User talk:Bobblewik/limiting the use of metric units

Comments of the type: 'metric units are not appropriate because...'

Adding metric units to articles about the U.S.

You have cited a passage in the Manual of Style about adding metric units to Imperial units, but I cannot find it. Could you point me to this? I have looked at the "measurement debate" page and it did not appear to me that there was a policy decision made to add metric units to purely US topics. --Gary D 23:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the Manual of Style citation; I also see that the passage you refer to has been in there for quite a while. I am nonethless going to raise a formal objection on the Manual of Style page to doing this as a blanket practice for all US topic articles, and see if there is any support for my position. I do appreciate that you are only trying to be helpful. --Gary D 23:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I definitely support the metric-ization of automotive articles and have been trying to remember to use the Google converter and put in metrics to my Imperialist measures!  :-) Thanks for the effort! By the way, do you know of a good english-metric converter OTHER than google? Maybe a Windows app? --SFoskett 20:59, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I either use google or the raw conversion values using legal/government references. Such as:

• British Units of Measurement Regulations http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951804_en_2.htm

• American NIST http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/appxc/appxc.htm

• Canadian Weights and Measures Act http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/W-6/101836.html

• Irish Metrology Act http://193.120.124.98/gen531996a.html

I have seen a few online convertors but I don't keep a note of them. On the rare occasion that I want additional resources (e.g. to convert 'quintals' and 'Arizona miner's inches'), I simply do a web search. People have recommended Windows applications to me (e.g. Omnicon at http://members.execulink.com/~pjones/) but I have not tried any. Bobblewik  (talk) 19:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I put together a JavaScript app to calculate metric<->english units and format them for Wikipedia. I thought you might like using it - it's simple and portable. Just save a local copy anywhere and it'll run. Check out My wikinumber mungler! --SFoskett 15:49, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I tried it on that webpage but could not make it work. I did not download it to try. So far, I have found google converter to be very flexible. It seems to do all the conversions that your app does. Have you tried it? Bobblewik  (talk) 19:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What didn't work? You put a number on the left and select a unit conversion in the middle and get a nice wikiformat text on the right. I hope I didn't mess anything up. I've been using the google, but this saves me some typing... Try entering "2" on the left and selecting "L->CID". --SFoskett 04:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you need web sites to do conversions for you? Why not just use the "units" command available on most Unix-like systems (and also available for MS Windows as part of Cygwin)?

 You have: 100 furlongs / fortnight
 You want: nanoparsecs / month
         * 0.0014173595
         / 705.5373

—AlanBarrett 07:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I use Firefox. It suddenly occured to me to try it on IE and it worked exactly as you said. To be honest, conversion and formatting are not a particular effort for me. The biggest effort for me is the sheer number of edits that must be done. I wish that more people were sharing the task. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adding metric equivalents to non-metric values

Hi Bobblewik, I saw you just added some metric conversions to Wilhelm Reich, and you've done the same to a few other articles I've edited. Can you tell me, please, whether there's a policy that this must be done? The reason I ask is that sometimes it interferes with the flow of the sentence to have too many figures in brackets. At other times, it doesn't read well; for example, in Wilhelm Reich you added that his 2-acre ranch is his 800,000-metre ranch, but no one talks about 800,000-metre ranches. I can see that these additions would be useful sometimes, but not always. What is the policy or guideline regarding this issue, do you know? Best, SlimVirgin 22:36, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

This issue crops up from time to time in many places. I see that you have posted some questions in the Manual of Style and the issue has been raised there. One such discussion is in: Archive 11 of the Manual of style talk page. You may also want to look at the Wikipedia measurements debate. It is also mentioned in some of the project pages. I hope that helps. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I saw that there were a few objections to these figures being added everywhere. A one-size-fits-all approach is perhaps not appropriate. Saying that Wilhelm Reich lived in an 800,000-meter estate doesn't really add any information to the article that's useful, because while many people can roughly imagine what a two-acre estate is, almost no one could visualize an 800,000-meter one, so the addition interrupts the flow of the sentence for no benefit. Another article that was changed was PA 103, which has quite a dramatic section in the intro about the plane exploding. The addition of the metric figures interrupted the flow, acted as a distraction, and reduced the drama. Compare:

At 19:02:57 UTC, almost 38 minutes into the flight, and minutes after the aircraft had entered Scottish airspace at a cruising altitude of 31,000 ft, around 14 oz. of plastic explosive was detonated in the forward cargo . . . triggering a sequence of events that led to the rapid and almost total destruction of the aircraft. Debris from the flight was scattered over an area of 845 mile² along an 88-mile corridor.

At 19:02:57 GMT (UTC), almost 38 minutes into the flight, and only minutes after the aircraft had entered Scottish airspace at a cruising altitude of 31,000 ft (9,448 m), the detonation of between 10 and 14 oz. (280-400 g) of plastic explosive in the forward cargo hold triggered a sequence of events that led to the rapid and almost total destruction of the aircraft. Debris from the flight was scattered over an area of 845 mile² (2,188 km²) along an 88-mile (142 km) corridor.

Let me know if you have any thoughts on this. I should add that I'm not trying to devalue your work or your concerns in any way, just wondering how best to have them coexist with other issues. Best, SlimVirgin 21:35, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I do have thoughts on it. Since your general question is about policy, in this case I think it would be useful in the talk part of a policy article. My thoughts on that specific example are that because it relates to Scotland, some of the original values may be metric units. The accident report that I read gives a value of 130 km (rather than 142 km). The Scottish court case record that I read gives a value of 450 g (rather than 280-400 g). So perhaps the text should be modified in future to reflect those values. I suppose your question would then be whether non-metric units should be used in support of metric measurements - this is an issue that has also been debated. It is useful to discuss these issues. So feel free to raise it in one of the suggested talk pages, I am sure that there are plenty of people, including myself, willing to discuss it more generally. Bobblewik  (talk) 22:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have raised it there, but I'm mentioning it here too, because so far as I can tell, you are the only editor making these extensive changes. Regarding the location of the Pan Am crash, the article is in American-English, not British-English, as you may have noticed, presumably because this was an attack against an American target. The court uses largely non-metric units, because it is echoing the reports of the forensic scientists who gave evidence, who used mostly non-metric units. But you didn't address my point about whether you feel the addition of metric interrupted the flow. Perhaps you could do that on one of the talk pages, as I'd be interested to hear your views on that. Which talk page would you prefer to use? SlimVirgin 23:04, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind which of those pages it is on. I do appreciate your interest in the subject. Just tell me on which page you raised it and I will respond there. Bobblewik  (talk) 10:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bobblewik, you are characterizing me as reverting, but please bear in mind that you are doing the same thing. A revert dispute takes two, at least. Please let's find a page to discuss this on. I don't recall where it was raised, so please choose the most appropriate one and let me know. However, in the meantime, I would appreciate it very much if you would leave this out of the article. The MoS does not say that these units have to be inserted; indeed, the entire MoS is a guideline, not policy. Furthermore, it does not add to up good writing to say an 800,000-meter estate; and your change to "an estate of 200 acres or 800,000 meters" was just as odd, if not odder, in my view. I'm having a problem understanding the need to add 800,000 meters, as 200-acre estate is the expression most people would readily understand, so please let me know which talk page to go to (the Reich page would be a possibility), so we can try to see each other's point of view on this one. Best, SlimVirgin 20:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Since this is a debate about policy rather than a particular article, I recommend a general page such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I am sure that there are others there that are interested in the issue. Bobblewik  (talk) 20:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but please bear in mind that the MoS is not policy, so if this disagreement is based on that misunderstanding, please let me know, so that we save time. If you read the first paragraph of the main MoS document, you'll see that everything in it is a suggestion only, and if you read the dates and numbers page, you'll see also that there's no requirement to repeat unit conversions. Furthermore, there's no requirement for metric units in pages using American English (pages concerning American issues are to follow the spelling "and usage" used in that country). So on a number of counts, there's no basis for adding that information to Wilhelm Reich, unless it improves the article in some way, of course, in which case I'd support it regardless of what the MoS says. SlimVirgin 20:54, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have asked you 3 or 4 times to debate it on a general page. I am asking, nay begging, you for a further time, please take it to a general page. I won't respond to any more questions here, forgive me but I can't see any other way encouraging you to raise it on a general page. We will both learn from what is said on the issue by others, I look forward to seeing you there. Bobblewik  (talk) 21:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You asked me to start the discussion on a general page instead of here, and suggested Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I did as you asked, but you haven't responded. Here is the link [1] SlimVirgin 04:58, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 103

Pan Am Flight 103 Bobblewik, I see you've once again added your metric conversions to this page, though you've been asked not to several times, and the issue was raised during your adminship vote. You decline to answer the queries, yet continue to add your conversions — even changing the amount of Semtex in the bomb! — as though other people simply don't exist. (If you would raise the issue on talk, you would learn why the source you picked for the amount of Semtex is not the best source.) Please make an argument for your additions on the talk page, or stop making them. You made a note on this page that, following your nomination, you would try to find a more collaborative editing approach. I urge you to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Your behavior at PA 103 confirms that I was right to object to your nomination for adminship. What is wrong with you? Three editors on the page have today objected to your edits, yet you continue to make them, deliberately choosing a time when you can see I'm adding substantive content. You and your friends are acting like bullies, and that's being noted by other editors, so you're doing yourselves no favors, believe me. For the last time, here is the applicable guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Style for numbers, weights, and measures: "The issue of whether all units should be metric (SI), Imperial, or American units is being debated at Wikipedia:Measurements Debate. In scientific contexts, such as physics and chemistry, use SI units. Unless there is an important historical or other reason to use one style over another, editors may choose whether to use Imperial or metric units." If you want to overturn this, go through the usual channels, but do not inflict your made-up rules unilaterally on me. And stop deleting posts from your talk page. If you persist with this, I'll seek dispute resolution, including taking you to the arbitration committee if necessary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm also noting for the record that you won't answer any questions put to you, either here or on the article's talk page, and won't discuss the issue, or seek a possible compromise, but simply keep adding your conversions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Stop deleting my posts and moving them. These posts are not about PA 103. They are about you, your editing style, and the way you interact (or fail to) with other editors; as such, they belong on this page. You say you're not my enemy. If that is true, I am requesting that you stop acting as if you are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

User-friendly metric

May I suggest you read the section "Choose user-friendly metric units" on this page? I stumbled over it when looking into Celsiheit. The "UK metric association" blames a "purist, scientific form of metric usage" for problems with metrification in the UK and suggests the use of cm, cl, and ha, "the user-friendly units in use in most of the rest of the world". Food for thought? Rl 15:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I do find it interesting and I was aware of it. I don't agree with the proposition that a metric unit is either 'user friendly' or 'not user friendly'. In general, I agree with the aims of the site and it is a good read. Bobblewik  (talk) 16:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • The life of a metrophile is a lonely one. I, like you, believe that one should use the units that suit the job best (which is why I'm going to have you take a quick look at Jewellery Quarter and see what you think about megagrams). I was originally going to come here and cuff you upside the head for changing hectares to square kilometers in the Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park article, but I see you've been getting more than your share of that lately, so instead, all I'll do is just ask why you thought it mattered. In Canada, hectares takes precedence for something like this (as a matter of fact, I got this figure from the Government of Alberta website). Is it different elsewhere? Denni☯ 01:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)