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 | Archive 5 |
Looking back at the sources, I think I'm wrong in my assertion that Méchain and Delambre formally measured the Paris meridian! This plate from the official report of the survey (written by Delambre, Méchain having died "in service", and published in 1806) indicates that the calculations were made for the Dunkerque meridian. In particular, the meridian is shown going east of the Panthéon, which itself is to the east of the Paris Observatory. I've only flicked through the earlier sections, but Delambre does complain that many of the landmarks he would have liked to have used as reference points in the Paris area had been destroyed during the Revolution, so maybe that is one explanation for the difference. Of course, it is also mathematically simpler to choose one of the end points as the fixed point of the "verified meridian". Physchim62 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed something that seems totally wrong: The meter/metre is nowhere near 1 ten-millionth, but 1 ten-thousandth of the distance polar-equator! That's what I learned in school, that's what you can find in other Wikipedia articles - e.g. the one giving the dimensions of Earth. In fact equivalently 40 mio. m (the supposed circumsphere of earth according to this article) is in fact almost one third of the earth-sun distance!!! I don't want to make a correction, since I have no idea if in the 18th century they actually intended to use the 1 ten-thousandth as the metre, or if they had originally meant to use the 1 ten-millionth, but came up with something as small as the mm and decided to use the 1 ten-thousandth instead. IAM 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.115.9 ( talk)
The Speed of light section has this formula
I think that it is c/nf followed by a comma for grammatical reasons, because the text after it refers to f not f- prime. However the way it current displays, a reader might easily read the formula as f-prime.
I suggest that if it is a comma, it be removed. In this instance any advantage in having a correctly punctuation sentence (which starts before, includes, and ends after the formula) is outweighed by the ambiguity of the comma/prime symbol. Of course if it really is f-prime, then the text after the formula probably needs to be changed. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The article presently contains the statement: "In this way the length is related to one of the most accurate measurements available: frequency." Now it is undeniable that measurement of frequency is accurate, and also that the relation:
relates wavelength to frequency.
It also is undeniable that a length known to be ν wavelengths λ with an accuracy of ±Δν wavelengths has the accuracy actually decreased by the conversion of λ to metres, the decrease being the added error introduced by the uncertainty in measurement of frequency.
Contrariwise, as I read the statement in the article, it seems to suggest that by relating a length to "one of the most accurate measurements available" that somehow this shift has increased the accuracy of the length determination. That would be a misconception easily arrived upon with the present wording.
So how can the accuracy of frequency measurement be entered into the discussion more carefully? Here is a (possibly unnecessary) exposition of what has to go into this discussion.
First, one may note that the accuracy of frequency determination is not fundamental to the new length definition. The switch to the time-of-transit definition made λ irrelevant because the speed of light is not dependent upon wavelength in classical vacuum. Length is related to Δt/c0, which requires no measurement of λ at all, and which makes all colors of light equally useful. This may be clear to all assembled here, but it is not so clear in the article.
I'd guess we'd all agree that frequency enters the discussion of length when one has to use the above λ-f equation. The recourse to frequency using the above λ-f equation is necessitated because the length has been measured as some number of λ's instead of using time-of-transit, thereby requiring the conversion of λ to metres using this equation.
But, even if one is going to do things this way, and use wavelengths instead of Δt, there is an advantage to the defined-speed-of-light definition nonetheless. The advantage is that one can interrelate different sources by comparing their frequencies rather than their wavelengths, and that is more accurate. That is the role for the accuracy of frequency measurements: it facilitates the choice of sources.
If one wished to digress, one could also point out that comparisons of wavelengths also has improved, compared to the days before 1983, but not to the point that one wishes to go back to wavelength comparisons of sources in place of frequency comparisons.
I hope these ideas can be formulated to make a clearer presentation of the role of frequency in the article. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion in the way this section currently reads between the way the metre is currently realised in its most precise realisations and general measurement in metres. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of classical vacuum becuse the sources do not use this term, they simply say vacuum. It is not open to us to speculate on what they might have meant. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It appears that NIST has reorganized its web site, and links to NIST in this article are now nonfunctional. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This recent change introduces an inaccuracy into the article by linking "vacuum" to the general topic of vacuum rather than to the specific, technical meaning of "vacuum" appropriate to the article, namely the vacuum of electromagnetism . The metre is defined in terms of the speed of light in the vacuum of electromagnetism, which is a very specific electromagnetic medium with electromagnetic properties defined by NIST and the BIPM as c, c0, μ0 and the subsidiary derived properties with the exact values ε0 and Z0 .
In contrast, vacuum as used in ordinary English has a rather more vague meaning, possibly referring to a partial vacuum with imprecise electromagnetic properties that have to be measured. Moreover, "vacuum" as used in scientific circles also is ambiguous, and may very well refer to field-theoretic vacuum, or specifically to QCD vacuum, which vacuums also have electromagnetic properties different (at least in theory) from c, c0 and μ0 due to virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations.
This topic has been discussed at great length with Martin Hogbin on his Talk page here, but he seemingly does not wish to accept that the word "vacuum" as used by standards organizations naturally is in agreement with the properties of this vacuum that they specify on their web sites. The link should be returned to refer to vacuum of electromagnetism. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) and also R. Keith Ellis, W. J. Stirling, B. R. Webber (2003).
QCD and collider physics. Cambridge University Press. pp. 27–29.
ISBN
0521545897. Returning to the vacuum of a relativistic field theory, we find that both paramagnetic and diamagnetic contributions are present.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link). Of course,
partial vacuum such as air has its measured electromagnetic properties as well, expressed in SI units relative to the reference of 'vacuum' with properties
c, c0,
μ0 and the subsidiary derived properties with the exact values
ε0 and
Z0.
Brews ohare (
talk) 14:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
←outdent I have resolved this matter by separating the "everyday" meanings of 'vacuum' from the physicists' meanings in two independent paragraphs in the introduction to Vacuum. With the two clearly separated, I believe a link simply to Vacuum is OK.
To Martin: I agree that BIPM and NIST have deliberately not "qualified" their use of the term 'vacuum', I suspect because the historical usage of 'vacuum' in the context of SI units will define it by implication. One might, however, inquire whether a general reader of WP will understand that very specific context without a little guidance. Although it is possibly uncharitable of myself, I do subscribe to the (possibly erroneous) idea that you are resisting changes here less because of the espoused reasons than because you fundamentally wish to avoid any indication that vacuum in the context of SI units refers to Vacuum#In electromagnetism. If I am mistaken about this, please tell me so. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
If there were any ambiguity in NIST's and BIPM's use of the unqualified term 'vacuum', their use of the term is made crystal clear with their web-site postings of c, c0, μ0 and the subsidiary derived properties with the exact values ε0 and Z0. Do you agree? Brews ohare ( talk) 17:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to get involved in an edit war but it looks to me as thought Brews is adding his own personal thoughts and opinions to this article (despite the citations). After a long discussion with him I still have no idea what he is getting at but the material added to this article seems to me to serve no encyclopedic purpose. I will leave it to others to argue the point. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I have made some fairly minor and, hopefully non-contentious, changes to the 'Speed of light' section but I feel it still contains unnecessary duplication which I would like to remove. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
See the archives to read all about "re" vs. "er" and other topics. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 17:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I, Agustín Cordes, propose a move of this article to Metro.
If you want to add material about the concept of a universal measure, that is fine, but it should not be in the section about the name "meter". No connection between Wilkins' book and the name "meter" is given by any source, so it is a clear case of original research to include him. Burattini belongs there because he used the word metro (essentially "meter"), not because he called it cattolico. The word "meter" alone does not imply universality or require it. Alternatively, rename the section somehow. Zero talk 00:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we have another problem with the metre. The December_10 article says France adopted the metre as its standard unit of length in 1799. THIS say it was in 1793. Can someone clarify this, please? Thanks … ! Cuddy2977 ( talk) 16:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm loathe to open a talk section about the lead - tinkering with the lead is notoriously attractive but subject to the law of diminishing returns. But we should also avoid corresponding only in edit comments, so I'll address a couple of quick points here.
I'll adjust the lead accordingly. NebY ( talk) 17:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
As the word quarter meridian is sometimes called half meridian, it might be useful to explicitly mention in the article the confusing difference that Meridian (astronomy) is a great circle, whereas Meridian (geography) is a half of that. The article used 'quarter meridian' three times, against 'half meridian' one time, so for consistency I changed that half in quarter. The article is still inconsistent because its wiki link refers to Meridian (geography). There is something else that confuses me. Why did the 18th century scientists define the meter as one ten millionth of a quarter meridian, instead of one hundred millionth of a full meridian? I guess they were aware that the latter is more decimal, and closer to the traditional standard unit, the foot. Ceinturion ( talk) 13:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Although the image of the two shiny metre bars lying on a red background is pretty, it's a computer-generated image masquerading as a photograph. It's always bothered me because I can't imagine that metre standards were ever tossed around in the careless fashion shown in the image. I see we have a much less pretty photo of (part of) a real metre bar, that also shows the cross-section (perhaps not as well as the pretty fake image). Should we not put the real photo in the top of the article and remove or de-emphasisze the one depicting a metrology disaster? -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 19:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:History of the metre#Exact location of Méchain's meridional measurement on Montjuïc hill?
I'd like to note that the timeline doesn't have actual values in it, but those might be fairly useful. This might be because those values aren't easily found for all, but for any that can be found, I think they ought to be put in. The first one can be calculated, at least, and would be about 0.993961 modern metres, using the small angle pendulum equation.
192.249.47.163 ( talk) 14:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Elmshire
It's not established at all that "almost all English speaking countries" spell meter the way this article does. You haven't cited all the proof you would need to establish that, and you can't, because it's not true! Why are we letting a minority impose their regional spellings on en.wiki? Also, when you say "almost all except the United States," you're admitting that you are trying to sustain a usage in decline. The spelling fighters who are constantly trying to impose UK spellings onto this site are only making it look unprofessional, and give the distinct appearance that the editing staff are extremely biased and happy to impose their personal preferences on what is otherwise a neutral encyclopedia. This article, like several others on this site, is embarrassing to en.wiki, and should be changed. Cecoppola ( talk) 20:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's a nice reference that says the US is the odd-man-out: http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/Spelling_metre_or_meter.pdf The author, Pat Naughtin, works extensively in the metrication field in multiple countries (including the US) and has done a lot of research on the history, spelling and usage of the metric system. Stepho talk 22:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
And here's another reference: http://grammarist.com/spelling/meter-metre/ As a general rule, grammarians tend to be a very picky group of people that really like to get it right. Stepho talk 22:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Can someone (else) please remove the NPOV tag? It's not really appropriate for WP:ENGVAR disputes. -- NeilN talk to me 22:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
tag on the phrase 'nearly all' instead of an NPOV tag on the article but it does the job of pointing out that something needs to be addressed. I'd rather discuss the issue than waste time about which tag is right.
Stepho
talk 23:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metre. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The article now says:
30 March 1791 – The French National Assembly accepts the proposal by the French Academy of Sciences that the new definition for the metre be equal to one ten-millionth of the length of a quadrant along the Earth's meridian through Paris, that is the distance from the equator to the north pole.
Shouldn't that italicized fragment be "the distance from the equator to the north pole along that quadrant"? Added text underlined. Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the validity of the first paragraph in the introduction to the Metre#History of definition section in the article. No secondary source is provided to enable verification of the implication that Wilkins's essay played any part in the definition of the metre, and indeed the final sentence states "No official action was taken regarding this suggestion."
For this reason I believe it should be removed as contravening WP:NOR. To that end I removed it, but was reverted by Wtshymanski. The only source provided is Wilkins's essay - but that obviously doesn't (indeed cannot as it was written more than a century before the metre was defined) claim that his work played any part in the definition of the metre, so for me, the synthesis that it did, without any supporting secondary source cited, clearly goes against WP:PSTS. Any thoughts anyone? Is there a valid reason to keep that paragraph here? -- DeFacto ( talk). 19:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Metre. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This article in three places uses the word quadrant. According to Webster's Dictionary, this term can be used to refer to:
or
In the article we mean the first of these meanings, but the two wiki-links take us to circular sector, which describes only the second meaning. So someone not familiar with the term will be trying to work out what is meant by the length of an area, and certainly won't be able to work out whether it was the arc or chord length that was the intended meaning. I can't find a Wikipedia article that we could link to that explains the intended first meaning. Maybe something could be inserted into the Arc (geometry) article. The alternative would be to avoid the use of quadrant in this ( metre) article. But I am a little reluctant to make that change in case the wording is deliberately mirroring the language used in the historical documents. Thoughts please. Jmchutchinson ( talk) 12:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The article mentions an astronomical measurement of "9 1/2 inches" - this probably should have been "9 1/2 arc seconds" which is the parallax of the sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.118.7 ( talk) 18:41, 1 December 2019 (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 | Archive 5 |
Looking back at the sources, I think I'm wrong in my assertion that Méchain and Delambre formally measured the Paris meridian! This plate from the official report of the survey (written by Delambre, Méchain having died "in service", and published in 1806) indicates that the calculations were made for the Dunkerque meridian. In particular, the meridian is shown going east of the Panthéon, which itself is to the east of the Paris Observatory. I've only flicked through the earlier sections, but Delambre does complain that many of the landmarks he would have liked to have used as reference points in the Paris area had been destroyed during the Revolution, so maybe that is one explanation for the difference. Of course, it is also mathematically simpler to choose one of the end points as the fixed point of the "verified meridian". Physchim62 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed something that seems totally wrong: The meter/metre is nowhere near 1 ten-millionth, but 1 ten-thousandth of the distance polar-equator! That's what I learned in school, that's what you can find in other Wikipedia articles - e.g. the one giving the dimensions of Earth. In fact equivalently 40 mio. m (the supposed circumsphere of earth according to this article) is in fact almost one third of the earth-sun distance!!! I don't want to make a correction, since I have no idea if in the 18th century they actually intended to use the 1 ten-thousandth as the metre, or if they had originally meant to use the 1 ten-millionth, but came up with something as small as the mm and decided to use the 1 ten-thousandth instead. IAM 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.115.9 ( talk)
The Speed of light section has this formula
I think that it is c/nf followed by a comma for grammatical reasons, because the text after it refers to f not f- prime. However the way it current displays, a reader might easily read the formula as f-prime.
I suggest that if it is a comma, it be removed. In this instance any advantage in having a correctly punctuation sentence (which starts before, includes, and ends after the formula) is outweighed by the ambiguity of the comma/prime symbol. Of course if it really is f-prime, then the text after the formula probably needs to be changed. Mitch Ames ( talk) 06:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The article presently contains the statement: "In this way the length is related to one of the most accurate measurements available: frequency." Now it is undeniable that measurement of frequency is accurate, and also that the relation:
relates wavelength to frequency.
It also is undeniable that a length known to be ν wavelengths λ with an accuracy of ±Δν wavelengths has the accuracy actually decreased by the conversion of λ to metres, the decrease being the added error introduced by the uncertainty in measurement of frequency.
Contrariwise, as I read the statement in the article, it seems to suggest that by relating a length to "one of the most accurate measurements available" that somehow this shift has increased the accuracy of the length determination. That would be a misconception easily arrived upon with the present wording.
So how can the accuracy of frequency measurement be entered into the discussion more carefully? Here is a (possibly unnecessary) exposition of what has to go into this discussion.
First, one may note that the accuracy of frequency determination is not fundamental to the new length definition. The switch to the time-of-transit definition made λ irrelevant because the speed of light is not dependent upon wavelength in classical vacuum. Length is related to Δt/c0, which requires no measurement of λ at all, and which makes all colors of light equally useful. This may be clear to all assembled here, but it is not so clear in the article.
I'd guess we'd all agree that frequency enters the discussion of length when one has to use the above λ-f equation. The recourse to frequency using the above λ-f equation is necessitated because the length has been measured as some number of λ's instead of using time-of-transit, thereby requiring the conversion of λ to metres using this equation.
But, even if one is going to do things this way, and use wavelengths instead of Δt, there is an advantage to the defined-speed-of-light definition nonetheless. The advantage is that one can interrelate different sources by comparing their frequencies rather than their wavelengths, and that is more accurate. That is the role for the accuracy of frequency measurements: it facilitates the choice of sources.
If one wished to digress, one could also point out that comparisons of wavelengths also has improved, compared to the days before 1983, but not to the point that one wishes to go back to wavelength comparisons of sources in place of frequency comparisons.
I hope these ideas can be formulated to make a clearer presentation of the role of frequency in the article. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion in the way this section currently reads between the way the metre is currently realised in its most precise realisations and general measurement in metres. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the addition of classical vacuum becuse the sources do not use this term, they simply say vacuum. It is not open to us to speculate on what they might have meant. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It appears that NIST has reorganized its web site, and links to NIST in this article are now nonfunctional. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This recent change introduces an inaccuracy into the article by linking "vacuum" to the general topic of vacuum rather than to the specific, technical meaning of "vacuum" appropriate to the article, namely the vacuum of electromagnetism . The metre is defined in terms of the speed of light in the vacuum of electromagnetism, which is a very specific electromagnetic medium with electromagnetic properties defined by NIST and the BIPM as c, c0, μ0 and the subsidiary derived properties with the exact values ε0 and Z0 .
In contrast, vacuum as used in ordinary English has a rather more vague meaning, possibly referring to a partial vacuum with imprecise electromagnetic properties that have to be measured. Moreover, "vacuum" as used in scientific circles also is ambiguous, and may very well refer to field-theoretic vacuum, or specifically to QCD vacuum, which vacuums also have electromagnetic properties different (at least in theory) from c, c0 and μ0 due to virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations.
This topic has been discussed at great length with Martin Hogbin on his Talk page here, but he seemingly does not wish to accept that the word "vacuum" as used by standards organizations naturally is in agreement with the properties of this vacuum that they specify on their web sites. The link should be returned to refer to vacuum of electromagnetism. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) and also R. Keith Ellis, W. J. Stirling, B. R. Webber (2003).
QCD and collider physics. Cambridge University Press. pp. 27–29.
ISBN
0521545897. Returning to the vacuum of a relativistic field theory, we find that both paramagnetic and diamagnetic contributions are present.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link). Of course,
partial vacuum such as air has its measured electromagnetic properties as well, expressed in SI units relative to the reference of 'vacuum' with properties
c, c0,
μ0 and the subsidiary derived properties with the exact values
ε0 and
Z0.
Brews ohare (
talk) 14:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
←outdent I have resolved this matter by separating the "everyday" meanings of 'vacuum' from the physicists' meanings in two independent paragraphs in the introduction to Vacuum. With the two clearly separated, I believe a link simply to Vacuum is OK.
To Martin: I agree that BIPM and NIST have deliberately not "qualified" their use of the term 'vacuum', I suspect because the historical usage of 'vacuum' in the context of SI units will define it by implication. One might, however, inquire whether a general reader of WP will understand that very specific context without a little guidance. Although it is possibly uncharitable of myself, I do subscribe to the (possibly erroneous) idea that you are resisting changes here less because of the espoused reasons than because you fundamentally wish to avoid any indication that vacuum in the context of SI units refers to Vacuum#In electromagnetism. If I am mistaken about this, please tell me so. Brews ohare ( talk) 17:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
If there were any ambiguity in NIST's and BIPM's use of the unqualified term 'vacuum', their use of the term is made crystal clear with their web-site postings of c, c0, μ0 and the subsidiary derived properties with the exact values ε0 and Z0. Do you agree? Brews ohare ( talk) 17:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to get involved in an edit war but it looks to me as thought Brews is adding his own personal thoughts and opinions to this article (despite the citations). After a long discussion with him I still have no idea what he is getting at but the material added to this article seems to me to serve no encyclopedic purpose. I will leave it to others to argue the point. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I have made some fairly minor and, hopefully non-contentious, changes to the 'Speed of light' section but I feel it still contains unnecessary duplication which I would like to remove. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
See the archives to read all about "re" vs. "er" and other topics. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 17:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I, Agustín Cordes, propose a move of this article to Metro.
If you want to add material about the concept of a universal measure, that is fine, but it should not be in the section about the name "meter". No connection between Wilkins' book and the name "meter" is given by any source, so it is a clear case of original research to include him. Burattini belongs there because he used the word metro (essentially "meter"), not because he called it cattolico. The word "meter" alone does not imply universality or require it. Alternatively, rename the section somehow. Zero talk 00:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we have another problem with the metre. The December_10 article says France adopted the metre as its standard unit of length in 1799. THIS say it was in 1793. Can someone clarify this, please? Thanks … ! Cuddy2977 ( talk) 16:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm loathe to open a talk section about the lead - tinkering with the lead is notoriously attractive but subject to the law of diminishing returns. But we should also avoid corresponding only in edit comments, so I'll address a couple of quick points here.
I'll adjust the lead accordingly. NebY ( talk) 17:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
As the word quarter meridian is sometimes called half meridian, it might be useful to explicitly mention in the article the confusing difference that Meridian (astronomy) is a great circle, whereas Meridian (geography) is a half of that. The article used 'quarter meridian' three times, against 'half meridian' one time, so for consistency I changed that half in quarter. The article is still inconsistent because its wiki link refers to Meridian (geography). There is something else that confuses me. Why did the 18th century scientists define the meter as one ten millionth of a quarter meridian, instead of one hundred millionth of a full meridian? I guess they were aware that the latter is more decimal, and closer to the traditional standard unit, the foot. Ceinturion ( talk) 13:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Although the image of the two shiny metre bars lying on a red background is pretty, it's a computer-generated image masquerading as a photograph. It's always bothered me because I can't imagine that metre standards were ever tossed around in the careless fashion shown in the image. I see we have a much less pretty photo of (part of) a real metre bar, that also shows the cross-section (perhaps not as well as the pretty fake image). Should we not put the real photo in the top of the article and remove or de-emphasisze the one depicting a metrology disaster? -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 19:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:History of the metre#Exact location of Méchain's meridional measurement on Montjuïc hill?
I'd like to note that the timeline doesn't have actual values in it, but those might be fairly useful. This might be because those values aren't easily found for all, but for any that can be found, I think they ought to be put in. The first one can be calculated, at least, and would be about 0.993961 modern metres, using the small angle pendulum equation.
192.249.47.163 ( talk) 14:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Elmshire
It's not established at all that "almost all English speaking countries" spell meter the way this article does. You haven't cited all the proof you would need to establish that, and you can't, because it's not true! Why are we letting a minority impose their regional spellings on en.wiki? Also, when you say "almost all except the United States," you're admitting that you are trying to sustain a usage in decline. The spelling fighters who are constantly trying to impose UK spellings onto this site are only making it look unprofessional, and give the distinct appearance that the editing staff are extremely biased and happy to impose their personal preferences on what is otherwise a neutral encyclopedia. This article, like several others on this site, is embarrassing to en.wiki, and should be changed. Cecoppola ( talk) 20:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Here's a nice reference that says the US is the odd-man-out: http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/Spelling_metre_or_meter.pdf The author, Pat Naughtin, works extensively in the metrication field in multiple countries (including the US) and has done a lot of research on the history, spelling and usage of the metric system. Stepho talk 22:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
And here's another reference: http://grammarist.com/spelling/meter-metre/ As a general rule, grammarians tend to be a very picky group of people that really like to get it right. Stepho talk 22:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Can someone (else) please remove the NPOV tag? It's not really appropriate for WP:ENGVAR disputes. -- NeilN talk to me 22:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
tag on the phrase 'nearly all' instead of an NPOV tag on the article but it does the job of pointing out that something needs to be addressed. I'd rather discuss the issue than waste time about which tag is right.
Stepho
talk 23:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metre. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The article now says:
30 March 1791 – The French National Assembly accepts the proposal by the French Academy of Sciences that the new definition for the metre be equal to one ten-millionth of the length of a quadrant along the Earth's meridian through Paris, that is the distance from the equator to the north pole.
Shouldn't that italicized fragment be "the distance from the equator to the north pole along that quadrant"? Added text underlined. Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the validity of the first paragraph in the introduction to the Metre#History of definition section in the article. No secondary source is provided to enable verification of the implication that Wilkins's essay played any part in the definition of the metre, and indeed the final sentence states "No official action was taken regarding this suggestion."
For this reason I believe it should be removed as contravening WP:NOR. To that end I removed it, but was reverted by Wtshymanski. The only source provided is Wilkins's essay - but that obviously doesn't (indeed cannot as it was written more than a century before the metre was defined) claim that his work played any part in the definition of the metre, so for me, the synthesis that it did, without any supporting secondary source cited, clearly goes against WP:PSTS. Any thoughts anyone? Is there a valid reason to keep that paragraph here? -- DeFacto ( talk). 19:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Metre. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
This article in three places uses the word quadrant. According to Webster's Dictionary, this term can be used to refer to:
or
In the article we mean the first of these meanings, but the two wiki-links take us to circular sector, which describes only the second meaning. So someone not familiar with the term will be trying to work out what is meant by the length of an area, and certainly won't be able to work out whether it was the arc or chord length that was the intended meaning. I can't find a Wikipedia article that we could link to that explains the intended first meaning. Maybe something could be inserted into the Arc (geometry) article. The alternative would be to avoid the use of quadrant in this ( metre) article. But I am a little reluctant to make that change in case the wording is deliberately mirroring the language used in the historical documents. Thoughts please. Jmchutchinson ( talk) 12:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The article mentions an astronomical measurement of "9 1/2 inches" - this probably should have been "9 1/2 arc seconds" which is the parallax of the sun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.118.7 ( talk) 18:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)