Template talk:Convert/Archive September 2008

converting a range of °C to °F on my sandbox page
Could someone either let me know if I'm doing something wrong, or implement converting a range of °C to °F?--Rockfang (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am guessing that range conversions aren't implemented for temperatures yet, as it is calling on the non-existent template . — Huntster (t • @ • c) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please implement it?--Rockfang (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I would find it most useful right now. --Wizard191 (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Will get to it but time is short these days ... or if anyone else can figure out how, be my guest ... J IM ptalk·cont 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Plurals
Gun calibre measurements are usually quoted in the singular rather than the plural (eg, a 120 millimetre gun rather than a 120 millimetres gun). Is there a way to remove the plural from the units? I couldn't see this on the page anywhere. EyeSerene talk 16:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind: adj=on . :P EyeSerene talk 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody remind me of the difference between adj=on and sing=on? Lightmouse (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They appear to do the same thing (I've just tried it out). Which is preferred? EyeSerene talk 17:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, nothing. is prefered ... or at least by me. J IM ptalk·cont 19:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Well, I think you know that I don't like conflating the 's' with a hyphen. My ideal would be two parameters: sing=on (makes it singular); and hyph=on (adds a hyphen). Then adj=on can be deprecated. My second best would be to keep adj=on as a shortcut for 'sing=on|hyph=on}}'. We have been through this before and I know I am a minority on this. Lightmouse (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah ... hey ... J IM ptalk·cont 19:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've always used sing=on just out of habit and I am sure that there are others that do the same. &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 13:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Documentation change - range conversions
Based on the limitations in range conversion listed by Jimp here, I've updated the docs to hopefully head off some questions hitting this talk page. If the situation has changed since then or I'm wording it wrong, hack away! Franamax (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Solar masses
Any chance of adding support for solar masses (1.98892 x 1030 kg)? —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 21:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Every chance ... but exactly how big is the Sun? ... Okay $1.989 kg$ looks like a conventional value according to the article, let's take that. But how do we do the symbol? J IM ptalk·cont 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The International Astronomical Union style guide (dated 1989, but apparently still current) recommends $1.989 kg$, so that's probably the number to use. (I don't think it much matters at that level of precision; quantities that are measured in solar masses are rarely known to as many as 3 significant figures.)
 * M&#x2299; ( M&amp;#x2299; ) should work for the abbr=on version of the symbol. (I italicized the symbol because it is sort of a variable, representing the mass of the Sun; a quick look finds that 2 leading journals (Astrophysical Journal and Astronomy & Astrophysics) do it this way, while Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society uses M&#x2299;.) —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done: the code is  e.g.  → "4.5 solar mass". J IM ptalk·cont 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not too certain of the italisation. Whilst it's based on an experimental value (which is slowly being reduced), it is still a unit with a conventional value attached. The Earth, Lunar & Jupiter masses mentioned on the article are not italised, should this be? J IM ptalk·cont 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care; I was trying to explain the pros and cons without taking a strong position. Again, there's no uniform convention in the field. We should pick italicized or not and go with it. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 00:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Units are not italised. Though this could be used as a variable, it's used as a unit here. I'm going for nonitalisation unless there be objections. J IM ptalk·cont 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that there is a guideline or standard that says italics should not be used. It may be ISO or SI. If Gene Nygaard were here, he would tell us in no uncertain terms. Lightmouse (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My feeling on it would be that there is a distinction to be drawn between the solar mass, M⊙, and the mass, M⊙, of the Sun. With the former being a defined value based on the latter, a measured value. Thus

J IM ptalk·cont 17:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot: please support latest approval
Many of you will know of the activities of Lightbot. It has touched over 140,000 articles with edits relating to dates and units. I've made a new request for bot approval that is largely a clarification/extension of two previous approvals and has wording that should be easier to understand. The bot approvals group is not necessarily aware of what Lightbot does so I would be grateful if you could add a few words in support at Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. I would also be happy to answer any questions here or on my talk page. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to those that have already commented. There have been some strange discussions and I am looking for more rational input. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Update on templates vs, page load time
After this discussion (semi-permalink}, I took this question to the VP (technical) wizards (semi-permalink) and here is my summary as best I can glean the pearls: In general, I'm not convinced that using this template causes significant problems (problems worse than those we all find when the servers get slow just because the servers are slow right now), but I suppose I should try some experiments. I hope some small part of this screed will be useful going forward! Franamax (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For the vast majority of our readership, template complexity doesn't matter at all. Other than the unlucky first unregistered reader who requests a page just after it has been changed (and one per week thereafter, when the cache has expired) the page they see is served up very efficiently from a cache which cares not about how complex the page is, it just gives out the exact same version as last time. This is 90-95% of our viewership and I would submit is really the only people we care about - average people coming to Wikipedia to learn something.
 * Contrary to what Marcia thought, the number of templates on a page have no effect at all as far as being on a high-speed vs. dial-up line. The number of bytes going "across the wire" are the same. The difference is that a template-heavy (and especially a complex-template-heavy) page makes the servers fetch many pages from the database and mull and chew on the template output. Again though, this is more of a problem for us peons who are the first to view the pages while editing.
 * The "NewPP limit report" as exemplified by Jimp in the first link I've provided can be used as a rough gauge of how heavily loaded the page is, by comparing the first numbers (numerators) against their denominators. In the example case, the template load is trivial. A further indication is the display below the edit box after you preview, beginning at "Templates used in this preview:" - each one of those will/may cause a database fetch to retrieve the (sub-)template text, adding to the page load time. Again though, this has more of an impact on us editors, and less on our readership. We must balance that against the convenience, flexibility and elegance of the convert template.
 * Flattening and simplification of the convert template structure would certainly lessen the load. I'm definitely not going to stand here and insist that should be done though, since I'm still awestruck by the whole thing.

Thank you very much. I don't understand it all. Marcia's comment was unusual but reasonable. This is a very common template and some people are, unfortunately, reluctant to have conversions. So I can foresee that this comment will arise again. It would be handy to be able to give people a link to an explanation such as what you said above. We can improve the text over time, but I would be happy if we just pasted that text into the help page. Then if anyone asks, we just direct them to it. What do you guys think? Lightmouse (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Franamax. J IM ptalk·cont 17:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious bug!!!!!
Template converts 59 kg, 60 kg and 61 kg to 130 lb. Look at this:

59 kg

60 kg

61 kg

195.69.84.154 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No bug: the value was rounded off to the nearest 10 pounds. If you want more precision, specify it like this  or this . J IM ptalk·cont 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a notice at the top of the talk page might be in order to head at least some of these "bug" reports? — Bellhalla (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jimp, if the input uses a specific number, such as 59 or 61, why would we want the output any less precise? I can understand why 60 would output to 130, but not the other two. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Huntster, to avoid its being more precise. However, the template does make some allowance for conversions of more precision than the original. The thing is that the line had to be drawn somewhere. I drew it at two—a kilogram is just over two pounds so a conversion from the nearest kilogram gets rounded off to the nearest ten pounds; a knot, on the other hand, is just under two kilometres per hour so a conversion from the nearest knot gets rounded off to the nearest kilometre per hour. J IM ptalk·cont 07:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Units of radioactivity
How about adding Becquerel (Bq) and Curie (Ci) to this template (including kBq, mBq, &micro;Ci, nCi and so on)? ––Bender235 (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added units from the femtocurie to the kilocurie and from the millibecquerel to the petabecquerel. That range should be wide enough ... right?  Test them out. J IM ptalk·cont 16:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Works fine. You could also add other units, like Sievert, Rem, Gray and a couple of others. ––Bender235 (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Centimetres
Why do we not abbreviate centimetres to the symbol cm? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Who says we don't? Lightmouse (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not I.

→ "4 in"

J IM ptalk·cont 10:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You should do the same thing with kilometers (kilometres), meters (metres), etc., otherwise the result will in many cases violate WP's spelling guidelines (for ex at the beginning of Private spaceflight). Another option would be to create two separate versions, or a dialect switch, etc. Justice for All (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It already exists. Use  for US spelling.

e.g. → "80 km"

J IM ptalk·cont 13:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh... cool! Thanks! Justice for All (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

When is a knot not a knot?
A user has suggested that the term 'knot' is ambiguous. How shall we let readers know the speed of a ship? Please see below. Lightmouse (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Lightmouse talk page:begin Lightbot edited HMS Agamemnon (1852) today. It changed "11.243 knots (21 km/h)" to "11.243 knots (20.822 km/h)". This is incorrect. When the Admiralty calculated the speed of 11.243 knots, they used the then standard nautical mile of 6080 feet. 68 357.4400 feet = 20.8353477 kilometers, or 20.8349660 depending on whether you take the modern or the traditional conversion factor from feet to metres. I have corrected Lightbot's error in this case to "11.243 knots (20.8 km/h)".

Please modify Lightbot so it does not make these errors. It was standard practice to quote trial speeds in knots to 3 decimal places. There is no need to do the same thing in the approximate conversion to French measures.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lightbot did not edit HMS Agamemnon (1852) but Lightmouse did i.e. me. As far as decimal places in concerned, wp:mosnum says:
 * Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value 
 * I don't know what you mean by 'French measures' can you be more specific? Lightmouse (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The please convert them correctly.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Lightmouse talk page:end

Does anybody have any comments? Lightmouse (talk)


 * By French I think he meant metric. There's nothing stopping us from adding the admiralty knot, we've had the admiralty mile since the early days of the new version. J IM ptalk·cont 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that anything using the pre-UK 1970 knot be marked as such. Otherwise it's likely to get "corrected" again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine with me. Lightmouse (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

People are striving for a degree of accuracy that was not historically achieved. One knot is one nautical mile per hour, and a nautical mile is one minute of latitude. Using a sextant from the deck of a ship, navigators could determine position to about 1/10 of a minute, so in practice their measurements were accurate to about +/- 0.1 nmi. To determine speed, they threw a piece of wood overboard and had one sailor count the knots in a string attached to it while another watched an hourglass - not an accurate process. Eventually, the British Admiralty defined the nautical mile as 800 feet more than a statute mile, giving 6080 feet - based on the curvature of the earth near England. However, the curvature of the earth varies from place to place, so other countries adopted other definitions, and the United States used a different length foot, so they all had different nautical miles. The international nautical mile was defined in 1929 as 1852 metres based on the original definitions of the nautical mile and metre. The United States adopted the international nautical mile in 1954 and the British in 1970.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So can you take a look at the article that Toddy reported. What should be done? Lightmouse (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I just changed it to 11.243 knots by specifying "sigfig=3" in the conversion. The British Navy may have calculated the speed to five significant figures, but there's no point in converting all the extra digits into metric because, practically speaking, in 1852 they could only measure ship speed to three significant figures. As long as you avoid propagating excessive nonexistent precision, there isn't really a problem.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that I follow the logic. There are several issues:
 * the conversion factor of 1852 metres is said to be wrong
 * the value of 11.243 knots is said to be incorrect precision for the measurement
 * I am uncomfortable with the idea that we attempt to amend the output rather than comment on defects in the input
 * What will happen if another editor comes along and attempts to follow the MOS guideline and match the precision? Surely if the input data is special, this needs a remark. Lightmouse (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay let me try this again (this is a non-trivial exercise in non-Euclidean geometry): However, my point was that it doesn't really matter what it is EXACTLY in kilometres per hour. Three significant figures is enough because that's the best accuracy they could achieve at the time.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The conversion factor of 1852 metres for the international nautical mile is about as accurate as it gets. The problem is that the historical nautical mile was defined as one minute of latitude, based on the assumption that the earth is a sphere. It is not, it is an oblate spheroid. As a result, the historical nautical mile varied from 1,843 metres at the equator at the equator to 1,861 metres at the poles. The British Admiralty nautical mile of 6080 feet was a value for the English channel south of London. Other countries' navies picked other bodies of water to measure.
 * 2) The value of 11.243 knots is based on the time it took to travel from point A to point B. Unfortunately, we don't know where point A and point B were, and the path between them was over the surface of an oblate spheroid, so we don't know how far that was in metres.
 * 3) If people are uncomfortable with these concepts, they should buy a GPS receiver and let the satellites and the computers figure it out for them. They're a lot better at non-spherical geometry.


 * I know about the history and the improvements to definitions. Frankly, three places of decimal for knots is extremely unusual so we have naive readers taking it at face value and aware readers noting that it is either an error or is an indication of high precision. If the conversion factor is not 1852 metres, then lets use that other factor. If three decimal places in knots is imprecise then let's just say so. If the precision is flawed but a quote then lets say so. Precision does not start with the converted value, it is shared. We don't say "the ship travelled 14,769.857 nautical miles (27,000 km)" and if we did, somebody would be perfectly at liberty to bring it into line with the MOS. Lightmouse (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's simplify the situation: In other words, we need to provide conversions for the historic UK and US knots to satisfy the purists. Also to satisfy the purists we need to keep the historic number of these old speed records, but converting a ship speed measured in 1852 to five significant figures is somewhat meaningless. Experts will understand, but it is difficult to explain to the average person the concept of meaningless significance.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Historically, the knot varied somewhat from Navy to Navy
 * 1) The British Admiralty knot (used until 1970) was 1.853184 km/h, approximately
 * 2) The U.S. Navy knot (used until 1954) was 1.853248 km/h, approximately
 * 3) Other navies used a knot averaging 1.852 km/h, approximately
 * Historically, they couldn't measure speed at sea very accurately, so the difference was inconsequential.
 * The modern international knot (adopted in 1929) is 1.852000 km/h, exactly.


 * Yes, I know about the Admiralty knot. I agree with the purists that the conversion factor of 1852 in the template should not be used. Jimp has already offered to create a new template for the admiralty knot when it is used. That is what we should do. I also agree with you that the speed measurement in 1852 is not precise but even if false, the quoted precision is the quoted precision. False precision does not become false when it gets converted, it is false in any unit. Lightmouse (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That gets into the areas covered by the articles on real versus nominal value and false precision, (both of which could use a bit of work). However if Jimp creates a template for the Admiralty knot (and probably the US knot as well), that will solve the problem. In the interim, just reducing the precision of the conversion to what the accuracy really was seems to help.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I should probably not worry about it. As you say, reducing the precision seems to have satisfied Toddy. When we get a proper Admiralty knot template, that will probably be even more welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered the answer to this, "When it's not". Read it fast. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hand (length)
Would it be possible to add hand as a unit of measurement to this template? It's used (still) for the height of horses, but the average wikipedia reader has no idea how tall that is really. A conversion template would make it easier to amend these to have standard and metric heights for these animals. A hand is four inches and is abbreviated as 'h' in both singular and plural. (I'm not sure if there needs to be special allowance for 'hh', or "hands high".) JRP (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Units of Measurement Regulations 1995 defines a 'hand' as 0.1016 metre. Lightmouse (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can create a Template:Convert/hand (Convert/h is taken for "hour"), using Template:Convert/in as a template fairly easily, but I don't understand how the "j" parameter is calculated. Is there a doc on this you can refer me to? JRP (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I figured it out from Template:Convert/unit. Can you double-check that my new Template:Convert/hand is correct, but it seems to work okay to me. If everyone is happy, I'll add it to the doc. JRP (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One caution though, according to horse, sometimes decimal hands aren't what they appear to be and the template can't possibly know when. Sometimes "12.2" would mean 12 hands 2 inches instead of "12 and 2/10 hands". Since there are 4 inches in a hand, that means that "12.2" is "12.5". But, as long as we're dealing with whole number of hands we are fine. (And I had never heard of this notation not being decimal, so who knows how prevalent it is... and no way to tell the difference for .1 through .3...) JRP (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In my experience with horse people in the US, "12.2" would most often mean 12 hands 2 inches. The notation (with the decimal stop) is really annoying, but, as it mentions in Hand (length), it would be pronounced "twelve two hands", not "twelve point two". --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, template syntax is hard to follow. But I've adjusted Template:Convert/hand to accept inches as well, just like feet. So 14 hand shows 14 hand, which is the right answer. I suspect that most wikipedia readers not already familiar with horses and hands may be confused by the decimal notation anyway, but this still makes it easy to do hands+inches if that's common practice. JRP (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Adjective use for miles per hour
There may be an issue with this template for this scenario. I added the adjective use (|adj=on) for converting miles per hour to kilometers per hour in the Eddie Hill article (first two changes at this diff) and I see no change to the output.  Royal broil  13:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:HYPHEN no hyphen is inserted when the unit is in abbreviated/symbolic form. Thus when you have   the template ignores  . J IM ptalk·cont 16:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Table usage
OK, I'm lost here. Looking at my test page, how am I ending up with "align=right" stuck in that column? And how do I apply the align=right style using convert anyway? Any help is appreciated! Franamax (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * align=right is automatic with but you've got to put it on the same line.  For an example, look at your test page, I took the liberty of fixing it—the easiest way to show what had been going wrong. J IM ptalk·cont 08:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A tricky one
Is there any way to convert lb/yd into kg/m and vice versa. These measurements are often quoted for rails used on railway lines. See the Rail profile article for usage in both imperial and metric measurements. It would be useful to be able to convert using templates something like these 25 kgm and 65 lbyd thus enabling better comparison between articles. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not yet ... J IM ptalk·cont 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC) ... Okay it's available but use 25 kg/m and 65 lb/yd ... also note that you can skip the third parameter e.g. 25 kg/m and 65 lb/yd respectively will do the same: "25 kg/m" and "65 lb/yd". J IM ptalk·cont 15:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I previously had to do 'lb/yd' conversions by hand. This template keeps getting better, thanks to you. Lightmouse (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Minus sign
When I use the hyphen as the minus sign for metres, I get the dash symbol for the equivalent in feet. Is there anyway of rendering the dash for the metre output too? See Extreme points of India (the Kuttanad entry) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Currently no I'm afraid. It would be a nice addition but it'll take a fair bit of work to add it. J IM ptalk·cont 15:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

More combinations requested!
Hi, combinations for pressure would be really useful, for example in Space activity suit. For example, I would really like to say  to get pressures in kPa, mmHg, and psi, all of which units were formerly used in the article. — Johan the Ghost seance 16:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added  and  .  Note that   already existed. J IM ptalk·cont 17:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the speedy response! BTW, none of the combos are listed under "Pressure" in the "Abridged list of units supported" table. — Johan the Ghost seance 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Scroll box
Will someone pls eliminate the miserable scroll box: I can't find what I'm looking for on the page. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Template:Convert/list of units. Also, the documentation is not protected. --- RockMFR 03:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering that the box itself is so long, given the vast number of options, having them contained in a scroll box is a "good thing". Just do a page search for the particular topic you are looking for (area, speed, etc). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, scrolling boxes are strongly deprecated. DWaterson (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, and this is fine with most situations, but 'deprecated' just means that the community has expressed disapproval of them, not that they are banned. This format makes the most sense for this situation. I'd rather have a scroll box on the main page than nothing at all, which would be the alternative...no way would it make sense to have the list sitting in the open, as long as it is. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

error in code?
see for example JTS engine --&mdash; Typ932 T  19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone added a category to the subtemplate, and started the noinclude tag on a new line, which added a line break to the template's output. Fixed.  Thanks for your vigilance!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

international formating
can we separate thousands with spaces rather than commas? or not at all in the case of four-digit numbers? can we use the comma rather than the period for the decimal point? kwami (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is more of a WT:MOSNUM issue but my two cents' worth is that whilst I prefer spaces as thousands separators, the comma as a decimal point has no place in 21st century English. Anyhow, the template uses .  J IM ptalk·cont 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

convert/kt
I removed a reference to this talk page from convert/kt, because the item referred to isn't here, and I couldn't find it in the archives from April onwards. If you know where it is, please reinstate the text I removed, with a modified link. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's archieved somewhere but it's probably getting about time to reassign the subtemplate anyhow. J IM ptalk·cont 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Temperature differences
Could an option to convert temperature differences be added, e.g. if you want to say the difference between two temperatures is 100°C, the difference in Fahrenheit is 180°F, not 212°F. Icalanise (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this any use? J IM ptalk·cont 19:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that was it... must have missed it while getting lost in the documentation. Icalanise (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Overuse of this template
This template has recently been introduced on Molybdenum, and no doubt on many other articles. Personally, I find it rather irritating to be confronted all the time with useless Fahrenheits, pounds and miles. Can we either: I understand we need to accommodate Americans who still have not been weaned off the imperial measures, but I and probably many others don't like being confronted with this stuff all the time. – gpvos (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) make some rule that restricts where this template is to be used (e.g., I can see that miles can be useful in USA-geography-related articles, and maybe where household weights and temperatures are used, but not in all scientific articles, please)
 * 2) make this template more flexible, adding e.g. &lt;class="metric"&gt; and &lt;class="old-fashioned-american"&gt; tags, so people who aren't interested in all those weird measures can turn them off using their own CSS file?
 * 3) maybe put the imperial measures in a title tag or some other kind of popup, so they don't interrupt the flow of the text?


 * That's a good idea. One of the reasons for having the template is that some source data is in imperial units, and if we start converting back & forth we can add rounding errors. Personally, I'd love to be able to turn imperial off cuz I am trying to get weaned of them. kwami (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The MOS:UNITS page already provides guidance on this issue. Conversions should be provided except in two circumstances: articles on scientific topics where there is consensus that only metric units should be used (such as the Molybdenum article), and situations where inserting a conversions would make a common expression awkward. Additional, they should be avoided when quoting. Other than that, conversions are necessary because this is an international project, and we are not here to dictate to any given group that their style of measurement is wrong.
 * That being said, the second suggestion for a user-defined class would be something to look in to, though whether it is possible is another matter. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There are those who don't find Fahrenheits, pounds and miles as useless and you and I but, like Huntster indicates, this is a WT:MOSNUM issue. J IM ptalk·cont 22:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications, especially the comments that they're to be avoided in articles on scientific subjects (where I tend to find them the most annoying). I'll have a look at the MOS. – gpvos (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer is to wrap the imperial measurement in an element with a named class, so that users who do not wish to see it can set the class in their local CSS as "display:none"? Something similar is used by coord to allow suers to see decimal degrees, or D-M-S values. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that idea bears water. How about classes .imperial and .metric? Stifle (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Surely the best solution would be for everyone to stop using the confusing metric system. But until that happy day happens, I guess we will have to display them alongside imperial measures.

Of course, on French wikipedia, the metric system makes sense, because the metric system is the French system. If some people feel that it is annoying to see native English measurements displayed, perhaps they should read French wikipedia and stop interfering in English wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering we are catering to a worldwide English audience (and non-native-English folks who still want to use the site), the majority of which uses metric, this is simply a moot issue. Unless everyone converts to metric (since noone is currently moving back to Imperial), both will continue to be used, and since we cover the world and all its measures, we'll support (as best we can) the different variations amongst measures. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am from Australia, an English-speaking country, and imperial measurements do not make, and never have made, any personal sense to me—when I see them, I have to pull out my calculator or converter or whatever to figure out what they mean. My observation is that the US use them in their entirety (and is the only country to still use Fahrenheit), the UK have retained some but not others (it's quite eclectic and erratic), Canada has retained pounds but not the others, while most other English speaking countries have gone fully metric in the 1960s and 1970s. Orderinchaos 20:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to argue whether or not we should use the metric system. Take it to WT:MOSNUM if you must ... or ... think of something more useful to do. J IM ptalk·cont 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

torque kgm/lb.ft
Could someone fix this  22.4 kgm  22.4 kgm doesnt work like 190 lb.ft 190 lb.ft    --&mdash;  Typ932 T  07:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)