Template talk:Convert/Archive January 2010

mph as well as MPH, a matter of style

125 mph (201 km/h) or 125 mph (201 km/h) as well as 125 MPH. 125 MPH, without conversion, was used in metroliner (Amtrak). Peter Horn User talk 01:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is more to this then meets the eye ... or as much. Why capitalise "mph"? Why can't we settle on "mph"? This is another freedom-of-style-vs-readability debates? WP is for readers, why can't we settle on "mph" as opposed to "mi/h" or "MPH"? If they used it at metroliner (Amtrak), do's a favour and change it. JIMp _talk·cont 11:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I will with pleasure make that change whenever I'll come across MPH. I will take some time because I suspect that many, and many, American users/editors have used it in many articles. Peter Horn User talk 01:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Producing worded single-digit numbers

Perhaps I've missed something obvious, but is there a way to make {{convert}} state single-figure numbers in words, as required by WP:ORDINAL?

To quote: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals".

For example, when writing "the {{convert|5|mi|adj=on}} stretch", it produces "the 5-mile (8.0 km) stretch", when it should be "the five-mile (8.0 km) stretch. Mixsynth (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not currently possible. However, as the second bullet point in WP:ORDINAL states, you should not mix formats when dealing with two comparable items. You should *not* use "five-mile (8.0 km)". Either "5-mile (8.0 km)" or "five-mile (eight km)" would be acceptable, but not the mixed form. Also, not that it particularly pertains to this situation, but per the eighth bullet point, one should not spell out decimal numbers. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that since one of these is in brackets, we're not really mixing formats thus making "five-mile (8.0 km)" fine. On the other hand, MOSNUM says

Units symbols are preceded by figures, not by spelled-out numbers: for example, 5 min, not five min.

Thus "five-mile (eight km)" would not be acceptable. As for getting the template to write numbers out, yes, it would be nice but isn't possible currently. However, note that WP:ORDINAL is talking about numbers whereas {{convert}} is dealing with measurements. JIMp _talk·cont 08:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that argument works just as well :) — Huntster (t @ c) 10:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer." (Note that, very likely, you would normally write "5 minutes" if you indeed mean "(5.0 ± k0.5) minutes" (e.g. in a recipe), and "five minutes" if it's just a colloquial way of saying "a short time", which could be 2 minutes as well as 10 minutes.) ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

{{cardinal to word}} converts numbers to words, but I agree with above comments about not using words in measures. Its intent is more or less solely for transclusion in other templates, since it is easier and probably better to write "five miles in text" instead of "{{cardinal to word|5}} miles". If you are sure the number falls in the range 0 to 9, the subtemplate {{cardinal to word/0 to 19}} does the job, but {{cardinal to word}} will transclude it anyway, and is more general. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Long tons plus hundred weight

In Victorian Railways R class 187 long tons (190.00077195 t) instead of 187 t 8 cwt (190.4 t). Can some one make this work? Peter Horn User talk 04:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems a pretty bad idea to me to use "t" for any but metric tons. The tons-cwt combo is still in the works. Whilst we wait {{TonCwt to t}} should do the trick. JIMp _talk·cont 10:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What about adding short tons (ST) to make a three way conversion? And 187 long tons 8 cwt (419,800 lb or 190.4 t) appears OK for the interim except that lk=on should show all 4 units. Peter Horn User talk 00:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

psi, kPa, MPa and bar

In Boiler#Supercritical steam generators 3,200 psi (22.06 MPa) or 3,200 psi (220.6 bar). This is not very elegant. What is needed is 3,200 psi (22.06 MPa; 220.63 bar). Never mind that "bar" is obsolescent or obsolete. Peter Horn User talk 23:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• To append a related conversion, use "disp=output only" (which was fully implemented in November 2009). For article "Boiler", I have changed that line to show the 2nd amount (bar) by using {convert|3200|psi|bar|1|abbr=on|disp=output only}. Please note that many of the display features, requested this year, have been working now since November, such as suppressing the input:

{{convert|3200|psi|bar|1|abbr=on|disp=output only}}   gives: 220.6 bar

So, don't be afraid to use those various features, such as also "disp=output number only" to show just the resulting number with no units displayed. We can add more features after the year-end holidays, since many people will be too busy to help with major changes to Template:Convert. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A megapascal-bar dual subtemplate would be easy enough to make but I'm wondering about a couple of things. Firstly, in general, what's the use of dual conversions when the difference is merely some power of ten (other examples would be hectares & square kilometres or picometres and ångströms). Secondly, let's, for a moment at least, mind that the bar is obsolete, why we should be using bars at all? JIMp _talk·cont 09:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The bar is still in common use for automotive turbos. Also, measurements taken from old sources (eg for steam trains) would use the bar. For accuracy sake, we should always start from the units given in the source.  Stepho  (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's a change in precision, we should start from source units, yes. Converting bars, ergs, ångströms, etc. to SI only requires a shift of the decimal point though so it's not really a problem. JIMp _talk·cont 10:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

But 40 and 180 bar (4,000 and 18,000 kPa; 580 and 2,611 psi) already works, so why not make other combinations work? Peter Horn User talk 05:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for making other combinations work ... if they're useful. Kilopascals and pounds per square inch are completely different. My question is whether there is any point in converting to bars if you've already got megapascals. Sure the template can be made to do useless stuff (e.g. {{convert|123.456|kl|m3}} → "123.456 kilolitres (123.456 m³)") but why build in useless capacity? JIMp _talk·cont 10:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In Boiler (steam generator) I found (1–300 psi (0.069–20.684 bar; 6.895–2,068.427 kPa) so it would be useful to have either one the other units, bar kPa or MPa appear first if for no other than historical reasons. 1)Americans are for the most part not yet tought the metric system, much less how to shift decimal points and 2) every one else in the English speaking world becomes less and less familiar with the traditional units as time goes on. Incedentally the bar may still be used in some places for weather reports but in Canada it is the kPa (CTV News Channel (Canada) and The Weather Network). Peter Horn User talk 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If your American can't get the metric system, then bars are no use to him. JIMp _talk·cont 09:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironies of ironies. When I arrived in Canada back in 1952 the weather reports in the Victoria Daily Times, at that time an independant paper, used the millibar in its daily weather reports and the Americans may still use them in weather reports rather than inches of Hg. The bar is obsolescent rather than completely obsolete. So as to help our American friends and others 7 bar (0.7 MPa; 101.5 psi). Tada, that works! That still leaves 3,200 psi (22.06 MPa; 220.63 bar) and 3,200 psi (22,063.22 kPa; 220.63 bar). Peter Horn User talk 16:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC). Peter Horn User talk 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

LT -> t with abbr=none

Is abbr=none broken? As can be seen here, the template broke when I had {{convert|15560|LT|t|abbr=none|lk=on}} and {{convert|15860|LT|t|abbr=none}}. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ps

I often use {{convert|105|bhp|kW|0|abbr=on}} to convert from hp to kW but {{convert|115|ps|kW|0|abbr=on}} doesn't work for ps to kW. Comparing Template:Convert/bhp and Template:Convert/ps, the only differences seem to be

• ps is missing the h and t parameters
• bhp has b=745.69987158227022 while ps has b=0.73549875

Notes:

• 1 ps = 0.73549875 kW
• 1 hp ≈ 745.69987 N·m/s
• 1 ps = 735.49875 N·m/s

Would putting b=735.49875 in Convert/ps be part of the correct fix? Is there any documentation for each parameter letter? Thanks.  Stepho  (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Use "PS". JIMp _talk·cont 06:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, works good now. Is there any reason why we have a correct one (PS) and also a broken one (ps)? Should one of them be deleted or redirect to the other?  Stepho  (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If one of these days we need picoseconds ... JIMp _talk·cont 09:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds reasonable. Can we delete the existing Convert/ps then? It does no good and gets in the way.  Stepho  (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No reason to keep it. JIMp _talk·cont 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Volume or consumption per year

In Geography of Burma#Land use 33.23 km³/a (8 cu mi/a), 33.23 km3/y instead of 33.23 km³ or 7.97 cu mi/yr. Peter Horn User talk 21:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Use {{convert|33.23|km3/a}} → "33.23 cubic kilometres per annum (7.97 cu mi/a)". JIMp _talk·cont 23:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Default for inches conversion changed?

I thought the default for inches conversion, used to be cm. It appears to me that it has recently changed to mm, which is usually too large for readers expecting something else. It accepts a parameter of cm, of course, so I have been inserting it where necessary. If this could be defaulted back without too much effort, it might be nice. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with this. Millimetres are too fine a measurement when the closest analogy for inches is centimetres. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's always been millimetres but there is a decent case for centimetres. JIMp _talk·cont 07:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Centimetres are much more widely used in everyday life outside technical contexts for lengths longer than a centimetre or so, so 11 inches (280 mm) does definitely not look like it is rounded to the nearest ten (which it is). 11 inches (28 cm) would be much saner. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree too. As A di M implies, engineering and other contexts always use mm (and home-assembly furniture in the UK is usually measured thus, although it is probably overprecise), but daily life seems to use cm. I think A di M's view carries weight here particularly as he has mentioned in the past about e.g. dekagrams and decilitres being common in some European countries, whereas they are not in the UK (although centilitre seems to have a bit of a hold, but seems to be losing to millilitre), but centimetres do seem here to stay. I am not sure how the default unit is computed, because I imagine if someone wrote e.g. "1.16 inches" they would want millimetres, although of course it is only a case of moving the decimal point. I presume that the default unit does vary according to the magnitude of the input (it seems to for fluid volume, anyway, but perhaps I was just lucky.)

That all being said, I presume this has been discussed ad nauseam - any pointers to the archives there Jimp? Si Trew (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It was hectograms and centilitres, at least here in Italy, although I seem to recall Hans Adler saying that decagrams are common in Austria. (Hectograms are in very common use in speech for not-too-precise amounts between about 100 g and 1 kg, such as cold cuts and cheeses, although grams are normally used in writing. Centilitres aren't very used per se in ordinary speech, but most cans and small bottles of drinks are labeled in centilitres, so you can often hear una bottiglia da 66 (a 66-bottle), with the unit being implicit. I've seen some bottles giving both millilitres and centilitres, incredibly.) Decilitres are somewhat uncommon, but not completely unheard-of, and anyway anyone is taught the meaning of deci-, centi-, milli-, deca-, hecto-, and kilo- in elementary schools.) This isn't going to be very relevant in an encyclopaedia, though. ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

subst?

Should convert be subst'ed as a rule when it appears in articles? --mcpusc (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That would greatly increase article maintenance. —EncMstr (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with EncMstr, with two exception:

• if Temlate:Convert is used to generate examples of its output (e.g. to show alleged incorrect behavior) it should be SUBSTd, so that the behavior is not later documented differently if the template changes, i.e. someone looking at the faulty example later can't see the fault because it has been fixed.
• for similar reasons, if Template:Convert is used to generate examples on WP:UNIT and similar pages that these define the expected form of displaying units and conversions (it would be rather circular to define WP:UNIT using Template:Convert, since Template:Convert should conform to WP:UNIT). Si Trew (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure if converting existing manually-created conversions was supported by the expected use of this template, but it sounds like its fine. --mcpusc (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unabbreviated temperature scale names

I think {{Convert|30|°C|°F|abbr=off}} should produce "30 degrees Celsius (86 °F)" instead of "30 °C (86 °F)" (like it does now). Could someone please add that feature? --bender235 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oil barrels to cubic meters

in Geography of Iraq#Resources and land use, how to convert 112 billion barrels to m3 or rather km3? Peter Horn User talk 03:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

{{convert|112|Goilbbl}} → "112 billion barrels (17.8×10^⁹ m³)"

{{convert|112|Goilbbl|km3}} → "112 billion barrels (17.8 km³)"

JIMp _talk·cont 06:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cubic kilometres are not normally used to express oil reserves. You would normally convert xxx billion barrels to yy.y billion cubic metres (10⁹m³).RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

3-unit and 4-unit conversion

Is it possible to do an 3-unit or 4-unit conversion? say from 100kg to 15 stones, 10 pounds, 7 ounces (, and 173 grains)? If not, would it be a hell to implement? _→AzaToth 01:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty tricky, not hugely tricky. JIMp _talk·cont 10:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Units of acceleration

Could we get units of acceleration added to convert? I'm not familiar enough with template syntax to add it myself. G units, m/sec^2 and ft/sec^2 at the least. --mcpusc (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a start.

*{{convert|50|g0}} *{{convert|50|g0|ft/s2}} *{{convert|50|ft/s2}} *{{convert|50|m/s2}}

50 standard gravities (490 m/s2) 50 standard gravities (1,600 ft/s2) 50 feet per second squared (15 m/s2) 50 metres per second squared (160 ft/s2)

JIMp _talk·cont 10:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparent discrepency

76.75 in (1,949 mm) vs 76+3⁄4 in (1,950 mm). Why does the latter give 1 mm more? Peter Horn User talk 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an extra pipe character in the latter, so the template doesn't recognize the precision parameter and defaults to rounding to the nearest centimetre. Try 76+3⁄4 in (1,949 mm). ― A._di_M.^{2nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Conversion to imperial surveyor's measurements

If I want to convert a single metric measurement to imperial surveyor's units (i.e. miles, chains, rods, and links) - without fractions on any of the target units - is that possible with the current Convert template? Would it be possible to modify Convert to support this multiple target unit? I'd like to, for example, be able to convert 6.8 km ==> 4 miles 20 chains in a single operation. — Matthew25187 (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at present. It would be possible to modify the template to do that. It might take a while. JIMp _talk·cont 21:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Half etc

Why can't I use ½ as an input value? It seems more intuitive than +1/2. Rees11 (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, this was done so users wouldn't have to look up special characters just to make the template function (since ½ isn't on most/any keyboards). However, it might be possible to add this ability, though you'll have to wait for someone more capable to make the change (if possible). — Huntster (t @ c) 02:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good argument for allowing "+1/2" but makes no sense as an argument for disallowing "½". Rees11 (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

He means that by default the template only understands simple 5.71 type numbers (ie doesn't understand +1/2 or ½), but someone went to some extra trouble to add +1/2. We will have to wait for some kind (and clever) soul to take some extra trouble to add ½ style numbers. From what little I know it will be very tricky.  Stepho  (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that the software recognises "1/2" as a number whereas "½" looks like a character. I don't know of any practical way around it. JIMp _talk·cont 20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The only way around it is to insert as a decimal, preview to get the conversion, and then add the conversion as a manual entry. It's a pity that ¼, ½ and ¾ are not supported without resorting to +1/4 etc. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

shouldn't then all of following be available? ½ - ⅓ ⅔ - ¼ ¾ - ⅕ ⅖ ⅗ ⅘ - ⅙ ⅚ - ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞. :) _→AzaToth 02:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If "½" were possible, then of course all of them would be supportable. However, as Jimp states above, this just isn't possible at the moment. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• See below: #Reminder for fraction/color codes use disp=output only. -Wikid77 12:22, 1 February 2010

Miles and chains conversion

I'm trying to insert the disp=s parameter in a miles and chains to km conversion, but keep receiving Template:Convert/LoffAoffDsSoffNa2. See for example: {{convert|9|mi|70|chain|km|2|disp=s}}. Any help would be appreciated. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• The "and/chain" subtemplate needs to be changed to no longer use suffix "Na2". So, in [[Template:Convert/and/chain]], fix "{{convert/{{{d}}}Na2" as "{{{d}}}2" and add parameters U=mi & u=ch. The unit symbol for chains would become "ch". I will submit a request to fix that edit-protected template. -Wikid77 13:34, 1 February 2010

• Done: {{convert|9|mi|70|chain|km|2|disp=s}}   gives: 9 miles 70 chains (15.89 km). -Wikid77 07:10, 12 February 2010

Sortability

{{editprotected}} Why would anyone not want the template to be sortable? This could cause serious problems in sortable tables. Can an admin/someone who understands the template syntax please make "sortable=on" the default? Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 02:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And there is a problem using the sortable parameter because...? — RockMFR 02:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There isn't one. There is a problem not using it. When it is not on, then it sorts alphabetically, not numerically, so 5, 10, 15 would sort as 10, 15, 5. Seeing that there are no drawbacks to being sortable, even in text, it should be the default. Reywas92^Talk 14:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

List of unusual units of measure

I was off on a little dilly-dally and, in attempting to find the millihelen, see that it is stated but not referenced at List of unusual units of measure. It is of course the amount of beauty needed to launch one ship, but I think this was first stated, or at least first documented, in a letter to the London Times, and was republished in a book called "The First Cuckoo", a reprinting of some famous (and some silly) letters to the Times over the last hundred years, unfortunately my copy has gone missing from my lavatory but I shall try to track this down. (In the same volume, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the then Prime Minister, notes that he saw a wagtail outside his house in March, and as a PS notes that it was a long tailed wagtail, not a pied).

I think this article, which is a bit of a mess, needs some organisation, since much of it sub-includes other articles and there is a lot missing. It is hard to know what or where to split it, because obviously some are merely jocular but some are intended to be seriously illustrative and frankly fail the task. I can understand, for example, that the Wales is a standard unit of area because everybody knows how big Wales is (don't they?) and I suppose that has caught on because it is a reasonably big and vaguely rectangular thing, and I have always disliked that the CIA World Factbook puts the UK as being "slightly smaller than Oregon", as if anyone knew how big Oregon was. The height of a double decker bus is a good measure, and though it varies can be considered roughly between thirteen and fourteen-and-a-half feet, whereas the size of a football pitch is nonsense because it depends which game of football you are playing, and certainly association football does not prescribe the size of the pitch (though gives minima and maxima for some measures), and it is well known that some pitches are longer or shorter, or wider or narrower, than others. (And of course can have a slope and a prevailing wind, but we don't say "Wind Force was about three Aston Villas".

I kinda think it would be better to split or rearrange this into units that have no sense because they are used just lazily or in a kinda Private Eye style ("check this. Ed."), those that attempt to convey some meaning but fail completely (e.g. twice the height of Nelson's Column, now where do you measure from the base and to the top of his hat or the base of the column or what, but anyway it is useless as illustration because when you look UP at a tall column or skyscraper you can't judge its height well), and those that are simply jocular e.g. the milliHelen.

This is not entirely frivolous, I searched for "journalistic units of measure" and similar, and although no doubt this has been rehearsed many times, I do think that some measures, e.g. the size of Wales or the volume of the Albert Hall (which I think is in another of my lavatorial sources, "Bears Can't Run Downhill and 200 Other Pub Facts", again I will have to check that or hunt where it is if not in that book, I have it somewhere, and it is very much an estimate cos it depends on the seating arrangements etc, though it is only an estimate by the Albert Hall's curator), could be reasonably given as a kind of emphatic nope, that is way too big or too small, i.e. say something is definitely wrong. So I don't think it is entirely trivial, it is more to weed out those silly journalistic uses and if we can source them, as in for example the size of the albert hall, are worth having somewhere. As you are all sensible and intelligent people here, I should like to know what you think about this. Obviously there have been attempts to collate these in the past, but I can source a few of them, and I think it would be nice to get some of them on a nice grounding, e.g. the size of a football pitch (association football) must have known minima and maxima which I can look up, and maybe make a nice SVG that can be stretched etc and make a little animation from maximum width/minimum length to minimum width/maximum length etc. Something like that anyway.

Sorry you can tell this is rather a ramble but I hope you see I am not bringing this here just trivially to list made-up units but to show that some that are commonly used are either useful or useless, and I think that is worth stating, as RS and NPOV and no OR and all that.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Am I getting too Wittgenstenian here? I remember somewhere in Clive James' television reviews he reviewed a programme that he asked what people meant when they had "a stabbing pain". There was an interview with a policeman about what it felt like being stabbed, and he described it as "like being hit with a cricket bat". The interviewer went away happy. But as James noted, Wittgenstein would have asked, "and what does it feel like being hit by a cricket bat?". Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The much more relevant place to bring this up would be Talk:List of unusual units of measurement --Cybercobra (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right, the difficulty I have is that because I think the series of articles is ill-organised, it is hard to put this on any one of the pages, since of course it then goes unnoticed on any of the others, whereas I know you good people at Convert do pay attention and are intelligent and clever. So I take that advice, and I will try there, but always when wanting to rearrange a series of articles it is a struggle. Of course I can propose merge/delete etc but I wanted to get some idea about how those who deal with real units feel about articles on these "unusual" units, and I am sure that title was chosen very carefully.

More for my own benefit than others, here is the cite for the Albert Hall:

Atwood, Robert (2006), Bears Can't Run Downhill, and 200 Dubious Pub Facts Explained, Ebury Press, p. 124, ISBN 0091912550 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help) "According to official figures provided by the Royal Albert Hall's management — the horse's mouth itself — the volume of the auditorium is between 3 and 3.5 million cubic feet, so that's between about 85,000 and 99,000 cubic metres." I appreciate this is a somewhat jocular style, but so is the whole book as you may imagine, and seems still to me to be a good secondary source. It might of course have been got from the RAH's website etc, it would not surprise me, but if it is published and quoted then it is technically a secondary source, but could I realise boil down to a primary source if the RAH website was primary source. Besides getting architect's drawings etc (and it is a difficult little shape to mesure, being oval (not elliptical) and the roof and all that) I think it is reasonable to take these figures, in the absence of anything better. Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW something I should have done before, I checked Royal Albert Hall and it gives the linear dimensions etc but not the volume. It says it is elliptical, and gives measures for the minor and major fociaxes, but the idea was that it was not an ellipse but an oval, mimicking the Roman stadia etc, so I am probably wrong there but will have to think where I got told it was oval. Si Trew (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put it on the talk page you suggested. I still should appreciate other's views here on whether it is worth trying to source some of them that I know, or at least half know, where I can find sources for. Si Trew (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No error in template page regarding description of a parameter

Round to: A specified number of significant figures - attach |sigfig={some non-negative integer}. In the case of temperatures Celsius or Fahrenheit this refers to the difference with the absolute-zero temperature. For example, at room temperature two significant digits means rounded to tens of degrees.

I was about to suggest negative integers there to support manual approximate 'round' number conversion, ie. wrong number of digits and thus ridiculous accuracy in conversion - for example: 20 MW (26,820 hp). Then I found out by trying that the template actually supports the feature: 20 MW (27,000 hp) or even 20 MW (30,000 hp), which is against the documentation but bloody useful feature. -G3, 22:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC) <- fixed a minor error, as I forgot about the default use of 20 MW (27,000 hp)))... :-) -G3, 22:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, scratch that...Perhaps I should RT-whole-FM once in a while instead of searching for a keyword :-) -G3, 21:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How to produce

Hi, excuse my stupidity, but how do I get the template to produce "83 km² (32 sq mi)"? —86.134.30.183 (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

{{convert|83|sqkm|0|abbr=on}} gives 83 km² (32 sq mi)  Stepho  (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also {{convert|83|km2|abbr=on}} will work. JIMp _talk·cont 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Megatonne

We have kilotonne conversion, but no megatonne. Student7 (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)