Template talk:Height

Created for sports articles, to indicate how tall a player is.

Usage

For articles of non-metric interest, e.g. an American basketball player
{{height|ft=6|in=1}}	6 ft 1 in (1.85 m)
{{height|ft=7}}	7 ft 0 in (2.13 m)
{{height|feet=5|inches=11}}	5 ft 11 in (1.80 m)
For how high off the ground the hoop is:
{{height|ft=10}}	10 ft 0 in (3.05 m)
For articles of metric interest, e.g. an Uruguayan football (soccer) player
{{height|metres=2}}	2 m (6 ft 6+1⁄2 in)
{{height|meters=1.85}}	1.85 m (6 ft 1 in)
{{height|m=1.7}}	1.7 m (5 ft 7 in)
{{height|meter=1.6}}	1.6 m (5 ft 3 in)
{{height|metre=1.683}}	1.683 m (5 ft 6+1⁄2 in)
When attempting to specify two non-compatible units:
{{height|m=6|ft=2}}

— May. 30, '06 [10:06] <freak|talk>

• Clawed, by stretching out this template to say ft and in, you are stretching out countless infoboxes needlessly which use this template inside of them. ie: NHL players. Just leave it with the standard " for inches and ' for feet. The strokes 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The template should strictly follow the manual of style since it is a template in many articles. I have looked at half of all the NHL players that use the NHL infobox and only found a couple of boxes that were expanded such as Sergei Samsonov, but always by only a very small amount. Can you please provide some exapmles of articles where the infoboxes have been expanded by the change of this template--Clawed 08:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Shawn_Horcoff Sergei_Samsonov Brendan_Morrison

. The bracketed measurement will be placed on a second line

Foot (unit of length

Could someone fix the link so that it points to Foot (unit of length), which is the correct link. Thanks. --Zimbabweed 18:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, someone change this:

to this:

Thanks in advance, Muéro^(talk/c) 09:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed the link. --Zimbabweed 00:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

USS Firebolt (PC-10)

This template is being used on that article, but the numbers given in it are not exact, so using this template implies an inappropriate degree of precision. This shouldn't be used outside of cases where the numbers are specifically known. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Small change to remove spaces

A small request/proposal: rather than 6 ft (1.8 m), how about 6ft (1.8m)? When written normally, there would be no space between the number and symbol, e.g. 20kg, 100m. Fedgin | Talk 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):

Put a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg", "5 °C", (not "25kg", "5° C"); however, angles in degrees have no space: "45°". Preferably, use   for the space (25 kg) so that it does not break lines. GregorB 14:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fault

Using {{height|m=1.82}} gives:

• 1.82 m (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in)

5 ft 12 in is 6 ft. This template therefore needs a tinker.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking 1.82m is 5.97112861 feet. Since it's not quite yet six feet, that's probably why it's not rounding it up to 6 ft 0 in—to insinuate the small difference.

Or it could be broken, I'm just postulating here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Broken. Should be 6 ft. GregorB 14:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the fix (hopefully):

It's also slightly simpler... GregorB 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Units

Is it possible to have the template display conversions in centimetres rather than metres and centimetres, e.g. 6 ft 1 in (185 cm)? McPhail 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts also... Besides: e.g. 5 ft 11 in expands to "1.8 m", which is an odd format for human height (1.80 m or 180 cm would be customary). I'd also like to see a 1/2 inch precision (e.g. 187 cm is 6 ft 1½ in), although this looks pretty difficult to implement. GregorB 14:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fraction solution is ugly:

Works only one way, metric to inches. GregorB 16:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the above code to {{Height2}}. GregorB 11:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Add a IW

Hi I've created a copy of this template on the norwegian language. Can an administrator add a IW in the noinclude section to no:Mal:Height? Nsaa 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

no inch display

Is there a way to make the 0 inches not display. E.G. at Palmolive Building. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Short of altering the template, apparently not. I'd recommend {{Ft to m}}. GregorB 07:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That is just what I am looking for. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Links

{{editprotected}} I'd like to propose removing links to ft, in, metres, etc, as this makes the display of height in infoboxes very inelegant. It's also superfluous as the most obvious of links are not supposed to be made unless relevant to the article, such as linking years when not part of a date. Opinions? robwingfield ^«T•C» 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The links don't really bother me, but I suppose they are not too useful either. GregorB 15:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have turned off the editprotected link for now because there is very little comment on this and this template is used very widely. I would like to see enough to believe that there is consensus before making the change. Perhaps you can post something at the village pump to draw some attention for people to come here and comment. Once (if) you have consensus, I will be happy to make the change. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I support it per GregorB's comment. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 03:59, July 5, 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this. I believe the links should remain because users may not be familiar with the units, or more importantly the abbreviations. And on many articles, this template is the first and only usage of them. I wouldn't be opposed to a parameter specifying whether to link or not. — The Storm Surfer 04:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A reader wouldn't be familiar with the units or abbreviations? I'd find that hard to believe, but in the remote possibility that they're not familiar with pretty much the only units used to measure height worldwide (either metres or feet & inches), then the figures being provided are of no use to them, so a link to the article describing them would be of no use either. robwingfield ^«T•C» 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

problem in algorithm?

{{editprotected}}

It seems the following is giving an error: {{height|m=1.82}} produces 1.82 m (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in)

Is it possible to fix the template to just be 6 ft 0 in? // laughing man 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed an apparent fix is posted above under the "Fault" heading, as well as a request to add an interwiki link, so I'm adding the editprotected template here.

Done. Also I've created a /doc subpage for furture interwiki links. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks MZMcBride. // laughing man 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Instructions

Hi I've added instructions without noticing there were some at the top of this talkpage, so I reduced mi edits to a quick guide, I wonder if you would mind to move these long table to the /doc subpage --Andersmusician $ 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Half inches

I can't seem to get the template to use half inches; { {height|ft=6|in=1.5} } and { {height|ft=6|in=1} } both display as 6ft 1in; however, the metric changes correctly. Thanks, BertieBasset 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

{{Height}} currently does not support half inches, but for the equivalent result you can try this: {{Ft in to m|ft=6|in=1.5|abbr=yes|precision=2|wiki=yes}}, which expands as Template:Ft in to m. Speaking of which: it would make sense for {{Height}} to transclude {{Ft in to m}}, it would simplify its code greatly, with half inches as a bonus. Any opinions on that? GregorB 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the functionality of using the sixteenths of the inch in the output (decimals are supported by default). Note that something like "6/16" would automatically be reduced to "3/8". Have fun.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Enquiry

Could someone add an instruction so that you can specify whether you want feet or metres to appear first? For example with footballers, some people get very nationalistic over which units to highlight and so used { {height|ft=6|in=1} } / 6 ft 1 in (1.85 m) when the player is actually 1.86 m tall. I reverted to { {height|m=1.86} } / 1.86 m (6 ft 1 in) because it is more correct, and only after a few iterations of this minor edit war did I notice what the problem is.

So what I'm saying is that it would be good to be able to enter the height in metres, but get feet display first. Shouldn't be too much work, should it? Cheers, aLii 15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Precision

Precision=0 should be the default instead of precision=1 because that's how human height in inches is usually represented and that was the template's original behavior. The current setting displays precision that isn't there. GregorB 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In the main, people never measure height in fractions of inches. Precision=0 should be the default. - PeeJay 14:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. One can still specify a different precision if necessary. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't realize there were more complaints above. Just wanted to say that when I was re-designing this template, I beleived that it should be deprecated; all improvements were introduced only as a stop-gap measure. But since people are eager to keep this, a more serious re-write is in order. Anyway, as for the fractions being 16ths, that can be easily switched to any other denominator, as {{dec to frac}} (which is called to handle fraction conversions) can handle all of the smaller values (16 is used here only as a default; it is trivial to switch to 2 (for halves) or to a custom parameter.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Precision=0" broke the support for fractions. I'm going to leave it as is for now because the fractions support is not used anywhere and the default/requested behavior is not affected, but rest assured I'll have it fixed later... unless this fraction feature is found to be completely unneeded.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Update

OK, hopefully I was able to finally fix this template. For meters-to-feet/inches conversions, the output now defaults to showing half-inches. If fourths, sixteenths, 45ths, or whatever else is desired, specify it using the frac parameter (set frac=4, 16, 45, or whatever). Use frac=10 to show inches as decimals (the default precision for this is one, but it can be changed using the precision parameter). To make sure no fractional inches are shown (either vulgar or decimal), set precision=0.

If you find any bugs that need fixing, please list them here. Hopefully there won't be any. Otherwise, enjoy!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's this very minor issue that was present since the beginning: e.g. {{height|ft=5|in=11}} displays the height as 1.8 m, while the display of 1.80 m would be more common in general use. As far as I can tell, this is due to behavior of the MediaWiki round function, so working around it looks difficult. GregorB 17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it is how the round function works. I won't say it's unfixable (it is), but fixing it is definitely not something that can be done quickly (not with the limited assortment of tools the template language provides, anyway).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alright, I couldn't resist—I tried it out :) Turned out to be not as difficult as I first thought. However, since I don't have time to test is thoroughly, please do so for me before this improvement can go into production.

In order to change {{height}}'s handling of trailing zeroes, {{ft in to m}} will need to be improved. That improved version of {{ft in to m}} is now located at {{X8}} (here's the permalink in case X8 gets reset; it's a sandbox template). Please test it out with different values and precisions. If everything checks, then X8's code can simply be used to overwrite {{ft in to m}}'s, after which <!-- {{height}} --> will handle trailing zeros properly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it does not work properly :(—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed... 5 ft 11 in is OK, 6 ft 7 in is not. GregorB 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Centimetres

Why give heights in metres? Usually when people speak of height it's in centimetres (if they're talking metric). Jɪmp 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Having for most of my life lived in a country that uses the metric system, I should note that stating a human height in centimeters is not nearly as common as giving it in meters (e.g., 1.89 m) or in meters and centimeters (1 m 89 cm). I can't vouch, of course, that this is the case everywhere else.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That country would be Russia, would it not? I should rephrase ... usually when people speak of height, in English speaking countries, it's in centimetres (if they're talking metric) ... or at least that's my experience. Giving human height in metres would be most uncommon where I'm from (Australia). Jɪmp 07:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Russia, yup, that's correct. As for the English-speaking countries, I wouldn't know, living in the U.S. and all (I am yet to hear an American talk metric :)). Anyone else wants to comment? Please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We can inform ourselves with some crude research. Here are some suggestions for google tests:

• height 178-cm weight
• height 1.78-m weight
• taille poids 178-cm
• taille poids 1.78-m
• Höhe Gewicht 178-cm
• Höhe Gewicht 1.78-m
• altura peso 178-cm
• altura peso 1.78-m

Google has excellent facilities for restricting searches to one country (e.g. Spain) or language (e.g. Spanish). Run the english language tests on www.google.co.za using the 'pages from South Africa' button below the search box.

Similarly with www.google.com.au using the 'pages from Australia' button.

You can test russion pages using http://www.google.com/intl/ru/ using the 'Поиск страниц на русском' button.

Other useful data sources would be articles (but not translations of US non-metric articles) from local Wikipedias. For example, the Italian Wikipedia shows the height of Matias_Aguero in metres.

In ignorance of the 'right' answer, we could have a slight preference for base units (m, kg, W) over prefixed units. My impression is that there is no consensus that would be 'right' for all countries and all domains. Lightmouse 12:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here in Sweden we at least say (translated) "I'm one and eighty-seven" going with the 1.87m view. "I'm 187 centimeters" just sounds retarded ;) Chandlertalk 09:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In Canada, its centimetres. Giving height in metres AND centimetre (1 m 87 cm) copies the foot-inch reporting & does not make use of the decimal relationship between metres & centimetres - the very reason for the design of the metric system. Using decimals for height (1.87 m)adds an unneeded character - a character that is easily confused with a punctuation mark in sentences. The height template needs to allow the conversion be done to cm, at least as an option if not as default.--JimWae (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears {{convert|5|ft|11|in|cm}} already does the job :5 feet 11 inches (180 cm) --JimWae (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In Australasia and East Asia it's all centimetres. I've never seen anyone express height in metres in my life till I came to Wikipedia. The problem with the solution mentioned by JimWae is that it has feet and inches as the main height with the centimetres in brackets. How can we get it the other way around?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

{{convert|184|cm|ftin|abbr=on}} does the trick, although that doesn't use this template. Mattlore (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

MOS conformity

Is it possible to get this template and {{weight}} to default to WP:MOS#Units_of_measurement conventions on abbreviations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought I've fixed this one already? Could you, please, point out where exactly it is in violation of MOS? I might have missed something, of course. As for {{weight}}, I also promised to fix it, but never got around to actually doing it :( Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

MOS calls for spelled out units and abbreviated parenthetical conversion. Thus, it should default to X feet Y inches (Z m) instead of X ft Y in (Z m). Same for {{weight}}.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that. The only reason why this template defaults to abbreviated units is because it is intended for use primarily in infoboxes, where spelling out units is not practical. I was not aware this template is used anywhere outside infoboxes; perhaps this point should be clarified in the documentation. In any case, it is possible to add the abbr switch to take care of this contingency. Please let me know if that would be helpful. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes a parameter like MOSstlye=on or something would be great for both templates. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. You can now use the standard abbr parameter, which takes values of yes (default), no (both sides spelled out), and mos (MoS-compliant). Note that the issue with singular units still needs to be fixed—one foot/one inch/one meter currently show as "1 feet"/"1 inches"/"1 meters", so until that's fixed please exercise caution.

I am not making any promises on when {{weight}} is going to be done, but it is on my to-do list. If anyone reading this wants to fix it themselves, I won't be complaining :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Display of fractions of inches

This is a great addtion to Wikipedia. Would it be possible to use the ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ and ⅞ characters when displaying fractions of inches? This would enhance the appearance of the output. Best Wishes Saga City 08:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The author of the template that handles the fractions ({{frac}}) originally implemented that feature, but I believe he then rolled it back because of the MoS concerns and overall inconsistency of look. It is not terribly difficult to add the feature back, making it optional if necessary, but we first need to determine whether this feature can be considered to be MoS-compliant or not.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In most cases in which this template is used, nothing more than half-inch precision is reasonable. But that isn't true in all cases in which it is used, let alone in all cases in which it could be used, were it designed with some way to override the default to the current precision.

But even when half-inch precision is used, there is a second point made here by Saga City

code	{{height|m=1.82}}
display when posted	1.82 m (5 ft 111⁄2 in)
current display	1.82 m (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in)
Saga City suggestion	1.82 m (5 ft 11½ in)

Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As you have probably already discovered by now, the problem lies not with this template, but with {{frac}}, the author of which did not want to use the Unicode fractions for reasons I can't quite recall.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Linkable

Is it possible to make the units linkable?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Can you tell me where you are planning to deploy this tempate's added features, please? It's just that I am having a hard time imagining it being useful anywhere outside the infoboxes. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deprecation

Why isn't this template announced as deprecated just like the "weight" template (due to the new "convert" template)? -62.219.97.68 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Because, unlike {{weight}}, this template provides some functionality which no other template offers.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that so? What functionality is that? – PeeJay 14:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Vulgar fractions. Please refer to the template documentation for details.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly related issue, Is there any guidance over people doing mass changes from height->convert or vice versa in a case when the extra functionalities aren't being used? Mattlore (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

4'12"

The template is converting height to '4'12"'. See: Fuko. Dekkappai (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not an easy fix, unfortunately. You can either specify the fractions: {{height|m=1.52|frac=16}}→1.52 m (4 ft 11+13⁄16 in); or use {{Convert}} or {{m to ft in}}: {{m to ft in|1.52}}→Template:M to ft in—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1.82 converts to 5' 12""

I found the above problem as well, but also not that a person exactly 1.82 meters will convert incorrectly. {{height|m=1.82|precision=0}}->1.82 m (6 ft 0 in) --SPhilbrickT 11:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is now fixed. For reference, it was producing 5 ft 12 in, but now should produce 6 ft 0 in. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki for Norway

Can someone change the interwiki for Norway to no:Høyde? no:Height? is wrong and doesn't lead anywhere. KristofferAG (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. You could have done it on your own, by the way (interwikis go to the doc page, which is not protected). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:47, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Human height is more commonly expressed in centimetres than metres

This is a huge shortcoming in this template which is crying out to be fixed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A {{height|cm= }} option needs to be provided for. Centimetres for human height are the absolute norm in parts of the world that use the metric system and are preferred by the UK's NHS, Australian Bureau of Statistics, New Zealand Government, Government of Canada, etc.

How it's gone this long without being addressed is a true mystery.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussed 11 September 2007, above: "#Centimetres". -Wikid77 15:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ask anyone how high they are in Germany and noone will answer in centimeters. How is it in UK? Weight-tables or BMI calculators are not the best source i'd say. -Koppapa (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, well I guess you showed me, huh? Better leave it as it is then!

• Thomas T. Samaras (2007). Human Body Size and the Laws of Scaling: Physiological, Performance, Growth, Longevity and Ecological Ramifications. USA: Nova Science Publishers.
• Phyllis B. Eveleth, James M. Tanner (1990). Worldwide Variation in Human Growth. UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Leslie Aiello, Christopher Dean (1990). An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy. USA: Academic Press.
• Bruce J Chalmer (1987). Understanding Statistics. USA: CRC Press.
• Oxford Textbook of Medicine. UK: Oxford University Press. 2003.
• Jerrold T. Bushberg, J. Anthony Seibert, Edwin M. Leidholdt, John M. Boone (2012). The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

How about those? --Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That are good sources. :-) -Koppapa (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The NHS might prefer it, but what about sources discussing the individual in question? In association football database websites, for example, player heights are almost always given in m or feet - very rarely cm. GiantSnowman 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, in Australia and Japan, where the metric system is the norm for expressing human height, centimetres are used. See Football Federation Australia's and Japan Football Association's official websites. If you (somehow) need more convincing, see the official sites of the Australian Rugby Union, National Rugby League, Cricket Australia, National Basketball League, Netball Australia. I suspect a large number of sites that use metres show themsevles to be taking the data directly from wikipedia, which is (as clearly illustrated above) out of step with comman usage in the English-speaking world (not to mention China, Japan, Korea, etc.)--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with GiantSnowman. I hardly ever see human height expressed in centimetres. – PeeJay 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

So somehow, despite all the evidence that cm are in common usage, you're arguing that no cm parameter should be allowed for this template and users must be restricted to metres only?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Where have I said anything against the cm proposal? I was merely warning against people trying to implement it across all articles. GiantSnowman 20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic. I don't know how to move forward and make it happen (otherwise I would have). Do you?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Further input to this discussion is needed first, I would say. GiantSnowman 20:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I was notified of this discussion from a similar one at WikiProject Basketball. The top basketball league in Europe, Euroleague, lists heights in meters on its website. At best, some—not all—domains might prefer centimeters over meters. I cannot comment as an American, but is displaying 1.76 meters vs 176 centimeters really that bizarre. I assume the math is not the issue.—Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I trust you saw the sources provided above? In some places it's not bizarre. In others (such as reliable WP:SOURCES) it is. All we have to decide is whether the height template allows for centimetres or remains restricted to metres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

there is now a version in the sandbox which allows for input in cm, will need an admin to update it. the output from imperial is still m, but could change that to cm if there is consensus to do so (or just make it an option). Frietjes (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Such consensus appears to exist at Human height.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That article is very inconsistent, with both metres and centimetres being used throughout. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That will be addressed once this template starts allowing for the use of centimetres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• One thing I do have an issue with is the heading of this section, and the claim therein - "human height is more commonly expressed in centimetres than metres" - simply not true. GiantSnowman 14:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, I should have qualified that claim with "...in high-quality sources". We're all waiting for you to prove otherwise.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you to show why we should change. Also you do know that 180cm is the exact same as 1.80m? GiantSnowman 20:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but have you read any of the above? I'm afraid it's your defence of metres that is wanting explanation.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, just because it is used on government websites and by academics? Jeez, your pro-cm/anti-m agenda is actually making me re-think my earlier support for this. I fear the new template parameter might be mis-used. GiantSnowman 21:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Just" government websites and academics. I'm sure you're familiar with WP:SOURCES. We're still waiting for some that support preference for metres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I've already said, plenty of sports databases such as this and this and this. Some do use cm, but the majority use m. GiantSnowman 21:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so some sports (mostly non-English language) databases use metres, whereas most serious websites don't. Anything else?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As this template was intended to be used in infoboxes, and I'm guessing its mostly athletes that list height in infoboxes, it seems sports-relates sources should have greater weight than "serious websites" when it comes to this template.—Bagumba (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. And it seems that the higher-quality the source, the more likely it is to use centimetres. We just have to decide where we want Wikipedia to fall on this scale. My preference would be at the upper end.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

GFV, you have mis-read/mis-understood what Bagumba said - they said that as this template is used mainly on articles related to athletes, and as athletic databases tend to use m, we should use m. GiantSnowman 12:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

See, it's statements like "athletic databases tend to use m" that get me. I never said that sports websites can't be serious ones. Perhaps you should shoot off some emails to help out these poor guys (who are clearly of step with how a few of Wikipedia's soccer fans think human height should be presented): British Olympic Association, Australian Olympic Committee, USA Swimming Association of Tennis Professionals Japanese Olympic Committee Swimming Australia sports-reference.com, Ultimate Fighting Championship National Basketball League Canadian Soccer Association Union of European Football Associations, hockeydb.com, Canadian Olympic Committee, etc.

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a number of sites that use meters can be cited too, but where would that lead us aside from people disagreeing on which ones are more "serious"? I don't have personal knowledge being a foot-happy American, and I have no interest in sifting through all these links. I think we are all clear on where you stand. I'd suggest seeing if there are other supporters besides yourself, perhaps get a centralized discussion (or RfC), as opposed to the current parallel discussions on multiple talk pages. I think we can avoid WP:WABBITSEASON and wait for WP:CONSENSUS. I'd also suggest that everyone ponder if we can have various sports/countries decide if cm/m make more sense for a specific area (e.g. Australia, et al), or does it have to be all m or all cm for all WP articles.—Bagumba (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Mostly on spot, except I don't have a preference for m or cm. Was only suggesting how to proceed.—Bagumba (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Just as date formatting falls undder WP:ENGVAR, so should this.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My Canadian drivers license shows my height in cm. The two most recent FIFA Ballon d'Or winners (top players in the world): Cristiano Ronaldo's height at his team's site: 186.5cm [1] Lionel Messi height at his team's site: 169cm [2]. So why does this template not allow the height to be displayed in cm? I fully understand that we can use {{convert}}, but that requires more parameters and it would be better to standardize on this template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that when it was created it was intended for other structures such as buildings. Humans were unfortunately neglected. the truly mind-boggling thing is that it's gone this long without being fixed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As for databases that may list an athlete's in metres rather than centimetres, I would like to know what nationality are the individuals that maintain the data? I suspect that they're not from nations who have used SI. My two examples above show that Spanish clubs clearly use cm for height and not m. Shall we survey all national leagues? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Football League uses meters.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It does? Sorry, maybe I'm being dopey here but I can't see them.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict before I could retract. Decimal point use in ft-in threw me off :-) —Bagumba (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Certainly we've established that the odd source can be found that does use metres, but it seems they are well and truly crushed under the weight of the multitude of top-quality sources that use centimetres. So this really is just a wait for an admin who can come along and put a cm parameter in place. If a biographical article takes its height from a source that uses metres, and no better quality source can be found, then that is how it should be displayed and this template already allows for that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You see, I know you are going to abuse this template change to introduce your own preference, and that is why I am hesitant to support. Some official sports bodies mught use cm - but we don't use them in sports articles, we use the kind of sports databases I highlighted above. You have proved nothing, other than 'official' websites use cm and the unofficial databases that are in much wider use on Wikipedia use m. GiantSnowman 09:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're not assuming bad faith. My position is fairly clear. How about you tell us what would make you happy?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be disconnected arguments in this thread. Earlier association football sites using meters were discounted because they were "out of step with comman usage in the English-speaking world." Then after examples from Spanish clubs (where the English version is just a translation) were shown to use cm, it is concluded that meters are "truly crushed under the weight of the multitude of top-quality sources that use centimeters." The conclusion is not only slightly overblown, but arguments are inconsistent whether we should look only at ones from primarily English-speaking countries or not. It may or may not be the exception, but the Premier League in UK uses meters. It might be more conclusive if sports sources (say the largest leagues and national teams) from primarily English-speaking countries that use SI were examined.—Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to not assume bad faith when you make edits like this. GiantSnowman 10:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you be a little less cryptic? That shows me introducing a reference to a reliable source. Not being funny, just not sure what you're getting at.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that shows you adding heights in cm even though you know full well that current parameters allow for m or ft. You are pushing your weird pro-cm agenda. GiantSnowman 10:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a WP:BLP and there was no reference for height until I introduced it. The source I provided, which is top quality, gave the height in centimetres, so I did too. Please elaborate on what the problem is. Also, my previous question about what outcome you desire remains unanswered.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's peculiar to me that instead of waiting for consensus on a thread that you started to add cm support, you've bypassed using this template altogether in your edit and used {{convert}} instead. Finding a reliable source that uses cm to support your edit has never been the issue. It would be good faith to refrain from future edits to use cm until there is consensus here.—Bagumba (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

So just to be clear, I'm being accused of bad faith because I've introduced top quality reliable sources to biographies of living persons but rather than using this inferior template that does not allow for the information to be presented the way the source presents it, I'm using another one which does. I think I've heard it all now. Bring on the RfC.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that Bundesliga uses cm while teams seems to use m. French Ligue use m and as usual, Italy is totally messed-up as they state they're displaying in m but if this keeper is 191 m tall I'll start cheering for Juve. So there's no unanimity in leagues and so we have to determine whether metres or centimetres makes more sense. They represent the same data and WP:CONVERT is simple enough between the two.

And I don't think that Gibson Flying V's edits are bad faith, particularly when references are added, but to move away from m isn't constructive at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think the present situation at Ryan Giggs is less than ideal and the sooner it's rectified the better.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no bad faith at all in the edit in question. There is no guideline as to whether to prefer metres or centimetres for the height of people. The fact that this template is not capable of handling centimetres is by no means an indication that consensus in favour of such a preference. Nor is this talk page the place for discussion regarding such consensus. There's nothing wrong per se with replacing one template with another ... unless perhaps you're replacing a template with something inferior (but in this case I'd say the opposite happened). Not only was the edit in good faith but it was a step in the right direction. What's the point of hanging on to this template when we can use {{convert}} instead? Jimp 09:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC

This template is widely used on Wikipedia but restricts users to expressing height in metres only (when using the metric system). In reliable sources, human height is most often expressed in centimetres. So we have a situation where the use of metres to express human height in biographies of living persons is widespread on Wikipedia, but not in reliable sources.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for the claim that height is expressed in cm most often in reliable sources, please. Unsupported and uncaveated assertions aren't a great tool in reasoned discussion. That said, it makes sense to me to allow both, but not to express a preference in the template or documentation until and unless the MoS expresses a preference. SamBC(talk) 20:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read from here (and there's plenty more where that came from).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, some reliable sources using metres is not the same as showing that this is a general pattern. So I return to my original view - it makes sense that the template allow either, as long as MoS allows either, but that it be for individual pages to decide which they use, with no default preference specified, and for the user making this request to take home that the addition of a cm parameter is not an endorsement for wholesale change of every article the offends his apparent decimal point dislike. SamBC(talk) 22:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This template is almost exclusively used for athletes' infoboxes, the rare subject where height is notable. I can't take this RfC seriously when the "neutral" statement ignores that sources such as the Premier League, the top English football league, uses m, not cm. Proposer is concurrently switching articles to instead use {{convert}} to impose their cm POV, while taking up editors time to discuss this, which either means the outcome of this RfC is moot or valuable time needs to be invested undoing those changes if the outcome is not to the proposer's satisfaction.—Bagumba (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this just implies that the Premier League might simply take its statistics from Wikipedia articles and/or their website's IT set-up was set up carelessly (much in the same way this template was). Players' clubs, such as Machester United] and Cardiff City, are far more likely to actually measure the height of their players. Now, would anyone like me to stack up even more first-rate sources that use centimetres?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be interpreting everything from the standpoint of your initial assumption, and employing circular reasoning. As you're the one suggesting a change, the onus is on you to establish your point. Rather than trying to build up numbers on each side, sources that actually refer to a preference for cm over m would be convincing, especially if they give reasons. SamBC(talk) 22:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've not found any source that explicitly states that metres should not be used whereas centimetres should because I've not made any assertion to that effect. What I've been saying is that it is more common, normal, usual, frequent, in sources to use centimetres and the numbers appear to support that. Let's not stray from the point here. This template forces editors into using metres, without regard for what is used in sources. From day one I've said that this is less than ideal and needs to change. If it's to be left as it is what we need is compelling reasons to do that, and thus far none have been forthcoming. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CALC says cm or m is all the same, but its up to consensus which to use. Even if one or the other is uncommon in some cases, multiplying of dividing by 100 is within most readers abilities. I understand you believe that it is "more common, normal, usual, frequent, in sources to use centimeters", but I fail to see your arguments being obvious. Suggesting the Premier League doesn't use reliable sources to get it's height and instead uses Wikipedia is without basis and self-serving. At best, there may be some domains that cm is more common (it needs to be demonstrated), but your argument has been that cm should always be used, and your editing patterns described at Wikipedia:ANI#Gibson_Flying_V also reinforces the perception that you want cm used in all cases.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "your argument has been that cm should always be used": Making statements about me on threads before first reading through them properly is becoming quite a habit of yours isn't it? See my comment above at 09:46, 18 January 2014. And please, do your best to assume good faith.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless you're actually doing a wide-ranging survey of sources, using some inarguable metric to establish their validity and reliability, and seeing which they use, quoting any number of sources to say which they use doesn't say anything about what is most common. Such a survey is not a reasonable thing to expect, of course, but finding someone who's already done that work is more likely. You're asserting that it's the most common, dismissing counter-examples as being 'obviously' not reliable, and quoting a handful that follow your stated preference. That's not evidence. SamBC(talk) 23:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That this change is getting any resistance at all is truly a remarkable phenomenon. I've advocated a source-based approach from the outset. I've also made zero assumptions of bad faith. This can be seen in my edit history, which is right there for all to read, and with which I am of course perfectly comfortable. Accordingly, that is all I'm going to say about myself. If other editors insist on me being the prevailing topic here, rather than the issue at hand, they don't do themselves or anyone else here any favours.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect this is a WP:ENGVAR issue. In Australia, the predominant height measurements are cm (in official use) and feet/in (in colloquial use). Specific examples of official usage include player profiles from the Australian Football League ([3]), the A-League ([4]), the National Rugby League ([5]) and Netball Australia ([6]) Hack (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That is a possibility that has been raised. Although sources such as the United States Department of Health and Human Services' website, Irish Government websites (e.g. 1 and 2), and the The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Growth and Development (in addition to the countless others from elsewhere in the world provided in previous posts on this thread) appear to cast some doubt upon this. Like almost every other source of comparable quality, they use centimetres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Height is only particularly relevant in biographies of sports people and those notable for their extreme stature. We should be following the lead of the reliable sources that report their height. If there is a conflict, we should following the prevailing custom of the country with which they have the most tangible connection. Hack (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreeing with Hack, my country (Australia) uses most cm officially and ft/in informally among the older population (40+). Other countries or subgroups may differ. Which is fine. Some people will prefer cm and some will prefer m but all can convert between cm and m in their head trivially (a huge benefit of the metric system). So, while m would not be my first choice, I have no problem converting 1.80 m to 180 cm in my head without even realising that there was an issue. I suspect most people used to metric can also convert in their head. Which makes this a storm in a teacup. I recommend that we leave it as m and move on to something more important.

But if we do think that there are people for whom converting 1.80 m to 180 cm is a challenging task, then we can add another parameter that specifies whether m or cm are to be uses for output. The input parameter could be either |m=1.80 (output automatically in m) or |cm=180 (output automatically in cm). But I prefer to just leave it as a nice consistent m and be done with it.  Stepho  talk  07:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there really any point in this whatsoever? Almost anyone can convert between the metres and centimetres within a few seconds. Should the template allow the usage of centimetres? Probably. In the UK, the preference is often for metres (when not using feet and inches); take Sky Sports, Soccerbase, whilst the Americans can also be seen using metres, ESPN FC being an example. It is simply inaccurate to say that reliable sources primarily express height in centimetres, but both are equally acceptable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, Sky Sports and soccerbase.com should be seen as less influential sources than than, say, the British Olympic Association¹ or Manchester United². Similarly, ESPN Internet Ventures is not on equal footing with the United States National Library of Medicine³.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above centimetres are the common unit in Australia. I'd be surprised if there were any English-speaking country which preferred metres over centimetres. Sure conversion from one to the other is trivial but this doesn't make it a non-issue. I can easily convert "center" to "centre" in my head but where to use which is not a non-issue. Anyhow, here's the solution: just use {{convert}} and forget about it. Jimp 09:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. Interestingly however, using {{convert}} to display centimetres (even with references to reliable sources) has gotten me a few thanks, but a lot more edit warring, accusations of bad faith and an official complaint at the administrators' noticeboard. Some people have really bought into the false impression created by this template's shortcoming that metres are the norm for expressing human height in the metric system.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll thank you for the edits. Keep up the good work. You may be right about the template's creating a false impression. I reckon the citation templates are doing a similar thing inadvertently promoting year-month-day date formatting. I'm sorry, though, that I'm not quite sure what this RfC is about. Is it about whether to use metres, centimetres or either depending on these or those circumstances (e.g. the country a person is from, the sport he or she plays, the units used in the sources)? If so, then the RfC seems to be in the wrong place, it would be better at WT:MOSNUM. Is it, on the other hand, about whether to add a cm parameter to this template? If so, I'd say we shouldn't, simply because it's not worth the bother; just use {{convert}} and deprecate this old thing. Jimp 09:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This RfC is about getting consensus for making an edit request for a cm parameter to be added to this template, so that editors can have the freedom to display height just as it's displayed in the sources they're getting it from; something {{convert}} already allows. Naturally the best outcome will be a totally customizable one, in which any combination of "ft in" and "cm" or "m", and in any order, is available. I understand this also is already the case with {{convert}}.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way a related discussion containing a link to this RfC is already at WT:MOSNUM.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Just coming in from an invite to join this discussion sent to template talk:convert. I have no opinion on whether heights should be reported in m, cm, or inches. However, it seems to me that this entire template is redundant, and should be replaced in all instances with the convert template. Rhialto (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This could turn out to be the way to go. There is no {{weight}} template.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Two issues here - firstly, is the height template redundant? No, not at all, it is far easier to use that {{Convert}}, and ease of editing is what we should always strive for. Secondly, is cm preferred over m in reliable sources? In some cases, yes, but not at all - and until Gibson accepts that - and does not try to change every height from m to cm, in the face of sources and MOS (i.e. with footballers, where the preferred method is clearly m), I am unable to support what otherwise seems like a sensible suggestion. Should Gibson accept that human height is displayed in a number of ways - ft, cm and m - by different sources, depending on profession, and that we therefore need to consider displays of height for each sport/profession on an individual basis, then I would happily throw my weight behind the introduction of this parameter. But while I remain fearful that editors will abuse the template, as has happened already (and raised at ANI), I cannot do so. GiantSnowman 12:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This is taken from above, which you appear to have read because you did respond to it (albeit with an accusation of bad faith):

No worries. Certainly we've established that the odd source can be found that does use metres, but it seems they are well and truly crushed under the weight of the multitude of top-quality sources that use centimetres. So this really is just a wait for an admin who can come along and put a cm parameter in place. If a biographical article takes its height from a source that uses metres, and no better quality source can be found, then that is how it should be displayed and this template already allows for that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

For anyone curious to see how GiantSnowman's attempt at AN/I is being received, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gibson_Flying_V.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• The TLDR version - basically, my concern is that editors will try and implement the new cm parameter across the board, and onto articles where it is not appropriate. If the paramater is introduced, agreement needs to be reached at the relevant WikiProject(s) about what parameter - ft, cm or m - they are going to use on articles under their care, to prevent mass and possibly disruptive changes. GiantSnowman 12:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I cannot lend my support to this proposal due to the editing habits of User:Gibson Flying V. An example given above saw him add a valid source to an article, which I will admit is commendable, but he has also been known to replace valid references with others for no other reason than to push his pro-centimetres agenda (see this diff on Liam Miller). My preference would be to transition over to use the {{convert}} template exclusively over the {{height}} template due to its greater versatility, and then express individuals' heights in whatever units the sources use. If a source using metres is added before one using centimetres, the sources should not be changed just to suit another editor's whims. – PeeJay 14:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

PeeJay, what extra 'versatility' does {{convert}} have over {{height}}, if and when a cm paramater is added to the latter? Surely they will then be the same for human heights? GiantSnowman 14:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

For anyone curious about the abovementioned Miller case, please see the article's edit history and, in particular, Talk:Liam Miller.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Uh, that doesn't show you in a good light at all. It was rather lame of you to replace a good reference that used feet/inches with one that used cm just to further your viewpoint. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 'cm=' and {htcm} template: The sources show primary use of cm units for heights in various national groups, and so "cm=" should be an option. However, an easier input would be a separate fork {{htcm|180}} to simply accept the amount in centimetres and show ft/in as the default. Use of {convert} could be introduced for unusual units, such as Egyptian cubits: {{convert|180|cm|cubits}} = 180 centimetres (), but otherwise {Convert} has become a gargantuan template-funnel which is extremely cumbersome to update or expand. Meanwhile, a dedicated {htcm} template could be quickly improved for new options, such as warning how "13O" contained the capital letter oh "O" rather than digit zero "0", whereas {height|m=1.3O} gives: , for letter oh in "1.3O". Using separate templates can be much faster, much simpler, and enable rapid improvements, such as reporting of invalid letter "l" for digit one "1" as compared to {{convert|l80|cm}}: . Meanwhile, allow option "cm=" in {Height}. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)