Template talk:Height/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Straw poll on units of measure output by this template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Okay! Since all of the discussion above seems to have gotten somewhat stale, circular, and is way TL;DR, I'd say it's just about time for a straw poll.

I have to admit, I'm a little confused by all these options. I would have expected something simpler, along the lines of a) metres only (status quo), b) both, or c) cm only (a variant of the status quo that possibly requires fewer resources than option b). The existing options only appear to allow for a) metres only or variants of b) both. Given the evidence we've seen thus far for the existence (among the metrically-oriented) of a general convention for using cm to express human height metrically, shouldn't an option resembling c) be available? I do just want to reiterate that I am out of my depth when it comes to commenting on resource requirements for template changes. I also want to repeat that I am a bit confused by the 5 options presented so far, so if they are in fact reflecting the 3 basic outcomes I mentioned above but I've failed to see that, I apologise. Also (and again, maybe this is just me) the further questions of input vs output, and of retiring this template in favour of {{convert}} (a variant of b) both) add to this confusion. It's been a long day (month end, ugh). Hopefully it's not just me failing to keep up.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be partly me trying to keep up. I'm the one who brought up the resource/development issues. I've been picking up on later hints here that they're actually no obstacle in this case. Evensteven (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Support general inclusion of m or cm as an input and/or output in any case dependent on the unit that the editor feels most comfortable with.

• Support Technical 13 (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Strong Oppose at this time per the suggested reason for inclusion. It is unclear in the discussion yet whether the editor's comfort is going to be relevant to any need. It may not be an editorial option. Evensteven (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC) The question about creating the functionality is separate from agreements about its specified use(s). This proposal mixes the two inappropriately. Evensteven (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support if limited to these four options only (more to come later).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support the ability to specify height using cm or m. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We edit based on consensus, not based on what one "editor feels most comfortable with".—Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - the use of cm, m or ft should be determined by consensus through consensus at the WikiProjects who have oversight of the articles in question. GiantSnowman 13:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Support general inclusion of m or cm as an input and/or output in any case dependent on the unit that the quoted source has used.

• Support assuming proposal 1 fails. Technical 13 (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Definite Strong Oppose per the suggested reason for inclusion. The quoted source is not logically relevant to any need. It is possible that there will eventually be editorial option, and there may be agreement to follow the source in that case. Evensteven (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC) The question about creating the functionality is separate from agreements about its specified use(s). This proposal mixes the two inappropriately. Evensteven (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support notwithstanding Evensteven's comment above and my own uncertainty regarding this poll.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support the ability to specify height using cm or m. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose' We edit based on consensus and WP:DUEWEIGHT, not what one "quoted source has used."—Bagumba (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - the use of cm, m or ft should be determined by consensus through consensus at the WikiProjects who have oversight of the articles in question. GiantSnowman 13:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Support general inclusion of cm as an input and/or output only in cases where the height is less than 1 m.

• Support assuming proposals 1 & 2 fail. Technical 13 (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose at this time per the suggested reason for inclusion. It is unclear in the discussion yet whether the height is going to have any bearing to the need for inclusion. My personal preference is for cm, especially in this case, but my personal preference is no guidance as to what should be done in this case. That guidance must come from elsewhere: from metric system standards and conventions. Evensteven (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, taking this as a proposal to change the current consensus in this case. It's simply a matter of my own preference for this rare case. Evensteven (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support the ability to specify height using cm or m. Frietjes (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose' Rules for the universe of <1m athletes strikes me as a WP:BUREAUCRACY.—Bagumba (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • If only this proposal passes, no new cm input is needed. The template implementation can just automatically convert anything <1m to display as cm.—Bagumba (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - the use of cm, m or ft should be determined by consensus through consensus at the WikiProjects who have oversight of the articles in question. GiantSnowman 13:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as being pointless, as per my other comments. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 4

Oppose inclusion of cm as an input and/or output in any circumstance.

• Support while my concerns about implementation of this new parameter remain unanswered. GiantSnowman 13:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per GiantSnowman, and I would also levy that proposal 3 is a little pointless, although not completely; this template was designed for sportspeople, and very few of those are below 1 metre. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Really Luke? Does that include jockeys for horse racing? Technical 13 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• How many jockeys are below one metre in height? It would be almost impossible to race a horse if you were that small. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's possible, Though there is no height limit for jockeys, they are usually fairly short due to the weight limits. according to Jockey#Physical characteristics. Also... Aditya "Romeo" Dev was an 84cm (2 ft. 9 in.) bodybuilder from India. Technical 13 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• There is no height limit for jockeys, but there is a practical limit. Someone under 1 metre will really struggle to get on a racing horse, which tend to be quite large as horses go. Fair enough on the body-builder, but there will be such a small quantity of people below a metre that this clause would be pointless. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• And on the flip side, if the jockey does it and stays a jockey, what's to argue with about struggle? Evensteven (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• According to List of shortest people, Aditya "Romeo" Dev is the only athlete under 1m. GiantSnowman 18:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Definite Oppose unless this template is to be scheduled for retirement. Evensteven (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Concerns noted about misuse and violations of consensus, but practically speaking, the convert template is already out there and could be used to do the same thing right now anyway. That's not a reason for inhibiting development of this template. See more in proposal 5 and discussion section below. Evensteven (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support The disruption at each article (just look at the massive TLDR here) to agree if it is suitable for cm far outweighs the benefit of saving the slight awkwardness on needing to mentally move a height in meters by two decimal point places. If the intent is that all heights should be in meters, have it added to WP:UNITS first then have output here be cm only. Any other proposal is disingenuous. If full use of cm is not the intent, mitigate the potential disruption risk by stating up front which areas (e.g. UK) may need future consensus at a wider e.g. WikiProject level, or state that only some countries will be changed i.e. Australia, NZ—Bagumba (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• It is irrational to support either 'm' or 'cm' exclusively unless it has been shown first that that is the metric system convention. Otherwise, it's just an opinion. Evensteven (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd agree if we were starting from scratch. But since there was a prior consensus, and I don't see a new consensus, WP:NOCONSENSUS advises to stick with the status quo: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."—Bagumba (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Aha, a light goes on. I had no idea there was a prior consensus. I'm afraid that when I joined this discussion I had also found it to be TLDR, so I scanned and tried to get the gist. Most arguments are pretty repetitive, after all.

But my point was basically about how a convention applies to the question here, and that is just the way it is. (And that's why I said "irrational". I also should have said "unreasoned" at the time.) Evensteven (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this template has been around since 2006. WP:CCC, but it's clear what we tend to stick with old consensus when there is no new consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Evensteven (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble keeping up here, sorry. For what was there prior consensus, Bagumba?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• This template was created around 2006, and has never had any controversy around it before you blundered in. As a result, what was there before is what the prior consensus was. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• While that is technically true, that type of consensus is not as strong as one garnered in a close examination by the whole community in discussion. In addition, WP:CCC and WP:BOLD. If there is no prior explicit communal consensus, it is permissible for an editor to act, to correct what looks like an error. If there is then an objection, community discussion begins on the talk page. That's the WP way. I think "blunder" is a characterization of the merit of Gibson's edit that is uncalled for, even if subsequent "discussions" have taken place. The merit of the edit on its own terms has yet to be decided. Evensteven (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• By the same token, "consensus" appears to exist that it's acceptable to replace {{height}} with {{convert}}, and no one's even talking about changing that. That it "has never had any controversy around it before" is also clearly untrue.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• There seems to be recent reasons to keep {{height}} that have been brought out in this thread. The thread you pointed to, on the other hand, is years old. At any rate, the proper forum for template mergers is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Being that you have used {{convert}} before, and yet still invested a good amount of effort on this RFC for additions to this template, asking for a merger now has the appearance of being WP:POINTy.—Bagumba (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, my wording was perhaps a little unclear. I didn't mean retiring this template and replacing it with {{convert}}, I meant replacing instances of this template with {{convert}}.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why it would be any different if an article already used {{height}}, and a participant here didn't get a consensus they desired, and that consensus was circumvented by changing to {{convert}}. Is there a different scenario I should be considering?—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Definite oppose. Where does one begin? Excluding cm would mean excluding what is conventional in academia. This is an encyclopedia and core policy appears to suggest we take our cues from academic sources first, from everywhere else second.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Gibson Flying V: please answer my question. The longer you don't, the worse it looks. GiantSnowman 19:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• The way things look are in the eye of the beholder. Evensteven (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• I hope we're are not going to add "That's your opinion" to each and every comment. At any rate, GiantSnowman is not alone in his concern. —Bagumba (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. [1].--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As I've already said, refusing to answer my valid question on the basis that it is "bad-faith" is complete bollocks. Please try again. GiantSnowman 19:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

See previous comment (and read more carefully).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about you either, Bagumba: [2]. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I have read carefully - and it doesn't answer my question. We have been able to find sources for pretty much every individual which shows height in two/three formats (m, cm, ft) - so your 'answer' is not actually an answer. Look at Liam Miller, where height was displayed in ft, reliable sourced in ft, and yet you deleted that reference and added one which showed height in your own preference of cm. GiantSnowman 20:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if I'm entitled to an apology (or two). Do you think after he does actually go back and read it I'll get one?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

When you answer the question, maybe. Also you need to stop speaking in the 3rd person, that'll increase your chances ;) GiantSnowman 20:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Gibson, you Definite oppose proposal 4 here, yet I do not see you supporting any of proposals 1-3. Is there a proposal 5 that I missed and should have added? If not, I'm led to believe that your only purpose in this discussion is you're looking for a BATTLEGROUND and NOTHERE with any interest in achieving CONSENSUS. Please do respond, I'm curious as to why this is. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• I beg your pardon, but bringing those links up is perfectly appropriate here, but not directed toward me. I'm not the one asking the same question repeatedly on this thread even though it was already answered before it was asked. As I'm at work (and it's a busy day), you'll have to be patient for more of my thoughts on this poll, but I think a man is entitled to defend himself against this type of rubbish and try to put a quick stop to it before it goes on any further.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Note the absence of a support vote from the author of this straw poll as well.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Oh, I may have wrongly assumed Evensteven wrote up this poll. Apologies if that's not the case.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 5

Support implementation of cm as an input for and/or output from the template. Any editor's use of this functionality in an article is permissible only as governed by the authority of the current consensus of editors. Its abuse is subject to immediate reversion of edit(s), with all discretionary recourse to discipline on the basis of disruption.
Propose that "|cm" be implemented as a template input, and that template behavior be modified to permit output in either "m" or "cm" (according to the best technical means determined by the implementer(s)), with default output in "m". In addition, propose that the "cm" output option be applied as the consensus common usage for sports articles where there are national ties to Australia, New Zealand, or Canada. All WP protocols and policies with regard to consensus and article changes, including discipline where necessary, apply as they always do. Evensteven (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC) insert break above Evensteven (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as proposal 5 author. Based in part upon a prior edit by Technical 13: "I can see many reasons for adding [cm as an input], and none why not to at this point.", from which I conclude there is no technical or resource barrier. Evensteven (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support revised proposal, as author. It represents an alternative to Proposal 6. This one includes a change to recognized (consensus) template usage, where the other does not. Evensteven (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have !voted twice to support your own proposal.—Bagumba (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Supporters of #Proposal 4 are requesting details as well on areas like UK, where most of the disputes and earlier edit warring was occurring. An acknowledgment of no consensus on UK would help. At any rate, I don't see other pro-cm supporters for this proposal for whatever reason.—Bagumba (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 6

On second thought, I am moving the proposal from above down here, as suggested. This proposal takes a different approach from the first 5, essentially proposing to separate template implementation issues from template usage issues, and should be regarded as independent from proposals 1-5. The community can decide if it wants to accept this approach, or continue as it has until now. Evensteven (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose that "cm" be implemented in this template as both an input and an output. Evensteven (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Proposal clarified per discussion comment from Tewapack: Propose that "|cm" be implemented as a template input, and that template behavior be modified to permit output in either "m" or "cm" (according to the best technical means determined by the implementer(s)), with default output in "m". Evensteven (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Support as proposer. The usefulness is attested to by the discussion above. The technical feasibility and resource requirements have been attested to. In addition, "cm" is in wide use around the world, and WP:CCC. Having the functionality ready in the template ensures that when it is needed, it is immediately available, which ensures smooth implementation of any usage agreements and any possible future expansion in use of this template in other forums. Evensteven (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support so that there are no fewer barriers to Wikipedia reflecting the relative prevalence in the real world of "cm" and "m" for displaying human height.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Modified obiter dictum in light of proposal clarification.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• As the proposer of proposals 1-4, I can say the intent of those proposals was a question of what level of inclusion should be entered into the template. For those purposes, there were proposals were 1-3 add cm to the template to be available for use and proposal 4 disallowing cm to be output by the template at all (there is absolutely no valid argument to disallow it to be an input form per WP:CALC). proposals 1-3 then broke down the discussion further for the reason to use it, 1 - because the editor wants to, nothing more or less, 2 - because that is the dominant unit on the article (kind of like dmy v. mdy) or because that is the actual format that the source that is being quoted used (because it is easier than having to put a hundred [sic] on a page when quoting sources and looks better), or 3 - because the object that needs to have its height relayed is less than 1 meter and 0.62 meters is so much less reader friendly than 62cm. As far as concerns of those misusing the template per whatever the consensus returns, that is an issue of editor behavior and doesn't belong in the discussion here. If there is a disruptive editor insistent on misuse and making cosmetic changes to articles against this consensus and existing policies, then they will be warned appropriately on their talk page and blocked. Simple. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• As to the meanings of proposals 1-4, that's how I read them too. As to editor behavior, I agree most fully. As to usefulness of the discussion, I agree it's been disappointing. Evensteven (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Disagree. Evensteven made reference (above) to Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. In that RFC, it writes in bold There is only a consensus for implementation if and only if an rfc concerning criteria for its use gains community-wide consensus first It's not so foreign a concept on Wikipedia to understand how new functionality will be used before allowing carte blanche. #Proposal_4 supporters are still waiting for details e.g. how UK subjects will be handled, before lending support to other proposals.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support the ability to specify height using cm or m, which has already been demonstrated as feasible in the sandbox, so there is no implementation issue. Frietjes (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The concerns raised at #Proposal 4 are over need and usage., not implementation.—Bagumba (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • this is not the section for proposal 4, this is for "proposing to separate template implementation issues from template usage issues". Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Understood, it can be done. Do you have any thoughts on should it be done, or ideas to address concerns raised in Proposal 4? It's OK too if you only have an opinion on implementation. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

This seems highly irregular to start a new poll when there was an ongoing poll #Straw_poll_on_units_of_measure_output_by_this_template, and to place this new poll higher in the page then the earlier one. Opposing on procedural grounds. Kindly request that this proposal be made a new Proposal 6 in the first poll.—Bagumba (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's possible I got something wrong procedurally, but I'm not so sure. I think a straw poll is designed to get a feel for the current state of opinion, and that poll did draw out a fair amount of comment. But I intend this as a proposal, not a poll. It is designed to produce a consensus, or at least to reveal that there is no consensus, and to bring discussion to a conclusion. As I see it, the poll was also mixing issues of implementation with issues of usage, which was fine, but it is not the same thing here in the proposal. Sorry about being "above" the poll in the text, but it should probably have been a section-level down from where it was created in the first place. This proposal is within the discussion's section; the poll was not. So for the time being anyway, I'll leave it as is. Evensteven (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal moved as suggested, on second thought. Evensteven (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Striking my objection.—Bagumba (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Oppose As the convention here, strangely enough, has been to voice an oppose for every proposal instead of support for just one. I will follow suit lest someone believe there is no opposition. Opposition is per sentiment by myself and others at #Proposal_4: I cannot approve functionality without reassurances it will not be used for disruptive editing. The last ANI on Gibson Flying V and cm closed since "he agreed to wait for the outcome of the RFC" instead of continuing to change m to cm and "the issue seems to be under discussion at the template talk page." However, he again made an edit to change m to cm on February 4, and his explanation afterwards was "I didn't think anyone would care since it was cm in the source". As Gibson on January 31 suggested "replacing instances of this template with {{convert}}" [3] and has now followed through even with this RfC—that he started—still outstanding, I can only assume he will use a cm change here for UK subjects, for which there is no consensus. We don't need more drama.—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

   Question an oppose vote here means that you prefer forcing editors to only express human height in metres when using the metric system across Wikipedia (since you also believe using {{convert}} is unacceptable). Is this really your position? You've previously expressed indifference between m and cm.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

   Oppose means the risk disruption to WP far outweighs the slight awkwardness some readers may have when they see meters and have to tax their brain to move it two decimal points if they only comprehend centimeters.—Bagumba (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

   Ah, so the issue of Wikipedia not reflecting actual usage in reliable sources is a trivial one. Just checking. Thanks.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

   Like Gibson's proof by assertion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

   Huh? I don't know what proposition I'm repeatedly restating that's been contradicted.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose - per Gibson's continued disruptive editing which will only ramp up if the paramater is introduced. GiantSnowman 12:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Would you please clarify the proposal. Currently this template (ignoring the precision, frac, abbr, and wiki parameters) takes an input in metres or feet and inches and outputs the same value and its conversion to the other system. So:

• {{height|m=1.91}} yields "1.91 m (6 ft 3 in)" and
• {{height|ft=6|in=3}} yields "6 ft 3 in (1.91 m)"

Now if a "|cm" option is implemented then

• {{height|cm=191}} should yield "191 cm (6 ft 3 in)" but what would
• {{height|ft=6|in=3}} now yield? "6 ft 3 in (1.91 m)" or "6 ft 3 in (191 cm)"

It will have to be one or the other, unless a new parameter is added, say "|output=cm" or "|output=m", with one or the other being the default. Tewapack (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: Is the defaulting to "m" rather than "cm" purely a resource driven decision (which is understandable) or an indication that "m" is more likely to be the unit that editors are after? (which is less understandable) I'm assuming here that editors who are after "cm" will need to know about and utilise an additional "output" parameter that editors after "m" will not.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The current output is "m". If "cm" became an option and it were to be the default, immediately upon implementation the output for all articles that currently use this template would become "cm" rather than "m". This would require that all articles currently using {height} be modified in order to restore what is the current consensus, an inefficient and unnecessary exercise. Those outputs need to remain "m" until there is agreement to do otherwise, and that default supports that fact. Usage of the template needs to be discussed at the proper forum. Evensteven (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the current prevalence of metres could be considered some brand of weak "consensus", but not by me. So it appears to be a resource based decision then, which is fine.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There is always WP:BOLD and WP:CCC. But there is also always WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:SILENCE. It is always important to keep in mind all the parts of WP:CONS. This is what applies to what one can do as an editor. Do not confuse the WP-type consensus with consensus as it exists in the world. I tend to agree with you (as far as I can see) that world use of "cm" for human height is considerably more widespread than "m". I also discount the UK somewhat, because it is still in transition to metric from the older English system. And I discount the U.S. almost entirely (except among scientists) because the transition is in early stages. It is world consensus that creates measurement system conventions. For the metric system, that system is gradually gaining ever greater usage throughout, and as transitions continue, that consensus continues to expand. But we will be seeing dissimilarities in various places in the world for some time to come. In the places where it is most firmly established, we see greater consistency. Pressure to form a world consensus depends on how critical the need is. I doubt there is a great deal driving conformity regarding human heights; perhaps some seek the consistency itself. Evensteven (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC) edited myself above Evensteven (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

All good points that are well taken. Just to clarify my position: rather than being a form of consensus, I see the status quo as an artificial result forced upon us by the apparently arbitrary way that this template's parameters were written up. Given the present transitional nature of metric system usage conventions that you speak of, this makes it rather urgent/important that Wikipedia's considerable influence is not being misdirected. I really meant what I said when I opened this discussion about my amazement that it's gone on this long, and am not in the least surprised by the survey results that have arisen due to what little noise I've made about it here. Our aim should always be for there to be no disparity between Wikipedia consensus and real world consensus. You're right when you say that "the places where [the metric system] is most firmly established, we see greater consistency". And since these places include the medical profession (and basically the entire scientific community), university-level textbooks, government websites, nearly every supranational-level sports governing body, and the field of anthropometry itself, and all regardless of geographic location, this should make the whole issue a rather uncomplicated one to my mind. Anyway, it's a pleasure to finally be able to discuss these things with someone who's not incapable of focusing on them (rather than solely on me). And I should have realised that the default to "m" needed to be retained, otherwise we'd have a whole lot of apparently 1.8cm-tall people running around!--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I found this in WP:ACM: "Wikipedia is, and always will be, a work in progress; please tolerate our imperfection, and help us improve." WP consensuses can sometimes end up being imperfect too. And here the world is also imperfectly matched up. Measurement system conventions are nothing more than a worldwide consensus, based on preferences, and at present there really isn't consensus; it's more like an inclination, without complete dominance. I think it will tip over to "cm" in time, but not necessarily. Recognizing both the imperfections and the preferences can help us tolerate the inconsistency when we find it bothersome. Evensteven (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And I assure you it's my intention to restrict my comments here to the technical aspects of the template and its parameters, not its usage. Apologies if I worded it in a way that could be misconstrued.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it was just me trying to be fully clear. Evensteven (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Now you get a feel for just how far out of my depth I really am discussing template change resources :) --Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If there were resource issues, I think we might have heard something to that effect by now. Instead, the one comment I heard said there was nothing to hold us back. Evensteven (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

General discussion

If this template has a future (developmentally), and at this time I'm getting the feeling it does, then I regard it as quite likely that addition of cm will be necessary, unless everyone wants to use {convert} to get that output instead. If the discussion outcome requires cm, as it might, and cm support is not in this template, then there will be no other option but to use {convert} (unless someone knows of another option). Evensteven (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Just to notify everyone involved in this discussion, I am going away tomorrow morning for the weekend and won't be back until late Sunday night/early Monday UK time. GiantSnowman 18:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• Having just learned of an existing consensus in this community, I do not support any use of cm that conflicts with it. However, consensus can change, and cm provides what looks to me to be a reasonable alternative to meters in certain circumstances. It is worth having now as a functionality already in place in the template, to provide immediate support for any present or future consensus that permits cm, thus avoiding any need to resort to the convert template as the only remedy. Evensteven (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that current usage in Australia and New Zealand is clearly "cm", Canada probably "cm", and UK (at least England and Wales) are "m". Having lived in the U.S. all my life, I say the U.S. hardly recognizes meters or cm as anything but "something foreign", so it doesn't much matter there. I think it is worth considering to agree to cm for the sake of those places that have an established preference, and hence the template needs to implement this input/output.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evensteven (talk • contribs) 05:03, 31 January 2014‎ (UTC)

• In light of the clear preference I'm noticing for "cm" in UK sources, the notion that despite this, "m" is actually the norm there seems highly dubious to me. I'd say the UK's situation closely resembles the US's.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Pick up on the contrary input here then. See the source list above, and check out who were editors who commented and where they came from. That's better than media sources for this. Evensteven (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed that they all appear to be from the UK, which is probably why you said what you did about the UK and "m". I just fear they could be giving an inaccurate account of what it's like on the ground there, given the apparent disconnect with their responses and what's found in sources (media and non media alike); a disconnect that is not present in the Australasian and Canadian cases.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• The ESPN sources I showed you are from the USA. If you go on their NBA profiles, like [4], you'll see that they solely use feet and inches. The NBA themselves use feet/inches and metres. Still think all of the sources using metres are British? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd say that's an indication that they're using feet and inches: no metric system involvement at all. If they do a conversion themselves, ok, but anyone can do any correct conversion. Evensteven (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's an indication that they're using feet and inches, yes, but Gibson has tried to claim that everywhere other than the UK uses centimetres, when that's clearly not the case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• And UK is still in transition to the metric system. They use miles for road distance, so it's a mix. Where else are you suggesting? Please don't say the U.S.; it hasn't even started to use the metric system for human height at all, even in the medical profession. They know what it is, but they measure in feet and inches. I'm not saying you can't go ahead and use "m" for the UK. But worldwide, the prevalence is likely to be less than you might think. Just because someone posts a conversion somewhere doesn't mean that they're "using" the metric system. They're just trying to communicate with those who do, and translations can be imperfect. Evensteven (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Proposal 5 could gain traction if there were more specifics on the "current consensus of editors". Should we say subjects with national ties to New Zealand and Australia?—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think WP says all it needs to about what WP consensus means. And national ties are really something that has been fixed on here, not too accurately. Nations vary in their practices too. Evensteven (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't quite catch your drift though. Consensus determines which national ties you're going to use, accurate or not. But that's usage, not template implementation. Proposal 6 is still better, to separate those two elements. Evensteven (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC) edit myself Evensteven (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

On the basis that proposal 6 exists, then this one can pursue a joint-issue resolution if desired. I have modified the proposal above, but am not averse to changing mentioned nations again if it would lighten opposition. Evensteven (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Height invalid input

Now that {{height}} is calling {{convert}} for at least some cases, I have seen a couple of error messages in Category:Convert invalid options because convert is rejecting invalid input. For example, Menaye Donkor shows "Height " and hovering the mouse over the error message shows Convert: Value "1.80.34" must be a number. That is because the original article (July 2012) included "{{height|m=1.80.34}}" with obviously broken input. I've seen similar a couple of times now. A quick look fails to find a source, so I'm wondering if anyone has a suggestion on what "1.80.34" might have meant. A similar problem at Sophie Van Den Akker is due to "m=1.76.5" where there is a source which says the height is 176½ cm, so the height is "m=1.765" (".5" = half). Might ".34" have meant ¾? I guess this is a problem for the relevant wikiproject to sort out, but I thought I would mention it here to alert people that more error messages are likely as the servers slowly add articles to the error category. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

great that we are now finding bad input. I simply removed the height from Menaye Donkor, since it was unsourced. we can do the same for any others, but first make sure the height is not listed in any of the sources, or in the external links, which sometimes have links to profile pages for athletes. Frietjes (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

now all fixed, but there will certainly be more due to editing errors and failed conversion from comma to decimal point. of course, it could be useful to add a range limiter, but that would add some overhead. Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

Consensus was reached to introduce cm usability to this template and that was done, but Template:Height#Instructions, Template:Height#Code and Template:Height#Template_data make zero mention of it, so any user coming to the template will still not be able to utilize the cm parameter. Can instructions for the use of cm with this template please be added? Thanks. Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is only the template code that is protected; the documentation is on a separate page. When viewing the template page, the top row is "Template documentation [view] [edit] [history] [purge]". Click the [view] link to go to the documentation page, where anyone can edit it. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for that, Johnuniq. Now done.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Next generation co-template Htcm

I am creating the related fast co-template {{htcm}}, for centimetres, as 4x times faster than {{height}} and with the same options, for abbr=no or wiki=yes or precision=3, but also allowing some parameters of {{convert}}, such as 'lk=on' or 'abbr=off' as a co-template of Template:Convert which could be used for rare, custom formatting. Currently, {htcm} has no new options planned, except the minimal "cm=" (or "m=" with "ft=" or "in=") and has not forked (yet) from the basic operation. The difference is {htcm} is faster and has fewer bugs than {height} and allows smaller numbers, such as height of athletic equipment or sports toys. The main purpose for {htcm} is to develop the next-generation features of {height}, which could then be rewritten after {htcm} has been thoroughly tested and discussed. The warnings displayed by {htcm} will be short, blue-link proofreader notes as "^{[fix double units]}" in the style of "" and the logic depth is only 9 levels, versus 18 levels for {height}, of the wp:expansion depth limit. Because {htcm} only supports symbol names "cm=" and "m=" then it runs much faster than {height} with metres, which checks for 15 alias parameters: "metre=" or "meter=" or "metres=" or "meters=" or "feet=" or "foot=" etc. To discuss the design (or other issues), see Template_talk:Htcm#Design. -Wikid77 23:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That looks good, and considering my closure above, seems like a fine way to move forward. Is it intended to be fully backward compatible? Gigs (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

forking templates is almost never a good idea. especially when it would be trivial to add support for cm to this template. Frietjes (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think you've missed the point of this "fork" entirely, Frietjes. From what I can tell, it is intended to be a far quicker, far more efficient template, and a replacement of this one - which is a good thing, not a bad thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

  no, I didn't miss the point of the fork. we should strive to improve this template, or completely replace both with {{convert}}. Frietjes (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Assuming the answer to my backward compatibility question is "yes", it seems the new template should simply replace this one (under this name), not co-exist. Gigs (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  exactly, we don't need two templates, htcm should be viewed as a sandbox. Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

So what's needed for the consensus established above to be implemented? At the moment this template is still grossly deficient.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

would take me about 15 seconds to add support for converting from cm, if that is what is needed. Frietjes (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. How about converting to cm? I'm very much a layman when it comes to interpreting template scripts, sorry.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

just need to know the syntax for specifying the output units as cm, since it appears there is not consensus to make this the default output unit. so, {{height|ft=6|in=1|to=cm}}, or {{height|ft=6|in=1|disp=cm}}, or ... Frietjes (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for a fork. There is, in fact, no need for this template at all. It should just be replaced with {{convert}}. Jimp 09:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Metric output should be 'cm'

This template's metric unit output is 'm' instead of the more commonly used 'cm'. Is there any reason why this should be the case?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume you have already forgotten Template_talk:Height/Archive_3#Straw_poll_on_units_of_measure_output_by_this_template, where the close said "there is much concern and opposition to any sort of blanket change, so all proposed mass changes for a particular field of endeavor need to have a new discussion that demonstrates clear consensus."—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So your answer to my question above is...?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that 'cm' is more commonly used than 'm'. GiantSnowman 08:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Relevant discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Height. GiantSnowman 08:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Evidence starting from here. The amount of it is limited only by the number of sources you're willing to look at.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, an editor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard had noted that Gibson Flying V chose to fragment discussion of cm output by posting to a four-month old, previously stale thread instead of here. See that thread for a complete view on this topic. I suggest that any future discussion be kept to relevant recent threads when possible, or at least provide notice at recent threads regarding related discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. The Template_talk:Height#Metres_vs_centimetres thread above was intended to relate to what Template:Height#Code and Template:Height#Instructions were saying about what the template actually does. This thread relates to what the template doesn't do, not what is said on the template page.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Metres vs centimetres

Moved to Template talk:Height § Metric output should be .27cm.27

 – —Bagumba (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Height#Code makes no mention of the template's cm parameter even though in all likelihood that will be the unit sought. Also, should the default output remain as metres?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Height#Instructions states, "...and feet and inches are converted to centimetres or meters." How? As far as I can tell it only converts to metres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A simple look at documentation history shows that you introduced the erroneous documentation (on 12 April 2014) regarding conversion of ft/in to cm, when no such support existed, nor has there been consensus for it. I am removing it.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh. My apologies. I thought it had been added following the RfC. So why hasn't it been?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 February 2015

Hi, I have a wiki page under the title 'Tom Eckersley footballer' would it be possible for you to change the height of which the page says I am. It says I am 5ft 10in but I am actually 6ft 4in. I want this changed as football clubs look at the information on Wikipedia and with them seeing that it says I'm only 5ft 10in isn't good for me. Please could you change this or give me information on who to contact to change it. Thank you! Tom Eckersley.

151.229.188.140 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Height}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. The talk page is at Talk:Tom Eckersley (footballer). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)