Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 3

message: Grace Note added this to the article, giving us an idea of how she would implement Dan100's suggestion:
This article uses imperial units of measurement. Readers who use metric units are directed to the conversions at the end of the article
[body of article]
Conversion of imperial to metric units of measurement
Each metric value rounded to two decimal points
* Weights: 1 oz = 23.45 g; 1 lb = 453.59 g; 1 (short) ton = 907.18 kg
* Distances: 1 in = 2.54 cm; 1 ft =  30.48 cm;  1 mile = 1.61 km
* Speed: 1 knot = 1.85 km/h
* Temperature: –50°F = –45.56°C 
===Discussion of test implementation===
====Less useful than link to conversion of units====
This is totally unacceptable.  It is less useful than a link to Conversion of units. Gene Nygaard 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What has this to do with anything? -45F is cold. That's the point. If you want to argue about the technicalities of after-casting and precision of digits, fine, take it to my talk page, otherwise please refrain from hurtling off-topic! Dan100 (Talk) 18:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
====Missing conversion factors====
The list of conversion factors here does not include all the units used in the article.  For one example of a missing conversion, see my discussion elsewhere on this talk page of Air Traffic Controller Alan Topp.  Gene Nygaard 12:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: For ton definitions go to Ton. The phrase "Imperial" is a bit loose, better to use avoirdupois when meant or just "non-metric" or "customary". GraemeLeggett 15:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again - this has nothing to do with the article. If you want to discuss the intracies of different systems of measurement, please feel free to raise it on my talk page. Please try and stay on topic here. Dan100 (Talk) 18:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
====Conversion tables and calculators don't disambiguate for you====
No list of conversion factors or calculator is going to be much help in identifying ambiguous units so that you can apply the appropriate conversion factor, if those ambiguous units are not identified in the text.  
Note that inclusion of actual conversions can often serve as that disambiguation, making it less necessarily to "interrupt the flow" by having to otherwise specifically identify the amgibuous units.  Gene Nygaard 14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grace Note's test implementation of Dan100 suggestion

message: ====Less useful than link to conversion of units====
This is totally unacceptable.  It is less useful than a link to Conversion of units. Gene Nygaard 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What has this to do with anything? -45F is cold. That's the point. If you want to argue about the technicalities of after-casting and precision of digits, fine, take it to my talk page, otherwise please refrain from hurtling off-topic! Dan100 (Talk) 18:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
====Missing conversion factors====
The list of conversion factors here does not include all the units used in the article.  For one example of a missing conversion, see my discussion elsewhere on this talk page of Air Traffic Controller Alan Topp.  Gene Nygaard 12:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: For ton definitions go to Ton. The phrase "Imperial" is a bit loose, better to use avoirdupois when meant or just "non-metric" or "customary". GraemeLeggett 15:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again - this has nothing to do with the article. If you want to discuss the intracies of different systems of measurement, please feel free to raise it on my talk page. Please try and stay on topic here. Dan100 (Talk) 18:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
====Conversion tables and calculators don't disambiguate for you====
No list of conversion factors or calculator is going to be much help in identifying ambiguous units so that you can apply the appropriate conversion factor, if those ambiguous units are not identified in the text.  
Note that inclusion of actual conversions can often serve as that disambiguation, making it less necessarily to "interrupt the flow" by having to otherwise specifically identify the amgibuous units.  Gene Nygaard 14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of test implementation

message: This is totally unacceptable.  It is less useful than a link to Conversion of units. Gene Nygaard 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Less useful than link to conversion of units

message: This suggestion shows how little concern some editors have for interrupting the flow of the reading, despite their claims to the contrary.
A big part of the reason for including conversions in the first place is to make it so that readers don't have to interrupt their reading to go do the calculations themselves.
But furthermore, let's assume that we instead changed it to give conversions of the actual measurements used in this article, something that would at least be more useful than a link to conversion of units.  It still severely interrupts the flow of the reading for many people
Even having to scroll down several screens to find the particular conversion that you want, then having to go back and find you place where you were reading would severely interrupt the flow of the reading. Gene Nygaard 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interrupting the flow of the reading

message: The list of conversion factors here does not include all the units used in the article.  For one example of a missing conversion, see my discussion elsewhere on this talk page of Air Traffic Controller Alan Topp.  Gene Nygaard 12:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing conversion factors

message: No list of conversion factors or calculator is going to be much help in identifying ambiguous units so that you can apply the appropriate conversion factor, if those ambiguous units are not identified in the text.  
Note that inclusion of actual conversions can often serve as that disambiguation, making it less necessarily to "interrupt the flow" by having to otherwise specifically identify the amgibuous units.  Gene Nygaard 14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion tables and calculators don't disambiguate for you

message: I just noticed that the measurements in this article were expressed in dual units for a time period of 2½ months, from May to June, with nary a peep of complaint about their presence or about any difficulty in reading the article because of them.  During that time period, about 25 different editors actually edited this article, and I'd guess that its readers numbered in the hundreds or thousands.
Then, with no discussion on the talk page before or after (until Rl 10 days later complained about SlimVirgin's actions), and with a deceptive edit summary calling it "copyedit", SlimVirgin took it on herself to remove them.  Gene Nygaard 13:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Things learned by reading history