Template talk:Convert/Archive January 2019

Bantayan Island
Anyone here willing to look at Bantayan Island and figure out WTF is going on there? I've tried a few times but am at a total loss.... -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained here what the problem is (changes at Wikidata). Owing to the time of year I was planning to give the user a fair bit of time to clean up. My fallback plan is to remove the broken area from the infobox at Bantayan Island. That could be done now or in a couple more days. Actually I see they edited at Wikidata a few hours ago but they have a Flow user talk over there which I am not going to bother with. Johnuniq (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the info. Anything to clean up that cluster would be great. -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Conversion lists
Can anybody see a simple way to convert "20, 40, or 60 miles" ? I'm hoping to see final output similar to "20, 40, or 60 miles (32, 64, or 96 km)". Even better if we can get metric first. I'm hoping to not get "20 (32), 40 (64), or 60 (96) miles" (regardless of metric first or not).  Stepho  talk 01:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to say that the existing ranges support that.
 * → 20 ,
 * Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I never cease to be amazed by the power of this template. Thank you very much.  Stepho  talk 12:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Even better,, metric first if you weren't aware: 20 , → 20 , — Huntster (t @ c) 00:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, already did that at Vehicle-to-grid but thanks anyway. An amazing template.  Stepho  talk 00:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Added this very case to documentation. -DePiep (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph of the documentation for the Convert template
I received this on my talkpage. Quite a good question. Maybe someone else better rewrite the Rounding section? I think I myself am a bit blind for this.

"Hi, DePiep! As near as I can tell from the page history, you are the editor who added the following text to the Convert template documentation under 'Default rounding':


 * 'If neither the desired precision nor the desired number of significant figures is specified, the conversion will be rounded either to precision comparable to that of the input value (the number of digits after the decimal point—or the negative of the number of non-significant zeroes before the point—is increased by one if the conversion is a multiplication by a number between 0.02 and 0.2, remains the same if the factor is between 0.2 and 2, is decreased by 1 if it is between 2 and 20, and so on) or to two significant figures, whichever is more precise. An exception to this is temperature, wherein the conversion will be rounded either to precision comparable to that of the input value or to that which would give three significant figures when expressed in kelvins, whichever is more precise.'

I have read over this paragraph 4 or 5 times now, and still can't make sense of it (the em dashes are part of what is throwing me, along with how they are being used along with commas to indicate subsets of information about the template). I am not a mathematician, just an editor, but am wondering if you would be willing to rephrase that so that other editors like me can figure out what it means! It appears to be grammatically correct— I am not trying to correct you! I am just saying, 'I don't understand it the way it is written'. I suspect I am not the first person with this problem. I tried fixing it by rewriting it myself, but got lost in the structure. Any chance you would consider it? Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)"


 * ping . -DePiep (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See this September 2015 discussion where I proposed an edit to simplify the documentation for rounding and precision. I think it was discussed somewhere else as well but I cannot find it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Any opinions on the proposal at the link in my comment? The original discussion was sidetracked. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Conversion error Celsius to Fahrenheit
The calculation to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit is C-temp * 1.8 + 32. However the template is not adding 32. For example, 15C converts to 59F, i.e., 15 * 1.8 + 32 = 59. However the template says 15 C-change, i.e. 15 * 1.8 = 27. Can someone fix this? EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hard to believe that after all of this time, the basic F/C conversion done by this template is wrong. I think that you are confused:
 * → 15 C
 * a change of 15C from 15C would be 30C or
 * → 30 C
 * the example that you claim to be wrong is correct:
 * → 15 C-change
 * because:
 * 59F + 27F = 86F = 30C
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * (ec)Rewrite the examples:
 * 15C converts to 59F, i.e., 15 * 1.8 + 32 = 59. However the template says
 * 15 C-change &rarr; 15 C-change, i.e. 15 * 1.8 = 27.
 * Reply: proper input for these conversion expected:
 * 15 C &rarr; 15 C


 * In temperature, there are two forms that can be converted. One is from scale to scale: x &deg; on the C scale converts to y &deg; on the F-scale. These are single number (value) temperatures, for example in the weather and in chemistry and cooking point of water (100 C). Parameters to use: C, F.
 * Then there is a change of temperature. That is: on the C-scale, the temperature rises q degrees. How much is that rise on the F-scale? :Example: from water 90 &deg;C to boiling water 100 &deg;C (that is: plus 10 &deg;C):
 * 15 –10 C-change &rarr; 10 C-change. Parameters to use: C-change, F-change.
 * Check: 90 C rises to 100 C: C rises 10 &deg;, F rises 18 &deg; ✅.
 * HTH. -DePiep (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so I am looking at an article Symplocarpus foetidus which uses the convert template as: 15 – which results in 15 –. A range is specified here but the doc is unclear for the range format. How should it be coded? EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is correct as coded:
 * Eastern skunk cabbage is notable for its ability to generate temperatures of up to 15 – above air temperature... (emphasis added)
 * so if air temp is 20C, the plant can generate temperatures of 20 + 15 = 35C to 20 + 35C = 55C above air temp
 * → 20 C
 * → 35 C
 * → 55 C
 * 95°F − 68°F = 27°F
 * 131°F − 68°F = 63°F
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * (ec) re Yes a tricky situation! The wording "range" in there means something different (not a temperature change really). To be used is, and  supplies this: "range from value A to value B" (both are values on a single temperature scale). The article already does so wrt mm-inches: "40 –". For the temperatures:
 * 15 – &rarr; 15 – (it is a range on the C-scale, not a change on the C-scale)
 * Done -DePiep (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * no, the Symplocarpus foetidus example is a range of changes, not a range of actual temperatures. Read the text carefully; it's saying that the plant can raise (i.e. change) its temperature above ambient. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, yes, indeed. It reads:
 * "Eastern skunk cabbage is notable for its ability to generate temperatures of up to 15–35 °C above air temperature" (italics added; no conversion yet).
 * So yes: when air temp is say 25 &deg;C, it raises (changes) upwards for 15 to 35 &deg; (i.e., upwards to 40–60 &deg;C). That truly is a change not a range for.
 * This implies, we do have to use C-change, F-change here, as the article (now correctly) does. In C and F, the temperature raises by 15 –.
 * This also implies that the OP was wrong wrt this article (the OP example is correct: temp does raise with 27 &deg;F etc.).


 * late signing: DePiep (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)