Template talk:Convert/Archive December 2016

Nautical mile precision

{{convert|100|nmi|km|adj=on}} gives an incorrect result (100-nautical-mile (190 km)), to get the correct result {{convert|100|nmi|km|sigfig=4|adj=on}} (100-nautical-mile (185.2 km)) --- can this be fixed? ESAD-Hooker (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The template is designed to detect the apparent number of significant figures in the input, and provide a similar number of significant digits in the output. If the input is more precise than is apparent, the editor needs to specify how many significant figures there are with |sigfig=. So there is nothing wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@ESAD-Hooker: There have been many discussions to change {Convert} to match the typical number sense of amounts (such as "100" meaning "99+1" not "95.1" rounded up"). There have been many complaints over the past several years, because when someone states, "A car was speeding over 100 mph (161 km/h)" then they mean over "100.0" not merely faster than 95.1 rounded up. In general, all conversions of 100 should be treated as precision "0" (not -2), but when users want to round to the nearest 100, then they should specify parameter "|-2" rather than always assume "100" means "between 50.0-149.99". In fact, I am considering a form of {Convert} which could process lead-words, such as "roughly|100" or "about|300" or "exactly|2,000" etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Teaspoons

What happened to UStsp? I could swear it used to work, but it is now an unknown unit. It's talked about at Template talk:Convert/Archive July 2013#Changes to modules require reformat of million articles as if it had been implemented. I was going to use it at List of IBA official cocktails#List of sweetened products. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a UKtsp? Or has that become EUtsp? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Convert/UStsp was created at the same time as the accompanying post at talk in July 2013 to show the flexibility of the old templates (Module:Convert was used to replace the old templates in December 2013). I do not know why the template gives these results:

• {{convert/old|1|UStsp}} →
• {{convert/old|4.9|ml|UStsp}} →

The module has never defined a teaspoon unit because no article has ever needed it. One problem is that it is a vague measurement whose meaning has changed, although there are now arbitrary definitions (Teaspoon#Measure of volume). Two tablespoon units are defined: AUtbsp (not used*) and UStbsp (used only in David Blaine*). (* The usage information is from June 2016.) If teaspoon units would be useful in some articles, they can be added, but please work out where they would go before adding them. The symbol would be UStsp, name US teaspoon, and default output ml? Unfortunately editors would have to add sp=us if that was wanted (if "milliliters" is being displayed). Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking I shouldn't be lazy and should add UStsp as a trial, but the intended conversion is:

4 US teaspoons, or 2⁄3 US fluid ounces

That is exactly correct by (modern) definition, and convert could do something that looked the same, but is it worthwhile? According to sizes.com, the FDA defines a UStsp as exactly 5 ml, rather than the conventional 4.929 ml (approx). The problem is that once a unit is added to convert, editors will believe it is accurate without knowing the vagaries involved. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There are actually two different US teaspoons. The traditional one is 4.9 ml, but that wasn't confusing enough so the FDA defined a new teaspoon called the "food labeling teaspoon" that is exactly 5 ml. Same thing with the ounce, which now comes in both 28 and 30 g sizes.

I don't really need the UStsp conversion. This is the first time I've had the urge to use it in many years of adding conversions to articles, and this one already has a manual conversion in it. And of course the fraction would be a problem anyway. I'm mostly just asking because I thought I remembered seeing it before and wanted to know if my memory is failing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed Convert/old UStsp by (_) in factor: I found the problem, in Template:Convert/UStsp, as the typical omission of parentheses "(_)" in factor "b=..." and fixed now:

• {{convert/old|4.929|ml|UStsp}} →

The other issues still exist, as needing a 5 ml variation, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Units using small tag

Continuing from #Way to ensure no-break? above, RexxS pointed out that the small tag is undesirable. It looks like we will be modifying some units soon so we can think about whether small should be removed from the following.

The units which use <small> follow. This shows the unit code and symbol on one line, with the symlink (wikitext for symbol when lk=on) on the line underneath.

mpgimp     mpg<sub><small>-imp</small></sub>
[[Fuel economy in automobiles#Units of measure|mpg]]<sub><small>-[[Imperial units|imp]]</small></sub>

mpgus      mpg<sub><small>-US</small></sub>
[[Fuel economy in automobiles#Units of measure|mpg]]<sub><small>-[[United States customary units|US]]</small></sub>

mpgU.S.    mpg<sub><small>-U.S.</small></sub>
[[Fuel economy in automobiles#Units of measure|mpg]]<sub><small>-[[United States customary units|U.S.]]</small></sub>

mpgu.s.    mpg<sub><small>-U.S.</small></sub>
[[Fuel economy in automobiles#Units of measure|mpg]]<sub><small>-[[United States customary units|U.S.]]</small></sub>

Current appearance, with small, using fixed wikitext for the output so it will not change:

• {{convert|15|mpgus|mpgimp|abbr=on}} → 15 mpg_-US (18 mpg_-imp)
• {{convert|15|mpgus|mpgimp|abbr=on|lk=on}} → 15 mpg_-US (18 mpg_-imp)

Same, but without small:

• {{convert|15|mpgus|mpgimp|abbr=on}} → 15 mpg_-US (18 mpg_-imp)
• {{convert|15|mpgus|mpgimp|abbr=on|lk=on}} → 15 mpg_-US (18 mpg_-imp)

An example can be seen at Volkswagen 1-litre car#Specifications. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

MBtu - million, not thousand, British thermal units

The conversion for the symbol MBtu assumes the symbol refers to 1000 British thermal units. In normal usage, the symbol refers to 1000000 BTUs, as does MMBtu. These usages are the ones listed in the article on that unit, in agreement with my own knowledge. Admittedly confusing. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the lead of British thermal unit states MBtu represents one million Btu, although the atypical notation MMBtu or mmBtu is sometimes used to represent one million Btu, but the 'definitions' section states The unit MBtu or mBtu was defined as one thousand Btu, presumably from the Roman numeral system where "M" or "m" stands for one thousand (1,000) without saying when it means by "was defined". Only one of the online references that I was able to check mentioned MMBtu and none mentioned MBtu. In light of the ambiguity involved in MBtu, I'd advise ditching it in favour of MMBtu, which is unequivocally 1,000,000 Btu. --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I've had British thermal unit watchlisted for a couple years. The text has changed several times as editors add their own unsourced opinion as to whether MBtu is a thousand or a million. I find the current text confusing. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses! I think the advice to use MMBtu in Wikipedia is sound. Since MBtu is fairly common, I think the BTU article needs to be expanded to discuss the ambiguity. Will do as time permits. For later reference, here's one American Physical Society article that uses MBtu for 10^6 BTUs: "Energy Units". American Physical Society. Retrieved 2016-12-26. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What we really need is a source that talks about the ambiguity, not just more examples of use. Otherwise all we have is WP:OR. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Here's one reasonably reliable source about the ambiguity with some good comments: Holladay, Martin (June 22, 2012). "Understanding Energy Units". Green Building Advisor. Easchiff (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Differences in sources is one place where WP:OR doesn't apply. If one reliable source says X and another equally reliable source says Y, we simply summarise each position and attribute each one – that's WP:NPOV. Merely stating that multiple reliable sources differ is not OR. Of course, if we start drawing our own conclusions about two differing, but well supported positions, then we're in OR territory. --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This is true for sources that define the unit(s). However, when and article uses a unit (and {{Convert}}), it must be clear which numeric prefix is used by its author. That should be unambiguously clear from the article's source. If that can not be established, a ^{[maintenance tag]} may be needed.

I support the elegant and always-OK solution RexxS mentions: do not use MBtu (remove from Convert, will add a ^[tag]). Exception: in literal quotes (then omit Convert). IOW, WP should not propagate ambiguous unit meanings (stop it right after the source uses such). -DePiep (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I support removing MBtu from the units supported by convert. Here's a citation to a recent textbook that came to the same conclusion: Price, Gary D. (2014). Power Systems and Renewable Energy: Design, Operation, and Systems Analysis. Momentum Press. p. 98. Easchiff (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The following related energy units are defined (see the master list).

unitcode    scale               symbol                 name1
MBtu        1,055,055.85262     MBtu                   thousand British thermal units
MBTU-39F    1,059,670           MBTU<sub>39°F</sub>    thousand British thermal units (39°F)
MBtu-39F    1,059,670           MBtu<sub>39°F</sub>    thousand British thermal units (39°F)
MBTU-59F    1,054,804           MBTU<sub>59°F</sub>    thousand British thermal units (59°F)
MBtu-59F    1,054,804           MBtu<sub>59°F</sub>    thousand British thermal units (59°F)
MBTU-60F    1,054,680           MBTU<sub>60°F</sub>    thousand British thermal units (60°F)
MBtu-60F    1,054,680           MBtu<sub>60°F</sub>    thousand British thermal units (60°F)
MBTU-63F    1,054,600           MBTU<sub>63°F</sub>    thousand British thermal units (63°F)
MBtu-63F    1,054,600           MBtu<sub>63°F</sub>    thousand British thermal units (63°F)
MBTU-ISO    1,055,056           MBTU<sub>ISO</sub>     thousand British thermal units (ISO)
MBtu-ISO    1,055,056           MBtu<sub>ISO</sub>     thousand British thermal units (ISO)
MBTU-IT     1,055,055.85262     MBTU<sub>IT</sub>      thousand British thermal units (IT)
MBtu-IT     1,055,055.85262     MBtu<sub>IT</sub>      thousand British thermal units (IT)
MBTU-mean   1,055,870           MBTU<sub>mean</sub>    thousand British thermal units (mean)
MBtu-mean   1,055,870           MBtu<sub>mean</sub>    thousand British thermal units (mean)
MBTU-th     1,054,350.26444     MBTU<sub>th</sub>      thousand British thermal units (thermochemical)
MBtu-th     1,054,350.26444     MBtu<sub>th</sub>      thousand British thermal units (thermochemical)
MMBtu       1,055,055,852.62    MMBtu                  million British thermal units
MMBTU-39F   1,059,670,000       MMBTU<sub>39°F</sub>   million British thermal units (39°F)
MMBtu-39F   1,059,670,000       MMBtu<sub>39°F</sub>   million British thermal units (39°F)
MMBTU-59F   1,054,804,000       MMBTU<sub>59°F</sub>   million British thermal units (59°F)
MMBtu-59F   1,054,804,000       MMBtu<sub>59°F</sub>   million British thermal units (59°F)
MMBTU-60F   1,054,680,000       MMBTU<sub>60°F</sub>   million British thermal units (60°F)
MMBtu-60F   1,054,680,000       MMBtu<sub>60°F</sub>   million British thermal units (60°F)
MMBTU-63F   1,054,600,000       MMBTU<sub>63°F</sub>   million British thermal units (63°F)
MMBtu-63F   1,054,600,000       MMBtu<sub>63°F</sub>   million British thermal units (63°F)
MMBTU-ISO   1,055,056,000       MMBTU<sub>ISO</sub>    million British thermal units (ISO)
MMBtu-ISO   1,055,056,000       MMBtu<sub>ISO</sub>    million British thermal units (ISO)
MMBTU-IT    1,055,055,852.62    MMBTU<sub>IT</sub>     million British thermal units (IT)
MMBtu-IT    1,055,055,852.62    MMBtu<sub>IT</sub>     million British thermal units (IT)
MMBTU-mean  1,055,870,000       MMBTU<sub>mean</sub>   million British thermal units (mean)
MMBtu-mean  1,055,870,000       MMBtu<sub>mean</sub>   million British thermal units (mean)
MMBTU-th    10,543,50,264.44    MMBTU<sub>th</sub>     million British thermal units (thermochemical)
MMBtu-th    10,54,350,264.44    MMBtu<sub>th</sub>     million British thermal units (thermochemical)

However, as at June 2016, the only articles using any of these were:

• Exelon Pavilions uses MBtu
• Firewood uses MMBtu

Which of the above should be removed? Johnuniq (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! Not surprising that most of the units aren't used in articles: MBtu-ISO is a pretty technical unit. Anyway, all of the MBtu versions suffer from the ambiguity of definition, so I favor removing them from the convert list. MMBtu can be left in peace. As time permits, I'll tackle expanding the BTU article to better document the ambiguity. Easchiff (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-breaking space

Hi, I would like to request that someone replaces ordinary spaces with non-breaking spaces (the actual case is ({{convert|25|km|disp=or}}, where the line break occurs between 16 and miles). Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There has been quite a lot of discussion about that at WT:MOS although it was a long time ago and it might be tricky finding it. The issue was raised here in July 2015. In brief, style is to use a normal space when the unit name is given in full, but a non-breaking space can be forced with the rarely used |adj=j (join) option. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible to deprecate and remove |adj=j? Forcing a non-breaking space has nothing to do with adjectives. These illogical hacks made sense in Version 2 of the template (i.e. pre-Lua post-enormous #switch) when there was limited capacity for adding new parameters (though it wouldn't have been totally impossible) but now there is no longer such restriction. If this function is actually desirable, it would be better to do it with its own parameter. Of course, this is just one example of this problem (for which I'm somewhat responsible). Jimp 04:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree but I don't want to do one-off changes to established options. We need to spend some time looking at all the options and consider what should be done. I could make a digestible list of the current options somewhere but I'm still too busy to want to spend much time on this kind of operation for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes good sense. I would be best to do this all at once. Jimp 09:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

At this moment, can we formally declare |adj=j deprecated? -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

{convert |723 |km |adj=j |disp=or |abbr=
in} gives: 723 km or 449 miles

No need to deprecate the no-break option "adj=j". As noted above, option "adj=j" has provided the requested no-break functionality, for nearly 4 years, as the logical alternative to adjective mode "adj=on" where hyphens "-" would appear (in place of "&nbsp"), and there is no immense danger which needs to be deprecated. Wikid77 (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, what does the "j" stand for? "join"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, "adj=j" stands for "join" but as just letter "j" for use in other-language wikipedias where whole-word options tend to spur culture clash & translation into other words. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a need to deprecate the no-break option "adj=j", because it serves no purpose. {{convert |723|km |adj=j |disp=or |abbr=in}} produces the html 723 km or 449 miles, and while there's good reason and precedent in the printing industry not to begin a line with the unit symbol "km", there has never been a good reason or precedent to forbid a line starting with "miles" or any other unit name. --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The no-break text as "16 miles" is often an issue to wrap table columns. However, I have also used no-break text for advanced typesetting, to avoid widow/orphan words, such as line split "Nearly 23" followed by next line "kilometres..." but "adj=j" could join "Nearly 23 kilometres" as a wider line rather than short widow text alongside a wide image or infobox. Another use would be within quotations as editorial text where a retro conversion "disp=sqbr" could add distance "[5 miles]" as joined text on one line. In general, usage in tables or quotations requires extra typesetting options for Convert, as users have requested for years. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestion of " '16&nbsp;miles' is often an issue to wrap table columns" is simply a lack of understanding of how html tables need to work as the width of the viewport changes. Wikipedia is displayed by a markup language, not by typesetting, advanced or otherwise. There is no need to suppress a line break between "Nearly 23" and "kilometres" in captions or infoboxes, nor betwen "[5" and "miles]". This sort of compulsion to control every aspect of how text displays leads to nonsense like "60&nbsp;soldiers" and "11&nbsp;touchdowns", both of which I've observed and which are no different from the examples of ""Nearly&nbsp;23&nbsp;kilometres"" and "[5&nbsp;miles]". --RexxS (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, please study concepts of "computerized typesetting" which has been done for over 40 years by markup languages, so there is much to study. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikid, please stop trying to teach your grandfather to suck eggs. If you want to typeset pages, stick to Pagemaker, and leave html to those that know what they are talking about. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Deprecation

• Formal proposal: deprecate |adj=j

Add to Template:Convert#Deprecated options:

adj=j is deprecated. No need to use   before full unit name.

-DePiep (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I put a list of articles that used adj=j in my sandbox (permalink). Almost no one knows about adj=j so it is not really necessary to discourage its use although I suppose the documentation could flag it as "should not be used" providing a link to a MOS discussion with that ruling can be provided. I don't have a strong feeling about it although in general I do not think forcing everyone to follow the party line with respect to minor points like this is helpful for a project like Wikipedia. I would object to removal of an option which broke old revisions because examining pages from history is often necessary, however if adj=j stopped working one day old revisions would still display properly. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Plus if "adj=j" stopped working, then more people would request the option to be re-added, as has happened for nearly 10 years now. Otherwise, users will resort to more hand-edited conversions again. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. -DePiep (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

re Johnuniq. I consistently oppose that line. Either an option is OK to use, and so documented, or an option is deprecated, and so is marked in the documentation. There should be no inbetween ('no one knows so leave it as a secret'). That is, because the next editor must be able to understand that setting (e.g, from documentation). So: when deprecated, say it is so. Even more so because as RexxS explains this usage is not per MOS and is bad HTML. Next, objection: 'keep deprecated option to not break old revisions'. Ouch. That backward compatibility would put a big limit on template improvement. Anyway, as Johnuniq says, in this case removing the option would not break anything. In general I think deprecated options should be removed altogether. -DePiep (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

•  deprecated. Documentation now says: adj=j is deprecated. No need to use NBSP before full unit name. See MOS -DePiep (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • That's a big statement—MOS is a guideline which generally should be followed, and that is emphasized by the prevarication (which I have underlined) in the text in question: In general, a normal ("breaking") space is used between a number and a unit name. Who knows if there could never be reasonable exception? Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"Who knows" -- RexxS knows and told us, above. Even Wikid77 did not come up with a single exception example. I will go through the list once more (your current sandbox), and see if there is such an exception. I will remove any |adj=j in running text or bullet lists. Treat exceptions as new unit requests: if an editor needs it, ask for actual examples of usage. But we should not maintain a deprecated feature because of unknown future possible need. -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Checked the (sandbox list, possibly outdated). Stats: 117 pages listed using |adj=j. Removed parameter when in running text (sentences, bullet lists): 112 P. Not edited: 2 P (eg this talkpage). From infobox: 2 P (preview checked). From table: 1 P (see below, preview checked). IOW, no situation except discussion/documentation merits usage of this setting.

One curiosity: List of highest United States cities by state has the setting used in a table. When checking the pre-edit situation [1], the NBSP should be effective in the leftmost column. But in my desktop browser the Convert output breaks just as well. I have removed them. -DePiep (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: If I remember correctly the development of the guideline "In general, a normal ("breaking") space is used between a number and a unit name", the hedging was because some unit symbols like '%' don't have a space between the digits and the symbol. Until March of this year, the guidance was "Except as shown in the "Specific units" table below, a space appears between a numeric value and a unit name or symbol.", which I think is clearer about what the exceptions are. I'll restore the earlier guidance. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

A split in the subtopic? I thought the MOS point is that it should be a breaking space, not an NBSP (which happens to matter here). The prescribed omission of any space, such as with unit %, makes this topic moot. Then, when writing "100 percent" the issue is back again: breaking or NBSP?

I object your restoring of the earlier guideline, because it is not clear on the type of space (esp by mentioning symbol and name together, undifferentiated). IIRC, Johnuniq is an advocate of the 'a space is always a breaking space before the unit name' through this module; and 'a space is always an NBSP before the unit symbol'. I can support the reasoning behind it: reading (so I prefer the first quote as a guideline). -DePiep (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@DePiep: This isn't the place to discuss changes to MOS, but when the guidance is ambiguous and causes confusion here, then it needs to be clarified. The MOS point as it developed addressed the problem of editors writing 29km instead of 29 km. It did not originally serve as the differentiator between "29 kilometres" and "29&nbsp;kilometres". I don't accept that the recently added "In general" qualifier serves any useful purpose as all guidelines are subject to the "occasional exceptions may apply" caveat, and by obscuring the original intention, it simply invites breaches of what should be a simple rule about breaking vs non-breaking spaces. My amendment to the guideline now reads "A normal ("breaking") space is used between a number and a unit name, and a nonbreaking space ({{nbsp}} or   is used between a number and a unit symbol (or {{nowrap}} may be used). The exceptions are certain symbols with which no space is used as shown in the "Specific units" table below." If you feel that is incorrect or ambiguous, then please raise your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers which is likely to attract a broader range of comments. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, I was only replying here to your post here. That said, your description now of the situation is sound, complete and IMO correct. Also wrt the history and the caveat you mention. So the new text is a MOS-documentation improvement indeed. -DePiep (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Template does not know prefixes

Whenever I try converting kilonewtonmetres, the template outputs kN·mError in convert: Unit name "kN·m" is not known. The help page however says that the SI-prefixes (which kilo is) may be applied to units such as Newton and metre. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That's

{{convert|15|kNm|abbr=on}} → 15 kN⋅m (11,000 lbf⋅ft)

{{convert|15|Nm|abbr=on}} → 15 N⋅m (11 lbf⋅ft)

{{convert|15|Nm|abbr=off}} → 15 newton-metres (11 pound force-feet) -DePiep (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Jojhnjoy, try 15 kN.m (now added to Module:Convert/extra) Frietjes (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)