User talk:Metricmike

Welcome!

Hello, Metricmike, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! A3RO (mailbox) 21:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Convert

Hi Mike, nice to see that metric matters. Have you come across the "Convert" template? This is a way of getting the system to do the conversion (in either direction, and for a whole range of units). Documentation is at Template:Convert. For example, to display a distance of 17 miles with its km equivalent, to the nearest km, you could write {{convert|17|mi|0}}. All the best. Jan1nad (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message

Hi MetricMike, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page.

Keep up the good work. We'll get there in the end... -- Marek.69 ^talk 03:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coregonus hoyi

Why did you change the figures here without citing a source? There is a diference between, say, 198 and 200 metres. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 03:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've forgotten what the subject was now. But my recollection is that most approximate measurements are converted to some figure that is obviously not approximate. An example would be he was 100 yards away, the figure is an estimation, the corresponding figure in meters would also be 100.Metricmike (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It gave the length of a small animal—here precision is needed—and water depth in a deep lake—were a few metres makes a major difference. You really should not change things like this, without citing sources or at least knowing about the subject. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you ought to use the convert template—see Template:Convert/doc for how to use it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the convert template is for accurate measurement. Many measurements are approximate with no source, it's therefore more appropriate to give the equivalent approximation. He fired from 100 yards away is an approximation, the equivelant is 100 meters. If you give me the reference I can look into it further. Metricmike (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, for the convert template. There are parameters that automatically make WP:Manual of Style compliant roundings. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bird dimension is probably accurate to the nearest centimeter, a lake depth to the nearest meter or 10 meters, obviously it changes with the season and with the accumulation of silt. To illustrate, a value of 19.000 mm indicates 5 significant digits, which would be appropriate if it reflects the measurement obtainable from a micrometer. A value of 19.0 mm has three significant digits, which would be appropriate for verification by a high quality tape measure. A value of 19 mm has two significant digits and it would be appropriate for measurements in carpentry. And the number might appropriately be rounded to one significant digit, 2 cm, if the information is intended to reflect a rough measurement, a guess, or a situation where the ease of remembering is more important than precision. Hence you have to look at the precision of the original measurement to ascertain the level of precision required in any conversion. Metricmike (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples are poorly chosen. Bird measurements are made off of as many specimens as possible, so averages are given and accurate to the nearest millimetre. In bird articles, we use convert templates nearly all the time, the Malurus articles being an exception (this is because a special formatting is used for inches). The Great Lakes do not change in depth, nor do characters of different depths fluctuate. Please read the appropriate sections of the MOS and the convert template before making it a mission to add and round measurements. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: for many articles, Old English measurements should be used as the primary system, with Metric measurements in brackets. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of how an article is properly formatted: [1]. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the guidelines, Old English first where they are presently used (USA) and metric first elsewhere (Even though by Federal Law the metric system is the preferred for US trade and commerce). I'll be going to Truk next week so I'll be doing a little more research on the size of the lagoon. It seems many dimensions might be rounded to the nearest 10 miles which makes for very accurate kilometer dimensions. Using the convert template adds unnecessary accuracy to a dimension that may not be accurate. Depends who wrote the article and where they got the numbers from.

Lakes change depth all the time due to climate and sedimentation. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/factsheet.html If I can find an accurate figure I'll be sure use it. Metricmike (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC) http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/glat-ch2.html#Climate (Lake Levels[reply]

The Great Lakes are part of the global hydrologic system. Prevailing westerly winds continuously carry moisture into the basin in air masses from other parts of the continent. At the same time, the basin loses moisture in departing air masses by evaporation and transpiration, and through the outflow of the St. Lawrence River. Over time, the quantity lost equals what is gained, but lake levels can vary substantially over short-term, seasonal and long-term periods.)

Still, rounding is subjective, and limits of recorded occurence are precise figures. Please use Template:Convert, non-breaking spaces, properly positioned apostrophes; and please cite sources. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to round, it is usually easier to use the rounding parameters of the convert template, than to try and find type it out properly otherwise. I also am not convinced by your comments on the Great Lakes, but I don't want to read up on the matter just now. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'm here is because of the number of articles without metric units. When anyone uses SI (System International units) that's what they want. When someone says the sea is up to 3 feet higher, they didn't say 2'11", they rounded it to the nearest foot. The metric equivalent would be 1 meter not 91 cm which is stupid for an obvious estimation. I see this stuff all the time. What's the code in the convert template for getting rid of unnecessary precision? Otherwise I' m more than happy to use the template. --Metricmike (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation explains all this and more. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

Although this header sounds bad, it isn't for anything that goes down that road. I've noticed that when you make an edit, you sign it. While I can see your reasoning, it doesn't do anything as the software doesn't change the signature into anything. Now that you have been saved four key strokes, have a great day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of comments on talk pages

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Inch, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your additional amendments to Harley-Davidson. I've done lots of metrication and the convert template is a very useful tool. I've got a script that does an entire page of metrication with one click. If you're interested, let me know. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dzungarian Gate

I do not at all oppose your adding metric conversions along side the originally given English measures, so long as you do not insert them within verbatim quotes. But it is inappropriate to change the original language of an article by inserting you own measures and putting the original in parentheses. I reverted your last edits for intruding within verbatim quotes and for parenthesizing the original measures. There are conversion templates in the article already and you are quite welcome to use them for other exact measures which are not specified. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You change 6 mi (10 km) to 9.7 km. When I look at Google Earth and measure the pass with the ruler, it looks more like 11.5 km. The 6 miles is a rough estimation and not a measurement. I could do the same with the heights quoted, again they are an approximate altitude in feet but you've quoted them to the nearest metre.Metricmike (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy does not allow editing to change one variant to another or to treat one variant as more legitimate than another. The original language is to be retained, and you are quite free to add the conversions using the conversion template. But the numbers in the article are from the referenced sources and hence have priority, whether the sources use imperial or metric measures. Not to mention that it would be absurd to say that a peak is "about" 3,048m" high. This is simply not a matter of debate, and I consider your continued posting about this matter on my talk page a form of incivility. You wear your POV on your sleave, and I warn you, edits which place the original sourced and referenced measure in parenthesis will be reported as edit warring.

I shall watch this page. If you have a query, address me here.

Please cease this banter and add the metric conversions in parentheses after the sourced measures and estimates, with the exception of verbatim quotes which should be left to stand as they are.μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is verbatim on the policy from the (MOS) Which units to use: "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second."

And I do repeat my sincere invitation for you to add such conversions.μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do that. I hope that you can accept that units preceded by "about" and "roughly" need to have the same level of precision. From Wikipedia: Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value, so the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not (236,121 mi). However, small numbers may need to be converted to a greater level of precision where rounding would cause a significant distortion, so one mile (1.6 km), not one mile (2 km). Metricmike (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given my comment above that "it would be absurd to say that a peak is "about" 3,048m" high" I thought it was obvious that I am a fan of rounding off to the appropriate sig figs! Indeed, not knowing whether to round 457 meters to 450m or 500m was weighing on my mind and a large reason I haven't bothered to convert all the measures myself. You can bear that burden. I also assume you will take the time to convert the odd metric measure to Imperial. The only possible cassus belli I see is the 3,000 mile comment in the intro - don't clutter it up by adding a conversion for what amounts to a literary device. It's obvious Carruthers made it up off the top of its head. Very few English speakers - none, in fact - will be unaware that a mile is a measure of distance a bit longer than a kilometer. μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From an American point of view it might be expected that everyone knows how far a mile is (without the knowledge there are 3 legal types of miles in the US). However, I have nieces and nephews in Australia in their 20's who had absolutely no idea when I asked them. Australia and South Africa did a remarkable job with changing over to SI, just as they change BBC TV "Discovery Channel" programs to American English with American measurement they do the same in Australia to metric with US programs. I was in Micronesia recently where the speed limit was in mph and the odometer and speedometer on every car was in km/h, our driver had no idea what the odometer number meant. So I would warrant there are millions of people (mostly under 30) from former colonies of the UK who have no idea what an inch or a mile is. Hence the need to include it in all English articles. Metricmike (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metrication

Amen. Peter Horn User talk 02:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lycurgus Cup

You should be aware that there is a strong convention in art history/museums a) to use cm even in the US, (which should please you) and b) always to use cm rather than mm or metres, for the great majority of objects (say 1.3 cm up to 3 or 4 metres). It is actually much simpler this way, as people only have to hold one unit in their head. It is also much easier to visualize, say, 13.2 than 132. Anyway, that's the way they do it, and we should follow. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, but it's only simpler for people who deal with centimetres all the time, millimetres are more common in engineering, plus there is the advantage of a whole number. The advantage of SI is that the unit suffix can be changed to make comprehension better, but I'll go along with your thinking here. Metricmike (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the point is that in art precision is not usually vital, and most painted areas are not actually perfect rectangles when you get down to it, though one hopes the frames are. Really detailed catalogues give three or more figures: support size, painted area, area visible in frame, which get successively smaller. The same sort of thing with sculptures etc. So one concentrates on the number before the decimal point. Always height before width, btw. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, thanks for the lesson. Metricmike (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]