`==bcm versus km³== Dear Gene Nygaard, You said that generally everyone understands km³. I am not sure about this statement and find this use quite unusual and misleading. Could you please give any example in gas industry where km³ is used (maybe just some newspaper article)? Also, if youd could find any article in wikipeedia about gas fileds or pipelines, which use km³, I would like to get a reference.    :Google ``natural gas`` ``km3``  823 hits  :Note that Google, as far as I know, won't search for the ³ character, but this gets those that use either html superscripts, or just ``km3`` and the like.  :There are other ways to find more of them.  You will of course find many using bcm as well.  But as I pointed out, that may be jargon used within the industry, but it is not known outside the industry (there might possibly be other little pockets of its usage in other contexts, even less known).   :another search, on AltaVista: :km³ ``natural gas`` 3130 hits.   :AltaVista appears to treat ³ and 3 as synonymous, unlike Google. You can limit them to .gov sites, or to .edu sites, too, to see that this isn't ``newspaper usage`` but in fact more likely to take place in more serious and professional contexts.    ::BTW, if you were arguing about ``tcf`` you'd maybe have a better case.  That is common enough in the industry, more so than ``bcm``, that it is better known outside the industry, too.    :::I am able to use different search engages. However, could you please give any example of use km³  as an unit of capacity of gas pipeline? Concerning tcf (trillion cubic feet) - it's used more in the US gas industry, while bcm is used mainly in Europe. Don't see problem with this. If you look the external links of this artcile, you will find both: tcf and bcm, depending of the source.  ::: In the petroleum industry the unit systems used are Oilfield and Metric like what was mentoned above, all depending on where you are and who you are working with. However I have never come across km³ being used to describe gas field sizes or gas production and if someone was to describe a field or gas production in such a way to someone in the industry it would have no revelace to them, it is not a standard of unit. It would have to be Bcm, Mcm, E3M3, Bcf, Tcf, MMscf, Mscf etc.     ::::Surely, we writing for a general audience not only for people in certain industries.  km³ is standard SI if some people in some industry want to use something else, then that's their problem.  P.S. Hello Gene. p   :::: Very true Jimp we are writing for a general audience. And when i searched some news articles by the likes of Forbes, CNN Money etc on Google news in the past month for the phrase km3 in relation to gas/gasfield/ gas field/ ``natural gas`` it returns one result from Petroleum World. However the units tcf, bcf, bcm return   at least 102, 147,  51 hits when used with the above phrases. And these are from Forbes, Reuters, CNN Money, Globe and mail which i think you would agree are also writing for the General Audience. The numbers are in their hundreds of thousands when you do just a general web search for tcf, bcf and bcm compared to the 823 km3 turns up. So its not really just ``some people in some industry`` using these terms.  Cheers   :::::Sure it is.  But that's beside the point; we at Wikipedia choose to use standard unit symbols, not all the various off-the-cuff possibilities, and km³ is the standard symbol for 1,000,000,000 m³.  It isn't surprising at all that financial magazines are too innumerate when it comes to units of measure to even understand what they are, so sure they get passed on unchanged.  So what?     == Sorting on Ø's ==  Are you quite sure that ø's should be sorted under o? The ø is a separate character, and is sorted separately in Danish (a,b,c,...y,z,æ,ø,å).  |    :Yes, it's sorted differently in Danish.  But this is English Wikipedia, and in English we sort by the English alphabet. Just look at the navigation tool that appears at the top of many of the larger categories, for example:  26 letters, sometimes 10 digits as well. This is one of those letters which could alternatively be sorted under ``oe`` rather than ``o`` in some cases, but Wikipedia:Categorization suggests using the single letter in cases like this.  I'll use ``oe`` if I see some evidence of actual use of that spelling in English (as is the case of the use of ``Oerst.`` as an abbreviation in biological taxonomy), otherwise ``o``, and usually won't change it if someone used one or the other.     ::In Danish, I wouldn't be surprised to see my name sorted after Nygren.  Not in English, however.     ::I would think that was more graciously handled in software, by making Mediawiki sort ø's under o. That way, no information is lost, and you can choose to sort it differently if you need to another day.  |    :::Yes, that would probably keep it from being messed up.  If that were easily accomplished, it probably would have been done long ago.  One of the problems is that the same character in different languages is often treated differently. Or in the same language (should ö be sorted as ``oe`` or ``o``, for example, in whatever language). The name order part isn't easily automated, nor the thing about sorting River Clyde under Clyde in rivers categories :::The capitalization problems are another unresolved problem.  Note that our sorting is just by Unicode number, not according to the sorting rules in any language (note that if this sorting is used, Danes would look like a bunch of Swedes in disguise, with ``Å`` coming before ``Æ`` and before ``Ø`` rather than after).  Even punctuation or any other characters are sorted.  But the letters ``a to z`` all come after ``A to Z``.  The letters such as ``Ø`` always come before their own lowercase forms such as ``ö``.  But the uppercase letters with diacritics all follow lowercase a–z and all but one precede other uppercase letters, some of which might be sorted below it in the rules peculiar to any particular language.    ::::If that were easily accomplished, it probably would have been done long ago. I don't subscribe to that. There are plenty of relatively easy to accomplish things which are just not done. See for example the Wikipedia blocking system, which just recently had a bunch of obvious fixes applied, such as being able to block only IP edits without blocking registrered accounts. Unicode has sorting rules defined as part of the standard, with different sorting rules for different languages; I am guessing we just need to import the English sorting rules into Mediawiki. |    :::::Wrong.  That doesn't exist.  Unicode provides a method of implementing the sorting, and there are various implementations in different languages.  But there is no official English language implementation.  Sorting rules vary not only by language, but also by country and also by application to a particular purpose.  There is no overall English rule.    ::::::Well, then we just choose a particular implementation for English. We would have to do that anyway.  |    == Goran Stanić ==  Err, no idea what you're talking about. They weren't redlinks beforehand. (By the way, you need to work on your approach.) -    :See Wikipedia:Cheatsheet if you need help in making a redirect.  Of course, maybe its a nobody who might be deleted on notability grounds; can't think of any other reasons you'd want to keep this article hidden.    ::Yep, he's hidden right there on the St. Johnstone page. -   :::More relevantly, he's hidden right here on my talk page:  Goran Stanic.  :::And more importantly yet, he's hidden from anybody who puts ``Goran Stanic`` in the search box and clicks on ``Go``.  Someone who reads about him in an English newspaper or sports magazine, for example, and wants to see if Wikipedia has anything about him.  No, guess notthat was a waste of time.  :::Furthermore, his article is '''[[UE Lleida#All former foreign players|hidden 