Template talk:Convert/Archive January 2009

Problem with defaulting to British spelling

I would strongly recommend either: 1) changing the default of units that are spelled differently in various dialects -- which I think would involve only kilometers/kilometres, meters/metres, etc. -- to the abbreviation, or 2) making the dialect switch mandatory. As it is now, you're creating a lot of extra work for people who try to keep the spelling of Wikipedia articles consistent (per WP:MOS). People are tossing in this conversion template without thinking about the article's spelling. Thanks, Samuel Webster (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not the "British" spelling - it's the rest of the world spelling. It's only the US which uses -er. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the spelling of a few hundred hundred million native speakers (depending on how many Indians one wants to count as native speakers), versus the spelling of a different few hundred million people.

Anyone with less venom interested in answering my question? Thanks in advance! Samuel Webster (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try. The template is specifically designed to offer the full form so it can operate in accordance with wp:mosnum requirements and user desire to spell out the unit in full. Only the conversion is symbolic in all cases. So your suggestion (1) is technically possible but users would stop using it, or they would use it and get in trouble for breaking guidelines. Your second suggestion (2) would mean some method by which users are unable to save a page until they have filled in the parameter. I can't see any technical method to do it and it doesn't seem a proportional response. As with color/colour, there is no ambiguity issue. The template is very easy to use and has been responsible for making articles much more accessible. If we make it less easy to use, it will be used less. Your point about language variation is valid, perhaps this should be brought up on wt:mosnum. Lightmouse (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse: Thanks for the response! Sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't follow your first point, under (1). (#2 makes perfect sense to me). By "it" do you mean the conversion template? And which guidelines would get them into trouble? As it is now, guidelines are being violated all over the place -- although I'm perhaps more sensitive to this than most, since I'm German, have lived in the U.S. for a long time, and have worked as a text editor. Basically, at least half the time someone uses this template (assuming half or so English Wikipedia articles are written in American English, which is probably roughly correct), they will end up violating Wikipedia's policy on dialectic choice, and, for me, at least, when I see, for example, "and it's 20 kilometres from the town center to the museum" I just think: NOT a professional text. It's hard to take an article written that way seriously. (Again, I'm a little extreme here! :) .) So it would be great if this could be changed. It seems there's far more to be gained than to be lost with such a change. Samuel Webster (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The United States is 1) The only country in the world which still officially uses feet and quarts instead of metres and litres, and 2) the only country in the world which spells the metric units as "meters" and "liters". I don't feel the urge to cater to people who want to write their own national variations on internationally recognized standards. So, I would categorize the international English spelling as "standard" and the American spelling as "dialect".RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Samuel, let me clarify a bit more. With the default spelling, the template options are:

• it's 40 kilometres (25 mi) to the town
• it's 40 km (25 mi) to the town
• it's 25 miles (40 km) to the town
• it's 25 mi (40 km) to the town

Your suggestion (1) would eliminate the first and third options by permitting the symbolic version only. That would be unpopular. I heard an interesting anecdote that the British agreed to the spelling 'kilogram' (rather than 'kilogramme') in exchange for the Americans agreeing to 'metre' spelling but the US government backed down. I don't know if it is true but it is a nice story. If there were enough demand for auditing templates in an article to the US spelling, I could easily add a section to my popular monobook script that would enable it to be done easily. Lightmouse (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I see your point, but I guess it's the technical part of it I don't understand. Maybe my suggestion was unclear. Isn't there a way to make the abbreviation be the default, without eliminating the first and third options? In other words -- from my extremely ignorant standpoint!! (again, sorry...) -- why does making the default be the abbreviated versions of the units make it impossible for people to add sp=UK or sp=US (where "sp" means "spell out in the particular dialect)? And, another apology: I don't know what "auditing a template" means. All I know is that I see a lot of articles in American English looking ugly because the -metre spelling is increasingly cropping up precisely because of this template. (Not because there's anything ugly about that spelling, but there's something ugly/unprofessional about the inconsistency within an article, and, of course, it violates WP's style guide.) Samuel Webster (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to give an example of the usage I have in mind:

• {{convert|300|m|ft}} would yield 300 m (980 ft)
• {{convert|300|m|ft|sp=uk}} would yield 300 metres (980 feet)
• {{convert|300|m|ft|sp=us}} would yield 300 meters (980 feet)

Are you saying there's a technical problem making the template work that way (or a similar way)? Or is it that users will get confused?

Samuel Webster (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no technical problem with that. However, the default form ({{convert|300|m|ft}}) is used in thousands of articles to produce 'metres' and you need a migration strategy to change it to 'm'. If you don't have a migration strategy, you risk a flood of complaints when 'metres' changes to 'm' instantly. The spelling issue only exists (a) the metric unit is primary in an American article, and (b) the metric unit is one of the few that has a different spelling. On the non-technical issue, it seems to me that this is not worth the disadvantage of an extra impediment to use. I know that such conditions exist but can you give an example article anyway? Lightmouse (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there isn't a migration strategy, an error won't be created, it's just that the style of an article will change. People who regard that change as an error -- and in some cases it would strike many as an error -- will figure out to come to the template page, where we'll have an announcement about the change. This seems the lesser of the two evils, the other being a systematic shift towards non-American spelling, one which in many cases violates an important Wikipedia guideline. A template shouldn't make it easy to violate a style guideline, it should make it harder. Moreover, being forced to choose a dialectic will help make people more sensitive to the varieties of English that exist on Wikipedia.

BUT, I'd be happy to spearhead a migration strategy, if you think that's important. There's got to be a way to get a list of pages using the Convert template, presumably even a list of just those using m and km (I think we can let nanometers and other less common measurements be converted to the abbreviations, at least for now). People will gladly volunteer, so the whole thing will get done very quickly.

Basically, the longer we wait, the bigger the problem gets. Samuel Webster (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to propose it. Lightmouse (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I just did propose it. I would change it myself if I knew how, and if the template weren't locked. Sorry for being (sort of, when it comes to templates anyway) a newbie! Where do I propose this? Thanks, Samuel Webster (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have proposed it. I have just run out of things to say about it. Perhaps somebody else will respond. Lightmouse (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already pointed out many times in the past that this improper preference contrary to the national varieties of English rules is a problem that needs fixing. Everyone should have to jump through the hoops to get whatever spelling; we should not be improperly imposing one spelling as we are doing. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is an even worse problem when there don't even exist any hoops to jump through to get proper American spelling, as in:

• {{convert|3.5|t|lb|sp=us}} giving us the non-U.S. spelling in 3.5 metric tons (7,700 lb), even when we use the "sp=us" parameter.

Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gene, you would want to use {{convert|3.5|MT|lb}} which gives 3.5 metric tons (7,700 lb), since "metric ton" is a more standard US usage instead of "tonne" — Bellhalla (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm American and I'm fine with the template defaulting to British Imperial spelling. It has to default to something and the mosnum over the years has pointed out in one way or another that the units should be spelled out in the main text. If the spelling defaulted to American spelling then we would be having the exact discussion but someone would want the British as the default. We'll just leave well enough alone. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 16:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it most certainly does not have to default to something. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And not being able to override a default misspelling is even worse. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To MJCdetroit. Thanks for your thoughts, but you may have missed the point of the proposal. No one is suggesting that the template be changed to default to American spelling. Defaulting to American spelling would prioritize one dialect over another, which is against the spirit of the openness to all dialects which characterizes Wikipedia. That would be as bad as defaulting to British spelling. And here's thing: defaulting to British spelling is exactly what the template now does! My suggestion was that the default be to the abbreviation. For the reasons indicated above, this seems like a reasonable proposal. I see lots of upsides to this and essentially zero downsides (especially if people volunteer to add the "uk" option where "metre" has become "m").

Speaking of volunteers, I realize the answer to my question above about finding instances of usage is easy: one just looks at the "what links here" list. I volunteer to take everything beginning with "A". Anyone up for "B"? We can get this done quickly! Samuel Webster (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest no default whatsoever. Look what happens when you use this, which used to work:

• {{convert|3.5|kt|mph}} → 3.5 kilotonnes ()

Now it gives us an error message which would be totally irrelevant if the monster did even rudimentary dimensional analysis.

Yet, despite that

{{convert|3.5|kt|kJ}} → 3.5 kilotonnes ()

{{convert|3.5|kt|kg}} → 3.5 kilotonnes (3,500,000 kg)

A message along those lines, plastering a similar red-letter notice on the article page, should be sufficient to get the existing codes changed to explicit specification of the spelling.

As an alternative, I'd suggest that we start requiring explicit statement of the spelling option, and that we send a bot through and convert all existing uses where the option is applicable to U.S. spellings. Along the lines of two people splitting a pie: one gets to cut it, then the other gets first choice of the two pieces. The bots edit summary can explain how to change it if the other spelling is appropriate in a particular article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gene- Both of your suggestions seem excellent to me (and better than my suggestion of a default to the abbreviation). I didn't realize such was possible. But we don't want to require specifcation of one or the other spelling, we want to require one of the three things: 1) specify UK English, 2) specify U.S. English; or 3) use the abbreviation switch. The warning should come only if none of those three things are specified.

I think your first suggestion of the warning message is probably the better of the two options. Samuel Webster (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry SW, I'm not sold. The MOS has always slightly favored (or favoured<--lol) the spelling out of units in text. Therefore, it makes sense to have the template naturally spell out the unit unless told to do otherwise. If you desire the unit symbols instead, then add a |abbr=on to the code and the template will use the symbols instead. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean you're not sold on my first suggestion. OK. Me neither. :) I'm now more sold on Gene's suggestions, which solve your concerns and mine. Samuel Webster (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a difference in spelling between the United States and the United Kingdom, it's a difference in spelling between the United States and all other English-speaking countries except the United States. The defining documents for the metric system can be found at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) in Paris. See [1]. The official defining document is in French, but there is also an official English translation. It translates the French word "mètre" into English as "metre". Every English-speaking country on Earth accepts this translation, except the United States. The US insists on doing its own translation of the BIPM standard, which translates "mètre" as "meter", among other deviations from the international standard. However, this US translation is only a "standard" in the United States alone. Every other country uses the BIPM spelling, "metre", and in fact "metre" is also acceptable in the US as otherwise there would be legal problems with contracts involving other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyMtnGuy (talk • contribs) 02:56 UTC, 16 December 2008

I'm glad you noticed that the Brits also do not spell it the way it is spelled in France, and in the official documents of the CGPM, CIPM, and BIPM. Did you also notice that it is "meter" in Dutch, and in Norwegian, and in Swedish, for example? Or "Meter" in German, and "méter" in Hungarian? The international organizations establish official, language-independent symbols for the units; they do not establish official spellings of their names. It is "kg" in Italy like it is everywhere else, even though they spell the unit chilogrammo. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Brits normally DO use French spelling for words borrowed from French, they just leave the accents off. That's why they have all those -re endings on words. However, in this case the rational for using "metre" was that it allows scientific documents to distinguish between "metre" (the unit of length) and "meter" (the measurement device). Thus, in international English one can use "micrometre" for a unit of length equal to 1/millionth of a metre, and "micrometer" for an instrument used to measure very short distances. In American English, it's ambiguous. Scientists hate ambiguity.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think all things American should be extirpated? What is your point? There is a serious discussion here about how to minimize the chances that WP guidelines will be violated. The number of countries that spell certain words certain ways is irrelevant (likewise, the number of people who spell certain words certain ways). We're not trying eliminate cultures or aspects of culture here. We're trying to improve Wikipedia. Are you so filled with hatred that you don't see that? What is wrong with you? And, by the way, "metre" is an incorrect spelling in the U.S. That doesn't mean that a document that contains that spelling has no legal force in the U.S. Do you think a document containing the word "colour" would be thrown out of court? Are you an idiot? Whatever you are, I hope it's not a lawyer. PeterH2 (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all things American should be extirpated, I just believe than Americans should not feel entitled to impose their own local standards on the rest of the world. But, to get back to the point, "metre" is an accepted variant spelling in the US. Some people have tried to enforce "meter" in the US, but international experts have told them that this could be a violation of the international trade agreements the US has signed. In some other countries, you must use exactly the right spelling of units in legal documents or they are invalid, and they don't always accept "meter" because that's not the spelling the international defining document. They don't care what the American document says because it's not legally valid outside the US. Most countries are more flexible, but some aren't.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Spitting out an error if no unit is specified is such a bad idea I'm amazed anyone would propose it. Templates are supposed to be easy to use - that means taking as few parameters as is necessary. There's no way this template is going to be changed to error out if it doesn't specify a dialect just because there's an alternative spelling for a handful of length units in one country on Earth. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterH2 (talk • contribs)

As for you, this one country on Earth canard is getting tiresome. It's 300 hundred million people. But if even if it were 100 million people, there is no guideline saying "dialects with small numbers of native speakers shall not be respected; indeed, WP should do everything it can to eliminate these dialects from the face of the Earth". Or is there? If not, you may want to propose it. I bet it would make you happy! Here's another proposal you may want to put forward: "WP should no longer accept contributions from people using American spelling and diction. Americans may contribute, but only if they use Commonwealth spellings and diction. Right oh then. What!" Good luck. There are enough orthographic anti-Americans on Wikipedia that such a proposal might just fly. Think how warm and fuzzy you'd feel! PeterH2 (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was trying to get across, but this isn't the place to reply to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham is just trying to hide the fact that most of the native speakers of English speak American English. But in any case, it doesn't change the long-standing Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines putting national varieties of English on an equal footing, something that is severely compromised by the default settings of this widely used template. Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "hide" anything, though I do apologise for the "one country" error. My primary point was that there is no way whatsoever that the template is being changed so that a currently-valid entry produces an error simply for a minor aesthetic issue. The knots/kilotonnes issue is very different in that it needs to be extremely clear that continuing to use this shortcut will cause definite errors in 100% of transclusions - that's an apple to this case's orange. If the default is to be changed, it should be brought to the attention of the wider community (using that favoured battleground, MOSNUM) and discussed fully. But the only change on the table here is a switch of the default - removing it entirely in favour of an error message is unacceptable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To Chris Cunningham: Suggesting that my, Gene's and many, many, many others' concerns are "minor" is unlikely to lead to a productive discussion. For the record, this is not a minor issue for me. I find it insulting that you so readily dismiss my, and others', concerns. Samuel Webster (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the discussion. I'd dismissing absurd solutions to the perceived problem. But this isn't an appropriate venue for this argument. See below. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is precisely the most appropriate venue for this discussion—one other possibility, of course, is WP:TfD. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To Gene: Exactly. Whoever created the template had good intentions, and has made a significant contribution to Wikipedia. Now we have a chance to eliminate one of the template's few downsides. Let's do it! Samuel Webster (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to sum up some of the options. (I'm ignoring comments by people who seem to think Wikipedia should be systematically biased against American English, since such comments manifest a failure to understand the consensus about respecting different dialects that's come about over the course of years of hard work.)

1. Default to the abbreviation. As MJCdetroit has pointed out, this would lead to abbreviations entering into text where (in some cases) the Style Guide calls for the units to be spelled out.
2. Default to American spelling. This would lead to the -er spellings entering into the text where the Style Guide might call for the units to be spelled with the /-re spelling. This would create a systematic bias towards American spelling. This is unacceptable.
3. Default to U.K./Commonwealth. (The way the template now works). This would lead to the -re spellings entering into text where the Style Guide might call for the units to be spelled with the /-er spelling. This would create a systematic bias towards U.K./Commonwealth spelling. This is unacceptable. (Yet it is how the template currently works.)
4. Make use of the spelling option (for the relevant units) or the abbreviation option mandatory, as Gene suggested. This would solve all the problems. Chris Cunningham (not at work) says this is unacceptable. I don't understand why. There are already error messages for improper uses of other templates. The error msg. will also get people more away of dialectic differences, which could be a good thing!

I prefer #4.

Any other suggestions people want to put on the table?

Samuel Webster (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would choose #4 Default to U.K./Commonwealth. (The way the template now works) - with the caveat that this is not "U.K./Commonwealth" spelling, it is international English spelling used in English language documents everywhere except in the United States. And it's not a dialect, because the pronunciation is the same. It's just that the United States for its own internal historical and political reasons insists on using a different spelling than everyone else. However, it should be the prerogative of everyone else in the world to ignore the United States when the United States insists on ignoring the international consensus.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly, every single claim in the above is incorrect. I'm not going to correct you, because your points are not relevant here. Instead, I'd like to ask you to pause and consider what you really want here. You clearly have what any researcher on prejudice would call a "hatred" of either the U.S., or simply of American orthography. Look into your soul: are your feelings only about words like meter and kilometer? That would be bizarre. Don't your feelings also extend to color, center, etc.? They almost certainly do. So what you really want, presumably, is a fundamental change in Wikipedia policy (as PeterH2 said about Chris C.): you want to eliminate, or discourage, the use of American spelling. This is not the place to try to effect such a change. Instead, you need to take the matter up at the page on the Manual of Style.

In other words, people like you and -- to the extent that I grasp his motives -- Chris C., face a sort of decision tree. First, you should decide whether your goal is to eliminate the use of American spellings from Wikipedia. If it is, go elsewhere. If that is not your goal, then you need to stop making arguments (for the record: spurious, and empirically and historically false arguments) about "international English", etc., etc. when arguing why this template should discourage American spelling. We're having a discussion about how the template should conform with existing policies, policies which include respecting differences as much as possible. Arguments about why those difference should not be respected don't belong here, they belong on the Manual of Style page. (And, to be frank, I don't think those discussions belong anywhere on Wikipedia; but shutting down discussions by anti-Americans, or "anti-orthographic-Americans," would just be a another kind of hatred, albeit a more benign one.)

Thanks in advance for your reflection on this matter. Samuel Webster (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia and make it open to all users and all variants of English. What, precisely, are you trying to do?

---

I think we're done here, if the above response is an indication of how the thread is going to continue. The cross-Atlantic bickering can continue at WT:MOSNUM; extending an MoS issue to a technical talk page isn't going to be productive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If by "above response" you mean RockyMtnGuy's, I see where you're coming from, but, no, we're not done here, though Chris, you're welcome to leave. We're trying to solve a technical problem. People who make hateful, insulting claims about American English here should simply be ignored.

Now, the serious question: the template is locked. Who here has the power to change it? Samuel Webster (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't said much in this debate, but have been reading, and my jaw dropped at your comment immediately above the line drawn. The level of personal you've attempted to ratchet this issue to is not productive, and it's starting to look more and more like a one man crusade based on deep-seated prejudices. Your allegations honestly remind me of what I'd normally expect from some of our more passionate Eastern European editors when dealing with each other, rather than something I'd expect to see in civil debate. We HAVE an option in the template. If you really feel strongly about it, stop wasting our time here and fix the instances of it that need fixing. That's what any of us have to do when issues come up. I have absolutely no problems with the way the template currently operates, the current guys looking after it have fixed every last one of the issues I had (all performance/technical ones). Orderinchaos 10:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My jaw dropped when I read comments by others here. We're all different, and have different background assumptions. You obviously think that Chris' dismissing my concerns as a "minor aesthetic issue" (and other things he's said and done) don't consitutet a "ratchetting up." I'd say he's the one who ratcheted it up. (Look at my original posts here.) Jumping into a discussion to accuse one side of ratcheting things up, and suggesting that the other side is innocent, is not a very productive way to move a dispute forward. But thanks for trying. Samuel Webster (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Going around stopping just short of accusing people of racism or ethnocentrism because they prefer an international standard over one that works for only one country is entirely unhelpful, and I genuinely hope the quality of the debate won't drop that low again. Like I said I'm used to seeing it in other areas of the encyclopaedia, just wasn't expecting to see it here. Orderinchaos 22:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody accused you of racism or ethnocentrism. So why are you claiming they did?

The owners of this template do stand accused of trying to run roughshod over the long-standing Wikipedia policy of putting the national varieties of English on an equal footing. It is as simple as that. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no owners of this template. That the rest of the community has failed to agree to your proposal for the template is not an indication of template ownership; such allegations are precisely the kind of assumption of bad faith Orderinchaos was commenting on. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment left on WT:MOSNUM

I've left a comment here, on WT:MOSNUM, regarding this issue. The non-techical bickering over which is more appropriate should start there; if there is consensus that the current default is unacceptable then we can restart discussion here over technical implementation of the change. Until then, most people reading this talk page are ill-equipped for the kind of bickering which passes for commentary on the MOS talk pages, so there's little point trying to get a proper consensus here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should adopt the policy of ignoring people who want to elminate this or that dialect of English. Following that policy, we have a serious discussion here among a few people who want to solve the technical problem of how to change the template so that it doesn't discourage the use of one particular dialect of English. This is a technical problem. Gene came up with a solution that should make everyone (well, non-hateful people at least) happy. We just need to implement it. Can someone explain how to do that? All other discussion is just silliness. Samuel Webster (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue with this template, not with MOSNUM.

Furthermore, it isn't a MOSNUM issue in the first place; it is a main page Wikipedia:Manual of Style issue, not a "dates and numbers issue". So why is anybody suggesting it is appropriate for MOSNUM in the first place? Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a moment to read the advisory text at WP:UNIT, a subsection of MOSNUM. And while it is technically an issue with this template, template talk pages are not usually the best places to discuss non-technical aspects of template design - infoboxen frequently get discussed on WikiProject pages, article message boxes on various subsets of WT:MOS and so forth. In this case, the political and linguistic side of the debate is pretty central to the requested change, and is rather outside this talk page's usual scope. The thread I started as MOSNUM is already quite healthy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the main MOS page, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English.

1. The discussion belongs here.
2. A second choice is Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.
3. A third choice is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style; the main page, not a subpage.

There aren't any other reasonable choices. What's with this forum shopping in the first place? And why in the world are there wild-ass claims that we'd need consensus either here or somewhere else to fix it in accordance with the existing rules? Can anybody point me to any consensus establishing the current, broken way this template work? Or or the designers of this template gods, placing themselves above the normal Wikipedia rules in some way? Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bringing a discussion to a wider audience while it is still ongoing is not forum shopping. The easy way to remember this is to always think of forum shopping as "asking the other parent", which first requires an actual refusal or end of discussion at one forum. I've already pointed out that WP:UNIT, a prominent MOSNUM shortcut, recommends bringing issues regarding international use of units to WT:MOSNUM. Whether other areas of the MOS offer conflicting advice or not, it is hardly fair to argue that I am wrong in my interpretation of that section. I don't see any "wild-ass claims here" regarding when consensus is required, although I do see plenty of invective and unwarranted accusations of bad faith towards those who do not, for whatever reason, happen to subscribe to your proposed solution. I'm not especially interested in being subject to that, which is why I brought this up at MOSNUM, where such behaviour is commonplace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Going there and deliberately lying in framing the issues, as you thumperward/Chris Cunningham did despite participating in the discussion here, is forum-shopping. To get a "wider participation", pointing people at MOSNUM or anywhere else to the existing discussion would be appropriate. That isn't what you did. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems thumperward/Chris Cunningham moved this discussion to MOSNUM for personal reasons (he didn't enjoy the reactions of people who felt insulted by, among other things, his claims that our concerns are "minor", and only involve "aesthetic" matters). I'm not quite sure how to proceed here. We have two issues: whether American English should be disallowed or discouraged on Wikipedia. That clearly belongs at the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Under the assumption that American English should not be disallowed or discouraged -- a very reasonable assumption in my view -- the discussion should be here, since the issue is a technical one: how do we best implement existing policy. Why are there so few people who see this? Is it permissible, good form, to seek out other users to join this discussion? I don't want to be accused of "consensus-farming". But there do seem to be a large number of people with extreme biases against American English here. Samuel Webster (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. As PeterH2 suggested, people wanting to eliminate or discourage the use of American spelling should take the issue up at the main page for style and guidelines (Wikipedia:Manual of Style). Otherwise, let's get this technical problem solved. The template is locked. How do we get it unlocked? Samuel Webster (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. Likely off-line for the next 10-12 hours.

We do not get it unlocked, because it's a highly technical and complex system of templates (not a single template as most incorrectly sssume) and screwing it up is not an option. As a person of moderate technical ability and the ability to edit protected pages (as I'm an admin) I know I don't have the level of faith in my aforesaid technical ability to know I won't screw it up, there's guys here who have more technical acumen than myself and I've found them responsive to any specific good-faith requests. Orderinchaos 10:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Samuel should ask MJCdetroit (talk) to unblock it so that he can edit it. He has done so for Jimp, no questions asked. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That'd be because Jimp unquestionably knows what he's doing inside the template structure. It's generally best for the standards people to figure out what the standards should be, then the programmers do the necessary coding. Orderinchaos 23:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me! Thanks for the helpful answer. Samuel Webster (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is being proposed for changing?

Can someone explain to me exactly what the "technical problem" that there's seemingly a sudden rush to "fix" is? The above discussion has spiraled in so many different directions that it's not clear to me. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The template defaults to the "metre" / "litre" spelling for measurements. There is debate over whether this is an appropriate default, or whether in fact the template should emit an error if not provided with a parameter for the desired dialect of English. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The already-implemented sp parameter (as sp=us) provides the American/US spelling. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1. But, unless you jump through the hoops right, it gives you a conversion without you specifying the spelling. Therein lies the problem.
2. For an editor to use that, he or she must first realize that it exists. That is not a realistic expectation, with such an overwhelmingly complex template. Most editors just see someone else using it and try to use it themselves.
   1. Most people who use convert don't know that; you yourself act surprised to have discovered it.
   2. And you yourself act as though you'd be telling us something we didn't know, so obviously you don't realistically expect users of the convert template to know that.
3. Then they don't get a simple, convenient template to do it with, like the ones who want the other spelling. We should not be giving one spelling undue preference over the other. They are on equal footing, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English.
4. Consequently, many articles using the convert template use the wrong spellings.
5. One of the main reasons that it is a problem is that the spellings are never seen by either the editor adding the template, nor by a subsequent editor who is copyediting the article, when they look at the edit screen. You cannot tell that there is a problem from the edit screen, unless you know a whole lot more about the template than the typical user of it does.
6. Then perhaps the biggest problem: The spellings unintentionally slipped into the article by someone only interested in adding unit conversions, and not interested in any way in the spellings used and not going to bother to jump through any hoops to get the spelling changed even if they know how to do so, get bootstrapped into the notion that some other editor should change "behavior" to "behaviour".
7. AND furthermore, using "sp=us" does not work when I try
   • {{convert|87.3|t|gr|sp=us}} → 87.3 metric tons (1.347×10⁹ gr)

Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• In response to point 2 (1): That's quite a stretch to see "surprise" in my statement, as it is not. And I don't think it unrealistic for users to know that since "sp=us" is the first item listed in the "Parameter" section of the template documentation.
• As to your last example, if you want the more typical "American" name for the unit, use {{convert|87.3|MT|gr}} → 87.3 metric tons (1.347×109 gr)
• Gene, I understand your concerns about this template, as you have made them quite clear in many posts to this discussion page. Certainly, no one is forcing anyone, even you, to use this template. This template is a very powerful tool, but I'll admit that it can seem intimidating and can be used incorrectly. Ultimately, though, its use is the responsibility of the editor choosing to use it. If I take my car and use it to run down schoolchildren (to pick a wildly improbable scenario), it's certainly not the fault of the car. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a "sp=us" parameter. It doesn't work. It doesn't matter one whit if some other "undocumented feature" (read "bug") not mentioned in connection with "sp=us" in the documentation will give you the U.S. spelling; when the "sp=us" parameter doesn't do so, the template is broken.

The relevant line of the documentation table tells us:

Use US spelling

attach sp=us

Furthermore, that "unit symbol" MT, when used in the second position, gives us <code><nowiki>{{convert|87300|lb|MT}} → 87,300 pounds (39.6 t). That isn't acceptable, either; the proper symbol for metric tons, in the NIST documents we generally find quite useful as our guidelines, is "t", not "MT".

So that's one more way the template is broken. Do you have any serious solutions to propose, short of initiating a Wikipedia:Templates for deletion discussion? Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So I'm not serious, huh? Please assume good faith. Just as I have in assuming that your persistent "threats" of TFDs are not POINT-y actions. Seriously, dude, no one is forcing you to use this template. Since it obviously causes you great distress, just use manual conversions in articles. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if it's broken, a more helpful approach would be to tell us what precisely is broken - perhaps a table of current behaviour on the left side, desired behaviour on the right side. Then the programmer types can figure out how to make the sp=us parameter behave desirably. Simply saying "it's broken" doesn't help - an actual problem report is far better. Orderinchaos 23:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The issues here, as I see them, are as follows:

1. The official defining documents of the metric system, the International System of Units (SI), are archived at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures in Paris.
2. The official definitions are in French, where the base unit is spelled "mètre".
3. The BIPM provides an official English translation, where the base unit of length is spelled "metre".
4. Every English speaking country except the United States uses the BIPM translation in defining their units of measure.
5. The United States, for its own internal political reasons, uses a different defining document from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
6. The US defining document uses the spelling "meter", among other variations from the international standard. However, this document is only valid in the United States and other countries are at liberty to ignore it. Or not, as is their prerogative.
7. Because of its international trading agreements, the US also has to recognize the international spelling "metre" because it's the official international spelling. That's not optional.

Thus, in summary, I would characterize the spelling of "metre" as being the international English spelling, and "meter" as being an American spelling variation on that. I don't see why the script can't continue its current behavior of using "metre" as a default, and Americans use the "sp=us" option to change it to "meter". How hard is that, really. Get with the global agenda, guys.

Wikipedia isn't the place -- or shouldn't be the place -- for you to try to pursue your own personal "global" agenda. We need to respect difference. If you disagree, please go to the Manual of Style page and make your arguments there that American spelling, or some American spellings, should be discourages on Wikipedia, and that Commonwealth spellings should be encouraged. That discussion does not belong here. Samuel Webster (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is global. It does have a global agenda. Please respect that and focus on making constructive suggestions. —Sladen (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We can make allowances, and indeed, if there are problems with the current implementation of sp=us then those need to be itemised so they can be fixed, but allowances does not mean one country telling the rest of the world how to do things. There's enough US bias on this encyclopaedia already. Orderinchaos 23:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some secondary issues around this subject:

1. Most English-speaking countries use "metre" to distinguish "metre" (unit of measure) or "metre" (rhythm in poetry) from "meter" (measurement device). This is similar to the to/too/two or for/fore/four spelling distinctions recognized in English.
2. The word "metre" comes from the Greek word "metron" (a measure), whereas the word "meter" comes from the old English word "mete" (distribute or give out). See Cambridge Guide to Australian English Useage by Pam Peters.
3. Americans use "acre" instead of "acer", so why do they insist on using "meter" instead of "metre". (That's a rhetorical question).
4. This whole issue is somewhat moot anyway, since Americans will say "The height of Pikes Peak is 14,115 feet (4,302 m)". If the mountain is in some other country, that country will recognize the BIPM spelling, as in "The height of Mount Everest is 8,848 metres (29,029 ft)".RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Among the several fallacies in your arguments, one of the biggest ones is a false assumption that American English on Wikipedia is limited to mountains in the United States under our national varieties of English rules. That is patently false. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And one of the other odd ones is the use of the term "international English" (which means either nothing, or British English, or Commonwealth English, or American English, or some imagined compromise for international use). RockyMtnGuy has consistently been trying to make the argument that use of (some of) American English should be discouraged on Wikipedia (that's what people who use the term "international English" in the way he does are generally doing). RockyMtnGuy, please take your argument that Wikipedia should discourage the use of American English to the Manual of Style page. To others, let's try to work on a solution. Samuel Webster (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UE states "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article". The article is Metre, so "metre" is the correct default for {{convert}}. A default is necessary to encourage use. If people want to do something useful about "meter" spellings; please make suggestions for an single-sweep automated way to identify/classify "US centric" articles and verify the application "sp=us"/"MT" on them. At the same time identify non-US spelt articles and verify that the default (or "sp=uk") has been used. —Sladen (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There are only minor differences between British English, International English (which is the official standard English recognised in many countries such as Singapore and India and taught in international schools) and the local varieties of English used in other English-speaking countries formerly or presently in the Commonwealth. Most of those differences relate to which word to use, rather than how to spell it. It's not a matter of "discouraging... the use of American English" on Wikipedia, but acknowledging that we're on a global project which has to have some sort of standards to prevent the output from looking silly. In order that UE can be satisfied, we have the sp=us parameter. Most of the arguments seem to revolve around some idea that the standard behaviour should not be international in focus but should actually contravene MOSNUM by using entirely abbreviations. Which, amongst other things, is entirely silly when one considers the only country in the world that spells them that way also doesn't use them by default - find me one American road sign that gives distances in km. It seems we're being asked to please a rowdy (and very aggressive) minority, and I personally do not believe in the "he who shouts the loudest" way of resolving problems. If you have a case for reasonable change, put it factually and respectfully. Orderinchaos 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You are barking up the wrong tree. The issues have been clearly stated, yet you apparently deliberately ignore them.

Every case I have ever seen in which national varieties of English has come into play in Wikipedia usage discussions involves either spelling (metre/metre, behaviour/behavior) or word choice (petrol/gasoline). To claim it usually has to do with something else is pretty strange.

The primary problem is not the cases in which "sp=us" doesn't work. It was stated by me in #Apparently bad use of hyphen above, and by Samuel Webster not only in the text of his message starting this section and in subsequent messages, but in the very name of the section which you now pretend to be incapable of understanding, #Problem with defaulting to British spelling.

The known cases in which the parameter doesn't work have also been clearly stated. That is the secondary problem, and one that doesn't need

BTW, there are several American road signs giving distances in kilometers. But that is wholly irrelevant to the discussion here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Clearly stated" in a mass of verbiage. Re sp=us, I'm asking for those issues to be isolated. Without knowing what the specific problems are, it's pretty hard to put a work order on it - which I intend to do the moment I know what the issues are. Also some of the things highlighted in those sections are not errors - eg a tonne is a metric unit, a ton is an imperial unit of a different (although similarish) value. Orderinchaos 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"it's pretty hard to put a work order on it - which I intend to do the moment I know what the issues are"

Now we're clicking. You've really piqued my curiosity now.

What exactly is this "work order" procedure you are referring to?

Why, exactly, are you the one who can put this work order in and get it done?

Can I put in my own work order?

Can Samuel Webster put in his own work order?

I don't see why in the world we should rely on you to translate our requests for us; you have shown far too much obtuseness in the discussion already. So just tell us how we can go about this ourselves. Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Blame my wording on being a IT customer service officer for several years, and being tired when I wrote the message. A "work order" is a request placed on a helpdesk system which then gets answered with an action. In my line of work we were always told to be both precise and concise with what we requested, so that the scope was clear and the success of the request was known - i.e. once done it could be tested to demonstrate that the system was indeed working per the request, and a supervisor (usually myself in the situation, as I had no idea about detailed technical stuff, I dealt with the customers/internal clients) then ticked it off as a completed job. I see this as being a similar process, although obviously less formal. i.e. What is it doing? what should it be doing? reduced down to something we can actually get done. For example "The output when x set of parameters is used is "111", but it should be "222".". Those sorts of things, once we have them like that, can likely be fixed fairly easily. I don't need to translate the request, anyone can do it, it's just that if it's buried in a barrage of insults and complaints, it's difficult to figure out what in fact needs to be fixed. Orderinchaos 07:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To demonstrate how much more productive simply highlighting the exact problems is, I was able to figure out which part of the process was causing "MT" to show up instead of "t" in the relevant template, so 87,300 pounds (39.6 t) now displays correctly. With somewhat more effort, I managed to fix the dram problem too. Orderinchaos 07:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The spelling problem only applies to metric origin units. If the origin units are non-metric it isn't a problem. Statistics would help this discussion if a default is being challenged on the basis of effort. Are metric origin units more common in USeng articles or more common elsewhere? Lightmouse (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be relevant in any case; suffice it to say that there are numerous articles using American English which contain at least some measurements originally made in metric units. That's all you really need to know. THe existence of even just one would do sufficient; we don't need any further "statistics".

There are varieties-of-English (or maybe just plain accuracy) issues, unrelated to metric units, in the terminology of the documentation of this template, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

But in any case, Lightmouse, if you really want to push the issue, your statement that The spelling problem only applies to metric origin units is false. Take a look at this example:

{{convert|0.42|oz|drachm|sp=us}} → 0.42 ounces (6.7 drams)

for a case where you do not get the U.S. spelling even when you use the "sp=us" parameter. If I came across somebody's use of {{convert|0.42|oz|drachm}} in an article, and I tried to fix it by using {{convert|0.42|oz|drachm|sp=us}} as the template's documentation says I should do to get U.S. spellings, it simply does not work. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone unfamiliar with the unit involved, what is the American spelling? Orderinchaos 17:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You might just type drachm in the box on your Wikipedia page and click on "Go". I linked it for you to make it even easier.

Or, if you look at the documentation, and in particular the full list at Template:Convert/list of units/mass incorporated by link on the template's main page documentation, you should be able to figure it out. Note, of course, the implication that the designers of this template were fully aware of the difference between UK and US English here, yet consciously chose another undocumented means of making that distinction, rather than making it a part of the "sp=us" parameter.

Or just try {{convert|1|drachm|dram}} and see what you get.

Then {{convert|1|drachm|oz|4}}→1 drachm (0.0625 oz) and {{convert|1|drachm|g|7}}→1 drachm (1.7718452 g) , then note from the Wikipedia article that 1 drachm or dram = ¹⁄₈ ounce =3.8879346 g in the apothecaries' system—but the convert template neither does that conversion nor points out any ambiguity, not only between the avoirdupois and apothecaries' systems, but also the fact that drams, in the few cases in which they are still actually used, are more likely to be units of volume rather than of mass.

The next obvious question is: Why in the world are the designers of this template meddling around with obscure units like this in the first place? Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Re the last question, I don't honestly know myself. I think it should have stuck with the basics personally, but that's probably just a philosophical debate to be had. Orderinchaos 07:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why a problem? Sneaky invisibility.

One of the biggest reasons why this is a problem hasn't been discussed yet, as far as I can tell.

When an editor is reviewing a change in an article, the spelling changes sneaked in by a template is invisible.

For example, look at this difference in the change by User:RedWolf at Mount Erebus. It looks something like this:

| Elevation=3,794 meters (12,448 feet) | Elevation={{convert|3794|m|ft|0}}

Look at that carefully:

1. Someone looking at that difference does not see the "metres" spelling sneaked in by the template. You don't see it, do you?
2. Nor does that person looking at the difference see any parameter in the template indicating that any spelling variations are going to be used.

That's how this insidious little problem lets changes contrary to our national varieties of English rules sneak into articles.

Nobody following recent changes is going to catch this change.

People following the article are going to look at the difference and might ask themselves, "what's with these damn fools who need to add a template to do what had already been done without a template?", but they are unlikely notice that there is more too it and the editors is also flying under the wire to put in a spelling change. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I would remind you that WP:AGF is a policy at Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 07:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely because I do assume good faith that this is a serious problem. Note also that it is every bit as invisible to the editors on the edit page without doing a preview, as it is on a differences page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To further clarify this, the sneakiness involved refers to what the template does, not to the motives of the person naive enough to use the template. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What is your rational for forcing people to use US spelling? To take the example you gave, Mount Erebus:

• Mount Erebus is in Antarctica, which is international territory, not US territory.
• Mount Erebus was discovered and first climbed by the British, who once claimed it as British territory.
• Mount Erebus is currently claimed by New Zealand (although the US does not recognize this claim).
• The person who did the edit you objected to was Canadian.

In all these countries (Britain, New Zealand, Canada) the standard metric spelling is metre. Why do you object to international spelling? Are we frustrating your plans for American global domination, or what? RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RockyMtnGuy: No one is trying to force you or anyone else to use U.S./International spelling (used all over the world, esp. in Asia -- by the way see Pam Peters' wonderful Cambridge Univ. Press book, with hints about sensible international English usage) instead of Commonwealth spelling. My original concern was about making the template conform to the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policies on English language dialects. Here, let's stick with that concern. Those who wish to discourage the use of American spelling on Wikipedia should take their efforts up elsewhere. Samuel Webster (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RockyMtnGuy keeps acting as if our WP:MOS#National varieties of English rules do not put American English on an equal footing with other varieties. He seems to be under some misapprehension that U.S. English should be limited to U.S. related articles, but his viewpoint is clearly contrary to our long-established rules. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite puzzling. The long-established rules are crystal-clear, so much so that people who act as if they don't understand them are generally not very sharp, not at all experienced with Wikipedia, or are trouble-makers. RockyMtnGuy seems neither WP-inexperienced nor stupid, so it has been somewhat difficult to assume good faith here, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Fortunately, none of this matters, since we now have an excellent solution! (See below.) We just need someone to implement the change, or unlock the template so I can implement the change. How do we get that to happen? Samuel Webster (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that, outside of the US, the spelling of metric units is based on international standards and not on national varieties of English. International spelling is based on BIPM documents, while US spelling is based on NIST documents, which are a national deviation from the international standard only valid in the US. This is because the US government insists on using its own distinctive spelling, whereas other countries don't care and are quite happy using the BIPM spelling although it is French in origin. For instance, the Canadian government style guide doesn't have any preference between the spelling center and centre, or between theater and theatre. Despite that, it insists on only the spelling metre, as recommended in the Canadian Metric Practice Guide published by the Canadian Standards Association. In addition, English-speaking countries, other than the US, use metre and tonne because they are unambiguous in scientific and engineering journals - they always mean the SI unit of length and the metric ton. As it says at spellings – different meanings: In most countries other than the US, metre is the metric unit of length, and meter is a measuring device. Also, there are several different sizes of ton used in international trade (including in the US), whereas there is only one size of tonne.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Gene, someone (Army1987) came up with what I think is an excellent solution to both the sneakiness problem and the problem I originally brought up. Forget the "sp" parameter. The behavior of the template should be:

* {{convert|300|m|ft}} yields 300 m (980 ft)

* {{convert|300|meter|feet}} yields 300 meters (980 feet)

* {{convert|300|metre|feet}} yields 300 metres (980 feet)

* {{convert|300|meter|ft}} yields 300 meters (980 ft)

* (etc.)

A touch more programming involved, but this solves -- as far as I can see -- all the problems that have been mentioned. Anyone see any downsides to this? Samuel Webster (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'd support that. I had thought of suggesting that myself, but hadn't gotten around to do so.

The chief advantage over using an error message on existing articles is that it still has the measurement and its conversion in the article. Then those who want to spell out the units can go around at their leisure and clean them up, following the existing usage in the article, of course.

It avoids the sneakiness by making the spelling visible. It needs to be done, of course, for all prefixes supported by convert as well. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would need to be done for all the prefixes. I'd be more than happy to help out. I'm not a programmer, but if there's some simple grunt work involved, which there likely is -- creating some sort of "table of equivalents" (meter = metre = meters = metres = m | kilometer = kilometre = kilometers = kilometres = km | etc.) that will be needed for the actual calculations and their output -- I can certainly do that. And, although I'm a linguist, I think I'm sharp enough to figure out how to change the actual templates. Basically, I assume it's mostly a matter -- at least following the approach that seems most obvious to me -- of reducing the characters input by the editor to the symbol already used by the template to convert that quantity (let's say the template uses "km" for kilometers; "kilometers" and other variants need to be replaced with "km", then sent to the calculation engine), and then replacing the existing output symbols with what was specified by the editor as the way to represent the converted quantity. Samuel Webster (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think it's that simple, and second, it's a lot of effort for minimal benefit. This issue is really a tempest in a teacup (or some national variation on that old saying).RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The benefits are significant, as described earlier. As for the difficulty, let me (or anyone else who wants to contribute!) worry about that. The difficulty isn't a reason to prevent people from trying! Goodness. Samuel Webster (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty would be significant. It would be easier to introduce sp=uk, sp=aus, sp=can, etc. This can be done without having to worry about error messages' being plastered around by the thousand all over WP. The problem with having to spell these units out in input is that we'd be making the template more complex to use since it would function differently for these units than it does for those units.JIMp _talk·cont 01:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To get this working for all units would involve a major overhaul of the template structure. On the other hand, it would be quite easy to provide the option of spelling certain units out as a short cut. In other words, keep the sp parameter working as normal (i.e. as it does now or will do if specifying dialect becomes mandatory) but for common units (e.g. the metre, millilitre, etc.) the editor would be able to write the unit out as they want it to appear instead of using the standard sp. Note that this would only need to be available for common units: there'd be little point providing such a short cut to the likes of picolitres. JIMp _talk·cont 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So (just so I understand what you mean) people could type |meter| instead of |m| in the template and it would use the US spelling without a need to use the sp=us parameter (whilst still allowing the choice of |m| and sp=us)? If that's what's being proposed I'd agree with it. Orderinchaos 00:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The metric ton

Gene, you've pointed out once or twice how the template is "broken" in that sp=us won't give you the American spelling of tonne. Well, I guess I'd always taken it as a matter of vocabulary rather than spelling ... do you spell the word petrol with a g in America, do you spell the word tram with an s, biscuit with a c? Since I was under the impression that this was not a spelling issue it really never occured to me to have it controlled by the sp parameter. However, it would simplify things ... if only marginally ... to do it this way. I'd like to "fix" this up in the way you're suggesting but that's going to take an edit to the protected {{convert/t}}. Once done we can dispense with MT altogether. So I'll need an admin and a bot ... anyone. JIMp _talk·cont 01:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot is at your service for unit-related matters, subject to:

• me fully understanding the issue. I have not been following this debate because I was happy with the status quo (and I still am)
• me supporting the change.

Lightmouse (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Fractions and ranges don't mix

Just an FYI...the following {{convert|1/8|to|3/32|in|mm|2|abbr=on}} gives 1⁄8 to 3⁄32 in (3.18 to 2.38 mm). As you can see, the template reversed the converted values. Again, just and FYI. Wizard191 (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Er - that's correct isn't it? 1/8" = 25.4 / 8 mm = 3.125mm; 3/32" = 3 * 25.4 / 32 mm = 2.38125 mm.  —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

DOH...you are right. I made a typo. The second value was supposed to be 3/16 in. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Mach number

Any chance of getting a Mach unit (at STP)? 87.254.92.240 (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Conversion to stones and pounds not working correctly

The conversion to stones and pounds on Caroline Wozniacki's article is not correct. 130 pounds is 9 stone 4 pounds. 9.1 is doubly wrong: firstly it is mathematically incorrect; secondly it should not be displayed as a decimal, since there are 14 pounds to a stone. I have no idea how to amend the relevant template. Wimstead (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This may affect more than one template, I am noting it here simply because I happened to spot this example. Wimstead (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It should have been {{convert|58|kg|lb stlb|abbr=on}}. Notice the "stlb". It was "st". I guess we can't get rid of the decimal stones all together either because then the input wouldn't work: {{convert|9|st|2|lb|kg lb}}--->9 stone 2 pounds (58 kg; 128 lb). However, we maybe able to get a bot to fix some of the outputs. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 13:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

When you explain to people from places other than Britain that a stone is 14 pounds, their eyes glaze over and they say that it's a good thing the British Empire collapsed. The use of the stone is theoretically prohibited in Britain, too. So why is it being used in an article about a Danish tennis player? The Danes might retaliate by converting British distances to Danish miles (24,000 Danish feet). Some Danes still use them, you know.RockyMtnGuy (talk)

Can you clarify what you mean by 'the stone is theoretically prohibited in Britain'? Lightmouse (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK 1985 Weights and Measures Act prohibited its use in trade. Of course, the Brits can continue to express their own personal weights in stones, as long as they realize that nobody else in the world (except maybe Australians - can anybody from Australia confirm?) will understand what they are talking about.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone tried to put stones in the infobox for Natalee Holloway, and got pretty pissed when I reverted it as vandalism. It would be nice if the conversion macro could check if it was being placed into an article that wasn't about a resident of the UK and automatically revert the edit that tried to insert it.

I have spent several months in Australia, and never heard anyone use stones as a unit.

Here in the Netherlands Antilles, I get to deal with Dutch pounds (500 grams) and Dutch ounces (100 grams), so I won't claim that UK has a monopoly on odd measures of weight.—Kww(talk) 04:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, RockyMtnGuy for your clarification and you seem well-informed. You are right, metric weight units are compulsory in trade. Old units have not been prohibited and can be used as supplementary information. The stone appears to have died out in trade and isn't used, as far as I know. The stone is only used for body weight. The stone and the kilogram are both common in body weight. British lifts/elevators have a maximum body weight capacity marked in kilograms only. Lightmouse (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I got considerable experience in this area designing software for international oil companies. I often designed in features to prevent the users from doing anything illegal, which involved considerable reading of legislation. This led to conversations like: User: "Why won't the program let me do (something)?" Me: "Because it's illegal." User: "but we've ALWAYS done it this way." Me: "Maybe you should stop before the government catches you." Frankly, it's a lot easier to argue with users than with government bureaucrats, especially if you're working for an oil company.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Most bathroom scales sold in Britain are measured in stones/pounds and kilos (see examples at [2]). It is quite legal to describe someone's weight in stones, as long as you're not selling them ;-) —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there is a law against selling people (that was your joke), but if there weren't, it would be quite legal to say "13 stone Wikipedia geeks: £4 each". Similarly, you could describe a table as "6 foot by 4 foot tables: £100 each". In such cases, a non-metric unit is not being 'used for trade' because it is not part of an arithmetic calculation of money to be handed over at the till. You would be breaking the law if you offered "paper printouts of Wikipedia talk pages: £1 per stone". The word 'per' is the clue that it is being in the calculation of the money and hence 'used for trade'. Lightmouse (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Feet and inches out

First, let me say that you guys are doing a great thing here. I'd like length conversions from metric to English to show the English in feet, inches, and fractions, but I can't find any switches for that. Does anyone know where they are? Decimal feet is pretty weird; it's almost as weird as decimal time. My totally non-metric American brain sees "4.8 feet" and immediately asks how many inches is 0.8 feet? It gets no quick answer. Down to the eighth-inch would be good enough for most things, I guess, making 4.8 feet 4 ft 9⅝ in. I suppose it would be best to have a switch for the precision that sets the denominator to none, 2, 4, or 8. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think fractional inch output is possible. The closest that you're gonna get is something like {{convert|180|cm|ftin|1}}--->180 centimetres (5 ft 10.9 in). Fractional inputs are possible but a little goofy: {{convert|9+5/8|in|cm|1}}--->9+5⁄8 inches (24.4 cm).—MJCdetroit ^(yak) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to express lengths in fractions of an inch, why not go the full distance and convert them to Roman numerals as well? (I actually did this in one of my first computer science courses, because otherwise the assignment was just too easy.) However, most programmers don't need any more challenge in their careers, so let's go with the more modern decimal system. It's been in use for several hundred years, now, and most people have adapted to it. Just memorize these numbers: One eighth is 0.125, one quarter is 0.25, three eighths is 0.325, one half is 0.5, five eighths is 0.625, three quarters is 0.75 and seven eighths is 0.825. Or find yourself a tape measure calibrated in decimal inches - they do exist, you know.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I memorized them long ago without even trying to. The fact remains that decimal feet is a monstrosity. Also, I could write a program in BASIC to do what I'm asking in no time. I once wrote a hex-decimal-hex converter for the first Radio Shack programmable calculator (it used all the available steps). How is it not possible? I wish I knew more about how this template is written and implemented. Where can I find a good how-to? --Milkbreath (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of strange tape measures over the years. Despite what you may think, surveyor's tape measures are usually marked in tenths of an inch. But then, roofs, stairs and birds are often measured in twelfths of an inch. And then there are multiples and sub multiples of the fractions: sixths, sixteenths, twenty-fourths, thirty-seconds, forty-eights, sixty-fourths, etc. etc. It's a lot harder to handle all these odd fractions in software than you might think. That was one of the big reasons for metrication: to get rid of all the silly fractions of an inch and do everything in millimetres.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding, that and the urge the French seem to have to do everything a little different from everybody else. Your knowledge of unusual measuring systems is impressive, but normal, ignorant people who use the English system, which is what we're talking about, use feet, inches, and fractions of an inch with powers of 2 in the denominator. You do know that, too, right? And nothing is hard for a computer once the programmer gets it straight. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the French are unique in that regard. Everybody seems to do everything a little different from everybody else. And the French did manage to get rid of their mesures usuelles despite the fact that Napoleon said, je me moque des divisions décimales ("I laugh at decimal divisions"), whereas the Brits still think you should weigh Danish tennis players in stones (14 pounds per stone). On the other hand, after quaffing a few of their 20 ounce pints I could understand why they might not want to metricate it right away, whilst the 16 ounce American pint should probably be banned as a crime against humanity. Regardless, after 35 years of designing software for giant multinational companies, I can confidently say that life is too short to spend it programming computers to convert decimal inches to fractions of an inch.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that MediaWiki scripting is far less powerful than BASIC. It's not a programming language, and the ParserFunctions extension is the closest thing it has to programming logic (this template uses iterative ParserFunctions and standard add/multiply etc to do what it does). Orderinchaos 09:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to have feet and inches (and decimal inches, if necessitated by precision). Examples:

• {{convert|10|m|ftin}} → 10 metres (32 ft 10 in)
• {{convert|10.003|m|ftin}} → 10.003 metres (32 ft 9.8 in)

I know that's not what you were asking for, but decimal inches are more common than decimal feet. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. I dunno, I just thought if we're going to convert to Imperial at all, we should do it all the way and not halfway. I'm five foot ten and three-quarters inches tall. I am not five foot ten point seven five inches tall. It matters. If it didn't, why bother with any of this conversion stuff? --Milkbreath (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Combined feet and miles addition

Would it be possible to create a "mi ft" combination? I'm trying to fix up the article on the Earth's atmosphere, and many of these heights are often expressed in feet, but the outer layers of the atmosphere are hundreds of miles out there, and thus may be best expressed in both (and km, of course). I think it would be trivial for someone to do. Thanks, Mailseth (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

{{convert|100|km|mi ft}}--->100 kilometres (62 mi; 330,000 ft)

Many times the space shuttle launches are measured in nautical miles:

{{convert|100|nmi|km mi ft}}--->100 nautical miles (190 km; 120 mi; 610,000 ft)

And in case you want to drag someone underwater:

{{convert|100|m|fathom ft}}--->100 metres (55 fathoms; 330 ft)

You're welcome. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In a perfect worlḍ... Thanks! Mailseth (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Using millions of acres in a sentence is BROKEN

I was about to edit some things on State of Alaska because the metric conversions were wrong. It turned out the error is likely in the template, or it is unimplemented to use it this way. I would like to see this covered in the "example" section of the Convert template. I need to know how to handle this.

It is the World's largest wildlife Refuge, comprising 16 million acres (65,000 km²).

Which uses: {{convert|16|e6acre|km2}}

Notice that the acres show correctly, somehow, but the conversion is off by a factor of a million. Now I know how to write a correct version by using zeros rather than the word "millions," but can the template be fixed to have something for an "e6acre"? I like to saw logs! (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

{{convert|16|e6acre|km2|0}} -->16 million acres (64,750 km²)

{{convert|16|e6acre}}-->16 million acres (65,000 km²)

A problem with the b= part of the of that template. It was off by a million. A the j= part would therefore be off too. Does that above look right? —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yepper. That looks right. Oh, sorry, for those who speak International English, here is a translation. "Yea. Not a bloomin' thing wrong, now. You've done it right, old man." I'm sure someone can pipe in with an ebonics translation for them who speak it. I don't want to hurt the feelings of all of those other people on this Talk page who prefer a dialect of English, so "foe da man from DE-troit, You da' man, bro. Youda man. Now, chill all you Englishmen." I like to saw logs! (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

International English is a style of English which uses words and phrases which are understood throughout the world, and avoids localisms used only in one or a few countries. It is written to be understandable by people who may not speak English as their first language. There are about 400 million people worldwide who speak English (in various dialects) as their first language, and 1 billion (or more) who speak it as their second or third language. They are the English Wikipedia audience.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, I believe he was being sarcastic and attempting to interject some humor into an otherwise boring subject matter. Lighten up a little. Don't be so serious all the time, eh?<--Canadian dialect ;) —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the e3, e6, e9 format available for all units? Lightmouse (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Logs, Thanks.

LM, No. If I did the search right, e6 is only available for a few units: [3]

Did you need something specific? Let me know if you do. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing specific. I would like to be able to assume all functions apply to all units. Then I wouldn't have to remember, experiment, ask, or restrict myself to universal functions. Lightmouse (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I find that 'million' and 'billion' is common in units of area and volume:

sq ft, cu ft, sq mi, acres, gal, oilbbl, board-feet.

Some of those e6 and e9 forms exist already but some don't. Lightmouse (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Small style problem I thing.

I used the form {{convert|5500|acre|sqmi km2}} for the first time today. It produces 5,500 acres (8.6 sq mi; 22 km²). I was surprised by the ² rather than ² that the template usually produces. i.e. {{convert|5500|acre|km2 sqmi}} produces 5,500 acres (22 km²; 8.6 sq mi). Thanks. --DRoll (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That was really fast. Thank you. --DRoll (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Are fractions 'singular' or 'adjectival'

I can put:

• The length of the path is {{convert|1/4|mi|m|sigfig=1}}. = The length of the path is 1⁄4 mile (400 m).

I don't like the 's' because it looks to me like a plural. So I can write:

• The length of the path is {{convert|1/4|mi|m|sing=on|sigfig=1}}. = The length of the path is 1⁄4-mile (400 m).

We have been over this a few times and I know that I am in the minority by disagreeing with the mandatory hyphen. But I thought the argument for hyphens only applied to 'adjectival forms'. Are fractions deemed 'adjectival'? Lightmouse (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the fraction; it's that the number of units is less than one. The logic should be that the singular is used for units less than or equal to one and not just one itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Should it have a hyphen? Lightmouse (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It should follow exactly the same rules as integers ("the hill was 1/2 mile long". The 1/2-mile walk took them five minutes"). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting the "a". It should be "a 1/4-mile" or "a 1/2-mile long". —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No. "1/2" is pronounced "one half". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"The length of the path is 1⁄4-mile (400 m)." seem like poor construction to me. It would be more proper to say "It is a 1⁄4-mile (400 m) path." I see your point though. It would be nice to say "The length of the path is 1/4 mile (400 m)." It seems to me that fractional values should use the singular form. However 0.5 miles is correct. I think the confusion is between adj=on and sing=on. "sing" is misnomer and it would be better to forget that it exists. 1-mile is not a singular form it is an adjectival. Is there an English teacher in the house. This is just my 2 cents. I'm not an expert but I have a good ear for proper usage I think. --DRoll (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I might have to eat a 1⁄4 pound (0.1 kg) of crow? Hmm? --DRoll (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you're perfectly right. There should be no "a" or hyphen in the non-adjective case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for new sub categories to assist finding convert templates

It is very difficult to find an individual convert template and even harder to determine if a particular template does not exist. They are all in 'Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert'. That category has 2,182 members. I propose that we have sub-categories such as 'length', 'area', 'volume'. There might need to be a catch-all category such as 'other'. You can see sub-categorisation has been used at: 'Category:Units of measure'. What do people think? Lightmouse (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Any comments? Lightmouse (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have the ability to pull this off, I have no objections. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 13:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Something I'd been thinking of doing for quite a while but without a bot it was a little difficult. We'll have to get together and figure out the best way of doing this. We might even do some improvements whilst we're at it. JIMp _talk·cont 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I am ready when you are. Lightmouse (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

foot per mile, or cm per km

On River Parrett the slow speed of movement of water in the river is described as "1 foot per mile, or 20 cm per km" as the cause of frequent flooding. I came to this template for help in presenting this appropriately and ensuring the appropriate conversions are used but can't find anything suitable. Can anyone help?— Rod ^talk 21:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

1 foot per mile is 18.93 centimetres per kilometre, so the conversion used in the article is only accurate to 1 significant figure.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting 18.94 cm/km ... {{convert}} now accepts cm/km and ft/mi

• {{convert|10|ft/mi}} → 10 feet per mile (1.9 m/km)
• {{convert|10|cm/km}} → 10 centimetres per kilometre (0.53 ft/mi)
• {{convert|123|ft/mi}} → 123 feet per mile (23.3 m/km)
• {{convert|123|cm/km}} → 123 centimetres per kilometre (6.5 ft/mi)
• {{convert|1.000|ft/mi}} → 1.000 foot per mile (18.94 cm/km)
• {{convert|1.000|cm/km}} → 1.000 centimetre per kilometre (0.0528 ft/mi)

JIMp _talk·cont 08:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I've now used this in the article.— Rod ^talk 08:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also added m/km, mm/km and in/mi. JIMp _talk·cont 12:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)