Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 1

message: A fair point Dan. I hope that I can be clear.
* My understanding of the issue is:
**Editors including myself have been adding metric units. In many cases, this has been taking existing non-metric values and converting them into dual unit values. This has included efforts to find and use good data sources.
**Other editors have been converting them back to non-metric only. In many cases, this has simply involved reverting to data of inferior or unknown quality.
*What I would like:
**I would like it if metric units were permitted to stay in this article.
**I would like it if values taken from respectable sources were not replaced with values taken from sources of unknown quality.
Bobblewik  (talk) 22:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bobblewik: My understanding of the issue and what I would like

message: *23:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Addition (note that times in history must be based on your local time settings; mine are 6 hours off, perhaps sometimes one more one way or the other, from those of Grace Note--Gene Nygaard):
*00:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Comment.  Why is it, Grace Note, that in your copyediting you found it necessary to correct a symbol which had already been corrected at least twice before, by both Bobblewik and me?  Note also that though the English system is no longer supported and updated, the modern rules for the usage of SI units could properly (but not necessarily, of course, since nobody bothers much in writing rules for the use of the archaic English units) be extended to them—no hyphens when used with symbols, even when used as adjectives. Gene Nygaard 12:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Height/weight values for McKee

message: *06:23, 21 Nov 2003 WhisperToMe 312 gram Metric only
:Note that the original was metric.
:However, it doesn't take much to figure out that that wasn't the real original. The obvious clue that something is amiss is the three apparently significant digits.  It's not like somebody weighed this out precisely when it was brought on board.  We know that it is a rough approximation, based a little bit on the constraints from what we know about the containers in which it was brought aboard the airplane, and mostly on calculations based on the amount of damage done and various assumptions made in modeling the effects of a certain amount of explosive. 
:It is simply a bad conversion from English units to metric units, with the original measurement, which provides us with good information as to the actual precision of the original measurement, had been unwisely discarded.  There can be almost no doubt that this was originally 11 ounces avoirdupois.  Gene Nygaard 13:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment.  Mismatching values shouldn't be unexpected.  It is likely that various estimates were made by various people, and it is likely that the estimates of some people or groups of people were tweaked and modified over time as more information became available or changes were made in the modeling assumptions.  Gene Nygaard 13:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course, those are not equivalent; neither of them would convert to the other.  It might make this number consistent with the number appearing elsewhere in the article, but it might also make one of them inconsistent with the referenced source for it.  Gene Nygaard 13:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Addition:
*00:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Note that here again, Grace Note is copyediting to the symbol which had already been corrected by me and by Bobblewik, several times, with a different symbol put back in by SlimVirgin on each occasion.  Only this time, she is changing a spelled out word, which SlimVirgin had put in to replace here earlier, often-added and different symbols.  Gene Nygaard 13:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Estimates of explosive weight

message: *23:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Container size

message: *02:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wind

message: *00:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of debris spread

message: *21:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fragment size

message: *07:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Temperature

message: :Does anyone else have an objection to my having archived some of this talk page at Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 1 and Bobblewik's compilation of units at Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/units? He keeps reverting both, even though the page is getting long, and could use some archiving. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
:I have no objections to archiving. I do object to your removal of my comments. Archive is for removal of old stuff, not a cover for your censorship of recent stuff you don't want to see from those you are in dispute with. I want to be reasonable with you. We are on the same side. We both wish the article to have good data that is accessible to a wide audience. Please, let the debate proceed. Nobody is editor-in-chief of the article and certainly nobody is editor-in-chief of the talk page. I am not your enemy. Bobblewik  (talk) 09:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Debate about what? Measurements still? El_C 10:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: No, Bobblewik, we are not on the same side, I fear. You say you want to discuss things, but you actually never do. You just keep repeating yourself and reverting. Your edits are opposed by Mel, El C, FeloniusMonk, Grace Note, and myself, but that isn't enough for you. You've put up an RfC, and still won't respect the response. Now you won't allow me to archive, even though the page is too long, and no one is going to read through it all, and I've left the most recent posts here on the page, with the exception of your compilation which, if you'd only realize it, doesn't make you look good. Grace Note made a compromise suggestion. Please read it and comment on it if you want to have a discussion, instead of ignoring whatever anyone says to you.  I'm also posting below something I wrote above in case you didn't read it. I am asking you, if you have any decency or respect for Wikipedia, to allow normal editing to resume on this article and on this talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
That's what's very annoying about this, and why I see it as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I'm trying to write an article about a long, complicated, unpleasant business, which killed 270 people directly; which was triggered by attacks on Libya or Iran, and possibly both, which killed hundreds; which indirectly led to the deaths of many hundreds, and possibly thousands, of Libyans, because of UN sanctions against Libya, which led to things like planes crashing because of the lack of spare parts; and which may have led to a miscarriage of justice which has put a man in jail for 27 years. Not to mention that it was the UK's largest and most expensive criminal inquiry ever, America's second deadliest attack against civilians, and the only UK trial that I'm aware of to have taken place on foreign soil. All big issues. And yet I'm having to spend all my time on it discussing what a ton is, and whether people know what miles are. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see Bobblewik's view on compromising: a footnote with metric conversions at the end of the article. Compromises excite me. Boring, sterile arguments, in which all sides simply yell the same POV over and over, make the days dull. So come on, Bobblewik, excite me, your thoughts on that compromise? And dude, by the way, you're lucky Slim is offering to archive your list of reverts. I'm inclined to straight out delete it. It's not about the subject of the article. It's about your issue with other editors. That's not a fit subject for a talkpage. This page should be for editors to discuss the article in a friendly atmosphere. No indictments, no lists of evidence, no attacks. Friends chatting. User:Grace Note 12:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Dan100 has made a very helpful suggestion. He has edited the page doing all the metric conversions, and has edited it again with a version containing fewer conversions, but the ones that would be key for a young British readership. Both versions can be seen in the page history. Dan then reverted to the old version until we decide which we prefer. I'd be happy to accept Dan's version with the fewer conversions as a compromise, as it doesn't break up the text. So we could either go with this, or with Grace Note's suggestion of a footnote at the end containing all the conversions; or we could even have both. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Having seen the RfC, and read through this lengthy talk: page, I fail to see the need for the intrusive unit conversions.  If they must be in, I think the least intrusive way possible would be best, whether that is via footnotes as per Grace, or via partial conversions as pre Dan. Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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: Archive request

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