Talk:Billion

There has been a sequence of edits by Trigenibinion, repeatedly tagging because he is not able to access the source, paraphrasing a source he claims he cannot read], and using foreign-language Wikipedias as a source (which violates WP:CIRCULAR).

I don't quite know what the issue is here, whether he is directly challenging the claim, if this is a language barrier issue or whether he is just being a disruptive presence. However, the edits are disruptive and making the article unstable. I strongly suggest that Trigenibinion comes to the talk page and attempt to articulate the problem. If he is directly challenging the source then he must produce an alternative reliable source to challenge the existing claim with. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not me who has been disruptive

1. I requested clarification

2. The request was removed, and I noted the reference was behind paywall

3. The request was clarified

4. I improved the clarification according to French wikipedia

5. The improvement was removed because apparently it did not match the paywalled source

6. I added French wikipedia as a source for the improvement

7. The improvement was removed because French wikipedia was not considered authoritative

8. I come to discuss the issue to the talk page

9. I am accused of acting in bad faith Trigenibinion (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is that I do not know what you mean by "clarification"? Here is everything the OED say:

Etymology: < French billion, purposely formed in 16th cent. to denote the second power of a million adj. and n. (by substituting bi- comb. form for the initial letters), trillion and quadrillion being similarly formed to denote its 3rd and 4th powers. The name appears not to have been adopted in English before the end of the 17th cent.: see quot. from Locke. Subsequently the application of the word was changed by French arithmeticians, figures being divided in numeration into groups of threes, instead of sixes, so that French billion, trillion, denoted not the second and third powers of a million, but a thousand millions and a thousand thousand millions. In the 19th century, the U.S. adopted the French convention, but Britain retained the original and etymological use (to which France reverted in 1948). Since 1951 the U.S. value, a thousand millions, has been increasingly used in Britain, especially in technical writing and, more recently, in journalism; but the older sense ‘a million millions’ is still common.

However there is nothing really in there that is not already in the article. That is all there is but I honestly don't see what needs to be clarified. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The French page claims that it was a minority using the short scale in France at the time it was imported to America (reformists). According to one of the references in the French page (authoritative), the definition was already in the official dictionary. The page then states that much later, when it was being taught in US schools, it was still in partial use in France and did not become generalized until later. That's why "the French used it" (at that the time of introduction to America) is misleading. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now I appreciate what the issue is. However I am not conversant in French so I cannot consult the sources in the French article. Are you able to write up the history of the French usage here and copy the sources over? The sources have to be physically placed in this article for it to be verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I will see if there are some accessible online sources about actual usage. There are some timeline differences between the English and French pages. But one can certainly say here is that by 1762 the short scale was the official definition in France.^[1] Trigenibinion (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The 4th is indeed the first edition of that dictionary where the word appears. It was first published in 1694. The 9th edition is not finished.^[2] Trigenibinion (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• I am looking at these sources and it appears to me that a "billion" was defined as 1,000 million by the Dictionary of the French language at the time. Do we really need to clarify it beyond that? We can just write that first sentence as American English adopted the short scale definition from the French in the 19th century (when a "billion" was defined as a thousand million by the Dictionary of the French language). Ultimately we are not really interested in usage, but rather the origin of two separate definitions. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "as it was defined in the dictionary at the time". But it was imported to America before the 19th century, maybe before it appeared in the French dictionary. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

So maybe something like this: American English adopted the short scale definition from the French (at the time a "billion" was defined as a thousand million by the Dictionary of the French language). Betty Logan (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The first American book using the short scale was published in 1729, that is before it was adopted by the French dictionary. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

So how exactly do you want this to be clarified? The French Dictionary defined "billion" using the short scale from the mid-18th century, so the definition must have been established prior to that. You say that the first American book to use the short scale was published in 1729. So that would indicate that the American billion was adopted at a similar time to when the short scale was becoming established in France. Ultimately anything we state has to be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it was indeed "some of whom". Here is the source: Isaac Greenwood. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The article states that "Milliard, another term for one thousand million, is extremely rare in English, but words similar to it are very common in other European languages." and then goes on to list several European languages, including Portuguese, and the apparent sources are two pages in Catalan, a very specific language that has many French words.

In Portuguese there isn't the equivalent to "milliard", we use only "milhares" for "thousands", "milhões" for "millions" and "biliões" (or "bilhões", mostly in Brazilian Portuguese) for "billions", with the meaning of a million millions.

To me, it looks like whoever wrote that sentence didn't have a real source for it and I suppose that information is also wrong for other languages listed.

In fact, during the 9th (1948) meeting of the General Conference on Weights and Measures, it was unanimously decided to propose the long scale for all European countries^[1]. Portugal was one of the countries that followed the proposal and turned it into a national standard, NP 18:2006 ^[2].ArMaP (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

What does it mean that Catalan is "a very specific language that has many French words"? There is not French words in Catalan, there is only Catalan words. Another thing is that many words come from French, Spanish, Italian, or other latin languages. But this happens with Spanish, French, etc, they also have words that come from Catalan. And from Italian, and From french, etc., because all latin languages have most of their vocabulary originated from the original latin language.

Catalan is a language, like is Portuguese, Franch, or Italian. Many people believe that Catalan is a mix of languages, but this is due to ignorance.37.173.0.68 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thus for these languages billion is a thousand times larger than the modern English billion This wording is very awkward as the word billion is already the English form of the equivalent words, e.g. in Hungarian it is not "billion" but billió. Hhgygy (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

There are sources in the lead sentence of the article that correctly assert that there is only one definition of the word "billion" in English. No sources have been provided by the person who reverted me of anything to the contrary. Red Slash 19:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an English dictionary, it is an encyclopedia written in English. In theory you should be able to have the exact same article written in French or Russian, because an encyclopedia summarises concepts, and globally the concept of a "billion" has two definitions defined on two distinct scales. There are plenty of countries where words cognate to a "billion" have the meaning 1 x 10^12. If this were Wiktionary I would agree with you: if you were defining word use in the English language then you would expect it to reflect current/popular usage. You clearly accept this point because in your edit you start the lead "In the English language...". But we are not defining a word, we are defining a concept. The concept of the billion on the long scale has widespread use across the world, possibly more so than the short scale. If Wikipedia is to adopt a WP:WORLDVIEW then it shouldn't be reducing concepts to how they are are only understood in English speaking countries. Approximately 40% of the English Wikipedia's readership is located in countries where English is a second-language. A global readership should be able to access the information and the two definitions are much clearer in the long-standing bullet-point format. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That is... emphatically not true. WP:USEENGLISH is a good resource. And no, we are not defining a concept at this page - 1,000,000,000 is the page that defines the concept. This is the rare article that is actually about the word. Red Slash 15:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That link is for naming conventions, and 1,000,000,000 defines 1,000,000,000 on one particular scale. There is WP:NOCONSENSUS to restructure the article so I am returning it to the WP:STATUSQUO. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've programmed up a pretty simple template for automatically linking "billion" to the articles on the appropriate long and short scale articles. Just use {{billion}} to link to the English standard short scale {{billion}}. Use {{billion|long=yes}} to link to the long scale {{billion}}. You can also include more precise language with {{billion|long=short}} still linking to the short scale, but with a parenthetical {{billion}}. VanIsaac, MPLL ^cont_WpWS 06:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Why does the lede say that billion is still occasionally used in Britain to refer to the number 1,000,000,000,000? It is most definitely never used that way any more. It was used that way in the past, that is true, but nowadays 100% of the times it refers to the short billion. Cambridge dictionary mentions that use as obsolete (). It is quite telling the only reference provided for the current use of the long billion in Britain is an American dictionary. I am aware of the RfC before, but the current lede is extremely misleading and is based on a single source, so I think it should be changed. Vpab15 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The OED defines it in the following way:

1.a.

1611–

A million million, 1,000,000,000,000, or 10^12. Cf. trillion n. A.2b.

This sense was formerly standard in British English but is now largely superseded by sense A.1b."

1.b.

1811–

Originally North American. A thousand million, 1,000,000,000, or 10^9.

Now the usual sense.

I would hazard a guess that you are either under the age of 30, or not British. Wikipedia is accurate in the way it describes modern British usage, and is consistent with the Oxford English Dictionary. There is a generational difference in its usage. If anything, I would argue that the OED plays down long-scale usage in the UK—for many people born before the 1970s, the long-scale definition is still prevalent. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

OED clearly states there is just one definition in use currently. Unless there are reliable sources using the old definition (which I really doubt), it is WP:UNDUE to have an obsolete definition in the lede. Vpab15 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The OED makes it clear there are two definitions in British English (hence why there are two definitions in the OED), albeit one of the definitions being more dominant than the other. Wikipedia's summary of modern usage is backed up by two dictionary definitions. Two sources have been provided using the older definition, so I do not really understand your request. Perhaps you should provide a source that states the older definition no longer enjoys any usage at all, if that is what you want the article to say. Betty Logan (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I did provide a link to Cambridge dictionary. It clearly states that the long-scale billion is "old-fashioned" and "This number is now called a trillion". A single source from an American dictionary is insufficient to claim current use of the long-scale billion in the UK. Unless there are sources that also use (rather than just define) the long-scale billion, that definition doesn't belong in the lede. Vpab15 (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The Cambridge definition is consistent with how the position is summarised here. It does not say the older sense of the word has fallen completely out of use. Merriam and the OED also back up the claim that the long-scale definition still enjoys occasional usage. This report to parliament in 2009 also supports the notion that the long-scale definition is still in use, albeit to a lesser extent than the modern short-scale version. It's true that current usage in the media, technical writing and Government reports will almost certainly employ the short-scale version but it's simply not the case that the term is understood only to have one meaning. All of this is adequately captured in this article. The position that you want this article to adopt—that the term only has a single meaning in Britain today—is not supported by any of the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The parliament report quotes the OED from 1989, 35 years ago. Today in the UK billion only means one thing. Unless there is a more recent source (say, last 15 years) that uses the long-scale billion, the mention of its current use needs to be removed per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The WP:BURDEN to provide reliable sources is with the editor wanting to keep the content. "Billion" is very commonly used in media and science and technology. If it the long-scale billion is still in use in the UK, it shouldn't be hard to provide reliable sources that still use it. Vpab15 (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require editors to provide primary source evidence, it has a preference for secondary sources, which have been provided. Multiple reliable sources have stated that the long-scale meaning is still in use, albeit not to the extent the short-scale use is used—and this is adequately encapsulated by this article. Technical and official writing from recent years should use the short-scale definition as that is recommended usage now, but that does not account for a societal understanding of the term, which has been summed up by various dictionaries. Find a source that states that the short-scale definition is the only one in use today in modern Britain and we can factor that into the article. Without that you are venturing into WP:DEADHORSE territory. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Both Croatian and Serbo-Croatian were listed as among the languages that use the term Milliard. Seems redundant to list both. I deleted Croatian and kept Serbo-Croatian for the sake of brevity and because Serbo-Croatian is called a language in its Wikipedia article. Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are listed as variety languages. Alternatively, we could remove Serbo-Croatian and list each of the four variety languages separately. For the sake of brevity, I think listing Serbo-Croatian alone is best, but wanted to see if others had different thoughts. 24.192.206.225 (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The concept of milliard must appear too in the article. JMGN (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)