How Tall Is 180 Cm In Feet

Answer The Question

Is 180 cm 5 foot 9

180 cm is about 5 feet and 11 inches tall!

What height is 5 foot 11 in cm

Feet to Centimeters (ft to cm) Conversion

Feet + Inches	Ft + In	Centimetres
5 feet 11 inches	5′ 11″	180.34 cm
6 feet 0 inches	6′ 0″	182.88 cm
6 feet 1 inches	6′ 1″	185.42 cm
6 feet 2 inches	6′ 2″	187.96 cm

How much is 180 cm in feet?

180 Centimeter = 5.90551182 Foot.

Is 180 cm 5 11?

Size Guide – 180cm / 5 feet 11 inches.

Is 1.82 m 6 feet tall?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page,

table>

For articles of non-metric interest, e.g. an American basketball player } 6 ft 1 in (1.85 m) } 7 ft 0 in (2.13 m) } 5 ft 11 in (1.80 m) For how high off the ground the hoop is: } 10 ft 0 in (3.05 m) For articles of metric interest, e.g. an Uruguayan football (soccer) player } 2 m (6 ft 6 + 1 ⁄ 2 in) } 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in) } 1.7 m (5 ft 7 in) } 1.6 m (5 ft 3 in) } 1.683 m (5 ft 6 + 1 ⁄ 2 in) When attempting to specify two non-compatible units: } Error: please specify height using only one type of units

May.30, ’06 freak | talk >

Clawed, by stretching out this template to say ft and in, you are stretching out countless infoboxes needlessly which use this template inside of them. ie: NHL players. Just leave it with the standard ” for inches and ‘ for feet. The strokes 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The template should strictly follow the manual of style since it is a template in many articles. I have looked at half of all the NHL players that use the NHL infobox and only found a couple of boxes that were expanded such as Sergei Samsonov, but always by only a very small amount.

Can you please provide some exapmles of articles where the infoboxes have been expanded by the change of this template- Clawed 08:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Shawn_Horcoff Sergei_Samsonov Brendan_Morrison, The bracketed measurement will be placed on a second line Could someone fix the link so that it points to Foot (unit of length), which is the correct link.

Thanks. – Zimbabweed 18:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Please, someone change this: }}}}}}}} }}}}}}}} | }}}}}}}}}}}}}}| Error: please specify only English or Metric units | }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) – ( }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) mod 12) / 12) round 0}} ] }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) mod 12}} ] ( }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) * 0.0254) round 2}} ])}}| }}}}}}}}}}}}}} | }}}}}}}}}}}}}} ] ( }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 – 6 ) / 12 ) round 0}} ] }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 – ((( }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 – 6) / 12) round 0) * 12) round 0}} ])}}}} ] } to this: }}}}}}}} }}}}}}}} | }}}}}}}}}}}}}}| Error: please specify only English or Metric units | }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) – ( }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) mod 12) / 12) round 0}} ] }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) mod 12}} ] ( }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) * 0.0254) round 2}} ])}}| }}}}}}}}}}}}}} | }}}}}}}}}}}}}} ] ( }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 – 6 ) / 12 ) round 0}} ] }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 – ((( }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 – 6) / 12) round 0) * 12) round 0}} ])}}}} ] } Thanks in advance, Muéro ( talk / c ) 09:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks to whoever fixed the link.

Zimbabweed 00:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC) This template is being used on that article, but the numbers given in it are not exact, so using this template implies an inappropriate degree of precision. This shouldn’t be used outside of cases where the numbers are specifically known. Night Gyr ( talk / Oy ) 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC) A small request/proposal: rather than 6 ft (1.8 m), how about 6ft (1.8m)? When written normally, there would be no space between the number and symbol, e.g.20kg, 100m.

Fedgin | Talk 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) : Put a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example “25 kg”, “5 °C”, (not “25kg”, “5° C”); however, angles in degrees have no space: “45°”. Preferably, use   for the space ( 25 kg ) so that it does not break lines.

1.82 m (5 ft 11 + 1 ⁄ 2 in)

5 ft 12 in is 6 ft. This template therefore needs a tinker. Sʟυgυ • • c 12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Well, strictly speaking 1.82m is 5.97112861 feet. Since it’s not quite yet six feet, that’s probably why it’s not rounding it up to 6 ft 0 in—to insinuate the small difference.

Or it could be broken, I’m just postulating here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Broken. Should be 6 ft. GregorB 14:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Here’s the fix (hopefully): }}}}}}}} }}}}}}}} | }}}}}}}}}}}}}}| Error: please specify only English or Metric units | }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) – ( }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) mod 12) / 12) round 0}} ] }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) mod 12}} ] ( }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) * 0.0254) round 2}} ])}}| }}}}}}}}}}}}}} | }}}}}}}}}}}}}} ] ( }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 – 5.5 ) / 12 ) round 0}} ] }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 ) round 0) mod 12}} ])}}}} ] } It’s also slightly simpler.

GregorB 15:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Is it possible to have the template display conversions in centimetres rather than metres and centimetres, e.g.6 ft 1 in (185 cm)? McPhail 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC) My thoughts also. Besides: e.g.5 ft 11 in expands to “1.8 m”, which is an odd format for human height (1.80 m or 180 cm would be customary).

I’d also like to see a 1/2 inch precision (e.g.187 cm is 6 ft 1½ in), although this looks pretty difficult to implement. GregorB 14:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Well, the fraction solution is ugly: }}}}}}}} }}}}}}}} | }}}}}}}}}}}}}}| Error: please specify only English or Metric units | }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) – ( }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) mod 12) / 12) round 0}} ] }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) mod 12}} ] ( }}}}}}}} + }}}}}}}} * 12) * 0.0254) round 2}} ])}}| }}}}}}}}}}}}}} | }}}}}}}}}}}}}} ] ( }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 – 5.75 ) / 12 ) round 0}} ] }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 – 0.25 ) round 0 ) mod 12 != 0 or (( }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 * 2 ) round 0 ) mod 2 = 0| }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 – 0.25 ) round 0 ) mod 12}}}} }}}}}}}}}}}}}} / 0.0254 * 2 ) round 0 ) mod 2 = 1|½}} ])}}}} ] } Works only one way, metric to inches.

GregorB 16:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I’ve moved the above code to }. GregorB 11:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Hi I’ve created a copy of this template on the norwegian language. Can an administrator add a IW in the noinclude section to no:Mal:Height ? Nsaa 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Is there a way to make the 0 inches not display.E.G. Done, Also I’ve created a /doc subpage for furture interwiki links. Cheers. – MZMcBride 22:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Looks good, thanks MZMcBride. // laughing man 22:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Hi I’ve added instructions without noticing there were some at the top of this talkpage, so I reduced mi edits to a quick guide, I wonder if you would mind to move these long table to the /doc subpage – Andersmusician $ 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Could someone add an instruction so that you can specify whether you want feet or metres to appear first? For example with footballers, some people get very nationalistic over which units to highlight and so used } / 6 ft 1 in (1.85 m) when the player is actually 1.86 m tall.

I reverted to } / 1.86 m (6 ft 1 in) because it is more correct, and only after a few iterations of this minor edit war did I notice what the problem is. So what I’m saying is that it would be good to be able to enter the height in metres, but get feet display first. Shouldn’t be too much work, should it? Cheers, aLii 15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) } I’d like to propose removing links to ft, in, metres, etc, as this makes the display of height in infoboxes very inelegant.

It’s also superfluous as the most obvious of links are not supposed to be made unless relevant to the article, such as linking years when not part of a date. Opinions? robwingfield « T • C » 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) The links don’t really bother me, but I suppose they are not too useful either.

I have turned off the editprotected link for now because there is very little comment on this and this template is used very widely. I would like to see enough to believe that there is consensus before making the change. Perhaps you can post something at the village pump to draw some attention for people to come here and comment. Once (if) you have consensus, I will be happy to make the change. – After Midnight 0001 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I support it per GregorB’s comment. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 03:59, July 5, 2007 (UTC) I oppose this. I believe the links should remain because users may not be familiar with the units, or more importantly the abbreviations. And on many articles, this template is the first and only usage of them.

I wouldn’t be opposed to a parameter specifying whether to link or not. — The Storm Surfer 04:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC) A reader wouldn’t be familiar with the units or abbreviations? I’d find that hard to believe, but in the remote possibility that they’re not familiar with pretty much the only units used to measure height worldwide (either metres or feet & inches), then the figures being provided are of no use to them, so a link to the article describing them would be of no use either.

robwingfield « T • C » 18:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC) I can’t seem to get the template to use half inches; } and } both display as 6ft 1in; however, the metric changes correctly. Thanks, BertieBasset 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC) } currently does not support half inches, but for the equivalent result you can try this: }, which expands as 6 ft 1.5 in (1.87 m ).

Speaking of which: it would make sense for } to transclude }, it would simplify its code greatly, with half inches as a bonus. Any opinions on that? GregorB 17:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC) I added the functionality of using the sixteenths of the inch in the output (decimals are supported by default). Note that something like “6/16” would automatically be reduced to “3/8”.

Have fun.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Precision=0 should be the default instead of precision=1 because that’s how human height in inches is usually represented and that was the template’s original behavior.

1. The current setting displays precision that isn’t there.
2. GregorB 13:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC) I agree.
3. In the main, people never measure height in fractions of inches.
4. Precision=0 should be the default.
5. PeeJay 14:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Fixed.
6. One can still specify a different precision if necessary.
7. Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 15:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Whoops, I didn’t realize there were more complaints above.

Just wanted to say that when I was re-designing this template, I beleived that it should be deprecated; all improvements were introduced only as a stop-gap measure. But since people are eager to keep this, a more serious re-write is in order. Anyway, as for the fractions being 16ths, that can be easily switched to any other denominator, as } (which is called to handle fraction conversions) can handle all of the smaller values (16 is used here only as a default; it is trivial to switch to 2 (for halves) or to a custom parameter.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 15:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC) “Precision=0” broke the support for fractions.

• I’m going to leave it as is for now because the fractions support is not used anywhere and the default/requested behavior is not affected, but rest assured I’ll have it fixed later.
• Unless this fraction feature is found to be completely unneeded.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC) OK, hopefully I was able to finally fix this template.

For meters-to-feet/inches conversions, the output now defaults to showing half-inches. If fourths, sixteenths, 45ths, or whatever else is desired, specify it using the frac parameter (set frac =4, 16, 45, or whatever). Use frac =10 to show inches as decimals (the default precision for this is one, but it can be changed using the precision parameter).

1. To make sure no fractional inches are shown (either vulgar or decimal), set precision =0.
2. If you find any bugs that need fixing, please list them here.
3. Hopefully there won’t be any.
4. Otherwise, enjoy!— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 17:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Well, there’s this very minor issue that was present since the beginning: e.g.

} displays the height as 1.8 m, while the display of 1.80 m would be more common in general use. As far as I can tell, this is due to behavior of the MediaWiki round function, so working around it looks difficult. GregorB 17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) You are right, it is how the round function works.

I won’t say it’s unfixable (it is), but fixing it is definitely not something that can be done quickly (not with the limited assortment of tools the template language provides, anyway).— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Ah, alright, I couldn’t resist—I tried it out 🙂 Turned out to be not as difficult as I first thought.

However, since I don’t have time to test is thoroughly, please do so for me before this improvement can go into production. In order to change }’s handling of trailing zeroes, } will need to be improved. That improved version of } is now located at } ( here ‘s the permalink in case X8 gets reset; it’s a sandbox template).

1. Please test it out with different values and precisions.
2. If everything checks, then X8’s code can simply be used to overwrite }’s, after which will handle trailing zeros properly.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 18:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Never mind, it does not work properly :(— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 19:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Confirmed.5 ft 11 in is OK, 6 ft 7 in is not.

GregorB 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Is it possible to get this template and } to default to WP:MOS#Units_of_measurement conventions on abbreviations.- TonyTheTiger ( t / c / bio / tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM ) 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC) I thought I’ve fixed this one already? Could you, please, point out where exactly it is in violation of MOS? I might have missed something, of course.

As for }, I also promised to fix it, but never got around to actually doing it 🙁 Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC) MOS calls for spelled out units and abbreviated parenthetical conversion. Thus, it should default to X feet Y inches (Z m) instead of X ft Y in (Z m).

Same for }.- TonyTheTiger ( t / c / bio / tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM ) 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Ah, that. The only reason why this template defaults to abbreviated units is because it is intended for use primarily in infoboxes, where spelling out units is not practical.

I was not aware this template is used anywhere outside infoboxes; perhaps this point should be clarified in the documentation. In any case, it is possible to add the abbr switch to take care of this contingency. Please let me know if that would be helpful. Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 21:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Yes a parameter like MOSstlye=on or something would be great for both templates.

– TonyTheTiger ( t / c / bio / tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM ) 15:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC) OK, done. You can now use the standard abbr parameter, which takes values of yes (default), no (both sides spelled out), and mos (MoS-compliant). Note that the issue with singular units still needs to be fixed—one foot/one inch/one meter currently show as “1 feet”/”1 inches”/”1 meters”, so until that’s fixed please exercise caution.

• I am not making any promises on when } is going to be done, but it is on my to-do list.
• If anyone reading this wants to fix it themselves, I won’t be complaining 🙂 Best,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 15:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks.- TonyTheTiger ( t / c / bio / tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM ) 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Is it possible to make the units linkable?- TonyTheTiger ( t / c / bio / tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM ) 00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Done.

Can you tell me where you are planning to deploy this tempate’s added features, please? It’s just that I am having a hard time imagining it being useful anywhere outside the infoboxes. Thanks.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC) This is a great addtion to Wikipedia.

• Would it be possible to use the ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ and ⅞ characters when displaying fractions of inches? This would enhance the appearance of the output.
• Best Wishes Saga City 08:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC) The author of the template that handles the fractions ( }) originally implemented that feature, but I believe he then rolled it back because of the MoS concerns and overall inconsistency of look.

It is not terribly difficult to add the feature back, making it optional if necessary, but we first need to determine whether this feature can be considered to be MoS-compliant or not.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC) In most cases in which this template is used, nothing more than half-inch precision is reasonable.

code	}
display when posted	1.82 m (5 ft 11 1 ⁄ 2 in)
current display	1.82 m (5 ft 11 + 1 ⁄ 2 in)
Saga City suggestion	1.82 m (5 ft 11½ in)

Gene Nygaard ( talk ) 22:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC) As you have probably already discovered by now, the problem lies not with this template, but with }, the author of which did not want to use the Unicode fractions for reasons I can’t quite recall.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC) The template is converting height to ‘4’12″‘. See: Fuko, Dekkappai ( talk ) 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Not an easy fix, unfortunately. You can either specify the fractions: }→1.52 m (4 ft 11 + 13 ⁄ 16 in); or use } or }: }→1.52 m (5 ft 0 in)— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 14:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Can someone change the interwiki for Norway to no:Høyde ? no:Height? is wrong and doesn’t lead anywhere. KristofferAG ( talk ) 21:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Done. You could have done it on your own, by the way (interwikis go to the doc page, which is not protected). Cheers,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 21:47, November 30, 2009 (UTC) I found the above problem as well, but also not that a person exactly 1.82 meters will convert incorrectly. }->1.82 m (6 ft 0 in) – SPhilbrick T 11:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I believe this is now fixed. For reference, it was producing 5 ft 12 in, but now should produce 6 ft 0 in. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Why isn’t this template announced as deprecated just like the “weight” template (due to the new “convert” template)? – 62.219.97.68 ( talk ) 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Because, unlike }, this template provides some functionality which no other template offers.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 18:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Is that so? What functionality is that? – Pee Jay 14:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Vulgar fractions. Please refer to the template documentation for details.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 15:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC) On a slightly related issue, Is there any guidance over people doing mass changes from height->convert or vice versa in a case when the extra functionalities aren’t being used? Mattlore ( talk ) 05:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Why give heights in metres? Usually when people speak of height it’s in centimetres (if they’re talking metric). J ɪ m p 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Having for most of my life lived in a country that uses the metric system, I should note that stating a human height in centimeters is not nearly as common as giving it in meters (e.g., 1.89 m) or in meters and centimeters (1 m 89 cm). I can’t vouch, of course, that this is the case everywhere else.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC) That country would be Russia, would it not? I should rephrase, usually when people speak of height, in English speaking countries, it’s in centimetres (if they’re talking metric), or at least that’s my experience. Giving human height in metres would be most uncommon where I’m from (Australia). J ɪ m p 07:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Russia, yup, that’s correct. As for the English-speaking countries, I wouldn’t know, living in the U.S. and all (I am yet to hear an American talk metric :)). Anyone else wants to comment? Please?— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo? ); 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC) We can inform ourselves with some crude research. Here are some suggestions for google tests:

height 178-cm weight height 1.78-m weight taille poids 178-cm taille poids 1.78-m Höhe Gewicht 178-cm Höhe Gewicht 1.78-m altura peso 178-cm altura peso 1.78-m

Google has excellent facilities for restricting searches to one country (e.g. Spain) or language (e.g. Spanish). Run the english language tests on www.google.co.za using the ‘pages from South Africa’ button below the search box. Similarly with www.google.com.au using the ‘pages from Australia’ button.

1. You can test russion pages using http://www.google.com/intl/ru/ using the ‘ ‘ button.
2. Other useful data sources would be articles (but not translations of US non-metric articles) from local Wikipedias.
3. For example, the Italian Wikipedia shows the height of Matias_Aguero in metres.
4. In ignorance of the ‘right’ answer, we could have a slight preference for base units (m, kg, W) over prefixed units.

My impression is that there is no consensus that would be ‘right’ for all countries and all domains. Lightmouse 12:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Here in Sweden we at least say (translated) “I’m one and eighty-seven” going with the 1.87m view. “I’m 187 centimeters” just sounds retarded 😉 Chandler talk 09:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC) In Canada, its centimetres.

Giving height in metres AND centimetre (1 m 87 cm) copies the foot-inch reporting & does not make use of the decimal relationship between metres & centimetres – the very reason for the design of the metric system. Using decimals for height (1.87 m)adds an unneeded character – a character that is easily confused with a punctuation mark in sentences.

The height template needs to allow the conversion be done to cm, at least as an option if not as default.- JimWae ( talk ) 06:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC) It appears } already does the job :5 feet 11 inches (180 cm) – JimWae ( talk ) 07:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC) In Australasia and East Asia it’s all centimetres.

• I’ve never seen anyone express height in metres in my life till I came to Wikipedia.
• The problem with the solution mentioned by JimWae is that it has feet and inches as the main height with the centimetres in brackets.
• How can we get it the other way around?- Gibson Flying V ( talk ) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC) } does the trick, although that doesn’t use this template.

Mattlore ( talk ) 01:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please implement the changes I have entered into this version of the sandbox which will allow cm to be entered into the template, but will display it as m for now until the RfC on this talk page is closed. The testcases page shows that this is working properly.

There has been no opposition because I did not feel there needed to be any, given the ongoing RFC! Giant Snowman 15:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The RfC is to whether or not cm should be allowed as an output from this template, the changes made do not effect the output as it pertains to units at all and as such are not effected by the RfC. GS, if you are actually saying that you oppose the change that allows it to simply be an input, then I would be happy to revert that part of the change. Technical 13 ( talk ) 16:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Other problems: Those changes help somewhat, but has many other problems, so I proposed a cm-focused, co-template for to be totally rewritten from scratch, to avoid the recent problems in, including:

= 1 metre (3 feet 3 + 1 ⁄ 2 inches) ←use singular “1 meter”

I agree (and easy to do with }}|s}} = s / }}|s}} = s Technical 13 ( talk ) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

= 1.55 metres (5 feet 1 inch) ←use singular “inch”

Same as above, but just out of curiosity, why doesn’t this template employ 5′ 1″ notation? Technical 13 ( talk ) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

= 1.52 m (5 ft 0 in) ←drop the “0 in” part

Sure, or we could just use decimal notation for feet.5.25 ft. (instead of 5′ 3″). j/k :/ Technical 13 ( talk ) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

=,3040 metres (1 foot 0 inches) ←singular as “1 foot”

Same as points one and two. Technical 13 ( talk ) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

=,3040 m (1 ft 0 in) ←treat “off” as “abbr=no”

Yeah, I’ve often wondered why } (and the module that it uses now) doesn’t recognize on/off (and a few others) Technical 13 ( talk ) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

=,250 metres (10 inches) ←Is “0 feet” ok.

} is only intended to be used for the height of people, right? If so, this is a moot point, if not, well. Technical 13 ( talk ) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Even worse, has had a expansion depth of 18 levels (should be less than 10), for the wp:expansion depth limit, Overall, I would let people use for cm, until a special cm utility was developed as a simple, clear alternative. Then later, rewrite using the dozen improvements in the new cm-focused template. – Wikid77 ( talk ) 16:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikid, Eek!!! I didn’t realize it was so deeply expanded. I would be happy to write a /core for this template to reduce that issue (and since it won’t be transcluding other templates like }, it should be much faster and lighter weight as well). Technical 13 ( talk ) 16:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There are so many options, such as “frac=16″ which could be dropped as extravagant, but we need to see where used. The short ft/in format, as 5’10” is opposed by wp:MOS, and you know what that entails. – Wikid77 03:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Better to just rewrite this template as a simple frontend to }, rather than creating a new template.

1. The new LUA version of convert seems to work well, and we should just use that where possible.
2. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Long-term, we cannot keep expanding the ” empire” which has become “all eggs in one basket” and there is no need to complicate a simple multiply-and-round to become a gigantic 15,000-line, Lua-based system.

Meanwhile, new features could be added into a separate template, and bypass bugs in such as “inch” when plural: • → 1.56 metres (5 feet 1 1 ⁄ 2 inch) The plural bugfix for ” 1 + 1 ⁄ 2 inch” as formerly a 1-hour fix, will be delayed until March 2014. The “Rise of the Mega-template” has greatly complicated bugfixes and thwarted new features from the TfD’d alternate templates.

Remember: did not support fractional output inches for 8 years. Already has dropped support for dates/times, now handled by → }. Imagine what other, not-so-obvious features would be delayed by using Lua another 7 years. – Wikid77 03:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Mindful use of see alsos, categories, or maybe even disambiguation pages would make it easy to find the correct template in lieu of a super convert template.— Bagumba ( talk ) 05:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I have been looking at replacing the red-error message with small proofreader notes (of the style ” “).

Currently, if a newcomer thinks they have to supply both metres and feet, then the numbers disappear and the page will show:

} = Error: please specify height using only one type of units

So, instead of hiding the numbers, the new message would appear as:

Proposed: } = 1.83 m 6 ft Proposed: } = 1.8O m Proposed: } = 1+80cm m

The proposed format will show the numbers in question, such as “1.8o” with letter “o” (as invalid number), and new users can see the specific numbers, plus tiny notes such as “” which links to a mouse-over description plus the related text in the template documentation.

In the early days of Wikipedia, most templates had to be kept simple because all error-message code was stored for every use of each template, even when no errors had occurred; however, in January 2008, a recursive descent parser was installed to skip false branches of if-functions (such as error clauses), and now messages can be formatted with wikilinks as small superscript proof-notes without storing all error-text when every page is formatted.

Since 2008, there is no longer a performance-based reason to show only minimal red-error messages without repeating the exact numbers in question, or linking to the documentation to further explain how the numbers are invalid. Now the clear, precise proofreader notes are quick to process in templates, to provide better messages for new users who do not check all data before saving an edit.

Such precise messages require extra internal work, but it is worth the extra effort to provide better typesetting in live articles. – Wikid77 ( talk ) 16:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC) I like this idea. It puts the error into perspective, allowing it to be readily identified without being unhelpfully intransigent.

Just a detail: have you thought of making the “fix” red instead of blue? Or even the whole message? It’s all a matter of perceptual degree. Evensteven ( talk ) 22:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Blue-link proofreader notes follow the style of ” ” with blue wikilinks, and smaller text. The prior use of ” Red-text messages ” which had seemed better, as eye-catching errors, has proven ineffective, where other red-text messages have been left in articles for months (or years), while (many) thousands of users view the pages with the over-the-top wp:grandstanding about one problem among dozens of other issues to be improved. When a new user specifies both height amounts as, “1.88 m (6 ft 2 in)” then it is technically correct text, and does not deserve a glaring red ” Error ” nor red ” fix ” message, and certainly not the: • 1950s-style: ERROR: Does not compute, choose either A or B Instead, the main focus now is “live typesetting” but red-error text is often just over-the-top shouting about one issue, among many others possibly 100x times more crucial for the page. Also, auto-correction is even better, to note “m=1.8o” as invalid letter “o” but treat it as “1.80” to show correct ft/in but with blue-link warning ” ” as a reminder. – Wikid77 16:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. Evensteven ( talk ) 09:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Is 5 11 tall for a man?

Never been called short or rejected for being this height (that I know of). To be honest, I think most women prefer men over six feet. That’s my observation. But 5′11″ is still in the 75th percentile of height in the US for males, which means we are taller than 75% of adult men.

Is 180 cm tall for a 15 year old?

Yes you are tall, according to the ‘Human Height in our world data’ it says that the average height globally is 171 cm so you don’t have to worry about it.

Is 175 cm too short for a guy

Have you ever wondered how tall people are in different countries? You’re not alone! Height is often a topic of interest and fascination for many people worldwide. In our comprehensive guide, we explore the average heights of men and women across the globe, giving you an insight into how different nations and regions compare.

From the towering Scandinavians to the petite Guatemalans, join us as we journey through the continents and reveal the diverse height ranges found among the world’s population. On a global scale, the average height of men is around 5 feet 9 inches (175 cm), while the average height of women is around 5 feet 4 inches (162 cm).

In the following sections, we’ll delve into the specific height averages for different continents, countries, and regions – uncovering the factors that contribute to these differences, such as genetics, nutrition, and lifestyle. Keep reading to discover more about the fascinating world of human height!

What is 5 10 feet in cm

5 feet 10 inches in cm = x 2.54 = 70 x 2.54 = 177.8 cm.

Is 5 foot 12 6 feet

5 foot and 12 inches is the same as 6 foot 0 inches. Input is also possible in the lower rows, e.g. ‘meters’. Example 1.60 meters.

Is 5 ft 10 tall?

5′10 (178 cm) is an internationally good height for men. Not tall but definitely not short.

Is 180 cm tall for a girl

Yes it’s very tall for a woman. In the US the average height for a woman is 5’4″ but the ideal height which is considered perfect for women and can help them with their careers is 5’7″ or taller. So if you’re 5’11″ as a woman you have a very good height.

Is 180 cm tall in USA?

Yes, 180-181 cm is considered tall in the United States. It is roughly equivalent to 5’11’ – 5’11.5′ in feet and inches. The average height of the US is 175 cm.

How tall are you if you’re 180?

If you are 180 inches tall, that would make you 15 feet tall (180 in / 12 in/ft). However, if you are 180 cm tall, divide that number by 2.54 cm/in to derive 70.87 inches, which slightly under 5’11″.

Is 180cm 5 11 or 5 9?

We are perceived as pretty much similar in height, depending on what kind of a footwear we’re wearing. So, 2 inches of height difference is not that significant. But, anything north of this mark, can be a significant amount.5’11’ translated to cm is 180 cm and 5’9′ translated into cm is 175 cm.

Is 182 cm 6 foot

If you are 182 cm, then your are 6′ 0″ tall. If you are 186 cm, then your are 6′ 1″ tall. If you are 186 cm, then your are 6′ 1″ tall. If you are 188 cm, then your are 6′ 2″ tall.

Is 170 cm 5’7 or 5 6

170 cm is equivalent to 5 feet and 7 inches when converted to the imperial unit of feet.

Is 6 ft tall for a boy?

What is the current average height of men in the UK? – We should start this by saying that getting data about average heights in the UK is actually very difficult – not just because of the scale of the studies that would need to be undertaken, but also because men have the propensity to lie about their height,

• But we did find some data which showed that the average height of men in the UK as of 2020 was 5ft 10in,
• So seeing as that the average height is under 6ft, by definition being 6ft and over is tall (i.e, above the national average).
• Back in 2010, the average height of a male in the UK was 5ft 9in,
• So you can see how in the last decade, the definition of “tall” really is slowing shifting and many people who grew up being called tall may find themselves closer to the average height.

Who knows, by 2030 the average height of the male population in the UK might be 6ft, and then being a 6ft bloke will no longer be considered as being tall. But then this raises the question – is being only a few inches over the national average really worthy of being called “tall”? We wouldn’t say so, even though by definition you’re taller than most people in the country.

How tall is a 6 foot person?

A six-foot-tall person is 72 inches tall.

Is 182 cm tall for a 16 year old?

Yes you are tall, according to the ‘Human Height in our world data’ it says that the average height globally is 171 cm so you don’t have to worry about it.

How many cm is 6ft tall?

Let’s say a person is 6 feet tall. Height feet to cm conversion is 6 X 30.48 = 182.88 cm tall.

How tall is a 180 cm man

180 cm to feet and inches table

Centimeters	Feet and inches	Feet
180 cm	5 feet, 10.9 in	5.91 feet
181 cm	5 feet, 11.3 in	5.94 feet
182 cm	5 feet, 11.7 in	5.97 feet
183 cm	6 feet, 0 in	6 feet

How tall is a 6 foot person?

A six-foot-tall person is 72 inches tall.

How many cm is 6ft in height

Conversion Table For Feet to Centimeter – The following is the conversion table for the feet to centimeter:

Feet (ft)	Centimeter (cm)
1 ft	30.48 cm
2 ft	60.96 cm
3 ft	91.44 cm
4 ft	121.92 cm
5 ft	152.4 cm
6 ft	182.88 cm
7 ft	213.36 cm
8 ft	243.84 cm
9 ft	274.32 cm
10 ft	304.8 cm