Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Measurement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Insulation R value.

In the text currently displayed in the first para is the statement "The bigger the number, the better the building insulation's effectiveness". This is true for the "R" value, but it immediately follows definition of U & C, which is confusing, as the reverse is true for these parameters.

I suggest a simple re-ordering of the information.

David Steele 132.244.72.4 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthropic measurements/units

There is a question at Talk:Anthropic units whether there actually is such a thing as Anthropic units. I am no expert in the field, but I didn't think wholesale blanking of the article was appropriate per WP:DEMOLISH unless we truly have an article about an unsupportable fringe theory. I am AGF that the other user is wanting to improve wikipedia, just perhaps a bit abruptly, IMHO. Can anyone who is familiar with measurement systems based on the human body go over there and weigh in? Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

The reliability of some of the sources that I used in the lede picture for the article Metrication in the United Kingdom have been questioned by a number of editors whose record of editing measurement-related articles is minimal. I would welcome some input from people who understand measurements. Martinvl (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This request was not announced on the talkpage for that article and has been presented in a non-neutral fashion. It therefore appears to be a clear-cut case of WP:CANVASSING. The other side of this dispute would say that Martinvl doesn't understand the difference between primary and secondary sourcing, and that he struggles with the concept of original research and why Wikipedia is not the place for it. For what it's worth, the dispute is not over measurements per se, but how they are presented in the media. As such, it's a question of sourcing statements about media organisations, not about measurements. I think it's safe to assume that everyone on that page understands the difference between a mile and a kilometre.

Of course, anyone is welcome to join in - especially now you've heard both sides.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the ledes of many SI-related articles

User:DeFacto has been making a number of changes to the lede of various articles. All of these changes appear to have the same objective - to trivialise the role that the CGPM plays in coordinating the world's standards. In so doing, he is compromising the quality of Wikipedia. Since he has worked on a number of articles, I am asking him to justify his changes in one place - here. The articles in question are Litre, Millimetre, Cubic centimetre, Gram, Ampere and Kilogram. I have undone most of his changes and asked him to discuss them here.

Martinvl, as I've said on your talkpage, this bizarre behaviour is unacceptable. You did it without talkpage discussion and with no authority other than your own POV. You have gone around all of the articles that I've edited in the last two or three hours - edits supported by reliable sources where necessary, and fully explained in the edit summaries - and summarily reverted them all! -- de Facto (talk). 19:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My reason for opposing DeFacto's changes

Prior to the second world war, the metric system was not living up to its expectations and in 1948 the CGPM were asked to overhaul it. The result was that in 1960 SI was launched. This system is now the basis of law throughout most of the world, and ceertainly in the US and the EU. ISO texts are also consistent with the SI brochure. One of the features of SI, documented in the SI brochure, is that SI units of measure shall not be abbreviated, and that the symbols used to denote them are identical in all languages.

It appears however that the Oxford dictionaries report what they see in the world around them and do not neccessarily follow the CGPM and ISO recommednations. Wikipedia on the other hand has taken the view that the recommendations made by CGPM and ISO are "official", but that other forms of the words, while being noted, should be discouragd in one way or another. Since a large portionj of our readership look to Wikipedia for "official" or "correct" interpretations of these words, it is wholly improper that variations which do not reflect the combined views of CGPM, ISO, the US Government (NIST), the EU COmmission and many other such bodies be given prominence on the opeing lines of articles related to those measures.

Martinvl (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see nothing blatantly wrong with the lead of any of those articles as they are right now; can you provide diffs illustrating the problem? BTW, last time I checked, the consensus (at least at WT:MOSNUM) was that when what the BIPM say isn't actually common practice in English (e.g. as to whether to write “83 %” with a space or “83%” without one, or “1 MiB” or “1 MB” for the ‘large’ megabyte) it's the latter we should follow. ― A. di M.​  18:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, have you ever seen or heard of the WP:NPOV policy? Wiki demands a neutral point of view in articles. That means not only accepting the view of one particular body (e.g. the CGPM), but including other views too. With respect to the Ampere article, the use of the word "amp" is so universal that there is probably a good case under WP:COMMONNAME to have the article renamed to "Amp"! The leads need to give due weight to all terminology. Incidentally, what's wrong too with clarifying that the "symbols" mentioned in the leads are the SI unit symbols? -- de Facto (talk). 19:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

TPS here coming across this... Can't say I agree with the commonname concept. The proper term is by far used more often in scientific electrical and engineering literature. The use of the short term is limited to the uninformed. This is why we have Locomotive and not Train engine. The CGPM appears to be one of three global authorities charged with making the standards, and if this is indeed the case a reference to them is akin to a reference to the British Standards, or to the prototypes on display at the BIPM vault; that is, it is the official definition. All three sources should be weighted based on the consistent terminology to create a definition for our articles - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Martinvl. The CGPM recommendations are widely accepted and should therefore have a very prominent place in the articles. It should be clear (which it is not in De Factos versions) that abbreviations like gm, mil and ccm are not as accepted as g, mm and cm³. Amp is common but informal.

The question of where to write “SI unit symbol” as De Facto does rather than simply “symbol” is more difficult, and I think it should be considered from case to case. For kg and A I think “symbol” is enough since the units are stated to be SI units. For the other units one should keep in mind that also CGS use the same symbols, and that the starting sentence should be as easy to read as possible. Ulflund (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Amp" isn't "informal" for "ampere" (although it is for "amplifier"), it is in widespread use as the normal word for the unit, across many disciplines. The Longman dictionary defines amp as: "amp also am‧pere a unit for measuring electric current: a 3 amp fuse". -- de Facto (talk). 23:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is my view that the first sentence of the lede should read

"Xxxx (symbol: X) [, informally known as Yyyy,] is an SI unit of measure for ....".

The phrase in square brackets is optional and the name "Xxxx" and symbol "X" are strictly in accordance with the SI Brochure. I suggest that if the unit name "Yyyy" is described in the first sentence, then is be described as an "informal" variant and that the details of it be described in the section "Etymology". Informal abbreviations should not be in the lede unless they reflect the spoken word (eg "cc").

If the unit of measure was used in both SI and the cgs system of units, then cgs could be mentioned in the article (and maybe also in the lede), but as SI has been in place for half a century and very little serious work is done these days in cgs, we do not need to devote too much space to cgs. Martinvl (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"informal" is a specific term in lexicography and it does not automatically apply to every abbreviation or short form. There is a difference between "inappropriate in scientific academic literature" and "only appropriate in conversation". The latter is "informal", not the former. "Kilo" for example is not "informal" whereas "klick" for kilometre would be informal. I agree the SI full name is the appropriate title. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with a policy requiring a neutral point of view; it is not a soapbox for disseminating SI propaganda. The SI view is just one view. They insist that "Ampere" must be used and not "Amp", thay insist that "cc" is not acceptable as an abbreviation of "cubic centimetre". Do a reality check - use Google, search newspapers, search government publications, search the sites of engineering institutions. You'll find that "Amp" and "cc" are in common and widespread use despite of what the SI brochure may say. The articles need to reflect the real word view, not the SI's idealised and unrealistic view. See WP:NPOV. -- de Facto (talk). 23:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that amp is the more common use. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The British National Corpus gives just 2 hits for "ampere" and 677 for "amp" - granted there are several meaning for "amp" but of the 50 records on the first page of search results, 5 are for "amp" as in "ampere". -- de Facto (talk). 00:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Usage about common metric measures in Australia follows the BIPM. It should not be presumed that informal usage in one English-speaking country is shared by other English-speaking countries. I think it is better to follow the BIPM as a general rule. In the case of "amp" in the British corpus, it referred to the Australian National Mutual society and to amplifiers, as well as to amperes, so the term is ambiguous. <http://bnc.bl.uk/saraWeb.php?qy=amp&mysubmit=Go> Not a good recommendation for usage in an encyclopedia. Michael Glass (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledged that about the multi-meanings of the word "amp", and eliminated non-ampere "amps" from my count. I also said it was an example only of how to check usage, not a definitive conclusion on usage. We need to do a thorough investigation; but if the example is typical even only of British usage, it shows that BIPM "rule" isn't widely adhered to, so is a "view" only, amongst many.

Google searhes of just the domain "gov.au" gives 4550 hits for "amp" in association with "volt" and just 768 hits for "ampere" in association with volt. That suggests to me that it is worth exploring the Australian usage patterns too.

Wiki demands NPOV. -- de Facto (talk). 09:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that comparing usage of these terms based on simple counts in a corpus is next to impossible. The terms to consider are "Ampère, "ampere", "amp", and "A". The writing to count are not only newspapers, books, and academic journals, but every switch, receptacle, and many extension cords. Then we might want to consider all the prefixed forms of the word, like mA and milliampere. In my mind, getting a good count is such a difficult task that it would constitute original research, so we should disregard any count done by a Wikipedia editor and only accept one by a qualified reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that Defacto's comment "it is not a soapbox for disseminating SI propaganda. The SI view is just one view." says it all. He is obviously unaware of why SI is so important in the world of trade and commerce. If you go to the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OILM) website here he will begin to get an idea of why it is neccessary to have a clear and concise vocabulary for interchanging technical information acrosss national boundaries. The relationship between BIPM and OILM is described here to show BIPM's relationships and to show OILM's relationships. Furthermore, if he looks at the NIST website, he will see that the American version of SI ties up the few areas that have deliberately been left to national standards in BIPM version of SI. Likewise the EU units of measurement directive (and hence UK law) is totally compatible with the BIPM document. All other major industrialised nations likewise use the BIPM definitons of SI as the basis for their own definitions, otherwise they would put their own international trade at risk.

In light of this overwhelming evidence plus the fact that it is the BIPM/CGPM who defined the SI, their view is the authoritative view. The views of others, while encyclopeadic, are minority views and should be treated as such.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 08:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

My position, knowledge and view on the SI are not only unknown to editors here (and Martinvl has badly misrepresented them), but they irrelevant - as are those of any other editors. Please tackle the article contents, not the personalities involved in editing it.

Having said that, I agree that there is evidence that the SI has strong views and a laudable objective. However there is no "overwhelming evidence" to support the notion that the SI diktats are widely observed and adhered to. You only need to look at the prevalence of the use of the words "amp" and "kilo" in the literature when referring to the units kilogramme and ampere to realise that. Wikipedia needs to stay neutral and not push the "ideal" of one organisation above the real-word reality. -- de Facto (talk). 09:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, for the "Ampere" article we only need to compare "amp" and "ampere" to find which is the most common. Comparisons of other terms may be relevent elsewhere. There are, I believe, established techniques for comparing word usage - we need to investigate these, and any results, before making rash (OR) decisions based just on our personal subjective (biased) opinions. -- de Facto (talk). 09:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a register issue too. I guess bike is more common than bicycle overall, but the former is not formal enough for general use in an encyclopaedia (in the British National Corpus there are 2219 total occurrences of bike or bikes used as a noun versus 1106 for bicycle or bicycles, but if you only include the Academic subcorpus it's 42 to 27), even though the article Bicycle does give bike as a synonym in the lead. The same should apply to sec/second, kilo/kilogram, and possibly amp/ampere too. ― A. di M.​  11:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The symbol "A", and other SI unit symbols are relevant because they are widely used in written work. They are preferred in scientific and technical publications over the fully spelled out form. As a short form, "A" is a viable alternative to "amp" in any written work where space is at a premium, or where "ampere" seem to be just too clunky. My view is that "amp" is primarily a spoken form in English, because "ampere" is too long and "A" just sounds strange. I suspect that many written instances of "amp" appear in dialog or writing that seeks to imitate spoken language. Certainly there are any number of do-it-yourself guides, like Nash's Do-It-Yourself Housebuilding that use "Amps" (sic, p. 447, New York: Sterling) in an effort to make the subject less intimidating, but I don't think that's the right tone for an encyclopedia Jc3s5h (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, Wiki should present a balanced POV based on the real world, not attempt to push a specific editor-preferred POV though. -- de Facto (talk). 18:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A. di M., but "bike" is defined as "informal" in the dictionary, whereas neither "amp" or "kilo" is. -- de Facto (talk). 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I make a special plea to all the people here making over-casual comments about "informality". General statements about the register of a word (specifically about whether it is informal or not) are the domain of linguistics, specifically lexicography, not science. "informal" has a specific meaning, and should not be treated as a matter of a hunch or personal preference. It is the judgement of major dictionary compilers that some short forms for these terms are not "informal" (while others are), and they are the appropriate authority for this. That a short form is inappropriate for scientific writing is of course important to include in an encyclopedia, but it is not identical with generally being classed as "informal".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

At least one dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3rd ed., 1992) does label amp as informal, when used in the sense of ampere. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Good find. However, American Heritage fourth edition (desk dictionary) no longer calls it informal (nice iphone app, if anyone's interested, and very cheap - not the deluxe one with sound files and Roget's thrown in) - the label appears to have been removed in revision. From what I can look at/access elsewhere, recent editions of Oxford Advanced learners, Cambridge international, Chambers Concise, Merriam-Websters, Collins, and Longman Active study all don't call it informal. Per NPOV, we should go with what must be the clear modern majority, if it isn't unanimity. (My battered 1982 paper version of American Heritage doesn't even include "amp", which is odd, but the dictionary came out of a conservative, mildly prescriptive reaction to Websters). What this unanimity means is that we say nothing about its general register; a body section on use and etymology can deal with specific registers.

This doesn't mean that "amp" should be the title; I don't go with the recent fashion for a strong reading of WP:commonname, and abbreviations should not take precedence in titling except in unusual circumstances. I'm just getting annoyed with people using linguistic terms carelessly, particularly when they're pleading accuracy and precision in the same breath on other matters.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not the case that all dictionaries list "bike" as informal either - neither Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th Edition) nor Macquarie Dictionary (2nd Edition) does. Wcp07 (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a useful example to look at (although the latest Macquarie mini dictionary gives bike as informal when referring to a bicycle rather than a motorcycle; my guess is it's based on the fifth edition.). American Heritage 4th doesn't list bike as informal either (2nd did). However, Oxford (both American and Advanced Learner's), Cambridge international, Webster's New World (1982 edn - not got access to newest), Chamber's concise, Longman Active Study, and Collins all list it variously as informal or colloquial. In this situation, I would either defer to the clear majority in the lede, or qualify it with "generally considered" and a footnote. Someone might want to find out in such a situation if there were a difference in English national variants (is it considered informal in Australian English, for example?).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I have seen a dictionary which labelled bike as informal when it means “motorcycle” but not when it means “bicycle”, and the dictionary currently on my desk classifies amp as colloquial when it means “amplifier” but not when it means “ampere”. Hence, given that dictionaries disagree with each other, picking one dictionary and following it blindly seems a little bit too arbitrary to me. ― A. di M.​  14:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the point I was making: picking one dictionary at random (AKA scrabbling around for a source) would violate NPOV. However, if you have the very clear majority of major dictionaries saying one thing, NPOV requires you to lead with that; what should be up for discussion is how much weight (if any) we give to one or two dictionaries that disagree. Later editions of a dictionary supersede earlier ones (particularly as lexicographers are working from greatly improved corpora these days). At the moment, no latest edition dictionary anyone has cited gives amp as informal for ampere, and the number of high-power compilers that don't is quite striking. (That it's informal for another word is irrelevant; kid is not informal when talking about goats, for example.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We should also look at how the dictionariesin question get their sources:

1. CIPM (Committee of 18 scientists) make recommendations to CGPM (Represenatives of the countries who have signed the Convention of the Meter - includes US, UK and most other industrialised countries).
2. GCPM accepts CIPM's recommedations and asks BIPM (Secretariat) to publish them.
3. BIPM published recommedations in SI Brochure. SI Brochure also includes rules on how words are to be used (in partcular "do not abbreviate").
4. SI brochure is used as the basis of legislation in many countries (including US and EU).
5. People use words defined by the CGPM, not always obnserving the CGPM's recommednations.
6. Dictionaries catalogue how words are used by people.

As you can see, the dictionaries are at the tail-end of the sequence. Moreover the dictionaries do not always follow the rules recommedned by the "owners" of the words. There is an analogy with the way that people use their names. Some people are happy to have their names shortened, others do not. For example, Margaret Thatcher might have been called "Maggie" in the tabloid press, but she herself appears never to have used that name, so Wikipedia make no mention of that vesion of her name - the opening line of her entry in Wikipedia is "Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts; born 13 October 1925)". On the other hand Bill Clinton apears to have hardly ever used the formal version of his first name "William" and as such the opening line of his Wikipedia entry is "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946)". Both Wikipedia entries cite the forms of the names as they appear on formal documents such as birth certificates or legally-binding changes of name and in addition cite Clinton's informal name in quotation marks. The "birth certificate" for the words "kilogram" and "ampere" is the SI Brochure and as these words have been preserved unchanged in legislation, any other form or the word must appear in a manner to clearly mark irt as not the original form. Just as Margaret Thatcher's entry had the word "née" preceding her maiden name andf Bill Clinton had the word ("born") in his entry, the words kilogram and ampere should similarly be distinguished from the legal version of their names. Martinvl (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The fatal flaw with that argument Martinvl, is that general English language words aren't "owned" by anyone, and their usage (or abusage) is not policed. The dictionaries document real-world word usage, so the articles should draw primarily from them for that information. For words that have been begged, borrowed or stolen by the SI (or even coined), then a short section about the SI vision for those words, and who is expected to adhere to their diktats might be appropriate, but it certainly shouldn't be given undue weight in relation to how the concepts and terms are commonly used. This is Wikipedia we are writing here, not the SI brochure, and it should reflect the reality not one organisation's Utopian dream. -- de Facto (talk). 16:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In no particular order: Dictionary compiling is not something done by drones, but by experts. Dictionaries base their judgements on analyses of how people use words in practice - which means the use of increasingly sophisticated and massive linguistic corpora. Your "tail-end" is a list compiled and ordered by user:Martinvl, which - with no disrespect to you as an anonymous internet user - is not a reliable source. You put dictionaries last because - as far as I can see - it suits you, not because they are naturally sixth. These standards-setting organisations you mention can ask and campaign and influence and set rules for certain organisations (whose publications are part of corpora and so do have a real impact), but that is all at one remove from actual usage. Nobody "owns" these words. Words are only "owned" if they are copyrighted. Words are not people, and as such they don't have personal preferences which would raise BLP issues. These articles are not titled, for example Ampere (scientific writing manuals of style), but rather Ampere, and as such should categorically not be limited to what one should find in idealised academic science writing. (Actual academic writing contains attestations of "amp", for example.)

I've no problem with articles going into official usage, just with editors abusing and misusing terms which have an established meaning, and established scholarly authorities to which Wikipedia should defer. Unfamiliarity (or discomfort) with how lexicography works is not a good reason for ignoring it. You wouldn't like someone wading in claiming "kilogram" to be a unit of weight (they'd have their nice-looking sources for it, too), and you'd rightly consider them ignorant.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov wrote "The fatal flaw with that argument Martinvl, is that general English language words aren't "owned"...". If you look at the SI brochure, you will see that the offical version of the brochure is the French version, not the English and that it is intended for international use, not English use, so the fatal flaw in VsevolodKrolikov's response is that we can apply English lexicographic rules willy-nilly to words designed for international usage. Martinvl (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Err...I didn't write that, De Facto did.

Either way, your response is odd. Lexicography doesn't apply "rules" about usage, it describes usage, and words are not "owned" without copyright. I'm trying to establish principles for content in line with Wikipedia policies of appropriate reliable sourcing and neutral point of view. You kinda sorta seemta be on a mission of some kind. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Words and symbols for units of measure are not owned, but they are regulated when used in activities that governments take notice of, such as commerce and medicine. Usually regulations only apply in specific circumstances, such as a label on a product that is offered for sale. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't like someone wading in claiming "kilogram" to be a unit of weight (they'd have their nice-looking sources for it, too), and you'd rightly consider them ignorant. The word weight isn't owned by anybody, either; indeed, IIRC there's a US regulation explicitly stating that in certain contexts weight is supposed to mean ‘mass’, and in a sample of 100 random occurrences of weight in the British National Corpus and 100 in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, I once found that this meaning accounted for about half of them (and the meaning ‘relative importance’ – search for weight in this very discussion to see what I'm talking about – accounted for about half of the remainder). :-) ― A. di M.​  17:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we've fallen into some kind of warped space-time region, but I thought that WMF's place for dictionary work was Wiktionary. Why not deal with this mess there, where the denizens are adept in the manifold and subtle ways of lexicography, rather than on WP, where we are more concerned with other matters? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason that it's here is that false assertions about word usage have been added to articles and verifiable information about word usage has been suppressed - here, in Wikipedia. -- de Facto (talk). 19:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog - the reason for this discussion is that certain editors are trying to do their own dictionary work by inserting their personal opinions about register into the lede, and then trying to scour the internet for single sources (the latest attempt being WikiAnswers, for pity's sake) to back their opinions up rather than doing what we are obliged to do, which is go with the appropriate reliable sources. (Frankly, one or two of these editors come across as somewhat contemptuous of subjects outside their own scientific specialisms, and I think that's causing problems.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@Vsevolod, you should look in the mirror before you accuse others of "trying to do their own dictionary work by inserting their personal opinions". You claim on your user page that you're "1RR" and that you seek not to have edit wars and that this should be settled on talk pages. Well, here is your opportunity to not be a hypocrite. "kilo" wasn't even in the article before DeFact, now you want it displayed in the lede as equivalent to "kilogram" or (for the Europeans) "kilogramme". The BIPM people are the dictionary. Not you.71.169.187.198 (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You added material citing WikiAnswers, which is absolutely not a reliable source - it was clearly not suitable for an encyclopedia. That the same site has more answers to the same question only answering it differently and inconveniently for you (which you no doubt saw) suggests you're clearly trawling the internet to find a source to back up a personal opinion, rather than trying to reflect reliable sources. That's basically the definition of POV. It's a bit rich being accused of edit-warring when you've tried three times to insert the same material knowing full well it's disputed.

The BIPM people are not the dictionary. The dictionary people are the dictionary. The clue is in the name. Oxford, Cambridge, Collins, Chambers, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage... you name it, they don't classify "kilo" as informal, and if you use google books, scholar and news to see the number of university imprints, non-science academic journals, textbooks, highbrow newspapers etc. that allow it (eg you'll find plenty here), you'll see why. The article mentions inappropriate use in scientific publications in the body - this is enough. Sorry to disturb what appears to be a very rigid cognitive framework and all that, but there is a whole world of non-informal sub-edited texts outside of science. The study of word usage is not something to be re-invented by a few uninformed anonymous editors. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

71.169.187.198 (do you have a personal user name too?), "kilogramme" is not there "for the Europeans", it is there because it's an alternative English spelling for the word, widely used in British English. Similarly the word "kilo" is widely used in English, and is not generally categorised in the notable English dictionaries as "informal". -- de Facto (talk). 09:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Generally" is putting it mildly. I've gone through every contemporary dictionary I can find, and not one labels it informal. You can add Macquarie and Longman Contemporary to the list too. I'm not denying that science manuals of style typically regard "kilo" as inappropriate, but it's not as if this is strictly adhered to at all times in all science journals. This shows how "kilos" even appears very occasionally in the journal Science in their "News" section. Sub-editors can be infuriatingly nitpicky, and they didn't pick up on these uses. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, given the extensive acceptance of the term as a synonym then, would you support "promoting" it from its current "also known as" status to full parity with the other 2 words: "The kilogram, kilogramme or kilo (SI symbol: kg)..."? -- de Facto (talk). 11:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No - I'm happy with "also known as". It's an alternative name, and the formulation supports the generalist/specialist register issue mentioned in the body. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- de Facto (talk). 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The beginning of the lead for the Ampere article

We have made good progress in understanding that "kilo" is not an informal word, and that it should remain in the first sentence in the lead of the kilogram article. Now we need to look at the status of the word "amp", and how/if it should feature in the lead of the ampere article.

The word is described in the free online dictionary from Oxford Dictionaries as "short for ampere". I added it to the beginning of the article lead as:

The ampere or amp (SI unit symbol: A) is...

This was quickly changed to:

The ampere (symbol: A, informal name: amp) is...

Which I reverted and added the Oxford Dictionary reference, which was then itself reverted. I then tried:

The ampere (symbol: A; abbreviation: amp[with OD ref here]) is...

That too was changed again to:

The ampere (symbol: A, informal name: amp) is...

Which I reverted. It has subsequently been changed to:

The ampere (SI symbol: A; non-SI abbreviation: amp[OD ref still here]) is...

And that is how it currently stands.

Which of these versions (or another) gives the most accurate portrayal for the beginning of the lead? I guess we need to examine the use of the words more thoroughly before arriving at a conclusion. -- de Facto (talk). 12:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with “The ampere, also known as amp (symbol: A) is”, possibly with “colloquially” or something before “also”. ― A. di M.​  16:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How about: “The ampere (symbol: A), sometimes abbreviated to amp, is”. Hans Adler 16:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For some reason abbreviated makes me think of something people do in writing, not in speech. Is it just me? ― A. di M.​  16:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too, but I think in "abbreviated to" this connotation is sufficiently weakened. Hans Adler 16:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We are forgetting that apart from a few years in the ninteenth century, the ampere has always been an SI unit. Before the advent of SI, we had three units of electric current - the international ampere, the abampere or biot and the statampere. Therefore stating "non-SI abbreviation: amp" is fundementally wrong (unless one means "abbreviation that is not in accordance with the SI rules" in which case it s poorly written). Martinvl (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about a "non-SI abbreviation". It's about what people actually say instead of saying "ampere". See Google search for "amp fuse". Just like they say "bike" instead of "bicycle" (has even become a 'proper' word), or "telly" instead of "television", etc. Having written that, I note that "bike" is mentioned under bicycle but "telly" is not mentioned under television. Which makes sense. Maybe we should also just not mention "amp" at all? What makes it more noteworthy than "telly"? Hans Adler 22:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The OED gives "telly" as a British colloquialism, but "amp" is an abbreviation. You wouldn't see TVs on sale in stores as "tellies", or with "40-inch telly" written on the box. You do see electrical equipment described using the term "amp" though, and packages stating things like "13 amp plug", or whatever. -- de Facto (talk). 22:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen textbooks using amp, but none using telly; a better comparison would be with TV. (And I've seen at least one dictionary having the main definition at “amp, FORMAL ampere”.) It might be too informal to be used in an encyclopaedia, but it's not too informal to be mentioned, I think. (FWIW, second does mention sec, which sounds nearly as informal as telly to me.) ― A. di M.​  09:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What about “shortened” rather than “abbreviated”? It wouldn't have the ‘mainly written’ connotation at all, IMO. ― A. di M.​  09:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What about (as for "kilo" in the "kilogram" article): "The ampere (SI unit symbol: A), also known as the amp, is..."? -- de Facto (talk). 09:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer "also referred to". I think that gives just the right indication that "amp" is not an equivalent synonym but a bit more towards the informal, colloquial side. Hans Adler 10:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll go with that... -- de Facto (talk). 10:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

That the lead should begin:

The ampere (SI unit symbol: A), also referred to as the amp, is...

Are there any objections to that? -- de Facto (talk). 10:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there examples of "amp" being used in peer-reviewed scientific or technical journals? If not, I suggest that some modifier such as "colloquially" or "informally" is needed, as discussed above, to show that "amp" is only used in informal contexts, by individuals or organisations that have for their own reasons decided not to adhere to the agreements reached by the BIPM. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the major English dictionaries classify "amp" as either "colloquial" or "informal". Indeed it is generally treated as a synonym or abbreviation. Do some quick searches yourself (e.g. in Google Scholar) and you'll see that "amp" isn't only used informally. -- de Facto (talk). 11:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, it's simply not the case that the only non-informal texts in the world are scientific and technical ones. We should go with dictionaries because each of them will have a consistent definition of "informal" or "colloquial", and the compilers will have done the kind of analysis that we're not allowed to do here. "informal" essentially means it's rare for the word to be used outside of conversation or familiar written texts - not that wikipedia editors "feel" that something is informal. If you're looking for reassurance that dictionaries are getting it right that "amp" is not informal, here is a google books search limited to "university" publishers and containing both "amps" and "ampere" (this combination is goo for filtering out other uses of "amp"), which yields a lot of results, as does this google scholar search for texts containing "amps" and "ampere". You can see "amp" is used in peer-reviewed texts both as a simple abbreviation and a shortening. (Shortenings are a form of abbreviation, but I hope you get my meaning.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My desk copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary seventh ed.(1982) shows amp as a colloq. abbr.^{(see below)}, which leads me to observe that is some variation apparent even amongst the various Oxford works. Could someone check a more recent edition of the same title? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest edition of Oxford American (it's the one that comes with a Kindle) doesn't list it as informal, nor does the Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionary. I'd be surprised if the latest Concise lists it differently.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, I've got a COD 10th ed. (1999) which gives amp as:

1 n. short for ampere.

2 n. informal short for amplifier.

-- de Facto (talk).

Sorry, I erred above, I'll try to be more assiduous here. The COD 7th actually had

amp n. (colloq.) ampere; amplifier. [abbr.]

Note the absent period after the "amp" Now in contrast it is present in

amp. n¹ abbreviation of AMPERE n.

-- "amp., n.1". OED Online. September 2011. Oxford University Press. 23 November 2011. I particularly enjoyed reading the first usage in Oliver Heaviside's 1887 quotation "But ampère shortened to am or amp is abominable." which at once denoted and decried the usage!

LeadSongDog come howl! 20:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To further elaborate, the front matter in COD7 explains (colloq.) as "colloquial, not used in formal discourse, but widely used and entirely acceptable in informal circumstances;..." while on abbreviations noting that "There are frequent variations in the presence or absence of capitals and full stops in abbreviations, and no attempt is made to show all possible forms."LeadSongDog come howl! 20:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine, but I'd replace “referred to” with “known” (and lose the second “the”). ― A. di M.​  14:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

How about something like

The ampere (SI unit symbol: A), often shortened to amp, is...

Unlike "kilo" (which was imported from French already shortened), "amp" (afaik) is a genuine shortening. "often" is debatable, but without some kind of qualifying adverb the sentence reads as if the shortening has been defined somewhere.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Not sure about the link, though: the meaning of shortened in that context is utterly obvious... ― A. di M.​  16:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - wlink or not. -- de Facto (talk). 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Hans Adler 19:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The adverb should indicate something that is less frequent than "always" and more frequent than "never". One could engage on a bit of WP:OR to identify the correct usage, or one could take a consensus. I am happy with the word "often" - that is how I perceive its real life usage thereby showing quite clearly that the word "ampere" is the word that should appear in legal and other formal texts. Martinvl (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That makes five in agreement then (assuming VsevolodKrolikov agrees with it too). Shall we declare that the consensus, and implement it then? -- de Facto (talk). 12:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of boring everyone to death, I would be very pleased to see some sort of answer to the question I asked earlier, "Are there examples of "amp" being used in peer-reviewed scientific or technical journals? If not, I suggest that some modifier such as "colloquially" or "informally" is needed, as discussed above, to show that "amp" is only used in informal contexts, by individuals or organisations that have for their own reasons decided not to adhere to the agreements reached by the BIPM." The question is not trivial, but aims to establish whether "amp" is used by those who rigorously follow the recommendations of the BIPM, as I submit the editors of peer-reviewed scientific journals are likely to do. As recommended, WP:BURDEN notwithstanding, I have conducted some quick searches, but found no example; nor do I see one in the searches given above. But I don't have university database access at present so cannot search properly. The ideal answer to the question will be either a "yes", with citations, or a "no, not that I can see".

It would be helpful if someone would kindly post the OED definitions of amp and ampere for those of us who don't have access. The discussion seems quite trivial in relation to the problems in the article, where there are, among other things, three conflicting definitions of the unit. A question (asked out of ignorance alone): how is the ampere defined in, say, the United States? Does it also have customary unit status, there or elsewhere? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You got your answer from me. Your definition of "informal" is original research (we should go with the one used by lexicographers, which is not "words which don't appear in a scientific journal or book" - we'd have words like "existential", "Socratic" and "onomatopoeia" counted as informal under your definition.) In any case, if you click on the links I provided, you'll find examples of "amp" being used in scientific literature. I find several on each page of both searches. Perhaps you have something wrong with your browser, as you don't need a university account to access google books. Here, here, and here are books from university imprints, for example.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there some difficulty in understanding the difference between a book from a university press and a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No - but you said you couldn't get the google scholar search I gave you to work and mentioned difficulty through not having a university account - so I used book examples instead. Your definition of "anything not peer-reviewed science or technical journal articles" as "informal" is quite novel. In particular I don't recall ever reading anywhere even the implication let alone explicit suggestion that university imprints were instances of "informal" communication. Do you have an RS for that definition? (Nor that organisations can dictate to anglophone lexicographers which terms are considered informal - I would love to see an RS for that.)

Anyway, you clearly have browser issues, so I'll help you. This, this and this are all from peer-reviewed journals. I stress this is not the evidence on which I'm basing any claim of non-informality; that would be original research. I'm going with what the relevant sources say on general register for this word. "Informal" applies to words you would not normally expect to see outside of conversations or familiar written communication. One's own gut feeling has no part to play in the definition.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that answers the question. Those are clearly not informal or colloquial contexts, so the proposal seems good. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

“[T]hose who rigorously follow the recommendations of the BIPM, as I submit the editors of peer-reviewed scientific journals are likely to do”... Seriously? About the only texts in English where I've ever seen stuff like 83 % with a space etc. are stuff written by the BIPM (or the ISO etc.) themselves. ― A. di M.​  15:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well, nobody's perfect! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we're finished here, so I've updated the lead in the ampere article to:

The ampere (SI unit symbol: A), often shortened to amp, is...

. -- de Facto (talk). 12:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOSNUM#Units in specialist topics

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOSNUM#Units in specialist topics. ― A. di M.​  12:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge comments required

Should Data signaling rate and Maximum user signaling rate be merged? Please comment at Talk:Data signaling rate#Merge Data signaling rate and Maximum user signaling rate D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Examples in articles about units

Do we have any style guidelines about how to write articles about units? What's the general thinking on including examples? I found the following in a brief review:

gram and second each have one example of the unit itself, but no other quantities

kilometre and have multiple examples of the unit, but no other quantities

ampere, hertz, lux, candela and volt have multiple examples of multiple quantities

mole, kelvin, ohm and metre have no examples

I'm asking this because I want to clean up the list of examples on sievert and I'm wondering if it might belong on a different page entirely. I guess that the majority of articles would say it's OK to keep the list, but then the metre seems like a notable exception, so... what do you think?--Yannick (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The policy article Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states "Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article." I interpret this to mean that if an example can be used to clarify an abstract concept, then it is permissible. Thus, since a large number of English-speakers are not very familiar with the kilometre, it is appropriate to include some examples of what a kilometre looks like - on the other hand, since almost all French speakers (including those in Quebec and Mauritius) are familiar with a kilometre, it is probably inappropriate to do the same in the French language version of Wikipedia. In short, by adding an example are you really clarifying things for your reader or are you adding trivia? Martinvl (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Use in Athletics

I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics#Imperial conversions. In Athletics articles we constantly use the standard wiki converter to show what a metric measurement means in Imperial (a necessary function so members of our American readership can understand what we are talking about). But the converter gives conversions that are accurate to 1/16th of an inch. Unfortunately the rules of our sport define our level of accuracy to be 1/4 of an inch, making all those conversions inaccurate to the way our results and records are reported elsewhere. Essentially because wikipedia automates the process differently, we are reporting WRONG information. Further, our rules require that we round down. So any conversion that does not at least equal, or more likely surpass, the exact 1/4 inch, needs to go down to the next 1/4 that is fully converted. My question to the folks in this project: Can someone who understands this stuff develop an athletics specific converter that follows our rules for this conversion? Trackinfo (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that both the 200 metres and the high jump require conversions to within 1/4 inch, or are you just talking about one of them? May I suggest that you create appropriate boxes such as the boxes in this article? Martinvl (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess primarily I mean field events (though the distance of a metric race might use the conversion in the definition). For example: Long Jump, when converted, wikipedia reports 29' 4 3/8" (My calculator comes up with .362 for the fraction). By the rounding rules of the sport "Any conversions shall always be rounded down to the next lower . . . " in the case of Long Jump, 1/4" the record should be converted to 29' 4 1/4" Lots of the press convert it to 29 4 1/2" by the way. This kind of error is across the board for the entire progression and marking of all field events in any article that uses the converter. Elsewhere I mentioned the Pole Vault. The significant accuracy is 1/4" for Long Jump, Triple Jump, High Jump, Pole Vault and Shot Put. Long throws would be a full inch: Discus, Javelin, Hammer Throw. Frankly, as a track official, I know no record would be considered as a conversion--we measure metrically. But Track and Field News has published the Gold Book for decades, so the public address announcer and the press can tell the public how far it was. More recently, people just use the converters in their iPhone or trust sources like wikipedia to do it for them. Trackinfo (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are looking at a really complex system. Whatever you do, you need a standard approach. If yo udon't like the idea of the table, then you have to do each conversion manually. I suggest that you prepare a pair of templates - "US field measurements main" and "US field measurements sub" where the first sets up a note which explains the rules and the second references that note. Martinvl (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't dealt with math functions in wikiformatting. Where is the existing template? I can start by copying that. The other issue will be finding the syntax to define rounding rules. I understand the athletics side of this but the measurement math side of the template is beyond my current experience--why I was asking for help here. Trackinfo (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Cap Letters of Unit Symbols Only for Proper Names

I refer to the example given above the table: ZL for zettalitres. It should be written Zl, as cap letters for units are reserved for the proper names (generally of scientists) e.g. kW kiloWatt. Rigour is needed in using SI unit system. Jffilet (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The United States has officially adopted the symbol "L" for liter to avoid confusion with the numeral 1. See NIST Special Publication 330 page 32. This has been accepted as an option internationally.

Also, in English, unit names are not capitalized when spelled out, even when named after a person. So the watt is named after Watt. A partial exception is "degree Celsius", which is considered to comply with this rule because the first word is not capitalized. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Both Zl and ZL are permitted in the English language - it is onl;y in the US that ZL is officially used in preference to Zl. Martinvl (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell uses zettalitres anyway? Normal people call them billion cubic kilometres. — A. di M.  16:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

"Lists of quantities/units/symbols (etc)" articles

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics § "Lists of quantities/units/symbols (etc)" articles

In short: see here.

In more detail: does anyone have any objections to absorbing "lists of quantities articles" like:

• List of physical quantities,
• SI electromagnetism units,
• List of common physics notations,
• (possibly but not essentially SI derived unit) etc.

into

• defining equation (physics)
• (else other chemical defs into defining equation (physical chemistry))?

By this I mean combining table styles between the definitions article and the other tables into one:

• common names,
• common symbols,
• defining equations,
• SI units (before each table, emphasis on other more useful units, say Gaussian units, can be made),
• SI dimensions,
• comments/notes/descriptions

Also plan to insert the equations from the radiometry table in the definition article to {{SI radiometry units}}, and create similar templates for collections of common physical quantities (as already collected in the definition article) which would be portable if needed (like {{SI radiometry units}}) and cut the byte size of the definition article.

I can understand most people dislike this article, so need to know if it's fine to merge them... If it is, or no responses in the next couple of months - I will not hold back on merging, it's too much redundancy (content forking) across a few articles... Maschen (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment As one who tutors physics to 16-18 year-old students (English "A" Level) I am concerned that the lists as they are currently address a different audience to the audience that would read the "Defining Equation" articles. I see at least three tiers of readers:

• Those who know minimal maths
• Those who are happy with maths that involve minimal vectors, differential and integral calculus and matrix manupulation
• Thios who are happy with vectors, calculus and matricie3s.

I fear that making the combinations as proposed by User:Maschen might make the article unintelligable for many readers. Ideally we shoudl have a database and the various artciles would display views taklen from that database. May I also suggest that people read and compare Special relativity and Introduction to special relativity, also Metric system and Introduction to the metric system. (COI - I and the principal contributor to the two metric system articles). Martinvl (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I am past this proposal now: see the "see also" link at the top to WP physics. Thanks, Maschen (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for each prefix of a metre?

Why are there the following separate articles:

and as such - why this template {{SI units of length}}? All of these are about a section or two long, and can easily be compressed in a single article (say) "Metre (prefixes)" or even the metre article itself, each article becomes a section. It would save the reader time to simply scroll down and read rather than loading each article up individually with tediosity. Opinions? Maschen (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Metric prefix says most of what needs to be said. An article about special Unicode symbols for SI units of measure, or units of measure in general, could pick up most of the tedious, but possibly useful, remaining material. I'm not persuaded we need an article like "Metre (prefixes)" to give examples of objects with various lengths. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I first raised that issue over three years ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Article titles about multiples and submultiples of units. — A. di M.  12:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That new red article was only a suggestion. Are you saying they should all be kept then? Maschen (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I like to see a section in the article metre that catalogues the most commonly encounted multiples and sub-multiples of the metre, but disregards those that are not in the literature (ignoring of course those that only appear in conversion charts) - Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia, not a dictionary. Typically each (sub)multiple should have at least one sentence to illustrate the unit - see Introduction to the metric system for some suggestions. Certain (sub)multiples might warrant an article in their own right - for example kilometre (which has an interesting history that I intend writing up soon), but the article millimetre has nothing of consequence, so does not really warrant its own article. Martinvl (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok - so far there are two suggestions (feel free to add to the list):

1. a general article about special Unicode symbols for units (prominently SI of course),
2. incorporating the most common prefixes in the main article metre, those prefixes which have so much to write about get to keep their own article,

Maschen (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

May I also point readers to the section Introduction to the metric system#Length. This might have some bearing on the current discussion. Martinvl (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Each of these articles is also paired with a list, e.g., centimetre and 1 centimetre. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Order of magnitude lists

I’ve posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Order of magnitude lists challenging the necessity of measurement list pages like 1 E+6 m³, but it appears this would have been the proper place to ask about those. Since there was a failed AFD some years ago, I’m instead asking about renaming them, since many of those article names are confusing if not misleading. Thoughts? —Frungi (talk) 07:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

See also the discussion above. — A. di M.  16:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That discussion appears to be about the articles about units, rather than the articles listing things measured in units, and those names are a good deal less problematic than the sets of some fifty to eighty “1 E±#” titles. If those list articles are necessary, I think they all need to be renamed, and give some sort of explanation in each one. (Ideally to me, they’d all be deleted, and any useful information in there would be included in the article about the unit [where it ought to be already].) —Frungi (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No reaction… Should I just file a mass AFD? (I probably would have gone straight to that, but I’m not at all familiar with the process.) —Frungi (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also failed to see the use of these pages. I woudl certainly not oppose a mass AFD. Martinvl (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant WP:RM, to rename them all and fix the horrible naming convention. (In 2008, the length articles went up for deletion, and I’m not intending to challenge the decision to keep [though if someone else wants to, I won’t object].) —Frungi (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Expressing uncertainty

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Expressing uncertainty. — A. di M.  10:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Potenetial copyright problem on several articles

Trolling by socks of User:DeFacto. Best ignored.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Following this discussion on WP:RSN, I have flagged and tagged, per WP:COPYVIO, the following articles: Stone (unit) Metrication Metrication Board Metrication of British transport Metrication in the United Kingdom International System of Units I believe that we either need to remove the links to those articles or ensure that: we have proof that those transcriptions are accurate reproductions of the originals. the UKMA website has permission to host those documents. 212.183.128.212 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC) The following appears on the Copyright page related to these articles. "You may use and re-use the information featured on this website (not including BIS logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence." I got to the above copyright page from the BIS Archive index page. I got to the above BIS Archive index page from the DTI Consumer & Competition Policy page. The DTI Consumer & Competition Policy page is noted in the title line of the articles on the UKMA page. This audit trail tells me that the copyright is OK and I therefore reject any suggestion that the copyuright is in error. Furthermore, unless you have evidence that the text has been tampered with (WP:BURDEN of evidence is on you), I reject any suggestion that the links should be removed. In addition, removal of the links withiout good reason will amount to vandalism, as will reinstating the "Copyright violation" notices. Martinvl (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC) They "may use and re-use the information featured on this website (not including BIS logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence." (my bold). Is it on that website? Is it used under the terms of the Open Government Licence which states requirements of attribution, etc.? How do we know they've typed it all in accurately? I suggest you self-revert those tags back into those other articles while this discussion is in progress, there may be serious consequences for your disruptive actions otherwise. 212.183.140.32 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Point taken. We need to get a ruling on this. How do we do that? Woo-ton-woo (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC) At least some of these documents are available at the UK National Archive where material is licensed uner the Open Government Licence. Mcewan (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Fair enough, links to there should be uncontroversial. Woo-ton-woo (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Link (unit) article confusion

Brand newbie here (as of today); patience please. The article seems confused/incorrect in a couple of minor points, and a bit of rewrite looks to be in order, but I need to learn how to proceed and will just start by asking.

The first sentence declares the unit to belong to the Imperial system (apparently exclusively), though it's a US customary unit also. The defined proportions to other units within each of those systems is stated as I understand them to be, but the catch is that the absolute length that all those units refer to differs depending on which system you are talking about. Therefore, the conversion factor to SI units (mm or m) will depend on the system you're converting from.

As I understand it, the Imperial system was established in Great Britain in 1824 and refined as time went on, and it used its own definition of yard, which was based on an artifact. The US customary units were a derivation of the older English system that was around at the time of the revolution (1776), and was refined (slightly differently) in the US due to US acceptance of the metric system in 1866, and the Mendenhall Order of 1893. And that's how the US came to have a definition of 39.37 inches to the meter, adjusting all derivative units like the link proportionally. The Imperial link was smaller because its yard was smaller.

Then in 1959 came the "international standard" yard of 0.9144 meters, wherein the US customary units and Imperial units were both altered so as to become equal to each other: a third absolute standard of length. But the older US standard was retained when it came to legal descriptions of US lands and to surveying practice, so that it came to be known as the US "survey" yard / system of units. To date, a sizable number of states have converted land surveys to metric measures, though some retain survey measures alongside, and some retain survey measures alone. Only one state (I think) actually uses "international" (1959) US units in surveys.

Now, did I get all that right?

If so, please notice that the link article, despite being quite explicit about "survey" units in the description of conversions, equates the link to 201.1680 mm. That conversion is based on the definition of the international yard of 1959, not the US "survey" yard (of essentially 1893). The survey link is approximately 201.1684 mm. Exact conversion is possible only by using a fractional definition, as a decimal representation has infinitely-repeating digits.

In the WP page's conversion equivalence box at the right side, the same "international" link to IS unit conversions are given as in the text. The US customary and Imperial proportions are true, but it is not clear that there are two US customary link length-definitions in play here, nor that the one used in the conversion is not the one mentioned in the text, nor that the conversion is not for the length that applies to some surveying in the US. In addition, it's not clear that there are two Imperial link definitions also, from separate points in history. The later "international" one was never used for surveying in Britain, as they had already converted to metric by then.

So, I think the conversions should be applicable to the most useful context for the link unit: "survey" lengths. But there's also the question of how much historical detail in the development of length standards is necessary to make the context clear, and to differentiate it from most common practice of today. Seems to me that mentioning the link as a unit that is currently on its way to obsolescence is also a good idea.

So, what's a newbie to do that can fit into the larger project? Do my points raise any issues for the already-initiated?

Evenssteven (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Evenssteven

Firstly, welcome to the group. You are right about the apparent confusion in the development of the English (pre-1824), Imperial (post-1824) and Customary (post-1776) units of measure. After the debacle surrounding the gallon, was a large degree cooperation between the UK and US authorities, but not enough. The UK and US did not coordinate their definitions of the yard in relation to the metre - both measured artifacts that were allegedly equivalent but came up with slightly different solutions - at the time it did not matter. This NIST publication is equally confused. Page C-15 states that the link is 0.66survey feet exactly (in the context of that page, underlining implies "survey". The exact conversion 0.201168 m equates to a foot of exactly 0.3048 m (the international foot), but if one was using the survey foot, the link would be 0.201168402 m - You might like to read it and voice your opinion. Martinvl (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

Thanks, it's nice to be here! The NIST appendix is just as you say. However, the precision to which they give the measure of the link (on C-15) is simply the six significant digits, which is insufficient to disambiguate between the basis of survey foot as opposed to international feet, because the difference is simply round-off error. I've already noticed in some other NIST document I was nosing around in that it has very specific ways of handling precision and rounding issues, which I didn't spend too much time then trying to understand in detail. But the preface to the table, found on page C-14, does mention rounding decimals off to the third decimal place (obviously not done for the link), "except where they are exact, in which cases these exact equivalents are so designated" (which they also did not do). My conclusion would be that they just rounded off to 6 decimal places and didn't say so, thus begging off the whole question of survey and international measuring differences.

They do seem to recognize the difference though, on page C-8, where the table "Units of Length - Survey Measure" gives the link to seven significant digits as 0.2011684 m.

Now, that's a lot of bother to go through to dig out a small difference. If the NIST is not highlighting that difference better, then I would say that tends to indicate that the difference is not of much practical use today. And why in this age of precision and high-accuracy surveying tools is that difference of so little practical use, I ask? Could it be because the link is not really being used for practical work out there? (Inquiring minds would like to know. :) The table preface on C-14 also indicates that units "not in general current use in the United States" would be enclosed in brackets. They do that for the hand, but not for the link. Hmm. This smells a bit self-contradictory. Maybe they don't really know if anyone is using links any more, and they're just begging that question? But my own line of reasoning is well past the point of reason and far into the world of speculation at this point. And in fact, I don't know if current surveying tools are accurate enough for the difference to matter, or if they are, if surveyors really need to report to that level of accuracy in their work today.

So, does anyone really know if links (or chains, for that matter) are really being used anywhere these days? And if the NIST isn't saying, where would one go to find a WP:RS on the question?

BTW (an aside), I was amused to note the NIST footnote #12 on page C-15, about US acceptance in 1954 of the international nautical mile "for use in the United States". I have thought that that unit originated as an approximation of the length of a minute of latitude, and served as a quick way for sailors to find their current location on navigational charts. Now, I'm wondering where "in the US" we have that much open sea? (Well, I guess there's always the Great Lakes.) Evenssteven (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that surveyors use the survey foot (as opposed to the international foot) in certain parts of the US - each state has its own rules. Seven figures of accuracy are needed to ensure that ground surveys are accurate, especially when you are subtracting two numbers. This problem does not arise in the UK the UK switched to using a metric grid in about 1938. From Wikpeidia's point of view, we should not speculate, we report (intelligently) what we see - we state that there is a 2 parts per million difference between the survey foot and the international foot, if we approximate to say four decimal places, we say so.

BTW, the hand is used in the UK to measure horses. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Seven figures of accuracy": thanks, that helps a lot. About the same, whether you're talking feet or links. So really, NIST is being a bit obtuse in its presentation of the relevant facts, but what we say in Link (unit) also matters from a practical standpoint. So, it might be of use to someone to give at least seven digits in the article. I knew these survey units fell into obsolescence in the UK after the metric grid was about done. Is the US now the only place where it's used at all, or are there other laggers from the old empire? India? And is it just that the survey foot is being used in the US, or is some of that surveying actually using the link unit to produce those reports? Any suggestions on where to find out?

The hand? Yes, I have run into that one too. (I'm a bit of an anglophile at times.) I take it that it's not used in the US though. Evenssteven (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing any other place on the project pages to make a bit of introduction, I'm putting mine here. I hope to explain a little of what I may have or have not to offer in the way of project help. Skip on by if you don't want to read more.

I have never believed the organization/division of academic disciplines was all that beneficial to the growth of knowledge, and have always been inclined to dive over such borders at will. That's how I got here. I do have skills that apply. I am precise, analytical, and quick to see the nit here and the gnat there. I've got enough math and science (call it roughly bachelor's degree level of understanding) that I can readily follow the basics, though I can just as easily get over my head if you talk on the doctoral or post-doc levels. I have no background in metrology itself, but I've started to pick up things.

I got interested after creating a spreadsheet with some conversion tables for units (they were of use because of explorations I've got going in nutrition and astronomy). I started by looking in the World almanac, had questions about "survey foot", "statute mile", "international mile" and their relations to the metric system (and IS? what is that?), so I thought, let's see what Wikipedia can offer. And then I started discovering how metrological developments over the last 200 years or so have affected and interrelated to scientific developments, and how critical those relations could be. And I discovered lots of talk about "base units" and "derived units", and found there was a lot more to that than just coming up with a conversion factor. Finally, I became fascinated with the idea of how some of the fundamental constants of the universe could come to be handled more readily in science if only the units everyone computes from are defined in the right way. But I was sometimes out of my depth to understand why one proposal might work better than another.

So, I do NOT have many skills or resources in knowing where to get WP:RS sources, or even to find information that's digested enough to be useful to me, and could always use help with pointers. I'll be adept enough with handling the technical info, especially for the less abstruse kinds of units. I write and edit well. And I'm still quite interested in the history of metrology as it relates to the history of science, to economics and other practical applications, even its appearance in the history of nations. When I found the bit above in the WP article on link, it seemed a good touchstone from which to launch a first contribution to WP: basic, low priority and visibility, needing some historical explanations, and especially because the historical backgrounds may have the largest relevance to any current interest there may be.

Then I promptly began my WP career in another area by dipping my toe in the water and landing infirmly in a drop-off. Now dripping wet but quite able to swim, I return to engage in what I can, as a little more experienced Wikipedian. And the Link and Chain articles still seem to me to be a good place to start, even though they don't lie high on the project's radar. It'll give me a chance to see better what the next step ought to be. For now, I can expand and clarify one or two stub-class articles. But I really could use some help with pointers to references (or websites where I can look for them), or else I'll be restricted to just what knowledge I've picked up from here and there (or in references within WP that I can see online). I have no personal library that will do much in that direction, nor easy access to an institutional library. But give me a source, and I can read and extract. So, watch Link (unit) and perhaps Chain (unit) to see what I come up with and make comments. If you want me just to put a set of proposed changes somewhere else first, I can do that, but maybe it's less efficient for low-visibility articles?

Please respond here or on my talk page to give me any needed direction on how to make project contributions most effectively. Thanks. Evenssteven (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems#Merger proposal. 212.183.140.15 (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(Old) template:dimanalysis

I don't watch this project, much so apologies if the issue has been raised before. I created this back in September 2012 and modified it this morning, in the hope of simplifying typing dimensions of physical quantities quicker without having to type out square brackets, boldface, superscripts every time. A drawback remains, for negative powers we still have to search out the minus sign in the edit panel, or character map on the computer, or use HTML code etc. but it can't be helped. It has been boldly added to the project main page.

Not sure if it's going to be used much. If the editors think it may be useful by all means use and tweak as you may. It has been implemented in electronvolt. If not, the presumable reason for deletion would be redundancy... M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 06:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation of minute

In the Minute article, I'm not sure whether to tag various sections as a proposed merge and/or a proposed split, or just try and fix it. I would be glad of suggestions as to where to hold any discussion, or perhaps someone with a better knowledge of astronomy could have a look. The article on Minute now seems to have acquired information on the unit of angular measurement (degree, minute, second), though this is actually dealt with at Minute of arc, as explained at Minute (disambiguation). The article should be about a particular concept, not about a word used to refer to different concepts; so I think the disambiguation hatnote should be improved (e.g. {{About|the unit of time (hour, minute, second) |the unit of angular measurement (degree, minute, second) |Minute of arc|other uses}}) and the information on the arc minute (angle) removed (null merge into Arc of minute).

This is complicated by the fact that the Minute article currently also contains information on the separate (astronomical) unit of right ascension, usually measured in hours, minutes and seconds - not the astronomical use of degrees, minutes, and seconds described at Minute of arc. This is not as far removed as the angular measurement in degrees and minutes but I would still say it is a separate concept, so I would suggest merging any sourced information into the article Right ascension and also linking to that article in the disambiguation hatnote. There is also a reference to old astronomical texts using the word minute in the meaning of 1/60th of a day (24 "usual minutes"). I'm not sure where that belongs, presumably in an astronomical article, but the dismbiguation hatnote should also refer there (directly or indirectly). In general, the Minute article looks as if it need some TLC. --Boson (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"Hundred (word)"

Hundred (word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be merged into 100 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see talk:100 (number) for the discussion -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Revised Certified reference materials page listed for review

Just a note to draw attention to the significant revision and consequent need for review of certified reference materials. SLR Ellison (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong category name?

Please express your opinion here. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Human height in the metric system

Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And again at Template_talk:Infobox_NFL_player#Human_height_and_the_metric_system.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Measurement articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rod as a volume

• Rod (unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An edit (diff) claims that a rod can be a unit of volume equal to 1000 cubic feet. The source is:

Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures; Springer, 2003

Author: François Cardarelli

Sample chapter: Other Systems of Units

The sample chapter has a "UK Measures of Volume" table on page 14 of the pdf (page 33 of the book) which asserts that 1 rod = 1000 cubic feet. It is likely there is no other mention of the use of "rod" as a volume in the book. I have not seen this claim before and I'm inclined to think the source is not sufficiently reliable to introduce novel information. Any opinions? A complication is that the book seems to be used in about 50 articles (search). Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• The same book has been used as a source for Wrap (unit) (one of the 50), defining it as a measure of length which has been used in the UK, 240ft. The Oxford English Dictionary does have a measure of length as one sense of "wrap" - but at 3564 yards! Worrying. PamD 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Narrow streets

Category:Narrow streets, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Astronomical units

A discussion is occurring at Talk:Astronomical unit about the unit symbol, standard abbreviation (as used in the field), English language usage, standardization body competentcy, and Wikipedia's use. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Astronomical unit § AU vs au vs ua

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

metre inverse

Hello, I want to say that reciprocal metre in the table of page SI derived unit has a quantity of wavenumber. No offence. But it is also the quantity of dioptre! It should be added! --aGastya 11:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have added it. --Mark viking (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Diopter is a unit and optical power is the corresponding quantity. I corrected this in the table and also added curvature and spatial frequency both measured in reciprocal meters. Ulflund (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

m⋅s⁻¹

Hello, i would like to tell that in Biology we have a term Svedberg unit which isn't a SI unit of sedimentation coefficient. it is denoted by S or Sv and equal to 10^-13s. will it qualify in Named units derived from SI base units? Another thing i am concerned is: Sedimentation rate. it is GENERALLY measured in mm/hr (dimmensionally equal to speed). and its conversion to SI unit is 1mm.hr^-1=(1/36,00,000)* m.s^-1. to the best of my knowledge, it won't qualify in any of the 2 tables. But please check it once. (Added only because of biological importance) Thanks ~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 08:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

mho

isn't mho a Named units derived from SI base unit? I don't know but if it is, it isould be there adjecent to siemens ~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 11:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)