![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Martinvl, by reinstating the bar, you've changed the intent of the table, and thus had to change the text. Sure the SI Brochure catalogs lots of non-SI units, but so what? The table (and text) was clearly based on Table 6 in the SI brochure, "Non-SI units accepted for use with the SI". I was just correcting it. Once you include the bar, where do you stop? There are dozens of other non-SI units. The whole point of the SI is to reduce the proliferation of units used in diferent industries, countries and disciplines. 138.194.23.3 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
Fair enough, since the article is about the metric system, not the SI. I'd personally profer to wean people off SI-deprecated metric units, by discontinuing references to them. Adamtester ( talk) 05:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The text strikes me as a bit pompous and lengthy. For a start, I don't think a 1 kg mass is a 'measuring device' - it's a reference artefact. The distinction between domestic and 'tradesman' use is unnecessary here. Can someone rustle up a new picture on their kitchen table, replacing the mass with analog or digital kitchen scales? Adamtester ( talk) 07:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the updates that reference the Daily Express.
Firstly, this article has been crafted so that everything in the lede is repeated in the article. If the articles from The Daily Express and the Manchester Evening News were of any consequence, they should have been in the body of the article, not the lede.
Secondly, the articles concerend were very vague about "EU rules". The newspapers were in fact reporting on posturing by politicians before the publication of consultation prior to the review of EU directive 80/181/EEC, but the reporting was wildly inaccurate. It should be noted that Wikipedia advises newspaper stories should be treated with caution when cited as sources.
Martinvl ( talk) 06:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed material that was sourced from the British Weigths and Measures Association website.
The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources states:
The BWMA has as one of its aims the retention of the imperial system of measure and this source must therefore be classed as being a "promotional" and hence, from the point of view of Wikipedia, unreliable. Martinvl ( talk) 19:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The article says "India is mostly metric (though the use of the crore (100,000) and the lakh (10 million) is widespread)". Why are we talking about the crore and the lakh? These are just numbers, they're not non-metric, they're not units. Why are we even giving India special attention at all? JIMp talk· cont 02:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The key within the map (of the global reach of the metric system) and the key under the map appear to be inconsistent with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.5.91 ( talk) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have undone [[User:DeFacto]'s changes.
The metric system is used in the United Kingdom for “for economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes” except
Containers.
The above wording has been paraphrased from relevant EU directive. I believe that my wording encompasses the above. User:DeFacto's wording stretches the point. Martinvl ( talk) 19:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
duh u should remember this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.113.135 ( talk) 21:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The following was added by DeFacto.
The use of decimal multiples also results in less convenient non-integer quantities for common divisions. A foot can be divided in four different ways (by 2, 3, 4 and 6) with an integer number of inches resulting and a yard in seven different ways (by 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 18).
There are 22·3 inches in a foot and 22·32 inches in a yard so actually there are five ways of dividing the foot and eight ways of dividing the yard with an integer number of inches (not counted above was division into single inches, i.e. into twelve and thirty-six respectively). However, there are 22·52 centimetres in a metre so there are likewise eight ways of dividing the metre into an integer number of centimetres: 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50 and 100. Furthermore there are 23·53 millimetres in a metre thus fifteen ways of dividing the metre into an integer number of millimetres.
Thus doesn't it somehow miss the point to be counting the number of ways this unit can be divided into an integer number of that? I think that the real issue here is that it can be more useful to be able to dive something into thirds (sixths, twelfths, etc.) than fifths (tenths, twentieths, etc.). Now we come to the question as to how many threes are there in the other system ... what other system?
The inches, feet and yards example given is just that: an example from another system. The metric system has replaced (and is continuing to replace) a variety of customary systems (not just one) which use a variety of different ratios between units (fourteen pounds to the stone, five and a half yards to the rod). The use of decimal multiples can result in less convenient non-integer quantities for common divisions, sometimes it goes the other way and sometimes the customary system was (partly) decimal to begin with.
JIMp talk· cont 14:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion above I feel we, to give a more neutral POV and interest to the article, need to add more of the 'cons' of the metric system - the article feels unbalanced in favour of the metric system to me at the moment. We shouldn't be writing a purely promotional article. We need some more examples of disadvantages. One avenue, possibly, is that typically, proponents of English unit based systems mention the advantages of the human-friendly, intuitive and readily comparable size of their units: 1 inch is about a thumb width, 1 foot (unit) is about a foot (human) length, 1 yard is about the length from outstretched-thumb-to-chin or a man's stride, etc. Are there any other ideas for what might be considered to be disadvantages of the metric system over English-unit systems that we can work in? -- de Facto ( talk). 14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It's no even as simple as metric vs imperial or US. There's the imperial pint (~568 ml), the US liquid pint (~473 ml), the US dry pint (~551 ml) but what about French pint, the German pint, the various other pint-sized units formerly in use. To be fair, though, the metric system is not completely immune to inconsistency: power is measured in watts, yes, and in calories per minute and kilowatt-hours per year (no, these are not SI but they're still metric). As for consistency between countries, is this a pro of the metric system? This consistency could also have been achieved by the global adoption of the furlong-firkin-fortnight system. List the pros of the imperial system as pros of the imperial system on the article about the imperial system not here as cons of the metric system. List the cons of the US system as cons of the US system on the article about the US system not here as pros of the metric system. List the advantages, disadvantages, misadvantages and whatever of metrication on the article about the pros and cons of metrication (yes, there is such an article). What's wanted here is a focus on the metric system itself and if we're to look at alternatives, a very general view of them. JIMp talk· cont 00:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Variants of the metric system | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CGS | MKS | MTS | |
---|---|---|---|
l | cm | m | m |
m | g | kg | t |
t | s | s | s |
v | cm/s | m/s | m/s |
a | Gal | m/s² | m/s² |
F | dyn | N | sn |
p | Ba | Pa | pz |
W | erg | J | kJ |
P | erg/s | W | kW |
Variants of the metric system | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
On 1 December 2011 I added a compact table to the Variants section. Soon afterward user:Martinvl changed it to be more explicit and thereby also wider. I don’t feel strongly about it, but since most of its contents is explain in wordily details nearby, I would prefer a table as compact as possible. Both tables are cited above for easy reference, I’ve remove floating from my version though. — Christoph Päper 15:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted MeasureIT's changes of 25 August 2012.
The changes in respect of the United Kingdom were incorrect - the page [2] which deals exclusively with the United Kingdom (rather than the world as a whoile) paints a very different picture.
The emphasis of the "modern metric system" is out of place in the lede - it could be worked into the text regarding the SI, also it should make reference to the BIPM document, not the UKMA site. Martinvl ( talk) 06:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I have restored this artcile to its state before User:MeasureIT started making changes on 23 August 2012. In particular he asserted that:
Martinvl ( talk) 05:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
you explained in detail the history of the metric system but failed to show the basic complete chart of the metric system!!! i shall now go elsewhere to obtain complete information!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.205.181 ( talk) 19:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
As the current international standard the SI is the most important variant of the metric system and as such we should cover it in detail but we've got a whole separate article to do this. It seems to me that this article should be more general in its focus. SI is currently the most important variant of the metric system but that's what it is, a variant of the metric system, specifically a variant of the MKS. Isn't Section 3, Variants, the place for metric system variants.
I propose that Section 4, International System of Units, be disected. Some of the details covered here could be merged into Subsection 3.2, Metre-kilogram-second systems, other details could be left for the main article to deal with. Specifically, I would merge (most of) Section 4's intro into Subsection 3.2 and get rid of Subsection 4.1, Units outside the SI. Subsection 4.2, "New SI", though, is different.
In a sense Subsection 4.2 doesn't really belong in Section 4 anyway: any redefinition of the kilogram entails a redefinition of the gram, the tonne, the kilopond, the erg, the dyne, even the avoirdupois pound, the Troy ounce, the horsepower, etc., so we're not just getting a new SI. Moreover, this current proposal is just the latest chapter in a long string of revisions to the definitions of metric units.
I propose an new section be written covering the definitions of metric units. We would detail the original definitions, when and how these were revised, the current definitions and proposed future redefinitions. Subsection 4.2 would be merged here. JIMp talk· cont 06:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This new version is a vast improvement. I have some further suggestions.
The former table of contents | The current table of contents | A suggested future table of contents |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
The article is now close to 70 kilobytes. I wonder whether the article would benifit from a little section merging and summarising.
Subsections 1.2, Decimal multiples, and 1.3, Prefixes, are an obvious pair of candidates to be merged. There is somedeal of repetition between them which could be cut.
The current Sections 4, Relating SI to the real world, and 6, Conversion between SI and legacy units, both already deal with the units of the metric system these could be merged into a new Units section. Again we'll find repeated info here to cut.
The SI is a specific example of a MKS system. Subsection 3.2, Metre-kilogram-second systems, already mentions the SI. Shouldn't we merge Subsection 3.5, International System of Units, here?
Subsections 1.4, Replicable prototypes, and 1.5, Realisability, are closely related. They both deal with defining the base units. They discuss the original definitions and the adjustments made leading us to the current definitions. Section 7, Future developments, continues on from the current definitions to consider proposed future definitions. These are all so closely related that it seems to me that it would make sense to merge them all.
JIMp talk· cont 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I am currently writing an article User:Martinvl/sandbox/Outline of the metric system. This article will become "Outline of the metric system". (See Wikipedia:Outlines for more information) This article is still under construction, but its general pattern is clearly visible. Outstanding work on the article is:
I plan to cross-reference the article using the template "outline" in a hatnote for all articles mention in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 (except for Systems of measurement) and in the "See also" section of all other entries.
Comments? Martinvl ( talk) 19:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I have undone the changes that the previous editor made to the images:
The other changes that you made had a minilmal effect, so I just undid the lost. Martinvl ( talk) 20:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Are there any sources that we can use to support the inclusion of mention of John Wilkins or his 1668 essay as being somehow related to the history of the metric system? What we currently have reads like speculation, or wishful thinking, based on an unsupported interpretation of his 1668 essay. We need evidence that we can quote that he had any influence on the development of the metric system or that his work is considered by main-stream historians to have played a part in the history of the metric system. MeasureIT ( talk) 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the Instutute of Physics reference that I added you will see One of the first ideas for a universal metric system can be accredited to John Wilkins, ex secretary of the Royal Society, who outlined a new decimal system of measurement in 1668 in his book, "An Essay towards a Real Character and Philosophical Language". Isn't that good enough? Martinvl ( talk) 12:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw this dispute listed on WP:3O and looked at the sources provided above first. I was sure they don't support a link between Wilkins and today's metric system, but then I looked at what we have actually written in this article's History section currently ("One of the earliest proposals for a decimal system in which length, area, volume and mass were linked to each other was made by John Wilkins, first secretary of the Royal Society of London in his 1668 essay "An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language".[22][23][24][25] Wilkins proposed the using a pendulum that had a period of one second as the basis of the unit of length.") and frankly, that seems fine to me. What I think is a serious mistake is Wilkins' prominence in the first sentence of History of the metric system where I feel he should not be mentioned -- his section in that article is more than enough, and I would completely agree with removing that first sentence and revising the following sentence to conform to the style of an article's initial sentence. But the most serious problem is that we clearly have sources copying nearly word-for-word from Wikipedia being used as supporting sources. That's a serious issue. I do not think it constitutes a form of peer review because there is no accountability. I'm confused about how to proceed in this circumstance so I'm leaving the 3O request in place for someone else to look at. JS Uralia ( talk) 03:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I wondered if, in the light of observations here (and elsewhere) by uninvolved contributors, that User:Martinvl will concede now that the interpretation of, and the weight given to, Wilkins's work was a little over-egged, and that perhaps we can work together on a more accurate and robustly supported interpretation. What do you think? MeasureIT ( talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
In 1960 various units were re-defined. In that year also several prefixes (tera, nano . . .) were adopted. However there is no mention of these changes in the history section of this article. Who knows how to extend that section? 128.135.40.156 ( talk) 03:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Their website says 2009: "The World Factbook 2009. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2009", where did we get 2007 from? 212.183.128.236 ( talk) 15:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Usenet newsgroup posts are self-published and explicitly included in the WP list of unreliable sources. Please do not quote from them or cite them in this article. 212.183.128.236 ( talk) 16:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has become irrelevant as the content it supports in now moot because of the verifiable date of the CIA factbook being 2009, not 2007 (see discussion above this one). Corrections to the article have been made. 212.183.140.18 ( talk) 00:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the article states that the system was originally based on the mètre des archives and the kilogramme des archives. Yet neither of those French phrases are explained or discussed anywhere anywhere else in the article, or even references supplied to support that assertion. Even the other articles linked to from those French phrases do not provide any useful explanation as to what they mean or what they are. AnnieLess ( talk) 08:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: User:AnnieLess, the originator of this thread, has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, a banned user. Martinvl ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Reading just the first section, I spotted a number of minor inconsistencies and anomalies; most of which I think I have addressed now. I'm not sure which of the topics under
coherent are the right one though - none seem to fit, perhaps someone else can help here.
AnnieLess (
talk)
09:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: User:AnnieLess, the originator of this thread, has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, a banned user. Martinvl ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
In the Decimal multiples section, the one reference (a page on the O'Connor and Robertson website) offered as support for the assertion that the idea of multiples and sub-multiples of units following a decimal pattern was /first proposed/ by Stevin does not offer the level of evidence I was hoping to find. It does say that he wrote about decimal fractions, but that isn't enough. Can anyone help produce something more convincing?
AnnieLess (
talk)
19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Similarly, I can't see evidence in the supplied reference (also a page on the O'Connor and Robertson website) that Mouton first suggested the idea of power-of-ten prefixes - just that he proposed a system using them. We need a better reference to support that too. AnnieLess ( talk) 19:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me what the significance of Augustus de Morgan's view about decimalisation, made more than 50 years after the introduction of the (decimal) metric system, is to the metric system. Who, outside of Wikipedia, has associated his work with the development of the metric system? AnnieLess ( talk) 18:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: User:AnnieLess, the originator of this thread, has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, a banned user. Martinvl ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I find this section impenetrable as it contains a surprisingly large selections of words which are highly ambiguous in the context used. Readers will only know which meanings of the words, "realisation", "prototype", "phenomena" and "artefact" apply if they already understand the subject, so it is not a very informative paragraph really. I suspect we are seeing the result of a poor translation from French to English. I would like to see this paragraph, and its heading, reworded to something along these lines:
Reproducible reference standards
Note: User:AnnieLess, the originator of this thread, has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, a banned user. Martinvl ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
U.S. is the normal way of writing it in the U.S., even though UK is the normal way of writing UK. MOS doesn't say the two should be written in the UK style - does it?
AnnieLess (
talk)
19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: User:AnnieLess, the originator of this thread, has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, a banned user. Martinvl ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
If there is an English equivalent or translation, please use it. The linked article pages use English, so why can't this article? And don't keep putting it back without discussing possible ways of keeping it out. This is the English Wikipedia, after all. AnnieLess ( talk) 21:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Whatever User:AnnieLess has done I am not sure, but whatever it is, we need to accept that the changes they made here have, on the whole, been improvements and should not be reversed wholesale. Let's be mature about this, and welcome what is good. EdithLovely ( talk) 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: 12george1 ( talk · contribs) 22:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Martinvl, I am going to be reviewing this article. Below I have quoted portions of the article and will acknowledge the error at that portion of the article. You can search for these quotes after pressing Ctrl F.-- 12george1 ( talk) 22:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Martinvl (Editor)
Should there be so much emphasis on the US not using the metric system. Also, does the US have a official system of measurement? Tinynanorobots ( talk) 22:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Below the first picture, someone managed to lazily write unacceptable "Amps" instead of the correct and proper word Amperes. I do not know how or dare to edit. Someone please do it! And it is metre and litre, not meter and liter. MB 27 August 2013 206.28.42.242 ( talk) 00:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
According to the OED, the object in the lede picture is a "weight", not a "mass". One of its attribute might well be that it has a mass of approximately one kilogram. Martinvl ( talk) 06:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
About the picture: Celsius degree is not in SI, it's the Kelvin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.237.107.222 ( talk) 2014-01-09T21:53:43
The unit of Celsius temperature is the degree Celsius, [. . . ], which is by definition equal in magnitude to the kelvin. A difference or interval of temperature may be expressed in kelvins or in degrees Celsius.
Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Martinvl, by reinstating the bar, you've changed the intent of the table, and thus had to change the text. Sure the SI Brochure catalogs lots of non-SI units, but so what? The table (and text) was clearly based on Table 6 in the SI brochure, "Non-SI units accepted for use with the SI". I was just correcting it. Once you include the bar, where do you stop? There are dozens of other non-SI units. The whole point of the SI is to reduce the proliferation of units used in diferent industries, countries and disciplines. 138.194.23.3 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC).
Fair enough, since the article is about the metric system, not the SI. I'd personally profer to wean people off SI-deprecated metric units, by discontinuing references to them. Adamtester ( talk) 05:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The text strikes me as a bit pompous and lengthy. For a start, I don't think a 1 kg mass is a 'measuring device' - it's a reference artefact. The distinction between domestic and 'tradesman' use is unnecessary here. Can someone rustle up a new picture on their kitchen table, replacing the mass with analog or digital kitchen scales? Adamtester ( talk) 07:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed the updates that reference the Daily Express.
Firstly, this article has been crafted so that everything in the lede is repeated in the article. If the articles from The Daily Express and the Manchester Evening News were of any consequence, they should have been in the body of the article, not the lede.
Secondly, the articles concerend were very vague about "EU rules". The newspapers were in fact reporting on posturing by politicians before the publication of consultation prior to the review of EU directive 80/181/EEC, but the reporting was wildly inaccurate. It should be noted that Wikipedia advises newspaper stories should be treated with caution when cited as sources.
Martinvl ( talk) 06:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I removed material that was sourced from the British Weigths and Measures Association website.
The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources states:
The BWMA has as one of its aims the retention of the imperial system of measure and this source must therefore be classed as being a "promotional" and hence, from the point of view of Wikipedia, unreliable. Martinvl ( talk) 19:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The article says "India is mostly metric (though the use of the crore (100,000) and the lakh (10 million) is widespread)". Why are we talking about the crore and the lakh? These are just numbers, they're not non-metric, they're not units. Why are we even giving India special attention at all? JIMp talk· cont 02:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The key within the map (of the global reach of the metric system) and the key under the map appear to be inconsistent with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.5.91 ( talk) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have undone [[User:DeFacto]'s changes.
The metric system is used in the United Kingdom for “for economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes” except
Containers.
The above wording has been paraphrased from relevant EU directive. I believe that my wording encompasses the above. User:DeFacto's wording stretches the point. Martinvl ( talk) 19:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
duh u should remember this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.113.135 ( talk) 21:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The following was added by DeFacto.
The use of decimal multiples also results in less convenient non-integer quantities for common divisions. A foot can be divided in four different ways (by 2, 3, 4 and 6) with an integer number of inches resulting and a yard in seven different ways (by 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 18).
There are 22·3 inches in a foot and 22·32 inches in a yard so actually there are five ways of dividing the foot and eight ways of dividing the yard with an integer number of inches (not counted above was division into single inches, i.e. into twelve and thirty-six respectively). However, there are 22·52 centimetres in a metre so there are likewise eight ways of dividing the metre into an integer number of centimetres: 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50 and 100. Furthermore there are 23·53 millimetres in a metre thus fifteen ways of dividing the metre into an integer number of millimetres.
Thus doesn't it somehow miss the point to be counting the number of ways this unit can be divided into an integer number of that? I think that the real issue here is that it can be more useful to be able to dive something into thirds (sixths, twelfths, etc.) than fifths (tenths, twentieths, etc.). Now we come to the question as to how many threes are there in the other system ... what other system?
The inches, feet and yards example given is just that: an example from another system. The metric system has replaced (and is continuing to replace) a variety of customary systems (not just one) which use a variety of different ratios between units (fourteen pounds to the stone, five and a half yards to the rod). The use of decimal multiples can result in less convenient non-integer quantities for common divisions, sometimes it goes the other way and sometimes the customary system was (partly) decimal to begin with.
JIMp talk· cont 14:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion above I feel we, to give a more neutral POV and interest to the article, need to add more of the 'cons' of the metric system - the article feels unbalanced in favour of the metric system to me at the moment. We shouldn't be writing a purely promotional article. We need some more examples of disadvantages. One avenue, possibly, is that typically, proponents of English unit based systems mention the advantages of the human-friendly, intuitive and readily comparable size of their units: 1 inch is about a thumb width, 1 foot (unit) is about a foot (human) length, 1 yard is about the length from outstretched-thumb-to-chin or a man's stride, etc. Are there any other ideas for what might be considered to be disadvantages of the metric system over English-unit systems that we can work in? -- de Facto ( talk). 14:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It's no even as simple as metric vs imperial or US. There's the imperial pint (~568 ml), the US liquid pint (~473 ml), the US dry pint (~551 ml) but what about French pint, the German pint, the various other pint-sized units formerly in use. To be fair, though, the metric system is not completely immune to inconsistency: power is measured in watts, yes, and in calories per minute and kilowatt-hours per year (no, these are not SI but they're still metric). As for consistency between countries, is this a pro of the metric system? This consistency could also have been achieved by the global adoption of the furlong-firkin-fortnight system. List the pros of the imperial system as pros of the imperial system on the article about the imperial system not here as cons of the metric system. List the cons of the US system as cons of the US system on the article about the US system not here as pros of the metric system. List the advantages, disadvantages, misadvantages and whatever of metrication on the article about the pros and cons of metrication (yes, there is such an article). What's wanted here is a focus on the metric system itself and if we're to look at alternatives, a very general view of them. JIMp talk· cont 00:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Variants of the metric system | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CGS | MKS | MTS | |
---|---|---|---|
l | cm | m | m |
m | g | kg | t |
t | s | s | s |
v | cm/s | m/s | m/s |
a | Gal | m/s² | m/s² |
F | dyn | N | sn |
p | Ba | Pa | pz |
W | erg | J | kJ |
P | erg/s | W | kW |
Variants of the metric system | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
On 1 December 2011 I added a compact table to the Variants section. Soon afterward user:Martinvl changed it to be more explicit and thereby also wider. I don’t feel strongly about it, but since most of its contents is explain in wordily details nearby, I would prefer a table as compact as possible. Both tables are cited above for easy reference, I’ve remove floating from my version though. — Christoph Päper 15:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted MeasureIT's changes of 25 August 2012.
The changes in respect of the United Kingdom were incorrect - the page [2] which deals exclusively with the United Kingdom (rather than the world as a whoile) paints a very different picture.
The emphasis of the "modern metric system" is out of place in the lede - it could be worked into the text regarding the SI, also it should make reference to the BIPM document, not the UKMA site. Martinvl ( talk) 06:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I have restored this artcile to its state before User:MeasureIT started making changes on 23 August 2012. In particular he asserted that:
Martinvl ( talk) 05:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
you explained in detail the history of the metric system but failed to show the basic complete chart of the metric system!!! i shall now go elsewhere to obtain complete information!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.205.181 ( talk) 19:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
As the current international standard the SI is the most important variant of the metric system and as such we should cover it in detail but we've got a whole separate article to do this. It seems to me that this article should be more general in its focus. SI is currently the most important variant of the metric system but that's what it is, a variant of the metric system, specifically a variant of the MKS. Isn't Section 3, Variants, the place for metric system variants.
I propose that Section 4, International System of Units, be disected. Some of the details covered here could be merged into Subsection 3.2, Metre-kilogram-second systems, other details could be left for the main article to deal with. Specifically, I would merge (most of) Section 4's intro into Subsection 3.2 and get rid of Subsection 4.1, Units outside the SI. Subsection 4.2, "New SI", though, is different.
In a sense Subsection 4.2 doesn't really belong in Section 4 anyway: any redefinition of the kilogram entails a redefinition of the gram, the tonne, the kilopond, the erg, the dyne, even the avoirdupois pound, the Troy ounce, the horsepower, etc., so we're not just getting a new SI. Moreover, this current proposal is just the latest chapter in a long string of revisions to the definitions of metric units.
I propose an new section be written covering the definitions of metric units. We would detail the original definitions, when and how these were revised, the current definitions and proposed future redefinitions. Subsection 4.2 would be merged here. JIMp talk· cont 06:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
This new version is a vast improvement. I have some further suggestions.
The former table of contents | The current table of contents | A suggested future table of contents |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
The article is now close to 70 kilobytes. I wonder whether the article would benifit from a little section merging and summarising.
Subsections 1.2, Decimal multiples, and 1.3, Prefixes, are an obvious pair of candidates to be merged. There is somedeal of repetition between them which could be cut.
The current Sections 4, Relating SI to the real world, and 6, Conversion between SI and legacy units, both already deal with the units of the metric system these could be merged into a new Units section. Again we'll find repeated info here to cut.
The SI is a specific example of a MKS system. Subsection 3.2, Metre-kilogram-second systems, already mentions the SI. Shouldn't we merge Subsection 3.5, International System of Units, here?
Subsections 1.4, Replicable prototypes, and 1.5, Realisability, are closely related. They both deal with defining the base units. They discuss the original definitions and the adjustments made leading us to the current definitions. Section 7, Future developments, continues on from the current definitions to consider proposed future definitions. These are all so closely related that it seems to me that it would make sense to merge them all.
JIMp talk· cont 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I am currently writing an article User:Martinvl/sandbox/Outline of the metric system. This article will become "Outline of the metric system". (See Wikipedia:Outlines for more information) This article is still under construction, but its general pattern is clearly visible. Outstanding work on the article is:
I plan to cross-reference the article using the template "outline" in a hatnote for all articles mention in Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 (except for Systems of measurement) and in the "See also" section of all other entries.
Comments? Martinvl ( talk) 19:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I have undone the changes that the previous editor made to the images:
The other changes that you made had a minilmal effect, so I just undid the lost. Martinvl ( talk) 20:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Are there any sources that we can use to support the inclusion of mention of John Wilkins or his 1668 essay as being somehow related to the history of the metric system? What we currently have reads like speculation, or wishful thinking, based on an unsupported interpretation of his 1668 essay. We need evidence that we can quote that he had any influence on the development of the metric system or that his work is considered by main-stream historians to have played a part in the history of the metric system. MeasureIT ( talk) 00:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the Instutute of Physics reference that I added you will see One of the first ideas for a universal metric system can be accredited to John Wilkins, ex secretary of the Royal Society, who outlined a new decimal system of measurement in 1668 in his book, "An Essay towards a Real Character and Philosophical Language". Isn't that good enough? Martinvl ( talk) 12:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw this dispute listed on WP:3O and looked at the sources provided above first. I was sure they don't support a link between Wilkins and today's metric system, but then I looked at what we have actually written in this article's History section currently ("One of the earliest proposals for a decimal system in which length, area, volume and mass were linked to each other was made by John Wilkins, first secretary of the Royal Society of London in his 1668 essay "An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language".[22][23][24][25] Wilkins proposed the using a pendulum that had a period of one second as the basis of the unit of length.") and frankly, that seems fine to me. What I think is a serious mistake is Wilkins' prominence in the first sentence of History of the metric system where I feel he should not be mentioned -- his section in that article is more than enough, and I would completely agree with removing that first sentence and revising the following sentence to conform to the style of an article's initial sentence. But the most serious problem is that we clearly have sources copying nearly word-for-word from Wikipedia being used as supporting sources. That's a serious issue. I do not think it constitutes a form of peer review because there is no accountability. I'm confused about how to proceed in this circumstance so I'm leaving the 3O request in place for someone else to look at. JS Uralia ( talk) 03:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I wondered if, in the light of observations here (and elsewhere) by uninvolved contributors, that User:Martinvl will concede now that the interpretation of, and the weight given to, Wilkins's work was a little over-egged, and that perhaps we can work together on a more accurate and robustly supported interpretation. What do you think? MeasureIT ( talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
In 1960 various units were re-defined. In that year also several prefixes (tera, nano . . .) were adopted. However there is no mention of these changes in the history section of this article. Who knows how to extend that section? 128.135.40.156 ( talk) 03:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Their website says 2009: "The World Factbook 2009. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2009", where did we get 2007 from? 212.183.128.236 ( talk) 15:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Usenet newsgroup posts are self-published and explicitly included in the WP list of unreliable sources. Please do not quote from them or cite them in this article. 212.183.128.236 ( talk) 16:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has become irrelevant as the content it supports in now moot because of the verifiable date of the CIA factbook being 2009, not 2007 (see discussion above this one). Corrections to the article have been made. 212.183.140.18 ( talk) 00:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The very first sentence of the article states that the system was originally based on the mètre des archives and the kilogramme des archives. Yet neither of those French phrases are explained or discussed anywhere anywhere else in the article, or even references supplied to support that assertion. Even the other articles linked to from those French phrases do not provide any useful explanation as to what they mean or what they are. AnnieLess ( talk) 08:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: User:AnnieLess, the originator of this thread, has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, a banned user. Martinvl ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Reading just the first section, I spotted a number of minor inconsistencies and anomalies; most of which I think I have addressed now. I'm not sure which of the topics under
coherent are the right one though - none seem to fit, perhaps someone else can help here.
AnnieLess (
talk)
09:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: User:AnnieLess, the originator of this thread, has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, a banned user. Martinvl ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
In the Decimal multiples section, the one reference (a page on the O'Connor and Robertson website) offered as support for the assertion that the idea of multiples and sub-multiples of units following a decimal pattern was /first proposed/ by Stevin does not offer the level of evidence I was hoping to find. It does say that he wrote about decimal fractions, but that isn't enough. Can anyone help produce something more convincing?
AnnieLess (
talk)
19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Similarly, I can't see evidence in the supplied reference (also a page on the O'Connor and Robertson website) that Mouton first suggested the idea of power-of-ten prefixes - just that he proposed a system using them. We need a better reference to support that too. AnnieLess ( talk) 19:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me what the significance of Augustus de Morgan's view about decimalisation, made more than 50 years after the introduction of the (decimal) metric system, is to the metric system. Who, outside of Wikipedia, has associated his work with the development of the metric system? AnnieLess ( talk) 18:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: User:AnnieLess, the originator of this thread, has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, a banned user. Martinvl ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I find this section impenetrable as it contains a surprisingly large selections of words which are highly ambiguous in the context used. Readers will only know which meanings of the words, "realisation", "prototype", "phenomena" and "artefact" apply if they already understand the subject, so it is not a very informative paragraph really. I suspect we are seeing the result of a poor translation from French to English. I would like to see this paragraph, and its heading, reworded to something along these lines:
Reproducible reference standards
Note: User:AnnieLess, the originator of this thread, has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, a banned user. Martinvl ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
U.S. is the normal way of writing it in the U.S., even though UK is the normal way of writing UK. MOS doesn't say the two should be written in the UK style - does it?
AnnieLess (
talk)
19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: User:AnnieLess, the originator of this thread, has been identified as a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto, a banned user. Martinvl ( talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
If there is an English equivalent or translation, please use it. The linked article pages use English, so why can't this article? And don't keep putting it back without discussing possible ways of keeping it out. This is the English Wikipedia, after all. AnnieLess ( talk) 21:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Whatever User:AnnieLess has done I am not sure, but whatever it is, we need to accept that the changes they made here have, on the whole, been improvements and should not be reversed wholesale. Let's be mature about this, and welcome what is good. EdithLovely ( talk) 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: 12george1 ( talk · contribs) 22:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Martinvl, I am going to be reviewing this article. Below I have quoted portions of the article and will acknowledge the error at that portion of the article. You can search for these quotes after pressing Ctrl F.-- 12george1 ( talk) 22:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Martinvl (Editor)
Should there be so much emphasis on the US not using the metric system. Also, does the US have a official system of measurement? Tinynanorobots ( talk) 22:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Below the first picture, someone managed to lazily write unacceptable "Amps" instead of the correct and proper word Amperes. I do not know how or dare to edit. Someone please do it! And it is metre and litre, not meter and liter. MB 27 August 2013 206.28.42.242 ( talk) 00:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
According to the OED, the object in the lede picture is a "weight", not a "mass". One of its attribute might well be that it has a mass of approximately one kilogram. Martinvl ( talk) 06:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
About the picture: Celsius degree is not in SI, it's the Kelvin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.237.107.222 ( talk) 2014-01-09T21:53:43
The unit of Celsius temperature is the degree Celsius, [. . . ], which is by definition equal in magnitude to the kelvin. A difference or interval of temperature may be expressed in kelvins or in degrees Celsius.
Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.-- Gibson Flying V ( talk) 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)