Talk:Gradian

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gradian article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

Mathematics Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Engineering

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Gon

Gon: I don't know what it means so can you please tell me? -- (unsigned by) IP 211.31.211.70 on 2005-07-06T09:45:42‎

It's a bit sad that it took ten years to address this suggestion, but the information was finally added. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition

Is it so much easier to add or subtract 100 than 90? This shouldn't be listed as a pro of the gon unit. -- (unsigned by) 85.224.111.200 on 2005-08-04T21:10:18‎

yes its MUCH easier to just change the most significant digit rather than mess arround with carries or subtraction tricks.

--Plugwash 19:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of us would find it much easier. Notable exceptions, of course, would be the ancient Babylonians.

--J i m p 05:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help adding and subtracting numbers, buy a calculator. This is the most stupid, ridiculous attempt to justify pushing the Metric System into places where it is totally unneeded. 30°, one of the two most commonly used angles, can't even be represented with an integer in "grads". The main reason it's rarely found on calculators any longer is because there is no actual benefit from it over classical 360 representation OR radians, either of which do the job just fine. 360 has an insane number of prime factors (as does 90), and fractional angles (of a circle or quarter circle) are by far one of the most common uses of angular measure. The Metric system certainly has its place. This is not one of them. --OBloodyHell (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gradient

Curiously, MicroSoft did call it "gradient" for a while on its calculator that comes with Windows; my XP version has "Grads". --Gene Nygaard 14:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I've moved this from Gon to Grad. I've never heard it called the "gon" before (and I'm a measurements buff), the refernces given by the article imply that gon is a Scandianvian and possibly German word, dictionary.com does not find gon as a unit of measure. --Rich Farmbrough 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ISO standard symbol is "gon" but it's in an annex of a document I don't have.... -- (unsigned by) Rich Farmbrough on 2005-10-31T01:17:49‎

I very much prefer to go back to gon, the official international standard name for this unit.

-- Markus Kuhn 12:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The French IGN maps still use the term "grade" for the unit of latitude and longitude (at least in their English language documentation). See [1].

-- (unsigned by) SteveMcCluskey on 2006-10-31T19:20:22‎

I too would like to see the article going back to "gon", as this is the standardized name for the unit for many decades now, and it is quite well recognized under this name at least in Europe. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

grad

Trigonometry doesn't work nearly as well with grads or gons or whatever you want to call them. The sine of 30 degrees (or pi over 6)is a lot easier to deal with than 33.33333333333333333333 etc. grads - to get the even .5 -- (unsigned by) IP 209.80.153.45 on 2006-10-06T19:16:02‎

Yup. As I noted above in a comment, this is an effort to push the metric system into an arena where it serves little value. 360° has a huge number of prime factors, and divisions of a circle or quarter circle are by far the most common uses of angle measure (go figure!). --OBloodyHell (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centigrade / Celsius

The article as currently posted seems contradictory. The confusion between centigrade (temperature) and centigrade (angle) was the reason for the <rejection> of centigrade (temperature), and the adoption of Celsius for temperature... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.96.86.4 (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Likely motivation for the grad:

Note that French artillery still uses this angle measure, likely because of its connection to the original definition of the meter: 1m = 1/10 000 000 the distance from the North Pole to the Equator. Thus, one grad of latitude is very close to 100 km. (Errors due to the original Meter Expedition.) The nautical mile is defined similarly, but in degrees and minutes. One minute of latitude equals one nautical mile.

-- (unsigned by) Rons2ndson on 2007-06-02T18:19:35‎

I object to the following statement: This was one reason for the adoption of the term Celsius to replace centigrade as the name of the temperature scale. As far I'm concerned, the french angle term was borrowed to English to be used for the Celcius scale. Still, I want a citation for the above, if I'm wrong.

--Jobbaren (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"myriograde"

This term is mentioned in the article but does not appear on even one Web page (according to a Google search) other than various copies of the same Wikipedia article. When I try to put a "citation needed" tag on it, some obsessed freak keeps reverting me. Can someone prove evidence for this word or ensure it is removed? Thanks.

--86.131.98.77 (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After researching the issue, I have removed the term from the article. There are several sources in the net in various languages mentioning it in the meaning of 1/10000, but most of them seem to be derived from Wikipedia in one form or another, or they are relatively recent discussions of the term.

For reference, it was originally added on 2007-02-07T12:07:01 by User:83.19.52.107 in edit [2], who also added the term myrio- to a number of other articles.

The problem is that many RS can be found for myrio- being just an alternative spelling variant for myria- in the meaning of 10000, as it was proposed by Thomas Young in the early 19th century.^[1]^[2] At the same time, no RS could be found defining myrio- as 1/10000, and even the term myriograd(e) could not be found in old sources so far.

Unless someone turns up a reliable source for this, we should not mention it in the article in order to avoid circular rumors.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Brewster, David (1830). The Edinburgh Encyclopædia. Vol. 12. Edinburgh, UK: William Blackwood, John Waugh, John Murray, Baldwin & Cradock, J. M. Richardson. p. 494. Retrieved 2015-10-09.
^ Brewster, David (1832). The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. Vol. 12 (1st American ed.). Joseph and Edward Parker. Retrieved 2015-10-09.

Using international standard grad symbol

I'm just changing the grad signal used through the article to the international standard, "gon". If you have any objections, please reply, or simply change it back to the original state. --200.17.147.2 (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of some common angles: Mistake

In the "conversion of some common angles"

Units	Values
Turns	0	${\tfrac {\tau }{12}}$	${\tfrac {\tau }{8}}$	${\tfrac {\tau }{6}}$	${\tfrac {\tau }{4}}$	${\tfrac {\tau }{2}}$	${\tfrac {3}{4}}\tau$	$1\tau$
Degrees	0°	30°	45°	60°	90°	180°	270°	360°
Radians	0	${\tfrac {\pi }{6}}$	${\tfrac {\pi }{4}}$	${\tfrac {\pi }{3}}$	${\tfrac {\pi }{2}}$	$\pi$	${\tfrac {3\pi }{2}}$	2 $\pi$
Grads	0^g	${\tfrac {100^{g}}{3}}$	50^g	${\tfrac {200^{g}}{3}}$	100^g	200^g	300^g	400^g

However, the turns row is all wrong. Should be 0, 1/12, 1/8, 1/6, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1 not 0, tau/12, tau/8, tau/6, tau/4, tau/2, 3/4 tau, 1 tau. For reference, see the Wikipedia page on "Turn(geometry)" or "Degree(angle)". The same mistake is there on the page "Radian". So it should be

Units	Values
Turns	0	${\tfrac {1}{12}}$	${\tfrac {1}{8}}$	${\tfrac {1}{6}}$	${\tfrac {1}{4}}$	${\tfrac {1}{2}}$	${\tfrac {3}{4}}$	$1$
Degrees	0°	30°	45°	60°	90°	180°	270°	360°
Radians	0	${\tfrac {\pi }{6}}$	${\tfrac {\pi }{4}}$	${\tfrac {\pi }{3}}$	${\tfrac {\pi }{2}}$	$\pi$	${\tfrac {3\pi }{2}}$	2 $\pi$
Grads	0^g	${\tfrac {100^{g}}{3}}$	50^g	${\tfrac {200^{g}}{3}}$	100^g	200^g	300^g	400^g

-- (unsigned by) IP 220.255.2.27 on 2011-11-09

The rows displaying degrees and gradians have numbers with units and so has the turn row. If tau is removed from the turn row then the unit symbols should also be removed from the degree and grad rows to keep consistency.

Entropeter (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calculators

The article claims

"In the 1970s and 80s most scientific calculators offered the grad as well as radians and degrees for their trigonometric functions,[4] but in recent years most offer degrees and radians only.[5]"

The cited source [5] says that calculators offer two modes degrees and radians. It does not mention grads but doesn't explictly exclude them either.

I just did a search for scientific calculator on google shopping in the UK and grabbed a few high results from different major brands (casio, cannon, hp)

fx-83GT: supports grads.
cannon f502g: appears to support grads (unfortunately I couldn't find an english manual)
f502g: supports grads.

-- 130.88.154.105 (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The given source didn't fully back up the statement in the article, that's why I changed the wording to be more neutral. Nevertheless, not all (scientific) calculators still suppot gons, unfortunately. Many still do. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that the current title is the common name. Jenks24 (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gradian → Gon (angle) – Gon is the name of this unit in ISO 31-1 (superseded by ISO 80000-3) and in ISO 80000-3 ISO 80000-3#Units of angle. Prefereably is even Gon (angle measurement) (. I think where possible it is best to follow ISO standards. WillemienH (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably oppose. I think ISO standards are at best a tiebreaker. The main determinant should be what people actually call it. It's a pretty obscure unit, so I can't say I really know what people actually call it, which is why I said "probably". --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unless sources can be found attesting to "gon" in common usage. The article suggests that gradians are presently used in surveying. If surveying shifts to "gon", or if some other specialties can be found which prefer "gon" to "grad", then there would be a good reason to prefer "gon". Right now, the shift in terminology looks like a mistake on ISO's part. Ozob (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:JARGON, WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:COMMONNAME "grad" and "gradian" are the common names, "gon" is the jargon name, in English; and we don't use official names just because they are official -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background: I was myself quite dubious about the change, I submitted this request mainly because some (math) articles used Gon , some used Grad and others used Gradian and I think we should try to use the same term everywhere. And before I enroll on a small editing spree where I would rename them all to the same name I would like to know what the WP:Consensus is on this. I know some editors dislike the whole concept of turn / 400 and rather have two than one names for it. They will lose out by this. :) WillemienH (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't really think it's necessary to use the same term everywhere. Generally, the "unit of consistency" in Wikipedia is the article; an individual article should use consistent spelling/citation style/etc, but it's not necessary for two articles, even on related subjects, to use the same. It should be enough to gloss the terms in each article (at first reference, whichever term is used, mention the other ones too, so that a reader who uses a different word will still understand). --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. At best Gon (angle) should be a disambiguation between gradian and n-gon. (But it would be a partial disambiguation so maybe that's not a good idea either.) ISO has a history of making bad and unused mathematical notation; why should we pay any more attention than usual this time? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plural usage?

It is also known as gon [...], grad, or grade

Are "gon" and "grad" symbols or nouns? The definition above suggests they are common nouns, like "gradian" itself, but they are used throughout the article as symbols that do not vary in the plural. If they are symbols, this should be made clear. — 91.238.123.116 (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both, like "bar". The name "gon", like other common nouns, is pluralized regularly and can be capitalized where needed (same for "microgons" and so on). The symbol "gon", like other unit symbols, is always unchanged (same for "μgon" and so on). The article apparently uses it mostly as a symbol. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

... A "disadvantage" is that the common angles of 30° and 60° in geometry must be expressed in fractions (33 1/3 grad and 66 2/3 grad, respectively). Similarly, in one hour (1/24 day), Earth rotates by 15° or 16 2/3 gon ...
the "hour" is based on degree, so it's obvious that is more convenient than grad. well, what if we divide a day by 8*2 = 16 "krones", instead of 12*2 =24 hours? (why: a day = one rev of Earth, 1/60 arc = deg , 1/100 rect = grad {sexagesimal vs decimal}. arc is caught from regular trigon while rect is observed in regular tetragon. so 1 rev = 6 arc = 4 rect. well, 24 h ≡ 6 arc * 4 so we replace "6 arc" by its equivalent "4 rect", so we have 16 k ≡ 4 rect * 4). now " ... in one krone (1/16 day), Earth rotates by 25 ͨ ... (read superscript c as grad). considering of time zones, it means that instead of 24 time-band of 15°, we have 16 time-band of 25 ͨ . it's interesting that 15° = 15 /60 arc = 0.25 arc while 25 ͨ = 25 /100 rect = 0.25 rect! [for common angles of 30° and 60° in geometry, we can workaround by expressing them as ρ/3, 2ρ/3 (ρ is rect). see "advantages": (C/2) /d = (S/2) /d² = ρ, and also A = 1/2 ρd², V = 1/3 ρd³ [C, A: circle circumference; area. S, V: sphere surface; volume. d: diameter].
Tabascofernandez (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. As I've commented, this is a foolish attempt to push the metric system into an arena which neither needs it nor benefits from it in any way. It does, as you note, complicated things by making very common angle measurements into a non-integer value. Radians and 360° each does a far better job of representing angle measures for nearly every instance. OBloodyHell (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not true! Surveyors do use the gon (for local angle measurements), because of the advantages, eventhough it is missing some of the advantages it could have had with metric time and metric geographical coordinates. Gollem (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gradian. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415034329/http://webdav-noauth.unit-c.fr/files/perso/pbarbier/cours_unit/Elements_de_base_de_la_cartographie.pdf to http://webdav-noauth.unit-c.fr/files/perso/pbarbier/cours_unit/Elements_de_base_de_la_cartographie.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Example

While the advantages of more divisors are true, the example of using earth rotation is wrong and misleading - the earth of course doesn't rotate one turn in 24 hours, so neither 15° nor 16 2/3 gon are exact values (it's about 14.96 and 16.62, respectively). While the real values are near the provided values, there is no point in saying "these not quite correct values are easier to write this way". I don't think the example can be saved and should be removed. 109.193.229.175 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Advantages" example misleading

One example listed in the "Advantages..." section claims the earth rotates 15° as opposed to 16 2/3 grad, but the actual rotation is slightly larger than 15°, so the actual number is very uneven in both systems. 46.223.43.217 (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Brewster_1830-1] Brewster, David (1830). The Edinburgh Encyclopædia. Vol. 12. Edinburgh, UK: William Blackwood, John Waugh, John Murray, Baldwin & Cradock, J. M. Richardson. p. 494. Retrieved 2015-10-09.

[Brewster_1832-2] Brewster, David (1832). The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia. Vol. 12 (1st American ed.). Joseph and Edward Parker. Retrieved 2015-10-09.

[1]

[2]