This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
According to Google, kilometer is 5 times more common than kilometre. Is there an official standard for the spelling in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenj ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 April 2004 (UTC)
I've often heard people (and myself) use "K's" (pronounced 'kays') as a slang term for kilometres. ie "Town is 20 k's down the road" . Do people think this warrants adding as a slang term along with clicks (which I've only seen used by US soldiers in books or movies)? - SimonLyall 00:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are the terms "k" and "klick" used in any other languages? In Finland, people would look at me funny if I tried to use them. They wouldn't have a clue what I was on about. Finnish uses "kilo" as shorthand for the kilogram and "kilsa" for the kilometre. — JIP | Talk 05:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I pronounce "kilometre" with the stress on the first syllable, and so do a significant minority (though admittedly it is a minority) of people I know. Is there a prescribed "correct" pronunciation? The section about this in the article itself seems to brook no dissent! Loganberry 23:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Ultimately it doesn't matter as the listener will understand you either way. HOWEVER, pronouncing it with the stress on the first syllable suggests that you understand the metric system, while using the other version implies that you don't. This might be the reason why Americans almost universally insist on mispronouncing the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.133.199 ( talk) 18:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I changed the order so that former and latter made sense (sorry, I forgot to sign in). The pronunciations were listed back to front to their references later in the section Ningnongtwit ( talk) 09:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Gene Nygaard just reverted some edits of mine about which I'd like some clarification. 1) Surely, stating that it is an SI unit makes sense in the introduction. Just like saying that the other units it is compared to are imperial. One cannot assume something like that is known. Suppose it were compared to, say, Chinese units (I haven't a clue what they use there), then I'd like to know what they are, so I can look it up as a frame of reference. 2) Nothing major, but the word kilometre is indeed often misused to designate kilometre/hour and I suppose that merits a mention, especially since it is wrong. DirkvdM 19:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Why isn't the abbreviation Km? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.250.72.165 ( talk) 06:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
As an aside, the capitalisation of the prefixes is very important in metric, as some prefixes start with the same letter. Take "milli" (a thousandth part) and "mega" (a million times). A mm is a millimetre - a thousandth of a metre, whereas a Mm is a megametre - a million metres. Big difference dependent on the capitalisation of the M, eh?? Only out by a factor of 1,000,000,000 if you get the M and m swapped! TheBustopher ( talk) 00:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've pulled this page back from Kilometer to reconnect its history and because the move was inappropriate in the first place. Refer to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. -- ToobMug 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"The USA is gradually kilometerising its road signage". Is it? I hadn't heard. Is this actually the case? KILOMETERISING - what a dreadful word; a classic example of verb misuse. Arcturus 22:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It states in the article that 1 km equals 0.621 miles. Wouldn't that mean that 1 mile equals 1.610305958 km? In that case there's something wrong because 1 mile = 1.609 km. I know its a small difference, but if you guys calculated all the rest with the wrong numbers, eventually it would add up... Albo NL 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not know if a kilometer equal five-eighths (⅝) of a mile (in fraction form) (.625 mile (in decimal form))? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.223.135 ( talk) 08:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
whats the thing one longer then kilometer (if there is one) like meter * 1000 = kilometer kilometer * 1000 = ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.121.168 ( talk) 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Wikipedia, and are even regarded as Vital articles. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Measurement to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This page needs some better organisation - the first tow sections have a lot of duplication. -- jazzle 09:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This section starts off with "The United States of America and the United Kingdom are the only two developed countries that have considered changing their road signs from miles to kilometres..."
What about Canada? We ONLY use km/h signs here... This page shows some examples of Canadian signage: [4] 99.252.30.48 13:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The following appears on this article, and other articles for SI units of length:
I think this list should be made using a template, or it should be removed. I would create the template myself, if I had experience with the MediaWiki template language, but I don't know if this list is really desirable on every length unit article. If the list is desirable, I think it is more appropriate to show it in a box (maybe on Template:Unit of length box?), with a better description. -- Eduardo Habkost ( talk) 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
My edits today were reverted by SimonLyall who states:
rv edits by Jimp. Big step backwards. We do not need the whole first section to be evivs in other units. Please discuss before reformatting the whole article. Perhaps make you wording changes only
... perhaps I make wording changes only ... or ... perhaps I go clean up whatever mess I see ...
There is no requirement to discuss edits before you make them even if that does mean reformatting a whole article. I saw an article in a sorry state and tidied it up.
We don't need the whole intro to be "evivs" in other units, fine, let's stick the evivs in their own section again.
Here's what we don't need.
Another thing I'd like to suggest we don't need is blind reverts sweeping away the good, the bad and the ugly all in one shot. You say it's a step backwards, SimonLyall; no, it was many steps. Some steps might not have been in the right direction, others certainly were. You mention only one aspect: the moving of the equivalences into the intro. Let's revise this, otherwise, the ball's in your court, SimonLyall, the discussion has begun, I've indicated why I see your reversion as the over-all backwards step, you're invited to explain why you see otherwise. JIMp talk· cont 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The intent was good I'm sure but if we want a traffic sign showing kilometres there are thousands which will do so more clearly. JIMp talk· cont 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted two of an anon's changes to this section.
JIMp talk· cont 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Err, read the article again on pronunciation - the correct accent is on the FIRST syllable as per conventions of the metric system (ie the unit (metre, gram, hertz, pascal, etc) maintains the same pronunciation regardless of the prefix). It is "killer-gram", "killer-hertz", "killer-metre", etc, etc. To pronounce it kil-O-m'tre breaks this convention because you throw away consistency. No-one says kil-O-gr'm or kil-O-p'scal (with a short emphasised O in the 2nd syllable). No-one says sent-I-m'tre or mill-I-m'tre either. But heaps of people (erroneously) say kil-O-m'tre and change the pronunciation of the unit from "meeta" to "m'tre" only following the "kilo" prefix. TheBustopher ( talk) 02:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It may be of interest to note that the main span of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is 503 metres, almost exactly half a kilometre. See [5] Michael Glass ( talk) 01:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Forth Road Bridge's main span is 1006 metres long [6]. There's a photo opportunity for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Glass ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a risk that the section on visualisation might get out of hand if we include every bridge that is about a kiliometre, about half a kilometre and so on. When I selected the original three items, I found one on each continent and they were as varied as possible. I notice that your addition of the Forth Bridge did not include a picture. I had in fact considered using that example, but I could not find a suitable picture. Also I did not want the examples to be too UK-centric. Martinvl ( talk) 09:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Severn Bridge doesn't link England with Wales, the 988m span is between England and England; Aust to Beachley. The Wye bridge which connects with the Severn bridge does cross between England and Wales, but is only 408m long. And why does Wales have a link, while Scotland and England are not links? Sjtaunton ( talk) 14:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Two editors, Ehrenkater and Hgrosser, have now added the term that makes up the heading of this section, inside an already bracketed expression in the article, the latter adding an Edit summary of "it is reasonable to make this distinction". After each of those two additions, I have reverted the change. Don't want a three revert situation, so here are my thoughts.
I can't see the point, and would rather not see it there.
Firstly, the construction, with the double brackets, is very clumsy.
Secondly, I'm not even sure what the addition is trying to say. Of course micrometer, the measuring instrument, is distinct from micrometre, the distance. They are spelt and pronounced differently, and mean different things. Why say it.
To Ehrenkater in particular, or anyone else, why is it reasonable to make this distinction? Can we find a less clumsy way of saying it?
HiLo48 ( talk) 15:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the addition regarding sporting venues because saying that a kilometre is equivalent to ten football pitches is not very helpful - I know that journalists do that a lot, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If however you can find a venue that is one kilometer long, please add it. I checked the Indy 500 article, but it appears that the land set aside for that venue is one mile by half a mile. Also, if you do add examples, try to get them as international as possible (or give a number from different parts of the world). You will notice that the three example that I gave span three continents. I could also have added the width of the Mersey in Liverpool, but as I already had already mentioned London, I felt that this would be too UK-centric. Martinvl ( talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
"the rule-of-thumb "multiply by 8 and divide by 5" gives a conversion of 1.6, which is approximately 0.6% too low."
This must mean 5/8 is part of a continued fraction sequence. What is the next member of this sequence?? Georgia guy ( talk) 19:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I really don't get the point of the visualisation section. Perhaps one sentence, if that, could be devoted to a single landmark that is very near to 1km long, high, wide, etc, but even that seems to be a bit pointless.
I'm not sure if the section is just meant to fill space in an article that seems like it should be larger. But some of the statements included in that section are absolutely pointless:
The only sentence out of the whole section I can see that is remotely relevant to the article is: "The George Washington Bridge in New York (central span 1067 m) was the first bridge in the world to have a span of more than a kilometre..." I'm in favour of getting rid of the whole section. Ignorant Armies ? ! 11:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This blanket reversion of my 3 recent edits ( this one, this one, and this one) included the acronym "POBV" in the edit summary. I'm not familiar with that one, can the editor enlighten me please? -- de Facto ( talk). 15:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Rather than edit war, we need to discuss this here. 'k' is defined in the free online version of the Oxford Dictionaries as an abbreviation (not slang) for kilometre. [7] Why therefore should it not appear at the start of the lead described as such? -- de Facto ( talk). 11:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have reinstated the sections on visualisation and on international usage. I do not think that removing 45% of an article without a discussion is justifiable.
The concept of sections on visualistion is well established in articles on measurement, especially where the unit in question is not one that is used daily by the general population. For example, the article Watt identifies a hearing aid battery as having a power of the order of 1 mW and a suburban train as having a power of about 1 MW. (Did you know this?) It is probable that over 80% of the native English speakers (mainly Britons and American) who read this article have not been brought up with kilometres. The remaining 20% (Australians, Canadians, South Africans etc) are probably familiar with the kilometre. If you look at the examples of "typical kilometres" that were chosen, you will see that they are all prominent landmarks is different continents and, apart from Central Park, are all well within 10% of an actual kilometre. They were chosen in a manner so that readers could identify with at least one of them. (I could have chosen the High Street in the town where I live which is just under a kilometre in length, but I suspect that not many people have heard of the town, let alone be familiar with the High Street).
Finally, given that there is not much that is encyclopeadic about the kilometre (compared to the metre), I see no problem in showing how it comes up in everyday life. Martinvl ( talk) 20:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Please explain to me how a virtual travel guide of distances somewhere around a kilometre long, measured using the Google Earth ruler (!), is relevant to this article. The international usage section, which you also reinstated, though I'm not sure if you realise you did, consists of places where it is not used. This belongs in metrication or the article on the mile. Lots of pretty pictures of things that are almost one kilometre (why not 10 or even 100 kilometres? This is about the unit of measurement not the distance!) are not pertinent to the intended topic of the article. "Its better than nothing" is not a valid argument for keeping this – it may just be that there is not a lot that can be written on this, other than it is a unit of measurement that is equivalent to 1,000 metres. Ignorant Armies 09:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the Central Park visualization (AND common-walkability) are more valuable than the Niagara Falls one. One would have to be at Niagara Falls to figure out exactly which parts of each falls are being used as endpoints - and I've been there. One think I remember most about being at the Falls was how hard it was to estimate the size of anything I was looking at. With Central Park (experienced by far more people every day than probably in a year at the Falls), there are many things visible that are also accessible. Familiarization comes not just from pictures and visualizations, but also by determining how long it takes to walk or run it. -- JimWae ( talk) 17:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Units are given to three significant figures:
Comparison to other units of length | |
---|---|
One (1) km ≡ | 1.00×103 (1000) m |
1.00×105 (100000) cm | |
One (1) km ≈ | 3.24×10−14 parsecs |
1.06×10−13 light-years [1] | |
6.68×10−9 astronomical units [2] | |
6.21×10−1 (0.621) miles | |
5.40×10−1 (0.540) nautical miles | |
1.09×103 (1,094) yards | |
3.28×103 (3,281) feet | |
1.61 km≈ | One (1) mile |
Approximations are given to three significant figures.
1 kilometre | ≡ | 1,000 | metres |
≈ | 3,281 | feet | |
≈ | 1,094 | yards | |
≈ | 0.621 | miles | |
≈ | 0.540 | nautical miles | |
≈ | 6.68×10−9 | astronomical units [3] | |
≈ | 1.06×10−13 | light-years [4] | |
≈ | 3.24×10−14 | parsecs |
I'm proposing a new version of this section.
JIMp talk· cont 07:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kilometre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kilometre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kilometre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Why kilometre is spelled differentely than kilometer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.223.135 ( talk) 08:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: Regarding your revert, the BIPM publishes the official spelling of SI units in English and French. Of these, "kilometre" is the official spelling of the unit. You're confusing common words that are subject to changes in spelling via common usage with words defined in a specification. Getsnoopy ( talk) 21:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Small spelling variations occur in the language of the English speaking countries (for instance, "metre" and "meter", "litre" and "liter"). In this respect, the English text presented here follows the ISO/IEC 80000 series Quantities and units. However, the symbols for SI units used in this brochure are the same in all languages." If they were trying to assert official spellings for unit names they would have said it there. Furthermore, they clearly explain the third-party reference that they use for their purposes, but do not recommend that others should also use it. So you see, it is only symbols that the BIPM try to control, and not spellings. Or can you provide reliable sources claiming otherwise? And what about other languages? Surely if the BIPM had official spellings in English, they would also have official spellings for other languages too. -- DeFacto ( talk).
@ Getsnoopy: even if all of that personal opinion could be reliably sourced, we still couldn't say that the British spelling was any more 'official' than the American spelling. As we know, there are several spelling variations between the English-speaking nations, and none are any more globally 'official' than any of the others, they are just variants of equal standing. As Wikipedia does not allow OR or the stating of opinion as if fact, you'll need to find a cosensus amongst the reliable sources to support your POV that there is an internationally accepted 'official' spelling here. -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The officially recommended spelling is "metre". However, many SI supporters in this country prefer "meter", which we adopt. We will also use "liter" in preference to the recommended "litre".
— Resnick R., Halliday D. (1977), Physics, Part 1 (third edition). John Wiley & sons, p. 5
..."Fe" is the standard and generally accepted symbol for the chemical element iron, but we don't say that "Fe" is the 'official' symbol for iron...'. The same goes for "km" it is the symbol for kilometre, and that is beyond dispute. We shouldn't say "km" is the 'official' symbol for "kilometre" any more than we would say "Fe" is the 'official' symbol for iron, or "sun" is the 'official name for the sun - it would be applying a redundant adjective, even a peacock term, and trying to give false authority and weight to it.
@ DeFacto: I feel like you're supporting my arguments with your reply. The words are at the very least official in French, and that can be corroborated by the SI brochure itself, so the idea that the BIPM isn't concerned with spellings is false. The other point is that you yourself said that it has certain responsibilities and dictates unit definitions and symbols, which means it has authority. I've been claiming exactly the same thing, which is that it does have authority because it's the entity tasked with regulating/maintaining the SI. As such, that same authority also translated the French text into English, and claimed that it would exclusively use a certain spelling. If you believe the BIPM is an official entity, then you must believe that what it publishes is official material simply by deduction. And if it publishes official material, then the contents of said material are official, one of which is the spelling. You're arguing that it merely says that it uses ISO spelling, but that's besides the point (ignoring the fact that ISO itself is an official body); the BIPM chose to spell things a certain way, and the fact that it published said choices makes it official. It does clear the air that there is no "correct" spelling, but I'm not disagreeing with that.
I never said the BIPM invented all those words; I said that the SI did. And I'm sure you know that the SI (International System of Units; the modern metric system) is a continuation of the former, original metric system (which was not necessarily codified); were it not for that, those words wouldn't exist in the English language. The OED lists that word as "killometer", not "kilometer", and it also lists the word "metre" (with that spelling) being used in 1797 to mean the unit of length; I don't know that that's relevant, however, given my point above.
Regarding official symbols: ...it is the symbol for kilometre, and that is beyond dispute.
Why? How? Who determines if it's the symbol vs. a symbol? Or even that it is a symbol instead of an abbreviation? Because apparently, according to you, there is no such thing as official and there are no authorities on anything English-related. And you said, "Fe" is the standard ... symbol
; you're ok with using the word "standard" then? Saying something is redundant (tautologically) implies that the redundancy is assumed to be true; if saying km is the "official" symbol for kilometre is redundant, then it must be assumed that it already is official. I would actually agree with you that saying "Sun" is the "official" name of the Sun is problematic, but that's understandable because there's no BIPM equivalent in the astronomical domain. The textbook source is right underneath the USMA one; I've made it into a list to make it clear.
Getsnoopy (
talk) 02:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
In a strict sense, spelling and pronunciation are matters of language and are not set by the international standards that define SI." -- DeFacto ( talk). 10:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: I think you seem to be contradicting yourself; it would be able to coin those "seed" words only if it was in a position of authority, which it is—specifically, in the domain of SI. And the OED lists everything that the BIPM lists as symbols as abbreviations. So how was the BIPM "charged" with said responsibilities if, according to you, no one can be charged of anything when it comes to the English language? Or any language for that matter? You seem to be suggesting that the OED is an authority on the English language, yet also simultaneously suggesting that no one or entity can be an authority on the English language. I'm at least being consistent in that OED documents common use, which is why one cannot say that "wrt" is the official abbreviation for "with respect to", for example, because there's no such thing when it comes to common use or the English language itself. But the SI and BIPM exist in a space completely independent of and orthogonal to common use; they're a specification and an official body respectively. You seem to be arguing relativistically in some attempt to be neutral, only to find that that position fails when describing how the SI/BIPM works with respect to languages.
The claim being "dropped" is not evidence of it not being true anymore. That statement by the USMA is just a rehashing of the statement from the SI brochure: that there is no correct spelling, but that there is one that will be used by the official body; hence, official. And it seems ironic to me that you're quoting the same institution that is supposedly "a single-issue pressure group" that is not "in any way a 'reliable source' when it comes to facts about the issue they are pushing", especially when the same source also says that the -re spellings are official, even though they might not be the only correct spellings. Getsnoopy ( talk) 21:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Getsnoopy: the OED only documents the language, they don't create words. Words are created in all sorts of ways and by all sorts of people, no special "authority" is required to create them. Then if and when the OED consider them to be in regular use, they document them. Have you come across the word " Brexit"? It's a new word coined in the last few years, by a journalist probably, and is now in the dictionaries. The BIPM have occasionally created a new unit name, and once it enters the literature the OED pick it up, and add it to the lexicon. If one of the new words, "kilogram" for example, is abbreviated to "k" often enough (as it obviously has been), then the OED will pick that up, and add it too. Once a word has been released into the 'wild', the originator has no control over how its spelling evolves, or how it is abbreviated or otherwise adapted in common usage, and to pretend otherwise is futile, as the authors of the physics textbook presumably realised too. The SI symbols are a different case, they are like mathematical symbols or chemical element symbols, and come with a usage discipline and convention which is maintained by the BIPM, but is not compulsory for everyday English usage, although it may be required in certain circumstances, such as by the publishers of scientific and technical papers. -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: "K" or "k" simply means kilo-, or 1000; it can be 1000 of anything. Yet, you now seem to have a problem with the claim "k" or "K" as an abbreviation specifically for kilometre(s) is unofficial. What is your reasoning here? Getsnoopy ( talk) 08:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
supports the readability of scientific and technical papers", but we mustn't imply they have any greater role than that, or lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a general purpose encyclopaedia, and not an arm of the BIPM and not a physics textbook. -- DeFacto ( talk). 09:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The abbreviations k or K (pronounced /keɪ/) are used to represent kilometre, but are not recommended by the BIPM for use in scientific and technical papers. -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
A tous les peuples, A tous les temps( lit. ''For all people, For all time''); it applies everywhere where those units are used. So I can change it to
The abbreviations k or K (pronounced /keɪ/) are informally used to represent the kilometre, but are not recommended by the BIPM.Getsnoopy ( talk) 22:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
According to Google, kilometer is 5 times more common than kilometre. Is there an official standard for the spelling in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenj ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 April 2004 (UTC)
I've often heard people (and myself) use "K's" (pronounced 'kays') as a slang term for kilometres. ie "Town is 20 k's down the road" . Do people think this warrants adding as a slang term along with clicks (which I've only seen used by US soldiers in books or movies)? - SimonLyall 00:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are the terms "k" and "klick" used in any other languages? In Finland, people would look at me funny if I tried to use them. They wouldn't have a clue what I was on about. Finnish uses "kilo" as shorthand for the kilogram and "kilsa" for the kilometre. — JIP | Talk 05:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I pronounce "kilometre" with the stress on the first syllable, and so do a significant minority (though admittedly it is a minority) of people I know. Is there a prescribed "correct" pronunciation? The section about this in the article itself seems to brook no dissent! Loganberry 23:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Ultimately it doesn't matter as the listener will understand you either way. HOWEVER, pronouncing it with the stress on the first syllable suggests that you understand the metric system, while using the other version implies that you don't. This might be the reason why Americans almost universally insist on mispronouncing the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.133.199 ( talk) 18:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I changed the order so that former and latter made sense (sorry, I forgot to sign in). The pronunciations were listed back to front to their references later in the section Ningnongtwit ( talk) 09:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Gene Nygaard just reverted some edits of mine about which I'd like some clarification. 1) Surely, stating that it is an SI unit makes sense in the introduction. Just like saying that the other units it is compared to are imperial. One cannot assume something like that is known. Suppose it were compared to, say, Chinese units (I haven't a clue what they use there), then I'd like to know what they are, so I can look it up as a frame of reference. 2) Nothing major, but the word kilometre is indeed often misused to designate kilometre/hour and I suppose that merits a mention, especially since it is wrong. DirkvdM 19:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Why isn't the abbreviation Km? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.250.72.165 ( talk) 06:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
As an aside, the capitalisation of the prefixes is very important in metric, as some prefixes start with the same letter. Take "milli" (a thousandth part) and "mega" (a million times). A mm is a millimetre - a thousandth of a metre, whereas a Mm is a megametre - a million metres. Big difference dependent on the capitalisation of the M, eh?? Only out by a factor of 1,000,000,000 if you get the M and m swapped! TheBustopher ( talk) 00:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I've pulled this page back from Kilometer to reconnect its history and because the move was inappropriate in the first place. Refer to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. -- ToobMug 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"The USA is gradually kilometerising its road signage". Is it? I hadn't heard. Is this actually the case? KILOMETERISING - what a dreadful word; a classic example of verb misuse. Arcturus 22:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It states in the article that 1 km equals 0.621 miles. Wouldn't that mean that 1 mile equals 1.610305958 km? In that case there's something wrong because 1 mile = 1.609 km. I know its a small difference, but if you guys calculated all the rest with the wrong numbers, eventually it would add up... Albo NL 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not know if a kilometer equal five-eighths (⅝) of a mile (in fraction form) (.625 mile (in decimal form))? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.223.135 ( talk) 08:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
whats the thing one longer then kilometer (if there is one) like meter * 1000 = kilometer kilometer * 1000 = ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.121.168 ( talk) 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Wikipedia, and are even regarded as Vital articles. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Measurement to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This page needs some better organisation - the first tow sections have a lot of duplication. -- jazzle 09:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This section starts off with "The United States of America and the United Kingdom are the only two developed countries that have considered changing their road signs from miles to kilometres..."
What about Canada? We ONLY use km/h signs here... This page shows some examples of Canadian signage: [4] 99.252.30.48 13:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The following appears on this article, and other articles for SI units of length:
I think this list should be made using a template, or it should be removed. I would create the template myself, if I had experience with the MediaWiki template language, but I don't know if this list is really desirable on every length unit article. If the list is desirable, I think it is more appropriate to show it in a box (maybe on Template:Unit of length box?), with a better description. -- Eduardo Habkost ( talk) 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
My edits today were reverted by SimonLyall who states:
rv edits by Jimp. Big step backwards. We do not need the whole first section to be evivs in other units. Please discuss before reformatting the whole article. Perhaps make you wording changes only
... perhaps I make wording changes only ... or ... perhaps I go clean up whatever mess I see ...
There is no requirement to discuss edits before you make them even if that does mean reformatting a whole article. I saw an article in a sorry state and tidied it up.
We don't need the whole intro to be "evivs" in other units, fine, let's stick the evivs in their own section again.
Here's what we don't need.
Another thing I'd like to suggest we don't need is blind reverts sweeping away the good, the bad and the ugly all in one shot. You say it's a step backwards, SimonLyall; no, it was many steps. Some steps might not have been in the right direction, others certainly were. You mention only one aspect: the moving of the equivalences into the intro. Let's revise this, otherwise, the ball's in your court, SimonLyall, the discussion has begun, I've indicated why I see your reversion as the over-all backwards step, you're invited to explain why you see otherwise. JIMp talk· cont 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The intent was good I'm sure but if we want a traffic sign showing kilometres there are thousands which will do so more clearly. JIMp talk· cont 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted two of an anon's changes to this section.
JIMp talk· cont 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Err, read the article again on pronunciation - the correct accent is on the FIRST syllable as per conventions of the metric system (ie the unit (metre, gram, hertz, pascal, etc) maintains the same pronunciation regardless of the prefix). It is "killer-gram", "killer-hertz", "killer-metre", etc, etc. To pronounce it kil-O-m'tre breaks this convention because you throw away consistency. No-one says kil-O-gr'm or kil-O-p'scal (with a short emphasised O in the 2nd syllable). No-one says sent-I-m'tre or mill-I-m'tre either. But heaps of people (erroneously) say kil-O-m'tre and change the pronunciation of the unit from "meeta" to "m'tre" only following the "kilo" prefix. TheBustopher ( talk) 02:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It may be of interest to note that the main span of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is 503 metres, almost exactly half a kilometre. See [5] Michael Glass ( talk) 01:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Forth Road Bridge's main span is 1006 metres long [6]. There's a photo opportunity for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Glass ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a risk that the section on visualisation might get out of hand if we include every bridge that is about a kiliometre, about half a kilometre and so on. When I selected the original three items, I found one on each continent and they were as varied as possible. I notice that your addition of the Forth Bridge did not include a picture. I had in fact considered using that example, but I could not find a suitable picture. Also I did not want the examples to be too UK-centric. Martinvl ( talk) 09:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Severn Bridge doesn't link England with Wales, the 988m span is between England and England; Aust to Beachley. The Wye bridge which connects with the Severn bridge does cross between England and Wales, but is only 408m long. And why does Wales have a link, while Scotland and England are not links? Sjtaunton ( talk) 14:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Two editors, Ehrenkater and Hgrosser, have now added the term that makes up the heading of this section, inside an already bracketed expression in the article, the latter adding an Edit summary of "it is reasonable to make this distinction". After each of those two additions, I have reverted the change. Don't want a three revert situation, so here are my thoughts.
I can't see the point, and would rather not see it there.
Firstly, the construction, with the double brackets, is very clumsy.
Secondly, I'm not even sure what the addition is trying to say. Of course micrometer, the measuring instrument, is distinct from micrometre, the distance. They are spelt and pronounced differently, and mean different things. Why say it.
To Ehrenkater in particular, or anyone else, why is it reasonable to make this distinction? Can we find a less clumsy way of saying it?
HiLo48 ( talk) 15:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I reverted the addition regarding sporting venues because saying that a kilometre is equivalent to ten football pitches is not very helpful - I know that journalists do that a lot, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If however you can find a venue that is one kilometer long, please add it. I checked the Indy 500 article, but it appears that the land set aside for that venue is one mile by half a mile. Also, if you do add examples, try to get them as international as possible (or give a number from different parts of the world). You will notice that the three example that I gave span three continents. I could also have added the width of the Mersey in Liverpool, but as I already had already mentioned London, I felt that this would be too UK-centric. Martinvl ( talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
"the rule-of-thumb "multiply by 8 and divide by 5" gives a conversion of 1.6, which is approximately 0.6% too low."
This must mean 5/8 is part of a continued fraction sequence. What is the next member of this sequence?? Georgia guy ( talk) 19:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I really don't get the point of the visualisation section. Perhaps one sentence, if that, could be devoted to a single landmark that is very near to 1km long, high, wide, etc, but even that seems to be a bit pointless.
I'm not sure if the section is just meant to fill space in an article that seems like it should be larger. But some of the statements included in that section are absolutely pointless:
The only sentence out of the whole section I can see that is remotely relevant to the article is: "The George Washington Bridge in New York (central span 1067 m) was the first bridge in the world to have a span of more than a kilometre..." I'm in favour of getting rid of the whole section. Ignorant Armies ? ! 11:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This blanket reversion of my 3 recent edits ( this one, this one, and this one) included the acronym "POBV" in the edit summary. I'm not familiar with that one, can the editor enlighten me please? -- de Facto ( talk). 15:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Rather than edit war, we need to discuss this here. 'k' is defined in the free online version of the Oxford Dictionaries as an abbreviation (not slang) for kilometre. [7] Why therefore should it not appear at the start of the lead described as such? -- de Facto ( talk). 11:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have reinstated the sections on visualisation and on international usage. I do not think that removing 45% of an article without a discussion is justifiable.
The concept of sections on visualistion is well established in articles on measurement, especially where the unit in question is not one that is used daily by the general population. For example, the article Watt identifies a hearing aid battery as having a power of the order of 1 mW and a suburban train as having a power of about 1 MW. (Did you know this?) It is probable that over 80% of the native English speakers (mainly Britons and American) who read this article have not been brought up with kilometres. The remaining 20% (Australians, Canadians, South Africans etc) are probably familiar with the kilometre. If you look at the examples of "typical kilometres" that were chosen, you will see that they are all prominent landmarks is different continents and, apart from Central Park, are all well within 10% of an actual kilometre. They were chosen in a manner so that readers could identify with at least one of them. (I could have chosen the High Street in the town where I live which is just under a kilometre in length, but I suspect that not many people have heard of the town, let alone be familiar with the High Street).
Finally, given that there is not much that is encyclopeadic about the kilometre (compared to the metre), I see no problem in showing how it comes up in everyday life. Martinvl ( talk) 20:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Please explain to me how a virtual travel guide of distances somewhere around a kilometre long, measured using the Google Earth ruler (!), is relevant to this article. The international usage section, which you also reinstated, though I'm not sure if you realise you did, consists of places where it is not used. This belongs in metrication or the article on the mile. Lots of pretty pictures of things that are almost one kilometre (why not 10 or even 100 kilometres? This is about the unit of measurement not the distance!) are not pertinent to the intended topic of the article. "Its better than nothing" is not a valid argument for keeping this – it may just be that there is not a lot that can be written on this, other than it is a unit of measurement that is equivalent to 1,000 metres. Ignorant Armies 09:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the Central Park visualization (AND common-walkability) are more valuable than the Niagara Falls one. One would have to be at Niagara Falls to figure out exactly which parts of each falls are being used as endpoints - and I've been there. One think I remember most about being at the Falls was how hard it was to estimate the size of anything I was looking at. With Central Park (experienced by far more people every day than probably in a year at the Falls), there are many things visible that are also accessible. Familiarization comes not just from pictures and visualizations, but also by determining how long it takes to walk or run it. -- JimWae ( talk) 17:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Units are given to three significant figures:
Comparison to other units of length | |
---|---|
One (1) km ≡ | 1.00×103 (1000) m |
1.00×105 (100000) cm | |
One (1) km ≈ | 3.24×10−14 parsecs |
1.06×10−13 light-years [1] | |
6.68×10−9 astronomical units [2] | |
6.21×10−1 (0.621) miles | |
5.40×10−1 (0.540) nautical miles | |
1.09×103 (1,094) yards | |
3.28×103 (3,281) feet | |
1.61 km≈ | One (1) mile |
Approximations are given to three significant figures.
1 kilometre | ≡ | 1,000 | metres |
≈ | 3,281 | feet | |
≈ | 1,094 | yards | |
≈ | 0.621 | miles | |
≈ | 0.540 | nautical miles | |
≈ | 6.68×10−9 | astronomical units [3] | |
≈ | 1.06×10−13 | light-years [4] | |
≈ | 3.24×10−14 | parsecs |
I'm proposing a new version of this section.
JIMp talk· cont 07:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kilometre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kilometre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kilometre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Why kilometre is spelled differentely than kilometer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.223.135 ( talk) 08:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: Regarding your revert, the BIPM publishes the official spelling of SI units in English and French. Of these, "kilometre" is the official spelling of the unit. You're confusing common words that are subject to changes in spelling via common usage with words defined in a specification. Getsnoopy ( talk) 21:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Small spelling variations occur in the language of the English speaking countries (for instance, "metre" and "meter", "litre" and "liter"). In this respect, the English text presented here follows the ISO/IEC 80000 series Quantities and units. However, the symbols for SI units used in this brochure are the same in all languages." If they were trying to assert official spellings for unit names they would have said it there. Furthermore, they clearly explain the third-party reference that they use for their purposes, but do not recommend that others should also use it. So you see, it is only symbols that the BIPM try to control, and not spellings. Or can you provide reliable sources claiming otherwise? And what about other languages? Surely if the BIPM had official spellings in English, they would also have official spellings for other languages too. -- DeFacto ( talk).
@ Getsnoopy: even if all of that personal opinion could be reliably sourced, we still couldn't say that the British spelling was any more 'official' than the American spelling. As we know, there are several spelling variations between the English-speaking nations, and none are any more globally 'official' than any of the others, they are just variants of equal standing. As Wikipedia does not allow OR or the stating of opinion as if fact, you'll need to find a cosensus amongst the reliable sources to support your POV that there is an internationally accepted 'official' spelling here. -- DeFacto ( talk). 20:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The officially recommended spelling is "metre". However, many SI supporters in this country prefer "meter", which we adopt. We will also use "liter" in preference to the recommended "litre".
— Resnick R., Halliday D. (1977), Physics, Part 1 (third edition). John Wiley & sons, p. 5
..."Fe" is the standard and generally accepted symbol for the chemical element iron, but we don't say that "Fe" is the 'official' symbol for iron...'. The same goes for "km" it is the symbol for kilometre, and that is beyond dispute. We shouldn't say "km" is the 'official' symbol for "kilometre" any more than we would say "Fe" is the 'official' symbol for iron, or "sun" is the 'official name for the sun - it would be applying a redundant adjective, even a peacock term, and trying to give false authority and weight to it.
@ DeFacto: I feel like you're supporting my arguments with your reply. The words are at the very least official in French, and that can be corroborated by the SI brochure itself, so the idea that the BIPM isn't concerned with spellings is false. The other point is that you yourself said that it has certain responsibilities and dictates unit definitions and symbols, which means it has authority. I've been claiming exactly the same thing, which is that it does have authority because it's the entity tasked with regulating/maintaining the SI. As such, that same authority also translated the French text into English, and claimed that it would exclusively use a certain spelling. If you believe the BIPM is an official entity, then you must believe that what it publishes is official material simply by deduction. And if it publishes official material, then the contents of said material are official, one of which is the spelling. You're arguing that it merely says that it uses ISO spelling, but that's besides the point (ignoring the fact that ISO itself is an official body); the BIPM chose to spell things a certain way, and the fact that it published said choices makes it official. It does clear the air that there is no "correct" spelling, but I'm not disagreeing with that.
I never said the BIPM invented all those words; I said that the SI did. And I'm sure you know that the SI (International System of Units; the modern metric system) is a continuation of the former, original metric system (which was not necessarily codified); were it not for that, those words wouldn't exist in the English language. The OED lists that word as "killometer", not "kilometer", and it also lists the word "metre" (with that spelling) being used in 1797 to mean the unit of length; I don't know that that's relevant, however, given my point above.
Regarding official symbols: ...it is the symbol for kilometre, and that is beyond dispute.
Why? How? Who determines if it's the symbol vs. a symbol? Or even that it is a symbol instead of an abbreviation? Because apparently, according to you, there is no such thing as official and there are no authorities on anything English-related. And you said, "Fe" is the standard ... symbol
; you're ok with using the word "standard" then? Saying something is redundant (tautologically) implies that the redundancy is assumed to be true; if saying km is the "official" symbol for kilometre is redundant, then it must be assumed that it already is official. I would actually agree with you that saying "Sun" is the "official" name of the Sun is problematic, but that's understandable because there's no BIPM equivalent in the astronomical domain. The textbook source is right underneath the USMA one; I've made it into a list to make it clear.
Getsnoopy (
talk) 02:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
In a strict sense, spelling and pronunciation are matters of language and are not set by the international standards that define SI." -- DeFacto ( talk). 10:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: I think you seem to be contradicting yourself; it would be able to coin those "seed" words only if it was in a position of authority, which it is—specifically, in the domain of SI. And the OED lists everything that the BIPM lists as symbols as abbreviations. So how was the BIPM "charged" with said responsibilities if, according to you, no one can be charged of anything when it comes to the English language? Or any language for that matter? You seem to be suggesting that the OED is an authority on the English language, yet also simultaneously suggesting that no one or entity can be an authority on the English language. I'm at least being consistent in that OED documents common use, which is why one cannot say that "wrt" is the official abbreviation for "with respect to", for example, because there's no such thing when it comes to common use or the English language itself. But the SI and BIPM exist in a space completely independent of and orthogonal to common use; they're a specification and an official body respectively. You seem to be arguing relativistically in some attempt to be neutral, only to find that that position fails when describing how the SI/BIPM works with respect to languages.
The claim being "dropped" is not evidence of it not being true anymore. That statement by the USMA is just a rehashing of the statement from the SI brochure: that there is no correct spelling, but that there is one that will be used by the official body; hence, official. And it seems ironic to me that you're quoting the same institution that is supposedly "a single-issue pressure group" that is not "in any way a 'reliable source' when it comes to facts about the issue they are pushing", especially when the same source also says that the -re spellings are official, even though they might not be the only correct spellings. Getsnoopy ( talk) 21:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Getsnoopy: the OED only documents the language, they don't create words. Words are created in all sorts of ways and by all sorts of people, no special "authority" is required to create them. Then if and when the OED consider them to be in regular use, they document them. Have you come across the word " Brexit"? It's a new word coined in the last few years, by a journalist probably, and is now in the dictionaries. The BIPM have occasionally created a new unit name, and once it enters the literature the OED pick it up, and add it to the lexicon. If one of the new words, "kilogram" for example, is abbreviated to "k" often enough (as it obviously has been), then the OED will pick that up, and add it too. Once a word has been released into the 'wild', the originator has no control over how its spelling evolves, or how it is abbreviated or otherwise adapted in common usage, and to pretend otherwise is futile, as the authors of the physics textbook presumably realised too. The SI symbols are a different case, they are like mathematical symbols or chemical element symbols, and come with a usage discipline and convention which is maintained by the BIPM, but is not compulsory for everyday English usage, although it may be required in certain circumstances, such as by the publishers of scientific and technical papers. -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@ DeFacto: "K" or "k" simply means kilo-, or 1000; it can be 1000 of anything. Yet, you now seem to have a problem with the claim "k" or "K" as an abbreviation specifically for kilometre(s) is unofficial. What is your reasoning here? Getsnoopy ( talk) 08:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
supports the readability of scientific and technical papers", but we mustn't imply they have any greater role than that, or lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a general purpose encyclopaedia, and not an arm of the BIPM and not a physics textbook. -- DeFacto ( talk). 09:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The abbreviations k or K (pronounced /keɪ/) are used to represent kilometre, but are not recommended by the BIPM for use in scientific and technical papers. -- DeFacto ( talk). 22:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
A tous les peuples, A tous les temps( lit. ''For all people, For all time''); it applies everywhere where those units are used. So I can change it to
The abbreviations k or K (pronounced /keɪ/) are informally used to represent the kilometre, but are not recommended by the BIPM.Getsnoopy ( talk) 22:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)