Template talk:Height/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Human height is more commonly expressed in centimetres than metres

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

This is a huge shortcoming in this template which is crying out to be fixed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A {{height|cm= }} option needs to be provided for. Centimetres for human height are the absolute norm in parts of the world that use the metric system and are preferred by the UK's NHS,[1] Australian Bureau of Statistics,[2] New Zealand Government[3], Government of Canada[4], etc.

How it's gone this long without being addressed is a true mystery.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussed 11 September 2007, above: "#Centimetres". -Wikid77 15:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Ask anyone how high they are in Germany and noone will answer in centimeters. How is it in UK? Weight-tables or BMI calculators are not the best source i'd say. -Koppapa (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, well I guess you showed me, huh? Better leave it as it is then!

  • Thomas T. Samaras (2007). Human Body Size and the Laws of Scaling: Physiological, Performance, Growth, Longevity and Ecological Ramifications. USA: Nova Science Publishers.
  • Phyllis B. Eveleth, James M. Tanner (1990). Worldwide Variation in Human Growth. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Leslie Aiello, Christopher Dean (1990). An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy. USA: Academic Press.
  • Bruce J Chalmer (1987). Understanding Statistics. USA: CRC Press.
  • Oxford Textbook of Medicine. UK: Oxford University Press. 2003.
  • Jerrold T. Bushberg, J. Anthony Seibert, Edwin M. Leidholdt, John M. Boone (2012). The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

How about those? --Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That are good sources. :-) -Koppapa (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The NHS might prefer it, but what about sources discussing the individual in question? In association football database websites, for example, player heights are almost always given in m or feet - very rarely cm. GiantSnowman 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, in Australia and Japan, where the metric system is the norm for expressing human height, centimetres are used. See Football Federation Australia's and Japan Football Association's official websites. If you (somehow) need more convincing, see the official sites of the Australian Rugby Union, National Rugby League, Cricket Australia, National Basketball League, Netball Australia. I suspect a large number of sites that use metres show themsevles to be taking the data directly from wikipedia, which is (as clearly illustrated above) out of step with comman usage in the English-speaking world (not to mention China, Japan, Korea, etc.)--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with GiantSnowman. I hardly ever see human height expressed in centimetres. – PeeJay 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
So somehow, despite all the evidence that cm are in common usage, you're arguing that no cm parameter should be allowed for this template and users must be restricted to metres only?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Where have I said anything against the cm proposal? I was merely warning against people trying to implement it across all articles. GiantSnowman 20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic. I don't know how to move forward and make it happen (otherwise I would have). Do you?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Further input to this discussion is needed first, I would say. GiantSnowman 20:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I was notified of this discussion from a similar one at WikiProject Basketball. The top basketball league in Europe, Euroleague, lists heights in meters on its website. At best, some—not all—domains might prefer centimeters over meters. I cannot comment as an American, but is displaying 1.76 meters vs 176 centimeters really that bizarre. I assume the math is not the issue.—Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I trust you saw the sources provided above? In some places it's not bizarre. In others (such as reliable WP:SOURCES) it is. All we have to decide is whether the height template allows for centimetres or remains restricted to metres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
there is now a version in the sandbox which allows for input in cm, will need an admin to update it. the output from imperial is still m, but could change that to cm if there is consensus to do so (or just make it an option). Frietjes (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Such consensus appears to exist at Human height.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That article is very inconsistent, with both metres and centimetres being used throughout. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That will be addressed once this template starts allowing for the use of centimetres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • One thing I do have an issue with is the heading of this section, and the claim therein - "human height is more commonly expressed in centimetres than metres" - simply not true. GiantSnowman 14:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, I should have qualified that claim with "...in high-quality sources". We're all waiting for you to prove otherwise.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No, the burden is on you to show why we should change. Also you do know that 180cm is the exact same as 1.80m? GiantSnowman 20:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but have you read any of the above? I'm afraid it's your defence of metres that is wanting explanation.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, just because it is used on government websites and by academics? Jeez, your pro-cm/anti-m agenda is actually making me re-think my earlier support for this. I fear the new template parameter might be mis-used. GiantSnowman 21:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"Just" government websites and academics. I'm sure you're familiar with WP:SOURCES. We're still waiting for some that support preference for metres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Like I've already said, plenty of sports databases such as this and this and this. Some do use cm, but the majority use m. GiantSnowman 21:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so some sports (mostly non-English language) databases use metres, whereas most serious websites don't. Anything else?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
As this template was intended to be used in infoboxes, and I'm guessing its mostly athletes that list height in infoboxes, it seems sports-relates sources should have greater weight than "serious websites" when it comes to this template.—Bagumba (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. And it seems that the higher-quality the source, the more likely it is to use centimetres. We just have to decide where we want Wikipedia to fall on this scale. My preference would be at the upper end.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
GFV, you have mis-read/mis-understood what Bagumba said - they said that as this template is used mainly on articles related to athletes, and as athletic databases tend to use m, we should use m. GiantSnowman 12:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
See, it's statements like "athletic databases tend to use m" that get me. I never said that sports websites can't be serious ones. Perhaps you should shoot off some emails to help out these poor guys (who are clearly of step with how a few of Wikipedia's soccer fans think human height should be presented): British Olympic Association,[5] Australian Olympic Committee,[6] USA Swimming[7] Association of Tennis Professionals[8] Japanese Olympic Committee[9] Swimming Australia[10] sports-reference.com, Ultimate Fighting Championship[11] National Basketball League[12] Canadian Soccer Association[13] Union of European Football Associations,[14] hockeydb.com, Canadian Olympic Committee,[15] etc. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure a number of sites that use meters can be cited too, but where would that lead us aside from people disagreeing on which ones are more "serious"? I don't have personal knowledge being a foot-happy American, and I have no interest in sifting through all these links. I think we are all clear on where you stand. I'd suggest seeing if there are other supporters besides yourself, perhaps get a centralized discussion (or RfC), as opposed to the current parallel discussions on multiple talk pages. I think we can avoid WP:WABBITSEASON and wait for WP:CONSENSUS. I'd also suggest that everyone ponder if we can have various sports/countries decide if cm/m make more sense for a specific area (e.g. Australia, et al), or does it have to be all m or all cm for all WP articles.—Bagumba (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Mostly on spot, except I don't have a preference for m or cm. Was only suggesting how to proceed.—Bagumba (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Just as date formatting falls undder WP:ENGVAR, so should this.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My Canadian drivers license shows my height in cm. The two most recent FIFA Ballon d'Or winners (top players in the world): Cristiano Ronaldo's height at his team's site: 186.5cm [1] Lionel Messi height at his team's site: 169cm [2]. So why does this template not allow the height to be displayed in cm? I fully understand that we can use {{convert}}, but that requires more parameters and it would be better to standardize on this template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that when it was created it was intended for other structures such as buildings. Humans were unfortunately neglected. the truly mind-boggling thing is that it's gone this long without being fixed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
As for databases that may list an athlete's in metres rather than centimetres, I would like to know what nationality are the individuals that maintain the data? I suspect that they're not from nations who have used SI. My two examples above show that Spanish clubs clearly use cm for height and not m. Shall we survey all national leagues? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Canadian Football League uses meters.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It does? Sorry, maybe I'm being dopey here but I can't see them.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit conflict before I could retract. Decimal point use in ft-in threw me off :-) —Bagumba (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Certainly we've established that the odd source can be found that does use metres, but it seems they are well and truly crushed under the weight of the multitude of top-quality sources that use centimetres. So this really is just a wait for an admin who can come along and put a cm parameter in place. If a biographical article takes its height from a source that uses metres, and no better quality source can be found, then that is how it should be displayed and this template already allows for that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
You see, I know you are going to abuse this template change to introduce your own preference, and that is why I am hesitant to support. Some official sports bodies mught use cm - but we don't use them in sports articles, we use the kind of sports databases I highlighted above. You have proved nothing, other than 'official' websites use cm and the unofficial databases that are in much wider use on Wikipedia use m. GiantSnowman 09:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I hope you're not assuming bad faith. My position is fairly clear. How about you tell us what would make you happy?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be disconnected arguments in this thread. Earlier association football sites using meters were discounted because they were "out of step with comman usage in the English-speaking world." Then after examples from Spanish clubs (where the English version is just a translation) were shown to use cm, it is concluded that meters are "truly crushed under the weight of the multitude of top-quality sources that use centimeters." The conclusion is not only slightly overblown, but arguments are inconsistent whether we should look only at ones from primarily English-speaking countries or not. It may or may not be the exception, but the Premier League in UK uses meters. It might be more conclusive if sports sources (say the largest leagues and national teams) from primarily English-speaking countries that use SI were examined.—Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to not assume bad faith when you make edits like this. GiantSnowman 10:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you be a little less cryptic? That shows me introducing a reference to a reliable source. Not being funny, just not sure what you're getting at.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No, that shows you adding heights in cm even though you know full well that current parameters allow for m or ft. You are pushing your weird pro-cm agenda. GiantSnowman 10:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
That is a WP:BLP and there was no reference for height until I introduced it. The source I provided, which is top quality, gave the height in centimetres, so I did too. Please elaborate on what the problem is. Also, my previous question about what outcome you desire remains unanswered.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's peculiar to me that instead of waiting for consensus on a thread that you started to add cm support, you've bypassed using this template altogether in your edit and used {{convert}} instead. Finding a reliable source that uses cm to support your edit has never been the issue. It would be good faith to refrain from future edits to use cm until there is consensus here.—Bagumba (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

So just to be clear, I'm being accused of bad faith because I've introduced top quality reliable sources to biographies of living persons but rather than using this inferior template that does not allow for the information to be presented the way the source presents it, I'm using another one which does. I think I've heard it all now. Bring on the RfC.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that Bundesliga uses cm while teams seems to use m. French Ligue use m and as usual, Italy is totally messed-up as they state they're displaying in m but if this keeper is 191 m tall I'll start cheering for Juve. So there's no unanimity in leagues and so we have to determine whether metres or centimetres makes more sense. They represent the same data and WP:CONVERT is simple enough between the two.
And I don't think that Gibson Flying V's edits are bad faith, particularly when references are added, but to move away from m isn't constructive at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Personally I think the present situation at Ryan Giggs is less than ideal and the sooner it's rectified the better.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I see no bad faith at all in the edit in question. There is no guideline as to whether to prefer metres or centimetres for the height of people. The fact that this template is not capable of handling centimetres is by no means an indication that consensus in favour of such a preference. Nor is this talk page the place for discussion regarding such consensus. There's nothing wrong per se with replacing one template with another ... unless perhaps you're replacing a template with something inferior (but in this case I'd say the opposite happened). Not only was the edit in good faith but it was a step in the right direction. What's the point of hanging on to this template when we can use {{convert}} instead? Jimp 09:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Now {convert} no longer shows output fractions, but results with {Height} can show inch fractions. For {height|m=1.81}, there is a fraction: 1.81 m (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in), but {convert|1.81|m|ftin} = 1.81 metres (5 ft 11 in) without the 1⁄2-inch portion. Previously {convert} could show fractions, but since the early transition to Lua Convert, fractions have been gone for 2 months now, along with the loss of conversions for dates, times and weapon calibre. The prior option was 'ftinfrac' seen in: {convert/old |1.81|m|ftinfrac} as , but 'ftinfrac' is now rejected by Lua {convert} as invalid. The next {convert} upgrade could have new option 'frac=2' by mid-February. -Wikid77 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
That's good news (about the expected upgrade). This has been long over-due. Once this is done {{height}} will be completely redundant. We should be deprecating this old beast (like all the others were years ago) not trying to improve it. We can add centimetres; then what? How about yards? Then how about kilometres ... then how about area, then volume, then mass ... finally we'll just end up with another {{convert}}. We don't need a special template just for people's height. Just use {{convert}}. Jimp 08:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC

This template is widely used on Wikipedia but restricts users to expressing height in metres only (when using the metric system). In reliable sources, human height is most often expressed in centimetres. So we have a situation where the use of metres to express human height in biographies of living persons is widespread on Wikipedia, but not in reliable sources.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for the claim that height is expressed in cm most often in reliable sources, please. Unsupported and uncaveated assertions aren't a great tool in reasoned discussion. That said, it makes sense to me to allow both, but not to express a preference in the template or documentation until and unless the MoS expresses a preference. SamBC(talk) 20:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Please read from here (and there's plenty more where that came from).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, some reliable sources using metres is not the same as showing that this is a general pattern. So I return to my original view - it makes sense that the template allow either, as long as MoS allows either, but that it be for individual pages to decide which they use, with no default preference specified, and for the user making this request to take home that the addition of a cm parameter is not an endorsement for wholesale change of every article the offends his apparent decimal point dislike. SamBC(talk) 22:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This template is almost exclusively used for athletes' infoboxes, the rare subject where height is notable. I can't take this RfC seriously when the "neutral" statement ignores that sources such as the Premier League, the top English football league, uses m, not cm. Proposer is concurrently switching articles to instead use {{convert}} to impose their cm POV, while taking up editors time to discuss this, which either means the outcome of this RfC is moot or valuable time needs to be invested undoing those changes if the outcome is not to the proposer's satisfaction.—Bagumba (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, this just implies that the Premier League might simply take its statistics from Wikipedia articles and/or their website's IT set-up was set up carelessly (much in the same way this template was). Players' clubs, such as Machester United] and Cardiff City, are far more likely to actually measure the height of their players. Now, would anyone like me to stack up even more first-rate sources that use centimetres?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be interpreting everything from the standpoint of your initial assumption, and employing circular reasoning. As you're the one suggesting a change, the onus is on you to establish your point. Rather than trying to build up numbers on each side, sources that actually refer to a preference for cm over m would be convincing, especially if they give reasons. SamBC(talk) 22:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I've not found any source that explicitly states that metres should not be used whereas centimetres should because I've not made any assertion to that effect. What I've been saying is that it is more common, normal, usual, frequent, in sources to use centimetres and the numbers appear to support that. Let's not stray from the point here. This template forces editors into using metres, without regard for what is used in sources. From day one I've said that this is less than ideal and needs to change. If it's to be left as it is what we need is compelling reasons to do that, and thus far none have been forthcoming. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:CALC says cm or m is all the same, but its up to consensus which to use. Even if one or the other is uncommon in some cases, multiplying of dividing by 100 is within most readers abilities. I understand you believe that it is "more common, normal, usual, frequent, in sources to use centimeters", but I fail to see your arguments being obvious. Suggesting the Premier League doesn't use reliable sources to get it's height and instead uses Wikipedia is without basis and self-serving. At best, there may be some domains that cm is more common (it needs to be demonstrated), but your argument has been that cm should always be used, and your editing patterns described at Wikipedia:ANI#Gibson_Flying_V also reinforces the perception that you want cm used in all cases.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "your argument has been that cm should always be used": Making statements about me on threads before first reading through them properly is becoming quite a habit of yours isn't it? See my comment above at 09:46, 18 January 2014. And please, do your best to assume good faith.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Unless you're actually doing a wide-ranging survey of sources, using some inarguable metric to establish their validity and reliability, and seeing which they use, quoting any number of sources to say which they use doesn't say anything about what is most common. Such a survey is not a reasonable thing to expect, of course, but finding someone who's already done that work is more likely. You're asserting that it's the most common, dismissing counter-examples as being 'obviously' not reliable, and quoting a handful that follow your stated preference. That's not evidence. SamBC(talk) 23:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That this change is getting any resistance at all is truly a remarkable phenomenon. I've advocated a source-based approach from the outset. I've also made zero assumptions of bad faith. This can be seen in my edit history, which is right there for all to read, and with which I am of course perfectly comfortable. Accordingly, that is all I'm going to say about myself. If other editors insist on me being the prevailing topic here, rather than the issue at hand, they don't do themselves or anyone else here any favours.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect this is a WP:ENGVAR issue. In Australia, the predominant height measurements are cm (in official use) and feet/in (in colloquial use). Specific examples of official usage include player profiles from the Australian Football League ([3]), the A-League ([4]), the National Rugby League ([5]) and Netball Australia ([6]) Hack (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That is a possibility that has been raised. Although sources such as the United States Department of Health and Human Services' website, Irish Government websites (e.g. 1 and 2), and the The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Growth and Development (in addition to the countless others from elsewhere in the world provided in previous posts on this thread) appear to cast some doubt upon this. Like almost every other source of comparable quality, they use centimetres.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Height is only particularly relevant in biographies of sports people and those notable for their extreme stature. We should be following the lead of the reliable sources that report their height. If there is a conflict, we should following the prevailing custom of the country with which they have the most tangible connection. Hack (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreeing with Hack, my country (Australia) uses most cm officially and ft/in informally among the older population (40+). Other countries or subgroups may differ. Which is fine. Some people will prefer cm and some will prefer m but all can convert between cm and m in their head trivially (a huge benefit of the metric system). So, while m would not be my first choice, I have no problem converting 1.80 m to 180 cm in my head without even realising that there was an issue. I suspect most people used to metric can also convert in their head. Which makes this a storm in a teacup. I recommend that we leave it as m and move on to something more important.
But if we do think that there are people for whom converting 1.80 m to 180 cm is a challenging task, then we can add another parameter that specifies whether m or cm are to be uses for output. The input parameter could be either |m=1.80 (output automatically in m) or |cm=180 (output automatically in cm). But I prefer to just leave it as a nice consistent m and be done with it.  Stepho  talk  07:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there really any point in this whatsoever? Almost anyone can convert between the metres and centimetres within a few seconds. Should the template allow the usage of centimetres? Probably. In the UK, the preference is often for metres (when not using feet and inches); take Sky Sports, Soccerbase, whilst the Americans can also be seen using metres, ESPN FC being an example. It is simply inaccurate to say that reliable sources primarily express height in centimetres, but both are equally acceptable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, Sky Sports and soccerbase.com should be seen as less influential sources than than, say, the British Olympic Association1 or Manchester United2. Similarly, ESPN Internet Ventures is not on equal footing with the United States National Library of Medicine3.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned above centimetres are the common unit in Australia. I'd be surprised if there were any English-speaking country which preferred metres over centimetres. Sure conversion from one to the other is trivial but this doesn't make it a non-issue. I can easily convert "center" to "centre" in my head but where to use which is not a non-issue. Anyhow, here's the solution: just use {{convert}} and forget about it. Jimp 09:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. Interestingly however, using {{convert}} to display centimetres (even with references to reliable sources) has gotten me a few thanks, but a lot more edit warring, accusations of bad faith and an official complaint at the administrators' noticeboard. Some people have really bought into the false impression created by this template's shortcoming that metres are the norm for expressing human height in the metric system.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll thank you for the edits. Keep up the good work. You may be right about the template's creating a false impression. I reckon the citation templates are doing a similar thing inadvertently promoting year-month-day date formatting. I'm sorry, though, that I'm not quite sure what this RfC is about. Is it about whether to use metres, centimetres or either depending on these or those circumstances (e.g. the country a person is from, the sport he or she plays, the units used in the sources)? If so, then the RfC seems to be in the wrong place, it would be better at WT:MOSNUM. Is it, on the other hand, about whether to add a cm parameter to this template? If so, I'd say we shouldn't, simply because it's not worth the bother; just use {{convert}} and deprecate this old thing. Jimp 09:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Since using Lua script, {convert} cannot show inch fractions, as in {height|m=1.81}: 1.81 m (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in). -Wikid77 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This RfC is about getting consensus for making an edit request for a cm parameter to be added to this template, so that editors can have the freedom to display height just as it's displayed in the sources they're getting it from; something {{convert}} already allows. Naturally the best outcome will be a totally customizable one, in which any combination of "ft in" and "cm" or "m", and in any order, is available. I understand this also is already the case with {{convert}}.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
By the way a related discussion containing a link to this RfC is already at WT:MOSNUM.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Just coming in from an invite to join this discussion sent to template talk:convert. I have no opinion on whether heights should be reported in m, cm, or inches. However, it seems to me that this entire template is redundant, and should be replaced in all instances with the convert template. Rhialto (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Since Lua, {convert} cannot show inch fractions, as in {height|m=1.81}: 1.81 m (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in). -Wikid77 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
This could turn out to be the way to go. There is no {{weight}} template.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The weights shown by {convert} had been wrong for years, and a {weight} template would have been fixed much sooner. In January 2014, Lua-based {convert|43|-|45|lb|kg} shows: 43–45 pounds (20–20 kg), as nonsense with both weights as "20 kg" but {convert/old} was fixed (last year) to show correct weights, so {convert/old|43|-|45|lb|kg} shows: 43–45 pounds (19.5–20.4 kg). -Wikid77 08:47/16:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Two issues here - firstly, is the height template redundant? No, not at all, it is far easier to use that {{Convert}}, and ease of editing is what we should always strive for. Secondly, is cm preferred over m in reliable sources? In some cases, yes, but not at all - and until Gibson accepts that - and does not try to change every height from m to cm, in the face of sources and MOS (i.e. with footballers, where the preferred method is clearly m), I am unable to support what otherwise seems like a sensible suggestion. Should Gibson accept that human height is displayed in a number of ways - ft, cm and m - by different sources, depending on profession, and that we therefore need to consider displays of height for each sport/profession on an individual basis, then I would happily throw my weight behind the introduction of this parameter. But while I remain fearful that editors will abuse the template, as has happened already (and raised at ANI), I cannot do so. GiantSnowman 12:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This is taken from above, which you appear to have read because you did respond to it (albeit with an accusation of bad faith):
No worries. Certainly we've established that the odd source can be found that does use metres, but it seems they are well and truly crushed under the weight of the multitude of top-quality sources that use centimetres. So this really is just a wait for an admin who can come along and put a cm parameter in place. If a biographical article takes its height from a source that uses metres, and no better quality source can be found, then that is how it should be displayed and this template already allows for that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
For anyone curious to see how GiantSnowman's attempt at AN/I is being received, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gibson_Flying_V.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Bolding added.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
You mean the ANI where some editors said there was no consensus for your changes, and some editors asked you to stop editing heights? Like I said, until I get confidence that the new parameter will not be abused by people like you, I will not support it. GiantSnowman 19:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I mean the ANI I just provided a link to. Do try your best to remain civil and assume good faith. Thanks.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, the ANI where one editor said "mass conversion to the "convert" template should be held off until that debate is concluded" and another said " I don't see any consensus for a change [at the template]" and another said "To me, the essential problem here is summarised by this sentence, quoted from Gibson Flying V above" and another said "It's disingenuous to continue to make changes when ongoing discussions—which GFV started— to achieve a larger consensus are ongoing [...] Whie [sic] the RFC is ongoing, I would suggest Gibson Flying V voluntarily refrain from any edits to change m to cm" - oh and your attempt to show me up or whatever (failed, FYI) by mentioning the ANI thread, especially in the manner you did it, does not sit well with your comments that I should remain civil and edit in good faith. I am doing so - you are not. GiantSnowman 20:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The great thing about simply providing a link to a discussion is that it assists readers in seeing it for themselves so they can then make up thier own minds about it, saving me the trouble (and embarrassment) of attempting to influence them by quoting my favourite snippets without context. (P.S. you mentioned the ANI, I merely provided a link to it)--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The TLDR version - basically, my concern is that editors will try and implement the new cm parameter across the board, and onto articles where it is not appropriate. If the paramater is introduced, agreement needs to be reached at the relevant WikiProject(s) about what parameter - ft, cm or m - they are going to use on articles under their care, to prevent mass and possibly disruptive changes. GiantSnowman 12:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I cannot lend my support to this proposal due to the editing habits of User:Gibson Flying V. An example given above saw him add a valid source to an article, which I will admit is commendable, but he has also been known to replace valid references with others for no other reason than to push his pro-centimetres agenda (see this diff on Liam Miller). My preference would be to transition over to use the {{convert}} template exclusively over the {{height}} template due to its greater versatility, and then express individuals' heights in whatever units the sources use. If a source using metres is added before one using centimetres, the sources should not be changed just to suit another editor's whims. – PeeJay 14:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
PeeJay, what extra 'versatility' does {{convert}} have over {{height}}, if and when a cm paramater is added to the latter? Surely they will then be the same for human heights? GiantSnowman 14:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually {Height} is better as {convert} can no longer show inch fractions with Lua, but {height|m=1.81} works: 1.81 m (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in). -Wikid77 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
For anyone curious about the abovementioned Miller case, please see the article's edit history and, in particular, Talk:Liam Miller.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Uh, that doesn't show you in a good light at all. It was rather lame of you to replace a good reference that used feet/inches with one that used cm just to further your viewpoint. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'll respond at Talk:Liam Miller rather than clutter this thread up any further, thanks.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 'cm=' and {htcm} template: The sources show primary use of cm units for heights in various national groups, and so "cm=" should be an option. However, an easier input would be a separate fork {{htcm|180}} to simply accept the amount in centimetres and show ft/in as the default. Use of {convert} could be introduced for unusual units, such as Egyptian cubits: {{convert|180|cm|cubits}} = 180 centimetres ([convert: unknown unit]), but otherwise {Convert} has become a gargantuan template-funnel which is extremely cumbersome to update or expand. That is why {convert} inch fractions were dropped 2 months ago. Meanwhile, a dedicated {htcm} template could be quickly improved for new options, such as warning how "13O" contained the capital letter oh "O" rather than digit zero "0", whereas {height|m=1.3O} gives: [convert: invalid number], for letter oh in "1.3O". Using separate templates can be much faster, much simpler, and enable rapid improvements, such as reporting of invalid letter "l" for digit one "1" as compared to {{convert|l80|cm}}: [convert: invalid number]. Meanwhile, allow option "cm=" in {Height}. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:34, 23 January, 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that {height} should be updated to handle cm and a bit of a consensus is developing regarding that. I also agree with Rhialto comments above. The good or poor behaviour of Gibson Flying V should really be a non-issue in this discussion, instead we should be focusing on the matter that was bought up. Certaintly in New Zealand where I am from seeing height in cm is common, however if this is not the case in all anglophone countries then the template should be able to handle that as well. Mattlore (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
    Since transition to Lua, {convert} can no longer show inch fractions, but {height|m=1.81} has 1.81 m (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in); the next {convert} upgrade has a parameter: {convert/sandbox |1.81|m|frac=2} as 1.81 metres (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in). -Wikid77 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support cm As a medical student I rarely ever see height expressed in m, always cm. This is in all forms of literature, medical and not. What a single sporting organization does is completely irrelevant, and should not be the focus of Wikipedia. Height should be expressed in centimeters, and there are indeed no cases where it would be improper to do so (as was a concern in a previous comment). CFCF (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
@CFCF: - "there are indeed no cases where it would be improper to do so" - so even when the vast majority of sources relating to a topic (e.g. association football) refer to players in m, you would not want to display height in m? GiantSnowman 12:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Depends what ones means by "vast majority". I think what CFCF was getting at is that if the core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability states "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine. If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." then whatever individual wikiprojects decide amongst themselves becomes irrelevant.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps also have "showunit1=m": There could be another option for a template to accept "cm=" but "showunit1=m" with result metres followed by feet/inches. Typically we prefer the template to do all conversions, so a user is less likely accused of wp:OR original research in deriving new measurement units. But if an article listed multiple amounts, and 2 people were sourced in metres but a third person in cm, then "showunit1=m" could help to have all displayed in metres (although the 3rd input as "cm="). -Wikid77 15:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:CALC (a subsection of WP:OR) allows for basic calculations and unit conversions. Thus, even if a particular source gives a height in metres, then that gives no compulsion to display the height on Wikipedia in metres. Similarly, there is no compulsion for a source in centimetres to be displayed here in centimetres. Personally, I'd be happier with a blanket policy of human heights always in centimetres (conversion between metres and centimetres being trivial for most people used to metric and irrelevant to people thinking in feet and inches) but it's obvious that we'll never get everyone to agree on a single system. Therefore, the choice to display as metres or centimetres should be up to either the article or the wiki project via the proposed extra parameters mentioned above. {{convert}} could also do the job with its slightly more complex syntax.  Stepho  talk  16:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree that individual WikiProjects should determine the format (cm, m, or ft) used in articles under their jurisdiction. GiantSnowman 18:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've lost track of what we are actually arguing about. GFV, could you please clarify this by telling us which of the following (possibly multiple) match what you are asking for:

  1. Many sporting organisations report player heights in cm, therefore there should be an option in this template to use cm for input (as well as m) and an option to specify cm or m for output.
  2. Many sporting organisations report player heights in cm, therefore it should be mandatory for this template to use cm or m for input and only cm for output; m is not allowed for output.
  3. If a reference gives a height in cm, then it would count as WP:OR to change it to m. Or does WP:CALC allow us to convert from cm to m?
  4. If a reference gives a height in m, then it would count as WP:OR to change it to cm. Or does WP:CALC allow us to convert from m to cm?
  5. Would mandatory cm output apply only to sporting articles or to all people articles?
  6. Or if the above don't cover your view well enough, then please state clearly in one or two very short sentences what you actually want in concrete terms (and whether it is optional or mandatory, specific to a group of articles or wider ranging). No need to justify it yet, just state it.  Stepho  talk  00:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
It's always been option 1 (as previously stated here and here) although I would replace "sporting organisations" and "players" with "sources of the highest quality" and "people" (the focus on sports came after I started this discussion). This makes the recent suggestion of retiring {{height}} and replacing it with {{convert}} appear very reasonable. Especially since {{convert}} for a person's weight appearing immediately beneath {{height}} is so widespread in Wikipedia biographies already. If we've come to a consensus that the status quo (editors not being allowed the freedom to express a person's height just as it is expressed in the source from which it's taken) is unacceptable then an appropriate edit request can be made for option 1. But it may turn out that consensus moves toward a single metric unit for human height, which would mean this template is retained and either left as it is with metres, or changed to only allow cm, depending which unit is agreed upon (even though this was not what was being initially proposed). Apologies if that was too verbose.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: your charge that the "status quo" is "not being allowed the freedom ...": You were provided the freedom to make your edit for cm in that article, but it was removed, as part of WP:BRD. There was then the ongoing discussion, which you linked above, to attempt to establish consensus. Not sure what "freedom" you are insinuating is being denied.—Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Once again, as I provided a link, there's no need to add more clutter by going into it here.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Well with Liam Miller you replaced a perfectly reliable (and widely-used and respected) source that stated height in ft and inches, and replaced it with one which stated height in your preferred format of cm. That was nothing but sly editing and simply cannot be defended. Oh, and {{height}} should not be replaced by {{convert}} articles if/when a cm parameter is added, it is far easier to use, which is what Wikipedia should be striving for, and the fact that some biographies ise 'convert' for weight is irrelevant when many biographies do not use that parameter. GiantSnowman 09:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
See previous comment.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The whole "medical sources use cm, so we have to" is patent bollocks anyway. A highly respected medical journal would not be a reliable source on an athlete, unless it was covering an illness or injury. Just like Formulaone.com would not be a reliable source for the research into cancer. Whilst I wouldn't normally be against the addition of an extra thing into the template, the fact is that I also have absolutely no trust in editors like Gibson Flying V, who are clearly POV pushing and then have the nerve to cry foul when they're called up on it, and the fact that it is completely redundant. If you're not able to convert from metres to centimetres, either you always work in feet and inches anyway (in which case, this change is irrelevant to you), or you will be in a massive minority of the population. If this was proposed by someone without an agenda, who isn't flat-out lying most of the time about their actions, then it might be something worth supporting. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Um... wow. Is this kind of thing ok?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
You mean editors highlighting a) your POV/agenda and b) the weakness of your arguments? Yes, of course. GiantSnowman 14:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
??!--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It is perfectly fine for me to speak plainly, when what I said was accurate. And what I said was accurate. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The conflict history between 2 editors is irrelevant to most other editors & has no relevance to what the template should allow. Newer editors perceive template insufficiencies as wiki standards for what the MOS supports or deprecates. There are templates that are being used to remove spaces between === and topics, and templates to put them back in; there are templates that capitalize things that other templates make lowerccase; there are templates that cannot use YMD in references. Template insufficiencies create needless conflict. Template authors should not be the ones to decide what is available on wikipedia. I looked at what was used on stadiometers (medical "height sticks") and could not find any that used metres, and doubt even one would use both metres AND centimetres (an anachronistic hangover ffrom ft/in). In Canada & Australia, cm is the clear standard. There is NO good reason not to allow the template convert to cm.--JimWae (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There is if the template is then open to abuse. Also Canada and Australia may use cm but USA uses ft and UK uses m. GiantSnowman 18:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
ANY template is open to abuse. Your edit conflict is a separate issue that has no bearing on this RFC. --JimWae (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
ANY template is open to abuse? How would you abuse {{ENFA}}, for example? GiantSnowman 10:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Easy: {{ENFA|name=Big Bird}}. This RFC is not about using cm ALL the time, it is about being able to use cm AT ALL. IIRC, I first encountered this template regarding heights of presidents, particularly Lincoln & others of the tallest.--JimWae (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
That's clear vandalism - I'm talking about abuse of a template to push a certain POV i.e. mass conversion from m or ft to cm, something we have already seen, and which only stopped after the matter was taken to ANI. I'm all for including cm in this template if I feel comfortable that there won't be subsequent mass introduction of the new parameter in the face of long-established formats. I don't yet have that comfort, and the longer this drags on, the less I feel I will ever have that comfort. All I require is the proponent(s) of this parameter to acknowledge that not every profession/sport/website uses cm, and therefore a large number of articles should therefore not/never be changed. GiantSnowman 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The following have already been presented as evidence that the use of cm for expressing human height when using the metric system is common in the most reliable of sources from the USA and the UK:

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Why do you insist on this "most reliable of sources" misnomer? These sources are not reliable for sports articles, unless they're talking about injuries or health problems. The NHS link is to a tool, which isn't even usable as a source. You wouldn't use Sky Sports for the research into cancer, and you wouldn't use the NHS as a reliable source for David Beckham's free kick taking ability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Gibson, seriously, why don't/can't you understand - when we are talking about sports articles, we need to consider what sports articles use - which for soccer in USA is ft and in UK is ft/m. GiantSnowman 10:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, we are talking about this template; specifically the inclusion of a cm parameter. You are talking about sports articles (that is, when you can manage to stop talking about me) and cluttering the real discussion. Please, try to look at the bigger picture.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the majority of reliable sources for actor or supermodels or firemen or doctors use cm, I have ZERO problem with cm being used across those articles. However, as the majority of reliable sources about sports seems to use ft or m, that is what should be used across those articles. I really can't say it any simpler than that and if you still don't understand then I worry for you. GiantSnowman 10:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
For those who can't/won't look past sports...

Now, the next person who says something along the lines of "the majority of reliable sources about sports seems to use ft or m" had better not mind looking rather foolish.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Shame we don't actually use many of those sources on articles (for football at least - the same many not be true of all sports, further evidence that one hard and fast rule of 'cm on all articles' is simply not feasible). I'd be happy to present a list of football sources that are used on articles, which show height in ft or m, but I don't really have the time and we have done so previously, on the talk pages of specific articles, as Gibson full well knows. GiantSnowman 11:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
If, as you say, "we don't actually use" peak national and international sporting bodies as sources in their athletes' articles, then I agree with you, that is a shame.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support giving height in cm rather than m-- where this is the norm for that field, as seems to be the case in medical articles. Not sure about sports, and not really interested... I would comment that basketball players tend to be a lot taller than average, so perhaps that might be why their height is sometimes given in m Lesion (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If you're not interested in sports, why are you commenting on an RfC that predominantly affects sportspeople? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

When disagreeing, it can be helpful to remember WP:COMMONSENSE. Consistency is not always present in the world, and WP need not always be consistent. There can always be variations in the world in how standards are applied, by topic of interest (sports), by geographical area, etc. Also, an official standard may not be adhered to strictly in less formal circumstances (meters vs cm). If common usage is not absolutely overwhelming (say 99%, or something else very "high") in favor of one over another, then common usage is insufficient to decide among alternatives. WP editors generally do not do the deciding when they can avoid it. It is most accurate to use what the WP:RS uses in each case, even if that is different for different cases. If there is no single template tool that will permit the correct expression for all possible cases, then either another template needs to be created to fulfill the need, or an existing template needs to be modified to fulfill the need, or differing templates need to be applied to fulfill the need. Standardizing on use of one template is impractical until one of the first two conditions is met. This may not solve all the problems, but I hope it helps in addressing them. Evensteven (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I can get on board with all of that, as long as we also remember that it isn't (in my opinion, anyway) acceptable for a user to replace the current RS with alternate RS that they claim are better because they use their preferred unit, or some thinly-veiled justification to cover that reason. Don't replace one RS with another one to support a change in unit, in other words. SamBC(talk) 23:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
See WP:NPOV: "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." While that's talking about source-based bias, it does mention that it's not appropriate to select sources based on bias. I'd say that applies even more to any editor bias. Evensteven (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Generally agree with you on standardization, but height in sports articles may be an exception due to others' concerns with similar cm disputes and accusations of biased selection of reliable sources to push a point regarding the proper units to use on a per-article basis. Wikipedia would be better served adding real new prose to articles instead of the additional hours that will be spent debating which reliable source is of higher quality or scouring Google to find sources to push one's unit of choice. Of course the more diplomatic approach would be to further stretch good faith here, add the cm support, and then take any editors to WP:ANI for a topic ban if they are disruptive on cm vs m. My common sense approach would be to save the effort, keep this template as is , and let's move on to real improvements. It's a simple WP:CALC. "Better is the enemy of good enough"—Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My advice - Dispute resolution and disruptive editing is another issue. It won't go away no matter what happens to the template. Disruptive discussing can also thwart proper resolution of an issue on its own merits. Let other policies guide the handling of disputes. Editor POV is always a serious issue; treat it as such, especially when it causes disruption of a discussion. Don't allow it to waste too much time. But decide about the suggested template change on its own merits. Evensteven (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Generally agree, and I did call it the "diplomatic approach". However, I believe WP:IAR may be in order in this case: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Could be; but I'm not the one who should decide. Never hurts to have an outsider say "calm down everyone". Good luck. Evensteven (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
None of us solely decides, but everyone—yourself included—can contribute to consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I appreciate the welcome. Evensteven (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Convenience break on allowing use of cm as an input for this template

Okay, can someone give those of us responding to the post requesting new eyes a summary of what the the disagreement here is? This section is way TL;DR for those of us that haven't been following along the whole time. Some people want to allow cm as an input, and others do not is all I know at this point. I can see many reasons for adding this, and none why not to at this point. Thanks for whomever can give the shortest most concise summary.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Technical 13, it's a pretty long read and it seems like there are two issues. 1) is it "more correct" to list human height in m or cm? 2) should the height template allow cm? IMO I don't care at all about #1, and feel like #2 is a perfectly reasonable request. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Here. Concise enough I hope! :)--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Look just above this section for another response to the RFC. 1) From a purely measurement standpoint, 1.93m and 193cm are equivalent. Neither is "more correct". There is only a matter of standard application, which is based on convention and common usage, which can also vary. In other words, there may not be a "standard". 2) Why not, if there is a need? The real question is: "is there a need?". Now go back to #1 to find out. Evensteven (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • So, if the consensus of this discussion is that cm is not an acceptable input, what's to prevent people from leaving all kinds of hacky code on pages using {{Convert}}? Further, whats the purpose of this template in the first place? Isn't redundant from {{Convert}} and qualify as CSD:T3 anyways? Technical 13 (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In fact, the proposer of this RFC was using {{convert}}} to do that very thing while this RfC was ongoing, but has since stopped. There's also nothing stopping anyone from attempting to not use any template. Community consensus would need to determine if that was OK.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Redundancy: Generally, arguments have been made that there is some support of fractions here and not in {{convert}}, and this is a more user-friendly version as opposed to the multiple options in {{convert}}. There was also mention that convert's use of Lua would also be a limitation. I'd suggest starting a separate thread on redundancy to not complicate the cm/m preference discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit conflict, as I commented before the break here. I'll repeat, for convenience, my points against this addition here: "Wikipedia would be better served adding real new prose to articles instead of the additional hours that will be spent debating which reliable source is of higher quality or scouring Google to find sources to push one's unit of choice. Of course the more diplomatic approach would be to further stretch good faith here, add the cm support, and then take any editors to WP:ANI for a topic ban if they are disruptive on cm vs m. My common sense approach would be to save the effort, keep this template as is , and let's move on to real improvements. It's a simple WP:CALC. 'Better is the enemy of good enough'"—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason the change to this template was requested is that its output is restricted to metres only, and there seems to be consensus that centimetres too should be allowed. I think SamBC said it best when he said, "the essential problem here is summarised by this sentence, quoted from Gibson Flying V above: As far as I can tell there is a direct correlation with a source's quality and its likelihood to use centimetres for displaying people's height." Is there anyone willing to say otherwise? And if so, are they able to provide some evidence?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

See below first. If a source's quality is better in any individual case, by all means use it as a source. But that doesn't mean you have to report the height in the same units it uses. ISO standards do not require it. World convention does not require it. WP does not require it. Evensteven (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If I may interject, let's lay out all the facts straight first. The units of length "meter" and "centimeter" are officially governed by the ISO (International Standards Organization), which is the officially recognized international arbiter of measurement standards and how they are to be used. Where it specifies a restriction in the application in use of one unit or another, it is always because of a need to disambiguate the scientific meaning, to establish that a unit is good for measuring thing A and not thing B. This kind of thing is always highly technical, and doesn't apply to lengths anyway. Meter is the fundamental standard of length, defined in terms of the speed of light in a vacuum. Centimeter is derivative, meaning it is defined in terms of the meter: 100 centimeters per meter. This fact does not mean that centimeter is inferior in any way. These and other measures of differing sizes are provided because sometimes a longer measuring stick is convenient, and sometimes a smaller one is. Use of one over the other for any purpose is always a matter of convention and common usage. That is the standard. There is never any question of "correctness" of length; the standard itself eliminates the possibility. So there is never any question of the reliability of a WP source on that basis either, especially based upon any idea of bias. If they report the correct length, it does not signify what units they use; there is no bias either way. The use of one or the other is a reflection of preference (at most) or convenience, if any thought about it ever occurred to the source anyway. These are verifiable facts about the standards, and I cannot see a reasonable way to apply those facts to WP policy other than what I have said. In light of past arguments, I would suggest that any dispute about these factors be treated as a breach of WP etiquette and an instance of disruption, subject to discipline. It may take a particularly strict enforcement regarding infractions to advance this discussion, which needs to proceed without the time-wasting effects of interruption.

That said, I proceed. It seems evident that some sources use meters, others centimeters. If the proportion of one to the other is not quite close to 100%, there is simply no closely-observed convention in existence. Measurement standards don't supply such things. Only real-world practice establishes them, and mostly usage tends to be only as precise and standardized as is necessary to do the job at hand. WP reflects the world; it doesn't define it. It looks like we have a world where both units are used. At first glance that would mean that if a source uses one unit, then WP ought to use it too. But WP:CALC exists for a reason too. Units can be converted, and if done correctly (arithmetically), it's legitimate. 1.84 meters is the same as 184 cm, and changing the unit directly reported by the source does not change the accuracy or correctness of the report. A human height of 184 cm is the same reported by conversion to any other unit of length. That is a fact resulting from the ISO standard. No established convention requires use of a one unit, nor does it require use of the other. Hence, it is permissible for WP to report using either.

Now we enter a more practical realm for discussion. I ask again, "is there a need to support cm in this template"? I say, since we can use either unit to report human height, there's no need on that basis. So that's not enough reason to do it. Are there others? I don't know - let someone who knows say so.

Let me ask a different question though. "Is it desirable to support cm in this template?" What would make it desirable? General flexibility? Satisfying individual preferences in the way human heights are reported? The latter is tempting as a means to quiet the ruckus. But it rewards the overly loud, and creates the result that WP articles become less consistent. What's the more desirable: a diplomatic solution or article consistency? You can't have both. This can become a nasty question, fast, provoking a clash of opinions. There's another that has to be asked, and answered definitively.

"What would it take to provide support for cm in this template?" (Workload implementing, maintaining, choosing this work over other work that could be done instead.) This is a matter of setting priorities. What is the urgency for "cm" rather than something else? And I really think this is the question that ought to be focused on as most relevant. Expenditure of resources is always a critical matter for any organization to consider. If that isn't done, work bogs down, the important becomes overwhelmed by the bureaucratic, etc. WP needs a degree of efficiency like anyplace else. Why not put the "cm" request on the priority list (I'd say close to bottom unless something else comes up to raise it), and get around to actually doing it when it bubbles up to the top? (And not when opinions get the loudest.) And in the mean time, there's no reason to use the "convert" template instead of "height", because reporting in cm is not required. I'm not advocating adoption of "height" as a WP policy, but I am saying convert is superfluous in this application, and if it's more complicated to use, why use it here when it's not required? Doing so would be unhelpful.

I'm really not attached to any specific outcome here. I just thought these arguments might serve to focus the discussion by drawing attention to the crux points. Evensteven (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • On that basis, and since it is evident by the fact that there is at least one list of people that are less than a meter, perhaps suggesting that the use of cm should be integrated into the template as it wouldn't look right to define those people as .61 meter's tall... Technical 13 (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks right to me. Is right according to the ISO standard. Evensteven (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Alot of academic sources express human height in inches. If WP initially enforced expressing human height in inches, it wouldn't be long before consensus to allow feet and inches to be disaplayed was reached in order to suit common usage, even though 5'8" = 68 in. as per WP:CALC.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
"If WP initially enforced" - is this a hypothetical question only? How can you say what consensus would evolve? Does WP enforce use of inches? Not to my knowledge. The ISO standard would permit WP to use any length unit it governs. WP can choose to enforce use of one unit over another if consensus can be found. I just don't think it does now. What would be wrong with 5'8", or 68 in., for that matter? Well, only perhaps that the metric system is used worldwide, while pretty much only the backward old U.S. clings to the old English system. But that's a different matter entirely. The length of 68 inches is the same, whether expressed in feet-and-inches or in meters, and ISO provides the correct conversions to get from one to another. Evensteven (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this becoming clearer? 0.61m = 61cm, right? How do you know? ISO provides the correct conversions to get from one to another. The units we choose to express height are a matter of preference, not a matter of correctness. Evensteven (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
It was meant as a hypothetical thought experiment only. If it was the convention to use this template for height and not {convert}, and this template allowed for metre output only, then that is basically enforcing the use of metres to express human height, isn't it? People from metric backgrounds are not sensitive to the difference between a person's height being displayed as 60in or 5ft or 1yd, 2ft. They will however, be sensitive to the difference between a person's height being displayed as 1.84m and 184cm as it's not what they're used to seeing elsewhere. It's really a question of style, roughly analogous to "28 January 2014" vs "January 28, 2014", which WP allows flexibility for (despite being identical in meaning).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, it's a question of style. And there's not a single style that works for everyone; there's no universal convention for usage. Use one style, and it "looks right" to one set of people, and "wrong" to another. One size does not fit all. It's a reasonable thing to be pretty hands off in such cases. But WP has a practical issue at hand: the resources required to implement cm in this template. When you can't guarantee a size that fits everyone, how important is it to spend our resources to give individual editors the ability to favor one group over another? Evensteven (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that virtually all sports personages are used to seeing height in cm, that there is some kind of convention for this in the sports arena that isn't found with such prevalence elsewhere? Evensteven (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I must admit that when it comes to questions about "the resources required to implement cm in this template" I am a little out of my depth :) I do think it's worth keeping in mind WP's influential place within the online "informational ecology", and the effect that this template's shortcoming has evidently already had on people's impressions about how human height is expressed in the metric system.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) No, I'm not saying that.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, and ok. Out of my depth doesn't begin to cover it for me. I know absolutely nothing myself about those resources: what's required, what's available. Eventually, someone who does know will need to chime in to fill that gap. But I know it's an important question, and requires careful consideration, because I've worked professionally in environments where that kind of stuff comes up all the time. To consider it, the discussion needs to give those knowledgeable people solid reasons why it's important to expend the resources. So, what specifically are the template's (relevant) shortcomings (we're really talking lack of cm support here, right?), and what are the impressionable effects you mention, and who are the people, and what is the importance to them and to WP? And finally, how would cm support help to address those concerns, if one size does not fit all? You have to make it concrete for those of us who do not understand. Evensteven (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that's a heavy list of questions. But don't be discouraged. If not everything is a big deal, that doesn't mean it's all insignificant. Putting together some answers can help in getting your request to the right place on the priority queue. It may take longer than you'd like, but that doesn't mean it would never get done. Evensteven (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem :) I know where you're coming from.
What specifically are the template's (relevant) shortcomings (we're really talking lack of cm support here, right?)

  • Yes, we are. {{convert}} affords editors total flexibility in what metric units (centimetres or metres) are displayed, whereas this one appears to only allow for output in metres. Whether this template was ever intended for human height is not known, but regardless, its use to express human height is now widespread (as is {{convert}}'s). This means that even if a person's height has only ever been expressed in centimetres by reliable sources, it is still displayed in metres on WP if this template is used.
Comment: This statement has been at the top of the talk page since it was created: "Created for sports articles, to indicate how tall a player is." The intent is clear. Tewapack (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Well that really begs the question of how familiar the author of that comment was with using the metric system to express height.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What are the impressionable effects you mention, and who are the people, and what is the importance to them and to WP?

  • The impression given is that WP prefers the expression of human height in metres. As WP is supposed to merely reflect reliable sources, this can therefore give the further impression that reliable sources prefer the expression of human height in metres. WP readers from non-metric backgrounds are more likely to be susceptible to this impression. WP readers from metric backgrounds may get the impression that they're now part of a minority that prefers cm to express human height. Based on this mistaken belief, they might then change their preference. Other WP readers from metric backgrounds may think less of WP's content for failing to conform with reliable sources. The importance of all these people is that they're often the ones who edit (or don't edit) WP. However, not only WP readers are to be considered, but also readers of sources that take their cues from WP. I'd be surprised if I'm the only person who has noticed the number of such sources growing and growing.

How would cm support help to address those concerns, if one size does not fit all?

  • cm support would help to address these concerns by removing this disconnect between WP content and the reliable sources from which it's taken. This is because the relative prominence of both cm and m when expressing human height could be more accurately reflected by WP.

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so let's see if I can get it all down in one gulp. I've basically been arguing that it doesn't matter which unit is used for display on WP, because as long as the conversion is right, there is no bias, no inaccuracy, all is supported by ISO. Therefore, which template is used doesn't matter either, except for the convenience of WP editors. Which is all correct so far as it goes.
However, I hear you saying that there are whole large groups, readily identifiable as "readers from non-metric backgrounds" and "readers from metric backgrounds" for whom there are well-established conventions, and that the conventions do not match for the two groups. Nothing to do with sports or athletes, everything to do with demographics. The impressions left behind on the separate groups differ, and on one group may be negative by implying that they are in a minority (go away don't bother me) or that WP is biased (or at least foreign) in not observing conventions. In addition, WP in turn influences the world community to follow its lead with respect to the conventions. "Accurately reflected by WP" does not refer to numerical accuracy of the height, but rather accuracy in reflecting the conventions. Even more specifically, the convention for "readers from non-metric backgrounds" is "there's no issue; it doesn't matter", while the convention for "readers from metric backgrounds" is "human height in cm, not m; it looks foreign or inconsiderate or inaccurate done another way".
If I have this right, and if you are right about these groups and conventions, then what is really going on is an issue of Systemic Bias, which has made its way into WP and is forced to continue as a WP:Systemic Bias by not having the tools needed to address it there. This type of bias favors one population over another, in all-too-invisible ways; invisible, that is, to the ones it favors - highly visible to the ones it does not. If cm support is added to the height template, then that will allow editors to address the systemic bias by using cm for human height.
Let's have a reality check before going to the next step. Did I hear you aright? Evensteven (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Mostly, yes. Although I'd hesitate to say it's whole, large, readily identifiable groups separated purely by demographics. For example, we've seen evidence in this discussion that the use of metres to express human height strikes people with medical backgrounds as odd, and reliable sources from every English-speaking country appear to pefer cm. Having said that though, the possibility of WP:Systemic Bias certainly has crossed my mind. After all, my main antagonists seem to all be male, British and members of soccer's wikiproject. Before too much more time is spent discussing this though, User:Jimp (who may be able to help us on the question regarding template modification resource requirements) has just repeated what seems to be a highly relevant suggestion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree about his suggestion, which is partly why I stopped for a pause. First, as to systemic bias, it's rarely very pure. Since it deals with large groups of people, the reality is always complex, involving influence and cross-influence. What you say doesn't disturb my impression in the least, especially in the modern world where influences travel at near the speed of light. The foundation though, seems to lie in familiarity with the metric system - not just its units, but how they're used directly day-to-day. Any scientist will deal with it daily, medical people certainly. The next real question is, what to do about addressing a systemic bias.
Cm support in this template might do something, but only if this template continues to be used. I've heard a comment about it being easier to use than convert. But User:Jimp calls it an "old beast" worth deprecating. So I assume convert is newer, more robust, much more feature-filled, etc. And I've seen here that it's already capable of producing results in cm. None of this am I particularly familiar with. Nor do I know of any WP conventions, or consensus, or policies that govern the use of one over the other. And my lack of that knowledge is purely ignorance - no indicator about whether or not those things exist. But favoring the newer, fuller implementation of convert does seems at first sight to be a reasonable technical choice. It also has the advantage of not costing any resources for tool upgrades.
So there is an existing tool that has the power to address systemic bias now. I think the next question goes to the wider community. There are independent editors here who can see a systemic bias. Even if you can't see it, beware that they can be difficult to see. But given that if you can't, we're figuring that your perspective is that there is no difference between heights in m and heights in cm. And in fact, ISO says there is none. The only difference can be in perspective, in preference. Therefore, what reason do you have for remaining behind meters? Continued lifetime for the height template? It costs resources to maintain tools. Continuation also requires justification. Start talking about the migration path for old tools. Everything has a useful life, and old tools die. If it's something else, it's time to say so. If there's no difference for you to prefer m over cm, recognize that ISO permits cm just as firmly as it does m. Why not just agree to use the cm conversion for all human heights. Again, it doesn't matter what the WP:RS use; as far as measurement goes, ISO guarantees equivalence. The issue is not accuracy of measurement. If there is this systemic bias, then use of cm provides the expected convention for those most familiar with the metric system, and for those less familiar it doesn't matter. Following the WP:RS does not matter, because of WP:CALC. Those things cut both ways.
Two questions then: 1) give the benefit of any doubt and support cm everywhere? and 2) where to go with the use of templates. Evensteven (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
1) give the benefit of any doubt and support cm everywhere?
Are you asking here whether I'd advocate a version of the status quo that involves the retention of this template with only one metric unit being allowed for output, but that unit is the centimetre (rather than the metre, as it currently is)? And this would be because, as you say, If there is this systemic bias, then use of cm provides the expected convention for those most familiar with the metric system, and for those less familiar it doesn't matter. It is tempting to say yes, however I can't say with 100% certainty that there won't be a group of people with metric backgrounds for whom seeing cm instead of m would be odd. Feeling as though I might be on the "wrong" end of a systemic bias now, I certainly would not like to introduce my own version of systemic bias for others to experience in the future. Having said that though, if absolutely forced to make a choice as to which one of the two metric units this template should support, the majority of reliable sources appear to be fairly conclusive: the centimetre.
2) where to go with the use of templates.
Are you asking here whether I'd advocate the retirement of {height} in favour of {convert}? This is an attractive option that avoids the potentially difficult choice above. If {convert} replaced {height} I envision this potential systemic bias we've identified being remedied naturally, as editors will be allowed to display heights as they're displayed in reliable sources on all occasions. I'd also like to point out that it is common for both of these templates to appear side by side in biographies already: {height} for the person's height alongside {convert} for their weight. Simply using {convert} for both height and weight means editors only have to be familiar with how to use the one template instead of two.
--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
1) is a completely separate issue from the templates. It's about systemic bias only. I'm saying that it seems reasonable to me that in light of the particular bias we've identified, that cm be used as the way to neutralize the bias from all sides. And cm should then be used (generally) in all cases, regardless of what units the sources use. The sources don't matter; ISO gives the authoritative conversion, and WP:CALC endorses the conversion. The place where the sources do matter is that they show evidence of conventions, and in this case, the systemic bias itself. They can be used in recognizing when there's a convention or not; they help the WP community decide. But once the WP community has a consensus that the convention exists, WP is free to apply the convention independently of whether the sources did or not, and it's ISO and WP:CALC that give the authority to do that. Therefore, having recognized the systemic bias myself, I think it's reasonable to use cm generally in all general cases on WP, unless there is another smaller context where a different convention applies. {convert} is the tool that makes that usage possible, and since {height} currently doesn't, {convert} is currently what you have to use to get there.
2) But the current state of WP tools is not the forever state of them. Do we want to spend resources to get {height} to support cm, or do we simply want to take advantage of the functionality that's already in {convert}? It costs to add functionality to {height}, and it costs to maintain any tool. What's the best use of resources? Where do we want to spend them? What's the best direction for the tools' WP usage to take in order to minimize the costs and ensure we get the best result for them. Do we want to retire {height}? It also costs work to take {height} out of the places where WP uses it now, and to replace it with {convert}. But at some point, that is a reasonable technical option, almost a necessity. Have we reached that point? Or are we close? Or do we just want to start now and get there when we can? Those are some of the choices the community can discuss, and when it has, it can endorse specific options too. Your observation about the side-by-side existence of {height} and {convert} already in articles can influence the decisions. But it's the people who create and maintain the tools that know the inner details of cost, feasibility, desirability, and priority. And they definitely should be asked for input on this question. In the absence of personal knowledge about the tools, I'd say the option to migrate away from {height} and over to {convert} looks like it has real pluses, just as you do. So let's ask the tools people what they think about those observations, and then we'll know if our gut feel is on target or not. Evensteven (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Let me formalise/summarise my position. Do I believe cm could be a useful parameter? Yes. Do I think it should currently be implemented? No. Why, you ask? Because of the ever-increasing fear that the new parameter will be abused, as we have already seen by using {{Convert}}. Gibson, the main/only proponent of this change, seems utterly oblivious to the fact that different professions/different nationalities use different height formats. In soccer, for instance, height is primarily in m, but is also in ft. In basketball, baseball, American football, professional wrestling etc. height is almost always in ft. I have zero confidence at all that should a cm parameter be introduced, Gibson will not make mass changes against standard conventions/practice and reliable sources. I have been waiting for him to say "I accept that different heights are used in different professions/different nationalities, and will not make any mass changes to cm" - have near-enough invited him to say that on a number of occasions - but he is unable to do so because he knows it is not the truth. That is why I currently oppose the introduction of this new parameter. GiantSnowman 09:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I ask your pardon. I did not see this edit before inserting mine above. More to come. Evensteven (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok. First, conversions never go against reliable sources if only the arithmetic is correct. Never. ISO guarantees it. All that may matter is conventions. And if there really is a convention, then it will be highly visible outside WP. If it's really there, then WP is free to follow the convention, regardless of the units present in the sources. ISO guarantees the validity of that approach; WP endorses it in WP:CALC. So there's a lot of support in all that for doing the right thing, regardless of fears or persons. Simply claiming that there is a convention may not be enough. If enough editors recognize it from their experience, it may be easy to gather support. If not, it may take some convincing evidence. But if it's there, it's doable. You need to get recognition from the community for the conventions you are seeing, and the burden of proof is on you. These particular sports may follow conventions that are outside those normally attributed to the general populations. A medical doctor may use cm at the office and feet when watching basketball. They're both useful units after all; the one thing does not eliminate the other. So there can also be a general rule constructed from general systemic bias such as that proposed above, running concurrently with specific alternate conventions such as those you describe in sports. There is no conflict. There is only the need to establish the convention within WP by consensus, and then to enforce that consensus within the proper contexts. With recognition and consensus, there is authority to preventoverturn non-conformant edits by anyone, whether done in good faith or not. Evensteven (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC) strikeout/change above Evensteven (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree there should be no conflict - but unfortunately with this editor in question there is. He only believes in cm, and has introduced cm to articles where it is not appropriate (see Talk:Liam Miller, for example). All he has to do is acknowledge that some use ft, some use m, and some use cm, and that having one format (i.e. cm) for every article is wholly inappropriate. GiantSnowman 11:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's not forget that the SI unit for length is metres. That's a pretty strong reason for primarily using metres wherever possible, I would say. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, there is no conflict in having alternate conventions that run concurrently. One applies the convention in the context where that is suited. When there is consensus on WP as to the existence of a convention, and what that convention consists of, then there is consensus that that convention ought to be used in its proper context(s). Conflict with another user is a different matter. Where there is no consensus, then consensus needs to be sought. It is consensus of the entire community; the other user may not agree, you may not agree, but it is the community's consensus. Once that has been established, then no one can make the edits you're talking about. There is authority in the consensus to overturn improper edits. But there is no such authority for an individual editor, not you, not him. Work to get the consensus you need; make your case and argue it in front of the community, civilly. He must do the same, or forfeit. Here's a thought I once found in the Wall Street Journal: article by Jason Zweig, Jan 11, 2014, p.B9, "In investing, as in life, ridiculing the people who disagree with you is a fairly certain sign that you don't have the facts on your side." Works that way on WP too. WP:CIVIL rules.
Lukeno94, the "primary" SI unit for length is meter; cm is a derived SI unit. But neither of those facts make one preferred over the other. Both are SI. Those classifications are technical, and mean that meter is defined in terms of the speed of light in a vacuum (a universal physical constant), and centimeters are defined in terms of meter. They both exist because each provides a useful measuring stick. In the real world, it is up to the individual which one seems the more useful in a given situation. Where there are generally accepted conventions, the conventions are generally followed. WP can recognize the conventions and follow them. No loss of authoritative foundation. Evensteven (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The SI unit for length is metre, therefore it is more prevalent. Centimetres, millimetres, kilometres, whatever prefix of metres you like, are not SI; they are related to an SI unit, but they are not SI. To say that they are shows a misunderstanding of what SI actually is. The speed of light is measured in metres per second, not metres. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not true, although it used to be some time ago. The meter is now defined as the distance light goes in a specified time. The speed of light is indeed measured, but our ability to measure it is limited to a certain precision in any case. But if we are to measure it in terms of the meter, then we first have to know what a meter is. The old standard meter was a physical object. Copies of that object had to be made so that different nations could adhere to the standard in a practical way. It used to be precise enough. But modern times have demanded ever greater precision. And the ability to measure more precisely began to show that those standard meter-sized physical objects were not all precisely the same length. In addition, it showed that they changed length over time, due to gas absorption or something. So the old standard just wasn't good enough any more, and it had to be changed. So now we start with defining the meter (making it the "primary") and then we use it to define the subdivisions/groupings (making them derivative), but they're all SI, all defined in proportion to each other, and all officially supported by the ISO without prejudice. If the world needed only the meter as its single measuring stick, it wouldn't need the others. The others exist for everyone's convenience. It's a practical matter. Prevalence depends on what context you're working in. Meters are not the unit used when you're talking about the diameters of atoms. Neither when you're talking about interplanetary distances. Likewise, cm is very common when it comes to human height. Evensteven (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Centimetres are clearly SI units. See SI derived unit. Furthermore, while day, month, year, and litre are not SI units - wikipedia uses them lots, & SI supports their use (and maintains the abbreviations/symbols). Furthermore, we do not say it rained 0.003 metres or snowed 0.02 metres last night.--JimWae (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
A SI derived unit is not the same as a SI unit, as the very name says. Also in the UK we talk about snow/rain in inches, so... GiantSnowman 17:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Talking about days/months/years is not helpful, and nor is it relevant; in those cases, the SI unit would be inappropriate to use. That is not the case here. Litres is not an SI unit, but no one works in cubic metres outside of scientific fields, so that's why that gets used. Metres are a very common regular unit, and as they are an SI unit, we should generally use them. And you're another person who has fallen into the trap of thinking that SI derived units are the same as SI units; they aren't, otherwise they wouldn't be derived. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I have not seen for some time such poor reasoning & arguing & smugness as I have on this topic. These derived units are clearly units within the SI system & their usage is clearly supported by the SI body. Arguiing that England uses inches anyway is either completely off-topic or complete smugness.--JimWae (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Jim - why? You said that "we do not say it rained 0.003 metres or snowed 0.02 metres last night", and I was merely agreeing with you. We say we got inches (US) or inches (UK)
I didn't say they were the same thing. But the significance is technical, and relates only to the OSI-supported definition of the units. It is not significant as to the correctness of when one is to be used rather than another. You misunderstand the significance of the name difference. Evensteven (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
And technically, I shouldn't have been saying meter is a "primary" unit. The correct technical term is "base unit": base unit because it is the unit that the definitions of the derived units are based on. Evensteven (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The following document may provide us with a clue about the International Standards Organisation's preference (or that of its writers) when it comes to which metric unit human height is best expressed in:
https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CFAQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmetadata-standards.org%2FDocument-library%2FDocuments-by-number%2FWG2-N1051-N1100%2FWG2-N1079-ISO-IEC%2520WD1%252011179-4%2520Ed3.doc&ei=zJvnUqmHC-SWiQff5IA4&usg=AFQjCNENf61NxXXWyZt2HXFo3HjY8wjNRA&bvm=bv.59930103,d.aGc
Page 2, 4.2 Properties and characteristics.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The ISO is based in Europe and the document uses the cm convention. That's what we might expect in a general population that uses the metric system for everything, daily. That's their "normal". Evensteven (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
But if that usage was supposed to be a part of the ISO standard, there would be a whole discussion about why cm should be used rather than another unit. As expected, there is none. That's because the ISO standards do not mandate use of a particular unit for anything, unless it's to say "unit X is appropriate for measuring thing A and not thing B" (where the two things may be subtly different - that can happen in science). Here, we're talking plain lengths, where it never comes up. Evensteven (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Another convenience break

We have skipped a comment earlier by Tewapack here. Thanks. If that has a bearing on whether or not {height} should continue to be used, supported, and upgraded with new features, those things should also be added to that discussion. Continuity is important, because if something was useful enough to be created in the first place, then the current situation needs to be examined to see if the same needs and uses apply now, or if there are other options that would satisfy them. Evensteven (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Good comment from @Tewapack:. I would be 100% happy for {{height}} to be remain being used on sport-related articles, as it was meant to be done, and using {{convert}}, with cm as appropriate, used on supermodels and actors etc. GiantSnowman 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
And why it was meant to be done is also important, because it could be a deciding factor in whether or not cm support should be added to {height}. Evensteven (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Convert template and fractions

I noticed mention of {{convert}} and fractions. In case it's of interest, frac=N now works, for example:

  • {{convert|1.81|m|ftin|frac=2}} → 1.81 metres (5 ft 11+1⁄2 in)
  • {{convert|1.81|m|ftin|frac=4}} → 1.81 metres (5 ft 11+1⁄4 in)
  • {{convert|1.81|m|ftin|frac=64}} → 1.81 metres (5 ft 11+17⁄64 in)

It's not wanted here, but the last example shows that anything can be used for N. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Units question

The Tiger Woods article says he's 1.85 meters. Is that not equivalent to 185 centimeters? Or is the mixed-mode presentation a problem? That is, because it says 6 feet 1 inch, if you were to use centimeters would you then also need to change it to 73 inches? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
For equivalent measurements, the typical units are shown, such as "cm" with "ft in" but first showing the common unit for the particular sport, although {height} has been used to show only "m" metres while many international groups, such as for surfers or volleyball, use "cm" (not sure about golf). Canadian and Australian groups tend to use "cm" heights while UK groups have used "m" heights. Overall, it is very rare to have just inches without feet, but sport horses are such a case, as with {hands|15.3+3/4} showing: 15.3 3⁄4 hands (63.75 inches, 162 cm), not showing "5 feet". -Wikid77 18:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there any practical difference between 1.85 meters and 185 centimeters? I keep seeing arguments about "sources". I'd like to see a source that claims 1.85 meters does not equate to 185 centimeters. I thought the whole point of the metric system was that it doesn't matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
1.84 m does equal 184 cm, just as 5 feet does equal 1 yard, & 2 feet, just as 28 January 2014 does equal January 28, 2014. It's a question of style.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The important question is, does the average reader care? The thing is, the centimeter is essentially the "metric inch". So if you're going to say 185 cm, you should also say 73 inches, so that the styles match. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion serves as evidence that the average reader who is used to the metric system for expressing height outside Wikipedia does care. The average reader who is not, doesn't.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
A conventional usage in some particular field does not necessarily prove anything about what the average reader might care about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The convention does not appear to be restricted to any particular field or geographic locale. The likelihood of using cm seems only to increase with the quality of the source.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Tell me more about the "quality" of sources. Can you link to examples of an inferior source that uses meters and a superior source that uses centimeters? Also, can you find a source that explicitly states cm is replacing m? Or is that strictly your personal observation? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
More about the quality of sources. Examples of an inferior source that uses meters and a superior source that uses centimeters. Regarding a source that explicitly states cm is replacing m.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The latter is the official team site, right? Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia article for your example, Kévin Théophile-Catherine, gives a different height. So it would seem that m vs. cm is the least of your worries! Also, although our article does not give the weight, suppose it did: would it then be in pounds and kilograms? Or would it be in stones and kilograms, as that official site has? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
You're right, it is the least of my worries. It's the British soccer wikiproject members who are opposing the change to this template that are advocating the use of the former (1, 2).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Between your two cited sources and the Wikipedia article, we have 3 different heights for that guy. Which one is correct? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Clearly the one which has access to Théophile-Catherine and a doctor in their employment whose job it is to conduct physical examinations, which also happens to be the one that has a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence....--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the team doctor knows the player's vital stats, but is there any legal requirement to disclose that info to the public? In America, at least, teams have been known to fudge the "official" heights and weights of players for various marketing reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Is that to say you think WP should err on the side of caution and follow unofficial sources just in case official sources are inaccurate?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
This kind of question has already been addressed above. 1.85 meters equals 185 centimeters; both give the same length (height). Preferences for one style or another are the result of convention only. But a convention can be so widespread and ingrained that violation of it looks like POV in the eyes of the reader: that's when it becomes Systemic Bias. That bias can be worth neutralizing, even though it is not based on any dispute about the actual length. 185 cm may equal 73 inches, so your observation has a sort of logic to it, but unfortunately conventions don't translate that way from unit to unit. Part of the translation disconnect is that some people do care whether you say 1.85 meters as opposed to 185 cm (for a human height). Evensteven (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
If these conventions are so widely known and established, where is the dispute coming from? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
From those who are aware of them. It's a characteristic of systemic bias that if you're on the wrong side of it, it tends to become invisible to you. It's the person with the reverse bias that sees it readily. The U.S. tends to be less metric-aware, less metric-active on a daily basis, so less aware of the ways in which its units are used in everyday life. But Europe sees metric-always, uses it for everything, is aware. That's an oversimplification, and the bias is not restricted to geography, but systemic biases tend to be messy that way. Evensteven (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Being more metric-aware does not explain why 1.85 or 185 would be the preferred style. Is there a reliable source for what the preferred style is? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The preference is entirely casual, based in common usage. To most who use it, it is virtually invisible. It's used because "that's the way we do it". So it may not ever be described explicitly. What you have to do is to look in sources and just observe what usage they employ. If it's a convention, most sources are going to employ that usage, unconsciously. It's the overall pattern that counts. But for an example, try

https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CFAQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmetadata-standards.org%2FDocument-library%2FDocuments-by-number%2FWG2-N1051-N1100%2FWG2-N1079-ISO-IEC%2520WD1%252011179-4%2520Ed3.doc&ei=zJvnUqmHC-SWiQff5IA4&usg=AFQjCNENf61NxXXWyZt2HXFo3HjY8wjNRA&bvm=bv.59930103,d.aGc
from a little higher in the discussion. It's a document from ISO itself, reflecting the common convention of daily-metric-system users so prevalent in Europe. See page 2, Properties and characteristics and observe the convention used to describe human height in cm. Evensteven (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "There is do, or not do. There is no "why". - Yoda, paraphrased :) Evensteven (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So is "stones" the most common usage for a player's weight in England? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: {convert} allows for output in stones, if it is seen as appropriate. The issue is that this template does not allow for output in cm without evidence of consideration being given to appropriateness.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, "most common" is not even enough to establish "convention". "Convention" is consensus-type, not majority-type. It stands out only when it's not there, and something else is in its place. The "something else" looks strange, or foreign, or unexpected. It's a see-it-everywhere-you-look kind of thing. It's hard not to find it. Evensteven (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
If it's so common, why would any soccer website give the height in meters? Are they unaware of this convention? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Because in this case, there's an opposite convention, too. The two conventions operate concurrently within two large groups, loosely defined as "metric-centric" and "non-metric-centric". One group uses the metric system daily, and sees it used by others daily, so that they pick up a kind of "metric way of doing things" or expressing things. The other group does not. They may know what a meter is, so when they express a metric length, it tends to come out as meters. There's no real way to define this exactly. If this looks fuzzy, that's because it is. You can't make an absolutely correct statement about a general population, especially when it comes to "why". Why do any people do things the way they do? They start out needing to accomplish things, do them, and the way they were done tends to stick, if it worked at all. Learning from experience. Accumulating conventions. Different starting circumstances can produce different conventions. Evensteven (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Oh, and yes. They may be entirely unaware of the other convention. Evensteven (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Do all official soccer team sites (in Europe, let's say) express the players' heights in centimeters? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Premier League], for one, uses m. But apparently some of its teams' own websites use cm.—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
"Some of", but not all? What's the more valid source, the league site or the individual teams' sites? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This is now the 3rd separate occassion on which Bagumba has brought the Premier League's use of m up in this discussion. Meanwhile, the list of first-rate sources that prefer cm keeps growing.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
If the league site contradicts an individual team site, which one is "right"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is "right" about a convention. They use it, or they don't. Evensteven (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
If a situation is inconsistent or in the middle somewhere, that's where it is. Use of conventions, especially two conflicting ones, gets messy. You have to live with it. Nobody is "right". Evensteven (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Conventions develop over time, gradually accumulating recognition and acceptance. Then when you later put two contradicting conventions into close proximity, as we have here now, you get a mix of usage, including lots of inconsistency. And that inconsistency may eventually destroy both original conventions. Later, a new consensus may develop, in which case you then have a single new convention, consistently exhibited. Evensteven (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
When I say "right", what I mean is what is "most valid" as a source? Also, as 185 cm is the same as 1.85 m, how about having the template display both, or at least have the option to select both? That may seem silly, but to those not familiar with the metric system, it is not necessarily obvious that 1.85 m = 185 cm. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Both cm and m would be overkill. Anyone not familiar with metric would just look at the ft-in, no?—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no "most valid". We've been writing yards of material on that very point. Evensteven (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. And if neither m nor cm is "the" right answer, then you're pretty much compelled to use both. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I would think if there is no "right" answer, you choose one of the units and move on to something more constructive. And since one unit has been used for years in a vast majority of WP sports articles, why incur more work by choosing another unit except to prove a point.—Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@Gibson Flying V: Is the Premier League to be ignored for some resaon? Unless I'm missing something, it seemed more relevant to Baseball Bugs' question than the first-rate source your list has on pygmies. Or are you saying that non-sports sources' preference for cm should weigh more than sources in a particular athlete's domain? If that is the case, please be clear.—Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's not to be ignored. Nor is it to be repeatedly singled out. Imagine if I added links to all the sources I've found 2 or 3 times each at different points in this discussion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Sources' preferences for one unit or another are irrelevant. See discussions above. The point is made repeatedly. Evensteven (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
If there is no absolute right answer, then don't you have to use both m and cm? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
No. see below. Evensteven (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Use case: NBA player

There's been a lot of theoretical talk on the topic of using m vs cm, so it would be useful to use a real-life example to understand what the thought process for a specific example might be. National Basketball Association player Kevin Durant is listed at NBA.com as 6'9''/ 2.06m. The NBA is an American league with one team in Canada. How should his height be listed in en.wp and why?

  1. 6 ft 9 in (206 cm)
  2. 6 ft 9 in (2.06 m)
  3. 206 cm (6 ft 9 in)
  4. 2.06 m (6 ft 9 in)

—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I can't really say. In deciding it might be worth noting though, that USA Basketball, the national and international level governing body of the sport in the United States, displays Durant's height as 6’10” (208 cm).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that a player primarily known by ft-in should not have their converted measurements always be displayed in centimeters e.g. 6 ft 9 in (206 cm)? When would it be suitable to be listed in cm vs m? Or is your cm request only for players primarily known by a metric height?—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
See my comment above. There is no "right" answer to this question. Evensteven (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Then Wikipedia should post both m and cm. As to USA Basketball, they appear to have some authority over the way American players are selected for international competition, but I would be very surprised if they have any "governing" authority over the NBA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that it does. I provided a WP:Wikilink to it if anyone wants to read about it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The point being that the NBA's official site would override USA Basketball, because the players are employees of the NBA, not of USA Basketball. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Unnecessary, Baseball Bugs. Cm covers all needs. Evensteven (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
So does meters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It is a systemic bias visible to those who use the opposite convention. Cm is not particularly visible as a system bias because those of the opposite bias don't really recognize one usage or the other as outstanding (usually; here's the exception). Evensteven (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
So which "bias" is correct? Or should I say, which "bias" is better sourced for Wikipedia purposes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
They're both sourced. Besides, the whole point of a system bias is to avoid it. Using cm only is a suggestion for doing so. It just so happens in this case that taking one side could work for both. Aren't we lucky? Evensteven (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a bias in favor of centimeters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is. But for the non-daily-metric-users, it won't be particularly visible, and won't provoke adverse reaction. Except perhaps in this forum, initially, but that's because we're trying to sort it out and are looking at it hard, like most don't. To most people of that view, it won't be a big deal. Making us very lucky, in that we can defuse the bias by simply choosing one side of the bias. Evensteven (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you arguing that the vast majority of what you call "daily metric users" would favor centimeters over meters in this context? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
That is what we've been told, and I've seen no evidence to the contrary, while I have seen evidence in support. It also makes some common sense, in that it's the daily users that are likely to develop such conventions through daily use, while the others have a "convention" based only on weak familiarity that stresses the "meter" unit. Evensteven (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Why would soccer fan pages use meters instead of centimeters? Surely they would qualify as "daily metric users"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
True, but they might also be using a convention that applies just to soccer, or to sports, or some such smaller category. As we've already seen, the systemic bias is the largest-scale factor and biggest-category convention, but that doesn't mean narrower conventions can't be used concurrently. It does take some sorting out. So, consider soccer club websites, sport magazines writing about soccer, anything soccer-related, consider whether or not those sources are daily-metric-users (to see if that's an influence), and then see if you arrive at a pattern of consensus. If you do, and if it's still the daily-metric-user bias, then that's probably the convention that's being used. If you do, and it's another convention, then that's probably a separate convention that applies more narrowly; use that one. And if you find no consensus, then it's an open question. There may just not be a convention to follow. So you default back to the proposal for cm. Bottom line: you have to see for yourself if there's a pattern in the sources, and what the pattern might be (i.e. is it different from the systemic bias). A wide-based sampling should do. Get consensus on your findings. Then you've got a settled WP environment to provide consistency of edits without being subject to edit wars. Evensteven (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We digress. How do cm proponents suggest NBA players like Durant above be handled? I think I'm hearing that NBA.com listing m is superseded by the weight of other sources, and cm should be listed (option 1); if not, what would be needed in order for m to be shown (option 2).—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It might pay to have a re-read then (1, 2). You're not the first person to try bogging the discussion about this template down with discussion about individual cases. If you have a preference regarding this template's future, please state it and back it up with well reasoned arguments grounded in policy and/or reliable sources.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I do think it helps to show how this stuff can play out in WP practice, however, and I hear that element strongly in the question. Evensteven (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Transparency in the thought process for a concrete example could quell some concerns expressed earlier by editors e.g. "absolutely no trust in editors like Gibson Flying V", "I have zero confidence at all that should a cm parameter be introduced, Gibson will not make mass changes against standard conventions/practice and reliable sources.".—Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I think sources should rule. We've already seen with National Basketball League players, that even though their present team reports their height in cm, if they are American citizens this might offend the sensibilities of their countrymen, so m was re-instated. Is there evidence that metres are preferred by Americans? Or do they not care either way? Conversely, if an Australian is playing in the NBA, do we disregard its reporting of m and go with cm to suit his countrymen? As people's height can and does change throughout their life, it makes sense to go with the source that measured them most recently for an accurate reading. WP:CALC means that even if this reading is reported in a particular unit, and is used to reference the article's height, WP can still report it in a different unit, if that is what the "citizenship rule" demands. Will such inconsistency result in more trouble down the road? Even in a case where 100% of sources display a player's height in a particular unit, should it be displayed on WP in the other to suit the "citizenship rule"? It's not an easy question, and it may be appropriate to be decided on a wikiproject basis, but more likely on an individual article basis. What implications any of this has for this template though, I'm not certain.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd taken the view that not responding to accusations of bad faith was the best option for dealing with it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
What about the more simplistic case of Kevin Durant, an American playing in an American league. What units would you choose for this more common case? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Whatever units are determined by consensus, whether that be wikipedia-wide consensus, wikiproject consensus or individual article consensus. That's obvious isn't it? If you assume good faith, that is.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I kindly ask editors to follow remedies at WP:DDE or other appropriate dispute resolution avenues if they feel there is bad faith. I see so point in cluttering this discussion with "good faith", when we all WP:AGF, no?—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Please be explicit if you are choosing not to share your personal opinion on how Americans playing in the NBA should have their heights listed. I'm sure we all are aware of how WP:CONS works here. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh alright, I'll throw you a bone: if you insist that I give my own personal opinion on how consensus may play out, it would be that the lead of supranational bodies such as FIBA12 or the IOC are followed. It appears these in turn take their cues from consensus amongst national bodies.345 This affords a nice congruence with how WP operates I think.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that. I'm not as convinced as you, as there sources in m that you did not mention at FIBA Americas League[7], British Basketball League[8], Euroleague[9], Eurocup[10], and the aforementioned NBA [11]. I'm thinking we can line up more cm and m sources that still wouldn't establish a clear convention.—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm glad it's not up to me to decide.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, none of us single-handedly decides, right? Based on the sources for m, would you still recommend displaying cm for Americans (option 1)? If yes, why?—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The international aspect of FIBA and the Olympics tip the balance to cm for me personally.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Would it follow that you also believe Euroleague players should be listed with cm also e.g. 206 cm (6 ft 9 in), based on the international organizations you cited?—Bagumba (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Bagumba, re #2, evidence for a separate narrower convention, as described immediately above, and consensus on it. Decide how narrow you think the convention is. One team is really too small to comprise a "convention". The whole NBA, could be. Basketball, plus some other sports, if it's there. Spot checking a wide distribution of sources should help you to find any conventions pretty readily. The existence of the narrower convention would actually supersede the bigger one (#1). Evensteven (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there is a concern that arguments providing greater weight to academic sources and other arguments for "high quality" sources would always trump any league or sport convention. Due to past conflicts between some editors, those concerns will probably persist until objective criteria are outlined. Applying those criteria to popular leagues such as the NBA or the Premier League would provide a comprehensive evaluation.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Gibson, you will have to deal with my so-called 'bad faith' comments (though I assure you they are not - I simply need to know your intentions; and if you want to talk about bad-faith then please withdraw your earlier slur about "British soccer editors") about you using the template at some point. You have demonstrated an extremely strong preference for cm, in face of sources/conventions, across all articles, both in your rhetoric and your editing history. Please respond to me so we can move on. Should this parameter be introduced, do you intend to use cm across all articles? GiantSnowman 12:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
[12]--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:AOBF.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you explained how the acronyms you use are applicable.—Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It's my preference not to clutter this discussion up any further with this kind of nonsense, but if you insist: I think the words "please withdraw your earlier slur" leave little room for doubt when it comes to identifying accusations of bad faith, don't you?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
If I understand GiantSnowman's comment, he is referring to your earlier comment "It's the British soccer wikiproject members who are opposing the change ...", which WP:NPA#WHATIS suggests is a personal attack "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". That being said, I'll again ask editors to deal with user conduct issues outside this discussion, perhaps addressing the problem per WP:DDE.—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
See previous comment.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, please take a look at the discussion below, following my WP:TLDR. It should help explain to you why it would have saved you the trouble of this exchange if you had actually read it. Evensteven (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh drat. I really misdirected that one, I think. Sorry. :( Evensteven (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias

The argument of a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of m vs cm seems to me to be a bit dramatic if not overblown. Systemic bias provides non-neutral coverage such as under-reporting women's contributions, favoring European subjects, weighing recent events disproportionately, etc. There is no neutrality issue with m vs cm; the measurements in either conveys the same length. Other systemic biases have many reliable sources that discuss the bias in the real world, and sometimes even specifically for the issue on Wikipedia. Am I missing coverage that details the alleged meter systemic bias? The discussion on cm should continue, but let's not make it into a more nobler cause than it really is.—Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree this is not a high-profile case of systemic bias, but the pattern is there, and we can deal with it readily enough. Evensteven (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, once it comes into view, look at how it has heated the discussions in this forum. With bias, the potential is always there. Evensteven (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
And, let me remind everyone that the bias is not about actual heights of anyone, but rather about the conventions used to express heights. Yes it does seem silly on the surface of it. But everyone gets used to seeing things done in a certain way, and can find it jarring when they encounter something that doesn't fit. It can end up being just one more grating thing at the end of a long day, and all of a sudden someone has a fully formed opinion based on very little substance. And really, we're trying to promote the opposite at WP: presenting research that helps people create informed opinions. Evensteven (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree with all your points. I just don't think "systemic bias" is the proper term, when it is usually reserved for NPOV concerns and bias that "discriminates against underrepresented cultures and topics"—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. "Systemic bias" is reserved for those things, but not exclusively those. POV or bias can be institutional. There is a case based on religious belief. And those beliefs influenced whole cultures and societies over centuries, establishing threads of POV that transcended the institutions. Whenever you have very large groups that, for whatever reason, develop differently, it can produce POVs dependent on the thread of development that may or may not be easily seen from the outside. I know where the focus of the WP category is, but I doubt that this kind of situation would be dismissed readily. If not called systemic bias, then some other term. But would it mean that there was any less prevalence, or the impact was any different in the world? I chose the only WP term I could find that seemed a reasonable match, imperfect as it is. I'm less concerned with the terminology than with the effects. Here, the effects are admittedly relatively minor. But they are widespread. Evensteven (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving past individual cases

Bagumba set me thinking about this "systemic bias" thing, and I am perhaps at fault for leading the discussion astray a bit in applying it here. What we're dealing with hear is a tendency for some people to think one way about something, and for others to think a different way about it. Looks very much like bias, works like bias, the thought processes can be invisible like systemic bias tends to create ... you get the drift. But "bias" usually refers to something heavier than what we're dealing with, and Bagumba is right that the term is dramatic, maybe overblown here. But whatever we call it, the tendency exists out there, in here, everywhere. Let's call it "perspective" from now on.

I hope the point is now clear to everyone that there is no real issue to decide here regarding the actual height measurements. Get a reliable source for the actual height, report it numerically correct in any units, and you have preserved all WP:RS and accuracy requirements, per WP:CALC. The question centers around which units to do the reporting in.

I have also been trying to convey the idea that the way units are used in the world is through the use of conventions. See any of the articles about specific measurement units and you will see that every one of them came into being for some practical purpose(s) and became associated with those purposes by convention. Measurement standards apply to getting the arithmetic right; measurement conventions apply to making the arithmetic convenient and understandable and natural in feel.

I think where I got rather far afield was in suggesting this idea of "conventions in sports", or "conventions in the NBA". It's not that those things can't exist. But we all got some tunnel vision in looking too closely at it too.

Let's get some "perspective". There are two real major heavy-hitter systems of measurement in the world that apply to lots of things: the metric system, and the "American" system (based on modifications of an older English system). Those are the only two systems I've seen mentioned here; no surprise. Each of those systems has its own "ways of doing things", its own perspectives. Human height in the American system? Feet and inches; that's the convention. Sure, in most places you don't absolutely have to follow the convention if you don't want to. If 68 inches works for you, the convention doesn't force anyone to use 5 feet 8 inches. But feet and inches are "more formal" and hence more closely related to anything official (there's that "natural feel" thing). What's the percentage of common usage, ft+in vs in-only? I don't know; what does it have to be to establish one as the convention? I think that (by feel) most people tend to gravitate towards the more formal usage as being the natural one to consider as the primary "recognized" convention. Other varieties are then seen as less formal, more casual, more freely adoptable to the spur of the moment or a specific case at hand. And so the overall system gets to a point where it works for everyone without constricting them from getting their work done. That's the whole sign of a good working system. A key point about this is that conventions are definitely absolutely not legalistic or enforced. They become natural through use.

So, human height in the metric system? In my opinion, cm. Now I'm not a "metroid" (if I may coin that term for those who use it "everywhere all day" without seeming flip - no disrespect intended - I'd be one if I could). But I see evidence that metroids use cm as their norm, certainly in official situations. Is an official source from a place with a lot of metroids living in it reporting a human height in metric units? Which one do they use? Do you see the same thing looking all over for various applications (in industry, medical, business, government, etc) and keep coming up with the same thing? A spot check is enough, if you have enough spots widely placed. What do you see? If it's a convention, it's hard to miss. If you don't see it soon, it's probably not there, unless you've been self-selecting where you expect to see what you want. In this discussion, we've seen cm used in this way by the ISO. Other editors have related their experience with seeing it. Medical doctors in the U.S. use it if they're not using the American system. When is enough evidence enough? When it's enough for you. When is it enough for WP? When there is consensus on WP. Just gather the data from WP:RS that have already been provided in discussion, articles, etc. But you do have to be careful that each WP:RS is a metroid, or else you may bias what you're looking for: the convention that metroids use. Note: sports are often very international, therefore less inclined to be as pure "American system" or "metric system" as what you may want. Try to ensure whatever concentration of purity you can to get the best possible evidence. This can be a shared task, which needs doing only once for all. What the convention for the metric system is, is the convention for the whole metric system. It must have that "metric system feel" for metroids; otherwise, it's not the metric system convention. No legalisms, or WP:RS count are going to get that for you automatically.

Finally, any sport or group of sports is capable of having a "conventional" usage that is particular to it. I'm fairly certain that this is mostly limited to the choice of measurement system generally. Either the American system is used, or the metric system. Sometimes both may be used, but for different purposes. Football players gain (or lose) yards on the field (game rules; no question), but the players may have their height given in metric units, their "weight" in kg (somebody's option). That's certainly the first convention to establish. If a website or something reports a player's height in metric units, that's metric system.

On WP, we have to allow for a WP:Systemic Bias that tends to draw in editors that are American system users in greater abundance than metroid editors. We also have to allow for that same bias in the WP:RS that create team or league websites or other sources of information. The key here is that the American system users are not themselves metroids, and are subject to misusing the metric system, not abiding by its conventions. And I hope I've helped you to see how important operation within those conventions can be to the smooth functioning of the system itself. The metric system has never really taken root in American society in general, and part of that has to do with the fact that Americans haven't figured out how to use it right, and don't want to take the time and effort necessary when they've already got a working system. There hasn't been enough need to overpower the cost of converting and drive it to conclusion. Yet. It's happening, but very gradually. Perhaps I digress, perhaps not.

This is why abiding with the metric system's real conventions is important to WP. If we don't, we make metroids angry by showing ourselves to be interfering in the smooth operation of their own system of measures. And that affects their daily lives, just as imposing the metric system by force would do in the U.S.

I think the whole issue of meters vs. centimeters should therefore be settled by abiding with what is natural to the metroids, what is an unofficial but highly significant part of the metric system, its "feel", its conventions. I think that means "cm"; if metric system, then "cm" for human height. Evensteven (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 18:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry too. It's as succinct as it can be. Evensteven (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It almost certainly is not. If that's you being succinct then I don't want to see you rambling on ;) GiantSnowman 19:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I can ramble, I admit. And I apologize for being verbose, if it comes to that. But the points I am trying to make above do not make sense unless the reader can get a real feel for what's being said. It's just not bullet point material. It takes context to grasp. There was no point in writing it if it was stripped too bare. So, I am sorry. But there was thoughtful method in what I was doing. Evensteven (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I may also have targeted the audience incorrectly. There's been a lot of talk in this discussion that was simply misinformed, and I wished to see everyone up to speed. Evensteven (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You've summed up the situation pretty well as far as I can see.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Did I make it clear here that "m" one place and "cm" another is not a real convention except as unless it's established by metroids? Evensteven (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC) edit Evensteven (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's subjective which sources are from metroids; it's not like there is certification process. Or are you saying to pay less regard to sports sources and apply greater weight to academic ones? Some might conveniently claim "their" source for their preferred unit is from a "metroid", and another source using the other unit is not.—Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Re "It's subjective which sources are from metroids; it's not like there is certification process." Exactly, just as I said. For the rest: no. I am saying no sources of any kind are relevant. That's not how measurement systems conventions work. Like it; don't like it; it's a fact. Evensteven (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Bagumba, is it clear from this that neither WP:RS, nor sources considered "reliable" or "official" elsewhere, end up creating a real convention? There is no officialdom with regard to measurement systems conventions. Evensteven (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear that it's been the proposer who has been stockpiling and interjecting into the discussion their one-sided—let's face it, self-serving—list of cm sources on pygmies et al here. The few sources myself and other editors have presented were a response to balance the argument that there is an overwhelming preference of cm. One editor's suggestion a week ago on January 22 advised Gibson "Rather than trying to build up numbers on each side, sources that actually refer to a preference for cm over m would be convincing, especially if they give reasons.". Like a quite a few suggestions in this TLDR thread, they have gone ignored while continuing a WP:WABBITSEASON pattern of citing yet another cm source as some sort of obvious proof while arguing one cm source is of higher quality than another m source. I would be glad if we can move past the "I have more sources", or "my sources are better than yours" rhetoric.—Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Bagumba, let's be clear. I am saying no sources of any kind are relevant. That's not how measurement systems conventions work. Like it; don't like it; it's a fact. Evensteven (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
If only everyone in this discussion would get on board with ceasing the source counting.—Bagumba (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest that too. Evensteven (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it clear from this that it is very doubtful that the NBA would have any ability to affect a metric convention, much less establish one? It's not predominantly composed of metroids. Evensteven (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying it is doubtful Starbucks would have the ability to affect the world's taste in coffee because their product is considered inferior by artisans and the company is more focused on profits and marketing than quality. What should happen in anyone's ideal world should not be confused what actually does happen. The NBA is the premier basketball league in the world. I'm not saying it does have any impact by using m, but I'm not going to write off that the league could have an impact. How would anyone really know unless they are an expert in the field or secondary sources say so? —Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The league has plenty of impact on all sorts of things. But not on measurement systems conventions. Evensteven (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it clear that it is permissible to say that the NBA uses the American system of measures, or the metric system of measures, for this or for that? Once that is clear, then the conventions for the appropriate system of measures apply. Evensteven (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

NBA.com has ft-in and m measurements for its players, if that is what you meant.—Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
So the conventions for the American system of measures apply to the ft-in measures, and the conventions for the metric system of measures applies to its measures, and that means "cm".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evensteven (talk • contribs)

Is it clear that if the NBA uses the American system of measures for something, and WP desires to render/convert the quantity into the metric system for the convenience of the reader, the proper formulation for the conversion uses the unit that conforms to metric system conventions? Evensteven (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNITS dictates the need for metric along with the US units. That was never in question. What was an early catalyst for this RFC was the proposer's insistence that citing a reliable source in an article that used cm justified changing a measurement from m to its equivalent in cm.—Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
WP policies dictate nothing; they act as guidance. But for sports articles, WP:UNITS says "the main unit is generally an SI unit or a non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI." It is a metric system measure; it is wrong not to follow metric system conventions. Therefore, "cm". Evensteven (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, where was it established that cm was the metric convention for height? Or you are saying you believe it is a convention?—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Granted, it has not been established yet. I was asserting my current position. Now that I look at it, it was the wrong place to do so, too. Evensteven (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but yes. I do believe it's the convention, as far as I can tell. Evensteven (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it clear that a proper selection of WP:RS, or other outside sources even, may be able to reveal to you what an actual measurement system convention is, not with certainty, but with probability? The ability to perceive the convention will be limited by the clarity with which the sources are connected to the measurement system, and one's own ability to be impartial in reading it. Nevertheless, the sources, reliable or not, establish no conventions themselves. Evensteven (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's simpler. We operate on consensus. The proposal for cm since its inception has been a constant TLDR, usually indicative that a proposal is unclear, or has no consensus for acceptance. At some point, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT needs to be considered, especially when the same arguments for acceptance are being repeated. —Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this procedure is far more complex, and subject to all those failings you seek to avoid. In fact, it's so nebulous that it's more likely to provoke arguments than consensus (if used wrongly). I suggest it first as a self-check "if you're curious, here's a starting point" avenue. It is not dependable with regards to outcome. Sooner, not later, everyone must check out the simplest option below. Only when everyone has given both these avenues a try are they ready to enter any discussion. But if a consensus can then be reached in one, that is good, and WP can abide by it. After a period of time, such discussions can be reopened if necessary, too. There might be more information to consider, and measurement system conventions can change over time. Correctly applied, this process can be a useful tool. But be watchful. Evensteven (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the process you have described has been followed. Of course, anyone can step back, take a timeout, and reassess their opinion. But's its not like those who have not supported the proposal have not been engaging in conversation. Not agreeing is not to be confused with not listening.—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
That last is also a good point. And stepping back is to be highly recommended. In fact it is recommended by WP especially for conflict resolution. One has to be cool-headed or one is not ready to think at all. And it just takes time to absorb others' ideas; the physical process in the brain is not complete at least until you've had one night's sleep, more perhaps, if it's a bigger set of things. Evensteven (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Or the easiest approach: if you want to know what a metric system convention is, ask a metroid you trust. Evensteven (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What is missing is a reliable source with a world view. People living in a country that uses metric in their country would have knowledge of their country, but few would have first-hand experience across all English-speaking regions in the world. How many people think their English is "correct" and spoken everywhere? How many people outside of Italy think the Italian food in their country is "real" Italian. Arguments about the support of cm need a secondary source that has taken this into account. Perusing random sources from the comfort of one's home country could provide an inaccurate view of what people really use around the world, especially when sources that use the other measurement are automatically discounted as uninformed or non-metroids.—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"What is missing is a reliable source with a world view." Exactly. And your other points are well taken too. This idea needs to be used in conjunction with the previous one, to come up with a more robust answer. And then multiple robust answers must be discussed and merged into a consensus. And that's the best there is. Because there is no source anywhere that could follow a better process. Some might be able to throw more resources at it, but who is? Good luck finding anyone doing that. We at WP have one of the best resources available in our wide variety of editors, and every one of them needs to be heard and not dismissed. That's why a consensus here could match or surpass the best from anywhere. Evensteven (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, even editors saying "I'm from country X and I usually see cm/m" would provide some data points.—Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
And, boy do we need those data points! Evensteven (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The following are from this and related discussions that I am aware of thus far. I've excluded comments specifically relating to non-English speaking countries. If anyone feels they've been misrepresented or that someone's been excluded, I apologise, and do please let me know.

As for myself, having lived in "metroid" countries Australia, Canada and New Zealand, I concur that cm are the norm for expressing human height in these places. Having also lived in the UK, I can't say the metric system appeared often enough to comment either way.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

And if only to prevent disagreements, this is the one place where reliable sources can help out in exposing conventions. "Expose" mind you, not "define", not "guarantee". They are evidence at most, never proof. In this case, the evidence of the sources is not best evidence. It needs confirmation in the form of recognition by metroid individuals. Gibson has given such confirmation for Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. I myself have not lived in Canada, but in the northern U.S., and I have traveled to Canada. I haven't see a lot of height-giving there, but I believe it was in cm. Evensteven (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wild thought: If it turns out the UK preferred m, would it be some sort of WP:ENGVAR extension/compromise to allow UK subjects to remain in m?—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the UK is a tricky thing. It's where the English system originated, and while use of the metric system is far more advanced there than in the U.S., metrics are certainly not used for a quite wide variety of things. I think that height is one of those, but you would want to confirm that. In any case, the situation there is not too pure. There is no "complete immersion" in the metric system there, as there is pretty much in other places. On balance, my opinion is that there is insufficient weight of metric system use there to justify calling its usage a "convention". Evensteven (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Can a Canadian explain how often ft-in is used there, or if sports is the exception? Canadian teams like the Edmonton Eskimos[13] and Guelph Gryphons[14] list ft-in, not metric.—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Which would imply that in Canada there is not yet even a convention on which measurement system to use, much less which unit. The same sort of thing applies to gasoline: sold retail by the litre, but the Imperial gallon still shows up in commerce. That's the nature of transition: messy.
The other tricky thing about starting down this path is "what is the significance?". Would you want to apply a difference of convention to English individuals (on what basis? birthplace? citizenship? residence?) or to English organizations (and what if they have international connections)? etc. Pretty soon you have arguments over these things, with no reasonable way to settle them. My opinion is that that is a slippery slope best avoided. A consensus is fine, but it is only useful if it is also practical. This would make it impracticably murky. Evensteven (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
National WP:TIES already guide which English variant to use, so determining national ties, if any, is not anything new.—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:TIES is talking about the (dialectical) "variety of English" used by an English-speaking country. Different topic. Evensteven (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was referring to the criteria used in WP:TIES i.e. "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation." I understand it is using that criteria to determine when to apply dialects, not m/cm explicitly. However, just as Usain Bolt uses Jamaican English, perhaps a British subject might use cm over m for height.—Bagumba (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry. I was ready for bed when I wrote that. Not very clear. My comments just below were more pertinent. Evensteven (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
To even consider national ties in this context, you need to begin with as-pure-as-you-can-get metroid nations, and see if they do it differently. If they do, then perhaps if you can show England matches one of the pure nations, it can go into that same category. Talk to me first about France, Germany, Italy, Norway, etc. Evensteven (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
It was suggested years ago at #Centimetres, and reiterated by GFV, that only English-speaking countries be considered. I am not sure why UK would need to be compared to other nations; if there is a convention in UK, articles with strong UK ties should follow UK convention (if any)—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe that works for the language, but it's not the same for measurement systems. English athletes compete internationally, right? And English-language publications write about the athletes from other nations, right? And when they give stats about those athletes, like height, then what? Some of those athletes read English, and may read those stats. Should they be based on a convention that has prominence in England as opposed to where their roots are? Thus begins the slippery slope. You'll need to get consensus repeatedly for the arguments that arise, case by case. Isn't that a waste of WP time? If it can be found, it is desirable for simplicity's sake to use a wider convention, an international one, and just use it consistently. The question is: is there an internationally-recognized convention for expressing human height in metric units? If so, go with it, as a practical matter; the conventions themselves are practical in the same way. If not, then no conventions are really going to help anyone very much. Transitions between applications of units or of whole systems of measure are by nature chaotic. If that is really what the world situation is right now, then WP should reflect the chaos and leave the matter of which unit to use up to the editor who first puts the measure into an article. It should then be agreed that no one has authority to override that unit. In that case, there is no practical help that measurement systems, their usage anywhere, or their conventions can provide. And therefore, there is no rational basis whatever upon which a decision can be made about what a "correct" unit is. Opinion is then all there is, and that will only produce fights on WP unless some policy like this "first-come edit" is used to resolve it indisputably.
Therefore, either we go ahead and try to identify an internationally-based convention (and it is doubtful anyone else has ever tried to do it, so we're on our own), or else we beg the question and fall back on some trivial but indisputable way to determine what unit will be used (like "first-come edit"), because there is no rational alternative. But the choice here is rational; that fall-back is rational. It says: "if there's no reasonable way to solve the problem, let's just choose this imperfect method and move on."
Note: there may be variations of "first-come edit" that will be more generally palatable here on WP. One would be to disallow editor choice, and substitute use of the same unit used by the source of the information. But the first editor would get to choose the source that supplies the height, and that would be irrevocable for the height unless it were shown to be unreliable with respect to the height itself. Other sources could be added for other info, but would not be used as the basis for the height info. You get where I'm going. Write up the policy, get consensus on it, post it, use it, back it up with discipline if necessary. Seems like a WP solution to me. My contribution here is based more on some familiarity with measurement systems, and I wouldn't necessarily want to go beyond just making general suggestions about policy for this community. That is, I won't take sides, because I don't have a stake in anything but an outcome that will help ensure the peace - and productivity. Evensteven (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
If differences do arise, then the actual complexity can be reflected in WP, almost needs to be. But it still puts us on a somewhat slippery slope. At least it would be the right thing putting us there, though. Evensteven (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I've lived in both Canada and the UK, so am used to varied useage of cm, m and ft, but can confirm that in the latter, ft or m are preferred, as I believe I have stated time and time again. So, if we were to come to an ENGVAR compromise, for nationality and/or profession, then that would be ideal. But I will say this until my last breath - while Gibson is unable to confirm that he will not introduce cm across the board, in violation of this, despite my question, then I will never support the introduction of this parameter. It is a simple question and his failure to answer the question is, unfortunately, telling as to his intentions. His 'defence' that my line of questioning is bad faith is, quite simply, bollocks. GiantSnowman 12:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think its fair to conclude, unless Gibson cares to clarify what areas he would not currently alter due to lack of consensus (e.g. UK), that his intent is to change all heights to cm. His past reasoning for basketball players was that a national body like FIBA or IOC would trump other sources. I would assume similar organizations exist for all sports.—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
And my input is that barring an actual internationally-recognized metric convention in favor of using exactly one of "m" and "cm", that there is no rational way to decide what is proper. Therefore, an artificial policy must be made (see "first-come edit above), which will produce chaotic results, which in fact reflects world chaos in this matter, but results in an indisputable way to decide between claimants. Having achieved consensus on such a policy, it can be backed up by discipline if necessary, and no one will have an option to do the things that you are describing here. Fail to create that policy, and this community is doomed to continue in the current state of things. Evensteven (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"doomed"? A bit dramatic again, but I know you mean well. I'm just looking to move on to more productive things, and we've basically agreed that cm/m may be a problem, but one with little downside. WP is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and the less rules the better. Namely, "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." Since, "there is no rational way to decide", sticking with status quo requires the least amount of resources at this time.—Bagumba (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"too dramatic"? It's one point of view, but not mine. Fighting wastes time. If you want to move on to more productive things, take a rational approach. It has not been determined that there "is no rational way" here. I have said how to find that out, using consensus. This community can decide to take the advice, or not. Pick an option. Evensteven (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"is no rational way" was quoted from you above. Apologize if it was taken out of context (but I don't think it was). Agree on fighting wasting time. This TLDR IMO is a result of constant proof by assertion i.e. restating the same argument and then attempting to claim consensus when it wasn't rebutted for the nth time. If there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, we keep as is and move on.—Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't claimed there was consensus, and didn't see any. My mistake then. Sorry. Evensteven (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, if this sounded snippy, that wasn't my intent. Just meant to say that it's time for others to make a choice. Evensteven (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, its been discussed ad nauseam.—Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this 2008 discussion, the prevalence of metres on WP may largely be due to the influence of translation to English by European editors. Having lived in both Korea and Japan I concur with what is said about common usage there (sources also match this). This 2007 discussion may also be of interest. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Current discussion status

Learning there is an existing consensus in effect here changes a lot in how to apply what I've been saying in a practical way. From the look of things, the consensus is based on regional/national preferences. Ok. To be clear, those preferences are not the same thing as a metric system convention, which is much bigger. But if preferences are the way things have been done here already, ok that's established practice.

Here's my recommendation: From what I've seen, and what I've learned here, I suspect highly that the worldwide metric system convention is fairly well established, or well on its way, and that it is "cm". (Don't be too surprised; it's less evident in English-speaking countries.) Given that much, you must expect that some metric-using nations are going to reflect that convention: see Australia and New Zealand in particular, probably Canada. It makes sense to me that this community consider changing its consensus for those places, just based on a wide international usage; it should be reflected here. Hold to "m" in the UK, and anywhere else you already do, but recognize that they may gravitate in the direction of cm over time also. International ties were enough to cause such things three and four centuries ago, and now connections are much tighter and faster. Don't put any stock in what Americans do; they don't know any better yet about the metric system. Status quo by league or even team is probably good enough if you want to be that detailed. But Americans won't notice one way or the other.

Stick by your consensus and its proper policing, but remain open to changes, because preferences and conventions both change. And therefore consider openly the petition of one whom some of you have found to be an antagonist. I think his preference is actually a preference in some nations of the world already, and the latter is what you should consider to be important. Create a new consensus, and then police that. That really should be enough to establish peace, too. If it's not, there's something else wrong, and it's not about this issue. Evensteven (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think your clear description on when you would and would not change heights from meters to centimeters is what I and a few others are expecting from the person you referred to as "one whom some of you have found to be an antagonist." See the support comments at #Proposal 4.—Bagumba (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok as far as it goes. But the same applies to your position. A community consensus always needs to come to an agreement in some sort of formulation. Creating that formula is the responsibility of the whole community, not one individual. Proposal/counter proposal is the way I've always seen it done. I tried to set up a strawman here. Start with that, or substitute another. Evensteven (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Move to wrap it up: template proposal

The question of adding functionality to this template is the central issue for this discussion, because of the forum in which it is taking place. A great deal of the talk above has focused instead upon what is and is not the proper use of the template in other WP areas, but it has informed this forum regarding needs for the proposed functionality. Agreement about usage should be pursued in another forum more appropriate to it. I would like to call for acceptance or rejection of the following proposal (now Proposal 6) as a means to close discussion here: Evensteven (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC) edit myself Evensteven (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2014

I'm sorry but I cannot support a change to the template without the security that it will not be abused to further a clear POV/agenda. Given the fact that Gibson is still insisting on the use of cm at Liam Miller - despite clear consensus against that on the article talk page, as well as reliable sources which support the use of a different format - I have no confidence that he will abide by conventions (geographical or professional) and I have an ever-increasing fear that he will simply introduce cm across the board. Until that element is rectified, I cannot support any change to the template. GiantSnowman 12:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It might be best for you to register your vote at proposal 6 below then, since it is separate from proposals 1-5. Evensteven (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the first poll I've seen with editors !voting multiple times. Polls are usually conducted when there are likely no new arguments, and editors typically cast 1 !vote with a final explanation.—Bagumba (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, my watchlist page this moment announces a WP-wide poll regarding pending changes level 2, where it's one vote per proposal. And here, proposal 6 cannot be considered a part of the 1-5 grouping (which is why I initially listed it separately). This community can decide how it wants to handle it all, but I don't think any one size has to fit all. I've always been told it's not so much a vote, but that it's the comments that count for the most when it comes to determining consensus. This comment is up here, not within range of the proposals, so I think it's still best to put it or something like it down with them so it can be weighed with them. Evensteven (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
If you are referring to Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014, it says "Proposals are not mutually exclusive unless they contradict each other." The options below all seem fairly contradictory to me, so I don't see them as mutually exclusive as in the PC RFC.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It would certainly be helpful to have a 2-3 proposals with each editor casting one !vote so we can get a better idea of consensus. GiantSnowman 09:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The idea of this RfC was to get consensus for an edit request to be made. It seems from the responses above that we have that, so really all that remains now is for us to decide on the wording of that edit request. Does the consensus for whether an edit request is to be made still have to be formalized in a yes/no poll?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This RfC should be be listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which per that page is appropriate when "the issue is a contentious one".—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
There is not consensus here - from my reading three editors (myself, @Bagumba: and @Lukeno94:) are currently opposed to the new parameter, while two editors (@Evensteven: and @Gibson Flying V:) are in favour of it. GiantSnowman 12:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Did you miss the lists of opinions above? It's not even close.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, what other editors have given substantial input into this discussion? GiantSnowman 12:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It almost sounds as though you're saying the twenty-odd other editors' comments are to be dismissed as not "substantial". I'm pretty sure consensus isn't measured by taking into account how many lines of text whichever editors have added to a discussion. I think the quality of arguments is mainly what's focused on. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Please answer my question. If consensus was judged on "how many lines of text" there is, you and Evensteven would walk it, thanks to your rambles. Thankfully, like you say, it isn't, it's done on quality of argument, something which you seem to be lacking. 13:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)GiantSnowman

Poll on closing RFC

Maybe we can agree on this poll:

This RFC should be post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Support
  1. We all know everyone's arguments by now. Nothing left to discuss.—Bagumba (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  2. Yep, we're not moving anywhere, let's get this closed. GiantSnowman 12:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  3. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose
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.
  1. ^ http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx
  2. ^ http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4338.0main+features212011-13
  3. ^ http://www.passports.govt.nz/Completing-your-application---converting-your-height
  4. ^ http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/weights-poids/guide-ld-adult/bmi_chart-graph_imc-eng.php
  5. ^ "teamgb.com".
  6. ^ "olympics.com.au".
  7. ^ "usaswimming.org".
  8. ^ "atpworldtour.com".
  9. ^ "joc.or.jp".
  10. ^ "swimming.org.au".
  11. ^ "ufc.com".
  12. ^ "nzbreakers.co.nz".
  13. ^ "canadasoccer.com".
  14. ^ "uefa.com".
  15. ^ "olympic.ca".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Height/Archive_2&oldid=1129735589"