` ::The last part of your reasoning, ``potentially ambiguous for non-native speakers from countries which use the long scale``, may be suited for a discussion at WT:DATE, but for articles like this one, MOS:TIES overrides that concern. Speaking of discussions at WT:DATE, it looks like the most recent on the subject was ``Short scale billion``, which you actually initiated! Although a clear consensus wasn't established, it is evident from those interpreting MOS:NUMERAL that it was suggesting the use of billion as a widespread replacement for thousand million, whether or not the editors in that discussion agreed with it or not. So the interpretation that billion is being recommended by the guideline seems pretty clear from both sides of the argument. One point made by  that I'd like to reiterate is that the British English style guides listed here recommend the use of the short scale. Also interesting to note is that the PDF you linked to above actually acknowledges that the short scale billion is used internationally – further reason for us not to worry about its perceived meaning. I'm not challenging the fact that there are still some in the UK that may take pause at the sight of the word billion, but we would need some evidence that this is a significant concern that applies to a significant amount of the population. So far, that's only a theoretical notion. I can't imagine that someone reading Wikipedia doesn't read or listen to UK media, which overwhelmingly transitioned to the short scale by the early 1980s. Taking pause and being confused are two very different things, and in the context of a film, I doubt anyone would think for a second that the movie made a trillion; context matters.    `