Template talk:Convert/Archive May 2018

Abbreviation of pounds
A couple editors seem to have got the prescriptivist bugaboo in their heads that pounds is only ever properly abbreviated lb and that lbs. is “incorrect.” If this is some established rule, akin to split infinitives or not ending sentences with a preposition, I’ve never heard it, and if you can find some curmudgeonly grammarian who agrees with our IP address friends, it doesn’t negate the fact that lbs. is found throughout published, formal writing.

The pound is not an SI unit and I see no reason to exclude lbs. as an option. While lbs does appear to be on the decline in the UK, this is more commonly with the “lb oz” or “st lb” usage, which also contravenes SI standards (as unit symbols [not abbreviations] are preceded by a space). —Wiki Wikardo 14:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC) If it isn’t a marginal use case, the template is already bloated robust enough that a option should be fairly easy to implement. Or just put ’em in by hand. —Wiki Wikardo 16:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, {convert} could have a unit-code "lbs" to show plural "lbs" when more than 1 pound, but I wonder if dot in "lbs." would trigger more confusion. Meanwhile, U.S. farms still mark products as "50#" for 50-pound bags of animal feed, horsefeed, etc. We likely need a separate template for U.S. product conversions which truncate many conversions for legal compliance, such as 1 pound = 453 grams, not rounded as "454 grams" or 1 U.S. gallon = 3.78 litres, truncated, not rounded (to "3.79L") per U.S. NIST product-labeling standards to ensure testing to the lowest labeled amount. It seems too difficult for {convert} to also be a US-compliant package converter using 2006 NIST conversion formulas. Meanwhile, a pounds unit-code as "lbs" could be set to show singular "lb" but show plural "4.3 lbs" for amounts above 1. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if dot in "lbs." would trigger more confusion.
 * No more than Mr. or St., I figure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 * U.S. farms still mark products as "50#" for 50-pound bags of animal feed, horsefeed, etc.
 * But not in formal writing.
 * We likely need a separate template for U.S. product conversions which truncate many conversions for legal compliance, such as 1 pound = 453 grams
 * Why? A FA I K ISNOT a U.S. product label.
 * Hand-converted numbers have been very error-prone for years. U.S. conversions also round temperatures to 0.5-degree increments, as convert 105 F would show "40.5" also in range 105 - 106 F with a US-convert template. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * convert is a conversion template that produces the best conversion. WP is not selling products, so does not need to ensure full measure is given.  454g is the best conversion for 1lb to enable SI users to understand the weight under discussion.  It is not an offer to supply at least 453g.  In extreme boundary cases, just use a manual conversion; but I'd be curious to see any such cases. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the notice in the next section, the place to discuss what symbol should be used for a unit is at MOS. This template merely offers a tool. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The abbreviation for pound, "lb", is from the Latin lībra, the plural of which is lībrae (see libra). There is no letter "s" in this, so "lbs" is just plain wrong. It would be like writing "fts" for the plural of "ft". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the OP wants to format text as in U.S. culture, where 1 U.S. gallon of tea would show "1 GAL (3.78L)" with abbreviation "GAL" not convert 1 usgal. This is not like forcing dashes into two-hundred-year names like "Mason-Dixon Line" but showing amounts as they often appear in U.S. culture. So "5.5 oz" gives: "5.5 oz" but could show "5.5 OZ (156 g)" as in U.S. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The OP is very unclear about any proposal, and is on the wrong venue anyway. Note to self: stop spending time on this thread. - DePiep (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I am well aware of its etymology. Nevertheless, I find your assertion that lbs. is therefore “just plain wrong” $in English (not Latin)$ uncompelling. —Wiki Wikardo 00:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While etymology-based arguments are uncompelling, the suggestion does invade the space of the MoS. Hence, this discussion belongs there, definitely not here.  This template is not free to ignore the MoS, and I believe this suggestion would not comply with MOS:UNITSYMBOLS, not merely the prescriptivist bugaboos of a couple of editors.  —Quondum 01:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

School year groups
Please ignore me if this is too contrversial. I have written a tentative template grade to assist the rest of the world. when the colonials attempt to descibe the age of their school kids.In needs to work the other way round too, and take on board other nationaities. It ignores the more obscure historic terms like lower fourth, the remove etc and the Us terms like sophomore, junior, senior but you get the idea. Should this be professionally written? I vote yes. Should this be merged into convert? --ClemRutter (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * grade should be useful, but I imagine the details are complex. I don't think it should be merged into convert partly because convert is far too complex already, but mainly because a simple name like grade with a dedicated function makes more sense. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * is for quantities (which might be measured to a highly-exact precision) such as length, mass, velocity, electric current; and where the conversion from one measuring system to another can be done exactly (within the precision of the value converted from). School grades are abstracts, we don't all get promoted one grade once a year (at my primary school, we were there for seven years but there were only five classes - so each of us did more than one year in at least one class), nor do we move at a constant rate through the year - you don't get kids in "Year 1.5" or "$3 3/4$th Grade". Conclusion: this would be an inappropriate extension. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As Johnuniq says: better dedicated under it's own name. Maybe get people interested at WT:SCHOOLS? (btw, looked at Educational stage; doesn't this require a country parameter?)- DePiep (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with keeping it as a separate template. BTW, there is a significant disjoint between the relatively inflexible historic English state forms and the more flexible public schools.  For instance when I was at school most boys did I, II, III, UIV, LV, UV but there was provision for a LIV year (basically redoing III work whilst socially a IV) and a middle V year (to give an extra year before O-levels).  Part of the reason was that the public school system started numbering from prep school admission, not from the start of secondary school.  I believe state schools used LVI, UVI whereas we had LVI, VI with UVI for those doing resits and 7th term entry to Oxbridge.  I have a horrible feeling that there may be a lot of variations in public school terminology which might mean you need to restrict it to state schools only. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the comments. The point is to describe the structure of schools not every little sod who is two bright for his boots and is accelerated or alternatively those who 'repeat'.  I suspect that the sentence 'when he was in the Upper Sixth' can be handled by a free text override.   . Yes country parameters are important, both for input and output but more opinions needed- are you just talking about the (en) speaking world or including EU 28, or different character sets too? Educational stage does provide some very useful information, though some is unreferenced, dated and a bit broad brush. Why did I bring this here, this is where the template experience lives and it is only fair that you guys have a head start! Open it for discussion please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As was said,, , since the grade issue will not be incorporated in , these improvements better be discussed at Template talk:Grade or WT:SCHOOLS. Will attrack a larger relevant audience, and will improve the template more easily. No WP:SCHOOL editor looks here. -DePiep (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the expertise is here, just that last comment demonstrated that there was more interest here than in either the other forums! ClemRutter (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Italics for units that are foreign words
It's a bit late, but I'd like to revisit the italics issue raised at Template talk:Convert/Archive January 2017 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 156. Of the six examples given by Johnuniq (in the second link), I think rai and pyeong should be italicised. (Arpent, dunam and shaku are listed in Merriam-Webster Online, so probably shouldn't be italicised according to MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. Viss seems rather unclear, since it only appears in the article as a footnote stating that it's how the unit is known in English, so I'd rather leave it for now.) Both rai and pyeong are italicised in their respective articles. Does anyone have objections? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest starting a new section at MOS for current opinions. Keep it simple by providing a link to here without other details. Ask whether the "pyeong" and "rai" displayed by the following should be in italics.
 * Seoul Plaza  → 3995 pyeong
 * Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bangkok  → 9 rai
 * Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Italicize as needed & use disp=out
For years, we keep reminding users to hand-format the input as needed, like  for italics, then show conversion in "(...)" with option "disp=out" as: Where italics are wanted, just insert double-apostrophes as the input format and use disp=out. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 3,995 pyeong (3995 pyeong) &mdash;> 3,995 pyeong (3995 pyeong)

Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, it seems there's a rather clear no consensus in support of italicising such units, at least when they follow numbers. I think this can safely be dropped; thanks for the input. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Lists of numbers in one conversion?
I'm trying to edit a page about a bomber that carries 500- 1000- and 1500-pound bombs. Can I do this in a single conversion, or do I have to rewrite the whole sentence? Ninjalectual (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The following works but might not be helpful. The third is useless as the hyphenation ("adjectival") is broken. The last is clumsy but allows a conversion to follow whatever text is wanted for the pounds.
 * → 500 ,
 * → 500 ,
 * → 500 ,
 * → 500 ,
 * Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh,  → 500, would work. Not ideal if you really want to spell out "pound", but it works. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Clickabe units
Can somebody make units clickable? I mean something like 33 °C, 4000 K, 253 F? Would appreciate much. davronov a.a.  18:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just add the lk=on param. 33 C → 33 C. You can also use lk=in and lk=out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot! davronov a.a.  12:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Linking
Is it possible to show both the input and output name and abbreviation and link them, for example 100 feet (ft) (30 meters (m)). Keith (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Keith: No. The closest would be as follows.
 * → 100 ft
 * → 100 feet (ft) (100 ft (m))
 * Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"1031" instead of "1 × 1031"
Is there a way to eliminate the significand in a scientific notation value when it is exactly 1 (e.g. show 1031 instead of 1 × 1031 at ). —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 04:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, except by fudging:
 * → 1019 TJ (1E19 TJ)
 * It might be better to tolerate the 1 and take the default convert behavior. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)