Template talk:Convert/Archive September 2009

Flow rate
It would be nice if this template could convert flow rates: gallons per minute (gpm); gph; m3/hour, etc. Peter Chastain (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Imperial & US gal/min & m3/h are supported (along with some others)
 * → "123 impgal/min"
 * → "123 USgal/min"
 * → "123 U.S.gal/min"
 * → "123 m3/s"
 * → "123 m3/h"
 * → "123 m3/d"
 * → "123 oilbbl/d"
 * → "123 Goilbbl/a"
 * I could add gallons per hour. J IM ptalk·cont 08:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * → "123 impgal/h"
 * → "123 USgal/h"
 * → "123 U.S.gal/h"
 * J IM ptalk·cont 08:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Large-number default units
If I convert 6 inches or 60 inches with no target unit specified, the result is 150 mm and 1,500 mm, respectively. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to express these as 15 cm and 1.5 m? Peter Chastain (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd go for 150 mm and 1.5 m but, yes, I pretty much agree. However, it would take some effort to impliment and will eat (ever so slightly) into template limits. Though if there's enough support for this, it might be worth the effort. J IM ptalk·cont 08:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think using centimetres as the default conversion from inches would be a good compromise: 6 inches and 60 inches would convert to 15 cm and 150 cm (152 cm according to my proposed rule for the default precision, which many people agree with but which for some reason no-one actually considered implementing), both of which are reasonable enough. (If a measurement is too large to be reasonably done in centimetres, it is likely too large to be reasonably done in inches, too.) It'd also avoid the need for a non-significant zero tacked at the end. (To me, who use the metric system everyday, "15 cm" sounds like a rough measure, and "150 mm" as a very precise one.) -- _ _ _ A. di M. 12:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with A. di M. To quote from 'centimetre': "Though for many physical quantities, SI prefixes for factors of 103—like milli- and kilo-—are often preferred by technicians, the centimetre remains a practical unit of length for many everyday measurements." It's about the only time I use the centi- prefix (though I see some bottles marked in centilitres). By contrast I've never heard anyone use centigrams or centiseconds. Rulers are usually labelled in cm rather than mm, as the images on that page illustrate. --Qwfp (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

List of units
Is the list supposed to be comprehensive? If so could someone add the the speed section ft/min ? -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  22:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be, yes, but it'll be a while before it is (if it ever is). J IM ptalk·cont 04:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Short list of options in doc page
I have added a short list of options, near the top of the doc page, and emphasized that the end parameter is for rounding:
 * Options include: sigfig=3, lk=in, abbr=on, sp=us, disp=or, disp=/ and sortable=on.

The concept is to condense the major options into a short list (a la BNF), near the parameter-usage format. That tactic provides a quick overview to new readers, and helps old readers review ("oh, yes, the link is 'lk' not 'lnk'..."). Even though it might seem, at first, that listing the major options would be too technical, it has been done that way for over 35 years in computer documentation (compare Multics or MS DOS command formats): it really works to list the major parameters, in a nutshell, before the extensive explanation of each. For example, it can be very frustrating that abbreviation in some templates is "abbr=yes" versus "abbr=on" so showing that option, quickly, can help avoid the problem. When options are not listed, near the top, then the doc page becomes a "shaggy dog story" because there is no other way for readers to quickly see their particular options, without being buried in the mass of all other explanations and examples. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction was "why pick those particular values for options that can take multiple values? (such as sigfig). But then I went through them and realised that you've put quite a bit of thought into the values chosen. For example, "lk=out" or "lk=on" are rarely useful, as it's rare to convert to uncommon units, and the "manual of style suggests that you should not link common units of measurement" (to quote the full documentation). Similarly, "sigfig=3" because 2 is the default minimum and more than 3 is often (not always) unnecessarily precise for encyclopedic purposes. So I think this is a really valuable addition—many thanks Wikid77.
 * The only further improvement that comes to mind would be to wikilink each one to the full explanation below. In the spirit of sofixit, I'm willing to take on that task myself if others agree it would be useful (but if so please be patient—I have other things to do today). Qwfp (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that wikilinks, from the condensed options list, linking to each full explanation would be a good addition, and would ease the problem of omitting the rare values (since they will be in the linked sections). I have added option "adj=on" and put the list into a text-table to auto-wrap (the list) for users with Larger font sizes. I see no need to rush on linking the options, so take a few weeks if needed. -Wikid77 (talk)

Hectare double conversion to Acre and Square Mile not working
Template works well when converting Acre to Square mile and Hectare. Template:convert|1032900|acre|sqmi ha|0|lk=on would convert acres to sq mi (for USA) and hectare (for international). Example: 1032900 acre

However, the reverse does not work - Template:convert|418000|ha|acre sqmi|0|lk=on  Example: 418000 ha.

The single conversion works - Template:convert|418000|ha|acre|0|lk=on - Example: 418000 ha  or  Template:convert|418000|ha|sqmi|0|lk=on - Example: 418000 ha

i'm currently editing US wildfires so no problem with this template for US fires. However for international wildfires which are usually reported in hectares, most in USA don't know hectares, square kilometers or even acres; square miles are better to comprehend how big some wildland fires can be. Please fix, thanks Petersam (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How's it working now? J IM ptalk·cont 08:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Example shows it is working great now, Thanks! Petersam (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Area triple conversion request
Need an Area (acre/hectare) conversion to hectare/acre, square kilometer, square mile for wildfire articles; extension of above section.

Template:convert|1032900|acre|sqmi ha km2|0|lk=on would convert acres to sq mi (for USA) and hectare and square kilometers (for international). Example: 1032900 acre

Template:convert|418000|ha|km2 acre sqmi|0|lk=on Example: 418000 ha

thanks Petersam (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations
Just a thought/suggestion, can we have abbr attribute turned on by default & only have to call the abbr attribute if someone wants the full name of the measurement instead of the acronym? Most people are going to be using the acronyms for measurements instead of the full name & it makes less to type. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My own view is that is too widely used to make this kind of breaking change. Many articles rely on the current defaults and, realistically, it is too late to change it now. SimonTrew (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't why a bot couldn't fix this.『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 19:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you've given a valid reason for wanting this change, and I cannot think of any reason myself for wanting abbreviations by default rather than the expanded text. You may want to elaborate on the reason for wanting this change. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Automotive & distance measurements both typically use the acronym over the full name.『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While a case might be made for automotive-related articles, I would certainly argue against the idea that distance measurements are "typically" given in abbreviations. This template has a much wider variety of uses than just those two, so I see no reason to make such a change. If abbreviations are desired for an individual article or a particular usage, just use the "abbr" parameter. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking thru the list of support measurements, I can't see a single unit that you would normally spell out over abbreviating.『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 01:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Huntster.


 * It's not a question of the conversion, more of the original measure: articles rely on it saying e.g. "10 miles (20 km)" and if we change that to "10 mi (20 km)" we have subtly broken that article not in its meaning but in its flow; in isolation it may seem innocent but as Huntster implies the run of the text may not be full of measures and for those kinds of articles, full spelling is more appropriate. In the opposite case, the decision has to be made "the loop was  long" is "10 mi long" and if one wants the full form ("kilometre" or "kilometres"), as far as I know, one must abandon convert and write it out longhand. This I dislike (i.e. either it should be both abbreviated or neither but not one of each) but is how it stands and changing it will break lots of articles that rely on it using short form on the conversion, as I think MOS recommends.


 * This is becomes especially important when, in an abbreviated form, the unit stands, but without it the case is wrong i.e.  or not (e.g. "a   loop" will be 10-mile not 10 miles).


 * Distance is particularly problematic as "mi" is probably not the natural abbreviation in many places but is used by so as not to be ambiguous; I imagine it is because of  that it has passed into use in the end article and not the other way round, In the UK on road sings "m" is used to indicate miles (on motorway signs, at least, other signs generally have only the number with miles implied as the unit) and in Greece mu (μ; U+03BC) is used for metres on road signs (which does make me wonder how to represent micrometres, since presumably μμ is millimetres so what is micrometres)? So I still hold this will be a subtle breaking change, breaking many articles that we have not considered cases like this. Since I see no strong impulse to change – the convert template is extremely useful and a sod that editors and template constructors alike have to grapple with, but that's part of its nature and history – I just recommend to stet.


 * I realise my examples here are arguing against myself, i.e. that fully spelling it out is problematic whereas the abbreviations generally are not. I would like to think of examples in the opposite direction to support my argument more explicitly, but I hope you can see that the choice really must remain with the article's editor, and so the default choice is not necessarily from carelessness but a careful fiddle with to get the desired result. Changing defaults be they for default precision, default units, abbreviations etc is bound to change articles, and using "What Links Here" is not very fruitful because so many articles use this template.


 * The suggestion I think is worth the discussion, but my own two penn'orth is not to change it. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

fix newton linking
editprotected (was added by another user --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

Newton was recently changed to a disambiguation page and the unit was moved to newton (unit). Can someone please adjust the template to reflect this change? --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of "newton" in the coding of this template. You need to find the subpage(s) and change them (or if they are protected, give a specific description of the changes needed). Cheers, Skomorokh  07:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's happening somehow. Observe: 65.5 N ==> 65.5 N. (Note: I myself did not add the "editprotected" template above and do not consider its addition was appropriate; I apologize for the waste of admin time.) --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes! "This template employs intricate features of template syntax", indeed. I looked around the subtemplates. (More than 2000!) I think that for the templates Convert/N, Convert/kN, ... somebody has to add one more of those cryptic parameters, but I don't know which one. I'm not touching anything in there, this template is write-only code.--ospalh (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ... Thanks, User:Closedmouth. --ospalh (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I missed kN. If you can find a list of subpages that link to newton that I missed, I'll fix them for you. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Template:Convert/nN, for one. --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This list: Convert/list of units/force/SI. I think that leaves Convert/nN, Convert/μN, Convert/mN,Convert/MN, Convert/GN still to do. TIA--ospalh (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Closedmouth (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I added the "editprotected" template to draw (fellow-)admin attention to this request, since whilst it needed someone with the tools to carry out, I don't claim to understand template coding! BencherliteTalk 23:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the template itself states that it should be followed by a "complete and specific description of the request"; my request was not specific enough, which was why I didn't include the template myself in the first place. --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Feet and inches
Can someone tell me please how I control conversion from metres into feet (with parts as decimals) or feet and inches? Iff you look at Škoda_Astra you will see that there is


 * Width: 2.46 metres (8 ft 1 in)
 * Height: 3.46 metres (11.4 ft)

This is using. I looked at the convert docs and could find nothing. It does mention briefly combined units (ft&in) so I tried that and obvious variants but could not get it to change. I presume it is hard-coded to e.g. 10 feet or less, so that human heights are in the natural feet-and-inches style, but cuts off at perhaps 10 feet or something? Is there a way to force it to one style or the other? Perhaps the sigfig option or something?

I use that as a simple example since it is very obvious in the text that the two should be expressed in the same form, but really this is more important for editing Human height where, as I have noted a few days ago in its article talk, there are multifarious styles of expressing the Imperial/US Customary measures (e.g. using ' " with or without spaces, using "and" between them, "foot" vs "feet" and so on). I was hoping to get consensus on it but there have been no replies so I will probably take WP:BOLD here, but would like to have t his clarified before I set out on it.

I don't mind which way it goes (decimal feet or feet-and-inches), obviously consistency is my aim. I am sure that this feature was no doubt put in on request from someone who wanted feet-and-inches rather than decimal feet, but I am hoping it is possible to switch it (and I am happy to add it to the docs to say so). User:Jimp the master can probably answer?

Thanks and best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To force a particular format, use XXX m (2.46 m) for decimal feet, and XXX m (2.46 m) for feet and inches. Since the measures are given in decimal meters (obviously), I've opted for decimal feet to match and gone ahead and fixed the page. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Huntster. I notice you edited the article too. It is perhaps bleeding obvious, of course one tries everything except the correct thing. I think maybe the doc should be amended as it has ft&in (in the running text, not the tables) but as far as I could find, not ftin. I will check and add if necessary. Are there similar thins for ydft, ydftin or anything? SimonTrew (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Some time back the default conversion for metres was adjusted so that it would go to feet & inches for three metres or less. I don't mind if we change it back to plain feet. J IM ptalk·cont 10:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Add some conversions
Can some please N·m to kg·m & lb·ft. Kg·m to N·m &lb-ft works. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 20:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also added cubic inches to Liter & Liter to cubic inches. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 21:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Litres to cubic inches & back again already works. I'll have a shot at the kgf·m ones. J IM ptalk·cont 16:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 05:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Also, how's this?
 * → "10.0 kgf.m"
 * → "10.0 N.m"
 * J IM ptalk·cont 05:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking → "352 N·m (35.5 kg·m; 259 lb-ft)"; to fit with the rest of the acronyms used in this template. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 06:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The dot-no dot thing is easy enough but "kg·m" is not quite correct since it's torque we're after (kilogram force-metres) not mass × length but that's more of a WP:MOSNUM battle. J IM ptalk·cont 08:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just going by what all the other have accepted in the other torque conversions. I think we need to standardize the acronyms & make a sub-page with with what uses what. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There are lists but it's hard to keep them up to date. Some sort of standardisation would be good, yes, but I'd rather it be away from the idea of using symbols/abbreviations of units of mass to imply units of force either in the input unit code or in the output text. The latter part, though has to do with WP text in general so should be argued out here. J IM ptalk·cont 18:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the status on adding ? Nm works for Newton meters with the other torque conversions & same with kgm for kilogram force-meters & lb.ft for foot-pounds.
 * Example: → 31 kgm
 * 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 00:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; I standardized the units used for torque, you can view it here. I used kgm for kilograms-force meters, since kgm already works, but kgm to Nm ft-lb needs to be updated because of right now it used kgm to Nm lb-ft. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well? 「ɠu¹ɖяy」 ¤ • ¢ 03:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above  & kg·m don't seem very good choices of code and symbol for a unit of torque. We should standardise on explicitly indicating that it's kilograms-force. J IM ptalk·cont 11:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even in the wiki article for Kilogram-force it states for torque it is "meter-kilogram" & the Torque article has it listed as "meter-kilograms-force" or "kilogrammeter". 「ɠu¹ɖяy」 ¤ • ¢ 20:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles document a practice which happens to be used in the world at large. Whether or not Wikipedia should adopt the practice is another question. In my view it should not as the practice is against SI standard but this should probably be debated on a more general page than this, i.e. WT:MOSNUM. We should probably have sorted this out before we settle on how to encode the unit. J IM ptalk·cont 20:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion has been moved to a WP:MOSNUM discussion 「ɠu¹ɖяy」 ¤ • ¢ 21:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

mpg
I would like that mpg would be also converted to km/l (this is more similar to mpg). --Nopetro (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It already does 45 mpgus is 45 mpgus & 45 mpgimp is 45 mpgimp 「ɠu¹ɖяy」 ¤ • ¢ 00:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OutputOnly parameter
I would like an output-only parameter for the convert template for use in quotes that have numbers written in words. "... at seventy-five miles per hour 75 mph ." would produce "... at seventy-five miles per hour(121 km/h)." rather than "... at seventy-five miles per hour 75 mph." RalphOnTheRailroad (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Confused. 75 mph produces 75 mph & 75 mph produces 75 mph. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」 ¤ • ¢ 02:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is with the 75. As a quote is has to appear as the words "seventy-five.".RalphOnTheRailroad (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are either of these going to be of any use?
 * → 75 mph
 * → 75 mph
 * J IM ptalk·cont 02:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Athough |abbrev=on is documented as abbreviating all units, it seems that it really abbreviates only the input unit. That is, the output unit is always abbreviated regardless of this parameter. In that case, it would be a no-op here since the input unit is never written out by the convert macro. I cannot think of a use for the second one...yet. I would say to implement it or not depending on how easy/straight forward it is. Thanks RalphOnTheRailroad (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not always, e.g. → "75 mph". J IM ptalk·cont 03:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does |abbr=on always abbreviate all units whereas |abbr=off never abbreviates the input unit but sometimes abbreviates the output unit and sometimes does not--in this case depending on the presence of |disp=or? In my particular application I can't see using |disp=or. I would think it would not be necessary to include the |abbr=on, but wouldn't mind doing so if necessary RalphOnTheRailroad (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's be blunt here. This template should not be used in quotations. Leave quotes exactly as they originally appeared (heck, last I checked we discouraged even wikilinking inside quotes), and if you think the conversion is that important, find a way to make a note of it afterward. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did suggest a few months ago that it would be useful, in some circumstances, if the output could be in square brackets ("&#91;" &#91; and "&#93;" &#93;) which would be how most things are done, at least in UK publications, when inserting or eliding text in a quote. While I agree this should not be overdone, I think it could be useful sometimes. However, I see that providing we can suppress the input, it is hardly difficult to manufacture oneself. (Are the "output only" and "output number only" options universally available? They are not well documented, as far as I can tell.) SimonTrew (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

tonnes measurements
What's the story behind the conversions provided to the various tonnes measurements? That don't seem to really convert to anything... for example: 123 t; notice how it provides LT and ST, but how does that help relate to other measurement systems? Wouldn't it be more advantageous to provide kilograms or newtons? — V = I * R  (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 123 t. Peter Horn User talk 15:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tonnes-force (e.g ) will give newtons but why would you want to convert tonnes to kilograms (when a tonne is just 1,000 kg)? J IM ptalk·cont 12:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding kilograms... that's kind of what I'm getting at above. T currently goes to LT and ST? That's not really a conversion. At least the kilograms name looks different, if you see what I mean. Regardless, I don't actually care what the target is, I just think that it sould be something different. Pounds? Newtons? Anything. — V = I * R  (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Going from tonne, which is the metric ton, (100 kg, one megagram) to short ton (2000 lb) or long ton (2240 lb, twenty hundredweights of eight stones each of fourteen pounds each) seems perfectly reasonably to me. You do go from one measuring system to another. The long ton just happens to be somewhat close to the metric ton, even if the units aren't related. On the other hand I don't see the point of converting, say 123.789 tonnes to 123,789 kilograms. (And you can't convert a mass (tonnes) into a force (newtons) without cheating.) And when you want some other unit, you can always specify what is should be converted to, viz, 123.789 t gives 123.789 t.--ospalh (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Got to get round to getting rid of those nonsense abbreviations ... yeah, as Ospalh says, tonnes to kilograms looks like a proper conversion but is in fact pretty useless (move the decimal point three places) whereas tonnes to long & short tons may not look like much of a conversion but actually is (metric to avoirdupois). Tonnes to pounds would make sense but I still reckon that long & short tons is the better default target since these are of a similar scale (which I would assume is why they have similar names) and therefore are used for similar types of measurements.  Tonnes-force is a different unit and should be kept distinct. J IM ptalk·cont 14:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do realize that the target can be any other mass (My inclusion of Newtons earlier was just a slip. I was thinking of something in the article I was editing at the time), I'm only talking about the default. I don't really dispute any of the points that have been made here, but... practically, it often seems as though little new information is being presented by converting to LT and ST. I can easily see the issue with kilograms, but a conversion to Pounds will always present an immediately clear difference to the reader. Tonnes, along with the short and long ton, are not measurements that are in everyday use, and I think that one of the goals behind using Convert is to try to present items using something that the reader can easily relate to, right? — V = I * R  (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pounds would be the best alternative (perhaps the only reasonable one) to long/short tons as the default conversion. As a default pounds might have advantages over long/short tons. I agree that one of the goals behind using the template is to present info in easy-to-understand fashion & can see how pounds may often be easier to grasp than long/short tons. However, if we're considering changing the default, we should keep in mind that this might affect thousands of articles (literally). On the other hand, I think it essential to consider what sort of measurements are made in tonnes and then consider what units these measurements would have been made in if it had been (the long or short version of) the avoirdupois system instead of the metric system which had been used. It seems to me that the kinds of things we metric folk measure in tonnes, those non-metric folk would tend to measure in long/short tons. Thus, I still believe that long/short tons is the more appropriate default in spite of their being so close to the tonne that the numerical inputs & outputs differ only by a few percent. J IM ptalk·cont 16:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do not change this default. Tonnes to tons is useful.  Tonnes to lbs isn't so much, unless someone specifically requests it in the template. - Denimadept (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In my limited experience, for what it's worth, in units being taken from European articles at, e.g. WP:PNT, "tons" is often used with, I am guessing, the assumption it means metric tonnes. I have converted it so. I think it is likely hypercorrection, but it wouldn't be ounces or tons of TNT], so I took WP:BOLD there and nobody refuted, probably I am a stickleback who lives in backwaters. The is good; it does not overdo it by linking to short ton or long ton or spelling out the difference in people's faces, (and I am happy to argue here which is which, in the good nature of this talk page that is the mark of the people who look after this very important template), as I think the definitions have changed over the years, at least in common literature if not with the weights & measures people; in several books I have, which are verifiable but not perhaps reliable, different conversions are given.


 * In practical use a "ton" or "tonne" is pronounced at least in all dialects of British English I know the same (not in French, because the N it is a voiced nasal fricative on "ton" but a voiced labial fricative on "tonne") and they are within a cigarette paper of each other in their dimensions for most practical purposes, so if you ask for a ton of sand and get a tonne you are hardly likely to feel short-changed.


 * Hmm pronouncing it, it is not fricative, but you get the idea.

t, LT & ST are not "useless or silly abbreviations" but are unit symbols sooh 1000 t or 1000 ST (in the second sample "abbr=on" appears to be disfunctional) "lk=on" will help the "lay person" sort things out. Peter Horn User talk 15:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course in some articles it is important to determine precision; the speed limit article where yesterday I added some uses was a struggle to decide, since by its nature it needs an exactitude not necessary in other articles; there 100 km is 62 mi whereas in most general articles it would be 60 mph; one can only use one's own judgment and trust that, if wrong, other editors in good faith will change it. (There was also some idiocy claiming a Japanese speed limit of 62 mph, which, mirabile dictu, is 100 km/h.)


 * Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(not sure how to indent) In the UK it is useful to convert tons to hundredweight (cwt). There being of course a haundred of them in a ton. Noh! er twenty, each weighing 100 lb. No! 112. Er or something like that. But vehicles are often described as weight in hundredweight, and also in more general articles e.g. coal is weighed for domestic delivery in hundredweight.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)