Forgotten Realms Wiki talk:Units of measurement

I think the units given in the source material should be quoted first, with the conversion listed in parentheses afterwards. When Wizards starts publishing stuff in metric units, then it will switch :D

Moviesign 22:09, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, however the main concern is that USA uses imperial measurements, population around 300 million, but practically the rest of the world uses metric, population 6 billion or so. It's clear we need to list both, since "60 yards" or "14 inches" means nothing to me, but "10 centimetres" might be equally useless to an American. I think we should take the utilitarian approach here to list the metric first. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 22:49, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, your argument would hold water if you quoted US-based Forgotten Realms customers vs. non-US customers. But my case is historical, not cultural or even demographical. If you were quoting an ancient medalion that described the Staff of Ra as being six kaddam long, you would write "The relic was six kaddam (about 1.8 meters) long." which still respects the original text and provides a modern interpretation. We are the scribes, cataloguers, and archaeologists of the Forgotten Realms (remember, it is now policy to write as if we are thousands of years in the future) and we should respect our ancient treasures. :) &mdash;&mdash;Moviesign 23:37, March 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking as an Australian for whom something like a yard means nothing, I really don't mind the US measurements. The D&D game uses those measurements, and the Forgotten Realms is a US-based franchise, with a largely American fan-base (I assume), and I respect that. I use US spelling in my articles, UK spelling otherwise (I'm bilingual!). (Disclaimer: I work as a technical editor who edits scientific papers, usually in US spelling, so I may just be quite used to working this way.)
 * For honesty and accuracy, I believe we should as stay as true to source material as possible, just like with regular lore. If US spelling is used, I'll use US spelling. If a particular type of unit is quoted, I'd use that. A conversion essentially modifies information, so it shouldn't be uses a primary data.
 * Changing the units introduces a problem of reduced accuracy. For example, 5.0 feet ≈ 1.5 metres, but 1.5 metres ≈ 4.9 feet. That 5 feet might already have been rounded, so it would be increasingly inaccurate to call it 1.5 metres, if that makes sense. I'd prefer to give the original, most accurate measurement first, followed by a converted estimate in brackets, just so it's clear which the source uses and which is the estimate.
 * Some points on the proposed guidelines from a scientific standpoint:
 * We shouldn't invent accuracy. A measurement of 5 feet might already have been rounded down from 5.1 feet, so there's no need to choose an exact conversion of 1.524 metres. We should round to the same number of significant figures in each number: e.g., 13 feet has 2 significant figures (1 and 3), so this converts to 3.9 metres, not 3.9624 metres. For a single digit number, such as 5 feet, consider it as 5.0 for two significant figures (5 and 0), to produce a conversion of 1.5 metres instead of 1 metre or 1.524 metres.
 * It's more common to space out abbreviated units, just like you would with the full names: e.g., 5 feet, 5 ft, instead of 5ft. This is mainly to avoid confusion with mathematics in scientific use (e.g., 5cm or 5c m, where c = 2.1,), however, and I can see how doing the same with inches, in, could also be confusing. -- BadCatMan 03:30, March 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Generally I agree with the mini-consensus above for the reasons stated. If the source gives it a particular way, let's use that unit, and convert in parentheses (brackets). I have changed the proposal to respect this.
 * I have also changed the proposal to reflect the idea that we should retain the same number of significant digits when converting units.
 * However, BadCatMan says "It's more common to space out abbreviated units", but searching Google gives more results for "5ft" than it does for "5 ft". Add to that this BBC news article which does not space out the units, and this Telegraph article which also does not space out the units, and consensus seems to be not to space the units. I am, however, aware that my two links are to British news sites and this might be a convention that holds true only in Britain.
 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style does require a space between the unit and the unit symbol. As we are, in general, following Wikipedia's guidelines unless we have a good reason to do differently, I am inclined to have a space between the unit and the unit symbol, although prepared to discuss further if there are other points of view, of course. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 20:53, March 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * The updated policy looks great, thanks!
 * Spacing out the units may be more common/relevant in scientific usage (where there is a greater potential of confusion) than in everyday usage, such as in newspapers (that rarely get detailed). Wikipedia has to cover scientific usage as well, hence specifying that rule. I don't think it will be much of a problem in the Forgotten Realms anyway — how much mathematics or detailed measurements can we expect? — but it covers our bases to mention the rule. -- BadCatMan 07:33, March 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Whitespace between the number and the unit means that the unit may wrap to the next line. This is not confusing if the unit is spelled out but might be if abbreviations are used as the policy recommends. For example, 15 inches makes sense but 15 in might be confused with the word "in". In my opinion, 15in is better, but &amp;nbsp; (the HTML non-breaking space) can be used to prevent line breaks, so I can go either way on this. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? &mdash;Moviesign 02:45, March 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the policy as-it-stands doesn't recommend either full units or abbreviations, just gives a choice. I think an author or editor can go either way on this, according to their best judgment or if they see a wrap-around or a potential confusing around 'in'.
 * Hmm. Thinking about it, I doubt Forgotten Realms measurements will ever require a lengthy set of units: distances like "inches", "miles", "kilometers", weights like "pounds" or "kilograms", are all possible, but a speed like "kilometers per hour" or an acceleration like "meters per second squared" will be quite unlikely. So the full name of the unit might be best in all cases, for either consistency or unambiguity. -- BadCatMan 02:04, March 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * I've done a lot of editing for science writing and here are what the style guides I follow say:
 * There should always be a non-breaking space between values and units if the value is expressed as a numeral.
 * Imperial units have periods after their abbreviations; SI units do not.
 * Only use abbreviations with numerals; if the number is spelled out, use the full unit names.
 * Numbers less than 20 should be spelled out in body text. (Thus in my opinion, abbreviations and numerals should only be used in infoboxes.)
 * Significant figures must be considered for conversions. (Note that the proposal page is wrong about sig. figs.: 30 has one significant figure, not 2, unless the text is talking about an exact or near exact value.)
 * These are the guidelines I have been trying to follow ever since I joined this wiki (with the exception of using )
 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:43, October 2, 2015 (UTC)


 * Non-breaking spaces: I haven't noticed any style guides require non-breaking spaces over regular spaces, though since discovering a shortcut for them I use them wherever I can in my own scientific editing. I didn't realise they could be used in wiki editing. Still, I think this may be too technical for the lay-person, but we could mention it.
 * I haven't worked with Imperial units enough to have noticed. I figured periods only applied to abbreviations missing their final letters (so "ft" but "in.").
 * Abbreviations + numerals: very true.
 * Numbers less than 20? I've not heard that. I've heard numbers less than ten or less than a hundred, or numbers that would make only one or two words should be spelled out, while others should be in numerals). I've also heard that formal measurements should generally be in abbreviated form for consistency. So I have a thousand apples (not a measurement, but counting), take 363 apples (counting, but there's too many words when spelled out), and then select 1 kg of apples and 22.3 kg of apples (measurements). All of which shows how variable style guides can be.
 * A good point about significant figures. Above, I argued that a measurement like 5 feet (1 sig. fig.) should be treated as 5.0 feet (2 sig. figs., I think?), but didn't really say I why. I think, because D&D has a coarse scale for several measurements, we shouldn't round it still further, to the risk producing very different results. For example, 300 ft may convert to 91.44 m, but rounding that to 100 m loses almost 10 m. This becomes an issue when it comes to spell ranges. Players know it as 300 ft exactly, and expect an equally precise metric measurement. On the other hand, being told a place is a thousand miles up the road requires an equally imprecise conversion: 1600 kilometers is too precise, or 2000 kilometers (1 sig. fig.) is too high), but over a thousand kilometers is just right. The sig. fig. rule is useful in scientific analysis of error, but less meaningful in everyday usage, I think. I think an editor's best judgement as to what fits the situation is appropriate when it comes to conversions. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:14, October 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, none of the style guides ever agree on everything. :)


 * Whether 5 feet should be treated as 5 feet or 5.0 feet depends on context, yes, totally. If I'm a scientist, I should never write five feet if I have the precision in my instrument to know I actually mean 5.00 feet. Obviously, these are not science books. To me, the key is whether the words "about" and "around" are used. If we are talking about spell effects, 30 feet is really 30 +/- 2.5 feet, so we actually have precision out to the tenths place there. If I'm saying a Zorg Beast is about 5 feet tall, I think we only have 1 sig. fig. in that case.


 * In "short", I agree with you. :)


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:20, October 13, 2015 (UTC)


 * If you were a scientist, you should be using metric. :p I encountered the problem of using sig figs yesterday on goliath: a goliath is 7 to 8 feet tall. That's 2.1336 to 2.4384 meters, or round to 1 sig. fig., 2 to 2 meters tall. Which is ridiculous. Hence I went with 2.1 to 2.4 m. Everything that's not a precise (and discrete) spell description is too handwavy for a precise conversation. That's okay, I don't expect scientific precision from D&D or the average wiki editor. I don't expect it from my students, half the time. :) — BadCatMan (talk) 03:38, October 13, 2015 (UTC)


 * "If you were a scientist, you should be using metric. :p"


 * Oh, shush.


 * While we're being pedantic. Shouldn't humanoids be measured in centimeters not meters anyhow? That would give you 210 and 240 cm.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:52, October 14, 2015 (UTC)