hello

Hey, there, did anyone ever say: Hello, welcome to Wikipedia? Looks like you've plunged right in and are fixing all those thousands of missing metric measurements. They tried to convert us Americans but some of us are hopeless. So good job!

Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

And, while you're at it, if you'd like to do more metric conversion, please do at Dog agility. Thanks! Elf | Talk 18:32, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for google conversion tip! Good one. I responded on dog agility page. Thanks again. Elf | Talk 19:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Miscellany

Hi Bobblewik, Yes, Miles do mean statute miles and not nautical miles for space shuttle distances traveled. However orbital altitudes are given in nautical miles. And thanks for the help on shuttle missions, if you want to add new missions, please use the template that can be found here. Theon 15:36, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, this begs the question (especially considering recent snafus) why they are still using miles at all?

WhiteDragon 04:53, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Bobblewik

NASA gives distances in miles and nautical miles, at least in the official mission summaries. Click on the external link in any shuttle mission to see where im getting my info from (its public domain). (also you can sign your name using three tildes (~) or sign with date using four tildes) Theon 16:19, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

YF-17 Cobra (and others)

Thanx for doing all those metrics! I was just too lazy to sit here and look up the conversion factors myself :-)

serak 05:19, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While updating all the ship articles to the new table code would be good, I think it'd be best to coordinate this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships first, since they have a defined standard for them. I've therefore reverted your table changes to the 3 or so ship articles, not because I think it's a bad idea in general, but because such a wide-ranging change should have consensus before we do it. —Morven 06:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discuss it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships —Morven 19:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Same happened with some Album articles where you changed "sec" to "s". Discuss it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums --KeyStorm 17:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

units of length

mm versus cm

Hi Bobblewick, thanks for the notes; can see your points, tho' in botanical & zoological books, cm are very commonly used (the mm / m / km convention is much more an engineering use), and so are hyphens for ranges; I'd prefer to keep these for plants & animals (what I'm mostly working on) as they're in such wide use; saying e.g. a leaf is 300-450 mm long (rather than 30-45 cm) is harder to visualise for most people. I'll take your suggestion up on putting spaces in (when I remember!!), that seems sensible on reflection. Excellent work on metrication, I've done a few too and approve 100% :-) - MPF 23:32, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

units of length railways

A quick note about the use of measurements in chains in some British railway articles (see the Minimum Radius specification in e.g. British Rail Class 01. Chains are an obscure unit, but traditional in British railway engineering. I decided to leave Imperial measurements in chains for such as are originally quoted in them, because this is British Rail / industry practice. This refers mostly to curve radii. I provided an equivalent in metres, but not one in a more familiar Imperial unit. —Morven 16:53, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

OK. As you know, I do tinker with imperial units. But now you have told me about it, I will leave the imperial units in whatever form you like, certainly for railways (and cricket!). A priority for me is metric units, and a secondary priority is non-metric units. Although British railway engineering is metric in other respects, I was aware that the chain is still used for location referencing. I have seen the issue of chains discussed on usenet, and have spoken with track workers about it whilst they are at work. Thanks for mentioning it. Bobblewik (talk) 17:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the units at dual gauge. Man it'd be easier if all countries would use metric. Mind you, I doubt anyone tops Ireland's use of Metric distances (on road signs since the 70s, old ones in miles aren't necessarily removed, and may be Imperial miles, Old Irish miles or Old English miles) :o) but use of MPH speed limits (nothing to tell you that on them). We're changing to km/h sometime soon (announcement of the date will happen in Sept.) - that should be fun :o) zoney ███ talk 15:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Feel free to help out, I normally use the excellent google converter. Yes it will be interesting to see what happens when Ireland changes speed limits. Some people in other countries are bound to comment on the success of the transition.

Bobblewik 16:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

units of length in roads

I missed your note (bcz you left it on User:Jerzy, instead of User talk:Jerzy where it belongs) for about a month. Did you look for a Wikipedia:Wikiproject for guidance? If there is one, you would propose a change there. If there is not, i would argue that a change such as you have in mind should not be launched without "retrofitting" a Wikipedia:Wikiproject first.

IMO, SI is so little used here that statute miles must be primary, but i would support a change of heading to make more sense of including both miles and km. (in that order). --Jerzy (t) 15:56, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

units of length in mountains

You rounded my exact conversions in the peak bagging article. Please see Talk:peak bagging for an explanation of why the conversions are exact. Gdr 18:15, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my edit of the precision in Peak Bagging. I made the change because I thought it was excessive precision. The list maintainer's (Scottish Mountaineering Club) website at http://www.smc.org.uk/hkeyfac.htm, indicates that 0.1 m precision is correct. Thanks for putting it back.
Bobblewik 18:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. I guess the point is that the 3,000 feet criterion for Munros isn't a measurement and so doesn't have a precision as such. Gdr 18:29, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

units of length (yard) in American football

A minor point about the units conversion project: In American football, yards aren't really a measurement, but a game parameter and a component of many statistical records. To my eye it looks kind of strange to read that Franco Harris "caught 307 passes for 2,287 yards (2091 m)". By comparison, I have no problem with "Harris is 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) tall and weighs 225 lb (102 kg)." I don't know if it's worth your while to try to exclude yardage in the game sense from your conversions. JamesMLane 20:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I assumed that 'yardage' is merely a distance equal to the sum of other distances. I will try to obtain a better idea of what 'yardage' represents. As you suggest, I will try to exclude 'yardage in the American football sense' for the time being. Thanks for your feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 17:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This isn't a straightforward question, because your assumption is largely correct -- "yardage" is a distance. It's not a completely invented idea (as when a tennis player is leading, 40-15 -- forty what?). A player who's run for 983 yards, according to the statistics, has actually advanced the ball by something fairly close to 983 yards, and fairly close to 899 meters. It's possible, however, that the actual distance was less than that covered by a player who's credited with only 981 yards.

The sensible and valuable purpose of your conversions is to make the articles intelligible to a reader who has a good idea of only one of the two systems. A metrics-only reader might happen to see a reference to an American football player named Franco Harris and want to know something more about him, and be glad to learn (without doing any math) that Harris was 1.88 m tall. But if the reader knows nothing about American football, I don't know what he or she would make of the statement that Harris's receptions totaled 2,287 yards. How hard is that to achieve? How much impact would it have on the game? How does it compare with other players' totals? What difference does it make that Harris was a back, not a wide receiver? Being told that it's "2091 m" doesn't really help this reader. For practical purposes, it's still a meaningless statistic unless you know at least a little about the sport -- and if you know that much, then you understand yardage without the metric conversion. (A metrics-using NFL fan wouldn't need to know anything else about Imperial, e.g., wouldn't even need to know that a yard is three feet.) Briefly, the team with possession of the ball has four tries (called "downs") to advance it a total of ten yards, or relinquish possession. That's why many NFL statistics are stated in yards, as are game situations ("3rd and 4" meaning this is the third of the four downs and the offensive team still needs 4 yards, having gained only 6 on the first two downs).

Well, by now I've probably told you more than you wanted to know. I don't have a clear picture about what non-Americans would find helpful in an article about American football. All I can give you is my individual perspective: "Harris is 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) tall" looks unusual (because I'm used to seeing everything in Imperial units only) but not jarring; "Harris caught 307 passes for 2,287 yards (2091 m)" looks really weird and distracting. JamesMLane 16:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have explained it very well. I did not know how American football worked. The concept of 4 attempts to get 10 yards is interesting, with terminology like '3rd and 4'. Thanks.

units of length in weapon ratings

Re: your edit on the Northrop YB-49 page. Note that .50 is an ammunition calibre and there is not always a 1:1 correspondence between metric and imperial calibres. For example, the 7.62 mm NATO round is not equivalent to a .30 round - it's a .308, and guns designed for the 7.62 can fire a .30 round only if specifically modified to do so. Similarly, the 5.6 mm NATO is a .223 round.

The problems arise because different weapon and ammunition manufacturers are measuring different things when they specify calibre. If we were to try standardising, we would have to decide on an independent, arbitrary standard. IMHO, best practice is not "translating" calibres.

Note too that imperial calibres are most conventionally specified as .50, not 0.50 in (which might be the same as the weapon's bore, but also might not be - in the case of the M2 or M2-derived guns on the YB-49, it just happens to be true although this isn't a given).

Artillery and naval guns are a whole other ball game though, and are conventionally specified as bore diameters. I'm not sure that I would convert those either, though. Note that the US Army specifies its howitzers as 105 mm and 155 mm, not 4.13 in and 6.10 in.

I think these issues are broader than WikiProject Aircraft, and should probably be thrashed out in conjunction with WikiProject Weapons before deciding on a convention for this on Wikipedia... --Rlandmann 00:07, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

units of area

Supplying metric equivalents for U. S. Customary units is a good thing, but in some cases you are using unfamiliar units that are probably not the appropriate ones to use.

In the Logan International Airport, you converted acres to square kilometers. However, the usual metric unit for land measurement is the hectare, 10000 m². When the an area is given in "acres," I think the metric equivalent should be given in hectares. (On the other hand, if it is given in square miles, it would be appropriate to convert it to square kilometers).

In the William Pène du Bois article, you converted "pounds" to kN (kilonewtons). See the talk page for my explanation of why I changed these values to kilograms. Dpbsmith 01:32, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re your reply on my talk page:

Thanks for your reply, and for the spirit in which you presented it. As for km ² being preferred over hectares, let me begin by saying that I think you are right in implying that it is much more important to provide the conversions than to argue about which units are most appropriate. I think I was probably justified in replacing kilonewtons with kilograms (with an implied meaning of kgf—after all, the original said "pounds," not "poundals"), but I think I should not have fussed over km². Sorry.

Your remark that the bipm prefers km² to hectares made me think that I ought to look into this myself. (Couldn't actually find the statement on their website, but didn't look very hard. NIST classifies the hectare as a "unit outside the SI that are currently accepted for use with the SI, subject to further review"). Off the top of my head I would have agreed that in scientific writing, there is a preference for the units that are exact squares or cubes of units that have power-of-1000 multipliers, but that this preference doesn't necessarily extend to nonscientific writing. But, I don't really know. I did a quick reality check. I Googled on "superficie Orly de l'aéroport" with the language restricted to French, and the top hit—a reference to gardens and open space—was "Superficie des espaces verts : Roissy : 1400 ha et Orly : 800 ha" I then did Google searches on "superficie kilomètres carrés" and "superficie hectares" and got, respectively, 14400 and 74000 hits. So, provisionally, I continue to hold the belief that hectares are not SI but nevertheless are "hectares" are commoner parlance within what I'll call the "customary metric system."

But as I say I really don't know. So when occasion arises, I'll use hectares but won't mind if anyone changes them to km² Dpbsmith 12:19, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm probably just suffering brain fade, but I noticed a conversion you just did, of 75,000 hectares to 750km^2. And it occurred to me to ask *exactly* how does the reader differentiate between 750 * 1 km^2, and 750 km^2 = 562500 * 1km^2 ... there's no ambiguity in hectares ... am I alone in finding the 750 figure ambiguous? --Tagishsimon 07:45, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have to support Dpbsmith's claim here: hectares are the conventional European measure of area for magnitudes measured in acres in the Imperial system. It might not be core SI, but it is the normal everyday unit to use. BrendanH 09:10, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

You are probably not alone, all of us have to be told at school how to read numbers. I missed that lesson ... your reply answered my question, though; thank you. I think it was just brain fade after all; and, fwiw, I'm happy with banishing acres & hectares where there's a more appropriate unit.

Please take care to use appropriate units in conversions. For example on List of carfree places, acres should be converted to hectares, not square meters. Erauch 23:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why you insist remove all references to hectares? If you prefer integers, you'd be better off using hectares in the 1 E6 m² and 1 E7 m² ranges.

The orders of magnitude series (e.g. for areas at Orders of magnitude (area)) were not made specifically for "Swiss reference data", they were made for any area numbers in Wikipedia. Removing links to them, or converting 155 heactares to 2 km² is mainly destroying information.

Adding links the appropriate page of Orders of magnitude (area) would probably better serve your objective than the deletion/conversion. -- User:Docu

Hectares are still a unit in modern usage. There is no reason to delete every mention of them in Wikipedia. Especially from articles which already include both hectares and sq. km. Rmhermen 20:03, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Certainly for agricultural and quasi-agricultural objects, like Parks, hectares are the units conventionally used so far as I know. Is there a WikiProject page where this could be discussed, so we can get a consensus? There are points to be made on both sides, because I do agree that most people who don't use the metric system for everyday purposes will find it easier to think what a square metre or a square Km would be like than to remember how much a hectare is. So long as we can all unite to abolish the wretched acre... seglea 23:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Me too - hectares are standard terms in forestry measurement as well. Seglea, well said on the acre! (about the only thing worse is °F :-) - MPF 00:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

have you ever looked at irrigation literature? They use a barbarity called the acre-foot (the volume of water required to inundate an area of one acre to a depth of one foot). seglea 02:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Rmhermen has started a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) about the use of hectares. Shall we move the discussion over there? -- hike395 11:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes. I will try to resolve the discrepancy. I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) as suggested. Nelson Ricardo 15:43, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I actually just took a close look at the conversions you made on the various freguesias of Caldas da Rainha (but not this page itself). I agree with the change from hectare to km², but I am opposed to the rounding. Shall I make the changes or will you fix? Thanks. Nelson Ricardo 11:12, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Perhpas you would find yourself in less controversy and being reverted less if you worked on writing the encyclopedia and not just changing units and redirecting Great Britain. Have we reaching a consensus on hectares? If not please stop changing them. Rmhermen 12:49, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ther debate appears at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/archive8 and Wikipedia:Measurement debate but I fail to see any consensus being reached. The Manual of Style says that hectares are acceptable but not required. If so many authors want to use them, please just leave hectares alone. Can't we all just get along. Rmhermen 13:11, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I feel you are completely mischaracterizing the debate and ignoring the objections of metric users -even to the extent of calling them non-metric users. There is no consensus for these changes and the Style manual says that they an allowed style. Please stop changing or buiild a consensus to change the Manual. I will be reverting many of your changes - those in geographic, non-scientific contexts. Rmhermen 14:51, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pointing out the size issue. My original assertion of "many hundreds of hectares" overstated the maximum size of floating islands, so I downsized it to "many hectares" yesterday. This may still not be the best terminology. I am trying to locate my original source (an online scientific paper). As I recall reading it they are rarely more than a few hectares in size. --Gene_poole 21:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed your addition to Peoria, Illinois that I can across by random. You had added just "km²" to the phrase "several thousand acres (km²)". I think this gives the false impression that km² are equal to acres, not that km² are equal to thousands of acres as you intended. Any ideas on how to better write this? Rmhermen 13:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

There are quite of few of these things on Wikipedia. I put them at a lower priority than exact values. It is difficult to translate figures of speech that include rational numbers in one unit system, but it is not impossible. In some cases, the solution is to provide more specific information e.g. the exact value used in official data. I took a quick look online. I got the impression that it is the county that has 'thousands of acres' rather than the city. Perhaps the figure is in the 8,000 to 10,000 acre range. However, I could not come up with a figure that I was happy with. Since 1000 acres is 4 km², an equivalent phrase might be 'several square kilometres' or 'tens of square kilometres'. But I am not really happy with such phrases. I accept your revert and hope that a better solution will be found by me or by somebody else. Bobblewik (talk) 14:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could you please show me where you have built up consensus for changing units from hectares to square kilometers. If you haven't please stop doing it. You may not like hectares but they are in widespread use in several fields. Rmhermen 14:30, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Editors do not need to seek consensus on edits. Everything is allowed except that which is not. If there is consensus amongst metric readers that square kilometers are unacceptable, then the circumstances should be documented in the manual of style. Otherwise, the normal Wikipedia process can take care of it. Any metric reader that finds square kilometers more difficult to understand can make their own subsequent changes or reversions to articles. Please assume good intent, I am trying to improve articles. I welcome your feedback. I have learned from it and modified my actions in response to it in the past. I would like us to be closer on this, but I can't see a way. Bobblewik (talk) 20:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be good to leave hectares for many of the smaller numbers, but it is ludicrous to use them when the numbers are huge, as in a large national park or a huge forest fire. Square kilometers are much better than "thousands of hectare" or "millions of hectares". Both would be good once in a while, at least for the first conversion in an article. Gene Nygaard 13:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's simply not a question of magnitude, as I have previously pointed out elsewhere. It's about what is being measured. Just like you would say that a steel bar is 1320 mm long, but you would say that a child is 132 cm tall. In the context of land as owned and used by humans (farmland, woodland, etc.), hectares are the conventionally used unit since discussed surfaces are often small and km² is a big chunk of land. In other contexts, km² is used, sometimes for the same piece of land. Zocky 16:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I approve of your replacing this with km squared. Hectares are not ambiguously defined, at least match with SI units (even if not a true recognised unit), and are a commonly used term (at least here in Ireland now that acres are mostly abolished).

I would prefer we leave mentions of hectares alone. Link the term if you must (for the non-metricated US/UK people).

zoney ♣ talk 09:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are correct to say that there is no ambiguity in the definition although the SI official body says that their use is not encouraged http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/4-1.html

I am trying to increase understandability, 4 square kilometres is easier to understand than 400 hectares. I was trying to make it easier to understand. It isn't a big deal though, if you want to make a further edit, I don't mind. Thanks. Bobblewik (talk) 18:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it really is no big deal to you I would have thought that after numerous complaints over several months on numerous pages, you would just stop changing it. You don't like hectares. Apparently many other writers do. Please respect that. Rmhermen 18:08, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Signal Hill, California

I don't mind you adding the metric measurements to the Signal Hill article (I had already included the metric conversions when my information sources already had them, and I had considered returning to the article to add metric info for the rest of the measurements in the information that I had added to the artice), but I noticed a number of inconsistencies and inaccuracies that suggest that you need to be more careful with your editing.

Both 300,000 acres and 167,000 acres were converted to (1,200 km²)
You converted "meters" to "m" once where I had already included the metric equivalence, but missed the other instance where I also had both feet and meter measurements.
You missed one instance to add kilometers to a measurement in miles.
You converted 11 acres into 45,000 m², but your other acre to metric conversions used km², which to me appears to be inconsistent.

PS: You should think about archiving some of your Talk page. I didn't have any problems, but I know that there are browsers that have major problems with date in forms that is greater than 32KB, and you are now over 100 KB. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 11:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first point was a copy and paste error. The second point was an oversight, my convention is to use the symbol form inside parentheses (10 kg) not the word form (10 kilograms). The third point was also an oversight. I have made further amendments to deal with these points. If you see instances like this in future, feel free to make corrections as you wish.

The fourth point is a feature of the two measurement systems being different. They are not one-for-one translations of each other.

In response to your PS, I have now created an archive page. I will move stuff over there or delete it in order to keep the size of this page down. Thanks for all your comments. Bobblewik (talk) 22:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to say thank you so much for the revisions to PLSS. I couldn't make a table that pretty with a gun to my head. Keep up the great work! jengod 19:18, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you due props for converting non-metric to metric. It's especially helpful in articles like Public Land Survey System. Keep up the good work! :) jengod 22:45, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

units of inverse area

On Charter township, you converted 150 persons per square mile as 388 persons per square kilometer. This doesn't seem correct to me. If a square kilometer is a smaller area than a square mile, shouldn't the figure be lower not higher? I think you should have divided 150 by 2.59 rather than multiplied. older≠wiser 18:46, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Oops. You are right, I should have divided it. I have now corrected the value. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Bobblewik (talk) 17:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

units of volume

A few notes on Ford cars (and old American cars in general) - you shouldn't add in&sup3 after every mention of '428', '427' etc. Yes, those are nominal engine displacements, but they're also the NAMES of those engines. When being used as names they shouldn't have units or conversions. —Morven 19:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

cm³ versus cc

I really dislike your changing the capacity units on the motorcycle pages from cc to cm3 - those pages are written in English where the common and accepted way of expressing the size of a motorcycle engine is cc. You can look in any motorcycle magazine written in English to see that that is true. Bob Palin 05:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We have discussed this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions and decided on cc. If you would like to discuss this, please do it there. In the mean time, please do not change cc to cm³ in any automobile article. --SFoskett 20:31, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I did not see that article till you pointed it out. I am not particularly in favour of that guideline but I will try to respect it. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 19:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

units of speed

In tables like that for USS Norman Scott (DD-690), I don't really think it's necessary to put the metric equivalent for the assumed speed in the range--it's just a figure of merit, and anyone can see that the assumed speed is almost half the max speed, which is the line above, and which is converted. It's certainly wrong to do it to two significant figures, i.e. 15 knots ~~> 30 km/h.

Also, converting weapons calibers is tricky, since the English-unit values aren't necessarily precise to the millimetre. —wwoods 09:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

units of mass

units of mass in weapon ratings

Hi - just one detail. I think it's no use to write: "32 pounder (15 kg) cannons". As for "continental" Europe, pounds are understood for old cannons, but I've never encountered kg in this manner. An equivalent might be calibre in mm, if it is known. Pibwl 15:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did think about whether it is possible to provide an equivalent in mm, but I am not able to do the conversion myself. I have not come across the phrase '15 kilogrammer' and I know that pounds (of various weight values) were in widespread use around the world. But units used in the past are not understood today. A cannon is described as x pounder on the basis that the projectile weighs x pounds, therefore a conversion from x pounds to y kg is reasonable. I can't see any downside to providing the information for the benefit of metric readers. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 13:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One problem is that, especially in the 20th century, "pounds" as a measure of gun caliber bears only a rough approximation to the actual projectile weight. --Carnildo 22:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That probably because it actually is a measurement of bore. Is it the inverse of gauge in shotguns, so if a 12 gauge shotgun is the diameter of a lead (ρ = 11.34 g/cm³) ball of 12 lb^-1, a "6-pounder" would have a diameter ³√72 = 4.1 times the diameter of a 12 gauge shotgun (which is about 0.73 in, or 18.5 mm)? And a 15-pounder a bore ³√180 = 5.65 times that of a 12 gauge shotgun, or the same as a 105 mm howitzer? Gene Nygaard 00:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I guessed wrong, on the details at least, with most 15-pounders I can find being 3 inches in bore. Gene Nygaard 09:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

units of time

units of inverse time

Regarding your edit to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, 'fps' is the accepted abbreviation for 'frames per second' (particularly in CG), not 'frames/s'. (If you really wanted to go SI, Hz would have been right — and it's the norm when referring to television). A quick scan of your contribs list doesn't turn up anything else where you might have changed this... but that's a mightily impressive list you've got. Keep up the good work! -- Perey 19:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have done some previous changes from fps to frame/s, but not recently. Only a few anyway. If you want to track them down, search for 'frame/s'. The SI form Hz would certainly work for me, but I was being conservative with my change. I know that 'fps' is accepted by some, but I do not regard that as reason to believe that 'frame/s' is unacceptable. I tried to do a web search to see if the term 'frame/s' is in use, but I failed. I won't promise to close my options but, in consideration of your response, I will certainly be less inclined to modify 'fps' to 'frame/s'. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 20:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

units involving light

lumens

Could you eyeball Lux and Talk:Lux?

An anon has edited Lux, changing phrases like "1000 lumens" to "1000 lumen" on the grounds that "Symbols are written in singular, e.g. 25 kg (not "25 kgs"). Similarly it is lumen not lumens." I'm pretty sure he's wrong about that—that is, it applies tot he symbols, but not to the fully-spelled-out unit names—and have cited an NIST style guide on the talk page.

What I'm much less certain of is his use of "klx," "μlx", &c. These are presumably valid combinations of an SI prefix and symbol. What bothers me is that I've never, never, never seen them in use. I've always just seen the base unit, with the value in scientific notation. E.g. instead of saying "direct sunlight is about 100,000 lux," in a scientific or technical context you'd see "direct sunlight is about 10⁵ lux," but never "direct sunlight is 100 klx." But I'm no SI guru. What if anything can be said about the use of such constructions? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have responded on Talk:Lux. Bobblewik (talk) 15:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

electromagnetic radiation

Hi there - I see that you have added SI units of energy to X-ray astronomy. I am not aware that any astronomers use attojoules rather than electron volts as a unit of energy, and I'm not convinced that the layperson would find the aJ a particularly useful unit either. Putting the equivalent wavelength (nanometres or picometres) instead may be more useful. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had heard of the electronvolt but thought it was potential difference rather than energy. Typing '10 electron volts' into google and pressing 'Search' converted it into joules. Thus it revealed that the author was referring to energy. The joule is a very familiar unit of energy to me. I have to admit that I only knew to use the prefix atto because I looked it up, so you are right about the familiarity (of the prefix at least).

If you think that wavelength is suitable for describing X rays, then presumably you also think that frequency is suitable. I am under the impression that frequency is a fashionable unit for electromagnetic radiation in some places. Tips on how to convert keV to frequency would be welcome because I have no idea how to do it. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 14:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer on my talk page (I was watching here too). My comment was really to point out that an astronomer would use eV (or, rarely, nm/pm) not aJ (or frequency). To convert, you need to use

E=h\nu

and

c=\lambda \nu

, so

E=hc/\lambda

.

Thus, a photon with energy of 1 eV would have a wavelength of around

1.2\times 10^{-6}

m (1 µm) and a frequency of

2.4\times 10^{14}

Hz. (I hope my maths and calculator are working today!)

Wavelength is used instead of frequency because it involves fewer powers of 10: a photon of 1 keV would be around

10^{17}

Hz but

10^{-9}

m (1 nm) ).

Hope this helps! -- ALoan (Talk) 15:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does help. Thank you. I took a look at the electromagnetic spectrum and that was useful too. I can see now that Hz and J both need prefixes outside the familiar range. As you say, wavelength uses fewer powers of 10 and the prefixes are more familiar. I will have a pause to think about this.

In the meantime, I was going to have a look at the other instances of energy quoted in electronvolts on Wikipedia. You will see that I added 'fJ' (unfamiliar prefix, but the familiar energy unit) to Galileo probe. The application did not appear to be electromagnetic. Perhaps I should either forget it, or write 3.2 x 10^-15 J instead of 3.2 fJ. Your thoughts are welcome. Bobblewik (talk) 15:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that

3.2\times 10^{-15}

J is likely to be understood by more people than 3.2 fJ, notwithstanding that the femtojoule would be the SI standard.

(I much prefer to express in <math> than <sup> because TeX-style mark-up is much easier to deal with; I also use   between numbers and units to prevent unfortunate linebreaks, but perhaps it is just me.)

For astronomy, the units depend on the context: radio astronomers will use wavelengths as it is handy to talk about cm or m, but they also use frequencies because they are in MHz and kHz. Once you get above GHz, frequencies start to look a bit odd, but wavelengths are still OK down past nm. Particle physicists also use eV (or, rather, eV/c²) as then they can use

E=mc^{2}

and use natural units where mass and energy are measured in the same equivalent.

(Incidentally, clicking on the section edit button above takes me to the previous section - I don't know why. Very odd. I've also added some extra links to my comments above for the sake of completeness.) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The preference for 'no break space' is not just you. Somebody else mentioned it to me (they also added to the manual of style - so your preference is somewhat official here). I don't use it, but only because of the additional effort required. I agree that it is a 'good thing'.

I have no idea why the section edit is not behaving as you expect. I don't have section edit buttons so I can't test it.

Just noticed that I *do* have edit buttons. They also take me to the previous section. Strange...

I did not know that there was a <math> option. I will investigate it. Thanks. I only recently found out about the <sup> option. I am doing quite a bit of accidental learning here! I appreciate the explanation of context. To paraphrase the words of the intelligent bomb in the excellent film Dark Star, "I need to think about this some more". Bobblewik (talk) 16:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Back to the left margin. I may have fixed the edit buttons - the header bird articles was missing some "=="s.

I wasn't aware that the Manual of Style preferred non-breaking space: good! You can always copy and paste an " " to save typing. :)

I find out about these things all the time. It took me ages to find out about the definition format ("; xxx : yyy") and piped linkes ("[[like this (blah)|]]") that expand out automatically. ALoan (Talk) 17:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

units of power

Hi Bobblewik. Your edit of Rotary Engine leaves us with "Originally a 5-cylinder 50 hp (37 kW) engine, the production versions were scaled up to a 50 hp (40 kW) 7-cylinder design". What should the second hp figure be? cheers. Moriori 22:42, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

order of magnitude

Why did you take out the link to the order of magnitude page when you added metric measurements to Indiana Dune National Lakeshore. I restored it. Rmhermen 00:32, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

It was not a deliberate removal. Sorry. Now that you mention it, it seems to me that order of magnitude should be on a principle size reference (in this case, acres) rather than a supplementary size reference (in this case, km²). What do you think? Bobblewik (talk) 11:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know all the orders of magnitude pages are purely in metric so it would seem odd for a link to jump from a Imperial measure, acres, to a page entirely in square meters. Rmhermen 18:33, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks. Bobblewik (talk) 18:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the weight issue on Ronny Rosenthal page - I missed the dot location while typing the whole article. You should have assumed that it's a matter of dot-location, but thanks anyway! User:VICTOR 14:51 19-Nov-2004 UTC.

You are welcome. It did occur to me that it was merely a decimal point error. However, I think 60 kg is very light for a 1.80 m sportsman and so I was not sure. Bobblewik (talk) 19:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rounding and links to orders of magnitude

Please leave the link to the order of magnitude in areas and preferably avoid rounding (e.g. Wildhaus, Habsburg). -- User:Docu

Hello,
Thanks for your feedback. It took me a while to find your page from just your name. If you sign your comments with 4 tildes (~), then Wikipedia puts a link that I can use directly.

At your request, in the Swiss references to area, I am now leaving the orders of magnitude untouched. You may have already noticed this.

As far as rounding is concerned:
I round to the nearest km² partly because I think it is usually enough for the reader but also for the appeal of integer values. I get the impression that you think more precision is appropriate. I can understand that, particularly where the area is small. In another application, I used a default precision of 1 km² but increased precision to 0.1 km² for all values less than 5 km². My main concern is that area is described in m² or km² rather than hectares. The precision is of secondary importance to me.

So if you are happy with area being described in m² or km², then I will be happy to take your guidance on precision (e.g. including leaving precision at 0.01 km²). Leave a reply on my talk page.
Bobblewik 19:48, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject aircraft

Would appreciate your input on the dispute here --Rlandmann 22:56, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Hello, I would appreciate your help by earning your vote as an admin. I have been here about 5 months now and have been nominated. I have made many contributions and have improved on my editing and behavior. I take this seriously, that is why I have gotten into it with Anthony so much. You can look at my user page yourself and see my contribtions. I would appreciate a vote in the yes column if you agree. Again, thanks for your time and help. ChrisDJackson 02:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Leave details of ALL that you did in comments

You so often just go in and add metric versions and tidy up measurements that I've mostly stopped actually checking the changes ... but in Hemi you removed the capitalisation from the word Hemi in all places, which you didn't say you did in the comment. Hemi is capitalised in common usage when it refers to the Chrysler engines; it's a proper noun. I'm going to change them back (but not the measurements changes). —Morven 00:32, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

I apologise for sounding a bit over-emphatic about this. Still, being as descriptive as possible helps eliminate a factor of surprise. Any change can be reverted, however, so nothing is too serious. I just easily get into a state of taking things too seriously, I think. Please don't take that as being a major telling-off when it really should have been just a small hint for better co-existence. —Morven 17:42, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

United Kingdom & Great Britain

Moved to User talk:Bobblewik/Archive1

Cup holders

Thank you for the rather entertaining Telegraph link. —Morven 20:42, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I noticed your interesting new article and did a google search to see what Rolls Royce might say about cup holders. I remembered US customer demand for cup holders being discussed by one of Rolls Royce senior sales staff on a Chicago radio show. That article was one of the early results and it was so amusing that I couldn't resist adding it.
Bobblewik 21:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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)

Article move

I saw on the pump that you've been moving pages with cut-n-paste. I'm going through your history to correct those (got to do something to justify having admin status). So you'll probably see me popping up a lot on your watchlist. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes I have. The purpose was to bring article titles in line with the Manual of style guidance on having spaces before unit symbols e.g. '9 mm' rather than '9mm'. When you say 'correct' what I did, do you mean revert what I did? Bobblewik (talk) 20:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I mean merge the page histories so they're all in one place. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah. I knew about the redirect isssue, but was unaware of the history issue. Thanks for that. I appreciate your help. Bobblewik (talk) 20:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think I've fixed them all. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. You are a great help. Thank you. Bobblewik (talk) 21:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

16mm film and 35mm film done. You could have moved 16mm film yourself, MediaWiki allows for page moves over redirects given that 1) the redirect points at the page being moved; 2) the redirect has only one entry in its history. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought that I had tried and failed to move 16mm. However, I can't remember anymore. Anyway thanks for the good tip, I will do that next time. And thanks for moving them. Bobblewik (talk) 18:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dates

I am reverting a bunch of your recent changes. Stop unlinking dates. Dates have to be wikified in the form MM DD, YY for the user preference to work. If you remove the link from the year it does not function. Rmhermen 19:37, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Yikes. I was not aware that there is association between links. That certainly makes Wikipedia code much less WYSIWYG. All I saw was multiple individual year links. I am a bit distressed that I put in all that effort on articles listed in the topbanana report of multiple identical links. Sigh. Bobblewik (talk) 19:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Any chance you could help me restore them. My connection is very slow today and you did I number of non-date lists. Rmhermen 19:54, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

I see. That's a lot of just asteroid pages. Any chance you could go through and relink just the dates. I am going to stop reverting (I did maybe the first ten.) I am not sure how you edited the link out. Is there a fast way to return the year linkage? Rmhermen 20:00, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

I will help correct things. It may be simplest just to do reverts. However, can we put a hold on it for just now? I am about to go off line, hopefully for most of the weekend, and I also would like to mention this over at the village pump. If Wikipedia is starting to make software connections between links that are not visible to editors, that is something I want to understand a bit more. I also want a bit of time to mourn my futile contributions. :-(

I made the edits with search and replace in MS Word. Putting them back is only a little more difficult. I think I did about 200 articles, each article had several different words that were repeated. So it is a *lot* of work. To be honest, I don't regard linked dates as particularly valuable to readers. But I understand that you are not debating the merits of it, merely that my edits stopped it working.

It might make it a bit easier for me to swallow if you would make a comment in support of my call for a bot at Wikipedia:Bot requests to fix multiple links to the same article. I am sure it could be designed to handle dates correctly. Then we could just revert all the articles and leave it to the bot to sort out. Thanks.

Bobblewik (talk) 20:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the extra links to the discoverors and Democrat/Republican, etc. I don't know anything about building bots so I don't know how easy this would be. The years need to be link so that when someone chooses a user preference for one of the two YY-MM--DD formats the links get displayed correctly. This feature has been around for a while (proposed June, 2003 - I couldn't find when it went live.) I, too, am going off-line now. Rmhermen 20:45, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I did one revert to demonstrate good intent before going off line. I think I will have to accept that reverting them all is what must happen. Yes, I have seen people discussing date preferences but didn't pay enough attention to realise that it had this effect. I am sure the feature won't go away, it is me that must be rewired. Bobblewik (talk) 21:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had a fast connection today. I think I reverted all of them. Sorry to see so much work lost though. I think a one link per screen for things other than dates would be good in general. Rmhermen 13:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I am also sorry to see that work lost too. I support a policy that limits excessive linking. People should consider the number of links per article/screen and the value of links to the reader. Linking every instance of a possible link seems too mechanistic. The 'featured articles' that I have seen tend to be more sensible about links. Your suggestion seems fine to me. Bobblewik (talk) 14:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Hi Bobblewik, thanks for the latest units updating, Columbia Basin Project and Grand Coulee.

Check out this free units converter. It might be more convenient than google. I've used it for years.

Duk 02:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank your for the positive feedback. It is nice to hear. I took a look at the converter. It looks interesting. So far I have found the google converter to be very good and flexible but it is always useful to know about alternatives. Thanks. Bobblewik (talk) 19:39, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Multiple links to the same target

In many of the articles where you are removing multiple links, you are making the articles much worse. Please revert the bad changes. Wikipedia:Offline reports/This page links many times to the same article is not a list of errors to fix; many instances of multiple links to the same article are deliberate and useful.

Please pay attention to the request on Wikipedia:Offline reports/This page links many times to the same article#Do not blindly remove multiple links that says "Before you remove links, please think about whether your change will make the article easier or more difficult to use". I added that request after the previous time you made many articles more difficult to use.

For example, in List of Members of the European Parliament 2004-2009, after your edit dated 20:42 11 Nov 2004, it is now much more difficult than before to find information about the parties. Previously, in the entry for Guy Bono on that page, one could just click the obvious link to "PES". Now, one might think that "PES" is not linked at all (although "ALDE" on the line immediately above is linked). Or, if one knows how the article has been damaged, then one can scroll around searching for a link to "PES", but how many users will know to do that, and of them, how many will like it? The same applies to almost all the articles that contain tables in which the cells are links. —AlanBarrett 21:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Please assume good intent. I think the articles are better without repeated links, otherwise I would not have edited them. If you think that repeating links once per screen is reasonable, then I can understand that. It would mean that the 814 links to LINEAR in the asteroid article would be 25. The Manual of Style has a generous guideline of 10% links per article. My edits brought the percentage down in the article you mention from 59% to 51%. It is still overlinked. If you are unhappy with what I did, just go ahead and revert them. Bobblewik (talk) 23:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In ordinary paragraphs of text, 10% links seems like a reasonable limit. In tables, such as those in the asteroid articles and the politicians article I mentioned before, I think it's useful for every cell to be linked. I think the difference is in how the article is used: paragraphs are usually read from beginning to end, so linking a term more than once in a paragraph is pointless (the reader will already have seen the first link by the time they get to the second link); but tables are often searched to find a particular entry of interest, and the reader might easily ignore everything outside the one entry of interest, so it's useful if the entry of interest has links for all the useful terms. —AlanBarrett 19:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article licensing

I've "started" the Free the Rambot Articles Project which aims to get users to release all of their contributions to the U.S. state, county, and city articles under the CC-by-sa 1.0 and 2.0 license (at minimum) or into the public domain if they prefer. A secondary goal is to get those users to release ALL of their edits for ALL articles. I've personally chosen to multi-license all of the rambot and Ram-Man contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License so that other projects, such as WikiTravel, can use our articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or even {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case, since the number of your edits is in the top 100. If you do want to do it, simply just copy and paste one of the above two templates into your user page and it will allow us to track those users who have done it. For example:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain (which many people do or don't like to do, see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing), you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}} -- Ram-Man 21:42, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Redirects

I've for long been pretty suspicious against the habit of some wikipedians to change references in order to avoid re-directs.

My impression is that a few disadvantages arise from this habit:

There is no information on the referred page on the connection between the initial referred term and the article one has arrived at.
When (if) a redirect is made into an article (like Estonians that for long was nothing but a redirect to Estonia), the original references (intended to be to Estonians) will continue to point to the broader term (i.e. at Estonia) if someone has circumvented the redirect with a pipe, which will be hard to find except with the help of a script that checks all pages referring to the broader term.
If the reason for the redirect is an alternative spelling, the result too often will be that the article is changed only at the reference and not systematically, which lead to strange effects and suffering uniformity with regard to capitalization and/or language variety.

I'm sure there are advantages too — technical, I guess. But I would urge you to consider these aspects when you insert Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages additions.

regards! /Tuomas 13:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about using the template. I just came across it and tried it out. Feel free to revert what I did. In response to your feedback, I will be much less inclined to use it in future. Thanks for your feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 22:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Style

Table format

Hello! Ill just cut to the chase here- please stop removing the unit name from numbers in tables. It make is more difficult on the long lists to see which numbers what and requires re-entering units when c&p'ing. I don't, however, have a problem with seperating them into columns- I think thats fine. Also, please don't use that exact table coding- for example these tables do not need a fixed/locked width, and while the 5-segment system has its merits- its difficult to change that code to get proper looking gridlines. (at least with my knowledge of code). I appreciate your 'grudge' work on all these rather un-exciting units, but I would much prefer conversions, etc. then these kind of formating things. Good luck on your units work! Greyengine5 03:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello again! By 5-segment I just meant leaving out gridlines and just putting a line across every 5 rows on the Skyscraper page. That code for that particular case (and for a couple others) also had a fixed/locked with, which wrap lines before there needed to be in many cases. While the tables do look nicer, and cleaning up pages is very noble work, the pages are harder to work with and to read. Looking across is harder without gridlines and requires more double checking to make sure your in the right column. With no units attached to the numbers, they have to be re-added when cut&pasteing and cross checked to make sure the right numbers are witht the right units. Also, when your looking down a column to know what spec is there you have to look across and check more often to see what the category is, whereas when the units are there its much easier. Once again, please stop changing the tables in this way as it creates difficulty with these tables. I do fully appreciate your work on units (being time consuming, etc.)- just not quite in this form. Greyengine5 04:21, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh I didn't mean to restrict yourself to unit conversions. It was just the practice of stripping units off numbers on those tables. For most tables the 5-segments system is probably just as good as full gridlines so thats not such big deal. On some of those pages (the longer lists)I added an alternating gray/white backround, as a alternative to gridlnes. I can understand gridlines, which, while handy, can be a mixed bag in how the table looks. Also, I dont have a problem with seperating the data into seperate columns like you'v done. The code thing is minor as thats easy to remove- not being an expert on code either-I think its was ' width=40% ' or something like that. So just to re-hash, the main thing was the units/numbers issue and more rather then less gridlines (which the best number for is always bit subjective anyway). Greyengine5 17:24, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removing visible user instruction notes

Hi Bobblewick- may I ask why you are removing visible user instruction messages from pages like List of musicians in the first wave of punk music etc? As a person who spent lots of time and sore fingers alphabeticising some of these otherwise totally randomly ordered lists I think it's better that editors are reminded to insert their new contributions in the correct place rather than just stuck on the end of what is already there. Maybe there is a policy on this now that I missed (I used to be very active but only dip in now and again these days), but I'll post this message to village pump as well in case anyone else wants to discuss quercus robur 19:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spelling

Both the "metre" and "meter" spelling of the units, and "litre" and "liter", and their multiples and subdivisions, are acceptable spellings. You can change them to make usage within an article consistent; changing them just for the sake of change is likely to piss people off.

The corollary is that if you add something in which the existing spelling is consistent, follow that spelling.

This of course applies to many other spelling variants, such as "honor" or "honour", "carcass" or "carcase", etc.

Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. I usually resist the temptation. In the case of a specific article on units, I thought that the 're' spelling was accepted, but perhaps not. As you suggest, it is better to avoid holy wars on spelling. It does not worry me too much. Perhaps I should have left it unchanged. Mea culpa.

Same goes for the symbols "l" and "L"—see litre. Gene Nygaard 14:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I know about the two options of 'l'/'L' symbols.

Incidentally, I was interested in your suggestion that wing loading should be in force units. I had never thought of it like that and it makes some sense. I see that you have reverted some of your changes but it was interesting to question it. In any case, I think that it is redundant for aircraft articles to state a measure that is merely the ratio of two other measures already stated. Most readers don't care, and those that do care can calculate the ratio from the information provided. Wing loading and power to weight ratio are examples in that category. My main concern was to see SI units rather than 'kgf'. Thanks for the feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 15:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Order and parentheses

I calculated it off google. I wouldn't let anyone give you trouble on how they are ordered, as most native english speakers use english units anyway -its just a matter of catering to the majority. Aside from that, which comes first is not very significant to readabilty. Greyengine5 23:13, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

space characters

Hi Bobblewik,

I've noticed that you have spent a considerable amount of time placing spaces between numbers and units of measurements on many pages to do with sport and now I have read the section relating to this Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) I see that a space is not the correct way around this but in fact a non-breaking space should be used as in 25 lb and not 25 lb or 25lb. Just thought if you were going to continue with doing this it might be an idea to stick to the Manual of Style otherwise the use of a space is as incorrect as no space.Scraggy4 21:02, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I didn't know that the manual of style said that. It is a lot more effort but I might try it sometime.
Bobblewik 21:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I added the recommendation. It means that (a) an awkward line wrap can't separate a number from its unit; and (b) you can put units in tables without the risk that the units will wrap when the table is squashed. For example, the tables at Skyscraper looked very bad before I inserted a bunch of   just now. However, it's just a recommendation: use an ordinary space if its convenient. Gdr 00:40, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Hi, I've answered your question on my talk page. <KF> 11:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And I've done it again. <KF> 11:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi again Bobblewik - I've recently had a question in relation to WP Aircraft about spaces before imperial units. I've taken a look at the Wikipedia conventions, which suggest a space (ie, "25 ft" over "25ft"). Do you know of a standard outside Wikipedia that spells this convention out? Just taking care to cross the t's and dot the i's... --Rlandmann 13:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ISO 31-0 and the UK equivalent BS 5775 apparently recommend a space before the unit, but I have not seen the original text of either. I also find the recommendation in:

The scope of the references certainly includes metric units. Whether the authors would recommend the same format for non-metric units is unclear to me. It may be implicit in the IEE reference and the unseen ISO and BS references. I would be surprised if any respectable author/editor would specifically want all copy to have spaces before metric units but not before imperial units. However, to answer your specific question, I am not aware that the recommendation for a space includes imperial units.

Bobblewik 15:31, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm really happy that you're inserting metric units into so many articles! One suggestion, though: Can you use the   before your units like the style manual suggests? It really does look nicer. Thanks again! --SFoskett 20:51, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the spaces to the Jaguar engine articles, but can you please use non-breaking spaces instead? That is the standard, and it makes the articles look much better. Or just let me know (for automobile articles at least) and I'll do it for you. --SFoskett 13:50, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that they should be there. They are on my list of 'good things' that should be universal on Wikipedia. I remember our previous discussion in September. I admit to being reticent about non-breaking spaces being on my extensive list of things that I do, but I support your campaign for them. My reticence is partly because some people are hostile to metric units and I sometimes want to keep the changes minimal to reduce the chances of my whole edit being reverted. I sometimes put a remark in the comment field if I add spaces, I will try to do this more often so that you can examine my edit history. I am sure that you do as I do, and search for terms like '35mm' and '7.62mm' in need of spaces. If you don't, then perhaps you might like to try. In any case, keep up the good work. Bobblewik (talk) 19:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nonbreaking space

There is no general rule that you need to keep a measurement from breaking at the end of the line between the number and the unit of measure. There are times when it is desirable to put in that nbsp, but the considerations then are the same for English units as they are for metric units.

Some further thoughts on this:

I don't follow any hard and fast rules, it's mostly common sense.
You might want to do it, for example, when talking about a "3 A fuse"; it won't result in any ugly gap at the end of the line.
You might want to do it if the measurement is at the end of a paragraph; if the line is going to break anyway, it might as well include the number too.
You might want to do it in tables which include dual measurements in two different systems of units, to force any break between the two different systems rather than within one of them
It is important to use it to keep from having breaks within the number, as when numbers are written in the 1 234 567.89 kg format (Wikipedia Style Guide says use commas in these numbers, however).
It is important to keep from having breaks within the components of the unit of measure, e.g. 234 W m^-1 K^-1.
It is much preferred to allow a break between the number and the symbol than either of the last two cases.

Gene Nygaard 15:03, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It used to be the case that I did not use nbsp. My priority has always been to get the metric units there. It is a nice to have if the break is not between the number and the symbol. However, I got so many requests for nbsp from people that I decided to use it, even though it requires more effort. This was on the basis that some of those people would support metric values if done in that way. That extra effort is certainly something I can give up quite happily.

Your thoughts are illuminating. I had not thought about it in that detail but what you say makes sense to me. Now that you have brought it to my attention, I may modify the way that I use nbsp. Thanks. Bobblewik (talk) 16:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why, but my browser is breaking the above 234 W m^-1 K^-1 after the W when I few this. Strange! Okay, I maybe figured it out; it just did that when I was viewing the "differences" page, not when I view it normally.

But in any case, it did remind me of something else; using − will keep it from splitting between the negative sign and the number, which may not matter in the case of these superscripts but is a good thing to keep in mind with negative temperatures, for example. Looks better, too, when there is a difference. Gene Nygaard 16:58, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Double spaces in html source

You are probably wasting your time worrying about extra spaces in html; it usually doesn't make any difference anyway (if you want extra spaces, you can use   for hard spaces.

Yes I know that html does not show double spaces. With html pages, I sometimes paste the text into a word processor and run a spell checker. Eliminating double spaces is something that I do without thinking. It is a carry-over from checking non-html copy. I do it by global search and replace so it doesn't take much effort. As you suggest, it does not add much value so it is an expendable activity.

Hyphens

Hi Bobblewik. I noticed you removed several hyphens from Boeing 777. I was not able to find official Wiki Style advice on hyphenation of compound adjectives, but Compound noun, adjective and verb#Hyphenated compound adjectives covers it pretty well. For example, I think "large-scale," as an adjective, should be hyphenated. A quick Google query finds that usage dominates in Wikipedia [2]. I have also noticed that a lot of engineering print media consistently hyphenates number+unit combos when used as adjectives, e.g. "two 75,000-lb. Rolls Royce Trent 875s." Maybe there are examples to the contrary? —Fleminra 01:07, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

People have a range of views on hyphens. Many references suggest that people use hyphens more frequently than they deserve.

The Times styleguide

generally be sparing with hyphens and run together words where the sense suggests and where they look familiar and right; eg, blacklist, businessman, goldmine, knockout, intercontinental, motorcycle, takeover, and walkover. Unusual hyphenations will be listed separately in this Style Guide. However, a few guidelines can be specified:

usually run together prefixes except where the last letter of the prefix is the same as the first letter of the word to which it attaches: prearrange, postwar, prewar, nonconformist; but pre-empt, co-ordinate, co-operate, re-establish.

hyphenate generally in composites where the same two letters come together, eg, film-makers, but an exception should be made for double r in the middle: override, overrule (not over-ride etc), and note granddaughter and goddaughter.

generally do not use dangling hyphens - say full and part-time employment etc; but this does not apply to prefixes - pre- or post-match drinks.

always use a hyphen rather than a slash (/) in dates etc - 1982-83 (not 1982/83)

when they are used to qualify adjectives, the joining hyphen is rarely needed, eg, heavily pregnant, classically carved, colourfully decorated. But in some cases, such as well-founded, ill-educated, the compound looks better with the hyphen. The best guidance is to use the hyphen in these phrases as little as possible or when the phrase would otherwise be ambiguous

The American Psychological Association

Do not use a hyphen unless it serves a purpose. If a compound adjective cannot be misread or, as with many psychological terms, its meaning is established, a hyphen is not necessary. For example

covert learning techniques
health care reform
day treatment program
sex role differences
grade point average

In a temporary compound that is used as an adjective before a noun, use a hyphen if the term can be misread or if the term expresses a single thought (i.e., all words together modify the noun).

For example: “the adolescents resided in two parent homes” means that two homes served as residences, whereas if the adolescents resided in “two-parent homes,” they each would live in a household headed by two parents.

A properly placed hyphen helps the reader understand the intended meaning.

Most compound adjective rules are applicable only when the compound adjective precedes the term it modifies. If a compound adjective follows the term, do not use a hyphen, because relationships are sufficiently clear without one.

Guardian style guide

Hyphens tend to clutter up text (particularly when the computer breaks already hyphenated words at the end of lines).... Do use hyphens where not using one would be ambiguous, eg to distinguish "black-cab drivers come under attack" from "black cab-drivers come under attack". Do not use after adverbs ending in -ly, eg politically naive, wholly owned, but hyphens are needed with short and common adverbs, eg ill-prepared report, hard-bitten hack, much-needed grammar lesson, well-established principle of style (note though that in the construction "the principle of style is well established" there is no need to hyphenate). Finally, do use hyphens to form compound adjectives, eg two-tonne vessel, three-year deal, 19th-century artist

Current Science journal

‘The hyphen has a number of uses, most of them confusing’... ‘If you take the hyphen seriously, you will surely go mad’. Even Fowler’s Modern English Usage (ELBS and Oxford University Press) is harsh on the hyphen, quoting Winston Churchill’s famous dictum: ‘One must regard the hyphen as a blemish to be avoided as far as possible’. In protesting against the hyphen, Churchill argued ‘that you may run them together or leave them apart, except when nature revolts’

I also found this nice phrase

Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chip sign' have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?

Many references that say that numbers and unit symbols should be separated by a space not a hyphen. This applies even when used as an adjective as in the example 75,000-lb. Rolls Royce Trent 875s.". I am fairly consistent in applying this particular guideline. However, I am not too worried tabout the other guidelines for compound adjectives, so feel free to revert them as you think best.

Thanks for your feedback.

Bobblewik 10:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

plurals of unit symbols

Aloha. A few times I've run across your conversions of units of measure, and have been finding it helpful. The one thing that sticks out, though, is when you use the abbreviation for pound (lb). When using it in the plural (e.g. 155 pounds) it's supposed to have the "s" at the end (155 lbs). Typically you've been leaving this off, but on the page Aurora Snow you removed an "s" that was already there. I've added it in the few cases I've seen. Please keep this in mind, and continue the good work! Sahasrahla 20:17, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

This topic occasionally crops up. I am not aware of any references that say units of measurement should be suffixed with an 's' in the plural. There are a few that say they should not, including the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): yd for yard (not yds), mi for mile, lb for pound (not lbs). If we do it for lb, we would need to do it for kg to be consistent. It is common to see 'lbs' but it is by no means the default. However, I do appreciate you discussing it with me. Bobblewik (talk) 20:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowlege, the rule is inconsistent. In metric, the unit abbreviations are the same for singular and plural, and the same is true for most common Imperial units, with the exception of the pound -- possibly because the abbreviation for the pound was borrowed from the French, while the full name is English. --Carnildo 21:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Bobblewick. There are some style guides which tolerate either. The ones which only accept one almost universally insist on lb (including the Wikipedia Manual of Style and the U.S. GPO Style Manual 2000). I can't think of any which insist on adding an s in the plural. English borrowed the symbol from Latin, not from the French livre (which might have used the Latin symbol as well--and in Latin there is no s in the plural. Another problem with "lbs" is that the people who use is are indiscriminate, using it for the pound-force as well as the mass unit, and thus not properly distinguishing lbf (you don't see lbfs, and maybe rarely lbsf which is more likely to be somebody's usage for pounds per square foot). Gene Nygaard 21:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suppose all I can reply with is in 12 years of math classes, if I didn't add the s, it was completely wrong. heh heh Perhaps this is purely a New England thing. We tend to do things differently. Sahasrahla 00:58, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Not just New England. I was schooled the same way in the Midwest. lbs. not lb Rmhermen 02:49, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

unit symbols with each value

Just in case you are starting on another tear, I want to make sure you are aware of the recommendations of NIST in http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/sec07.html#7.7

... Thus, to avoid possible confusion, this Guide takes the position that values of quantities must be written so that it is completely clear to which unit symbols the numerical values of the quantities belong....
Examples: 51 mm × 51 mm × 25 mm but not: 51 × 51 × 25 mm
- 225 nm to 2400 nm or (225 to 2400) nm but not: 225 to 2400 nm

Gene Nygaard 16:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. I was not aware of that recommendation. I don't entirely agree, but I will take note. I am glad to see that it also recommends the use of 'to' for ranges. Bobblewik (talk) 18:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

War on Terrorism Medals

Please do not change the names of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals. These medals has been ofifically named by the Institute of Heraldry with Terrorism capitilized. I have had to revert your changes on a few occasions. Also, changing the name titles breaks the links. -Husnock 6Feb05

Hmmm. I have no issue with the medal names, so that is a mystery that I should have changed them. I can't see those pages on my contributions list so that is a further mystery. Can you tell me where I can see that it was me that changed them? Bobblewik (talk) 20:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The were changed in the War on terrorism article. No big deal. I just wanted to let you know IOH has them listed with capital letters. Thanks! -Husnock

Ah yes. I see that I did change them. I changed instances of 'War on Terrorism' to 'War on terrorism'. The medal references were unintentionally included. Sorry. I was not aware of the Institute of Heraldry till now, that is a useful source. Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. Bobblewik (talk) 19:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ellipsometry change

Hi, I'm sorry by I dont agree with your statement about ellipsometry. The fact that the technique and modern equipment is capable of determining differences of the order of amstrongs is NOT the same as nanometers (ten times less accurate).

Please if you have doubts about the technique or the physics involved ask away. Askewmind 16:17, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I know that a nanometre is 10 times different. I did not simply convert the value, I did a web search and some sites quote nanometre precision. There is also a reference to nanometre thickness on the same page. Perhaps I should have put the precision change in the comment field, I can see why you thought it was merely an incorrect conversion. Thanks for noticing and mentioning it. Bobblewik (talk) 17:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moving BMW 3-Series to BMW 3 Series

Was there some discussion on this move that I missed? I was surprised to see this series of page moves... What's next, Mercedes-Benz S-Class? --SFoskett 00:10, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. This seems really abrupt and affects a ton of pages—doubly so on all the double redirects this has caused. --Milkmandan 03:59, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Moving 'BMW n-Series' to 'BMW n Series' seems unremarkable to me. But it clearly is not to you. Feel free to move them back, I won't object. Bobblewik (talk) 17:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary, I feel that the new name (no hyphen) is more correct than the old convention. However, we should have discussed it somewhere, and now have lots of work to fix the remaining pages. --SFoskett 18:10, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Aha, I will think twice about how to handle similar changes in future. Thanks for letting me know. Bobblewik (talk) 18:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed the 8 Series (which seemed to have been missed) and the double redirects on all these pages. For future reference, double redirects actually break some of the Wikipedia functionality and it's expected that whoever moves the page will clean them up. --Milkmandan 18:53, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

I didn't know that double directs break functionality. I thought that they were merely inefficient. I have learnt something today. Thanks for pointing this out. I have been looking at 'What links here' to see double redirects and have done some, but now I see what a big job I have created.... Bobblewik (talk) 19:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Illegal enemy combatant

Nice edits to Illegal enemy combatant! It is such a tricky subject. -- Viajero 20:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Indeed it is tricky. Bobblewik (talk) 20:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Long overdue Barnstar

For tireless, and usually thankless, efforts to bring consistent units to the entire encyclopedia. And for always engaging in productive, positive and informed discourse. Duk

I would have cited your 15,000^th edit but the database wouldn't let me find it. You kick ass! Duk 21:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I think this is it; Your 15,000^th edit! --Duk 22:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much! The sentiment behind the token means a lot to me and is much appreciated. I have seen barnstars around and wondered about them. I have now read a couple of articles about them. Bobblewik (talk) 19:10, 2 Mar 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)

Heading Capitalization

I notice that you've been altering things like General Specifications in the USS Eisenhower article to General specifications instead. Please stop doing that. They are headings, ie titles. That means that they should follow the rules for capitalization of titles. Within a title, unless it is massively long, only minor words do not start with a capital letter. I certainly would not describe specifications as a minor word. It should therefore start with a capital letter in a title. David Newton 01:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Having reviewed the Manual of Style, I see that you are following it. Given that I think I need to find out the 'logic' behind the Manual of Style's prescriptions. They are incorrect in normal English language useage. David Newton 01:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)