Template talk:Convert
| Frequently asked questions (FAQ) | |
|---|---|
| |
| Archives |
Archives |
|---|
|
| Related pages |
|---|
Contents
T&Fcalc[edit]
I just noticed Template:T&Fcalc which implements "Track and field marks". basically, this is "convert from m to ftin, but _round down_ to the nearest 1⁄4 inch". not sure if it would be useful to have a "round down" option in {{convert}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- I put an experimental version in the sandbox to trial this. I'm not sure that convert should replace every special-purpose template but if there is some reason that would be helpful in this case, it should be ok. Rounding is handled in several places in the module and I only modified what happens when the result includes a fraction. Examples:
{{convert|1.826|m|frac=64|abbr=on}}→ 1.826 m (5 ft 11 57⁄64 in){{convert|1.826|m|frac=4|abbr=on}}→ 1.826 m (6 ft 0 in){{convert/sandbox|1.826|m|frac=4|round=down|abbr=on}}→ 1.826 m (5 ft 11 3⁄4 in){{convert|1.8349|m|frac=64|abbr=on}}→ 1.8349 m (6 ft 15⁄64 in){{convert|1.8349|m|frac=4|abbr=on}}→ 1.8349 m (6 ft 1⁄4 in){{convert/sandbox|1.8349|m|frac=4|round=down|abbr=on}}→ 1.8349 m (6 ft 0 in)
- The syntax might not be desirable since it suggests round=down would work without frac=x. We can think about that if it is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Use
|round=IAAF(+describe in doc)? There might be asked for more named rulesets (see NIOSH, above). - DePiep (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC) - Template:T&Fcalc also mentions the reverse calculation: {{T&Fcalc2}}. -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Since this is no regular (mathematical/physical) quantity rounding and imprecision, shouldn't there be added like:
- 8.87 m (29 ft 1 in; IAAF rounding); this optionally (once per article). -DePiep (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Or, present the calculation as a range:
- 8.87 m (29 ft 1 in to 29 ft 1 1⁄4 in; IAAF rounding)
- Since this is no regular (mathematical/physical) quantity rounding and imprecision, shouldn't there be added like:
- Use
Covert meters to feet and vice-verse with m a.s.l.[edit]
Is it possible to create meters/feet convert template with "m/ft a.s.l." (above sea level)? Instead of specific article links, I will refer you to most of "Geography infobox templates" where you have item "Elevation", or any article very you need to designate geo-elevation within text body.--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- At San Bernardino Mountains, {{Infobox mountain range}} shows:
- Elevation 11,499 ft (3,505 m)
- Are you saying that should be 11,499 ft a.s.l. (3,505 m a.s.l.)? Is there a discussion somewhere (a wikiproject) about this? Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not needed, not wished even per SI brochure. A height specifier like "a.s.l." should bepart of the quantity (elevation), not incorporated in the unit (do not create: "
m a.s.l.", or "a.s.l. meters"). formally "a.s.l." could be a suibscript ("elevationa.s.l."), but descriptive is readible too ("elevation a.s.l."), and in this situation it can be added after the value but not part of it (e.g. in infoboxes): "Elevation: 123 m (404 ft) a.s.l.". This way it does not even have to be merged into {{Convert}} gramatically (like adjectives are). -DePiep (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not needed, not wished even per SI brochure. A height specifier like "a.s.l." should bepart of the quantity (elevation), not incorporated in the unit (do not create: "
- Johnuniq Yes, and unlike above editor "DePip" I believe additional template is very much needed. It's an issue especially within body of an article, where some editors indicate elevation with abbreviation a.s.l., but most don't, often not knowing that this geographical parameters consists of both "elevation" and "prominence", which, than, under the specific circumstances should be imperative to designate and distinguish - and this is beside an issue of uniformity, where all article should at least try to take uniformed layout and style, particularly dealing with physical gauging and values.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. And that uniformity wrt units, values and quantities is well-defined in the SI brochure, I linked. "a.s.l." should not be part of the unit. - DePiep (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- There should be a link to a wikiproject discussion where a consensus that this would be desirable can be seen. I cannot imagine that displaying "a.s.l." twice in a convert would be desirable, and the a.s.l. would have to be linked or at least have a popup "above sea level" explanation. For elevation in an infobox, that can be done by including the a.s.l. after the convert. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
What am I doing wrong here?[edit]
Should this work? I'm not sure I understand why we have unit code with a space in it.
- {{convert|32.5|mpgus|L/100 km mpgus mpgimp|abbr=on|order=out}}
Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- {{convert|32.5|mpgus|L/100 km mpgus mpgimp|abbr=on|order=out}} shows →
- 32.5 mpg‑US ([convert: unknown unit])
- - DePiep (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- As it happens, the space can be omitted from that unit because L/100km is accepted. In general, however, use
+to separate unit codes when one of the units has a space. I quite like+now and have used it even when not needed because it seems more intuitive to me.{{convert|32.5|mpgus|L/100km mpgus mpgimp|abbr=on|order=out}}→ 7.2 L/100 km (32.5 mpg‑US; 39.0 mpg‑imp){{convert|32.5|mpgus|L/100 km+mpgus+mpgimp|abbr=on|order=out}}→ 7.2 L/100 km (32.5 mpg‑US; 39.0 mpg‑imp)
- Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I see now that the "+" is documented, but this seems like a usability problem to me. As you know I'm a long-time fan of this template and I didn't know about it. I bet almost no WP editors know about it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)