinion.--Nø (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Budé 1514?

This article mentions the Budé passage under the year 1514, but refers to the 1532 edition. It seems that the 1514 edition does not mention the word milliard at all. The 1516 edition has it:

hoc eſt decem myriadum myriadas:quod vno verbo noſtrates abaci ſtudioſi Milliartum appellant:quaſi millionum millionem.

(Also written with “denas” or “decẽ” instead of “decem”, “uno”, “uerbo”, “milliartum”, “appellãt”, “millionũ” or “millionẽ” in other editions.)

This text is missing between “Huius […] conuenit” and “Verum” in the 1514 edition, though. I also suspect that the cited 1532 edition contains “appellãt” rather than “appellat”, the “ã” standing for “an”. -- IvanP (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also note that Budé said that ten myriads myriads (10⁹!) are called Milliartum and just added “as if [quasi!] a million million”. Peletier, perhaps misled by the “quasi” part, used it in the sense of 10¹². -- IvanP (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Jehan Adam

Thorndike quotes Adam with “Mil Millions” and “dix mil Millions” instead of “Mill Millions” and “dix mill Millions” (as in this article), respectively. “Le XVe vault mil [sic] bymillions”—this seems to result from a misunderstanding of Thorndike’s “Le XVe vault cent (mil) bymillions”. It means that Jehan Adam wrote “cent mil”, but that the “mil” should not be there (not that he wrote “mil” instead of “cent mil”), as can be seen from the sentence before the quote:

“cent mil bymillions” is evidently a slip for “cent bymillions.”

By the way, various sources give different names of Adam’s manuscript:

• Traicté en arismetique pour la practique par gectouers ([1])
• Traicté d’arismetique pour la pratique par gectouers (sic) ([2])
• Traicte d’arismetique pour la pratique par gectoners ([3])
• Traicté d’Arismetrique pour la pratique par gectouers faite et compillé a Paris en l’an mil 475 ([4])
• Traicté d’Arismétrique pour la pratique par gectouers (jetons) faite et compillé à Paris en l’an mil 475 ([5])

All but one of the above write “gectouers” and there is even a “sic”, so it seems that it is really written this way. However, all but one write “d’” instead of “en” (as in this article) and all but one write “pratique” instead of “practique”. Arismetrique/Arismétrique does not seem completely dubious since arismetrique was used in Old French according to Collins, but Google Books does not yield that many instances of that word. Olivier Mattéoni writes arismectique, but Google finds no instances of that word besides Mattéoni. So which name is correct? Looking at a picture (more) of the manuscript, I see the names written alongside jetons, with six consecutive i-like strokes after b (so apparently bymillion) for 10¹², but only five such strokes for 10¹³, …, 10¹⁷ (so apparently bimillions/Bimillion). Am I correct? -- IvanP (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Nicolas Chuquet

Finally, the printed edition has “sauoir”, “diuise” and “deuant” instead of “savoir”, “divise” and “devant”. Chuquet apparently uses a quite different shape for the v (compare with “vault” in File:Chuquet.gif). There is no comma and no colon, just dots (also in places where this article has nothing). The printed edition also has “mille millier de tryllions” rather than “mille milliers de tryllions” (I cannot see whether this is correct from the picture of the manuscript), “ault’s” instead of “aultres” (must be correct) and “le quel” instead of “lequel” (seems incorrect). -- IvanP (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Breakdown by country

Canada is listed as a country that uses both long and short scale. In 60 years, I've never heard anyone use long scales. The UK is listed as using short scales. Every time I hear a number equal to a billion or more referenced by a UK speaker, they are either using long scale, or clarify by pointing out, for example, that when they say "billion", they mean "a million millions". 2001:569:79B4:900:2D9E:E10D:943A:DEEA (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you've never heard a UK speaker use a billion meaning 10^12 because it hasn't happened for 40 years. Please cite an example from the BBC, a newspaper, or the government.TheMathemagician (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Usage in North Africa

In the Maghreb (Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco), the usage follows the French language. Me, a Tunisian citizen, I never used the "trilyoon" for 10¹². Probably, it depends on the person's education? Nevertheless, French is the language of business, so we could assume that the French system is the dominant, at least in Tunisia. We will need the confirmation of an Algerian and a Moroccan. As a solution for the problem, I suggest adding these countries to using both section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekEmad (talk • contribs) 01:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Usage in French

Trillions, quadrillions etc, are almost never used in France, formally or informally. The way I understand it, is that some academic circle decided in the 1960s to impose a "rational" scale, because it's more logical and mathematical (in terms of powers of 1,000,000), but the population never followed. We use milliard for 10⁹ and the proper combination of words for greater numbers:

• mille milliards (one thousand billions = 10¹²);
• un million de milliards (one million billions = 10¹⁵);
• un milliard de milliards (one billion billions = 10¹⁸);
• mille milliards de milliards (one thousand billions billions = 10²¹);
• un million de milliards de milliards (one million billions billions = 10²⁴);

etc.

I would love to write it down in the main article, but I have no encyclopedic source for it. 2A01:E34:EF75:CCE0:223:12FF:FE57:5ADD (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Romania?

Recent edits have made the article self-contradictori in the case of Romania. Edit summary suggests Romania is in a category of its own. If so, this should be laid out in the article.--Nø (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Il Milione

IP user user:189.221.35.212 inserted this sentence into the article:

Anyway, Marco Polo Venetus's XIII century masterpiece bears the name - Il Milione -, which should prove that the expression existed and was used extensively in Europe at that time.

The sentence was misplaced and was removed, but the issue seems interesting enough. Marco Polo died 1324; his book called "Il Milione" (apparently also a nickname for Marco Polo himself) is dated to 1298-99. But (using google and computer translation from Italian - so this is not really reliable) the etymology of "Il Milione" seems to be a plural of "milium", a thousand steps (a mile), but not exactly one thousand miles. Of course, nothing on this can be added in the article without proper sources; I have none.--Nø (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long and short scales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100120005624/http://www.ensmp.net/pdf/1961/decr-61-0501.pdf to http://www.ensmp.net/pdf/1961/decr-61-0501.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Cluttered table in History section

In the timeline table in the History section, the financial entries (about hyperinflation in Germany 1923, Hungary 1946, Yugoslavia 1993, and Zimbabwe 2009, and about debt in US 2013) are not really as landmarks in the history of long and short scales. I would suggest either deleting these entries, or collecting them into a second table, following the first. Any views on this suggestion?--Nø (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thousands separator

As far as I know - a thousands separator is a fixed space, according to ISO-Standard. Or am I as wrong as I am drunk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.113.107 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced text

In the section "Spanish-speaking", the text

but was finally accepted in a later version of the official dictionary as standard usage among educated Spanish speakers in the United States (including Puerto Rico).[57]

probably should be part of the footnote "longscale note 1"; I can't figure out the syntax to fix this.--Nø (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that seems to be it. I came here because I did not understand that sentence. I think I put text and references where they were meant to be now. Digital Brains (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Does it mean relations to Date and Time Format?

This?

• USA - MDY/Short Scale
• UK - DMY/Short Scale
• Europe - DMY/Long Scale
• PH - MDY & DMY/Short Scale
• Canada - All date formats/Short and Long Scale
• China, Japan and Korea - YMD/Different numeral system (Myriad)

124.106.130.227 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not the usual definition of long and short scale - they don't apply to date formats. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Research at Manual Of Style, Date and Number, this might help! 124.106.130.227 (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

What is an "offset"?

The introductory paragraph currently says short scale "has an offset" but the article doesn't explain what that means, and I can't find anything online about it. I have tagged it as needing a citation, but what it really needs is an explanation. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

What is meant is this:

• For the long scale, N=b^n, where N is the number represented by the word; n is e.g. 3 for trillion (tri=3), or 5 for quintillion (quint=5); and b=1000000.
• For the short scale, N=b^(n+1), where N and n have the same meanings as before, but b=1000.

Clearly, the formula for the long scale is slightly simpler - and the "+1" sort of shifting the short scale is the "offset".

I'm not defending the wording in the article -- just saying that, no doubt, this is what is meant.--Nø (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That's roughly my assumption as well but so far as I can tell it's not standard terminology. I'm going to remove it soon if there's no better explanation or link. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think removing it from the lead makes sense. It would make sense, I think, to comment farily early in the article, like in the Description section, that the powers in the short scale "are offset by the +1" (or "+3", if written in a slightly different way). But I can't see a neat way to do that without a rewrite.

I count myself among those that think the long scale is more logical because it has no offset, and I guess the editor adding it had an argument along such lines in mind, without saying so. But I do not think it is a problem simply to remove it!--Nø (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove it and see what reaction, if any, results. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Claim: "capitals in table entries is policy"

@Nø: You claim in the edit summary motivating your revert that "capitals in table entries is policy". Please point me to a substantiation of this claim. —Quondum 13:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Quondum: I can't find it, probably because I'm wrong. I know I've been overruled myself with a reference to such a policy, in another case where I changed capitals to lower case; perhaps it has been changed since. I've reverted my revert, except the integer(s) in the lead. (10-to-the 9th is an integer power of 10; 10-to-the-9.7 is not. Incidentally, the first is also an integer, 1000000000, and the 2nd, 5011872336,27, is not, but that is not the point here.) You also removed a lot of nonbreaking spaces (nbsp) or changed them into oridnary spaces; I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, or if they should actually be nbsp or not, but, following my 2nd revert, they will be gone or ordinary again.--Nø (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

My interest was primarily whether any such guideline existed, not in settling on my version. I would have expected to find something under MOS:TABLE, but the closest thing I found is at WP:MOS § Bulleted and numbered lists, which requires the case to be consistent (and I see no reason why tables should be different from lists). The "integer[s]" grammar error of mine was due to my sloppy/overhasty interpretation of wiki markup; thanks for repairing that. The spacing changes were intentional and I'll expand if you're interested. A reason for preferring lower case in the table may help to reduce "case illiteracy" in SI units in readers. That all said, I am happy to defer to your (any other editor's) preferences on style in this article. —Quondum 18:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with the present version, and I am actually happy there is no strict guideline about capitals in table cells too.--Nø (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Figure

The figure https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EScalas_corta_y_larga.svg is really useful. Alas, the 2 reds appear almost identical, while the worldwhile distinction between milliards vs billions is probably the most practically important, and causing many mis-translation in medias. -> could it be possible to depict as orange the set "Short scale (and milliard)" ? ( I might do it myself, but not sure how to re-upload a figure in commons ).--Fabrice.Neyret (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Greek Calqued short scale?

in this section article says

'Calque of the short scale'

Given the role of Fibonacci in introducing the Arabic numerals to Europe via Constantinople isn't it more likely that the short scale is a calque of the greek numerals? Priniciple of priitives supports this thoery but I cannot find a source .

The were other cases of constantine based merchants and mathmatians continusing to influence culture in Italy long after Fibonacci too.

The source linked did not say it was calqued either

Anyone know where to look to find this out? GameKeeper (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Considering Liber Abaci is from 1202, and that long and short scale names are newer than that (in Greek too, I suppose), your argument doesn't really add up. (Of course, that in itself is not an argument as to which way the calque goes.) --Nø (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Citations needed

The are a handful of rather spurious "citation needed" tags in the article. (I just now removed one, from this statement about alternative approaches:

• Combinations of the unambiguous word million, for example: 10⁹ = "one thousand million"; 10¹² = "one million million". This becomes rather unwieldy for numbers above 10¹².

I think the statement is straightforward, and needs a citation far less than many other things in this article.)

We generally lack sources for nearly everything we say about current usage around the world. The few "citation needed" tags probably indicate that an editor doubts the veracity of specific details (what is "trillion" in Italic; does a specific English-speaking community use long or short scale; or something of similar nature).

Actually citing a source for every language and state would be cumbersome - but strictly speaking required? Is an interwiki link to e.g. "billion" in the various languages a sufficient source?--Nø (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove financial examples?

Some time ago, I split the timeline table in the article into twoː One about the history of the number words, and one with the usage examples about hyperinflation and other financial phenomena. The first table is, I believe, much better without the financial entries, but really, I think the financial examples should be removed from this article, or reduced to a brief general statement linking elsewhere. Any thoughts or ideas?--Nø (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Plural

The article was moved from Long and short scales to Long and short scale without discussion. But I think singular is wrong? Its not one scale but two different scales... I'm not native speaker. Christian75 (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I would think of it as short for long scale and short scale, or factoring it, (long and short) scale. Unfortunately, English (and other languages) aren't good at using parentheses where math would, to indicate grouping. Gah4 (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

finance

While it is not common to use SI prefixes, kilobucks and megabucks are sometimes used for large monetary amounts. I do remember when IBM used to sell large computers priced in kilobucks, wondering if that was multiples of $1000 or $1024. (That is, before the kibi prefix.) Gah4 (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Budaeus (Guillaume Budé) myriad myriad

As the article is written at the moment, it claims that Budaeus used the term "Milliart" for the number 10⁹.
The article then proceeds to give the exact quote and a translation of the quote, and the translation states that "Milliart" means one million million.

Since one million is 1.000.000 it would stand to reason that one million million is 1.000.000.000.000 or 10¹², not 10⁹.

In case there is something wrong with my interpretation, I decided not to edit the article directly. But I would like to recommend a change if you all agree with me

Best regards 151.252.188.234 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thousands separators

The thousands separators needs to be changed to ISO-Standard. 213.64.113.107 (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent removal of "British English"

The recent edit creates sentences that read like However, it is not found in American English, which uses billion, and not used in English, which preferred to use thousand million before the current usage of billion. and Each of these words translates to the American English or post-1974 English word billion (10⁹ in the short scale). These are incoherent, and have been made so for no good reason. Additionally, the position that "British English IS English" is highly provincial and completely at odds with the spirit of an international project like Wikipedia. As the Manual of Style notes: The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over any other. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I Agree. The term British English is correct. Polyamorph (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I, who is neither American or British, thinks that; "original English" would be the most accurate naming. 213.64.113.107 (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Spanish

In the "By Continent" section, the article claims that "U.S. Spanish" uses the long scale. But Wiktionary says otherwise: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bill%C3%B3n#Spanish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.198.234 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Self-inconsistent quote

".. this is ten myriad myriads, which in one word our students of numbers call Milliart, as if a million millions"

A myriad is 10^4, so ten myriad myriads is 10^9, i.e. a thousand millions, or a milliard. This should perhaps be pointed out in the article, just like the mistake made in the old source where a large long-scale number is specified.

This whole history is an embarrassment for humanity. Even worse than the story about how Germany swapped out "B" for "H" in the diatonic scale, even dragging several other countries with them. Elias (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Backwards prose?

... The long scale system employs additional terms for interleaved values, typically substituting the word ending -ion for -iard.

(Underscoring mine).

Isn't that description backwards?

The long scale name for the interleaved value 1,000,000,000 is "milliard". "Milliard" is derived from "million" by substituting the word ending -iard for -ion, not by substituting the word ending -ion for -iard. AHMartin (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Lists of countries and languages

In these edits, the long lists of flags and examples of words were removed. While I agree with the these lists were unwieldy, I think we should keep this info - including the word for 10^9 in various languages. (When using short scale, it may be either billion or millard; when using long scale, it may be either a cognate of milliard, or a translation of thousand millions.) But I think organizing the info into a tabular format would be great, though I'm not sure how. In fact, a large part of the info in this article could be presented in a sortable table, where first column could be "Language, country and time" (allowing one entry for UK before their change to short scale, and another for UK after; one entry for French in Canada and another for Englisg in Canada; etc.). Next column could be "Scale" (LS, SS, or Other, followed by either one column indicating whether 10^9 i a cognate to "milliard", or something else, or a few columns giving the actual words for a few powers.

I know wikipedia is not a dictionnary, but I think an overview of how this particular semantic field is dealt with in various languages is of interest. What do you think? Nø (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Milliard

The word milliard for 10⁹ is both used in countries described to have long scale (France, Germany, the Netherlands) and short scale (Arabic speaking countries). Please clarify, fix the table and the map. 2001:8A0:DBA5:8200:E5A3:BB52:30C:749C (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wales

The article says "(see also Wales below)", but there is no note about Wales. Donotforgetmycode (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the recent history, I see that the list of examples was recently pruned down. I've removed the note as the Wales-specific listing was pruned. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)