Template talk:Convert/Archive December 2015

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Convert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Extra adjective

This what I find:

"Length (north–south) 235 metres
Width (west–east) 185 metres "

So I was thinking of {{convert|235|X|185|m|yd}} = 235 X^{[convert: unknown unit]} then I'll want (NS) and (EW) write in the middle of the answer, maybe like |adj=pre. Can I? Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 01:23, wikitime= 17:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What wording would be wanted? I can't see what would work, regardless of how the template operates. I suspect it would have to be two separate values as under "what I find" above, with each separately converted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps use {convert/text2} to easily insert NS/EW: I think the easy answer would be to use {{convert/text2}}. Some examples:
     • {{convert/text2 |235|NS by|185|m|yd|EW}}     → 235 metres NS by 185 m EW (257 × 202 yd), or
     • {{convert/text2 |235|(north-south) by |185|m|yd|(west-east)|out=yd NS ×|out2=EW}}
        → 235 metres (north-south) by 185 m (west-east) (257 yd NS × 202 yd EW).
In general, there are many cases where a free-form text involves the conversion of 2 amounts, which could be automatically gathered together at the end of the text. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC), revised 17:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Note the |out=yd NS × construct needed. -DePiep (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Convert/text2

Template:Convert/text2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It was closed as delete, with the reason that " {{Convert}} is designed to handle these situations, and thus this template is unnecessary." I read that as some kind of a merge. Christian75 (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Convert/getunit

Template:Convert/getunit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Convert/2

Template:Convert/2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DePiep (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Volume and capacity

As far as I can see, volume and capacity, which are somewhat different concepts, are lumped together as "Volume" in documentation. I would suggest that they be described jointly as "volume and capacity". It would probably be better to separate them into a list of volume units and one of capacity units, but but more work. In some cases they are interchangeable (car engine capacity is stated in cubic inches (volume) or liters (capacity)) in different places; in others they are not; a solid cube 10cm on each side has a volume of 1000cm³; if hollow it has a capacity of 1000ml or 1l. I don't want to make the change boldly myself as the documentation for this template is probably much-used. If there's a consensus perhaps somebody will implement the change if I don't see it. Pol098 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this split would help an editor looking for documentation. I don't see how the reader is mislead into a wrong unit in the current situation. I don't see what the example "... cubic inches (volume) or liters (capacity)" says; can not cubic inches be a volume??? In general, {{Convert}} is about units, not the quantity they describe (it is up to the editor to make sure this is used correct in an article).

On top of this, adding 'Capacity' to the section header etc. would introduce an enormous false track: capacity is also used for other quantities. For example, describing an, er, capacitor is not done in volume-units. -DePiep (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for response. I won't push this as it's not very important, though I do maintain that I'm right. I made the comment for the practical reason that, when I needed to set up a conversion from ml and searched the documentation page for "capacity", I didn't find it. The car engine example is a case of different criteria: in the US engine capacity is given as a volume, cubic inches; elsewhere it's a capacity, liters, rather than a volume (cubic centimeters or decimeters); my example, probably only confuses matters (it's never been customary to give engine capacities in quarts). Capacitors are not a problem; (1) their property is called capacitance rather than capacity; (2) the need to convert between farads and s⁴⋅A²⋅ft^-2⋅lb^-1 is rather limited. Technically units of capacity and units of volume are different concepts, but they correspond exactly (a container with volume of 1 cubic centimeter always has a capacity of 1 ml), so it's not like converting feet to kilograms. So, unless anyone has a different opinion, I'll drop this. Pol098 (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Aha, "searched the documentation page for "capacity", I didn't find it." That is where we should seek improvement! (which could be an other solution that your analysis does). I maintain that the difference between physical quantity (eg length) and its physical value (as measured, expressed as number × unit, eg 10 m) is the crux in this. {{convert}} only does the values (think measurements), not quantities (not 'length' as such). Maybe later more. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose what I wrote wasn't clear enough; I said "volume and capacity ... are lumped together as "Volume" in documentation. I would suggest that they be described jointly as "volume and capacity" (or separate sections for volume and for capacity). It's just a minor documentation issue, I'm not expecting the template to do anything different. Pol098 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The "capacity" you talk about is a volume quantity. There CApacity sahows that there are other quantities that can have a 'capacity'. Capacity is not tied to a dimension. What you need is the link from capacity to volume, for that case. But that is not the job of the documentation, becasue {{convert}} does units, not quantities (research the difference). -DePiep (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying is that if someone comes to the documentation wanting the {{Convert}} term for gallon, liter, etc., the obvious thing is to search the page for "capacity", as these are not units of volume. So it would be helpful in a small way if the section at present headed "Volume" were instead headed "Volume and capacity", so that it would be found by searching the page for "capacity". Pol098 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying it's a documentation issue. I'm not convinced, I think the term 'capacity' in the context you're interested in is short for 'volumetric capacity'. But the word 'capacity' on its own doesn't necessarily denote volume, it could denote weight, charge, current, power, fluid flow and many other things. For example carrying capacity can be about weight.GliderMaven (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The OED defines capacity: "the measure applied to the content of a vessel, and to liquids, grain, or the like, which take the shape of that which holds them". Source, not what I think. Example, from the Oxford Reference: "pint: A unit of liquid or dry capacity equal to one eighth of a gallon, ...". "Unit of capacity" is very widely used; a quick Google search finds lots, including for example a conversion table for "unit of capacity for liquids (U.S.)". "Capacity" is widely used in this sense. Sourced usage, not opinion. Pol098 (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but the text continues: "(The word capacity has other unrelated meanings, ..." (Volume#Related terms). See also capacity for dab.

Also interesting: from the SI brochure p132/par 5.3.1 : "However, neither the name of a quantity, nor the symbol used to denote it, should imply any particular choice of unit." And: "Units are never qualified by further information about the nature of the quantity; any extra information on the nature of the quantity should be attached to the quantity symbol and not to the unit symbol."[par 5.3.2]. This says that the quantity can not impose restictions on the unit. So the 'capacity' can not forbid/require usage of m³ or L (litre), as you earlier wrote. So if the quantity is named 'Volumetric capacity', symbol V_c (looks ok to me), no rules may expand onto the units. (Put this way: V_c is just a qualified form of volume. As would be V_max, V_dry, V_liquid). Of course, this is within SI only. I can not help US/UK quirks much further.

Now for the editor using {Convert}: up to the editor to use the right units. Source will help.

One more route to be explored: I remember Johnuniq made refinements or helps in similar issues in pressure-quantities (preferred units). -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"Fine, but the text continues: "(The word capacity has other unrelated meanings, ..." I know, I wrote that.
"Now for the editor using {Convert}: up to the editor to use the right units...". As I keep saying, I'm not suggesting any change at all to {{convert}}, merely that the heading in the documentation would benefit from being "Volume and capacity" rather than "Volume" for the section that includes terms such as "pint" (clearly a capacity, not a volume). Pol098 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, here's an oddity that I'm not going to do anything about: "pint" and the like are in "Volume", but "gallon" is in "Other"??!! Still speaking about documentation only, not changing the template, pint and gallon (and the like) clearly belong in a new "Capacity" section, not "Volume" (or "Other"). I repeat: I don't propose to take this anywhere. Pol098 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a copy of all archives of this talk page, from 2007. Searching that for "capacit" shows mentions of oil pipeline capacity (barrels per day), engine capacity (a volume), heat capacity, energy capacity, water reservoir capacity (acre-feet), discharge capacity of a spillway (m³/s), but no mention of capacity as a volume other than engine capacity. No units use the text "capacit" expect for some I think unused units like Cal/12USozserve which refer to "Beverage can#Capacity". I am frustrated when searching a help page for an expected term shows no hits, so "capacity" should be mentioned somewhere in the docs. I think it should just be mentioned in the volume units, something like "volume or capacity", and there is no need to put it in a heading as it seems most people are content with "Volume". Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I would ask, out of genuine curiosity without trying to make any rhetorical point, what people consider "pint", "quart", gallon, etc. to be units of? I was taught that they were units of capacity, and have always thought of them that way. I wouldn't call them units of volume; maybe many people do think of them that way, and I'm out of step? Pol098 (talk)

Units of volume, not necessarily capacity- and there is a difference. Something can have a gallon volume, but lower than that capacity due to expansion or whatever, capacity is normally what you can actually use. I would say, yes, on the whole, you're probably unusual in this.GliderMaven (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to get rid of deprecations

So {Johnuniq, after two years (compliments, I missed the celebrations) we have a list of inherited Deprecated options. Graveness varies from simply superfluous to breaking MOS rules.

What are your plans to remove them? -DePiep (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have been feeling a little guilty at having not done anything about them for many weeks—I did start strongly and fixed quite a lot of articles using converts with deprecated options, but then I decided what I needed to do was to write a module for AWB that could process more complex cases (I forget why I thought that was needed, but probably have some notes somewhere). That led me to start learning a bit about C#, but then I got distracted with RL. My rough plan was to download another dump of all articles next January or February, then extract the converts that are in articles, then decide how to clean them up. Using AWB is definitely the way to go. I haven't changed my opinion about the fundamental issue of enforcement—IMHO a template like convert is a tool to assist editors, not an enforcement mechanism. Yes, convert should aim to be fully compliant with the MOS guideline but Wikipedia is a complex place and it's possible there are a small number of cases where minor divergence occurs between what MOS recommends and what an editor (with good reason) chooses to put in an article. At any rate, the general principle does not really interest me—I would prefer to talk about specific text in specific articles. A previous discussion is in the May archive where I noted there were 2,370 × disp=5 and 21,588 × disp=flip which should be replaced, preferably while doing other changes at the same time. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

One thing I don't have in mind is time pressure. It's just about whether you do have & act a plan or not. Then again, you're not supposed to complain about "complexity" as long as you don't remove these overdue complexities.

In short, because I mentioned all before, my replies.

1. There is no reason why you should control the edits by yourself (by keeping the list secret). These are just maintenance edits. If they are AWB (regex?) edits: so much the better: simple, logical, just many pages. So much editors.

2. You could remove them in steps. For each DeprParam/value: Step 1: put offending pages in an hidden category (with no ^{[maintenance tag]} in the article). Then all editors in the know can do the maintenance: remove depr parameter/value, little ambiguity. (To be decided: which deprecation, group offenses in one cat, etc. Of practical thinking only). Then when a DeprParam/value is clean, Step 2: remove from code so it will popup with a regular maint tag in the two regular maint categories.

Note: depending on gravity & possibly number of offenses, each DeprParam/value can have its own process, though you might want to group by graveness. Pro tip: I have used Module:TemplatePar in {{Chembox}} to catch bad parameters (not values in this case). Very high controlling end.

3. This is the worrying part of your response: you keep wiggling with the deprecations as such, trying to re-track on arguments already decided. And this you do not do by arguing here, but by keeping the edits to yourself. In fact you say 'no' to a consensus (even a MOS). So as long as you have this attitude, I know it is not worth spending time on this since you can revert or keep me out at will. -DePiep (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Testcase in draft namespace

Whilst doing some tidying up I've come across these pages:

They appear to have been created by IPs (possibly just one person though) - presumably because they aren't able to create the pages in Template namespace. Could someone who understands how these pages are used indicate whether these are useful (in which case they should be moved to the same namespace as the other testcases) are not useful (in which case they can be taken to XfD). DexDor^(talk) 22:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this—I'm pretty sure the existence of those pages has never been mentioned here. There are 47 of them—see Special:PrefixIndex/Draft:Template:convert.

It is likely the same person also created Special:PrefixIndex/Draft:Template:calculate.

I did not check all the history but they seem to be the work of one person from 70.51.202.113. Searching for "70.51.202.113" in the September archive (and possibly others) shows a flurry of suggestions about features that might be added to convert, but there was no response each time I asked for an example of how a proposal would be used in an article—I like to see a couple of existing or proposed new sentences in existing articles where a new feature would help before trying to code it. My suggestion would be to delete the draft pages. I looked at them and do not see anything useful. If the features were ever supported in convert, they would not be implemented with fifty or so subpages. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is what they do (looking at this one):

{{convert|{{{1|0}}}|Mpc|ly|disp=number}}{{safesubst:<noinclude/>#if:{{{units|}}}| yr}}

{{Draft:Template:convert/Mpc/yr|10|units=foo}} →

Draft:Template:convert/Mpc/yr

Wrong when in template space:

- Forks into hardcoded variant of {Convert} (incidentally, today, {{Cvt}} is at TfD for this)

- Bad punctuation (sp)

- Changes shown unit into uncontrolled (ly into year)

Still, it is just draft and people may draft. Let them discover. It will drop speedy when moved to template space or when put as proposal here. -DePiep (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Fyi Draft:Template:convert/Mpc/yr/testcases was created by 70.51.203.69. Wikipedia:Drafts is all about draft articles - the Draft namespace isn't, afaics, meant for pages in other namespaces. WP:Drafts also says "Drafts are meant to be works in progress...". DexDor^(talk) 23:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Millions in both input and output units

I want to produce output along the following lines: "5.7 million hectares (14 million acres)". This sort of usage is common for large land area measurements, rather than converting to square miles or similar - that is less meaningful to most readers. The closest I have been able to figure out is either {{convert|5.7|e6ha|acre}}, which gives "5.7 million hectares (14,000,000 acres)", or {{convert|5.7|e6ha|e6acre}}, which gives "5.7 million hectares (14×10^⁶ acres)". Is there some way to force both units to use the word "million", for consistency and readability?--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: The workaround is to not abbreviate the output unit. For acres, that makes no difference to the unit, but for other output units the workaround would show the unit name rather than the unit symbol.

{{convert|5.7|e6ha|e6acre|abbr=off}} → 5.7 million hectares (14 million acres)

Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you, Johnuniq. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Can I use singular inches like I want here?

I want to write "Its 84 inch (2.1 m) mirror is..." but I'm having trouble. Can the template currently do this? These versions all print the output I don't want:

Its 84 inches (2.1 m) mirror is...

Its 84 inches (2.1 metres) mirror is...

Thanks, Jason Quinn (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"84-inch (2.1 m) mirror" is produced by adding |adj=on. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Missed that section. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Convert/flip2

Template:Convert/flip2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem with convert

In List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire, sorting the {{convert| |ha|acre}} column produces a sort by the first digit. In List of Local Nature Reserves in Hertfordshire it sorts correctly, so I have tried making the line with the sort instruction in Beds the same as in the Herts list by deleting the font size instruction, but this makes no difference. Can anyone advise what the problem is? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added |sortable=on to each {{Convert}} in both pages. This setting adds a (hidden) sortkey that takes in account the "alphabetic" sorting you noticed (eg by adding 0's as prefix). -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)