Template talk:Convert/Archive December 2010

Which conversions give two outputs by default?
Is there a list of units in the template that give two outputs by default? Lightmouse (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Another three way conversion
For Tap water: 2 - 3 usqt instead of just 2 - 3 usqt. 2 - 3 usgal works just fine. Peter Horn User talk 22:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * DONE, in same manner:
 * {convert|2|-|3|usqt|impqt|lk=on} &rarr; 2 - 3 usqt
 * {convert|2|-|3|usqt|impqt l|lk=on} &rarr; 2 - 3 usqt
 * The name "Imperial quart" is now a redirect to "Imperial units". -Wikid77 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to have the option of imperial quart and imperial gallon but it seems to me that the default for 'Imperial' countries is cubic metre and litre. Is a three-way defaults well chosen here? Furthermore, there seems to be something wrong: Regards Lightmouse (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 30 usqt
 * 30 usgal

And yet another (others)
Long hundredweight (Lcwt) and short hundredweight (Scwt). 5 Lcwt for Daniel Lambert & 5 Scwt. Peter Horn User talk 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Template misapplications/missing units
As part of an unrelated task, I've discovered that there are quite a few failed attempts to use this template in main namespace articles. Quite a few are simple misapplications, others indicate attempts to use uncoded units. For general interest, I've popped up a simple report on the toolserver to list both cases. - TB (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have created new Template:Convert/try to warn editors when they use some invalid unit-codes (such as "meters"). However, many of those "failed attempts" are coming through the value-formatter Template:Val (from March 2008), where the user might not even realize the units in {val|44|u=xx} are connected to {Convert} (somehow) but do not get converted by {val}. Anyway, we have needed to display warning messages to users (for common mistakes by newbies), so we need more subtemplates like Template:Convert/meters to report:
 * {convert|4.6|meters} &rarr; 4.6 meters
 * Hopefully, a glaring message such as that will get their attention (and suggest to use "m") so that they can fix the invalid unit-codes rather than leave them in articles which they edit. Perhaps many users think a red " Convert/meters " indicates that "meters" will be added at some future time, but getting a message about "see Template:Convert/list of units" should help them learn which unit-codes to enter in future uses of Convert. Unfortunately, every invalid unit-code requires a separate subtemplate, but defining only the most-common invalid codes will help users to learn how to check the "list of units" more often. Meanwhile, that Toolserver report helps us to fix articles for the most unusual unit codes. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oil barrels
I've been adding the template to values in oil barrels. In accordance with this previous discussion, the template uses Moilbbl for a million barrels abbreviated as "Mbbl". However, I note that the article Barrel (unit) says Mbbl is used for thousand barrels.

So Mbbl can mean 1000 barrels or 1000000 barrels. What shall we do? Lightmouse (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From reading the Barrel (unit) article, bbl is not SI - therefore it is inappropriate to use M in the SI sense. I'd use Mbbl=1000 barrels since that is the standard within the industry.  Stepho   (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What is appropriate or inappropriate is quite immaterial and irrelevant as long as the conversion template itself uses M to mean million, e.g. 2.8 Moilbbl 2.8. To change this at this point of time would create chaos where ever this 2.8 is used, as it is in Cameron Island and no doubt else where. Peter Horn User talk 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Make that Cameron Island. Peter Horn User talk 15:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Woo-hoo, since we are allowed to mix SI prefixes and non-SI units, I'm going to read '20 kilo Leagues Under the Sea' :) How about milli furlongs or deci gallons? A bit more seriously, if the industry uses Mbbl to mean 1000 barrlels but wikipedia uses M to mean 1,000,000 then the industry professional will laugh WP as just plain wrong. Also, some editors will try correcting the numbers (eg if the 2,000,000 barrels were shipped and WP says 2 Mbbls then somebody in the industry will 'correct' it to 2000 Mbbls, which WP readers will interpret as 2,000,000,000 barrels). If we can't agree to use the industry standard use of M, then we should drop M altogether and simply use 'bbls'.  Stepho   (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The question still remains: How does one correct the wrong usage of "M" within an existing template without creating wrong information (wrong output values) where ever that template is being used in any article??? Any sugestions??? A correction of this nature would mean tracking down every use of the "incorrect" version of the template and replave it with the "corrected" version. Peter Horn User talk 19:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the sake of example let's try 2.8 MMoilbbl by inserting the extra "M" and see what happened. See what I mean? Fun and games for all. Peter Horn User talk 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 19:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Mega mille oil barrels ??? Sorry but I can't figure out the purpose of your example.  Stepho   (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1,000 x 1,000 (M x M) = 1,000,000 That was a try to point out that "nice little hole" you mention below. Peter Horn User talk 01:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, we've dug ourselves a nice little hole. I can see the following alternatives:
 * Pretend that Moilbbl really does mean 1,000,000 barrels and hope that the oil industry doesn't laugh at us.
 * Change the template so that Moilbbl means 1,000 barrels and painfully go through 265 articles ([]) with typically 3-5 uses each. Hopefully a script can do this.
 * Change each of the 265 articles from 'Moilbbls' to use only 'oilbbls'. Then change the template to be 1,000 barrels.
 * Pretend that Moilbbl means 1,000,000 barrels but never, ever use 'Moilbbl' in the final text that is presented to the reader (ie always say 'million' in the final text). That way, the unit name is still wrong but any confusion caused to editors will be blatantly obvious in the final output and the editors will (hopefully) shift the amount by 1,000 as needed.
 * My personal opinion is that #1 is wrong because it is violates industry practice, #2 is preferred but might be too costly to implement, #3 does the same as #2 but in 2 steps and that #4 is workable if #2/#3 can not be done. Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, fun and games for many if not all. Peter Horn User talk 01:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * STEP 1: Use new "MMoilbbl" for Convert/MMoilbbl to display "MMbbl" for millions. STEP 2: I will submit an "editprotected" of {Convert/Moilbbl} to display "MMbbl" for million barrels of oil:
 * {convert|6|Moilbbl}    &rarr; 6 Moilbbl
 * {convert|6|MMoilbbl}    &rarr; 6 MMoilbbl
 * {convert|6|MMoilbbl|abbr=on} &rarr; 6 MMoilbbl
 * {convert|44|MMoilbbl|abbr=on} &rarr; 44 MMoilbbl
 * {convert|44|Moilbbl|abbr=on}    &rarr; 44 Moilbbl [ will become "MMbbl" ]
 * STEP 3: Put unit code "MMoilbbl" in any high-profile articles which have abbr=on. NOTE: The current articles would only display "Mbbl" when abbr=on. To list articles currently using code "Moilbbl" see: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Convert/Moilbbl. Since the industry uses "MMbbl" for million barrels, then we will be displaying "MMbbl" instead. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't use M for thousand or MM for million says MOSNUM. "Roman prefixes are not used (M for 103, MM for 106, B for 109). Use SI prefixes instead." J IM ptalk·cont 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should state "million barrels" in high-profile articles (abbr=off, rather than "Mbbl" from abbr=on), until this split between MMbbl and Mbbl can be decided. We also use 2 other unit codes: Convert/Moilbbl/d (barrels per day) to show "Mbbl/d" when abbr=on (in some of about 100 articles), and Convert/Moilbbl/a (per annum). See: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Convert/Moilbbl/d. Google matched about 38 articles showing "Mbbl" (run site-search with: site:en.wikipedia.org Mbbl), but there might be other pages. A wiki-search for "Mbbl" finds some, but Google finds more. This event has confirmed that Google still finds more WP articles than wiki-search. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So we're back to mega-furlongs :) Since MOS outlaws M=1,000 and the industry will mock us endlessly if we use M=1,000,000, then it makes sense to ban Moilbbl and MMoilbbl altogether (ie delete their conversion sub-templates). But first we will have to edit each article to change conversions of Moilbbl and MMoilbbl into oilbbl. Anything will be ambiguous and confusing.  Stepho   (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a lot of conversions for oil barrels. I've been eliminating 'M' with 'bbl' for a while because of the ambiguity. So statistics on WP usage will not show the true usage. A ban in this template sounds like a good idea. To ban non-template use, we'll need to discuss it at mosnum. Lightmouse (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The evidence supports use of Convert/MMoilbbl (double-M), and we will need a correction for WP:MOSNUM. I searched Google and confirmed solid use of "MMbbl" (or "mmbbl") for million barrels of oil, including Exxon Mobil and PEMEX (Petroleos Mexicanos) since at least 2000, see PEMEX abbreviations & 2001 book:
 * "Abbreviations" at Pemex.com: Pemex-Abbrev-PDF.
 * The Western Gulf of Mexico Basin: tectonics, sedimentary basins (2001), Google Books link: Western-Gulf-p272.
 * Any industry standard which existed "before Wikipedia was born" has enough weight to carry. We just need to announce the issue for WP:MOSNUM consideration. This is a clear case of WP:MOSNOT ("what MOS is not" allowed to ban). Meanwhile, use "abbr=off" to avoid the abbreviations in high-profile articles. What other issues will arise from use of symbol MMbbl? -Wikid77 (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have begun discussion with WP:MOSNUM for "MMbbl" under topic: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers). We can see if there are any concerns there. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Over at Wikipedia_talk:MOSNUM, the discussion confirmed the recommended use of common industry symbols, but with the reminder to avoid them except when units are repeated, and to state the full name for each symbol ("MMbbl") when first used. I will submit an "editprotected" request to display "MMbbl" in Template:Convert/Moilbbl for abbr=on (or abbr=in). I have created Template:Convert/Mbbl to display "Mbbl" for thousands of barrels (which is actually more common in Google-search for "Mbbl" versus MMbbl). -Wikid77 17:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

New range
For User:Peter Horn/Sandbox {convert|100|-|150|ksi|MPa|abbr=values|disp=s} instead of {convert|100|ksi|MPa|abbr=values|disp=s} - {convert|150|ksi|MPa|abbr=values|disp=s} and vice versa. Peter Horn User talk 03:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I still advocate to avoid using "disp=s" and prefer "disp=x|/" so that we can remove some of the 3,200? Convert subtemplates. Hence, I have created Template:Convert/Dual/LoffAvaluesDxSoff to allow "disp=x" with "abbr=values":
 * {convert|10|-|15|km|mi|abbr=values|disp=x| / }    &rarr; 10 - 15 km
 * {convert/range|10|-|15|km|mi|abbr=values|disp=x| / } &rarr;
 * {convert/range|20|-|25|km|mi|abbr=values|disp=x| {|}|3} &rarr;


 * {convert|100|-|150|ksi|MPa|abbr=values|disp=x| / } &rarr; 100 - 150 ksi
 * {convert/range|200|xx|250|ksi|MPa|abbr=values|disp=x| or } &rarr;
 * I am still working to request {editprotected} updates to dozens of other subtemplates to pass parameters {5}, {6}, {7} and {8} to support the new disp=x option. Until Template:Convert/MPa is updated, the missing "{5}" will be displayed. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbbl for thousand barrels of chemicals/oil
I have created Template:Convert/Mbbl to display "Mbbl" for thousand barrels (of chemicals or oil). Over at WP:MOSNUM (topic Wikipedia_talk:MOSNUM), the discussion confirmed the recommended use of common industry symbols, but with the reminder to avoid them except when units are repeated, and to state the full name for each symbol ("Mbbl") when first used. With Mbbl being a common unit, I have created Template:Convert/Mbbl to display "Mbbl" for thousands of barrels, because it is actually more common than "MMbbl" in Google-search for "Mbbl" thousands versus MMbbl millions). -Wikid77 17:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bug with range conversions from ly to kpc
yields 70,000–100,000 light-years (21– Expression error: Unexpected &lt; operator kpc). A. di M. (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But, yields 70000 - 100000 ly? Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  03:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you asking for a 0 ? Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I forgot to remove the comma... Should be more careful next time. A. di M. (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Display units inverted as reverse order
When using the "|disp=flip" parameter to display units inverted as reverse order, 6 km shows as "3.2 mi (6 kilometres)".

Would it be possible for someone with more technical knowledge than I do to have "mi" spelt out as "miles", but to have "kilometres" abbreviated to "km"?

I am aware that using "abbr=in" will fix the second issue, but it is not ideal and does not address my first concern. This is currently affecting the Nissan Leaf article. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I found that out yesterday too but settled on abbr=on as the quick solution. Try these combos.


 * Cheers.  Stepho   (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * DONE. I have begun setting the left-side to show unit name, while right-side as unit symbol. Examples:
 * {&#123;convert|6|km|disp=flip}}    &rarr; 6 km
 * {&#123;convert|6|km|disp=flip|lk=on}} &rarr; 6 km
 * {&#123;convert|6|km|disp=flip|lk=in}} &rarr; 6 km
 * I will hunt the related subtemplates and also fix them to match. Thanks for reporting the problem. I had been overwhelmed by other issues of flipping results and did not set the abbreviations to match, when I first created those subtemplates. -Wikid77 19:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's much better. Thanks for getting onto it (and fixing it) in such a short period of time. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just discovered a bug:  produces: 160 km (100-mile).


 * So there is some issue/conflict surrounding the combined use of  and  . OSX (talk • contributions) 22:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have fixed that case for "100|mi", but I'm still working on other related options:
 * {&#123;convert|100|mi|km|adj=on|disp=flip}} &rarr; 100 mi
 * {&#123;convert|7|mi|km|adj=on|disp=flip|abbr=none}} &rarr; 7 mi
 * {&#123;convert|7|mi|km|adj=on|disp=flip|abbr=in}} &rarr; 7 mi
 * {&#123;convert|7|mi|km|adj=on|disp=flip}}    &rarr; 7 mi
 * There are over 200 possible combinations, so I try to just focus on the most-likely options. We had thought to handle many options by using larger templates, but it appears that the MediaWiki software might not have been able to handle Convert if it processed numerous options by using larger, multi-option templates. Think of it like sorting 3,200 food items into 90 larger grocery bags, but some bags would no longer fit inside a shopping cart. MediaWiki is configured like small shopping carts, but meanwhile we realized 3,200 items was not enough to feed everyone. -Wikid77 01:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for fixing that one up. Does that mean more functionality cannot be added to convert because the servers cannot handle the pressure, but when the servers are upgraded, additional improvements can be made? OSX (talk • contributions) 01:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The current servers are vastly capable (3.5 million articles), but they have been pre-limited to 40 levels of nested logic (while Convert has used 29 of 30 upper levels), perhaps due to some danger of hackers overloading the servers. It's like having a sportscar on the Autobahn capable of 145 mph, but limited by a speed-governor which blocks the gas pedal at 49 mph, still moving but twice as slow as 98 mph. Yet, that's a great way to deter car theft: police can easily catch the stolen sportscar at 49 mph. See new essay: "WP:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit". We are pushing the limits with new features such as Convert/3 with fractions:     &middot; {&#123;Convert/3|4|-|6|-|9+1/8|ft|m}} &rarr;  Fear of the 40-depth limit has thwarted telling users that {convert|4|mi|kg} should be "km" since "kg" (kilogram) is not a distance. Hence, we are trying to develop rules of simplification which will show us how to do more within the 40-depth limit. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Template out for tons is not compliant with mosnum
Moved discussion to: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Statute mile
Mosnum says: For example: "He flew 5 statute miles (8 km) from the ship while it was 100 nautical miles (190 km) from shore"
 * Use statute mile rather than mile in nautical and aeronautical contexts to avoid confusion with nautical mile

Is there a version of the template that can comply with that? Lightmouse (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DONE. Thank you for reporting that. I have created Template:Convert/smi to say "statute mile" with standard symbol "mi" using {convert|5|smi}. This subtemplate also reports "kg" as being an invalid output unit, without increasing the logic depth against the 40-level expansion depth limit:
 * {&#123;convert|5|smi}}     &rarr; 5 smi
 * {&#123;convert|5|smi|km}} &rarr; 5 smi
 * {&#123;convert|5|smi|kg}} &rarr; 5 smi
 * Are there any similar common cases, where a word such as "statute" is needed to clarify the text of a conversion? -16:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Similar words that I think of include: troy, avoirdupois, imperial, US, fluid, dry, long, short. I don't know which, if any, of these is missing. Lightmouse (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

New Cvt for shorter coding
After actually using Convert to specify many conversions in one article, I have finally created a shortcut, Cvt which is equivalent to {&#123;Convert|abbr=on|...}} (12 characters shorter per conversion). Some examples:
 * {&#123;Convert|3|m|abbr=on}} &rarr; 3 m
 * {&#123;Cvt|3|m}}    &rarr; 3 m
 * {&#123;Convert|29|km|abbr=on}} &rarr; 29 km
 * {&#123;Cvt|29|km}}    &rarr; 29 km

The intent is to simplify writing articles with many conversions, such as in wikitables, where using "Cvt" for "Convert|abbr=on" will reduce the clutter in the table. Cvt has the same options as Convert, and to undo abbr=on, just use "Cvt|abbr=off". Because this shortcut is a new feature, we need to consider any possible problems from allowing a shortcut form for Convert. Cvt is much shorter when editing articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I must admit I am not a fan of redirects (I just don't like them). Won't this just make pages take even longer to load? All that will happen is AWB will be configured to replace "Cvt" with "Convert", just like it does with "Commons cat" (which is a redirect of "Commons category"). OSX (talk • contributions) 09:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Won't this just make pages take even longer to load?" I don't know, but i think it's not much.ospalh (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice Cvt causing any response delays, in edit-preview, where some bottom navboxes will really cause an article to pause during edit-preview on high-speed Internet. Just think of "Cvt" as a quick way to show unit symbols: typing "Cvt" is shorter for an editor, and reading "Cvt" is shorter for the MediaWiki software when re-formatting an article. Remember: using Convert only affects edit-preview time, because inside a formatted article, the text is short, such as the mere 16 characters "3 metres (10 ft)" - hence, using Convert or Cvt never affects an article's load time. In comparison, using large bottom navboxes adds several kilobytes of data which can slow the display of a formatted article (compared to 16 characters for a conversion). If someone is worried that an article is taking a long time to load, then consider removing bottom navboxes, reducing large PNG images, or avoiding slow templates. Convert is unusual among templates: it is lightning fast, and often generates output smaller than the parameters used. Many templates do the exact opposite: they are used to generate large sections of data much bigger than the length of the template parameters, and those templates can slow the display time of an article page. For example, see: Template:Citation/core, using 25kb to embed an expanded cite for each reference source. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What about WP:T3? J IM ptalk·cont 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * T3 says delete one of them if it doesn't add any extra functionality. 'Cvt' adds the extra function of being short. But I think T3 is meant for where the two templates have there own, separate, code. 'Cvt' doesn't duplicate 'Convert', it calls 'Convert' There are umpteen templates recommended by MOS which are just synonyms of each other or just provide an extra hardcoded parameter - with one of them being called by the other.  Stepho   (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Being short isn't what I interpret "functionality" to be: doesn't do anything  doesn't do.  Should we weigh it's potential usefulness against it's potential for creating confusion? J IM ptalk·cont 16:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? Being a computer programmer in my day job, I interpret 'being short' as one of the major purposes of functions/macros/templates. It was important in the 1960's and is still important today. It allows the author to concentrate on certain bits without worrying about the rest. We also have the precendence of templates like, and  - all synonyms of each other. And just like (and as mentioned above) a robot could change  to the full form of  if you think  would confuse any editors. That way we can have a short form to type but only one form that remains in the article long term. As you said, the benefit (short typing) needs to be weighed up against the downside (possible confusion). In this case I think the benefit is small but the confusion is even smaller.  Stepho  (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of having a bot go around and filling in the details. It is only small, yes, but the greater the number of different templates doing the same thing, the greater the likelihood that it will be confusing for an editor who is not fully aware of what's going on. J IM ptalk·cont 07:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"New" parameter
For A36 steel, 0.28 lbm/in³ (7.8 g/cm³) vs 0.28 lb/in3 or 0.28 lbm/in3. Peter Horn User talk 04:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 04:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)