Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:23, 6 June 2008

Archives

2007January–October November December2008January February March April May

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

An exceedingly angry user: note citation of enforced dual target units

My unhappiness with enforced dual target units (see section above about nmi) is shared by another user. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Automotive_templates:_Template:Auto_hp_and_others. His unhappiness extends well beyond that issue. Please take a look. I think we all need to. Lightmouse (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to piggy-back your issue of having nmi converted into km or mi but not both onto this guy's tirade. If you read his tirade, it sounds like he says the complete opposite of your enforced dual target argument. He wants miles per gallon-US to convert to mpg-UK and km/L. The whole reason for his tirade is because someone TfD'd one of his "auto" convert templates a month ago and Lightmouse and myself voted in favor of it being deleted. He is afraid that someone, in his words may "convert miles per hour into lightyears per teaspoon" using this template. Whatever... —MJCdetroit 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I was trying to use his comments in support of a point I made. I did not understand the detail of what he was saying (although I think his main point was clear). Thus it is entirely possible that I misunderstood it to be the opposite and he is actually citing single unit target as a bad feature of convert template. However now that you have made me think about it, I looked at just one auto template at Lamborghini Murciélago and saw the use of {{auto mpg|8}}. The produces 'Template:Auto mpg' so it would be bizarre for him to say that auto does dual and convert does single. I have not investigated the fuel efficiency templates further. What do you think?

Incidentally, fuel efficiency is an area where I would think that dual target would be appropriate in many cases. I just object to dual target being an inconsistent and a mandated exception that applies to all instances regardless of what any editor actually wants in a particular article. Of course, his main point is rather larger than that. Lightmouse (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry LM, I agree with sometimes but I don't this time. I agree with Huntster, nmi is fine how it is. BTW {{mpg|12}}-->Template:Mpg that's my average mileage in my one SUV:( but it's paid for :). —MJCdetroit 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly a concern but, no, I don't read Steve Baker as being concerned with the dual default outputs on {{convert}}. JIMp _talk·cont 08:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reread it. I agree now that he was complaining (incorrectly) that convert does not have an option for dual target units. I have no problem with the *option*. I see that there are {{auto mpg|12}} and {{mpg|12}} templates. MJC, I would be horrified if that is what I was consuming. Lightmouse (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is there any interest in a conversion to and from lightyears per teaspoon ... it could be added? JIMp _talk·cont 00:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even going to ask how such a conversion would work, but as a bit of an easter egg, might as well have some fun with it :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And while you're at it, how about converting the post-Star-Trek megaparsecs per microsecond to the British snail-friendly furlongs per fortnight. But only after converting pecks of Polish pickled peppers to billions of British beer barrels. And don't forget the metric myrametre (most people do). RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1 megaparsec per microsecond = 1.85538397×10^32 furlongs per fortnight and 1 peck = 0.0750740156 beer barrels. Oh, how I love thy esotericness, Google. Thou art my friend. As is {{convert}}. But I think you are joshing about the myrametre...only seven ghits using both British and American spellings, and they don't convert it, lol. However, this says 1 myrametre = 10 km, so who knows. Need moar citation! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I (and the reference you cited) misspelled it. It should be the myriametre, which is 10,000 metres. (See non-SI unit prefix#obsolete prefixes). Sorry about that. Now, the myriametre is only of modern significance because it is still in use as the Norwegian mile. I personally flew to Norway, found two milestones, paced off the distance between them, and confirmed it was 10 kilometres, but I can't use that in a Misplaced Pages article because that would be considered original research. However, they often do measure fuel economy in litres per mile (L/mil) so we may need another conversion for our friends in Scandinavia. (Just kidding - I think furlongs per firkin is more important).RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I did note that the joke unit 'lightyears per teaspoon' is a direct comparision with miles per gallon as length/volume. He could have chosen the usual joke unit 'furlongs per fortnight' but the extra trouble he took made the joke a bit funnier. On a more serious note, see what others have said about the deletion of auto templates at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Auto_Templates_Deletion. Lightmouse (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note, there are a few issues here that I can see here:

• The Auto templates have some problems. For instance, the standard abbreviation for metric fuel economy is L/100 km. Some templates return l/100 km which was depreciated because it is hard to distinguish a lower case l from the numeral 1. And the proper abbreviation for cubic centimetres is cm, not the depreciated cc. We won't even talk about CID for cubic inch displacement.
• Nobody in the world sells fuel in imperial gallons any more, that I know of. It's an obsolete unit, like cubits. The U.K. and all of its former colonies (except the U.S.) have converted to metric. So why does anyone want to calculate fuel economy in imperial gallons per mile? It should be miles per gallon (U.S.), or litres per 100 km (the rest of the world). MPG should mean American miles per American gallons.

From Gallon definitions subheading:

The Imperial gallon continues to be used as a unit of measure for fuel in Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Burma, Grenada, Guyana, Sierra Leone and the United Arab Emirates.

I also found this from the Antigua Sun last month stating the following:

WIOC recently informed APUA that the price of diesel had moved from $9.31 to $10.25 per imperial gallon and fuel oil from $6.12 to $6.35 per imperial gallon.

Somehow, I don't think it's as obsolete as you belive. :-)Beachgrinch (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• All automobile companies now design their cars in metric and then soft-convert them to U.S. units in the brochures for the U.S. market. They all have international operations, and don't want to connect their German transmission to their U.S. engine in their British automobile to find that the bolt holes don't match up. But if someone wants to know how big the engine is in cubic inches, and has the money to buy the car, they're willing to convert the numbers.

The British Empire is dead and the American Empire is dying. Get used to it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I nominate User:Lightmouse to be banned along with his metric "conversions"

I am sick of fixing the messes left behind by Lightmouse and his brainless metric conversions, e.g. involving WWI British ordnance. An example :
Originally on page Artillery :
]s, operate a ] during ].]]
After change using AWB on 12th March :
]s, operate a ] during ].]]

Spot the mistake ?. There are four things wrong about this : First, such a sensitive and potentially complicated update should be done manually, not via automation - the potential to damage many pages is big. Nobody bothered to check results after this example. Secondly, the choice of appropriate conversion parameters requires some thought and familiarity with the subject of the page. Converting an approximate gun range of say 25000 yards to metres requires sigfig=3; converting a gun's calibre e.g. 9.2-inch, requires sigfig=4 or even 5 as 9.2 inch here is an exact measurement. Likewise converting a 100lb artillery shell to kg requires sigfig=4, as again 100lb here is an exact measurement, not an approximation. Thirdly, these conversions do not add any content to Misplaced Pages, they just clutter up the page. Any idiot who is really interested in the topic can whip out his calculator to do the conversion himself. Fourthly, it is traditional in historical writing to use the units of measurement in use by the subject under discussion at that time. If the subject dealt in imperial units, that is the correct unit for the discussion i.e. the Misplaced Pages page content. British gunners in WWI did not talk about a 100 lb (45kg) shell or a 9.2 inch (233.68mm) gun. To introduce metric conversions, and badly done conversions at that, is ahistorical. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And kudos for spending the time to "ban a user" and not bothering to fix the error you noticed from March. It took less than 30 seconds. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the forum to ban users. Lightmouse hasn't done anything ban-worthy. I don't see that he's even done anything harmful at all.

1. There is potential for error if the conversion is done manually too.
2. The number of significant figures is easy to change using the template (had the conversion been done manually, it'd have to be redone).
3. I'd prefer a little clutter to being forced to whip out my calculator every time a measurement is given.
4. The original units remain the prime units. The conversions are added for the benifit of today's reader. British gunners in WWI didn't talk that way, no, but we are writing now not talking then.

JIMp _talk·cont 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been my experience that young people in the former British colonies which have converted to the metric system no longer understand the imperial system, since they no longer learn it in school. Hence, when you talk about a "9.2 inch howitzer", they say "What?" But if you tell them it's a 9.2 inches (230 mm) howitzer, they realize it's almost the equivalent of the French 240 mm howitzer of the same period. As far as accuracy is concerned, more decimal places don't help. The ubiquitous (in the U.S.) .38 caliber handgun shoots a bullet that is actually 0.357 inches in diameter (and the .357 magnum shoots the same size bullet with a lot more gunpowder.) Calling it a .357 inches (9.1 mm) conveys the fact that it is almost the same size as the ubiquitous (in the rest of the world) 9 mm parabellum. However, all these gun sizes are nominal sizes rather than actual ones so a conversion template really can't handle it. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm from a fromer colony. I don't call myself young but that's a relative term. I didn't learn the imperial system at school. I've got a fair idea of imperial quarts, pints, ¾ pints, ½ pints and ounces form drinking beer and scotch in the pub but otherwise I think in metric. Good point about the sizes' being nominal though. JIMp _talk·cont 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Case in point. However (and this is totally off topic but why stop now), I was ordering beer in a pub in Canada, and the menu said, "We serve an 18-ounce pint of beer". Now, since the American pint is 16 ounces, the British pint is 20 ounces, and there were large numbers of Americans and Brits in the restaurant, I came to the conclusion that this was kind of a "world average pint" of beer. However, it left open the question, "American ounces or British ounces?" because the British ounce is 0.96 American ounces. Since Canada is on the metric system, I'm betting it was a half-litre pint of beer, on the principle that "you can call it whatever you want as long as you pay for it with hard currency".RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What the OP was probably so steamed about, but didn't express well was that the conversion was made to the name of a weapon and actually to the name of the linked article in the link, not on the piped side of the link. This of course broke the link, which is not a completely useful edit. Not a hanging offence though, I would have thought. RockyMtnGuy raises the point that some weapon sizes are nominal measurements not necessarily accurate measurements of anything to do with the weapon or its ammunition. Because of this I have (very clumsily) removed the conversion from the link altogether along with some unrelated apparent vandalism. The target article for the 9.2 inch Howitzer thingy is probably the best place for any conversions.
I agree with KelleyCook; if ya don't like it - revert it and perhaps leave a polite message on the user's talk. I am sure it wasn't the template's fault. Apart from article names not being appropriate places for unit conversions, JimP's 4 points says it well. Bleakcomb (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with unit conversions not giving the real picture is pervasive with all kinds of guns. If you take the 7.62 mm Nato round, that would convert to 7.62 millimetres (0.300 in). That's misleading, because it actually has the same dimensions as the .308 Winchester. Similarly, converting the 5.56 mm Nato, the standard M16 round, gives 5.56 millimetres (0.219 in) which gives no indication that it is the same size as the .223 Remington. The difference occurs because in one case they're measuring the diameter of the barrel, and in the other case the diameter of the bullet. And some of these British guns are just untranslatable. For instance, converting the WWII British 17 pounder to metric - 17 pounds (7.7 kg) - gives no indication whatever that it is an antiaircraft/antitank gun in the same class as the dreaded German 88 mm gun.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kilo-, Mega-Parsec

Could you please add kiloparsec (kpc), megaparsec (Mpc) and maybe gigaparsec (Gpc) for distances to galaxies and stars? And something similar for lightyears as well. Because things like 57,000,000 parsecs (190,000,000 light-years) don't look well. —Bender235 (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. JIMp _talk·cont 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I might add this to Template:Convert/list of units/length. —Bender235 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Stone (weight)

Please change Stone (weight) to Stone (mass). --Zimbabweed (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. JIMp _talk·cont 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Parenthesese, right and wrong

A few users have complained that conversions are wrong because they do not agree with the precision. If a unit is in parentheses or brackets, it is merely an interpretation. I propose that we should get that documented somewhere. I would not like us to be forced to use 'approximately', 'c', 'ca', or '~' in each conversion and I think it is frustrating to get complaints that conversions are wrong. What do others think? Lightmouse (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, politely document the fact that it is they who are wrong. Do we want that here, at WP:MOSNUM or both? Coincidentally the use of "~" has just come up at WT:MOSNUM. JIMp _talk·cont 19:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If we add something here, we could point out that WP:MOSNUM says

Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not ... (236,121 mi).

JIMp _talk·cont 20:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As you have seen, we have had complaints about excessive precision e.g. 'about 100 yards away' should be converted to 'about 100 metres away' rather than 'about 91 metres away'. Then we have had complaints about inadequate precision in specifications. As you say, we should point them at that text but I also think that we should have a safety net that says the conversion *regardless of precision* is not to be relied upon. Or something to that effect. The first person to add the conversion template should not be criticised just because the precision in parentheses is not exactly how another (and possibly anti-conversion) editor demands it should be. Lightmouse (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, if you don't like it, change it or remove it, as long as you've got decent reason. A safety net would be good but let's not have the wording "not to be relied upon", it's not to be taken as exact but that doesn't make it unreliable. JIMp _talk·cont 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, I just saw a growing mass of people unhappy with conversions just because they did not happen to agree with the precision. Some of them are calling for a ban on conversions. Some of them are suggesting that conversions are only permitted if the precision happens to be what they think is the right level (I have seen millimetre precision being used for things like marathon distance). Some of them are demanding that extra caveats are put in the parentheses (e.g. '~'). Perhaps you are right, we just need more Misplaced Pages editors to learn that precision is part-art and part-science and the template can always be updated easier than a manual conversion. Lightmouse (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. What seems just so plain obvious to you & me is escaping these editors. You don't want to end up sounding as if you think you know better than they do but ... there must be a way. JIMp _talk·cont 23:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate primary units

Hello,

I have a request that a template argument be added here so that you can designate the alternate units to be primary. The place I would like to use this is in astronomy articles. Most literature is in parsecs but most of the wiki articles use light-years as the primary unit. Therefore, I would like to convert from the literature's parsecs to laymen oriented light-years, but show light-years (laymen oriented) as the primary unit something like this:

Today's usage:

{{convert | 27 | Mpc | Mly | abbr = on | lk = on }}

Becomes:

Template:Convert/Mpc

Requested usage:

{{convert | 27 | Mpc | Mly | abbr = on | lk = on | primary = Mly }}

Becomes:

88 Mly (27 Mpc)

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before. The feature is coming ... sometime. There is, of course, the problem that by putting the conversion first you potentially mislead the reader into thinking that this was the original measurement. This problem whilst (in my view) serious is not difficult to overcome. Another advantage of this feature would be to maintain consistency when the sources use differing systems, somewhat desireable in prose but necessary in tables. So, it's coming but, yeah, so is Christmas. JIMp _talk·cont 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Large Masses

Is there a unit for million pounds or billion pounds (e.g. for use with mining and ores)? If not, I would like to suggest new units defined Mlb for millions of lbs and Blb for billions of lbs. Also, could you please define kt = kilotonne and ?? = megatonne.

Today's usage:

{{convert|80000|t|lb}}

{{convert|180000000|lb|t}}

Becomes

80,000 tonnes (180,000,000 lb)

180,000,000 pounds (82,000 t)

Requested usage:

{{convert|80000|t|Mlb}}

{{convert|180|Mlb|t}}

{{convert|80000|t|Blb}}

{{convert|180|Blb|t}}

Becomes

80,000 tonnes (180 million lb)

180 million pounds (80,000 t)

80,000,000 tonnes (180 billion lb)

180 billion pounds (80,000,000 t)

Kgrr (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's going to take a bit of a door-to-door sales pitch to get editors to finally switch from kt to kn for knot ... or perhaps I should just go the sledgehammer approach and give 'em a big red message for a couple of weeks. The symbol for megatonne is "Mt" and, unlike kt, Mt is empty. I have to say that I'd prefer Glb (i.e. G for "giga-") for consistancy's sake. Also note that if a number is spelt out, then so should the unit be. Thus we shouldn't have "180 billion lb". Instead what I'll do is have it written out in engineering notation (i.e. 180×10 lb) when the unit is abbreviated like we've got with the large numbers of cubic metres & cubic feet. JIMp _talk·cont 05:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Getting users to switch from 'kt' to 'kn': Coincidentally, a few days ago I requested bot approval to convert existing templates from 'kt' to 'kn'. New ones will appear but the bot could be run again later. No user action will be required for that. Some users will see their own edits converted and notice the change. Others may not. Documentation will need to be updated to warn of the end of knot as 'kt'. After it has gone for a couple of months, it could be switched back on as kilotonne. Lightmouse (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Now that we are using k, M, G, and T within the template, I think it is also best to recommend km2 over sqkm within the template. This will make it more wysiwyg, easier to explain, and more extendable. For example, kg/cm2 is better than kg/sqcm. My bot proposal is to address that too.

I would welcome support for the bot proposal at the link I gave. Lightmouse (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! I've been thinking of a different solution but they don't conflict. Seeing as most of these kts appear in a certain ship infobox, I've been thinking about rewriting that particular template. It's protected but once I've got the new version up and running it'll surely be welcomed. But now I've got to thinking about a metatemplate to make the update & updates of other info boxes a damn-sight easier. {{Convert}} will no longer have to be transcluded on the the page (within the info boxes) directly. I'll keep you updated (here). JIMp _talk·cont 08:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to leave a note on the bot request page indicating your support? If you do support it, of course. Lightmouse (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mlb for million pounds and Glb for billion pounds are rather non-traditional. I would suggest e6lb (10lb) for million pounds and e9lb (10lb) for billion pounds (assuming you use American billions and not European billions). There are limits to how far you can go band-aiding these old traditional units for the 21st century. They really should use kilotonnes (kt) and megatonnes (Mt) since nobody but the USA officially uses pounds any more. Since kt has been been preempted for kilotonne by international standards organizations, US, Canadian and other marine authorities prefer kn. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then let it be e3lb, e6lb, etc. That was my second choice. It's probably clearer that way since attatching SI prefixes to non-metric units is not the commonly done thing & you're bound to run into strife somewhere with ambiguity I s'pose. We could extend this to other things e.g. e3mi for a thousand miles, e12km for a billion kilometres but call it a trillion since the original (i.e. European) definition is falling out of use in English. JIMp _talk·cont 00:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimp, that's certainly a solution that sounds very workable. Could you please let me know when the new units are available? Kgrr (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

intrusive space before inverse units

In the templates for population density, such as Convert//sqkm (and likely other inverse-only templates), the usual non-breaking space is intrusive:

{{convert|100|/sqkm}}

yields

Template:Convert//sqkm

and

{{convert|100|/sqkm|abbr=on}}

yields

Template:Convert//sqkm

Can this be easily remedied, or is it a deep assumption of the Convert template that there should always be a non-breaking space between the number and the unit?

In addition to the templates I mentioned above, this problem would affect the (needed but not-yet-coded) conversions of units of inverse time (RPM, Hz, s⁻¹, "daily").

Stephan Leeds (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be fixed but it'll take a little time. JIMp _talk·cont 16:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Between" question

Greetings to the template masters! Is there a syntax for the convert template to handle the "between" or "from" case, in this instance "between 60 and 170 kg (132 - 375 lb)", alternatively "from 60 to 170 kg (132 - 375 lb)"? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been holding out on it since it's only half done but ...

{{convert|60|and|170|kg}} gives "60 and 170 kilograms (130 and 370 lb)"

{{convert|60|to|170|kg}} gives "60 to 170 kilograms (130 to 370 lb)"

The long anticipated range functionality. JIMp _talk·cont 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Took it out for a test drive - sweet. Nice work. It would be nice to have the option of a dash (or em-dash or whatever) instead of the "and" in the secondary, since the repetitive word is not strictly necessary. But hey, thanks for the enhancement! Franamax (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, looking at the diffs here, you're already on that. Carry on MacDuff, and damned be he who cries "halt, enough" :) Franamax (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Initially I had thought of using to wherever the unit is spelt out and an en-dash (not an em-dash per MoS) wherever the abbreviations/symbols were used, however, we'd have run into strife with negative temperatures: minus sign n en-dash minus sign m degrees Celsiheit looks pretty bad. That's why the repetition of the conjunctive word was made put in place. There is the optiojn of doing things as originally planned (to and en-dash), as you've noticed. To get this you use to(-) instead of plain to. There's something wrong with it though ... probably just a redirect pointing the wrong way. It won't be too hard to extend that option to the "and" case. It's early days for this functionality so things can be adjusted, e.g. we could have to do what to(-) now does and to get two tos have another code. JIMp _talk·cont 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Jimp, might "by" (50 by 100 ft...) also be included? I've been coming across several of those instances lately. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It is, plain en-dashes and plus minus signs too.

{{convert|60|-|170|ft}} gives "60–170 feet (18–52 m)"

{{convert|60|x|170|ft}} gives "60 by 170 feet (18 m × 52 m)"

{{convert|600|+/-|17|ft}} gives "600 ± 17 feet (182.9 ± 5.2 m)"

Note that those dashes in the code are hyphens. JIMp _talk·cont 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant as ever Jimp, thanks :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There should not be a unit on the first parameter in the converted range. Namely it is currently showing up as "60 by 170 feet (18 m × 52 m)" when it should be "60 by 170 feet (18 × 52 m)". -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Not according to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Unit symbols

In spatial values each number should be followed by a unit ("1 m × 3 m × 6 m", not "1 × 3 × 6 m" or "1 × 3 × 6 m").

JIMp _talk·cont 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, each value needs to stand alone. You can get:

• asymmetrical units, such as "the cable is 5 mm by 100 m". However, I think that it is ok to drop the first unit if it is identical to the second. I cannot see any possibility of misinterpretation by a reasonable reader.
• ambiguous values, such as "production rose from 3 to 7 billion barrels", "the mountain range (3 to 7,000 m) could be seen". You need domain knowledge to disambiguate. That is a bad thing.

I would be interested to see any official text about the units. I took a look at the official SI website but could not find anything. Lightmouse (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot to convert cum to m3 within the template

I have trial approval to run a bot. One of its task will be to modify template code. This will have no effect on the visible page but will make the edit mode more wysiwyg, easier to explain, and more extendable. For example, cucm will be replaced by cm3.

Jimp, can you give me a list of the relevant subtemplates that deal with squares and cubes that you would like me to tackle? Lightmouse (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Per conversion, source unit value one

I've used the template in the following way in the Blackburn article:

"...land purchased from Joseph Fielden, lord of the manor, for £50 per {{convert|1|acre|ha|lk=on}} in 1855."

This renders as "1 acre (0.40 ha)", but I would prefer "acre (0.40 ha)", with the "1" not present. Is this possible with the template? And if it isn't, should it be? Beejaypii (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What you really need is '£x per lb' (£y/kg). Lightmouse (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think '£x per acre' (£y/ha) would be more appropriate in the case I've described above. Anyway, can I assume that what I'm trying to achieve is not possible with the template and I therefore won't be able to use it on this occasion? Beejaypii (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your bot is damaging articles

Moved from User talk:Lightmouse: begin
Your bot is substituting kn for knot. This is about as helpful as substituting 'B' for 'A'. Please desist.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Lightmouse: end

Toddy1, you may be able to look elsewhere on this page for details of this. Jimp, can you please reassure Toddy1 that this is what is wanted. Lightmouse (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse, please stop your bot's run converting "knot" to "kn" in template {{convert}}. If "knot" works in the template, I can see no compelling reason to change it. What your edits are doing is clogging my watchlist with insignificant changes, and changing an easily identifiable unit—from the perspective of editors—to a more obscure abbreviation. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Please read the discussion above between myself and Jimp. Lightmouse (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

All I see is subbing "kn" for "kt" for the unit knot. Where is the discussion—and consensus, I might add—for this change? This affects a huge number of WP:SHIPS articles, and clogging, I suspect, many a watchlist for no net gain. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please search for kt on this page and on wp:mosnum. Trying to help. Lightmouse (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I will say: all I see is discussion for subbing "kn" for "kt". I saw, read, and understood the reasoning behind changing from "kt" to "kn", and wholeheartedly agree with making a change from an ambiguous abbreviation to a non-ambiguous abbreviation. What I don't see, and what I have been commenting about is the change of "knot" (note the spelled out word) to the abbreviation of "kn". I will again point out that I see no discussion or consensus to make that specific change. Because "knot" works in the template, and does help editors know that the unit is, in fact, the correct, non-ambiguous unit, I see zero compelling evidence that this change is beneficial.

Also, please don't edit my comments by removing indentation. That's pretty bad form. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. "FuelPrices1999" (pdf). German Technical Cooperation. p. 9. Retrieved 2008-01-15.
2. "GRENADA VISITOR FORUM - Cost Of Living - Grocery Prices". Retrieved 2008-01-15.
3. "The Government of Grenada - The Ministry of Agriculture". Retrieved 2008-01-15. he price of gasoline at the pumps was fixed at EC$7.50 per imperial gallon...
4. "Belize Ministry of Finance::FAQ". Belize Ministry of Finance. Retrieved 2008-01-15. #Kerosene per US Gallon (per Imperial gallon)#Gasoline (Regular)(per Imperial Gallon)# Gasoline (Premium) (per Imperial Gallon)#Diesel (per Imperial Gallon) {{cite web}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 87 (help)
5. "Belize shopping". Retrieved 2008-01-15. Although the Belize $ is pegged at two for every US$, they use Imperial gallons rather than the smaller US gallons (0.83 of an Imperial) when dealing with gasoline. The cheapest grade of gasoline was US$4.69/Imperial gallon
6. "The High Commission Antigua and Barbuda". Retrieved 2008-01-15.
7. "FuelPrices2005" (pdf). German Technical Cooperation. p. 96. Retrieved 2008-01-15.
8. "500 Are Detained in Burmese Capital". Retrieved 2008-01-16. ... the Government cut the ration of subsidized gasoline from six to four imperial gallons a week
9. "Burma's Activists March against Fuel Price". 20 Aug 2007. Retrieved 2008-01-16. The government, which holds a monopoly on fuel sales and subsidizes them, raised prices of fuel from 1,500 kyats (US $1.16) to 3,000 kyats ($2.33) per imperial gallon for diesel and to 2,500 kyats ($1.94) for gasoline. {{cite web}}: Text "publisher+HikeThe Irrawaddy News Magazine Online Edition Covering Burma" ignored (help)
10. Win, Aye Aye (22 Aug 2007). "Fuel Hike Protest Begins in Myanmar". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-01-16. The government, which holds a monopoly on fuel sales and subsidizes them, raised prices of fuel from $1.16 to $2.33 per imperial gallon for diesel and to $1.94 for gasoline. A canister of natural gas containing 17 gallons was raised from 39 cents to $1.94.
11. http://www.antiguasun.com/paper/?as=view&sun=252711059902202008&an=182303069004172008&ac=Local