Talk:Hereford Arizona Observatory

Created talk-page
Created talk-page for Hereford Arizona Observatory - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Relevant comments
 --- Possible conversion problem? ---

Copied from "Village pump (technical)" (Drbogdan (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC))

Discovered with the newly created article "Hereford Arizona Observatory" => (esp the altitude unit ).

Seems that there may be two different results for basic conversions: one result via     => 1420 m (4670 ft);  and another result, via WikiData ( at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q40787894 ), which is significantly different => 1420 m (4660 ft) instead.

AFAIK ATM - both can't be right; but both could be wrong.

Possible explanations - or solutions - Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Q40787894 shows that Hereford Arizona Observatory has "elevation above sea level 1,420 metre", whereas the article has "at an altitude of 4670 ft ".
 * 1,420 m is 4,658.8 ft which convert rounds to 4,660 ft.
 * 4,670 ft is 1,423.4 m which convert rounds to 1,420 m.
 * The reference should be consulted to see exactly what it says, and the value in the article and the value at Wikidata should be changed to be the same.
 * By the way, please use  instead of the deprecated  . Also, the convert in the OP ( 1420 ft ) is not used in the article and does not give the result shown in the OP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all:  ? 1420 ft so you've slipped up in the transcription somewhere.
 * Did you intend to write:  ? 1420 m
 * That's what you'd expect since 1420 m is equal to 4659 ft to the nearest foot.
 * You can find cases where convert seems to give a peculiar result because of having to estimate how many significant figures are appropriate.
 * One seeming discepancy actually arises if you observe:
 * ? 4650 ft
 * ? 4660 ft
 * ? 4670 ft
 * so 4660 ft, 4660 ft and 4670 ft all convert to 1420 m. But that's not surprising if the display is being rounded to 3 sig fig (as it is by default because the input has only 3 sig fig).
 * However:
 * ? 4650 ft
 * ? 4660 ft
 * ? 4670 ft
 * Does that explain it for you? --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does that explain it for you? --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the *very good* comments - seems the problem may be resolved by carefully considering sig-figures and rounding-off nos - a closer look at the original ref may be indicated - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 --- Thank you for edits re Hereford Arizona Observatory ---

Copied from "User talk:RexxS" (Drbogdan (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC))

Thank you for your recent edits on "Hereford Arizona Observatory" - and the related "Q40787894" (as well as your recent comments on the Village Pump at => "Village pump (technical)") - however - it seems that the altitude value no longer displays in the  on the "Hereford Arizona Observatory" page - Questions => is there some fix for this? - or maybe just leave the altitude value out? - in any regards - Thanks again for your recent comments and edits - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it doesn't and I've just spent the last hour trying to track down why. It seems that  works if the value on Wikidata is in metres, but   gives nothing if the value on Wikidata is in feet. I'm loathe to change the Wikidata back to metres as the source is US and it specified feet as the principal unit. I'd rather try to figure out why convert isn't working as I expected it to. However, if I can't fix it, then we should re-edit  to restore feet. I hope you'll be prepared to bear with me for another hour or so, while I try to work through the code in Module:Convert and its sub-modules to find a reason. I'll just bring this to the attention of  in case they have seen the problem before.
 * Specifically:
 * in gives:
 * in gives:


 * → m undefined
 * → ft undefined
 * → undefined undefined
 * in gives:
 * in gives:


 * → m undefined
 * → ft undefined
 * → undefined undefined
 * Should I have expected that, John, Mike? --RexxS (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is weird. It works fine at Kopernik Observatory & Science Center... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, found it. Please use the unit of feet rather than talking about anatomical structures. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For my part, in reply to comments by User:RexxS above => Yes - no problem whatsoever - take all the time you like - seems the altitude values should be a bit more in agreement I would think ( ie, 1,423 m (4,670 ft)/"Hereford Arizona Observatory" text VS 4,670 ft (1,420 m)/"Q40787894" data ) - Thanks for your comments and all - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, well spotted! – naturally the Ajax on Wikidata is just small enough for me to misclick on and then disappear leaving no obvious indication (apart from a link, I suppose, but who spots that at my age?). If you really wanted to do some subtle vandalism, that would be a corker! --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, well spotted! – naturally the Ajax on Wikidata is just small enough for me to misclick on and then disappear leaving no obvious indication (apart from a link, I suppose, but who spots that at my age?). If you really wanted to do some subtle vandalism, that would be a corker! --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)