The use of brackets like [°F] has no sense and is totally wrong. What has User:Gene_Nygaard to to with that? Smoky 10:50, 11 FMay 2005 (UTC)

Gene explained it well enough with his two reverts: "the brackets indicate that it is a symbol for a unit of measurement being used as a variable; if otherwise, use subscript italic T for variables, and it looks clumsier". I would be fine with "T_°C" or rather "T_C" instead of "[°C]", too, but I think it's better readable (and equally established) with square brackets. To use the unit symbol alone, is just wrong. At the very least the symbols could be italicized ("°C")—actually there is an HTML element type 'var' ("°C"), but Wikipedia doesn't really support it. Furthermore the non-breaking spaces you inserted are ugly. Christoph Päper 15:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the Metrified English unit Talk page which points out that there's nothing to back the article up. Is the article's mention of William Huskisson's Royal System just phantasy? Do you know of anything to back the article up? Should the article be split/merged/deleted as suggested on the Talk page? Jimp 09:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By subverting the process at MOSNUM talk, you're showing an arrogant refusal to collaborate. I'm quite happy to be corrected and to accede to ideas for improvement there. If you think "Scientific style" should be included in this overhaul, why don't you propose you new version as part of this process rather than unilaterally forging ahead behind our backs? And I'm annoyed that you should feel you can steal the new proposal and implement it without consensus. Tony 01:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I was quite frustrated yesterday. Anyhow, it had about the brevity I deem appropriate. Christoph Päper 11:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! First of all, I wanted to thank you for the great job you did on {{frac}}—it was a relief to find out that I did not need to write something like that myself :) The template is now called by {{dec to frac}}, which, in turn, will be called by a number of conversion templates (currently only {{m to ft in}} relies on it).

I do, however, have a question. I was thinking of improving the template so it would return Unicode fractions when it's possible, but I see that you have already tried it and chose not to implement them. I am curious what went wrong.

Again, thanks for the great template! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t remember why exactly I finally decided not to implement them, but I think it was the inconsistent looks, lesser searchability and poor font support. Christoph Päper 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Christoph; I suspected it'd be something along those lines. Anyway, I hope you won't mind if I try re-introducing this feature as optional (with current output still being the default)? Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment: " I support metric-only with the exception of defining source units –, I indeed consider all artices that are (or, rather, should be) in Wikipedia to be scientific, because science is not just physics and chemistry. (By the way, there is no justification for the use of imperial units in WP at all, where they differ from their US counterparts.) "

Unsure I understand what you're suggesting (two things? Allowance for defining source units where this is usual in a field? and that we should use the term US units, not imperial units?) Please let me know soon, because Saturday I'm changing the text. Here's the proposal:

• Conversions to and from metric and imperial/US units are generally provided. There are two exceptions:
  • scientific articles where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked;
  • where inserting a conversion would make a common expression awkward (“The four-minute mile”);

Tony 10:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have separate articles for English units, imperial units and United States customary units for a reason. Only the last ones are still of some importance, because all of the Commonwealth is (officially) metric.

Defining source units is my term for units that have been used to define something, not just measure it. Often the definitions will be in nice round numbers, which is one reason to include them despite not being metric – accompanied by the metric value of course. The height of a mountain, for example, is measured and not defined; therefore it should be given only in metres, no matter where it is located. The target height of the “Freedom Tower” in New York is a symbolic number only when expressed in feet and that’s the reason this should be mentioned, not because of what units the architect or the people living around the site actually use; the same applies to Egypt pyramids etc.

The distinction by field is basically artificial, because Wikipedia is written for everyone who might want to read articles from every field.

I want something MJCdetroit doesn’t, i.e. metric-only as the general rule. He’s afraid the reasoning for the change under discussion could be used to remove many more conversion to US units. I frankly admit that I would use that reasoning, his fear therefore is somewhat valid. There are too many like him to give people that share my point of view the chance for such a change, though.

Christoph Päper 18:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't exactly understand your concern with the Tables (not systems!) A and B. The ISO 9 is adopted in East Europe in a form of verbatim translation as a state standard GOST 7.79 (targeted, primarily, for bibliographical use, just as the GOST 7 series itself). And it's the Table B that actually gets used because the Table A proved too hard to memorize and to use. And no, I can't provide any refs on that right now, unless you count as such that one has quite a hard time trying to find the Table A layout in the copies of GOST 7.79 scattered everywhere. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I read the standard (ISO, not GOST) once. If I did I would remember seeing two transliteration tables, of which one is not reversible. Perhaps I haven’t read ISO 9 in its officially published form at all. I can’t check the the local library before Monday (and its standard collection has gaps).

Does B really use i` and the like, not ì? Christoph Päper (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember nothing of the sort in the Table B. I guess you're thinking about "è" (or in fact "e`") for "э". And GOST is translated copy of ISO. Table A is reversible but hellishly hard to use, in fact, impossible. Table B is specific for each language an not reversible, but much more reasonable in use, as there're only two diacritical signs, non-combined, "`" and "'". But I'd have to check all this and not write off the memory, really. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Christoph Päper 12:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crissov! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:E- requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:English pounds requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to English unit. Thank you. Pumpmeup 14:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Aspect ratio (image), you will be blocked from editing. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Crissov.

In your es for your recent edit, you said:

(I think the discussion indicated support for most of my earlier changes; also edited 16:9 section)

Please do not make controversial edits in the same edit as new ones. Otherwise when one gets reverted, all your changes get reverted, and that just leads to more unhappiness. Thanks!

(p.s., you might want to ensure the text at the top of your user page is correct.) jhawkinson (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the subscript notation? Dicklyon (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is (or at least used to be) the (professional) standard notation, where no technical limitation prohibited it. I guess a different wiki does not count as a reliable source, but ITU-R BT.601 alias CCIR 601 uses subscripts for example.[1] You will also find many hits for the tex-based search string YC_bC_r. The lowercase b and c (giving “YCbCr”) were probably chosen to give at least a minimal resemblance of the subscripts, which are usually uppercase, so my “YC_bC_r” would better have been “YC_BC_R”. If this style is not used on Wikipedia it should at least be mentioned. — Christoph Päper 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked in a lot of books, which generally do not have typographical constraints, and they just use YCbCr. Take a look at these; and others, as my search on YCbCr may not match on the subscripted version if it exists. If you can find a few books that do it, we can consider; so far I've seen no reliable sources at all. I have seen subscripts for the variables Cb and Cr, but I haven't seen those imported into the space name YCbCr. Your TeX hits are not very many (fewer than the books), and mostly in Japanese-language documents, so they don't seem to be very definitive. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]