Talk:Tim Mannah

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Gibson Flying V in topic lb

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tim Mannah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

lb edit

I believe that per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_league/Players#Infobox that the addition of the lb is incorrectly placed in front of the standard stlb. This addition of the lb as something that features for rugby league players is not currently contested, but it should not be in front of the primary or the secondary way to show the players weight.Fleets (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

While I appreciate the argument for having the more British 'stlb' precede the more American 'lb' in an article that may well attract far more British readers than American ones, doing so is soured by the doubling up of "lb" with 5 lb; 240 lb that results from "110 kg (17 st 5 lb; 240 lb)" which I find unsightly. This is why I think "110 kg (240 lb; 17 st 5 lb)" is preferable.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
It may well be unsightly, but that is an opinion and that would still go against the general MOS and project MOS.Fleets (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
You're going to have to point out to me more clearly what the general and project MOSs have to say about this matter. I followed the links you provided but wasn't able to spot anything.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply