Template talk:Convert/Archive August 2009

Dual pressure
Combine 160 psi and 160 psi as 160 psi etc. Peter Horn User talk 01:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's doable. Personally, I'd rather convert to kPa only and forget about the bar but if you think it useful Convert/bar kPa could be made easily enough. J IM ptalk·cont 06:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the infobox of Edward M. Cotter (fireboat) I had to resort to 160 psi or (160 psi). Originally it read 160 psi (11 bar). Peter Horn User talk 01:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we don't just forget the bar altogether "160 psi (1,100 kPa)" seems fine to me. Now if we wanted kPa with mmHg/atm/inHg, that'll make sense but bars and kilopascals are only a couple of decimal points away from each other.  Anyhow, that's just my idea & I'm sure I don't speak for the whole encyclopædia.  Nobody else had put forth an opinion so ... J IM ptalk·cont 05:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: the combinations,   and   have also been recently added. J IM ptalk·cont 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing unit: GPa
Pa, kPa and MPa are all there. But GPa is quite often used in engineering and physics, so would be nice and logical as well. And it is already used by at least one page, where it of course fails: Water_(properties).

The factor should of course be 1,000,000,000. But I haven't got the faintest idea how to add this unit. I hope that it is just a simple matter by someone skilled in the art. Thanks Tøpholm (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. J IM ptalk·cont 22:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just updated the documentation page: Template:Convert/list_of_units/extra. Hope I did it right. Tøpholm (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! In just 2 minutes... Thats impressive!
 * Jimp is the master! Always does a good job. Just a compliment. SimonTrew (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Undocumented temperature interval support
I had to dig into the talk archives to determine that temperature intervals are supported (e.g. 60 F-change produces 60 F-change, while 60 F produces 60 F); could someone document their existence? Thanks. 67.100.126.3 (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I dont understand what you mean by interval there? You mean fractions of a degree? 60 F seems to work.


 * By the way do we support Réaumur? 0 = freezing and 80 = boiling (of water)? SimonTrew (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP is correct, by the way you don't need the second "-change", what they are trying to do is something like;
 * "-10 F to 50 F, is a difference of 60 F-change." ( -10 F to 50 F, is a difference of 60 F-change. )
 * rather than
 * "-10 F to 50 F, is a difference of 60 F." ( -10 F to 50 F, is a difference of 60 undefined. ) Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For example,
 * → "It takes 1 kcal to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water 1 C-change."
 * Note that when Cambridge Bay Weather says "you don't need the second '-change'" he means you don't need the second "C-change" or "F-change". won't give you anything sensible.
 * No, there is currently support for only the Kelvin, Celsius, Rankine & Foreignheight scales. Is the Réaumur scale used on any article? J IM ptalk·cont 18:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there is currently support for only the Kelvin, Celsius, Rankine & Foreignheight scales. Is the Réaumur scale used on any article? J IM ptalk·cont 18:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never seen an article that uses Réamur. But that is slightly arguing back to front: If we had one somene might use it. That being said it would be useless as a default conversion. But since it is just four fifths of Celcius I wondered if it was easy to add but if not, then not worth the bother I agree (if that is what you are implying). The likeliest place to look, I would imagine, are topics on the Napoleonic Wars. (Not suggesting you look, you are busy enough, but just hazarding a guess). I just checked my (rather old) copy of The French Revolution by Carlyle but it does not have an index, so I couldn't make a quick answer without reading it all again (and, for me, it is bloody boring). Probably best left aside. SimonTrew (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You do have a point that if it did exist, then someone might use it. Of course, we don't need conversions to degrees Réamur.  I'll have a quick search but I'd imagine that even Napoleonic Wars article sources would use Celsius or Fahrenheit. J IM ptalk·cont 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I found one mention: French invasion of Russia (nothing to convert here though). J IM ptalk·cont 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Volume conversion l × w × h
This matter was moved to Template talk:Convert/Archive July 2009 without ever having been resolved. Not very helpful. Peter Horn User talk 01:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. The page is archived by a bot which can't tell what's been resolved or not.  It's no simple matter to resolve but it's not forgotten. J IM ptalk·cont 09:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Useful for intermodal container. Peter Horn User talk 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

spelling out the lk parameter
I think that using "lk" as a parameter name is a bit too much abbreviation. Can this be changed so that the parameter name is fully spelled out ("link")? "lk" is not really an obvious abbreviation for "link" anyway. At just 4 letters, the need to abbreviate "link" is basically non-existent as well. — V = I * R  (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never had a problem with "lk" as an abbeviation for "link", to me it is a nonissue. Peter Horn User talk 15:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be but I'm not sure that it would give any advantage. In the vast majority of cases linking is unnecessary. If anything we should probably be discouraging linking (of common units) per WP:OVERLINK. J IM ptalk·cont 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The solution to the overlink issue seems to simply be intentionally not defining the parameter when used with certain (ie.: those considered to be Common) parameters.
 * Regardless, that's a whole separate issue. The only reason why I started this was due to the fact that I had to really search around before figuring out that "lk" stood for "link". Regardless of the appropriateness of the parameters usage in specific instances, the parameters usability is severly compromised by the current oddly abbreviated parameter name. If the consensus is that Overlink is an overriding concern here, then the solution should be to remove the parameter completely. — V = I * R  (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes links are appropriate. If you had to search, then perhaps we need to rewrite the doc page. J IM ptalk·cont 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not have both "lk=on" & "link=on" to keep everybody happy? Links are relevant and useful in the case of unfamiliar or obscure units. Peter Horn User talk 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we have  at all, we should still keep both since too large a number of instances use that to go switching over. Then we'd have two options for producing links.  Would this make the template easier to use?  I wonder whether the use of this template isn't enough to get your head around without adding another option which brings with it no increase in functionality. Of course, we'd mention both on the doc page, increasing the clutter.  It would also mean more code making it slightly harder to figure out and maybe slightly less trim with respect to template limitations.  I'm just not convinced it's worth it. J IM ptalk·cont 21:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually "lk" is just fine. "lk=on", "lk=in" and "lk=out". What is quite handy is that the letters "l" and "k" are right next to each other on the keyboard. Peter Horn User talk 01:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Parameter "or"
in Wagonway I had to resort to 15 lb or 17 lb as well as 12 ft or 15 ft instead of being able to use 15 or and 12 or. Can some one do this, or teach me how to? Peter Horn User talk 15:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be working now. If you have any problems, please say so. J IM ptalk·cont 19:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And work it does, thanks. Could you do the same for "and"? Peter Horn User talk 21:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I couldn't ... since  is already done. J IM ptalk·cont 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Peter Horn User talk 01:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor discrepency or small bug
Minor discrepency or small bug? In Wagonway, compare 3 by & 3.75 in. There is a small difference of 0.1 mm! Peter Horn User talk 21:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly 3.75 in is exactly mm so it should have been rounded up to 95.3 mm not down to 95.2 mm. That's strange. J IM ptalk·cont 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless bankers' rounding is used. Both rounding up and rounding down is correct when the value is exactly half-way, but it should be consistent for any given number. -- A. di M. 13:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again: 3 by & 3.75 in. So as to get consistent results, one would either have to go to two decimal places or tweak one of the two conversions (templates). Peter Horn User talk 22:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why no common fractions
Rail profile, 300 mm. Why not a common fractions, unlike say or  gauge? Or would that be just too complicated? Peter Horn User talk 00:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 12+1/4 in is possible but converting to a fraction is not possible at the momment. J IM ptalk·cont 14:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bug in display of unconverted number
It looks to me as if the code that adds commas into the numbers is buggy. It seems to confuse the number of trailing zeros with the number of trailing zeros after the decimal point: All table cells in red are examples of the bug. It cuts off one trailing zero of the unconverted number in the third column and two in the fourth.

I found this when explaining at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) why an unrelated problem can't be avoided. Hans Adler 09:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The bug is somewhere in convert/numdisp (including the other subtemplates it calls). J IM ptalk·cont 11:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the problem should be solved if we use the following new code on.



J IM ptalk·cont 15:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have no idea what this code does, and the thought that, as the template above says "an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately" seems a bit scary in this case. Let's hope everythings goes well. Hans Adler 15:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's basically what it does:
 * convert/numdisp separates the input into a part before the "/" and the part after and sends them to as  and  respectively.
 * The  in  checks whether the input is a fraction (if there is no "/" then  is empty)
 * If the input is fractional then data is sent to convert/numdisp/frac which displays the fraction (this part is functioning normally so need not be changed).
 * If the input is fractional it will just get formatted with this is a simplification of the code.  Something is going wrong with the current calls on  and  but they shouldn't be necessary.
 * J IM ptalk·cont 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Requested edit has been performed. If there are any problems seen, leave a note on my talk page immediately so I can reverse. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The bug seems to be gone. J IM ptalk·cont 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The bug is in.

Taking the above table & replacing the with  gives the following.

J IM ptalk·cont 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the code for. It fixes the bug. It's on the talk page. J IM ptalk·cont 00:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * With the new Precision code installed, looks like the above problems have been resolved. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New rounding template codes
The template can begin to take advantage of the improvements to. This will mean new code for the rounding subtemplates. First let's start with.

Its new code is 

J IM ptalk·cont 02:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! It seems to be working okay.
 * → "11+1/2 in"
 * There are more, though. I'll have to make a list of the templates which need adjusting. J IM ptalk·cont 09:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Make the list, compile everything I need, and shoot a message to my talk page. Signing off for the night. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with fractions
I have found that


 * 14+3/4 in  gives   14+3/4 in

i.e. there are far more decimal places than I would normally expect. Can the default number of decimal places (or significant figures) be made more reasonable when converting from fractions? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not yet.


 * 14+3/4 in  giving    14+3/4 in
 * or
 * 14+3/4 in  giving    14+3/4 in


 * is about your only option right now. The autorounding doesn't yet deal with fractions.  It'll be a while before it does. J IM ptalk·cont 07:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also

14+3/4 in  giving   14+3/4 in
 * 14+3/4 in  giving   14+3/4 in
 * 14+3/4 in  giving   14+3/4 in
 * 14+3/4 in  giving   14+3/4 in. Peter Horn User talk 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redone Peter Horn User talk 02:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's working. Autorounding with fractional input is working for most units.

J IM ptalk·cont 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

US liquid barrels
Something is going wrong with the following two barrel conversions: The output values should all be in the millions not in the thousands (the other barrels I tried worked correctly). —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 75000 USbbl
 * 75000 USbeerbbl


 * The problem is
 * Somehow this subtemplate escaped the change over to cubic metres as the basis for volumes on the template.


 * Here's the correct code for the subtemplate.



J IM ptalk·cont 23:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 23:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, before the fix the convert statements above produced instead of Thanks for the fix. Plastikspork (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 75,000 US barrels (8,900 l; 2,400 US gal; 2,000 imp gal)
 * 75,000 US beer barrels (8,800 l; 2,300 US gal; 1,900 imp gal)
 * 75,000 US barrels (8,900,000 l; 2,400,000 US gal; 2,000,000 imp gal)
 * 75,000 US beer barrels (8,800,000 l; 2,300,000 US gal; 1,900,000 imp gal)

Not sure this is the right place, but I get errors when I try to convert litres to gallons. For example, 1000 l. What is the correct way to do this? Lfstevens (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Try it without the space.
 * → "1000 l"
 * J IM ptalk·cont 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

kg/cm2
Can I get a conversion for kg per square centimeter, please? I'd like to be able to convert from that to pounds per square inch when dealing with steam pressure in warship engines and AFV ground pressure. I'm sure that I could do this manually if I understood the metric pressure system better, but it would just be easier if somebody could add this as a regular unit of conversion. Thanks in advance! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It already exists. Try using  100 kg/cm2 , which produces 100 kg/cm2. However, the proper units for pressure in SI are pascals (Pa). Kilograms per square centimetre is a nonstandard metric unit because kilograms are a unit of mass, not a unit of force. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take it a bit further: 100 kg/cm2. Peter Horn User talk 23:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Too be more exact, 100 kg/cm2 Peter Horn User talk 00:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

kPa
Try this: 100 kg/cm2, it works! Peter Horn User talk 00:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Peter, thanks a bunch. If it's not something that I missed it should be added to the listing of available units. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are so welcome Sturmvogel, I just experimented...and it worked. Peter Horn User talk 02:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)k

"(Template:Convert/LoffAonDonSoff)"
Please see Saffron:


 * "saffron-growing regions in Greece (500 mm annually) and Spain (400 mm) are far drier."

— Saravask (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've amended  to   in Saffron. Rare proof that even Jimp is only human and can make typos on rare occasions. Seems he's taking some downtime at the moment. --Qwfp (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly understandable. Thanks for your kind help. Regards. Saravask (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

pounds per foot to kilograms per meter and vice versa
Theodore Cooper 1000 lb/ft instead of 1000 lb per 1 ft compare to 3000 lb/yd Peter Horn User talk 02:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done J IM ptalk·cont 11:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Bug report
Defining an empty parameter lk seems to cause problems. For example: &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2500 km2 produces 2500 km2


 * The answer is don't put empty parameters, there is no bug.


 * 2500 km2 or 2500 km2
 * 2500 km2 or 2500 km2 Peter Horn User talk 01:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. But if it can't handle empty paramters then this certainly is a bug. I'll have a look into fixing it when I get a chance. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Route miles conversion
London, Brighton and South Coast Railway gives "170 route miles". 170 rtmi or 170 rtmi, would this be possible? Peter Horn User talk 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody has bitten so far. Peter Horn User talk 02:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Vice versa may also be usefull. Peter Horn User talk 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done
 * → "170 rtmi"
 * → "170 rtkm"
 * J IM ptalk·cont 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I will bite. I see no need in the conversion. These are, in a sense, specialist units that are not really admitting of conversions, e.g. as it is not very useful to convert carats for gemstones into other units of mass, even though conversions exist. UK and Irish railways are measured in route miles from the terminus; European ones in route kilometres. It makes little sense to talk about British railways in route kilometres, as far as I can see. It is a weak argument, I know, but just my two penn'orth. That being said, MOSNUM does recommend all units are converted.... SimonTrew (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like I am too late! Jimp has done it anyway! SimonTrew (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Metres/sec to knots
The METAR article mentions a windspeed in metres per second. In aviation, the knot is the usual unit of measurement. Therefore shouldn't we be able to convert mps to kn, mph and km/h? Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You can already do, e.g.:
 * → 3 m/s
 * → 3 m/s
 * → 3 m/s
 * You can't convert m/s to all three of kn, mph and km/h in a single combination, if that's what you mean. I don't think any such triple combinations are supported at present and I'm not sure how useful they'd be. --Qwfp (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, couldn't find it! I didn't mean to have all three at once. I don't see how that would be useful. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Triple conversions are possible (though few are supported) but, in this case, how about knots & feet per second? J IM ptalk·cont 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In what field are feet per second used? I have never come across them, perhaps it is a US thing? I remember being told that gravity is (roughly) 32 feet per square second but I can't remember ever seeing feet per second. I am probably missing something obvious here, but even in the US nowadays in scientific fields surely SI is the norm? SimonTrew (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with decimal areas when used in Infobox
There seems to be an odd problem with converting areas when this template is used with Template:Infobox, and decimal area values. Here is an example:

where Template:Infobox Islands/Sandbox contains:

gives:

It is fine when the value is an integer, and Template:Convert is also fine with decimals outside other templates. --Ozhiker (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. Something's definitely broken recently regarding this - have a look at the breakage at Kris Boyd for instance. I can imagine this has led to very visible fallout all over the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it diff. Thank god for Special:RelatedChanges. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Any chance something similar is up with template:infobox artwork/sandbox? This seems to have broken over the last 36 hours or so, though isn't fixed by your revert there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Template:infobox artwork/sandbox looks fine to me. Sometimes you need to purge the page in order to update.  This can be done either by hitting "purge" (if it exists) or by opening the edit page & saving (if you can). J IM ptalk·cont 18:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, still broken. Have a look at the bottom example on the test cases page, which is the only example which currently uses the convert code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No need for protection
edit protected These are not transcluded outside the template. They are used for maintainance. Please unprotect them. J IM ptalk·cont 07:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the admin protecting these pages I have asked User:fl to attend to this request. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Happy editing! ~ fl 02:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. J IM ptalk·cont 05:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

CO2 per mile
In Electric Car, which I tend to get a lot of conversions tha are not supported, there are a few for volume of CO2 per mile (i.e. emissions). Is it worthwhile having a conversion template here? I am not sure what would be useful on the source and destination sides of the conversion (apart from obviously km) but I guess cubic inches against litres (liters) or perhaps kilograms? Is it worth it?

That article (which BTW heavily uses the convert template, thank you very much for it!) may be one of the few that uses it, so perhaps not worth justifying its use. Or someone (Jimp probably) will tell me it's already there but I could not find it. Ideally I want x lb per mi (y kg per km). But obviously when there are multiple sensible source and destination units I can see this becoming a combinatorial explosion.

It also uses MPGe i.e. miles per gallonus equivalent, i.e. to try to compare the amount of energy(?) used per mile for gasoline and electric vehicles (which also leads to the interesting subject that if a diesel engine of the same capacity does twice the miles is its MPGe factor two? That seems to be moot). I have not even attempted a conversion here since it seems a very specific unit defined by the US goverment agencies, and so not really appropriate to translate into liters per 100 kilometres equivalent or whatever. Again, any advice wanted, but I would say this should not bother to be converted, and certainly not the bother of writing a template for. SimonTrew (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at the article. Yeah, "0.915 lb (0.415 kg) per mile" is no conversion ... it's just useless.  Unlike the -type templates  only needs one template per unit (normally) so things won't explode. J IM ptalk·cont 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got the following done:
 * → "88 lb/mi"
 * → "88 kg/km"
 * → "88 oz/mi"
 * → "88 g/km"
 * → "88 lbCO2/mi"
 * → "88 kgCO2/km"
 * → "88 ozCO2/mi"
 * → "88 gCO2/km"


 * ... but do we want "88 pounds of per mile (25 kg/km)" or "88 pounds of  per mile (25 kg/km)"?


 * Is volume per distance also used?


 * MPGe is really an energy-per-distance unit so it should be converted to joules per metre or something. I've seen some fancy attempts to convert this to litres of petrol equivalent per hundred kilometres and other such stuff but I'm not quite sure this is valid. J IM ptalk·cont


 * J IM ptalk·cont 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jimp.


 * In the Electric car article volume per distance is not used, but really since e.g. gallons per mile and litres per kilometres are of course volume per distance I suppose gallons of per mile etc also follow that, just happen to have a different unit name-- and if we're not careful could . I guess the thin is w.th m.p.g. the fact that the quantity is gasoline is implied, whereas with  it is spelt out: one could imagine a whole plethora of it being, etc, so this could get a bit silly.


 * I was wondering if volume should also be provided as well as mass, but I've got no real answer to that one. Do people say e.g. 88 cubic inches of per mile etc? I would imagine not, since of course its volume varies enormously, being a gas. But for liquids in other contexts I could see they might. Or did you mean specifically for ?


 * I agree the MPGe is not really validly converted to anything else. It is like trying to convert Rohms hardness or gas mark (for UK gas cookers), there is no real meaningful conversion.


 * I will put those templates to use in Electric Car, if you haven't already. Thanks again. SimonTrew (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done some but the article still needs work. The is mixed with other gasses but even if we're talking about the volume of  we would have were it pure, we still have to factor temperature and pressure in.  So there's good reason not to talk of the volume of  produced per unit distance travelled. J IM ptalk·cont 10:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Energy per unit distance & distance per unit energy
We're going to want to convert between, right? As with litres per hundred kilometres vs miles per gallon. This'll be fun ... J IM ptalk·cont 00:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In order to get this up and running without having to worry about having people try to convert between incompatible units I have some small edits to add to a large number of subtemplates.

Towards the end of each of these there is a something. I'd like to add a  next to these ("d" for display & "D" for dimension).

... but that's only half the fun. J IM ptalk·cont 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The other half involves the following subtemplates.

The single-unit subtemplates want their  replaced with a   and they want to have a   added to them (voldist for volume-distance).

The double-unit subtemplates only need the first  replaced with a   and they don't need.

J IM ptalk·cont 01:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * New units

J IM ptalk·cont 05:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you are trying to do with, because the syntax seems incorrect. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, that's meant to be a colon not a semicolon. What   is meant to do is send you to an error message if you try convert incompatible units i.e. between fuel efficiency and energy efficiency. Like this  → "5 to 10 mpgus". J IM ptalk·cont 09:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just the semicolon that was wrong; the whole parameter was missing. I see you've now corrected this, but it worries me that you would request such a major change to an important template that contained such a fundamental error. I would suggest making sandbox versions of your proposed code and testing extensively first. It would also be a good idea to get someone else who is familiar with this template to check your code before replacing the request. Regards, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern but I have tested it extensively. The whole missing parameter was a product of not putting it in nowikis. I'm not sure who I'd ask to check the code.  Why don't we take it bit by bit? Make the edits to convert/LoutAonDsSoffF and convert/impgal/mi (they haven't managed to find any use) then we'll test them and see how things go. J IM ptalk·cont 17:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad behaviour on documentation pages
It was pointed out to me that a bug that was present back in March has returned and it seems to me that it occured within the last few days. It involves template documentation pages. For examples check out User:Droll/bug. The first and third examples had been working since the fix back in March. The second example has always caused and exception. You can find a living example of a documentation page with the problem at Template:Infobox Protected area. I learned of this from PC78 who has mentioned to MSGJ and Jimp. I hope someone here can help. Thanks – droll  &#91;chat&#93;
 * It's odd. J IM ptalk·cont 18:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some digging and I found that User:CapitalR changed Jimp's version on March 17, 2009. This is surly the fix that resolved the issue last March. None of the other sub-templates have been edited since then. Here are some examples of the bug affecting current doc pages:
 * Infobox Protected area (one I wrote and that uses infobox
 * Infobox Firearm Cartridge (does not use infobox)
 * Ft to m (this one and the one above used as example here)
 * All seem to accuse Rnd/b but that might change if the sign of the number changed, etc. Interestingly doing the Google search of en.wikipedia.org for "rnd/bExpression error" resulted in only one hit, Rnd/a0, but that message appeared because there was no includeonly and I just changed that. This would suggest that something happened since Google last crawled en.wikipedia.org. I'm thinking that fudging the examples on the doc pages might be the best solution for now. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;

disp=table and sortable=on
Is there any way to fix the alignment problem caused by using sortable=on; Currently what I'm getting is The problem is caused by "sortable=on" | Place A Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 100 m
 * Place A
 * 100 m
 * Place B
 * 2000 m
 * Place B
 * 2000 m
 * Place B
 * 2000 m
 * 2000 m


 * It's not optimal but this will work.

| Place A
 * 100 m
 * Place A
 * align=right 100 m
 * Place B
 * 2000 m
 * Place B
 * align=right 2000 m
 * Place B
 * align=right 2000 m
 * align=right 2000 m


 * J IM ptalk·cont 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That will do fine for what I want. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuel efficiency in tables


The code of is incorrect. The correct code is at which can be tested using   as is shown below. Note the error using the current code.

Please replace the current code of with the code of  (as shown below).



J IM ptalk·cont 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — RockMFR 02:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks J IM ptalk·cont 22:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

$ per square foot conversion
I need a template for converting $/square foot to $/square meter. Can convert be adapted for such a purpose? I need such a template at Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) and I doubt this is the only place it could be useful on wikipedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into it. J IM ptalk·cont 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got a very basic version working.
 * → "100 $/m2"
 * → "100 $/sqft"
 * → "100 $/m2"
 * → "100 $/sqft"
 * By "basic" I mean you've got two options: abbreviate or not—linking, tables, adjectives, etc. are yet to come. J IM ptalk·cont 00:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good work!
This template is very useful and very well done. Kudos to all those who made it.  Oreo Priest  talk 02:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Range and sig figs problem
This: 1 to 2.5 m ( 1 to 2.5 m ) doesn't work. Any idea how to fix it?
 * I'll have a look. In the mean time try . J IM ptalk·cont 03:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That works, thanks.  Oreo Priest  talk 03:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Combo request: acre, km2, ha
I came to this talk page planning to request support for another combination conversion as described at Template:Convert. I checked the talk archive and found Template talk:Convert/Archive May 2008, and thought the topic warrants further discussion before I make the request.

The scenario is this: I'm editing and article about a place in the United States for which the primary source mentions the acreage of a couple of parcels of land. To make the number more meaningful to the broader set of English-reading Wikipedia users, I thought after a minimal amount of research that showing the number as acres/ha/sqkm would be the best approach. Sure, the math used to convert sqkm to ha is trivial, but the article is not about surveying or math; the goal is to just let the reader take note of the acreage without distracting them with math, however simple. Lacking the three-way combination support I want in convert, and not wanting to use two converts, my minimal research suggests acre/ha are the two to go with, particularly for parcels of land on the order of about 50 acre. Going with sqm, e.g. 50 acre seems distracting too.

Depending on the direction this discussion takes, if any, I either want to request support for acres/ha/sqkm or get advice about whether acres/sqkm, acres/ha, or even acres/sqm is less distracting for acreages of less than 100. Thanks. 72.244.207.235 (talk).


 * How about 50 acre? J IM ptalk·cont 11:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)