Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Wikipedia metric vs old stuff

vmelkon - 15-2-2017 at 07:53

This post is about wikipedia.org, not the wiki at sciencemadness.

With regards to wikipedia articles, do you want metric and the other old thing, I guess it is called imperial english and USA, to be present on all articles?

There are a lot of articles that are imperial only.
If I add the metric version, someone deletes them as if he is the article boss.

JJay - 15-2-2017 at 08:25

There's little to be gained about arguing over metric vs. Imperial on Sciencemadness. You should take this up with Wikipedia if there is an issue with it.

vmelkon - 15-2-2017 at 08:48

I don't know who is the manager or authority at wikipedia.
It seems to be community oriented.

The problem with that is that there are articles that are rarely visited by the majority of the public.
In other words, 1 or 2 people edit it.
If I come in and edit it, they remove my edits.

With the science community working together, I think we can change the world, one piece at a time.

Herr Haber - 15-2-2017 at 09:20

Do they at least document the reasons for removing your contribution ?

crystal grower - 15-2-2017 at 10:45

Metric, no diggity.

zwt - 15-2-2017 at 12:03

They already have a guideline for this: WP:UNITS.
They also have a policy about what you're trying to do now: WP:MEAT.
If you have a problem with a guideline, you should start a discussion on the relevant talk page.

Assuming you're this Vmelkon, I see metrication edits from this year to one article where you were reverted, followed by a discussion on the article talk page where you admitted you were mistaken. That's standard procedure, and it worked, considering your edit introduced errors.
Can you point out a specific edit where you think you were unjustly reverted?

P.S. They also use IUPAC spelling on science articles.

[Edited on 15-2-2017 by zwt]

JJay - 15-2-2017 at 14:17

Just FYI, you don't write in.2 for square inches in formal documents like you would with centimeters, decimeters, etc.; it's considered bad style.

vmelkon - 15-2-2017 at 16:50

Quote: Originally posted by zwt  
They already have a guideline for this: WP:UNITS.
They also have a policy about what you're trying to do now: WP:MEAT.
If you have a problem with a guideline, you should start a discussion on the relevant talk page.

Assuming you're this Vmelkon, I see metrication edits from this year to one article where you were reverted, followed by a discussion on the article talk page where you admitted you were mistaken. That's standard procedure, and it worked, considering your edit introduced errors.
Can you point out a specific edit where you think you were unjustly reverted?

P.S. They also use IUPAC spelling on science articles.

[Edited on 15-2-2017 by zwt]


I am not worried about MEAT. We aren't trying to push false information.

Yes, the article in question is Goldbeating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbeating

(Reverted to revision 721392972 by Library Guy (talk): Rv nonsense unit conversions. (TW))
by Andy Dingley.

-----------------
http://cn.hujiang.com/new/p601361/

JJay - 15-2-2017 at 16:55

I think the concern is that your approach to this is inappropriate, not that we should be using furlongs and half-barrels.

j_sum1 - 15-2-2017 at 19:14

A couple of thoughts.



I think it might be insightful to find out what units people on this board think in and how they process stuff. But the goal of that would be to improve our own communication. The poll above is not framed accurately enough to really give good information on the matter. Not to mention that such a poll uses the worst sampling method possible. Furthermore I think that in this particular case there are issues with the intent of the poll as well as the substance of it.

Now... What to click?
I like metric. Maybe option 2.
I like good communication. Maybe option 1.
I think this whole discussion is a bit hyperbolic. Option 6 perhaps.
Bugger it. i'm going for 4.

vmelkon - 16-2-2017 at 05:28

Quote:
A few anonymous bodies on a Science forum just aren't going to have the leverage to make a difference. Our opinion is pretty much irrelevant here.


We could always get other science forums involved as well.
I do not see a problem with that.
Quote:
Karats for jewellery will be around for a while yet.


I don't think we should replace karats with something else. I don't think we should replace foot by meters. Some people need the number in karats and some need some numbers in foot.
Some of us need those numbers as % and meters, therefore, we would add them.
Quote:
There are some places where it has not been adopted and there are reasons (both good and bad) for this non-conformity.


I did not remove the imperial, USA, or English version.
I added the metric system.
In your comment, you did not specify the problem.
Quote:
I think it might be insightful to find out what units people on this board think in and how they process stuff. But the goal of that would be to improve our own communication. The poll above is not framed accurately enough to really give good information on the matter. Not to mention that such a poll uses the worst sampling method possible. Furthermore I think that in this particular case there are issues with the intent of the poll as well as the substance of it.


I don't understand.
How do you want me to frame the poll?
What are the issues?
What are the issues with the substance of it?

You need to tell me exactly what the problem is. Please be crystal clear.
I'm not sure why you pick option 4 after making such a lengthy comment.
The people who picked 1 and 2 aren't leaving comments and that is a problem.

zwt - 16-2-2017 at 10:50

Your one example was reverted (by two people) because your calculations were off, not because someone thought they were "the article boss". Try editing a few of the many, many other articles where you've noticed a lack of metric units, but use Template:Convert to avoid errors. I suspect the edits will stick this time.

Here is an excerpt from the UNITS guideline:
Quote:
Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses e.g. 200 kilometres (120 mi).

This is closest to "option 1". "Option 2", metric only, is currently favored, which is not surprising, given that this is an international science forum. Of course, it would be ridiculous to try to force the will of a small science forum onto an encyclopedia intended for the laymen of the English-speaking world. Per the guideline, SI units are already preferred on all articles without strong ties to the United States, and most units in either metric or US Customary should include conversions to the other.

Again, if you think the guideline should be changed, you need to open a discussion on the talk page for the guideline. Simply editing articles in a manner inconsistent with the guideline (for example, removing non-metric units from many articles) while the guideline stands would be considered disruptive and may result in sanctions.
I mention WP:MEAT because a sudden flood of editors with the same preferences but little-to-no Wikipedia experience will rightly rouse the suspicions of the experienced Wikipedia editors, potentially resulting in massive push-back against whatever you're trying to do, no matter how useful.

[Edited on 16-2-2017 by zwt]