Template talk:Convert/Archive October 2017

Hundredweight

According to this template 1 cwt = 110 lbs. This is wrong, 1 cwt = 112 lbs. See Hundredweight. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield, looks like it depends on the precision: 1.00 long hundredweight (112 lb) or 1 long hundredweight (112 lb). Frietjes (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, but the documentation says 110 and {{convert|1|Lcwt}} gives "1 long hundredweight (110 lb)" which certainly looks like a problem! I'll try to remember the precision number in future. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

£ s d translate into pounds and (new) pence

It has been suggested to me that the following (from the Wikipedia Help Desk) might find an answer here - so I have simply cut and pasted the entire conversation, as follows.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Having just put some prices in pre-decimalisation format on Highland clearances (to illustrate the catastrophic drop in commodity prices that was a proximal cause of the second phase), I was wondering if there is something available in Wikipedia to translate that into a decimal currency format? I am guessing that many people will not find it easy to do calculations with prices in pounds, shillings and pence - certainly not as mental arithmetic. It would make the article look a little bit more user friendly. I am not talking about the value of money changing over time (because the values to compare are in the past and not many years apart). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such tool but you could easily enough (I would think) write a template to do that.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd drop a note at Template talk:Convert. While the related templates are all non-monetary, and it may not be appropriate to use that template for money, my guess is that the people who contribute there know the type of template that you want *quite* well.Naraht (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I can convert £ s d to decimal in my head, the reason being that I was brought up in a household that used both systems well into the 80's (Don't ask). So if you have any figures, you are welcome to run them by me. Irondome (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It is my belief the original author can as well, but he is looking for a template that will (and I'm guessing here) look like {{decimalize-UKPound|Pounds=25|Sterling=8|Pence=5}} and get out something that looks like £25 8s 5d (Decimalized £25 42.08p).Naraht (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Err, shouldn't that be {{decimalize-UKPound|Pounds=25|Shillings=8|Pence=5}}? But in any case, {{decimalize-UKPound|25|8|5}} would be easier. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Err, being pedantic Decimalisation is different from Decimalization, a US stock market instruction in 2001, so {{decimalise-UKPound|pounds=25|shillings=8|pence=5}} would be more accurate. I have also lc'ed the parameter names. ClemRutter (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose. Given that it was so long ago, wouldn't the inflation template be more appropriate. (And in Australia, £25 8s 5d would have to be decimalised as $50.85) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting. I remember that when decimalisation was being talked about there were two options: keep the pound as a pound with 1/- => 5p, or else set the new pound to be 10/- so that shillings converted easily. Did Australia choose the latter then? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It allowed all the coinage from the 6d and above to continue to circulate. Indeed, much of it is still in circulation today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Another thought, you'll need to include support for ha'pennies and farthings. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"I don't see the purpose"- the (mental) arithmetic for the reader is "what is the approximate percentage change in value when prices fell?" When everyone was used to £sd, most people could do the arithmetic, but not any longer. Current-day value is irrelevant (and inaccurate).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this either. The only relevant sentence in the current version of Highland Clearances is "...£9 a ton, which fell to £3 13s 4d a ton in 1828, which is 41% of the 1823 price". The relevant figure here is the 41%, which has been provided for the reader. Even without that percentage, the approximate magnitude of the drop is clear from £9 to "£3-something". It makes no sense to express £3 13s 4d in 1828 as a decimal equivalent, because nobody used decimal money until 1971 after 143 years of inflation. To my mind, the only legitimate use of this conversion would be in articles specifically referring to the UK decimalisation process in 1971. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO, parallel to other {{Convert}} conversions as intended, it does make sense. The point is: we do not want the editor having to offline pre-calculate values. A value (that is number and unit) can be entered in the article literally as found in the source. And be sure that loads of our readers (not familiar with non-decimal systems), do not have a clue on the value of the old system. "Three-something" could be "3.1" and "3.9", thereby making the percentage somewhere between 30–45%, which is a large range.

However, for practical reasons (these not being physical units; and three-value input needed), {{Convert}} might not be the best place to implement this, I'd go for the dedicated template. -DePiep (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I refined my post, minor. -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Shoe size

For Shoe size#United Kingdom and Ireland {{convert|8+2/3|in|cm|2|abbr=on|disp=or}} 8+2⁄3 in or 22.01 cm, {{convert|8+2/3|in|barleycornunit cm|2|abbr=on|disp=or}} 8+2⁄3 in or Peter Horn User talk 21:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Peter, again: next time please make it a phrase, with a question or a suggestion or so.

For shoe size, is it a true calculation or shoeldn't that be a table-like transformation? (more or less like {{Track gauge}} has this for pre-defined gauge sizes). -DePiep (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to remember your request for a next time here or elsewhere. It could be as a table or just as conversions within the text itself. Or both. The samples above would be for within the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Horn (talk • contribs) 23:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I meant to say: not a table in the text, but text in-sentence, just as you expect. I think shoe-sizes are fixed, not calculated. So a new template {{Shoesize}} could show:

"{{Shoesize|8+2/3|in|cm}}" → "8+2⁄3 (7 EU size)". -DePiep (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the request is for convert to accept barleycorn for Barleycorn (unit). Apparently a barleycorn is one third of an inch. Is it really needed? The text currently in the article is:

An adult size one is then the next size up (8+2⁄3 in, 26 barleycorns or 22.01 cm)

Try this:

An adult size one is then the next size up ({{frac|8|2|3}} in, 26 barleycorns or {{convert|8+2/3|in|cm|2|disp=out}})

An adult size one is then the next size up (8+2⁄3 in, 26 barleycorns or 22.01 cm)

Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

As an example the following quote would need a convesion:

A child's size zero is equivalent to 4 inches (a hand = 12 barleycorns = 10.16 cm), and the sizes go up to size 13+1⁄2 (8+1⁄2 in, 25+1⁄2 barleycorns or 21.59 cm). Thus, the calculation for a children’s shoe size in the UK is: Peter Horn User talk 00:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I should have looked at the formal calculations & barleycorn first. But still, it describes that size calculation vary per country and per brand, so it's not stable enough for {{Convert}} imo (you'd have to add multiple extra parameters to get it right). Also, there is the question of practical usage in articles, as Johnuniq points to. IOW, Peter, are there many pages that would actually use this? -DePiep (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Monetary units

Is there a template that converts US dollars to GB pounds and vice versa? Softlavender (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about them, but see Category:Currency conversion templates. This template ({{convert}}) can do things like convert $/acre to $/ha, but that does not convert currency. The problem of converting dollars/pounds is that the exchange rate varies, and inflation means currency conversions need to specify when the conversion applied. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the exchange rate is a problem. My concern at present is that I'm editing an article on British matters, and one citation lists a USD figure but does not convert it into GBP, for whatever reason. There is a template in Category:Currency conversion templates that converts other currencies to dollars, but apparently not the reverse. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Singular and plural

A {{convert|127| metre|foot|abbr=off}} shows as "A 127 metres (420 foot) long tunnel", mixing plural "metres" and singular "foot". The plural metres looks wrong to me in this context. How do I force "metre" to be singular? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

See sections 7.4 and 7.5.

 7.4 After adjective unit: A 10-foot-long corridor
   10-foot-long (3.0 m) → 10-foot-long (3.0 m)

 7.5 Plurals: 1 inch, 2 inches
   The unit symbol is singular always. Depending on the preceding number only, a unit name can be shown plural.
   1 metre (3 ft 3 in) → 1 metre (3 ft 3 in)
   2 metres (6 ft 7 in) → 2 metres (6 ft 7 in)
   2 m (6 ft 7 in) → 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
 Exception
   Entering the unit spelled |foot| forces singular output "foot", whatever the number is.
   100 foot (30 metres) → 100 foot (30 metres)

So I would recast your sentence as: "A {{convert|127|m|foot|adj=mid|-long}} tunnel" -> "A 127-metre-long (420 ft) tunnel". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Martin. I did not want to use that solution as it involves what I regard as the excessive use of hyphens, but I do not see any point in arguing with the consensus in favour. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You could use {{convert|127|m|ft|abbr=off|adj=on}} long tunnel -> "127-metre (417-foot) long tunnel". Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kendall. I prefer that. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The trouble is that with the parenthesised conversion "long" appears to be an adjective describing "tunnel". Could there be a 127-metre (417-foot) short tunnel for instance? Without the conversion it reads as a 127-metre long tunnel where "long" is attached to 127-metre. How about {{convert|127|m|ft|abbr=off|adj=on}} tunnel -> "127-metre (417-foot) tunnel"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the source again, the figure is approximate, so how about "A tunnel, which is about 127 metres (417 feet) long, from a chalk pit, is used by hibernating bats."? It seems a bit clumsy, but I cannot think of a better way of expressing it. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

What article is this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk, Little Blakenham Pit. It is discussed in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk/archive1. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue in the original convert shown above is that foot has a special meaning to convert, namely that the singular "foot" is to be displayed.

• {{convert|127| metre|foot|abbr=off}} → 127 metres (420 foot)
• {{convert|127| metre|ft|abbr=off}} → 127 metres (417 feet)
• {{convert|127| metre|feet|abbr=off}} → 127 metres (417 feet) (equivalent to the more commonly used ft)

Johnuniq (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)