Talk:Metre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
A move of this article to Meter has been proposed on several occasions in the past. It was rejected each time. Please see the reasons why, before proposing another move.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Reason for 299,792,458

I was curious - is there a reason why it was decided to divide the distance light covers in a vacuum by 299,792,458 rather than a more.. obvious (?) number, such as 1,000,000 or 100,000,000 et cetera? It seems arbitrarily chosen. Thanks. --A Sunshade Lust 03:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See the history section. The new definition is (as accurately as possible) the same length as the older metre but just defined in relation to the speed of light rather than the older definitions. - SimonLyall 03:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Since this is the second time this question has been asked, any way we could simply add this information to the introduction without cluttering it or lengthening it considerably? -- Centrx 18:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The introduction does say the original defn already and gives more details in the history. please suggest better wording if you don't think it is clear. Do you mean we should have something like "Note: While the metre has been redefined several times the new definitions are all (as accurately as possible) the same lengh as the previous definitions" ? - SimonLyall 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
No I don't think there should be anything so unwieldy and excessive. I do think that the introduction may be insufficient to convey the proper meaning for many readers, but I do not know what would work to add. -- Centrx 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't think of that (but now it all seems a bit obvious, and I a bit silly), I do think that something such as Simon's note should be in, but maybe not with the "Note:". --A Sunshade Lust 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting experiment: if the meter were to be defined as a the distance light travels in a vacuum in a billionth of a second, we would wind up with a meter about 11.8 inches long. Might give us colonials a reason to switch to metric. -- Jason Jones 05:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How about writing "defined as the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/c of a second". --I hate to register 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that works at all. Putting the number back in gives it a real value. The 1/c doesn't really make a lot of sense especially at first reading. I think it should be changed back. - SimonLyall 22:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"1/c of a second" is not a legitimate phrase, not to mention it would result in a unit of seconds^2/meter.

[edit] Pendulum length calculation

This does not account for air resistance; they could have used a real pendulum, on Earth, which I think would make the resulting distance longer. Even if it didn't, it would not be exactly 99.36 cm, it would be "about 100 cm", which is what we have already because it is for the metre. Is this correct? We could have a range, but this is getting a little further into retroactive descriptions, it would be better to have a source that says, "they wanted this method, and measured it to be about this distance, which is about 99.36 cm". —Centrx→talk • 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Distance from Equator to North Pole

The article mentions the "distance from the equator to the North Pole". Should it be made clear that this distance is not measured in a straight line? Technically it's a great circle. That distance, in a truly straight line that passes hundreds of miles underground, would be about 10% shorter than the great circle. But it's not true to say that the distance is measured "along the earth's surface" either, because that would imply a slighter greater distance because of interfering mountain ranges etc., or maybe a lesser distance under certain tidal conditions. My guess is the definition needs to mention sea-level.

Technically, it's not a circle but an ellipse. The article says, "one ten-millionth of the length of the Earth's meridian along a quadrant". Meridians follow the curvature of the earth, by definition. What the article does not seem to say is that the metre was based upon the length of one, specific merdian, the Paris Meridian. This value was determined by surface measurement.[1] However, actual length of the entire meridian is 40,007.86 km, while the value used to define the metre was equivalent to 40,000 km, which is less than actual distance, no matter how you measure it. --Nike 01:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circular Reasoning

"Now, it is defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/c of a second." sounds circular. --Shanedidona 22:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds circular, but actually isn't. The speed of light in absolute vacuum is a universal constant, given the exact label c, and is measured rather than calculated. As long as the definition of "second" doesn't rely on the definition of "meter", there is no circular logic involved. --Dachannien 13:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it back to 299,792,458 as I think 1/c is too hard for most people to grasp easily. Putting 1/c requires people to know what "c" means, roughly how big it is and how it relates to a metre. I think this is a big jump for the intro paragraph of the articvle - SimonLyall 22:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It still sounds circular to me. c=299,792,458 m/s, and m=1/cs, it seems circular: the definition of meter depends on itself. Maybe someone with more scientific background could explain it to me. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The distance that light travels in one second is not dependent on the definition of the metre. We describe it in terms of the metre, but we could just as well describe it as a distance between certain stars or in the same way you might describe the length of your arm. The current definition of the metre, with number the number 299,792,458, is based on using the old definition of the metre, such as with a bar, to describe the speed of light, but in terms of the pure, ideal definition, it is not circular. —Centrx→talk • 01:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your confusion about the circular reference, but there is no need to be confused. The metre is a length chosen out of thin air so it needs to be defined by something. Light in a vacuum travels at the same speed in any vacuum and you can see this speed; it doesn't need a definition. Also, I don't think there is anything wrong with expecting people to know what c is. The typical person who would read about the definition of the metre would probably be interested enough in science to know what c is. Even if you don't have a scientific background, you should really know what c is. Owen214 23:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's got a be "1/299 792 458" (as it is in the article presenly), not "1/c". Note that "c" is "299 792 458 m/s", not just "299 792 458", so "1/c" is "1/299 792 458 s/m". So with "1/c" then sentence would be equivalent to "as the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/299 792 458 s/m of a second", which is nonsense.--Niels Ø 11:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Music

Spacing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.125.215 (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Multiples

Please don't remove multiples, for consistency they are in all seven base SI units. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.5.62.208 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling in introduction

Originally, this article had "metre" as the only spelling given in the first sentence, and then at the end of the paragraph had a statement like "In American English, this is spelled "meter". Then at some point in 2005 it was changed to put "metre or meter" in the introduction, and then later changed again to have parenthetical comments like "metre (Commonwealth) or metre (American)". The reason for having both in the first sentence is that either is a reasonable, commonly used spelling. Neither should be deprecated to an endnote. The reason for having the parenthetical notes was to explain the which was most commonly used where, but this is clearly unwieldy and also not strictly necessary for an encyclopedia article. So it was changed back to having no parenthetical comments. The problem with the new change is that it suggests that "metre" is the 'correct' spelling with "meter" being a peculiar aberration, when instead there is no reason to especially value either and when "metre" would be an acceptable spelling for someone to use in the United States and "meter" is the spelling that is used chiefly in the United States, but not exclusively. These are words, they don't fit in regional lead boxes. —Centrx→talk • 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


The US is the only country in the world that uses the spelling "Meter" so the CORRECT spelling is Metre. I have know idea why America (like everything else) damages perfectly good words and spelling.
Well, for one thing, sign your posts, and check your own spelling. Anyway, here in Denmark, we also write "meter". It's not English, but Denmark is a "country in the World". Of course, the article must give both those spellings that are correct in English, and of course it should, a bit further down, state the facts about their usage.--Niels Ø 13:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This word was an invented word, it didn't exist before this. The spelling was in French and it was metre. English speaking countries adopted this spelling then the US changed it. Therefore, there is a correct spelling and it is metre. It is ridiculous that the US changed it anyway. The US has typically changed the spelling of words to make them more logical. It is not logical to change the spelling of this word to meter because the word meter was already taken, so you create disambiguity by having two words with the same spelling and different meanings. Therefore it is not logical and doesn't even fit the typical US system. Another thing is that the US is not justified to change the spelling, especially since they still use imperial measurements. Changing the spelling is just telling foreign countries that they're getting their own spelling wrong and should do it differently. This is incredibly arrogant and unjustified. The US should revert to the original spelling and maybe consider changing to the SI system of measurements instead of using the stone age, imperial system. Owen214 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This isn't philosophy 101, and it isn't the job of an encyclopedia to determine who has the right to do what, merely to report the facts as they stand. Therefore, it is only logical to include both spellings. A lot of words change meaning and/or spelling over time without any regard given to the "right" to do so, it's just a natural fact of language. Also, I think you meant "ambiguity," instead of "disambiguity," unless that sentence was meant to be taken ironically. (204.69.190.75 21:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
American spelling has used the -er instead of -re ending since the days of Daniel Webster (center instead of centre, theater instead of theatre, etc). I do not believe this was a conspiracy to offend the French, Owen.  :-) Also, it is not an invented word, it has a well-known meaning in the English langauge (as in volt meter, gas meter, etc). DonPMitchell 20:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean Noah Webster. Caliprincess 06:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
True, it's not invented, but merging two historically different words is equally artificial. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 21:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If the Americans are arrogant for changing metre to meter, are we Commonwealth speakers of English then arrogant for changing the older aluminum (still used by the Americans) to aluminium? Koro Neil (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should we change the spelling to the American version when they don't even use it? --203.158.35.85 07:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Meter is not equivalent to metre. Metre is correct and meter is a regional abberation. The word is used in a specific and well defined context. The fact that the word meaning "not win" is increasingly mis-spelled as that of "not tight" (i.e. lose as loose) does not make it right, and the fact a lot of people spell metre wrongly does not make it correct either. Ei2g 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your statement reflects a basic ignorance of linguistics and history. At one time, most of the words in the English language were spelled differently than they are today. Do you feel that English words were just "spelled incorrectly" up until the Great Vowel Shift? What does "correct" mean? One view is that the purpose of language is communication, and words are correct insofar as they communicate the intended concept. By this reasoning, the majority spelling is the correct one. "Lose" is not spelled "loose" by a majority, at least not yet. American English, however, is the most common dialect of English spoken natively. It is also a uniquely well-developed dialect, which, unlike its elder brother, has elected to reform its spelling to make it more uniform and logical. The only other definition of "correct" spelling that comes to mind is the spelling promulgated by some official body. The Oxford English Dictionary is typically considered the authoritative source by the British, and Webster's has historically occupied a similar position in the States. Needless to say, each dictionary lists its dialect's preferred spelling first, followed by the others. I think you'll have a hard time finding a dictionary that doesn't even list the American standard spelling. The -re ending is really very French, and not consistent with the spelling of English words coined prior to the Norman Conquest, so in a sense, the American spelling could be seen as actually more English than your version! 72.177.116.87 01:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry which version of English am i referring too? I appreciate you are motivated but please don't put words into my mouth, regardless of spelling. My statement reflected no ignorance since i did not even comment as to which version of English. I am referring to the fact that we are discussing the metre and that is what it is called. I have zero issue with highlighting that it is spelled differently elsewhere but the fact is its spelling simply IS metre and to have anything else as the TITLE of the subject is clearly incorrect. As you yourself point out, "re" is more French than English. Given that the metre is more French than English it appears you have provided as good as case as I. Ei2g 21:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That's referring to with one o, in American and British spelling, even at the end of a sentence. Ditto I with a capital whever it is in the sentence. Do you think a lack of awareness of different versions of English makes you look educated rather than ignorant? (Question, not accusation). Koro Neil (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Meter and Metre are both "CORRECT" spellings of the word. One is not more correct than the other. People are spending so much time and energy defending one spelling or the other rather that working to make articles better. Does having the article titled "Metre" make the article worse or better than having it titled "Meter"? IMO it does not and people need to let it go and work on improving content of the article. Jons63 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table formatting

What was wrong with the formatting of the old table? The problem with this one is it using a lot of formatting rather than the easily editable wikitable, and the black heading is not pretty. —Centrx→talk • 01:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table: Defining “Most Common”

If one states there are certain “most common versions" (SI prefixes), there must be a sound, scientific basis other than "Centrx thinks these are most common." Google is an excellent way to determine what "most common" is. It may not be in accordance with what some might think ought to be common. However, since Wikipedia is an Internet-based tool, Internet-based sources of determining what is common is a perfectly valid basis. It certainly beats no basis that personal opinion amounts to. If you know of a better way to define "most common" please quote your source. However, it is certainly not the Wikipedia way to assert that something is true just because one believes it to be so, then removes a valid citation, and then doesn't even cite their own references to buttress their belief. Both micrometer and nanometer are extremely common among technically literate users of the Internet.

For instance, you apparently feel for some reason that the centimeter is more commonly used than other prefixed forms. It is unwise to assume that because you feel you are technically literate, that you are a perfectly representative user of the Internet. In fact, "nanometer" is more common on the entire Wold Wide Web than is "centimeter."

Here are the Google hits on what is currently on the Web:

decimeter 451 k
centimeter 12.9 million
millimeter 21.5 million
micrometer 6.84 million
nanometer 16.9 million
picometer 79.7 k
femtometer 30.8 k
attometer 11.6 k
zeptometer 25.2 K
yoctometer 25.1 K

decameter 242 k
hectometer 45.8 k
kilometer 56.3 million
megameter 24 k
gigameter 9.93 k
terameter 873
petameter 965
exameter 864
zettameter 35.8 k
yottameter 24.2 k

Clearly, there is a rational basis to assert that the ones marked in bold are common variations of meter. There is a pronounced drop in the numbers below 6.84 million; the next lower population is one-fifteen as common. If you want to assert that only centimeter and millimeter are common, then cite a reference or rational that is supportable. Otherwise, I suggest we avoid any claims of knowledge regarding what is "common" and simply list them all in plain text. This is much preferred over making an incorrect assertion.

I've converted the black to something hopefully more to your liking. You can compare the before and after versions in the History section to see what I changed in order to alter the color yourself to something better. You can add any hex value you like. Greg L 00:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You can get a sense of the problems with a Google search by looking at some of the first results, e.g. a lot of conversion tools and a few companies. It also has the clear problem of saying that nanometer is more common in everyday use than centimeter (when in fact it is only more common in computing and science, toward which the Google is heavily biased), and if you use the British spelling you come up with the peculiar result that "decimetre" is almost as common as "nanometre". Google searches are valid for finding out whether a person is currently famous, not whether a particular word is more common. Using a Google search for this is trying to justify what we already know to be true. Yes, we should find a better source, but that doesn't mean that what we have there is not verifiable or that coming up with a bad source is the solution.
Also, Wikipedia being on the Internet has nothing to do with it. This is irrelevant to creating a valid encyclopedia and the purpose here is not to find the most common words on the Internet, but the most common words in English. It has nothing to do with technical literacy, except to classify nanometre and micrometre separately. The fact remains that no one but the scientist working in a laboratory uses nanometres, while most everyone in the world outside of North America use kilometres and centimetres on a daily basis. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of the Internet. —Centrx→talk • 02:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Nanometers are used regularly by most science students, not just scientists. Anybody who studies wavelengths of light, for example, is likely to use nanometers; it's only the fossils who learned ages ago and who are not involved in academia who keep angstroms alive on Wikipedia and elsewhere. They appear fairly commonly in newspaper and magazine stories about DNA or whatever that fits in this size range.
One problem with the search for micrometer is the fact that it is two different words, spelled the same but (at least should be) pronounced differently, one being a measuring instrument and the other a unit of measure. The other problem with them is the question of whether or not Google includes hits for their now-deprecated-but-still-far-too-common synonym , microns. Gene Nygaard 02:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
What Gene said about the nanometer. Plus, micrometer is extremely common in both engineering and manufacturing throughout the world. And I can't fathom the jump in logic you're using Centrx. Making the statement that “Google searches are valid for finding out whether a person is currently famous…” (indeed, a true statement) and then saying that in light of this fact, it follows that “[Google searches are] not [good for determining] whether a particular word is more common” is a non sequitur. I'm sure one can do a Google search on both the American and International spellings and the summed results will probably come out around the same (i.e. micrometer/micrometre and nanometer/nanometre are very common). And that was a nice try when you wrote above that “Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of the Internet,” (but who are you trying to kid?) If you want to say that centimeter and millimeter are the only SI prefix submultiples commonly taught in American grade schools, have at it. I doubt that it would be a relevant point for use in this Wikipedia article but at least it would be a completely true statement. Greg L 03:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I parsed your writings above and came up with this statement that is derived directly from your arguments: “The prefixes listed in bold are the most common factors used by most everyone but scientists in the world outside of North America on a daily basis.” OK… I'll buy that. Greg L 03:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
They are more common everywhere and in all respects outside of technical contexts. —Centrx→talk • 04:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. And one could revise the table and introductory sentence accordingly. One could, for instance, winnow the bolded entries down to your originally proposed subset and introduce them as being the prefixed forms that are routinely used by lay-people worldwide. Of course, this would be pretty much stating the obvious to nearly all readers worldwide except for certain (predominately older) Americans. It seems to me that expanding the scope to include all uses (scientific, technical, and engineering fields included) better serves the point of bothering to mention “common” at all. For nontechnical readers, they can now read the Metre article, and can see that people worldwide (for all purposes) commonly uses a millionth of a meter (micrometer or micrometre or µm or micron) but haven’t well-embraced a million meters (megameter, megametre, Mm). They can see that four of the decimal submultiples of meter are in common use whereas only one of the decimal multiples is. It seems to me that this makes for truly informative and interesting reading for the typical American and international reader visiting this site. And isn't that the purpose of any encyclopedia, including Wikipedia? Greg L 17:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Google search hit numbers can indicate whether a currently famous person is not notable. A lack of Google hits cannot entail that a 14th-century inventor is not notable, but it would mean that a software developer or movie star is not notable, because their Google hits correspond well with their real-world notability. (Note that the sheer number of hits would not, however, indicate that the person is notable, because half those hits could be someone else (see, e.g., Google: lightyear); of course it is useful to find additional sources.) Google searches can tell you whether a particular word is more common on the Internet, but not whether it is more common in general. Micrometer and nanometer being common in scientific use means that they are over-represented in Google hits. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of your comment, do you mean that nanometre is actually more common generally than centimetre? Also, while Wikipedia does have the unfortunate systematic bias toward verifiability on the Internet ("If it's not the Internet it doesn't exist"), that doesn't mean this is the goal. This remains a general-purpose encyclopedia and the tendency needs to be corrected, not gleefully advanced in a snide insulting comment. —Centrx→talk • 04:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
If I came across as insulting to your character, I appologize. I try to direct my efforts to pointing out the weaknesses or failings in a logical argument (someone's words) rather than to someone's character. It can be difficult when people oppose one's thoughts. Greg L 17:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The only strange thing really worth noting is that nanometers, and even picometers and some of the others are more common than megameters.
And, that centimeters remain far too common. It's too bad the CGPM didn't have enough sense to consign the rest of the prefixes which are not powers of 1000 to the same fate as "myria-, by not including them in the SI either. Gene Nygaard 05:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metre → Meter

en.wikipedia uses American English as it's prefered variant of English as Wikipedia's servers are held in the US. Therefore, shouldn't this article be moved to Meter and have all instances of metre replaced with meter. --lEoN2323 18:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia does not use American English only. In this article, why should the one country which doesn't use the meter decide the spelling? Jonathunder 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"en.wikipedia uses American English as it's prefered variant of English" Where did you ever get that idea? Fan-1967 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"In this article, why should the one country which doesn't use the meter decide the spelling?" hahaha nice. drumguy8800 C T 04:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see the archived discussion page for previous discussions of this - SimonLyall 10:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

No this isn't another move proposal, but rather, I want to know if anyone else thinks it might be a good idea to note somewhere near the top of the page that moves have been proposed, and why they were defeated. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. - SimonLyall 10:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
At the top of the talk page, sure, but don't clutter the article with it. —Centrx→talk • 10:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea. These spelling change suggestions come up all too often about articles that should be left alone! --Truth About Spelling 03:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This new metre was shorter than the provisional metre by about a third of a millimetre or 325 micrometres to be more precise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gasuns (talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Symbol of the Metre

This article states that the symbol for the metre is "m," but I found a mathematics book that I think refers to the metre as "M." Is it also correct to refer to the metre with the capital form of this letter? 75.21.17.68 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could do whatever you want as long as others understand you (which is less of a problem in a book that can define its terms). However, "m" is what is used in the official SI system and is the nearly universally common abbreviation. Also, in the SI system, "M" is the symbol for the prefix "mega-", so using "M" for "metre" is a conflict. —Centrx→talk • 05:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Using M to indicate metres is as wrong as using ω to represent Ohms. You can do it, but other people won't understand you. See Concentration#Molarity for an obsolete, but still common usage of M. Arthurtech 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Why is this page protected? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.33.142.21 (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

It was the target of vandalism. I have now unprotected it. —Centrx→talk • 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed WikiProject

Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Wikipedia, and are even regarded as Vital articles. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Measurement to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling note

For future reference, Russ Rowlett at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill insists that spelling is not part of the standard, and cites these variations among languages:

meter
(American English, Danish, Dutch, German, Hungarian, Norwegian, Slovak, Swedish)
metr
(Czech, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian)
metras
(Lithuanian)
metre
(British and Australian and Canadian and New Zealand English, French)
metri
(Finnish)
metro
(Basque, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish)

I cannot confirm this from my own knowledge; however our article includes a very long list of pages "In other languages", such as Метр in Russian, Metr in Polish, Metras in Lithuanian, Metri in Finnish, and Metro in Spanish. This would seem incontrovertible evidence that spelling variations are not limited to Yanks versus Brits, and certainly not Yanks versus World.

On a side note, I had to laugh when I read an archived harangue that accused the U.S. of taking a perfectly good French word and changing it, as if France would never do such a thing.

Personally, I am content to leave the page where it is. Having enjoyed the opening events of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I do miss the lovely and subtle comment about the benefit of basing the standard on light rather than on the size of the Earth or a platinum bar. --KSmrqT 08:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. What prompted this? « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 20 14:37 (UTC)

What prompted it? Sir, Wikipedia suffers from "Spelling Zealots", or as I call them, "Brit-trolls". Seriously, you wouldn't believe how many people would love that this site be called "Wikipaedia" instead. It truly is baffling. Sneakernets 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipaedia? You're making that up! Koro Neil (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've lived in Canada all my life and it has always been taught as meter, it is labeled that way on all our measuring tools and in all the text books. I feel it should be "Meter (Metre)". Also I am using all as a generalization, rather then an allencompassing definite. 65.92.202.175 02:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A check of sites like alberta education shows that they use "metre" to refer to the distance throughout. It appears there is some use of "meter" spelling in canada (as everywhere) but the "metre" spelling is favoured especially officially, Im almost surprised your textbooks got accepted if they use the other spelling - SimonLyall 02:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Do the textbooks come from the States perhaps? Of course one would expect books written in the States would have American spellings, but then they would use American measures. Are Canadian-written books sometimes printed in the States, where the spellings might be adjusted? Koro Neil (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely the simple solution is to look at what is being documented in the article. What is being documented is the metric measurement of distance and it was created as the metre. It is important to note that there are regional spellings, but it is madness to suggest that the article be titled by one such minority spelling.

There is as much justification for titling the article "Metr" as "Meter" or any other regional variation. They all derive from "metre" and so that is what the article is called. Titling it "meter" would be like having the article on "Vacuum Cleaner" titled "hoover" because a number of people call all such devices from all manufacturers by that company's name. Ei2g 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We should have both spellings

If we are talking about English, then only the English spellings are relevant. And only their use in the English language is relevant. The French spelling mètre adds no more weight to the case for British spelling than the German spelling (and that of other NW European countries listed above) adds weight to the argument for the North American spelling. (And yes, I do know the word came to us from French.) Metr and metro can have no validity at all in English language articles, as they do not represent the English word.

The policy of maintaining whichever of two standard spellings is first used in an article is generally fair, when the word occurs in the body of an article. Titles of articles are a special case, as users search for the article by the spelling they know. I think it's the case that in those English-speaking countries that normally use the metric system, the total population of those countries where metre is standard outnumbers that where meter is standard, Canada being probably the only likely one in the latter category, though there is debate above about this. On the other hand, googling the phrases "100 metres", "100 meters", "15 metres" and "15 meters" brings up a good 50% more hits for meters than for metres in each case.

I think courtesy needs to prevail on both sides. Is it possible to name the article Metre / Meter, with a redirect (which I presume already exists) from Meter, or vice-versa? Within the article, there can be variation according to immediate context. The British never adopted the meter or the liter, and Americans will never be at peace with the metre or the litre. So talk about the British and the metre, talk about the Americans and the meter. (Why does liter look hideous in a way that meter doesn't?)

The alternative is to make a truly special case of all words with -re/-er variants, and have two otherwise identical articles, with metre consistently used in one, and meter in the other, with a very visible notification at the top of each that changes in one must be duplicated (with modified spelling) in the other.

Has anyone noticed the irony that most British speakers pronounce a vowel immediately after the t, while most Americans go straight into the r sound?

Just for the record, I spell it metre. Koro Neil (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

This Online Encyclopaedia is "English" Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org). Therefore all articles should be written in English, not "American" English or any other types of English. Possible exceptions to this could be pages which are only relevant to the USA, Australia etc. This means that the spelling should be "metre." Besides, this prevents confusion between other nouns such as parking meter and ammeter. This combined with the facts that the original spelling was "metre," before American English changed it, and that only one version of English uses meter, means that the article should stay as "metre." Why have there been so many debates about such a trivial spelling on English Wikipedia. If you want American Spellings, create an "American English" Wikipedia. Dewarw 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English. There are very few, very minor differences between American and British usage; they are not distinct languages, and creating an entirely separate Wikipedia just to change the spelling of a few words that are regardless mutually intelligible, is absurd. —Centrx→talk • 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Just call it metere and shut up. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you Ƿynn. :) Koro Neil (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SI multiples

I have nominated Template:SI multiples (transcluded or subst'ed in this article) for deletion on WP:TFD. Han-Kwang (t) 16:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SI table via template

I've reverted the table back to its Wiki table form. That is, after all, what Wiki table syntax is for: creating tables. Whereas templates are a nice tool to have (thank you for creating the template) when creating new articles or brand new tables, they can not serve every need for every article. The main disadvantage of templates is that templates can be deleted at a later date and this would delete the table, would it not? Attempts to do precisely this—delete a table-generating template—have been attempted in the recent past after certain users objected to the very existence of SI tables. I guess I can’t ignore the preceding discussion topic (see above): as a matter of fact, once such user was you. I’m very pleased to see that you’ve had a 180° change of heart. I’m actually somewhat surprised at this, given your well articulated arguments regarding how SI prefix tables have no value whatsoever, which you wrote here on the Kelvin talk page. You also advanced a vigorous argument as to how SI tables (and the templates for making them) have no value in your nomination to have the SI table template deleted, (which was not affirmed by consensus). But I see that you now wholeheartedly embrace them. Unfortunately, the table you entered into this article had the symbols and names reversed. Here’s the original table, and here’s what you replaced it with. Notice the mix up. I’m actually rather surprised you hadn’t noticed that when you placed it here.

Please allow other users to use your recently created template for new projects (after you fix it) but don't replace existing tables. Greg L (my talk) 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistent formating of numbers within an article

This article used a mix of two different number-formatting conventions: one where the mantissa is delimited with spaces, and one where the mantissa is delimited with commas. According to SI writing style, either is appropriate for use with the SI. However, please note that a common-sense policy from Wikipedia: Manual of Style: National varieties of English: (Consistency within articles):

“ An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, except in direct quotations, where the original text is generally preserved. ”

I’ve taken a stab at the problem by changing all to one style: comma-delimited. I’ve chosen this for one reason only: most scientific articles on the Web use the comma-delimited style and therefore is—at least for me—what the eye seems better accustomed to seeing. I’ve formated all numerical values to a style where the mantissa is comma-delimited and the decimal portion is delimited with reduced-size spaces (which is an SI-compliant form that observes best typography practices). If someone wants to change to another style, be my guest, but please change them all so the article is consistent.

Further, I’ve made several minor corrections on other formatting/writing-style issues. For instance it should either be “zero degrees Celsius” or “0 °C”, but not “0 degrees Celsius.” Also, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Units of measurement, “In scientific articles, [editors should] use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic.” Note that wavelengths of laser light are most often expressed in nanometers, not femtometers.

Greg L (my talk) 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your change is also consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is correct to combine comma separators to the left of the decimal with space separators to the right of the decimal. I have asked on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Ashton : It’s not only quite common but profoundly practical. What would you propose as the alternative? Are we to believe that if one uses commas to delimit the mantissa then one may not use delimiters in the decimals? The overriding rule in all things SI is to unambiguously communicate in a language-independent fashion. Long chains of decimals in a row are hard to parse and demand to be delimited. That’s why it’s done. Greg L (my talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. More on what I propose can be found here: Specific proposal. Greg L (my talk) 21:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bureau des Longitudes

It says in this article that the Bureau des Longitudes sent out Delambre in 1792, yet the Bureau's article says that it wasn't even formed until 1795. Is there a simple explanation that I'm missing? Smiles Aloud (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If we use the stupid metre against meter...

we should just ahead and use gramme instead of gram! -_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.126.51.37 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The spelling "metre" is used, for the most part, outside the U.S. The spelling "gram" is used almost everywhere. Hardly anyone uses the spelling "gramme". --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What about programme? :P That is very frequently used. Also, doesn't meter also signify a device which shows the "measure" of something. Apart from US and Canada, most countries use the term Metre instead of meter. This is especially enforced in schools where the medium of instruction is the queen's language. Bodhi 122.167.154.24 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of meter

Response to SimonLyall

(rc. The alternative spelling is given as the 4th word in this article. We don't need to repeat it all the[y] way though.)

Yeah... fair point, maybe. It raises a slightly interesting point, though. (Okay, only a very slightly interesting point.) But if we're talking about derivation of the word, it's reasonable to talk about the derivation of the American form as well—we have two separate derivation events here. Presumably it's derived from the British form, and modified in consistency with already existing forms like center and theater, where American spelling differs from the British. This would be (perhaps already is) the subject of a different article: one on the history of spelling in the two countries. I think the form I would want to see it in here would be a comment that the spelling meter first appears in print in (year), with a cross reference to an article which outlines the separate development of -re and -er spellings, presumably along with -our/-or. Koro Neil (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And I still believe that a title showing both spellings is desirable. I'm not sure that that wouldn't make for cross-referencing difficulties, plus fiddling to keep the talk page and its archive together as well. Koro Neil (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See American and British English spelling differences which covers most of the above. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English wrt to naming of articles etc. Renaming the article is not a good idea, this article is about a unit of length not a spelling competition. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The normal approach in Wikipedia (and other encyclopedias too) when a topic may be known by more than one word or spelling is to pick one and provide redirects for the rest. Since there is a redirect at Meter that goes to Metre, I belive the problem was solved a long time ago. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I would not assume the American spelling was derived from the British. It may have derived directly from the French. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion table.

Note that the table uses, without comment, the US Survey foot (1m = 39.37 feet) instead of the US Legal foot (1cm = 2.54 cm). There is no clue given why one should go with the Survey foot over the Legal foot. (The legal foot is, in my experience, the more common unit.) "Legal foot" is actually somewhat of a misnomer, in that various states in the US use one or the other. The U.S. National Geodetic Survey site documents which states use which. If we are going to use a conversion to obolete units, shouldn't it at least properly label those units? Nahaj (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what you meant was (1 meter = 39.37 inches) and (1 inch = 2.54 centimeters). The difference between those is approximately 0.0002%. For all practical purposes they are equal. Jons63 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1 in = 2.54 cm defines the international foot which is used for all purposes in the United States except some surveys. The most common situation in surveying where the difference between the international foot and U.S. survey foot is detectable is when a State Plane Coordinate System is used. Some states require the U.S. survey foot (or meter) in connection with state plane coordinates, some require the international foot (or meter), some leave the choice to the surveyor, and at least one (Vermont) requires that state plane coordinates be expressed in meters (but there is a bill to optionally allow the U.S. survey foot, and the bill is expected to pass). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Gerry is correct. And I'll expand that to note that the difference Gerry mentions can be SEVERAL metre difference in State Plane Coordinate transformations between the two (SPC have very large biases built in). That is hardly "equal for all practical purposes" in my book. And the current efforts to more accurately define the metre are working at differences many orders of magnitude smaller than the difference between a US Survey Foot and a US Legal foot. 155.101.254.50 (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, the conversion table is correct, because "≈" means "approximately equal to", and "≡", means "defined as" or "identical to", and these symbols are used correctly in the equivalents table.
OK, then so in your opinion the 1in=2.54 meters is exact, and 1m ≈ 39.37in is approximate. That's only true for the legal foot, not the survey foot, and the article still doesn't say which it is using, or why. (: Or even why those conversions and none of the other non-SI units :) 155.101.254.50 (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the federal register notice that implemented the treaty establising the international foot, it says:

Announcement. Effective July 1, 1959, all calibrations in the U.S. customary system of weights and measures carried out by the National Bureau of Standards will continue to be based upon metric measurement standards and, except those for the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey as noted below, will be made in terms of the following exact equivalents and appropriate multiples and submultiples:

1 yard= 0.914 4 meter

1 pound (avoirdupois)= 0.453 592 37 kilogram

. . .

Any data expressed in feet derived from and published as a result of geodetic surveys within the United States will continue to bear the following relationship as defined in 1893: 1 foot = 1200⁄3937 meter [emphasis added]

Since the notice defines not only the international yard, but also "appropriate multiples and submultiples", it also defines the international inch, rod, furlong, mile, etc. The part about the survey foot does not mention multiples or submultiples, so it is not clear to me that there is any such thing as a survey inch, rod, furlong, mile, etc. I intend to alter the conversions to change inch to international inch. If we want to measure survey measure in the article, I think we should revamp the table to refer only to variations of the foot, and remove the inch from the table altogether. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other meters?

And shouldn't a least a mention be given (I've not a clue where) that Namibia (for example) has their own meter? (One Namibian meter = 1.0000135965 international (SI) meter.) Documented, for example at the Namibian governments site: [[2]] Nahaj (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article introduction

The introduction is not a trivia section. It is just that: the introduction. My version is “2x” as long and yet contained less info, but that's because it leaves out information that doesn't belong in the introduction, and tries to keep information that would actually be useful to someone who doesn't already know all this stuff, and to present it in a way that's easier for such a person to grasp, all while still remaining accurate. (And it does, in fact, contain “a basic definition”.) More-detailed information is kept where it belongs: in the body of the article.

I scarcely think even the current definition needs to be in the introduction, let alone definitions that aren't even in force anymore and are of mainly historical interest even to experts. Of course, these definitions do belong in the article: but not in the introduction. (Think of it this way: do you think the krypton-86 definition— which is neither the first nor the current definition— is appropriate for the introduction, as opposed to the body? If not, why not?)

Here's a copy of the introduction I had written (minus references, for use in this talk page), for consideration. Keep in mind that it's just the introduction, not the entire article, and is targeted at non-experts:

The metre or meter (symbol: m) is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (the SI), which means that all SI units that involve length (or vectors)— such as area and velocity— are defined in terms of it.
As with all metric units that have their own names, the metre can be used with SI prefixes to scale it to something more practical for the task at hand— such as measuring land distances in kilometres (thousands of metres at a time)— but for the purposes of the SI itself, derived units (such as the newton) are defined in terms of the metre, rather than its multiples or submultiples.
The metre itself has been defined and redefined with different approaches over time, and is currently (since 1983) defined in terms of the speed of light. Specifically, it is defined as 1⁄299,792,458 of a light-second, meaning that the speed of light comes out to exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. (But note that the metre is defined in terms of the speed of light, not vice versa.) Each definition has tried to match the previous one as closely as possible*— just taking a different approach to doing it— so the changes have not affected the practical use of the unit.

* In a footnote: “Which is why the number is 299,792,458 instead of a nice round 300,000,000, which would make the metre slightly too short to fit the previous definition seamlessly.”

It could do with some tweaks, but I think it's a fine introduction, certainly better than the intro as it was last modified as of this writing: reference to an obsolete definition is unnecessary in an introduction, let alone details such as who defined it and the composition of the artifact embodying the definition. Also, my phrasing of the definition as “1⁄299,792,458 of a light-second” is, I think, clearer than the formal definition— it's certainly not as rigorous, but it's much easier to parse, it's much easier to comprehend (most lay people are familiar with the “light-year”, and should be able to grasp “light-second” by simple analogy), and it's adequate for its target audience: those who don't already know all this stuff. The official definition is, of course, given in the body of the article.

I'd go ahead and put it back, but it's apparent that not everyone agrees with it, so I've made my case here instead. — Vystrix Nexoth (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation redirect

Anyone here agree that upon viewing pages "meter/metre," pages should be redirected to the disambiguation page first? Prowikipedians (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If you mean that anyone going to "metre" should get the disambiguation then I object. This use of the word is much more important than the others. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)