Talk:1 hectometre

Some IMO redundant ones

• 541 m — (1,776 ft) -- height of the planned Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site
  • When it's built, we may list it - lots of thing are planned.
• 417 m — height of the World Trade Center buildings before the September 11, 2001 attacks
  • If you can't see it anymore, it is not a useful memorization of orders of magnitude.
• 324 m — total height of the Eiffel Tower including TV-antenna
• 109.73 m — total length of an American football field (120 yards, including the end zones)
• 137.16 . — total length of a Canadian football field (150 yards, including the end zones)
  • We don't need multiple heights for one structure - we're talking about orders of magnitude here!
• 553.33 m — height of the CN Tower, the world's second tallest free-standing land structure
  • If the most notable thing that can be said about is that it is second-highest, it's not worth putting here.
• 168 m — height of the Bungsberg, highest point in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
  • Schleswig-Holstein is known for being flat - it's highest point is not notable.

If anyone feels really strongly about this, feel free to revert(but please explain it here, too!) JesseW 01:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Category key

It would be fine to have the articles ordered in the Category:Orders of magnitude (length). One posibility is to have all the articles ordered in the character '#', from low to high:

Articles in category "Orders of magnitude (length)"*

* 
   Orders of magnitude (length)

#
   (...)
   * 1 E-5 m
   * 1 E-4 m
   * 1 E-3 m
   * 1 E-2 m
   * 1 E-1 m
   * 1 E0 m
   * 1 E1 m
   * 1 E2 m
   * 1 E3 m
   * 1 E4 m
   * 1 E5 m
   (...)

The problem with this approach is that to get that order the category key for articles with negative powers has to be "somewhat" odd, like:

• 1 E-5 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|#00.95]]
• 1 E-4 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|#00.96]]
• 1 E-3 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|#00.97]]
• 1 E-2 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|#00.98]]
• 1 E-1 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|#00.99]]
• 1 E0 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|#00.00]]
• 1 E1 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|#01.00]]
• 1 E2 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|#02.00]]
• 1 E3 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|#03.00]]
• 1 E4 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|#04.00]]
• 1 E5 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|#05.00]]

Other approach is to divide the articles in two groups, one for negative powers, and one for positive ones (the zero can be in any of them or have its own category):

Articles in category "Orders of magnitude (length)"*

* 
   Orders of magnitude (length)

-
   * 1 E-1 m
   * 1 E-2 m
   * 1 E-3 m
   * 1 E-4 m
   * 1 E-5 m
   (...)
+
   * 1 E1 m
   * 1 E2 m
   * 1 E3 m
   * 1 E4 m
   * 1 E5 m
   (...)
0
   * 1 E0 m

With this approach the category key will be more "natural", something like this:

• 1 E-5 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|-05]]
• 1 E-4 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|-04]]
• 1 E-3 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|-03]]
• 1 E-2 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|-02]]
• 1 E-1 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|-01]]
• 1 E0 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|+00]]
• 1 E1 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|+01]]
• 1 E2 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|+02]]
• 1 E3 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|+03]]
• 1 E4 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|+04]]
• 1 E5 m → [[Category:Orders of magnitude (length)|+05]]

I prefer the second option, because the key is more intuitive. What do you think? --surueña 08:53:45, 2005-07-29 (UTC)

A third option(the one I implemented, although this can be changed...) is to put all the negative powers in "-", all the positive powers from 0 to 9 in "0", 10-19 in "1", etc. I admit to being tempted by your idea of having just two groups "+" and "-", with them sorted in there, but let me know what you think of the way it is, and we can discuss further. (Last I looked, two of them seemed to be in the wrong place, but this was just category-lack-of-updating problems). JesseW 10:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to put the articles in two (or three) groups mainly because your option is asymmetrical w.r.t. negative and positive powers. For example, someone could say that the negative powers -1 to -9 should be also in "0", -10 to -19 in "1", etc. Anyway, I always liked more to use only one key character for this type of short series of article, like for example Category: History of computer and video games or Category:Dynasties of Ancient Egypt. --surueña 10:55:06, 2005-07-29 (UTC)

The categories you mentioned are convincing. Yes, your version with two groups, "+" and "-" is the better idea. I'll update that(with a semi-automated tool) soon. Thanks for the discussion, and the reference to the other categories. JesseW 23:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

A tool, great idea. Then it will be easy to make the same changes in the others subcategories of Category:Orders of magnitude. Anyway, if you need help to make the changes I will be pleased to lend a hand (there are a lot of subcategories). And about having two or three categories (one more only for the zero), I don't know what is the best option. But it's easy to make the change, so in the future we can move from three to two groups and vice versa. --surueña 08:08:39, 2005-07-30 (UTC)

I'd be delighted by help... The tool I wrote is available from my User:JesseW/monobook.js, under the section called Edit automation (ignore the note about it not being used). Just copy it into yours, and add a call to automate() when pages are loaded, and it should automatically make the category key fix when you go to any 1_E[0-9] type page. (It only works on positive numbers, but the change for - is trivial, and I'll make it after we fix all the positive ones.) Feel free to do which ever ones you want, and ask on my Talk page if there are any problems. Thanks again! (copied to Suruena's talk page) JesseW 04:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

PS. You might find this bookmarklet useful(it'll save 1 page load per fix):Wikipedia:Tools#Make_all_links_go_directly_to_Edit_page. (copied to talk page) JesseW 04:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't work

Setting the category key of the article to "+02" doesn't seem to work (it is put in the Category:Orders of magnitude (length) at the "2" entry, no matter the number of zeroes at the left -- I tested "+002"), and neither the "-01" key (the category order is incorrect, being the "-02" before the "-01"). Are these bugs of MediaWiki? --surueña 10:00:44, 2005-08-01 (UTC)

Sounds like a bug to me. You should probably look at the mediwiki bugzilla and/or ask on mailing lists or somewhere. I suspect it's a feature(cough), not a bug, but I hope there's a way we can turn it off. JesseW 22:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Notation

I notice that most of the instances listed here are in the form 100_m (space underlined for emphasis). Is there a wikipedia policy that overrides the usual notation of SI units which is that when an abbreviation is used, there is no space between the quantifier and the abbreviated unit? Kevin McE 08:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by the usual notation, since most texts I've read use a space between the value and the abbreviation (including BIPM).--Jyril 11:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's a UK convention: certainly it is what I am most used to seeing and have always been taught (and now teach). However, I observe that WP:MOSNUM prescribes the space. Kevin McE 10:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

File:A38DriverLocationSign km415.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:A38DriverLocationSign km415.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)