![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I was checking the values listed on this page. The page currently says that 1 sq km equals 247.105383 acres.
The GNU units program gives 247.10439 acres
The National Oceanographic Data Center say 247.105381 acres [1]
The Google calculator also says 247.105381 acres [2]
I think 247.105381 is probably right. It is a pretty minor thing but it would be good to get it right. I will try to do some more checking, but welcome any comments from others. -- Popsracer 11:21, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
You'll certainly get a 'squire deal' of of this measurment, sir! -- Arma Martin 3nd 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, the text reads:
and
2.47 acres/ha
No source is given for these figures, and the text does not reflect the fact that there are in fact two very slightly different miles in use in the United States. My proposal is to use the figures from unitconversion.org. This would make the text read as follows:
and
This, of course presumes that UnitConversion.org is right. What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Michael Glass ( talk) 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Before making any change I think it is necessary to determine this question first. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a 497 page document but it doesn't seem to refer to square kilometres, perhaps because land measurements of that size are not sold very often in the United States. Is there any other source? Michael Glass ( talk) 12:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I found a site from the National Geodetic Survey that answered at least some of the questions at [3] The relevant section says:
Michael Glass ( talk) 13:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
A two part per million difference works out as 2mm per kilometre, a small but appreciable difference. These differences can add up, especially in square measures. For example, when I multiplied the number of acres by 43560 to find out how many square feet there were in a square kilometre and used the unitconversion.org figures, the result came out at more than 10 million square feet for each square foot, but there were 43 more International square feet than the slightly larger US Survey square feet!
What I am striving for in the text is clarity, simplicity and accuracy. If we're after clarity and simplicity, ignoring small differences would be appropriate. However, that would be done at the expense of accuracy.
One way round this would be to put a reasonable approximation in the text and more precise figures in a footnote. In checking my maths I found that my calculations using unitconversion.org were about the same as other websites I consulted, so I think they are reasonably reliable. How do you feel about these two proposals:
Michael Glass ( talk) 00:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Even though only the US uses survey feet, acres and miles I believe that this is still notable. My proposal is not to overstate the difference between the US Survey measurements and the International measurements. That is why I am happy to mention this difference in a footnote. However, I think that not mentioning it at all is going too far. In an effort to take into account your concerns I have been happy to confine the mention of this difference in a note. Is it asking for a footnote really too much for you? Michael Glass ( talk) 14:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Though the information about Brugge and Chester is very interesting, their areas are nowhere near one square kilometre. Brugge is more than 3.5 square kilometres and Chester is just over half a square kilometre. Neither city is a good illustration of a square kilometre so their presence in an article about the square kilometre is not justified. What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk)
Personally, I found these two examples very useful, having spent a while "googling" around to find some examples of metric area to help me visualise how big a piece of land with an area of 4000 sq m was. -- Tickerhacker ( talk) 09:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Proposal: merging Square kilometre and 1 E+6 m²
Rationale. It was proposed one time earlier [4] but no discussion seems to have come of it—and no merger. These to articles have overwhelmingly overlapping topics. Therefore I suggest they be merged, though I have no preference for which way. __ meco ( talk) 12:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: These articles have very different objectives - 1 E+6 m² is a list of areas that are between 0.1 km2 and 1 km2 while Square kilometre is a description of the unit of measure with a few examples that are approximately one square kilometre in area added as part of the description. Martinvl ( talk) 21:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a better wording for k(m2) than "kilo–square metre"? -- Backinstadiums ( talk) 11:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I was checking the values listed on this page. The page currently says that 1 sq km equals 247.105383 acres.
The GNU units program gives 247.10439 acres
The National Oceanographic Data Center say 247.105381 acres [1]
The Google calculator also says 247.105381 acres [2]
I think 247.105381 is probably right. It is a pretty minor thing but it would be good to get it right. I will try to do some more checking, but welcome any comments from others. -- Popsracer 11:21, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
You'll certainly get a 'squire deal' of of this measurment, sir! -- Arma Martin 3nd 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, the text reads:
and
2.47 acres/ha
No source is given for these figures, and the text does not reflect the fact that there are in fact two very slightly different miles in use in the United States. My proposal is to use the figures from unitconversion.org. This would make the text read as follows:
and
This, of course presumes that UnitConversion.org is right. What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Michael Glass ( talk) 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Before making any change I think it is necessary to determine this question first. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a 497 page document but it doesn't seem to refer to square kilometres, perhaps because land measurements of that size are not sold very often in the United States. Is there any other source? Michael Glass ( talk) 12:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I found a site from the National Geodetic Survey that answered at least some of the questions at [3] The relevant section says:
Michael Glass ( talk) 13:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
A two part per million difference works out as 2mm per kilometre, a small but appreciable difference. These differences can add up, especially in square measures. For example, when I multiplied the number of acres by 43560 to find out how many square feet there were in a square kilometre and used the unitconversion.org figures, the result came out at more than 10 million square feet for each square foot, but there were 43 more International square feet than the slightly larger US Survey square feet!
What I am striving for in the text is clarity, simplicity and accuracy. If we're after clarity and simplicity, ignoring small differences would be appropriate. However, that would be done at the expense of accuracy.
One way round this would be to put a reasonable approximation in the text and more precise figures in a footnote. In checking my maths I found that my calculations using unitconversion.org were about the same as other websites I consulted, so I think they are reasonably reliable. How do you feel about these two proposals:
Michael Glass ( talk) 00:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Even though only the US uses survey feet, acres and miles I believe that this is still notable. My proposal is not to overstate the difference between the US Survey measurements and the International measurements. That is why I am happy to mention this difference in a footnote. However, I think that not mentioning it at all is going too far. In an effort to take into account your concerns I have been happy to confine the mention of this difference in a note. Is it asking for a footnote really too much for you? Michael Glass ( talk) 14:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Though the information about Brugge and Chester is very interesting, their areas are nowhere near one square kilometre. Brugge is more than 3.5 square kilometres and Chester is just over half a square kilometre. Neither city is a good illustration of a square kilometre so their presence in an article about the square kilometre is not justified. What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk)
Personally, I found these two examples very useful, having spent a while "googling" around to find some examples of metric area to help me visualise how big a piece of land with an area of 4000 sq m was. -- Tickerhacker ( talk) 09:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Proposal: merging Square kilometre and 1 E+6 m²
Rationale. It was proposed one time earlier [4] but no discussion seems to have come of it—and no merger. These to articles have overwhelmingly overlapping topics. Therefore I suggest they be merged, though I have no preference for which way. __ meco ( talk) 12:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: These articles have very different objectives - 1 E+6 m² is a list of areas that are between 0.1 km2 and 1 km2 while Square kilometre is a description of the unit of measure with a few examples that are approximately one square kilometre in area added as part of the description. Martinvl ( talk) 21:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a better wording for k(m2) than "kilo–square metre"? -- Backinstadiums ( talk) 11:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)