Talk:1981 Topps
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Size suspiciously precise
SOme of the cards have a size which is precise to four decimal figures. I doubt anyone really measured these cards with such precision, or that all cards had exactly the same size to the micrometre. Can this be reduced to perhaps one significant decimal (in inch or centimeters, whichever is best sourced or preferred)? Fram (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The original source material listed on the page uses inches and not centimeters. It also used fractions instead of decimals. Libro0 (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that explains the numbers. Can you live with the changes I made, or would you prefer to use the fractions? Fram (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't have any preference since some of the changes are negligible, such as a capital X versus a lowercase x. I used 2-1/2 X 3-1/2 in. because that is how it is listed in the source and is therefore verifiable. It is a US product but the use of metric is good for the inclusion of non US readers. You will have to ask the other editor why he changed it to decimal however. The source will on occasion use this for mat as well (3 1/4" by 4 9/16"). Libro0 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the decimal inches works better than the fractional ones. Having metric equivalents is good, although the precision seems a bit too much. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)