Talk:ISO 2848

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

Reverted edit

@DeFacto: Hello, I fail to see the problem with the recent edit, as I think it is self explanatory and consistent with the content of the article. Can you please explain a little more? Sauer202 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sauer202, per my edit summary, what you added was unexplained and unsourced. To help others understand the purpose of an edit, it is good practice to always supply an edit summary. Also, there is a requirement for article content to be verifiable through reliable sources, and I couldn't see any such sources to support the content of those added infoboxes. For example, that there is a unit of measure named "Basic module", that it belongs to a system of measurement called "SI multiple", or that it has the symbol "M". Similarly for the content added for units named "metric foot" and "metric inch". -- DeFacto (talk). 14:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just added infoboxes for the content that is already stated in the article. In case you disagree, shouldn't the article be listed for deletion? Sauer202 (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sauer202, why? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should check out the article about SI derived units (which was linked from in the infoboxes). :) Another example is the liter, which is a non-SI unit, but an SI derived unit, which is ubiquitous in for example the cooking industry. The basic module is ubiquitous in the construction industry in countries conforming to the ISO 2848. I guess that since the basic module is not listed by the SI, it could be argued that the infobox-links to the SI derived units article should be removed. Otherwise I fail to see the problem with the infoboxes. Sauer202 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sauer202, if it's as clear-cut as you seem to believe, then it should be easy to supply reliable sources to support it. I'm not sure what your point about the litre is. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The liter is not an SI unit, just as the basic module is not an SI unit. Sauer202 (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sauer202, yes, it's one of the non-SI units mentioned in the SI, as are many other units. But I don't see the relevance of that in this discussion about a lack of reliable sources for content in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"SI derived units [..] are either dimensionless or can be expressed as a product of one or more of the base units, possibly scaled by an appropriate power of exponentiation." Sauer202 (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sauer202, I don't see any of the units you added mentioned there as a named derived unit either. As with your 'litre' example, I'm not sure what point you are making. You could make it easier by referring to reliable sources that support what you want to add. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is just funny that you need a source for something that is obvious. Sauer202 (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sauer202, it's not me that needs it, Wikipedia policy demands it. It may be obvious to you, but the Wikipedia audience covers a wide range of abilities, backgrounds, experiences, prejudices and expectations. If it is true, there will almost certainly be sources available to support it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can ISO 2848 be used as a source? I will look at it at another time. Sauer202 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sauer202, I'm not sure, you need to read WP:RS and see what guidance it gives. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about whether the article about the metric construction units ISO 2848 basic module (100 mm), metric inch (25 mm) and metric foot (300 mm) should have info boxes

Should it be permitted to use unit infoboxes for derived SI units defined by ISO standards? Sauer202 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad RfC because the dispute isn't really about the stated topic, nor did this have to be an RfC. I believe the point DeFacto was trying to make is that an WP:inline citation must be provided to the reference that you're using to define a "basic module". So literally just put in an inline citation to the ISO standard that defines the "basic module" as being 100 millimeters. This would've ended the dispute. An ISO standard is likely reliable, and in the future if you need assistance with judging reliability, you can make a post at WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard to get input. With respect to the "metric foot" or "metric inch", if these are defined in an ISO standard it would be appropriate to again cite said standard for the definition of these units.

All that being said, I wouldn't call this an SI derived unit since it doesn't appear to be a part of the SI. Maybe the term metric unit would be more appropriate given that the Bar (unit) and Angstrom are labelled as such. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added an inline citation. If adding an inline citation was only what DeFacto wanted, he could either have stated that want clearly in the discussion or just have done it himself: It is just a link to ISO 2848. How an inline citation is needed for an article topic I find hard to understand. In fact, I find it so hard to understand that I find the revertion beliggerant instead of helping each other reach a common understanding. Wikipedia:Use common sense

I also would argue that the basic module is indeed an SI derived unit, since it fits perfectly with the description on the SI derived unit, which the wiki page describes as a "unit of measurement derived from the seven base units specified by the International System of Units". You might be confusing the term SI derived unit with the 22 SI derived units which have been given special names? In my opinion, you can make up any fantasy unit you want from a fancy mathematical engineering equation, and nevertheless, as long as the resulting compound unit is based on SI units it would be defined as an SI derived unit. The metric units mentiond would also be SI derived. Those mentioned in the SI derived unit article are just examples.

The infobox which was removed has however only used the term SI multiple, which I think is indisputable that the ISO 2848 basic module is? Sauer202 (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sauer202: If you use a special name for a derived unit that isn't authorized by the SI, then it's not an "SI derived unit" since it's not part of the International System of Units. The Barn (unit) for instance is defined as being 100 femtometers squared. While it is derived from SI units, it is not an "SI derived unit" as it is specifically given in the 8th brochure as an example of a non-SI unit. [1] 100 millimeters is an SI derived unit, 1 basic module is not. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is very relevant, but I think I disagree that barn (100 femtometer) is not an SI derived unit, because I think that a unit can be SI derived even though it is also specifically a non-SI unit.

Still, I think whether the basic module can be classified as SI derived or not is not relevant to my central point, which is that the basic module is an SI multiple, more specifically by a factor of 10 or 0.1 relative to the meter (depending on which way you convert).

My point is: If we rather use a term like for example "metric unit" instead, that would be fine. Then we can just enter that into the infobox. It does not justify removing the whole infobox over such a little detail like this. Sauer202 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sauer202, I agree with @Chess that this is a bad RfC. The problem with the article is that none of the main assertions are supported by reliable sources. The question posed in this RfC is more general than this article. Until we have reliable sources confirm that any of the so-called "units" mentioned in this article actually are "derived SI units", it doesn't even apply to this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. The fact that neither of you are answering to the question in the RfC surely might indicate that the RfC has its place? The premise for the discussion is not about the points you mentioned. Sincerely, Sauer202 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content

Currently the content of this article fails WP:V as nothing in it is supported by reliable sources. Examples of key content that needs sourcing includes:

"International standard ISO 2848 (Building construction – Modular coordination – Principles and rules, International Organization for Standardization, 1984) is an ISO standard used by the construction industry"
"It is based on multiples of 300 mm and 600 mm"
"The numbers 300 and 600 were chosen because they are preferred numbers due to their large number of divisors – any multiple can be evenly divided into 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, etc."
"This system is known as "modular coordination". A related standard is British Standard 6750"
"Adherence to the standard means that major dimensions such as grid lines on drawings, distances between wall centres or surfaces, widths of shelves and kitchen components are multiples of the basic module"
"As dimensions increase, preference is given to lengths which are multiples of 3 (see metric foot), 6, 12, 15, 30 and 60 basic modules"
"For smaller dimensions, the submodular increments 1⁄4 M (see metric inch) and 1⁄2 M are preferred"
A metric foot " is a nickname for the preferred number length of 3 basic modules (3 M), or 300 millimetres (11.811 in)"
"Although the term "metric foot" is still occasionally used in the United Kingdom, in particular in the timber trade, dimensions are most likely to be quoted exclusively in metric units today."
"The sizes of the studios at BBC Television Centre in London, which opened in 1960, are specified and measured in metric feet, in contrast to film stages where imperial feet and inches prevail"
A metric inch "is a nickname for a preferred 1⁄4 subdivision of an ISO 2848 basic module, or 1⁄12 of a metric foot measuring 25 millimetres (0.984 in)"
"The term was similarly used to refer to the historical Eastern Bloc practice of spacing integrated circuit pins at 1⁄10 of a 25 mm "metric inch" length, instead of the Western practice of 1⁄10 of an imperial inch"
That there is a unit system named "SI multiple"
That "basic module", "metric inch" and "metric foot" are units of measure
That "basic module", "metric inch" and "metric foot" are members of the SI multiple" measurement system

Without some reliable secondary sources, this article could be at risk of being nominated for deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you nominate the article for deletion? Sauer202 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sauer202, I'd rather it was fixed if what it is saying is actually correct. I'm trying to get hold a copy of the standard to read to try and understand the subject, but have so far failed to locate one. I searched high and low for any references discussing it and drew a blank with that too. You added the standard as a reference for something in the article - can you provide a quote from it showing how it supports that? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, all your points above are valid and it would be a good improvement for the article to get the various things referenced. Good work! The only exception that I disagree with is that there is a measurement system called "SI multiple". The measurement system in question is SI, and the units this article is about are whole number multiples of that. Might it help if we change the measurement system entry in the infoboxes to "metric multiples of SI units", or just "metric system"? Or simply remove that line in the infobox? A measurement unit does not have to be part of a system - conversions to SI and US Imperial are provided still in the infobox, and that might be sufficient. Sauer202 (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sauer202, can you provide a quote of the text from the ISO standard that supports "The standard unit of ISO 2848 is a basic module, a length of 100 millimetres (3.937 in) which is represented in the standards by the letter M"? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full ISO 2848 standard can be bought on pdf or paper at iso.org for 38 Swiss francs: ISO - ISO 2848:1984 - Building construction — Modular coordination — Principles and rules. iTeh Standards provide a preview of some of the ISO 2848 standard which may answer some of your questions: ISO-2848-1984 preview. Maybe there's also something on the Wikpedia Library Sauer202 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sauer202, thanks, yes I know, but I don't need it enough to actually buy it! I've tried the library, but had no luck there.

When you cited it, didn't you you have access to it? If not, how did you know it supported what you put it against? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto Yes, I have access to it, but given the climate I'm not very interested in collaborating more on this. Sauer202 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sauer202, climate? If I'm going to have to buy my own copy, do you think it'll help me to source more of the article - does it talk about "metric inches" and "metric feet", for example? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not interested in collaborating more with you on this. Sauer202 (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got hold of a copy of ISO 2848 in the end, and there is no support in it for "a length of 100 millimetres (3.937 in) which is represented in the standards by the letter M". It refers the reader to ISO 1006 (which has been withdrawn and replaced by ISO 21723) and ISO 21723 gives it two definitions, one as 100 mm and one as 4 inches. So I've reworked that bit of the article to reflect that. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metric Foot and Inch

The editing left the terms metric foot and inch undefined, and they no longer have their own pages either. So I put in what is supposed to be the metric equivalents in the body of the text. But I relied on measurement converter websites to do so, so I don't have a good source to put in the References.

I don't want to remove the terms; the very reason I came to this page was through searching on "Metric Foot". But obviously better citations are needed.

Ths links, should you use them:

[2]https://www.kylesconverter.com/length/metric-inches-to-millimeters

[3]https://www.justintools.com/unit-conversion/length.php?k1=metric-foot&k2=feet

Thanks John Gamble (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restored historical content to the redirects as ISO 2848 doesn't seem to support those terms, and removed any mention of them from this article -- DeFacto (talk). 07:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]