Template talk:Cvt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tagged for Speedy deletion: objection

Keep but recode. Using the |abbr=on setting of {{convert}} is very common, maybe even more common that the default non-abbr form. Because, in articles after an initial name-mentioning ("inches"), further mentionings may be abbreviated (into the symbol) by MOS.

I guess recoding it in Lua is possible, to pass through all parameters to module:convert with |abbr=on set. -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This template is unused though. Having it hang around is hardly beneficial. How does it help the user to have another template doing the same thing? Doesn't just add to the confusion? However, that abbreviations are more commonly used than the spelt-out form is worth considering. Perhaps abbr=on should be the default (it would finally reconcile the discrepancy between temperature and other quantities in {{convert}}). It'd take a bot and a bit of getting used to but {{convert}} is probably here for the long haul, it'll probably out live you or me, so seven years of doing things one way has to be taken in context. The sooner we get things right at {{convert}} the easier it will be to do so. Jimp 09:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange that it is not used, because I remember having it entered a few times. Someone or some bot must have changed it up after my edits then. This I don't mind, but it should not lead to the conclusion that "there is need" or "is not used by editors" for this one.

As for code-duplication (this one does mostly, indeed), the argument of massive usage (way more than the core template), and ease of use in these masses, I find an argument to Break that rule. Better consider it as a Redirect (cheap, not bothering, &tc). -DePiep (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

One year later and it's used on only four articles. It isn't worth keeping. WP:T3 still applies. Jimp 11:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cvt used in hundreds of pages

The Template:Cvt had been used in hundreds of pages since 2010, and was systematically removed hundreds and hundreds of times, without conse::Peter, that is exactly the intention. nsus and without prior discussion. Of course, {cvt} will likely be used millions of times, far more than {convert}, once people no longer systematically hunt down all usages and repeatedly attempt to exterminate {cvt} where it has made many conversions 2x shorter and simpler. Over 7 months later, by June 2016 (in 6 years of use), the {cvt} template had been (re-)added into over 300 pages to shorten conversions, as used more than 1,000 times. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

As of 22:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC), {{cvt}} is OK. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know about this template; now that I do, I use it regularly. In my view, it should be used only as the exact equivalent of {{convert |abbr=on |...}}. Hence |abbr= should not be used with this template. Whether an editor types {{convert |abbr=on |...}} or {{cvt |...}} is then of no consequence, nor is changing one to the other. It's purely a useful convenience for editors. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Peter, that is exactly the intention of this template. At the moment, the documentation is a bit changing, but it should reflect what you write: all other options are the same as in {{Convert}}. -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Re the documentation: I think it is too confusing for the documentation to be duplicated at cvt and convert. We can see that the duplication is a simple transclusion from convert to cvt, but a hapless editor may not know that—they would see the giant wall of instructions at Template:Cvt/doc and wonder if they had to study it all before using cvt. I think the docs here should just say that cvt is the same as convert, except that cvt always sets abbr=on. Then link to the convert docs so people know there is only one doc page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's an objection to the {{Convert}} documentation. Removing it from {cvt} does not solve that point. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Change doc TemplateData to omit abbr=in

I propose changing the doc-text (in Template:Cvt/doc to explain which options do not work, such as "abbr=in" for VisualEditor users to realize which options no longer function as during the prior 6 years. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think, as per the comments above, that this is the wrong approach, for which there is no consensus. Just say that |abbr= cannot be used with {{cvt}} because it is always set to on. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I object to cluttering up documentation just to make a point. The documentation needs only say that {{cvt|...}} is shorthand for {{convert|abbr=on|...}} and therefore |abbr= is not used with {{cvt}}. The absence of abbr from the parameters offered by the VE speaks for itself. --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What is the documentational function of writing "prior 6 years"? Or on a talkpage as an argument for that matter? -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: Wikid77 exceeded 3RR on this page yesterday and I have issued a clear warning that a block will follow if this disruption continues. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

This pertains to the /doc subpage (which shares this talkpage). -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Notification

There is a discussion which concerns this template. Beagel (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Oder of conversions when displaying multiple units

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_choice_and_order seems to say that most articles have the SI units first, followed by customary units. {{cvt|3|Mach|lk=on}} displays the opposite order by default though (Mach 3 (3,700 km/h; 2,300 mph)) and would need a manual indication of the order ({{cvt|3|Mach|km/h mph|lk=on}}). In my opinion that should be changed. --Rabenkind (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Please post this at Template talk:Convert. Sorry that it isn't clearer that the cvt template is reliant on convert, and discussion occurs there. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

abbr=off

For the template layout '{{cvt|29.0|kpc|kly|disp=out|abbr=off|lk=on}}', the 'abbr=off' option doesn't work for me: 95 kly . It should look like this: 95 kilolight-years . Praemonitus (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That's right. The documentation includes "{cvt} has option |abbr=on preset". Use {{convert}} for other abbr options. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Light-seconds

We already have many light-time units of distance, such as the light-year. But we don't have light-seconds.

Light-seconds are a useful unit when talking about the near solar system, such the mean Earth–Moon distance. In particular, it directly relates to communications delay in space missions (1.282 light-seconds one-way-light-time.)

Concerning Mars, light-minutes would be more appropriate, but then you'd have to decide upon a display format of minutes:seconds or decimal minutes.

Maybe too much bother. — MaxEnt 23:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Please post this at Template talk:Convert. I should fix this talk page to clarify the situation but {{cvt}} is not distinct from {{convert}} and all general discussion occurs at the other page. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Mach conversions are off

See Boom Overture. This template is translating Mach 2.2 as 2,300 km/h or 1,300 kn, the actual values (precision 2 s.f.) ought to be 2,700 km/h or 1,500 kn. Could someone please fix this?--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 15:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I just read the section above, so I'll move this!--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 15:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Problem on Apollo Lunar Module

Apollo Lunar Module uses {{cvt|290|isp}}, which displays as "290 s (2.8 km/s)". I couldn't find anything on "isp", but the value is for the LEM's Specific impulse, so I guess that stands for "impulse, specific". It should be measured in m/s, so why is Cvt using a time here? --84.189.84.17 (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

See Template talk:Convert#Unit isp. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)