Template talk:Convert/Archive July 2010

Oil barrel

Is it possible in case of linking oilbbl to replace the link to Barrel_(volume) with Barrel_(volume)#Oil_barrel? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected|Template:Convert/oilbbl}}

Yes, it is. It requires an edit to a protected template though and here's the new code for Template:Convert/oilbbl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

{{convert/{{{d}}}|{{{1}}}|{{{2|}}}|{{{3|}}}|{{{4|}}}|s={{{s|}}}|r={{{r}}}
|u=bbl
|n=barrel
|t=barrel (volume)#Oil_barrel
|o=m3 |b=0.158987294928
|j=-0.79863758-{{{j|0}}}}}<noinclude> {{pp-template|small=yes}} [[Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert]] </noinclude>

Similar edits should also me made to other oil barrel subtemplates (such as the following) too.

• Template:Convert/koilbbl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Convert/Moilbbl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Convert/Goilbbl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Convert/Toilbbl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

JIMp _talk·cont 00:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Acre-foot

It would be great to convert between these and km3, cuyd, etc. Thanks for the great work. Lfstevens (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

1.00 acre-foot (1,230 m³) JIMp _talk·cont 06:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pyeong (same as tsubo)

Hi --- is it possible to add "pyeong" (Korean unit of area used for apartments)? It's just another name for tsubo, with the same definition 400/121 m². Thanks, cab (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So long as they are exactly the same, then  Done. Ex: 1 pyeong (3.3058 m²). If someone who knows the template code well would double check my creation, I'd appreciate it, as I just modified the tsubo template. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Degree of rounding

Hi, is there any way to make the template round to the nearest 5th value? eg. When I tell the template to convert 60mph to km/h it gives me 95 km/h instead of 100km/h ,which is what I get when I use 1 sig fig. Thank you, Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 18:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

{{convert|60|mph}} gives 60 miles per hour (100 km/h); what would you prefer that it returned? —Sladen (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

{{convert|60|mph|disp=5}} gives 60 miles per hour (95 km/h) Peter Horn User talk 01:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Conversion of foot-pound force to Newton metre and vice versa

For Torque wrench#Beam type. Does there exist a conversion template for 160 inch pounds or 17 newton metres.? Peter Horn User talk 23:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Use in.lbf and N.m.

• 160 inch-pounds force (18,000 mJ)
• 17 newton-metres (150 in⋅lbf)

JIMp _talk·cont 07:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter Horn User talk 17:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the original "conversion" was off by about 1 newton-metre (0.74 lbf⋅ft)! Peter Horn User talk 01:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• 160 in⋅lbf or 18,000 mJ
• 18 newton-metres (160 in⋅lbf) Peter Horn User talk 01:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Abbr" parameter

I just noticed that in the →Range of values examples there's one that uses abbr=mos; however, the →Parameters section only lists: on, none, in, out and off as possible values for abbr. Can someone explain what mos is for or add it to the →Parameters section? Also, off topic, but is there a template for easily linking to a section of an article? Perhaps something where you'd write something like {{sec|Hertz|History}}, and it would output a formatted link (perhaps with the → symbol in front of it, like it shows in edit histories) to that section of the article?--Subversive Sound (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• The option "abbr=mos" (only partially implemented) sets the abbreviation style to match the current Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which I think is still: first unit by unit name and 2nd unit by unit symbol as:

{{convert|5|-|9|km|mi|abbr=off}} → 5–9 kilometres (3.1–5.6 miles)

{{convert|5|-|9|km|mi|abbr=mos}} → 5–9 kilometres (3.1–5.6 mi)

{{convert|5|km|mi|abbr=mos}} → 5 kilometres (3.1 mi)

Sometimes, it is more convenient to put 5–9 with "kilometres" only once. Perhaps the option "abbr=mos" should be expanded into other options, then added into the documentation. For your off-topic issue, an article section can be linked by using pound-sign (or hash: #) as with: [[Hertz#History|History section of Hertz]]. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

An attractive idea but on balance, I'd advise against using 'mos'. MOS guidelines and the capability of the 'convert' software don't always match. If the MOS guideline changes on a Monday at 14:30, does that mean that all Wikipedia articles with 'abbr=mos' will incorporate the change on Monday at 14:31? If the guideline is reverted at 18:00, will all the articles change back? Trying to help. Lightmouse (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the capability is there, to have abbr=mos match WP:MOS within 1 hour of a planned change. Perhaps, the most logical use of abbr=mos would be in WP:Featured articles, where the conversions would all match the WP:MOS soon after the rules were changed, and hence 1,200 featured articles would be in compliance (within a few hours). Reformatting of all linked articles depends on the thousands of pending articles on the wiki-server job queue(s), so I recommend that people avoid changing large navboxes on "10,000" articles and insert navpage links instead (see essay: "WP:Overlink crisis"). Similarly, we don't want 50,000 articles using abbr=mos, unless it is absolutely necessary. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy ships displacement in "long tons"?

This is ridiculous. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pete, for those of us not familiar with how Royal Navy ship displacement is measured, could you describe the problem in a bit more details. Thanks.  Stepho  (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Write to the Royal Navy ... JIMp _talk·cont 00:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC) (PS ... if you mean that the long ton is ridiculous unit to use in this day & age ... which it seems is not the case. JIMp _talk·cont 06:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

British ships are measured in tons. Measuring displacement in "long tons" is about as ridiculous as saying Babe Ruth played American baseball. The terminology is wrong, even if the technical details are correct.--Pete (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How would you say it, then? Can't just say "tons", as there's metric, short, and long tons, at the very least, which all mean different things. - Denimadept (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd quote displacement of British ships in tons, in exactly the same way that articles on British subjects use British English and day-month-year date forms. What's more important - a good encyclopaedia or a template? --Pete (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Still, which tons? Define your terms. That's all that's happening here. Until the vague term "ton" is defined, it's not clear. It has to be clear to a non-naval person. - Denimadept (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing good about this encyclopædia is the guideline to be clear as to what unit you mean. Does everyone know that the tons used by the Royal Navy are long ones? JIMp _talk·cont 06:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Very much agreed. If I simply saw the measurement written as "tons", I would probably assume it meant metric tons, since most things are metric outside the U.S. How would any lay-person know otherwise? — Huntster (t @ c) 07:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just saying that using "long tons" is inappropriate. It jars in the reading. --Pete (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Better be a little jarred than not know what's going on at all. JIMp _talk·cont 08:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to specify, you need to use the correct spelling. Tons are imperial, tonnes are metric. Mjroots (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But that still leaves you with short tons and long tons. And many people don't know that Brits use one system while Americans use a different system.  Stepho  (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's much, much more complicated than people realize. Both the British and American use all three units of measure for displacement, depending on circumstances (long tons, short tons, and tonnes - or metric tons if you are American). And there's another measure in use in shipping - "gross tons" and "net tons" - actually a unit of volume equal to 100 cubic feet (2.83 cubic metres). Which one are they using in any particular instance? I don't know, you'd have to ask a naval architect. To keep things complicated, on the Great Lakes they ship coal and sand in short tons, and ship iron and stone in long tons. Companies buy coal in short tons and ship it in long tons. I do concur that it is always better to use "tonnes" rather than "metric tons" because causes fewer problems. In summary: When editing articles you should always specify what type of "ton" you are using, because it varies depending on context, and your readers don't know that. If you always add a conversion to "tonnes", then at least the moderately literate can figure it out. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We could just measure everything in tonnes, and there'd be no confusion at all. Or ounces or kilograms. But we use units of measurement appropriate to the subject, and I'm saying that giving the displacement of a Royal Navy ship in "long tons" is inappropriate. It's like measuring the distance between home base and pitcher's mound in centimetres. Or inches. Or furlongs or hands. It just makes us look as if we don't have a good handle on the subject. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the topic further, displacement of ships of all navies are measured in either tons as per USS Nimitz or tonnes. These are Imperial tons, definitely not short tons. Nor do they refer to mass as such. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard "tons" used in reference to mass. In reference to weight, sure. Anyway, I think we've already explained the situation. - Denimadept (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Even assuming that all navies use imperial long tons, the average reader doesn't know that. Somewhere they have to be told which ton/tonne is being used. Part of being an encyclopaedia is letting new people know such secrets - and telling them in a place they are likely to comes across and remember. By putting 'long ton' in it is a) unambiguous, b) lets the reader know that this is a common unit used by navies, c) with an occasional link the reader can find out what makes a long ton different to other tons/tonnes. And its not that bad a phrase. A bit like 'imperial gallons' and 'US gallons' or 'troy ounces' and 'adv ounces'.  Stepho  (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "long ton" isn't used by any navy to measure displacement. Nor is the term "short ton". If we use either term in our articles, it's made plain that we don't know our subject. Linking "displacement" to Displacement (ship) would solve any education problems, common to all ships, everywhere. Perhaps this knowledge could be usefully gained by some editors in this discussion. It's not just a matter of putting a ship on a set of scales. Naval and civilian vessels use different methods of measurement, and if the ship is in fresh water it displaces a different mass than if in salt water. --Pete (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The article you referred to uses the term "long ton" and "metric ton" also. However, this may be kinda irrelevant. This template is {{convert}}, which isn't specific to ships. If you have an issue with how the template is being used, I suggest you take it up with the appropriate article or project involved. "ton" is used in other places besides with ships. - Denimadept (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Navies do use the term "long ton", as per this quote from the U.S. Naval Vessel Register:

Light Displacement is measured in LONG TONS (2240 lbs.) except for the LPD-17 Class, MHC-51 Class, DDX Class and LCS Class which are measured in METRIC TONS (2204.9 lbs.).

In other words, the U.S. Navy uses either long tons or metric tons, depending on which class of ship they are measuring, and it would be prudent to specify which one they are using in any given case. Probably no navy uses short tons to measure their ships, but I wouldn't count on U.S. civilian shipbuilders not using it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I was wrong! Apparently the U.S. Navy also uses short tons to measure their ships, although they don't say so. Here's a list of U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers from the Official U.S. Navy Web Site. Of course, you would never know if they were using long tons or short tons if they didn't convert it into metric tons, but that's typical of a lot of information you see on the web. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Oooops #2! It wasn't me that was wrong, it was the U.S. Navy! Apparently whoever did their official Web Site didn't know they measure their aircraft carriers in long tons, and assumed it was short tons when they converted to metric. Well, this is the consequence of not clarifying your units of measure. It's not too serious in the Navy, but if you do this kind of thing with airplanes, they crash. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So it's tons or tonnes. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But like the person who screwed up that web page, no one would know what "ton" was if it weren't specified clearly. - Denimadept (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't get around it. If you don't define your terms, your terms are not clear, and they lead to that kind of error. We define our terms here. Exceptions are fixed unless there's really no need, and this isn't one of those exceptions, as proven by the ref RockyMtnGuy provided. - Denimadept (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the crux of the problem, if you do not define your terms, your terms are not clear, and that leads to errors. And, as I strongly suspected but didn't check until recently, the Royal Navy now specifies the displacement of all its vessels in tonnes, without bothering to convert to either long tons or short tons. See Royal Navy - Fleet Today Try to keep up, it's the 21st century, not the 19th.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys! We define our terms here. Look I'm nerd enough to appreciate exactitude. I've been a computer programmer for a quarter of a century and you don't do that if you don't like your terms and your syntax well and truly nailed down. I'm also loving the wobbly little personal attacks. No offence, but you've got to get a lot closer to the bone if you want me to do more than chuckle at the cuteness.

What I'm looking for is a practical way forward. Describing a British warship, especially one so iconic as the Hood, as having a displacement measured in long tons, short tons or even tonnes, will cause anybody with a familiarity on the subject to snort - in amusement or disgust. While it's interesting that the RN now measures displacement in tonnes, it certainly didn't measure displacement in anything but tons for centuries, and it didn't mean anything but 2240 lb tons, neither.

The template doesn't work in this instance. Is there a way to fix this? --Pete (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, end of story. Folks have been trying to tell you this over and over: conversions are necessary on Wikipedia, since most people don't know the difference or don't know how to calculate the differences between the various measures. So long as the input measurement is what is commonly used for whatever topic is being discussed, the output is irrelevant...it just informs the reader. There is nothing wrong with this template; if the Royal Navy measured things in the 2240 lb tons, then we will use "long tons", since that's the most specific name for that particular measurement. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have any contribution on a way to fix the problem using the template? --Pete (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You might specify {{convert|whatever|whatever|abbr=on}} so that "long tons" goes to "LT". But the template is not the issue, as I already said. If you want to discuss this with people who are specifically interested in your specific application, you should go to the HMS Hood talk page or some group associated with Category:Royal Navy battlecruisers and discuss it with others interested in that topic. We here are only specifically about this unit conversion template. And I've been programming for well over 20 years myself. If you want to get along here, you'll be more cooperative and less combative. We're not out to get you. - Denimadept (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, gentlemen, we are dealing with history here. Certainly, prior to metrication, the displacement of Royal Navy ships was measured in tons (which we have to qualify as being long tons because there are several different sizes of tons). However, the concept of "displacement" only dates back to around 1850. Prior to that time they used "burthen", a carpenters measure, which was calculated using Builder's Old Measurement. However, around 1973 the UK joined the EU and agreed to convert to metric measurements, so the measurement of British warships in terms of their displacement in wine tuns only persisted for a bit over a century.The vast majority of navies around the world, including Britain and its former colonies, have standardized on measuring the displacement of their warships in tonnes, the U.S. Navy being the only major exception. The fact that the HMS Hood was measured in long tons is history.The tonne is only 1.6% smaller than the long ton, and the Hood increased in displacement considerably during her life, so the difference is not only historical but academic. You could call it either 47,000 tonnes or 47,000 tons and be correct enough for most practical purposes. And Pete, I worked in the IT industry for nearly twice as long as you, but I worked my way up the food chain from computer programmer to systems analyst to business analyst to management consultant. You have to stay flexible if you want to get ahead.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions above! I cite my experience in IT, not because I want to stick my dick out to be measured, but to show that I understand the concerns and the secret joys of those on the nerdy end of the spectrum. Understanding is key, and I don't think too many here understand that I was looking for help in making our articles on naval vessels look like they were written by people who knew the subject. Using "long tons" to refer to HMS Hood and other ships of that era looks out of place. Simple as that.

I might look elsewhere. There must have been some discussion, likely in the WO:MOS, on this subject. Thanks again. --Pete (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it that you refuse to understand that we both want our articles to look professional but to also be understandable to the widest number of people possible? That's the whole point of providing conversions...nothing more, nothing less. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What about having a note like Unless otherwise noted, in this article the term "ton" refers to the long ton of 2,240 pounds (1,016 kg), as customary in the Royal Navy? ― A._di_M.^{3rd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 14:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

However, it is no longer customary in the Royal Navy to use the long ton to specify displacement. It is now customary for them to use the tonne. You could say, "As used to be customary in the Royal Navy prior to 1973", or whatever date they switched, but I think that it's tap-dancing around the basic issues that the Royal Navy no longer uses tons, and even when they did there were several sizes of ton to choose from, of which they chose the long ton. (See tap dance for an illustration of the basic argument technique). RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The template could be adjusted such that it would spit out the word ton and mean the long ton, sure, and this would be the place to come and get this done. The question is whether it should do so. Perhaps this is a question for WP:MOSNUM. I suspect the discussion would take a similar direction there though. JIMp _talk·cont 23:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be good to get some input on this from WP:SHIPS... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cord

For cord (volume)

• 1 cubic metre (0.28 cord)
• 1 cord (3.6 m³) Peter Horn User talk 16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I get 3.624556363776 cubic metres. JIMp _talk·cont 20:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Convert km to miles and chains

I know that we can convert miles and chains to kilometres, but can we convert kilometres to miles and chains? Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To give some context, I believe Mjroots wanted this for the Old Rouen Tramway article, where perhaps foolishly I decided to convert the metric to chains (having second thoughts about that, but...). However, it would be generally useful in articles connected with British railways, since that's how most railway line lengths are measured. To/from kilometres is all that is needed, I think.

I had a go making one (based on "ft in") but can't make out what I'm doing wrong – in particular I am not sure what the "j" parameter is for. Is there any documentation for how to make a conversion subtemplate? Si Trew (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Autohiding useless stuff

Since this comes from a template, I wonder if it could wrap conversion to some span with a CSS class. Then people could just hide useless (for them) parts. Like {{convert|13|km|abbr=on}} to 13 km<span class="autoconverted-km"> (8.1 mi)</span>. It seriously becomes annoying when every second sentence is sprinkled with those parens given if they contain no additional information useful to you. — Paul Pogonyshev (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I could kind of see this if it were packaged as a preference. That is, if you prefer to see metric, then that's all you see. If you prefer to see Imperial, ditto. - Denimadept (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia text should be portable to other websites, so don't overcomplicate the presentation. To avoid the overuse of parentheses, there are some simple tricks:

• Consider sometimes using "disp=or" to show as: 13 km or 8.1 mi, just to break the monotony of numerous "( )" on the page.
• Writers have been omitting some conversions, when the amounts seem obvious, such as: The road was originally 16 km (10 mi) long, but was doubled to 32 km in 1957. No need to insert "20 mi" when obvious.
• Combine ranges, where applicable: The road length was doubled in 1957 and extended in 1965, as {{convert/3|16|-|32|-|39|km|mi}}, by using {{convert/3|16|-|32|-|39|km|mi}}.

By using various tricks, for diversity of text, then the excess parentheses can be reduced somewhat, without making text non-portable outside Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Spans with a CSS class that is not specified in any way are completely portable. They are just rendered without any visible difference. My problem is not so much about parens, but about their contents, which is completely useless to me and only makes reading more difficult by watering down text. Information you just skip still requires some effort to skip. — Paul Pogonyshev (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: If this were implemented, I'm sure that many users would put it in their monobook.css immediately, and an option for it might even pretty quickly get built into the user preferences. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 13:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unnamed parameters need names, e.g. input value, in & out units, and sometimes-fourth parameter

Original topic title: "A "precision" parameter name is needed, for the sometimes-fourth unnamed parameter".

We need a |precision= parameter, a named version of what's been called the "fourth unnamed parameter", but which is often the third or the fifth, depending upon other options (I've updated the /doc on this point, and you can just go read it so see what an ugly situation we have). Having it unnamed is just confusing, the more so the more features, like numeric ranges, are added. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is sigfig as a named parameter. That is probably not quite what you want, but then what do you want? How about as a first step, defining what you want as precision if not sigfig? i.e. let's write the documentation first (as a specification) and then we can discuss whether it should be a named parameter. I think in implementation terms it could be added at the top-level convert template or near to it, since it delegates pretty much straight away, one of the reasons that makes it so hard to find out what convert does by looking at the code, and also one of the reasons why it should be documented better. I offered to help document it better before but got way to confused with the indirection. Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need a new parameter, and the parameter is already documented (as "the fourth unnamed parameter" in the "Rounding" section, which is not an accurate term for it). The parameter simply needs a name, so people do not have to count parameters, and figure out what the parameter really is with the options they've used, and worry about what parameter is in what order. Actually, every parameter in this template should have an (often optional) name for clarity (and I'm changing the subject to reflect this). E.g.: {{convert|in=3|inunit=inch|outunit=mm}}. I've never seen any template on Wikipedia aside from this one that depended on parameter numerical order (i.e. referring to something like "the fourth unnamed parameter") in which the actual numeric position of the parameter varied widely depending upon what template options are used! It's "user hateful" to do that. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A "zeros" parameter is needed, to get rid of trailing zeros when not important

We need a |zeros=no option, to drop trailing zeros to the right of the decimal point (and the point itself if appropriate), regardless of precision and sigfig settings. In some (especially mathematical, scientific and technical) contexts, we very much want these digits to appear (because they indicate that the number is not rounded and is as precise as we desire), but in general prose it just looks silly and redundant. Yet when specifying a conversion range, we may actually want the precision if it is non-zero. For example, {{convert|10|to|14|inch|mm|sigfig=4}} produces "10 to 14 inches (254.0 to 355.6 mm)"; with this new feature, {{convert|10|to|14|inch|mm|sigfig=4|zeros=no}} would produce "10 to 14 inches (254 to 355.6 mm)", which is what is expected by most writers/readers in a non-tech/sci/math context. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Write the number out in full. That's not what convert is for, as far as I can see.

I had an old (about 1930) English dictionary that defined, in a table at the back, the inch as being 25.3999 cms (in defining cms not inches). I don't think that was ever the case, and someone no doubt was nodding to have it put like that there (its definition against the inch has I think varied but I don't believe it was ever defined as 25.3999). Anyone who's editing those kind of articles can be expected to have the necessary degree of precision themselves and if the template's not appropriate, don't use it. Si Trew (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Given your track record with me so far on actually reading and even coming close to properly parsing what I'm writing (not to mention your namecalling), I'm experiencing a very sharp decrease in interest in what you can see and how far (which evidently isn't much, and not very in these cases). Sorry, but your attitude has been to simply repeatedly say "don't use the template" instead of trying to figure out what may be needed by other editors and why, and that's not consensus-building. You don't own this template, and yours are not the only needs it serves. In this case you just unbelievably missed the point, which is entirely opposite what you've written your terse response about. The point was that for non-technical articles, is it often desirable for trailing post-decimal zeros to not be shown, especially when they appear in the output of a range of values generated by the template, e.g. output like "(20.10 to 22.46)" which in some but not all contexts would be better as "(20.1 to 22.46)"). This has absolutely nothing to do with writing highly technical articles on the exact definitions of units (where on Earth did that come from?) where such zeros should not be dropped. Please read and respond to what I actually wrote, in all of these cases, and stop lobbing straw man arguments at me. I don't just go around to random template pages and suggest changes; I think about proposals like this, and have actual, real-world, non-hypothetical reasons for implementing them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 12:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: in non-technical context you'd not use all that significant figures and just write "25 to 36 centimetres" anyway. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Combined money and units

Sometimes money is combined with units e.g. A$337/ozt (A$10.8/g). Would it be possible/desirable to do conversions like this with the template? I'm not asking for conversion of currency, merely units as denominators to currency. Lightmouse (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

hp/lb

Can we have a template to handle power to weight ratios such as {convert|10|hp/lb}. It will probably need all the variants of hp such as 'eshp' and 'shp'. This unit is common in aircraft articles. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)