Template talk:Long ton

Linking

To avoid overlinking I propose that linking be made optional with the default being not to link. Refer to St. Philip's Cathedral, Birmingham#Bells where you find the template used three times, linking each time ... currently. JIMp _talk·cont 09:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. JIMp _talk·cont 10:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Oosoom ^Talk 11:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Rounding

There currently is no way to adjust the precision of the output. Is this something worth fixing? JIMp _talk·cont 09:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I envisaged that this template will only be used when the precise weight is known (to the nearest pound), so I suggest that converting to whole kg is the correct thing to do. I hope that rounding up/down is correctly done by Convert. The traditional alternative is to give an approximate weight in whole cwt, so the Convert template could be used as usual (although this currently writes the units as long cwt - I have requested abbreviation to cwt on the Convert talk page). Oosoom ^Talk 11:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Convert}} will round to the nearest kilogram (as instructed), which is exactly what we would want if the input is precise to the nearest pound. I thought that this might be the case. JIMp _talk·cont 11:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Format error

There may be a format error here when PDFs are generated. The output was:

(3374 lb or unknown operator:u'strong' kg)

When printed from Acrobat reader it failed solidly with a reading address 0 error. If this is not a fault in the template, can anyone suggest where the problem lies? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a common fault in the {{convert}} template (which CwtQtrLb to kg calls) when printing to PDF.Oosoom ^Talk 22:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just curious

{{TonCwt to t|35|4|lk=on}} 35 long tons 4 cwt (78,800 lb or 35.8 t) gives: "Locomotive weight: 35 tons 4 cwt (78,800 lb or 35.7 t). However there is a snag here in Avoirdupois#British adaptation! The section called British adaptation no longer exists in the article! So, at this point both the ton and the cwt might just as well link to long ton and hundredweight respectiely. and at the same time link both the pound (mass) and the tonne, 35 tons 4 cwt (78,800 lb or 35.7 t). other than that, in Locomotive No. 1 I came upon {{TonCwtqtr to t|26|1|1}} {{TonCwtqtr to t|26|1|1}}. Take a load of that one (no pun intended). Peter Horn User talk 00:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 00:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

After digging through the revision history of Avoirdupois, the current replacing link appears to be Avoirdupois#Post-Elizabethan Peter Horn User talk 01:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What would change is NOT the template itself, but the links, or references, to all the units within the template when "|lk=on is" is called up. Peter Horn User talk 12:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This revision to Avoirdupois, from Avoirdupois#British adaptation to Avoirdupois#Post-Elizabethan, was made some 73 revisions back between 2012-02-09T15:17:02‎ and 2012-02-13T20:33:48‎ by one User:Zyxwv99 who obviously would have no idea about the havoc he created to the link within this template. Peter Horn User talk 00:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Now I remember. The theory that the avoirdupois system was an adaptation of another system of the same (or similar) name was popular in the 19th century. In contemporary scholarship, the usual procedure is to treat names separately from the thing itself, not presuming a connection unless there is some evidence for one. If I see a movie with "color by DeLuxe" while eating a deluxe chocolate ice-cream cone, I won't just assume that the two are connected. As it turns out, the origins of the English avoirdupois system are pretty well documented. It was developed in England for use in the wool export trade, specifically for the finest wool destined for the wool markets of Brugges, where it was processed and re-sold to Florentine merchants. The Brugges wool merchants tweaked their wool weights to come out to round numbers in the Florentine system, while the English developed a weight-system tweaked to the Brugge-to-Florence trade (retaining an older "wool pound" for other purposes). At the very least, "British adaptation" is contentious and unreferenced. Also, the whole article was such a mess when I first arrived that for a long time I didn't even bother trying to fix it. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

So I simply changed the link Avoirdupois#British adaptation in the template to long ton which has a link to avoirdupois anyway. Peter Horn User talk 13:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Re {{TonCwtqtr to t|26|1|1}} {{TonCwtqtr to t|26|1|1}}, I found Template:Convert/CwtQtrLb to kg. Peter Horn User talk 13:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There still remains the question: Could the "cwt" be linked as cwt? Peter Horn User talk 02:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Make that Cwt Peter Horn User talk 20:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Jimp 03:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, so there still remains {{TonCwtqtr to t|26|1|1}} {{TonCwtqtr to t|26|1|1}} Peter Horn User talk 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And that is for Locomotive No. 1. Peter Horn User talk 18:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps {{TonCwtQtr to t|26|1|1}} {{TonCwtQtr to t|26|1|1}} ? And for WAGR V class {{TonCwtQtr to t|134|18|2|lk=on}} {{TonCwtQtr to t|134|18|2|lk=on}} Peter Horn User talk 01:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Would we need another template? Why not just add the capacity to deal with quarters to this one ... or even get {{convert}} doing both jobs? Jimp 03:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Done: I've added quarters to this template. Note that when quarters are input the precision of output increases by one sig fig. Jimp 03:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Added?? Neither {{TonCwtQtr to t|26|1|1}} {{TonCwtQtr to t|26|1|1}} nor {{TonCwtqtr to t|26|1|1}} {{TonCwtqtr to t|26|1|1}} are working. So how should it be presented? Peter Horn User talk 18:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither are working yet. Peter Horn User talk 18:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Quarters have been added to this template; no need for a whole new template.

• {{TonCwt to t|26|1|1}} → 26 tons 1 cwt 1 qr (58,380 lb or 26.48 t)

In fact, I can't see why we don't combine this with {{CwtQtrLb to kg}}. Jimp 06:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

done Jimp 13:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

In the mean time {{long ton|26|1|1}} 26 long tons 1 cwt 1 qr (58,380 lb or 26.48 t) also works, Locomotive No. 1. Peter Horn User talk 00:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Omitting long

According to MOSNUM we should write long ton rather than ton for clarity. Jimp 07:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I thought it said that (or have seen it elsewhere and now can't see it - and it doesn't appear to have changed recently...). The problem is that wherever it is stated its not strictly true - absolutely true for articles using US customary measurements, but rather dubious if an article is using Imperial units (eg Imperial ton - which should be clarified as eg 25 imp ton. Odd that this isn't in MOSNUM (unlike imperial gallons. I must admit I'm now baffled as I'm sure I've seen the statement somewhere. Robevans123 (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

More clarification - MOSNUM says that for the unit "long ton" - always write in full - it doesn't have an entry for "ton" on its own. (BTW I now realise I confused myself a while ago by reading it as an entry for "ton" and saying it should always be "long ton").

Now although a long ton and an (imperial) ton have the same value, that doesn't mean that they are the same unit (but info on both units is in the same article "Long ton" with a re-direct from "Imperial ton"). The (imperial) ton predates the long ton. The term "long ton" was coined in the US to distinguish the US (short) ton from the (imperial) ton.

The work done on {{TonCwt to t}} and {{TonCwt to t}} templates to link to the Long Ton and Long Hundredweight unit definitions was correct (since both US and Imperial units are covered in the two articles).

However, I believe that then changing the labeling in the output from "ton" to "long ton" was incorrect - absolutely correct to clarify "ton" because it has so many meanings - but it would have been correct to change the labeling to "imp ton". Oddly enough there is nothing in the Specific units section MOSNUM on the larger imperial weights (ton, hundredweight (cwt) and quarter (qtr)), but there is lots of info on imperial, US fluid, and US dry units of volume. I think there should be something of similar detail for the US/imperial weight units.

The effect of the mis-labelling was that the {{TonCwt to t}} and {{Long ton}} templates were then exactly the same, and so should be merged.

I think that the {{TonCwt to t}} and {{TonCwt to t}} templates should be restored and the labeling changed from "long ton" to "imp ton". Robevans123 (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you well, you say that (yes) it is confusing, and that the identifying name should be "imp ton" not "long ton". Do you say that we should not write "ton" here indeed?

Yes it is confusing! I'm not saying that "imp ton" should replace "long ton" - but that (ideally) in every article the type of ton used should be identified - in one article it might be "imp ton" (for example, British railway articles), another article "long ton" (eg about US Navy ship displacement), somewhere else "short ton" (US agriculture), and all the other different "ton"s should be similarly clarified (the first three ones mentioned above are the ones that are used frequently). Also, at least on first use, it would be good to wikilink to the appropriate description. BTW "imp ton" is an abbreviation - it can also be called "imperial ton". For the sake of clarity - yes - we should not write "ton" on its own (I've changed my mind after seeing how much confusion this topic can generate!). Many British/commonwealth readers would assume "ton" referred to the "imperial ton" (and would recognise the term "imp ton"). Many North American readers would assume "ton" referred to the "short ton". As you said below "clarity before brevity". Robevans123 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think "long ton" should be renamed "imp ton" at wp (with cwt and qtr), then WT:MOSNUM is the place to go. Whatever the outcome there, the template will follow.

Do you mean the pages Long ton, Hundredweight, and (there is no page for quarter in the sense of weight)? Absolutely not (but the page for Long ton could be improved a bit...) Robevans123 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Or do you mean the mentions of "long ton" and "short ton" at MOS:Specific units? Again, absolutely not. They are fine. I'll state again - although the "long ton" and the "imperial ton" are defined to be the same size (2,240 pounds) - they were defined in different jurisdictions at different times, have different official names, and have different histories and usage. All that needs to be changed is that the section on Mass units should be as detailed as the section on Volume and list all the US and Imperial units.

Or are you asking if {{long ton}} should be renamed? Again, absolutely not. Robevans123 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Reinstalling the {{TonCwt to t}} and {{CwtQtrLb_to_kg}} (was the other one), I can not conclude from your post. Please just describe, from scratch if you like: what input should be accepted, what output should be produced. (we can simply compare that to the {{long ton}} template & documentation). -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

{{TonCwt to t}} and {{CwtQtrLb_to_kg}} have been deleted. I've never been involved in deleting articles, let alone templates. Presumably you or Jimp who were involved in the deletion know if it is possible to find them in an archive somewhere? The argument for their deletion was that the same functionality was covered by {{long ton}}.

I never used {{CwtQtrLb_to_kg}}. I did use {{TonCwt to t}}, but only in a standard form. I cannot remember any display or rounding options (if any). A typical use would convert the input of (imperial) tons and hundredweight to an output of (imperial) tons and hundredweight with converted values (nnnn,nnnn lb or nn.n t). All that I can remember from the documentation was that it was specifically intended for british railway and bell articles. A typical example would be {{TonCwt to t|47|10}} which would produce 47 imp ton 10 cwt (106,400 lb or 48.3 t). Robevans123 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Locomotive weights - tons and cwt

(Conversation moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways)

Until recently the template {{TonCwt to t}} was available to convert and display loco weights giving an output such as "16 tons 15 cwt (37,500 lb or 17 t)". The template was recently changed and also merged with the template {{long ton}} and now gives an output such as "16 long tons 15 cwt (37,500 lb or 17 t)". There does not appear to be an option to not display the word "long" in the output.

I've noticed that where the conversion template is used in the locomotive infobox (with loco/tender weights and axle loads given in tons & cwts) the display of the values now often wraps onto two lines - which looks rather messy.

Do people think that there should be an option to omit the word "long"?

I know that there is possible confusion between long (2,240 lb) and short (2,000 lbs) tons and long (112 lb) and short (100 lb) hundredweights, but this is very minor. British (and to an extent commonwealth) loco weights were specified in tons and cwts, American locos in lbs, and other locos in tonnes or kgs. The short ton and cwt are mainly used for livestock, grain, and commodities. There seems to be little chance of confusion. Robevans123 (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I rather think that this shouldn't be discussed locally to UKRAIL, but at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (possibly Template talk:Convert or Template talk:Long ton). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Post-move comment - I've only just got to this page, so I'm catching up with the discussion. Also just seen the note above on MOSNUM. In this particular case I'm not convinced that adding "long" adds clarity. It certainly adds length to an already long display of a value. Robevans123 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There would be little chance of confusion amongst those who are aware of this convention but should we assume all readers of these articles are? As noted above, MOSNUM says that "long" should be mentioned for clarity. I suppose, though, that a footnote stating that all tons and hundredweights are long might suffice. The option to omit "long" could be added (we'd just need a new parameter to turn it off) but perhaps the issues should be discussed at MOSNUM first. Jimp 06:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with Robevans123: "possible confusion between long (2,240 lb) and short (2,000 lbs) tons ..., but this is very minor"? To me it is is plain wrong, I can not read which ton isa meant, especially when nowhere in an article it is made clear that this is "long ton" world all around. At least it should be introduced per page (plus written out once, and linked), as it is exotic. I am working with {{convert}} for over a year now, and I have never been able to learn or understand this weight system from articles & links ({{long ton/doc}} is great now). This is the "at least" part.

But really, ton is that ambiguous, that we never should allow an unspecified ton in a quantity ( = measurement) ever.

I have met no reason or situation in conversion to leave out "long". -DePiep (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

About introducing line wraps (British Rail Class 122): that happens (with shorter names too). It took some chewing for me too, but we'll have to live with it. The alternative would be to misform many more texts, possibly into illegibility or misunderstanding. So I accept the current, line-wrapping form. At least it is very consistent over the wiki. -DePiep (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

One other use of this template is for bell weights which are given in cwt, qtr and lb. "long" doesn't add much to "cwt", certainly after the first use. It also causes wrapping when used in the church infobox - see for instance St Giles, Wormshill. Indeed, the normal practice for bells is to give the weights as "21-3-9" meaning 21 cwt 3 qtr 9 lb, perhaps this could be an option if the maintainers ever get the time? Anyhow, thanks to those doing the hard work looking after the template; these are gentle suggestions not complaints. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

From /doc: {{long ton | |100 |lk=on}} → 100 long cwt (11,200 lb or 5,100 kg)

Note 1: the link is off, should be hundredweight, or some specific section (WP:SPECIFICLINK). Also, the whole unit should be linked: long cwt.

Note 2: "long cwt" is not mentioned in the MOSNUM, but the example "long ton" can well be an example to be extended. After all, "long cwt" and "short cwt" exist, so it must be disambiuated: write "long cwt" when "long ton" is absent. As I said, line wrapping is no argument (for me) to cut unit names. -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The link has been changed to long hundredweight (currently redirecting to hundredweight but I suppose the reader could figure it out). I would agree that the MOSNUM advice for tons would have to apply to hundredweights (and quarters). A compromise (which I've mentioned above) could be to have the option of omitting the "long" where (at least on the first instance) it's taken on good faith that the user will add a footnote making it clear that the long versions are in use (note that a reference/footnote parameter has been added but, as far as I'm aware, it's not possible to auto-generate the kind of footnote I'm talking about i.e. the ref would have to be spelt out in full each time on the page, you can't just have a standardised text on this template controlled by a parameter). Jimp 13:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone else uses {{inflation}} and {{inflation-fn}}, but they are a good example of a standard footnote being added. Perhaps we could develop {{long ton-fn}}: 'Throughout this page the terms "ton" and "hundredweight" should be understood to refer to long tons and long hundredweight respectively'. Alternatively a simple hat note to the same effect might do. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

re Jimp: over a footnote "this page uses long tons", I prefer an explicit name + link, clearly at first mentioning, that is inline (and/or in infobox). That's common habit for all strange units, right? If I have read this thread well, the main reasons to omit "long" is possible line wrapping and "I don't need to be told, I know it's long; as always in this domain" (not good enough, I add). -DePiep (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

re Martin of Sheffield, Jimp. In short: 1. do not use footnote, use a hyperlink; 2. do not omit "long" ever.

1. In general, footnotes are for printed matter. We have hyperlinks. As with other uncommon units, we're supposed to wikilink them at first occurrence in an article (whether written in unit or in name). Then again, quite probably that same defining link would be in that footnote, right? We'd put the defining link one more click away.

As for your examples {{inflation-fn}}, {{inflation-fn}}. Both are article specific footnotes: they require parameters about country (or currency), and years (start, stop) to provide article-specific inflation numbers & sources. I guess they are good & useful in their job. But here, we only need to define "long ton & long cwt". So every footnote in this would be the same in all articles. And, quite probably the link to the definition (long ton article) would be in that footnote always. So we'd put the "long ton" definition one click further away, without adding any information.

Also note that this proposed footnote requires specific editing per article ("add the footnote!"). Compare this to the simple standard MOS: link at first occurrence.

All in all, I do not see any reason deviate from wikilink & {{convert}} usage.

I conclude (1): do use a proper hyperlink at first occurrence, not a footnote. The hyperlink best be in this template. I oppose the introduction of a footnote for this.

2. Then, the only aim seems to be to reduce text length (esp. in infoboxes, where it can cause text wrapping). This reason is not valid for me, line wrapping is a common solution in WP. And more important: both "ton" and "cwt" ambiguous, full stop. Already between "long" and "short", and also here are five more "ton"s (how or why would there be "little chance of confusion"?). I do not dispute that within the domains of bells & locomotives it is standard usage and does not need clarification. However, this wiki is more generic (see also WP:jargon). We must write for layman readers. We can not assume that a layman reader has in mind "sure these are long tons" when reading.

Note that this disambiguation reason is stronger than the MOS reason of clarity (while this does not contradict the MOS). A detail: writing "long" needs to be done exactly once per quantity (measurement) to disambiguate both "ton" and "cwt". So it can be "x long ton y cwt" or "z long cwt".

I conclude (2), we must use "long" everywhere for disambiguation reasons. There is no reason to even have an option to omit it. -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A number of things to respond to so I'll do it in one indent rather than interleaving my replies.

1) Tons and cwts are neither strange or exotic, but they are historical units, which were widely used (for over a hundred years) in the specifications of locomotive weights, axle loads, fuel capacity, and route classification of railways within Britain and (most) of the now commonwealth countries. In North America (USA and Canada) pounds were used, and tonnes/kgs were used in metric countries such France and Germany. The outcome of this is that most sources of information on British/commonwealth railways (including those written after metrification) still use tons and cwt as this reflects the information in their primary sources. Interestingly, the old {{TonCwt to t}} was the only conversion template that translated/converted the specified value into the three types of units traditionally used in railways, providing a quick comparison between railway articles from different regions.

2) The whole point of a conversion template is so that readers who are unfamiliar with one set of units can easily see a value in a set of units with which they are familiar. I would guess that most readers who are unfamiliar with avoirdupois units would be satisfied with this.

3) For the reader who is not satisfied with just seeing a value in units they recognise, but would like to know more about the primary units, then wiki-linking from the first occurrence of "ton" to "long ton" would provide further information.

4) The use of something like {{tl|long ton-fn}} is also an interesting possibility. BTW Help:Footnotes lists "explanatory information" as one of the three most common uses of footnotes.

5) Size is important. I first starting thinking about this when I saw the line breaks created in locomotive infoboxes by the longer template. Others may not be bothered by this, but I am. The locomotive infobox can display many parameters (40 is not untypical) and a number of these use weights, so making these infoboxes longer is undesirable - short lines with a line break for say, one word, is not only irritating but decreases readability. In some cases line breaks are unavoidable, but if they can be avoided that is better.

6) A thought on the term "long ton". Personally speaking (as someone who was born in the avoirdupois era, but grew up in the metrification era, and has a science/engineering background), I'm happy working in metric or avoirdupois units. However, I still find the term "long ton" trips me up as I start wondering which ton is being discussed (well, it won't trip me up in the future because of this discussion...) But my, serious, point is that the term (which is not commonly used in the UK) may actually be confusing to British readers. I suspect this may also be true for commonwealth readers but I have no evidence for this. Comments welcome from editors from New Zealand, India, etc.

7) With regard to MOSNUM, do the guidelines on ton apply when it is inside a conversion template that gives alternative values in pounds and tonnes? Do the options above (2, 3, and possibly 4) obviate the need for any further disambiguation?

Also, Unit_choice_and_order states that "...choice of primary units depends on the circumstances, and should respect the principle of "strong national ties"". Unfortunately the later details on UK usage has nothing to say on tons and cwt... In the case of British railway articles about pre-metrification topics, the primary units would include tons, cwts, miles, yards, chains etc. Again, I suspect the same is true of commonwealth railway articles - comments welcome.

8) Finally, I would repeat my proposal for an option to omit the word "long" from the output from {{long ton}} and, rather than imposing a One Size Fits All approach, leave it to discretion and choice of editors to use which options they think appropriate for the article in question. Robevans123 (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

re 1). Long tons and long cwt are historic and confined to specific topics and not used in all countries that used imperial units. That's enough to say "exotic", to imply that they should or must be wikilinked on first use per article. And to note that this "ton" is not the most common meaning of ton. re 3) Indeed, the interested reader can look further into detail: by clicking. More so because the converted measurements nearby (in straight lb and kg, likely), is a most easy associative explanation. (I do not understand what you say in "1) ... {{TonCwt to t}} was the only conversion template that ...". Is there something gone missing in this new one?) (I see, now)

re 2). If you mean to say that "to see what it says here, you must click" that is bad interface design. (WP:ACCESS: "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information"). And yes, I'll understand the kg value and not the long ton value, but I'm not to be mislead that a "ton" is that much kg.

re 4). Please give an example of what that footnote would contain. (I'll look, i.a., for things that make a footnote indispensible, given that we can use the name "long ..." and have the option of the wikilinked unit).

re 5). You can try to make infoboxes shorter, but that is not a reason to cut essential wordings out (making "ton" ambiguous). First let me reduce the size of the issue: {{Infobox train}} has about 60 parameters. Some 5 are about weight (actually: 2). Of these, omitting the word "long " would not guarantee single-line result (it could still need a wrap; see British Rail Class 122). So, in 60 data entries (for ~60 rows then) there may be introduced 2–3 extra lines because just the word "long " causes a line wrap. No big deal. Not even a small deal.

Then, what's the problem? We have wiki-wide accepted habits of breaking lines of text, even technical ones in an infobox (I met this issue before, when designing infoboxes). And any good number crunching template handles this well (e.g., using NBSP). I see no reason to compromise on text to accomodate incidental layout preferences.

re 6) You say: long ton "may actually be confusing to British readers." I cannot counter this, because (apart from the 'may' giveaway), we don't know whether this is so. Also, those who are confused: how so? Why would that unique name be confusing? (and what does a US-trained eye see? long ton or short ton?) But I know for sure this: the other way around, confusion is certain. You yourself are not our target reader in this (no offense), since your mindset already is in this system. Nor are the people in the business of bells & locomotives. Those don't have any question mark seeing "cwt" in a bells article. But for The Reader, no one can assume that "ton" is clear. Because it is ambiguous. For "cwt" we have only three meanings ("only" is used cynical here). For "ton" we have: dozens. Dozens of meanings for "ton". Not just weight/mass but also as volume, capacity, toll base. It is not unclear, it is ambiguous.

re 7). 2), 3) and 4) all deviate from the obvious solution: use the unambiguous name. Otherwise, that's introducing plain jargon and requiring extra clicks. On your quote from "Unit_choice_and_orde": I agree! One can use long tons & cwt units, especially when the source does so. And name them long ton/cwt ;-).

re 8). Leave it to the editor? As pointed out above, that editor usually is an insider who already thinks in long weights. For that editor, it is not ambiguous ever. As you demonstrate, such an editor will always find reasons that let ambiguity creep in. -DePiep (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

adding: I see the change in the template, as described in the OP: the word "long" was added recently. Good. That must be why I understand this weight system only just as recent. Thanks, Jimp. -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: you're looking at the wrong infobox - {{Infobox train}} does indeed have only two parameters for the weight (they are |weight= and |axleload=), but Robevans123 is discussing locomotives, which use a different infobox: {{Infobox locomotive}} (British Rail Class 122 doesn't use this because it's not a locomotive). This has five parameters for weights and similar: |axleload= |weightondrivers= |locoweight= |tenderweight= |locotenderweight=. If the loco is steam, and powered by solid fuel, |fuelcap= will also be a weight; and if the deprecated (but still functional) |weight= be added to these, there are seven in all. See GCR Classes 8D and 8E for an example of an article using six of these seven (|weight= is the exception). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I'll have to redo the math reasoning then. {{Infobox locomotive}} has 122 entries (data + headers) maximum. And 7 of these can be in long tons. [added: When all are used, 7 lines could be added for these 7 weights writing "long_" extra. That's 7/122=6% maximum. However, those lines might have 2nd lines anyway. When 25 lines do wrap (or 1 in 5), 147 lines show so it's 5% extra length because of "long_". Still an extreme example, assuming 122 data entries are (reduces the %) used and all 7 weights act (heightens the %). Let's take a real life article example. end of addition, DP]:

Example GCR Classes 8D and 8E uses 6 in long ton, and has 44 entries. It shows in 65 text lines in my screen; that's more for 1. subheaders and 2. all line wrappings.

So if all seven long weights caused a newline because of an added "long_" word only, that would be 65/58 lines or 12% extra length. (Of course, this is the worst case number against my argument; an average would more be like 3 of those weight lines extra -still a high number to be safe-, or 5%. 4/122 is 3%).

Same conclusion: why would we introduce ambiguous wording and abuse text to gain some 0–12% infobox length reduction? Why misform text to reduce length? Is this done in other wrapped lines? (see the example: no). If line wrapping is this important, we should rethink this infobox. Infoboxes follow line wrapping as any other wikipedia text. In short: text length & line wrapping is no argument. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC) -Added a sentence for the 122-data situation. -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation

From the /doc, using |disp=or:

• "A replacement ring of ten bells (tenor {{long ton||18|1|2|disp=or}})" → "A replacement ring of ten bells (tenor 18 long cwt 1 qr 2 lb; 2,046 lb or 928 kg)"

It occurs to me that the sequence "2 lb, 2,046 lb" better be like "2 lb; 2,046 lb".

• {{convert}} option |disp=sqbr is not available: "18 long cwt 1 qr 2 lb [2,046 lb or 928 kg]" -DePiep (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• You're right. "A replacement ring of ten bells (tenor 18 long cwt 1 qr 2 lb, 2,046 lb or 928 kg)" does leave a bit to be desired. Shall we bend the punctuation rules and have "A replacement ring of ten bells (tenor 18 long cwt 1 qr 2 lb; 2,046 lb or 928 kg)" for more clarity?
• |disp=sqbr done Jimp 13:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

thx. Yes, change into semicolon is what I intended to propose. Any other {{convert}} options to consider? -DePiep (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

disp=br()

This works in {{cvt|10 x 24|in|mm|0|disp=br()}} 10 in × 24 in
(254 mm × 610 mm)
Could we get this to work in 171 long tons 15 cwt
(384,700 lb or 174.5 t) instead of {{long ton|171|15|lk=on}} 171 long tons 15 cwt (384,700 lb or 174.5 t) say for the infobox of South Australian Railways 700 class (steam)? Peter Horn User talk 02:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Please. And for the infoboxes of many other old Australian, British, NZ and South African Locomotives, not just steam. Peter Horn User talk 19:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: I am not familiar with this long ton template at all. I cannot evaluate your idea. I cannot help you, here. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Thanks anyway. I'll just leave this here. Someone else will eventually get to this. Peter Horn User talk 00:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)