Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:57, 18 January 2014

Created for sports articles, to indicate how tall a player is.

Usage

— May. 30, '06 <freak|talk>

• Clawed, by stretching out this template to say ft and in, you are stretching out countless infoboxes needlessly which use this template inside of them. ie: NHL players. Just leave it with the standard " for inches and ' for feet. The strokes 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The template should strictly follow the manual of style since it is a template in many articles. I have looked at half of all the NHL players that use the NHL infobox and only found a couple of boxes that were expanded such as Sergei Samsonov, but always by only a very small amount. Can you please provide some exapmles of articles where the infoboxes have been expanded by the change of this template--Clawed 08:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Shawn_Horcoff Sergei_Samsonov Brendan_Morrison

. The bracketed measurement will be placed on a second line

Foot (unit of length

Could someone fix the link so that it points to Foot (unit of length), which is the correct link. Thanks. --Zimbabweed 18:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, someone change this:

to this:

Thanks in advance, Muéro 09:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed the link. --Zimbabweed 00:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

USS Firebolt (PC-10)

This template is being used on that article, but the numbers given in it are not exact, so using this template implies an inappropriate degree of precision. This shouldn't be used outside of cases where the numbers are specifically known. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Small change to remove spaces

A small request/proposal: rather than 6 ft (1.8 m), how about 6ft (1.8m)? When written normally, there would be no space between the number and symbol, e.g. 20kg, 100m. Fedgin | Talk 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):

Put a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg", "5 °C", (not "25kg", "5° C"); however, angles in degrees have no space: "45°". Preferably, use   for the space (25 kg) so that it does not break lines. GregorB 14:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fault

Using {{height|m=1.82}} gives:

• 1.82 m (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in)

5 ft 12 in is 6 ft. This template therefore needs a tinker.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking 1.82m is 5.97112861 feet. Since it's not quite yet six feet, that's probably why it's not rounding it up to 6 ft 0 in—to insinuate the small difference.

Or it could be broken, I'm just postulating here. — pd_THOR | 12:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Broken. Should be 6 ft. GregorB 14:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the fix (hopefully):

It's also slightly simpler... GregorB 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Units

Is it possible to have the template display conversions in centimetres rather than metres and centimetres, e.g. 6 ft 1 in (185 cm)? McPhail 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts also... Besides: e.g. 5 ft 11 in expands to "1.8 m", which is an odd format for human height (1.80 m or 180 cm would be customary). I'd also like to see a 1/2 inch precision (e.g. 187 cm is 6 ft 1½ in), although this looks pretty difficult to implement. GregorB 14:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fraction solution is ugly:

Works only one way, metric to inches. GregorB 16:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the above code to {{Height2}}. GregorB 11:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Add a IW

Hi I've created a copy of this template on the norwegian language. Can an administrator add a IW in the noinclude section to no:Mal:Height? Nsaa 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

no inch display

Is there a way to make the 0 inches not display. E.G. at Palmolive Building. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Short of altering the template, apparently not. I'd recommend {{Ft to m}}. GregorB 07:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is just what I am looking for. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Links

{{editprotected}} I'd like to propose removing links to ft, in, metres, etc, as this makes the display of height in infoboxes very inelegant. It's also superfluous as the most obvious of links are not supposed to be made unless relevant to the article, such as linking years when not part of a date. Opinions? robwingfield  21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The links don't really bother me, but I suppose they are not too useful either. GregorB 15:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have turned off the editprotected link for now because there is very little comment on this and this template is used very widely. I would like to see enough to believe that there is consensus before making the change. Perhaps you can post something at the village pump to draw some attention for people to come here and comment. Once (if) you have consensus, I will be happy to make the change. --After Midnight 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I support it per GregorB's comment. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 03:59, July 5, 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this. I believe the links should remain because users may not be familiar with the units, or more importantly the abbreviations. And on many articles, this template is the first and only usage of them. I wouldn't be opposed to a parameter specifying whether to link or not. — The Storm Surfer 04:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A reader wouldn't be familiar with the units or abbreviations? I'd find that hard to believe, but in the remote possibility that they're not familiar with pretty much the only units used to measure height worldwide (either metres or feet & inches), then the figures being provided are of no use to them, so a link to the article describing them would be of no use either. robwingfield  18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

problem in algorithm?

{{editprotected}}

It seems the following is giving an error: {{height|m=1.82}} produces 1.82 m (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in)

Is it possible to fix the template to just be 6 ft 0 in? // laughing man 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed an apparent fix is posted above under the "Fault" heading, as well as a request to add an interwiki link, so I'm adding the editprotected template here.

Done. Also I've created a /doc subpage for furture interwiki links. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks MZMcBride. // laughing man 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Instructions

Hi I've added instructions without noticing there were some at the top of this talkpage, so I reduced mi edits to a quick guide, I wonder if you would mind to move these long table to the /doc subpage --Andersmusician $ 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Half inches

I can't seem to get the template to use half inches; { {height|ft=6|in=1.5} } and { {height|ft=6|in=1} } both display as 6ft 1in; however, the metric changes correctly. Thanks, BertieBasset 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Height}} currently does not support half inches, but for the equivalent result you can try this: {{Ft in to m|ft=6|in=1.5|abbr=yes|precision=2|wiki=yes}}, which expands as Template:Ft in to m. Speaking of which: it would make sense for {{Height}} to transclude {{Ft in to m}}, it would simplify its code greatly, with half inches as a bonus. Any opinions on that? GregorB 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the functionality of using the sixteenths of the inch in the output (decimals are supported by default). Note that something like "6/16" would automatically be reduced to "3/8". Have fun.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Enquiry

Could someone add an instruction so that you can specify whether you want feet or metres to appear first? For example with footballers, some people get very nationalistic over which units to highlight and so used { {height|ft=6|in=1} } / 6 ft 1 in (1.85 m) when the player is actually 1.86 m tall. I reverted to { {height|m=1.86} } / 1.86 m (6 ft 1 in) because it is more correct, and only after a few iterations of this minor edit war did I notice what the problem is.

So what I'm saying is that it would be good to be able to enter the height in metres, but get feet display first. Shouldn't be too much work, should it? Cheers, aLii 15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Precision

Precision=0 should be the default instead of precision=1 because that's how human height in inches is usually represented and that was the template's original behavior. The current setting displays precision that isn't there. GregorB 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In the main, people never measure height in fractions of inches. Precision=0 should be the default. - PeeJay 14:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. One can still specify a different precision if necessary. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't realize there were more complaints above. Just wanted to say that when I was re-designing this template, I beleived that it should be deprecated; all improvements were introduced only as a stop-gap measure. But since people are eager to keep this, a more serious re-write is in order. Anyway, as for the fractions being 16ths, that can be easily switched to any other denominator, as {{dec to frac}} (which is called to handle fraction conversions) can handle all of the smaller values (16 is used here only as a default; it is trivial to switch to 2 (for halves) or to a custom parameter.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Precision=0" broke the support for fractions. I'm going to leave it as is for now because the fractions support is not used anywhere and the default/requested behavior is not affected, but rest assured I'll have it fixed later... unless this fraction feature is found to be completely unneeded.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Update

OK, hopefully I was able to finally fix this template. For meters-to-feet/inches conversions, the output now defaults to showing half-inches. If fourths, sixteenths, 45ths, or whatever else is desired, specify it using the frac parameter (set frac=4, 16, 45, or whatever). Use frac=10 to show inches as decimals (the default precision for this is one, but it can be changed using the precision parameter). To make sure no fractional inches are shown (either vulgar or decimal), set precision=0.

If you find any bugs that need fixing, please list them here. Hopefully there won't be any. Otherwise, enjoy!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's this very minor issue that was present since the beginning: e.g. {{height|ft=5|in=11}} displays the height as 1.8 m, while the display of 1.80 m would be more common in general use. As far as I can tell, this is due to behavior of the MediaWiki round function, so working around it looks difficult. GregorB 17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it is how the round function works. I won't say it's unfixable (it is), but fixing it is definitely not something that can be done quickly (not with the limited assortment of tools the template language provides, anyway).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alright, I couldn't resist—I tried it out :) Turned out to be not as difficult as I first thought. However, since I don't have time to test is thoroughly, please do so for me before this improvement can go into production.

In order to change {{height}}'s handling of trailing zeroes, {{ft in to m}} will need to be improved. That improved version of {{ft in to m}} is now located at {{X8}} (here's the permalink in case X8 gets reset; it's a sandbox template). Please test it out with different values and precisions. If everything checks, then X8's code can simply be used to overwrite {{ft in to m}}'s, after which <!-- {{height}} --> will handle trailing zeros properly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it does not work properly :(—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed... 5 ft 11 in is OK, 6 ft 7 in is not. GregorB 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Centimetres

Why give heights in metres? Usually when people speak of height it's in centimetres (if they're talking metric). Jɪmp 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Having for most of my life lived in a country that uses the metric system, I should note that stating a human height in centimeters is not nearly as common as giving it in meters (e.g., 1.89 m) or in meters and centimeters (1 m 89 cm). I can't vouch, of course, that this is the case everywhere else.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That country would be Russia, would it not? I should rephrase ... usually when people speak of height, in English speaking countries, it's in centimetres (if they're talking metric) ... or at least that's my experience. Giving human height in metres would be most uncommon where I'm from (Australia). Jɪmp 07:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Russia, yup, that's correct. As for the English-speaking countries, I wouldn't know, living in the U.S. and all (I am yet to hear an American talk metric :)). Anyone else wants to comment? Please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We can inform ourselves with some crude research. Here are some suggestions for google tests:

• height 178-cm weight
• height 1.78-m weight
• taille poids 178-cm
• taille poids 1.78-m
• Höhe Gewicht 178-cm
• Höhe Gewicht 1.78-m
• altura peso 178-cm
• altura peso 1.78-m

Google has excellent facilities for restricting searches to one country (e.g. Spain) or language (e.g. Spanish). Run the english language tests on www.google.co.za using the 'pages from South Africa' button below the search box.

Similarly with www.google.com.au using the 'pages from Australia' button.

You can test russion pages using http://www.google.com/intl/ru/ using the 'Поиск страниц на русском' button.

Other useful data sources would be articles (but not translations of US non-metric articles) from local Wikipedias. For example, the Italian Misplaced Pages shows the height of Matias_Aguero in metres.

In ignorance of the 'right' answer, we could have a slight preference for base units (m, kg, W) over prefixed units. My impression is that there is no consensus that would be 'right' for all countries and all domains. Lightmouse 12:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here in Sweden we at least say (translated) "I'm one and eighty-seven" going with the 1.87m view. "I'm 187 centimeters" just sounds retarded ;) Chandlertalk 09:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, its centimetres. Giving height in metres AND centimetre (1 m 87 cm) copies the foot-inch reporting & does not make use of the decimal relationship between metres & centimetres - the very reason for the design of the metric system. Using decimals for height (1.87 m)adds an unneeded character - a character that is easily confused with a punctuation mark in sentences. The height template needs to allow the conversion be done to cm, at least as an option if not as default.--JimWae (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears {{convert|5|ft|11|in|cm}} already does the job :5 feet 11 inches (180 cm) --JimWae (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In Australasia and East Asia it's all centimetres. I've never seen anyone express height in metres in my life till I came to Misplaced Pages. The problem with the solution mentioned by JimWae is that it has feet and inches as the main height with the centimetres in brackets. How can we get it the other way around?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

{{convert|184|cm|ftin|abbr=on}} does the trick, although that doesn't use this template. Mattlore (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

MOS conformity

Is it possible to get this template and {{weight}} to default to WP:MOS#Units_of_measurement conventions on abbreviations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought I've fixed this one already? Could you, please, point out where exactly it is in violation of MOS? I might have missed something, of course. As for {{weight}}, I also promised to fix it, but never got around to actually doing it :( Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

MOS calls for spelled out units and abbreviated parenthetical conversion. Thus, it should default to X feet Y inches (Z m) instead of X ft Y in (Z m). Same for {{weight}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that. The only reason why this template defaults to abbreviated units is because it is intended for use primarily in infoboxes, where spelling out units is not practical. I was not aware this template is used anywhere outside infoboxes; perhaps this point should be clarified in the documentation. In any case, it is possible to add the abbr switch to take care of this contingency. Please let me know if that would be helpful. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes a parameter like MOSstlye=on or something would be great for both templates. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. You can now use the standard abbr parameter, which takes values of yes (default), no (both sides spelled out), and mos (MoS-compliant). Note that the issue with singular units still needs to be fixed—one foot/one inch/one meter currently show as "1 feet"/"1 inches"/"1 meters", so until that's fixed please exercise caution.

I am not making any promises on when {{weight}} is going to be done, but it is on my to-do list. If anyone reading this wants to fix it themselves, I won't be complaining :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Display of fractions of inches

This is a great addtion to Misplaced Pages. Would it be possible to use the ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ and ⅞ characters when displaying fractions of inches? This would enhance the appearance of the output. Best Wishes Saga City 08:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The author of the template that handles the fractions ({{frac}}) originally implemented that feature, but I believe he then rolled it back because of the MoS concerns and overall inconsistency of look. It is not terribly difficult to add the feature back, making it optional if necessary, but we first need to determine whether this feature can be considered to be MoS-compliant or not.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In most cases in which this template is used, nothing more than half-inch precision is reasonable. But that isn't true in all cases in which it is used, let alone in all cases in which it could be used, were it designed with some way to override the default to the current precision.

But even when half-inch precision is used, there is a second point made here by Saga City

code	{{height|m=1.82}}
display when posted	1.82 m (5 ft 11⁄2 in)
current display	1.82 m (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in)
Saga City suggestion	1.82 m (5 ft 11½ in)

Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As you have probably already discovered by now, the problem lies not with this template, but with {{frac}}, the author of which did not want to use the Unicode fractions for reasons I can't quite recall.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Linkable

Is it possible to make the units linkable?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Can you tell me where you are planning to deploy this tempate's added features, please? It's just that I am having a hard time imagining it being useful anywhere outside the infoboxes. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deprecation

Why isn't this template announced as deprecated just like the "weight" template (due to the new "convert" template)? -62.219.97.68 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Because, unlike {{weight}}, this template provides some functionality which no other template offers.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that so? What functionality is that? – PeeJay 14:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Vulgar fractions. Please refer to the template documentation for details.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly related issue, Is there any guidance over people doing mass changes from height->convert or vice versa in a case when the extra functionalities aren't being used? Mattlore (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

4'12"

The template is converting height to '4'12"'. See: Fuko. Dekkappai (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not an easy fix, unfortunately. You can either specify the fractions: {{height|m=1.52|frac=16}}→1.52 m (4 ft 11+13⁄16 in); or use {{Convert}} or {{m to ft in}}: {{m to ft in|1.52}}→Template:M to ft in—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1.82 converts to 5' 12""

I found the above problem as well, but also not that a person exactly 1.82 meters will convert incorrectly. {{height|m=1.82|precision=0}}->1.82 m (6 ft 0 in) --SPhilbrickT 11:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is now fixed. For reference, it was producing 5 ft 12 in, but now should produce 6 ft 0 in. Plastikspork _―Œ 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki for Norway

Can someone change the interwiki for Norway to no:Høyde? no:Height? is wrong and doesn't lead anywhere. KristofferAG (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. You could have done it on your own, by the way (interwikis go to the doc page, which is not protected). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:47, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Human height is more commonly expressed in centimetres than metres

This is a huge shortcoming in this template which is crying out to be fixed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A {{height|cm= }} option needs to be provided for. Centimetres for human height are the absolute norm in parts of the world that use the metric system and are preferred by the UK's NHS, Australian Bureau of Statistics, New Zealand Government, Government of Canada, etc.

1. http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx
2. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4338.0main+features212011-13
3. http://www.passports.govt.nz/Completing-your-application---converting-your-height
4. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/weights-poids/guide-ld-adult/bmi_chart-graph_imc-eng.php

How it's gone this long without being addressed is a true mystery.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ask anyone how high they are in Germany and noone will answer in centimeters. How is it in UK? Weight-tables or BMI calculators are not the best source i'd say. -Koppapa (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, well I guess you showed me, huh? Better leave it as it is then!

• Thomas T. Samaras (2007). Human Body Size and the Laws of Scaling: Physiological, Performance, Growth, Longevity and Ecological Ramifications. USA: Nova Science Publishers.
• Phyllis B. Eveleth, James M. Tanner (1990). Worldwide Variation in Human Growth. UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Leslie Aiello, Christopher Dean (1990). An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy. USA: Academic Press.
• Bruce J Chalmer (1987). Understanding Statistics. USA: CRC Press.
• Oxford Textbook of Medicine. UK: Oxford University Press. 2003.
• Jerrold T. Bushberg, J. Anthony Seibert, Edwin M. Leidholdt, John M. Boone (2012). The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

How about those? --Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That are good sources. :-) -Koppapa (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The NHS might prefer it, but what about sources discussing the individual in question? In association football database websites, for example, player heights are almost always given in m or feet - very rarely cm. GiantSnowman 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, in Australia and Japan, where the metric system is the norm for expressing human height, centimetres are used. See Football Federation Australia's and Japan Football Association's official websites. If you (somehow) need more convincing, see the official sites of the Australian Rugby Union, National Rugby League, Cricket Australia, National Basketball League, Netball Australia. I suspect a large number of sites that use metres show themsevles to be taking the data directly from wikipedia, which is (as clearly illustrated above) out of step with comman usage in the English-speaking world (not to mention China, Japan, Korea, etc.)--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. I hardly ever see human height expressed in centimetres. – PeeJay 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

So somehow, despite all the evidence that cm are in common usage, you're arguing that no cm parameter should be allowed for this template and users must be restricted to metres only?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Where have I said anything against the cm proposal? I was merely warning against people trying to implement it across all articles. GiantSnowman 20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic. I don't know how to move forward and make it happen (otherwise I would have). Do you?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Further input to this discussion is needed first, I would say. GiantSnowman 20:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I was notified of this discussion from a similar one at WikiProject Basketball. The top basketball league in Europe, Euroleague, lists heights in meters on its website. At best, some—not all—domains might prefer centimeters over meters. I cannot comment as an American, but is displaying 1.76 meters vs 176 centimeters really that bizarre. I assume the math is not the issue.—Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I trust you saw the sources provided above? In some places it's not bizarre. In others (such as reliable WP:SOURCES) it is. All we have to decide is whether the height template allows for centimetres or remains restricted to metres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

there is now a version in the sandbox which allows for input in cm, will need an admin to update it. the output from imperial is still m, but could change that to cm if there is consensus to do so (or just make it an option). Frietjes (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Such consensus appears to exist at Human height.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That article is very inconsistent, with both metres and centimetres being used throughout. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That will be addressed once this template starts allowing for the use of centimetres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• One thing I do have an issue with is the heading of this section, and the claim therein - "human height is more commonly expressed in centimetres than metres" - simply not true. GiantSnowman 14:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, I should have qualified that claim with "...in high-quality sources". We're all waiting for you to prove otherwise.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you to show why we should change. Also you do know that 180cm is the exact same as 1.80m? GiantSnowman 20:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but have you read any of the above? I'm afraid it's your defence of metres that is wanting explanation.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, just because it is used on government websites and by academics? Jeez, your pro-cm/anti-m agenda is actually making me re-think my earlier support for this. I fear the new template parameter might be mis-used. GiantSnowman 21:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Just" government websites and academics. I'm sure you're familiar with WP:SOURCES. We're still waiting for some that support preference for metres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I've already said, plenty of sports databases such as this and this and this. Some do use cm, but the majority use m. GiantSnowman 21:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so some sports (mostly non-English language) databases use metres, whereas most serious websites don't. Anything else?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As this template was intended to be used in infoboxes, and I'm guessing its mostly athletes that list height in infoboxes, it seems sports-relates sources should have greater weight than "serious websites" when it comes to this template.—Bagumba (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. And it seems that the higher-quality the source, the more likely it is to use centimetres. We just have to decide where we want Misplaced Pages to fall on this scale. My preference would be at the upper end.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

GFV, you have mis-read/mis-understood what Bagumba said - they said that as this template is used mainly on articles related to athletes, and as athletic databases tend to use m, we should use m. GiantSnowman 12:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

See, it's statements like "athletic databases tend to use m" that get me. I never said that sports websites can't be serious ones. Perhaps you should shoot off some emails to help out these poor guys (who are clearly of step with how a few of Misplaced Pages's soccer fans think human height should be presented): British Olympic Association, Australian Olympic Committee, USA Swimming Association of Tennis Professionals Japanese Olympic Committee Swimming Australia sports-reference.com, Ultimate Fighting Championship National Basketball League Canadian Soccer Association Union of European Football Associations, hockeydb.com, Canadian Olympic Committee, etc.

1. "teamgb.com".
2. "olympics.com.au".
3. "usaswimming.org".
4. "atpworldtour.com".
5. "joc.or.jp".
6. "swimming.org.au".
7. "ufc.com".
8. "nzbreakers.co.nz".
9. "canadasoccer.com".
10. "uefa.com".
11. "olympic.ca".

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a number of sites that use meters can be cited too, but where would that lead us aside from people disagreeing on which ones are more "serious"? I don't have personal knowledge being a foot-happy American, and I have no interest in sifting through all these links. I think we are all clear on where you stand. I'd suggest seeing if there are other supporters besides yourself, perhaps get a centralized discussion (or RfC), as opposed to the current parallel discussions on multiple talk pages. I think we can avoid WP:WABBITSEASON and wait for WP:CONSENSUS. I'd also suggest that everyone ponder if we can have various sports/countries decide if cm/m make more sense for a specific area (e.g. Australia, et al), or does it have to be all m or all cm for all WP articles.—Bagumba (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Mostly on spot, except I don't have a preference for m or cm. Was only suggesting how to proceed.—Bagumba (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Just as date formatting falls undder WP:ENGVAR, so should this.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My Canadian drivers license shows my height in cm. The two most recent FIFA Ballon d'Or winners (top players in the world): Cristiano Ronaldo's height at his team's site: 186.5cm Lionel Messi height at his team's site: 169cm . So why does this template not allow the height to be displayed in cm? I fully understand that we can use {{convert}}, but that requires more parameters and it would be better to standardize on this template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that when it was created it was intended for other structures such as buildings. Humans were unfortunately neglected. the truly mind-boggling thing is that it's gone this long without being fixed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As for databases that may list an athlete's in metres rather than centimetres, I would like to know what nationality are the individuals that maintain the data? I suspect that they're not from nations who have used SI. My two examples above show that Spanish clubs clearly use cm for height and not m. Shall we survey all national leagues? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Football League uses meters.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It does? Sorry, maybe I'm being dopey here but I can't see them.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict before I could retract. Decimal point use in ft-in threw me off :-) —Bagumba (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Certainly we've established that the odd source can be found that does use metres, but it seems they are well and truly crushed under the weight of the multitude of top-quality sources that use centimetres. So this really is just a wait for an admin who can come along and put a cm parameter in place. If a biographical article takes its height from a source that uses metres, and no better quality source can be found, then that is how it should be displayed and this template already allows for that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You see, I know you are going to abuse this template change to introduce your own preference, and that is why I am hesitant to support. Some official sports bodies mught use cm - but we don't use them in sports articles, we use the kind of sports databases I highlighted above. You have proved nothing, other than 'official' websites use cm and the unofficial databases that are in much wider use on Misplaced Pages use m. GiantSnowman 09:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)