This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Human scale article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Can we get some order-of-magnitude comparisons:
Does anyone have an idea for a "human scale" of energy? The energy in a meal? Energy of running a mile? Energy spectrum of fatal injuries, using the "energy dumping" theory?
The Anome —Preceding
undated comment added 14:47, 24 February 2003 & modified w/o
sig by
Tarquin (
talk •
contribs) 14:55, Feb 24 2003 (UTC)
Since when are kilograms or Netwons considered more natural "human-scale" units? I don't think there are any "official" units for force or weight that are more natural, but the force of a punch or some other human activity and the average weight of a human come to mind as rough replacements. At any rate, I think we can do better than just plain Netwons and kg, which don't seem particularly human-scale IMHO. At least "tens of Newtons" or similar would be much better. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This 'graph:
is about a topic distinct from that stated in the lead, and (w/ rare exceptions like Nigger and Fuck) a WP article is about the concept the title names, not the titling word as a term. If the article on Small Is Beautiful is enhanced, by adding a section with encyclopedic discussion of that sense of "human scale", a HatNote Dab along the lines of
can be added to the accompanying article, using
Human scale (Small Is Beautiful) as a Rdr to
Small Is Beautiful#Human scale.
I am not going to do the research to determine whether any specific "human scales" for development projects or organizations have been enunciated by SiB advocates, but i note that even if there is diversity of opinion among the as to the numbers, info about the numbers or numerical ranges would IMO be appropriate to the accompanying article.
--
Jerzy•
t
21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
References
Perhaps distinct from Small is Beautiful, i recall that anthropologists believe there is an inherent human parameter, around 150, that represents the maximum size of a community in which "everybody knows everbody" is likely to be essentially true, rather than either hyperbole, a platitude, or an assumption that in practice doesn't get tested. If documented, it would IMO belong in the article.
--
Jerzy•
t
21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
My recent edits to this article were repeatedly reverted without justification by User:ProProbly. He asserted that my edits constituted "undiscussed metrification" and insisted that I should discuss the issue on the talk page. The article had previously used metric units, as WP:MOSNUM requires of articles which do not relate directly to USA or UK topics. I explained this clearly to him on my own talk page, in addition to suggesting a more constructive course of action than reverting my edits. I had added content to the article and corrected some errors, which he also removed without justification.
Diff of the relevant edits: [1]
Archon 2488 ( talk) 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No, you are incorrect. It was Archon 2488 who first made the WP:BOLD edits and me who reverted to the original uncontested text. I also explained why. Archon continued to argue without an apology or excuse for failing to describe, justify or seek consensus for completely replacing customary measurements with metric ones. Then after I again restored the original text, Atlan came along and, again with no explanation, restored Archon's bold edit. And that is how the article currently exists with Archon's contested bold edit still in place. And that goes against Wikipedia principles, pillars and all. ProProbly ( talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I only see one contributor supplying a reasoned argument for keeping the WP:BOLD edit, and he is the editor who made it. I think the original version should be restored until we see a consensus based in policy, sources, and common sense for changing it develop. I also see you ( Lesser Cartographies); first drawing mistaken conclusions about who was being bold and who was doing the reverting - thus showing that you have not followed the case, and then arrogantly declaring a consensus without a sound basis. And not having contributed materially to the discussion yourself I am not sure what your motive is. ProProbly ( talk) 06:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose reverts by ProProbly. No valid reason for objecting to use of metric units. -- Boson ( talk) 00:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Use Both with one in parenthesis. Here's why: the argument being advanced is that the metric should be used unless the article refers to America or Britain. But the article is about Human Scale. Last I checked the Americans and British were included in that. In addition, the article itself specifically refers to American cities and American architects. Note also, in reply to @ Lesser Cartographies:, I just received the bot notice, which means others have just received theirs. So no, you're likely not done here yet. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Both, metric first. Dougweller ( talk) 08:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, both is fine, and as I said below in my apology, I had mistakenly thought the change was from customary to just metric when I changed the article back. I accept I was wrong, so can we drop it now please and move on. Thanks. ProProbly ( talk) 20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I've wasted everyone's time here. I misread the "diffs" of Archon 2488's edits. I was exploring the diff functionality and misread the changes from "100-foot (30-meter)" to "30-metre (100 ft)" and from "30 mph (13 m/s or 44 ft/s)" to "50 km/h (14 m/s; 31 mph)" as total metrifications. I didn't realise then that the "{{convert..." command was an automatic converter. Apologies to all concerned. ProProbly ( talk) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Human scale article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Can we get some order-of-magnitude comparisons:
Does anyone have an idea for a "human scale" of energy? The energy in a meal? Energy of running a mile? Energy spectrum of fatal injuries, using the "energy dumping" theory?
The Anome —Preceding
undated comment added 14:47, 24 February 2003 & modified w/o
sig by
Tarquin (
talk •
contribs) 14:55, Feb 24 2003 (UTC)
Since when are kilograms or Netwons considered more natural "human-scale" units? I don't think there are any "official" units for force or weight that are more natural, but the force of a punch or some other human activity and the average weight of a human come to mind as rough replacements. At any rate, I think we can do better than just plain Netwons and kg, which don't seem particularly human-scale IMHO. At least "tens of Newtons" or similar would be much better. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This 'graph:
is about a topic distinct from that stated in the lead, and (w/ rare exceptions like Nigger and Fuck) a WP article is about the concept the title names, not the titling word as a term. If the article on Small Is Beautiful is enhanced, by adding a section with encyclopedic discussion of that sense of "human scale", a HatNote Dab along the lines of
can be added to the accompanying article, using
Human scale (Small Is Beautiful) as a Rdr to
Small Is Beautiful#Human scale.
I am not going to do the research to determine whether any specific "human scales" for development projects or organizations have been enunciated by SiB advocates, but i note that even if there is diversity of opinion among the as to the numbers, info about the numbers or numerical ranges would IMO be appropriate to the accompanying article.
--
Jerzy•
t
21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
References
Perhaps distinct from Small is Beautiful, i recall that anthropologists believe there is an inherent human parameter, around 150, that represents the maximum size of a community in which "everybody knows everbody" is likely to be essentially true, rather than either hyperbole, a platitude, or an assumption that in practice doesn't get tested. If documented, it would IMO belong in the article.
--
Jerzy•
t
21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
My recent edits to this article were repeatedly reverted without justification by User:ProProbly. He asserted that my edits constituted "undiscussed metrification" and insisted that I should discuss the issue on the talk page. The article had previously used metric units, as WP:MOSNUM requires of articles which do not relate directly to USA or UK topics. I explained this clearly to him on my own talk page, in addition to suggesting a more constructive course of action than reverting my edits. I had added content to the article and corrected some errors, which he also removed without justification.
Diff of the relevant edits: [1]
Archon 2488 ( talk) 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No, you are incorrect. It was Archon 2488 who first made the WP:BOLD edits and me who reverted to the original uncontested text. I also explained why. Archon continued to argue without an apology or excuse for failing to describe, justify or seek consensus for completely replacing customary measurements with metric ones. Then after I again restored the original text, Atlan came along and, again with no explanation, restored Archon's bold edit. And that is how the article currently exists with Archon's contested bold edit still in place. And that goes against Wikipedia principles, pillars and all. ProProbly ( talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I only see one contributor supplying a reasoned argument for keeping the WP:BOLD edit, and he is the editor who made it. I think the original version should be restored until we see a consensus based in policy, sources, and common sense for changing it develop. I also see you ( Lesser Cartographies); first drawing mistaken conclusions about who was being bold and who was doing the reverting - thus showing that you have not followed the case, and then arrogantly declaring a consensus without a sound basis. And not having contributed materially to the discussion yourself I am not sure what your motive is. ProProbly ( talk) 06:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose reverts by ProProbly. No valid reason for objecting to use of metric units. -- Boson ( talk) 00:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Use Both with one in parenthesis. Here's why: the argument being advanced is that the metric should be used unless the article refers to America or Britain. But the article is about Human Scale. Last I checked the Americans and British were included in that. In addition, the article itself specifically refers to American cities and American architects. Note also, in reply to @ Lesser Cartographies:, I just received the bot notice, which means others have just received theirs. So no, you're likely not done here yet. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Both, metric first. Dougweller ( talk) 08:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, both is fine, and as I said below in my apology, I had mistakenly thought the change was from customary to just metric when I changed the article back. I accept I was wrong, so can we drop it now please and move on. Thanks. ProProbly ( talk) 20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I've wasted everyone's time here. I misread the "diffs" of Archon 2488's edits. I was exploring the diff functionality and misread the changes from "100-foot (30-meter)" to "30-metre (100 ft)" and from "30 mph (13 m/s or 44 ft/s)" to "50 km/h (14 m/s; 31 mph)" as total metrifications. I didn't realise then that the "{{convert..." command was an automatic converter. Apologies to all concerned. ProProbly ( talk) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)