Jump to content

Talk:Metre/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

numeric commas

A couple of recent edits have replaced numeric commas with numeric spaces between groups of 3 digits, and then brought back the commas. A quick look through the article shows that the majority of large numbers use numeric spaces and that only 2 large numbers used commas. Therefore it makes sense to make all the large numbers use spaces.  Stepho  talk  20:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is guidance at MOS:DIGITS.
Note there is a distinction between numbers with many digits vs. large numbers. Traditionally, commas are only used to the left of the decimal point, not to the right. Also, if a number has four digits to the left of the decimal, the comma or narrow space is optional
I only see one large number in the article that requires commas (if we decide to go with commas): 299,792,458. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Here is a list of all numbers that have 5 or more digits before the decimal separator or 5 or more digits after the decimal separator. 4 digits are ignored because MOS:DIGITS allows 4 digits to be grouped by either 4 or 3 digits according to consensus on the article.
  • 1/299,792,458 of a second
  • 40,000 km
  • 0.000 539 96 nmi
  • 22000 Earth radii
  • 1 650 763.73 wavelengths
  • 1/299 792 458 of a second
  • 299 792 458 metres per second (≈300 000 km/s)
  • 632.991 212 58 nm
  • 1 579 800.762 042(33) wavelengths
  • 1 579 800.762 042(33) wavelengths
  • 1 650 763.73 wavelengths
  • 1/299 792 458 of a second
  • 1 650 763.73 wavelengths
  • 1/299 792 458 second
  • 0.393 70 inch
  • 0.039 370 inch
Apologies if I missed any.
As you can see, there are 13 instances of spaced separated numbers, 1 unseparated number and only 2 instances of comma separated numbers. If you count only digits to before the decimal separator, then the counts are 9 with spaces, 1 unseparated and 2 with commas.
MOS:DIGITS says that either spaces or commas are allowed but that the article must be consistent in which one it uses. By my reading of MOS:DIGITS, I don't any numbers that require commas. Can you explain why you think it is required?  Stepho  talk  01:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
There was no reply, so I changed the 2 comma numbers and the single unseparated number to be space separated.  Stepho  talk  00:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think using spaces was a mistake, and would like to see it reverted. It does not read as a single large number to my (American) eye, and in the denominator of a fraction, it seems like it can be confused for a product (multiplication). I realize I did not offer my opinion at the appropriate time. jhawkinson (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

To my Australian eye, the spaces look cleaner and less cluttered. Of course, that's just my opinion.
However, we should have all the large numbers using the same style and not a mish-mash of different styles.  Stepho  talk  10:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposing a Move to 'Meter'

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to not move per WP:TITLEVAR, WP:RETAIN, and International Bureau of Weights and Measures. No one has moved this page since 2014. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I've read the discussions of the previous attempts to move but I feel like many of the arguments against the move where defeated in the discussions but the move did not occur.


First Argument: The article was created with the 'metre' spelling and as such should stay.

1. The rule that the original spelling be kept has been violated before in the move from the Humor page to Humour and that is a discussion all on its own but defeats the argument that original authorship is what matters. Original spelling is not a followed rule and can therefor not be used as an argument against movement from one spelling to another on the British/American English divide. Those insisting should also insist that Humour be moved back to Humor.

2. It could also be mentioned that the Wiktionary article for 'metre' was around a full year before the article for 'meter'. This may seem like reason for the wikipedia article to remain as 'metre' but this is a logical jump. Wiktionary is not cataloging lexemmes, it catalogs lemmas (although morphemes might be fore accurate), even those which are not in standard widely accepted usage. See 'alot'. The wiktionary article for 'meter' coming into existence after the one for 'metre' is a significant as the article for 'download' being created after the article for 'metre'.


Second Argument: 'Metre' is more widely used throughout the world.

This is simply false and numerous online sources can verify this.

1. I am aware that 'meter' also has the meaning of a measuring stick but even so, 'meter' is more commonly used. Google Ngram : Meter vs. Metre

'Meter' has been more commonly used than 'metre' since the 1900's.

2. Proof that this increase in usage is in reference to the SI unit can be seen in the usage charts for millimeter/millimetre, centimeter/centimetre, and kilometer/kilometre. All show a popularity for the 'meter' spelling convention.

These results come from the world's largest collection of digitized books. These results are taken from their entire collection of English texts (combined American, British, and all others). In just their British English corpus there are some years in the 1940's and a bit later that usage of 'meter' rose and outnumbered usage of 'metre': see here. Usage of 'meter' in the British English corpus is still popular. This can again be verified by looking at the frequency of centi,millimeter/metre.

3. In regards to search popularity we see 'metre' being beaten by 'meter' across the board. In terms of search results (obtained on the day of this posts creation at 10am:

Search Results for 'meter' vs 'metre'
Search Engine meter metre
Google 1,160,000,000 432,000,000
Bing 35,800,000 29,800,000

(Interesting point to note is that the side-info box in Google displays the text from our 'Metre' article but Google titles the box 'Meter' even when searching 'metre'. Including searches from Google.co.uk)

4. Also, in terms of search popularity and not results, 'meter' is vastly more popular than 'metre' for Worldwide searches in all categories for the entire time Google has public record. see here.

A point often brought up is that other languages use 'metre' instead of 'meter' but this should have no bearing on the English Wikipedia article's name.


Argument 3: Etymology/Historical Spelling

Prescriptivist nonsense. Jail should be moved to gaol, Hiccup to Hiccough, email to e-mail, etc. following this logic.


Conclusion

'Meter' is more widely used across the globe and has popular use rivaling that of 'meter' in the UK. 'Meter' is what people use and are searching for and many search results which use our data change the article title to 'Meter' in their display. The page should be updated to reflect popular spelling and convention and the rule baring it from taking place is not followed and has been broken on an occasion relating exactly to this issue of spelling. Slight ambiguities for people looking for the measuring device can be handled in the typical way of "This article is about the unit, if you want the measuring device see". Not to mention that the url for 'meter' already redirects. Olfbir (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Your conclusion is false. The American spelling is very rarely used for the unit of length in the UK, and would be marked as incorrect in any non-American school. Anyone searching for "meter" in the UK would almost certainly be looking for a measuring device, not a unit of length. Dbfirs 15:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, the popularity globally is for the 'meter' convention. Not to mention I discussed the fact that centimeter, millimeter, and kilometer have non-trivial levels of use in section 2. I have updated my conclusion, thought. Thank you.Olfbir (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Your reasoning conflicts with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The advice given with respect to national varieties of English in WP:TITLEVAR is "... all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer one in particular. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa..." and in MOS:RETAIN is "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another.". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Reject. The 'First argument' of rules not always being followed is essentially trying to throw out all rules that don't suit you. Which also means people with different ideas to you can also through out your ideas and change any article to suit themselves. Edit wars will become the norm and we get to spend 99% of our time repairing damage. The correct answer to your 'first argument' is to obey more rules, not ignore them.
For the 'Second argument'. Google results are often heavily biased. Google scans more American books because they are based in America and accessed America university libraries for a lot of their source material. Also, searching for 'meter' will include both the unit of length for Americans and the display device for everybody (eg volt meter). There is a policy somewhere saying that Google results should never be used as the deciding argument but I can't find it in our labyrinth of rules.
The choice made by Wiktionary or any other external organisation is irrelevant to our choice.
The real life history of the word makes no difference to determining which form is used. WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN give equal rights to all forms found in major, current dialects of English and we need consensus or a very, very good reason to change it.
For 'Argument 3' (should that have been 'Third argument'?), the choice made at gaol or jail is also irrelevant - each article chooses from the major, current dialects independently of each, ie WP does not have a preferred English dialect.
None of your arguments are compelling and many of them are invalid. To be fair, if the article was already named 'meter' and somebody wanted to change it to 'metre' then most of their arguments would also likely to be invalid. WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN are here to stop us wasting enormous amounts of time and edit wars on what boils down to 'I want my local language'.  Stepho  talk  22:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm English - born, raised and educated in England yet I don't think it is right to warp ENGVAR against clear application of Wikipedia convention in regard to international usage.
Here goes:
when searching in google scholar:
"distance" "metre" gets "About 200,000 results"
"distance" "meter" gets "About 2,790,000 results"
"orbit" "kilometre gets "About 9,850 results"
"orbit" "kilometer" gets "About 30,800 results"
The claim that people in the UK and other locations don't use the spelling "meter" also seems pretty far fetched.
When conducting an advanced google search:
"orbit" "kilometer" site:.ac.uk gets "About 4,400 results"
"orbit" "kilometre" site:.ac.uk gets "About 5,170 results"
Even in the bastions of UK education there's not much difference.
GregKaye 13:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Warp? There is no warping involved. Its a straight forward application of its primary purpose. WP:ENGVAR's purpose is to show that there are multiple spelling conventions around the world, that none of them have superiority over the rest and that ultimately it is a complete waste of time to flick back and forth between them.
Your Google searches don't show more popularity - just that Americans tend to be more vocal and that Google has scanned books from more American libraries than UK libraries. It also counts 'meter' as both the unit of measure and the measuring device (notice that your searches for 'kilometre'/'kilometer' show much less difference). Why search on 'orbit' in particular? Even when adding 'UK' to the mix it is just finding astronomical papers that are hosted in the UK but were written in other countries - meaningless in this context. See Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers for more details of the pitfalls in using Google to prove things. And even if the Google searches were accurately portraying popularity (which they don't) - so what? It's not a popularity contest. As stated above, both 'metre' and 'meter' are perfectly acceptable but once one has been selected then we should not change from one to the other. And I would use the same argument to retain the title if it was already 'meter'.  Stepho  talk  00:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


  • Oppose a move. Perhaps if the Americans started using sensible units like everyone else does, we could give their opinion some weight. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose metre is the international spelling. Couldn't care less that some Americans are incapable of grasping that they aren't the centre of the world. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just discuss the proposal on its merits, folks. No need to personalize it. This has been discussed and turned down multiple times. There's nothing here to warrant a change of title after almost 20 years at this spelling. The article is in British spelling, period. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Question I think the sensible thing would be to use the spelling which people look for. If most readers search for "meter" and are redirected to "metre", then the name of the article should be changed. If most readers search for "metre", then the current name should be retained. Fcrary (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    How do the you count the most in a fair manner? Most Americans will look for 'meter'. Most Brits, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, Germans, French and many others will look for 'metre'. Asians are split depending on whether their English teacher spoke British or American English. See WP:ENGVAR.  Stepho  talk  22:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    Well, I'd count redirects by counting. I'm not talking about "fair", whatever that means in this context. I'm simply saying that minimizing the number of redirects is desirable. Although, given autocorrects for spelling, minimizing the inconvenience for majority of editors is also worth mentioning. Fcrary (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    I can tell that you haven't studied the field of statistics - counting is not as simple as it appears. 'meter' includes the American name for the length and the measuring instrument. 'Metre' includes only non-American name for the length but not the measuring instrument. Counting must somehow split them by context - which computers are not good at. Articles that were written by Americans (regardless of whether the topic is American or not) will of course predominantly have links to this article via the American spelling. Similar for Commonwealth spelling. That tells you nothing about what the readers want. Is there a trend that Americans put more or less links in their articles? Some editors link almost every word, some link almost none. This gives an undue bias and we don't know in which direction. And in the final analysis, if the redirects in either spelling go to the correct article then the servers have automatically handled the problem and therefore there is no problem to fix.  Stepho  talk  01:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Definition at https://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/17/1/ - --David Biddulph (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Please retain the original and international spelling. Dbfirs 09:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as I see it, WP:TITLEVAR covers this, and that does not say use whichever variety of English is more common on the web. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Explanation of relationship to c is wanting in the definition

The lede of this article, in the third sentence, defines the metre: 

The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second.

But this suggests that 299,792,458 is an arbitrary number, and does not explain that it is c. This seems problematic. Although I think it's true that the metre is defined that way (and the cited source supports it), and not in terms of c, the reader should understand that where that number comes from and why. (I assume it is set up this way so that if it turns out that we are wrong about the definition of c, or we learn to measure it more precisely, that it does not result in a change to the definition of a metre. So although it would be tempting to change that language to: 

The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in  seconds (where c is the speed of light in a vacuum), or 1/299 792 458 of a second.

I think this would confuse the actual definition with what the definition means, so it doesn't seem appropriate. But I would think that something along those lines would be appropriate. Any thoughts?

I guess there's also a question of how to handle the units. "1/c" has units of s/m so we could say "1/c meters" which would give us seconds, but then following that with "seconds" would be incomprehensible (""1/c meters (seconds) seconds"). jhawkinson (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

What about adding a footnote to the effect that 299 792 458 was the most precise, measured value of the speed of light, at the time the definition was adopted. And that, even if more precise measurement are made in the future, 299 792 458 would still be used to avoid changing the length of a meter. Fcrary (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think a footnote is very helpful here, because I would like people reading the definition for the first time to understand the conceptual meaning (rather than only the rigorous technical meaning). Because most people don't follow footnotes, they're helpful for technical clarifications or for information we think only the most detail-oriented readers are going to want, or supporting background. So the current text with a clarificatory footnote doesn't meet my goal of making the lede paragraph more conceptually understandable to non-experts. I guess we could change the lead text to be less technically precise and put the technical accuracy in a footnote, but I would be very wary of doing that—the definition of meter is pretty important technical concept, and giving a wishy-washy maybe-not-quite-true definition doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you or not thinking creatively enough about how to use footnotes here. Another choice might be to have a sidebar box next to the lead paragraph with something like: "Physics for Dummies: What this really means is the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light, as we best understand it, blah blah blah". Unfortunately there's an Infobox already. But on many screen widths there's a lot of space to the right of the table of contents before the infobox that maybe could be used? Not sure. jhawkinson (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
We have to specify the definition but we can then also explain it in layman's terms. How about something like "The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in ⁠1/299 792 458⁠ of a second. This is equivalent to light travelling 299 792 458 metres in one second."  Stepho  talk  21:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
No, that doesn't explain where 299,792,458 comes from! It makes it seem like an arbitrary number, but it is not! (Also, much better with the commas for numbers in running text). Yes, we can certainly add another clarificatory sentence to the lede; I don't like making it too long, but it probably can't be avoided. But I want to make sure we do a good job, and I think the definition in this article is particularly sensitive, which is why I raised it here rather than Being Bold. jhawkinson (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
What about a flat statement that 299,792,458 was the most precise measurement of the speed of light in 1983 (when this definition was adopted.) Fcrary (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
That wouldn't be sufficient, and is also misleading. It's not sufficient because it's not obvious why "1/c" is the right number. It's not a light-second, I'm not sure how to best describe the physical/conceptual meaning, but there is one, right (I am tired and my brain is not 100% on right this moment)? And it's misleading because while that may be true in 1983, that suggests it might have changed since then. But it has not, the speed of light is defined to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. If the measurement changes, then the length of a meter changes. Or perhaps I mistake your implication. jhawkinson (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

So, err, it appears that this entire discussion is moot, because in May 2019 the metre was redefined, and done so in such a way that the particulars of the concern I raised no longer matter (although there may be related concerns). See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units#Metre 

The metre, symbol m, is the SI unit of length. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the speed of light in vacuum c to be 299792458 when expressed in the unit m⋅s−1, where the second is defined in terms of the caesium frequency ΔνCs

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that a year later this article seems to still have the old definition of metre? I'm not feeling confident enough to make the edit. jhawkinson (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's the same definition, it's just more verbose. No real objections to updating to the modern language, but it's not a new definition. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
There was indeed a big SI shake-up in May 2019. But the metre didn't change its value or definition in that shake-up. In fact, when Australia changed it's legistration to match the new SI definitions, the entry for the metre was changed merely by adding the words "SI definition" - https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00559/Explanatory%20Statement/Text  Stepho  talk  23:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Since the above two replies seem to have misunderstood me, perhaps I should clarify. The numeric value of the meter didn't change, but it's definition sure did. It now makes explicit reference to the speed of light (c) which it did not do before. And the concern I raised in Feb. was exactly about that—that there was a magic number in the lede of this article (1/299,792,458) whose meaning was not obvious if you didn't know that was the speed of light. It's a subtle thing, to be sure, and it may not matter to most people, but it is incontrovertible that the definition has changed. And it also happens to matter for the exact question of how to explain the speed of light's relevance to the definition to a lay person. But it also means other parts of this article are wrong, like the final sentence of the lede, "In 1983, the current definition was adopted."
However, I certainly wouldn't toss the new definition into the lede here without some careful explanation. Maybe the new definition makes more sense in French, but honestly I have a lot of trouble with in English, even though I know what it's supposed to mean. It says you take the numeric value of c but then it doesn't seem to me to say what you do with it, or measure the distance light travels in some time, or anything like that. I am genuinely puzzled and wonder what I'm missing. jhawkinson (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
We are now talking about 2 different topics. The first topic is where that magic number comes from. The second topic is what changed in May 2020.
Addressing the first topic, the magic number was chosen as the number of vibrations of a caesium atom such that the length travelled by light in the same time taken as those vibrations came as close as possible to the historical definition of the metre. Or to put it another way, count how many vibrations happen while a beam of light travelled from one end of the prototype bar to the other end. And it turns out that the count came out as 299792458. It wasn't chosen, it was simply counted. If the prototype bar was 50% bigger then the count would also have been 50% more.
Addressing the second topic, at https://www.bipm.org/metrology/length/units.html in the 'base unit' tab, they tell us that in May 2020 they implemented the definition agreed upon in Nov 2018. In the 'historical perspective' tab they say " In order to make clear its dependence on the fixed numerical value of the speed of light, c, the wording of the definition was changed in Resolution 1 of the 26th CGPM (2018)." In other words the definition did not change - only the wording changed to make it clearer. The Australian reference backs that up. So does https://www.euramet.org/si-redefinition/countdown-si-redefinition/the-metre/ by EURAMET.  Stepho  talk  01:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we are indeed talking about two things. You may blame me for that.
No, it was May 2019, over a year ago, not May 2020. That's why I'm so surprised the article is not up-to-date.
Err...I don't think the way that 299792458 was chosen is really germane here, but the way you describe it conflates the definition of second and the definition of meter. Of course they're all bound up together and the history is complicated, but the number of microfine transitions of cesium-133 is really about the second, and the 3e8 is about the speed of light, and together those make the meter. Not that it matters here?
I think it's pretty clear that when we say "definition" we mean "the wording." If the wording changes, even by a little bit, then the definition changes. If we don't agree on that, well, then I guess we are having a dispute over the definition of "definition," and I'm not sure the right way to resolve that. I casually linked to Wiktionary above, although I don't think it's a particularly good dictionary; if we had to pick one, I'd go with the OED's 4(a) ["A precise statement of the essential nature of a thing; a statement or form of words by which anything is defined."]. But I'm surprised to hear it suggested that the wording the defines a meter can change without the definition of meter changing. I don't see how your source support your claim, though. The Euramet blog post explicitly says, "On 20 May 2019 the official definition of the metre will change." That sure seems to say the definition changed. (I'm not familiar with Euramet and am not sure how much credence to give it. Presumably BIPM and SI have been very clear on this.) I don't see how the Australian source much to do with this one way or the other. And, of course, if we look at Wikipedia, the title (and content) of 2019 redefinition of the SI base units seems clear enough! jhawkinson (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Oops, I should have said May 2019 - a typo on my part.
I think our definition of definition is different. For example, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/chair and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chair use different wording but are essentially defining "chair" in the same way. Merely rephrasing to make it clearer is not the same as changing the definition. However, I have no problem of adding an extra entry in the timeline to say that in May 2019 the definition was rephrased for clarity.
The Australian reference is relevant because Australia is a member of the Metre Convention. Member are required (or at least strongly encouraged) to keep their legislation in line with the technical details from BIPM so that each member can intelligently talk about the same thing. If Australia's only response to the May 2019 rewording is the insertion of "SI definition", then I would take that as saying that the definition did not change in any essential way.
EURAMET is a group formed from the meteorological departments of the governments of the majority of European countries. Given their background in official and accurate measurements across many nations, they follow this stuff very closely and would not issue such statements lightly. They have as much credence in Europe as the NIST has in the US.
Yep, I made boo-boo in my maths. Typing late at night obviously wasn't a good idea. Thank you for pointing it out. I should have said that light travels 299,792,458 m in 1 second and that this number was chosen so that 1/299792458 c matched as closely as possible to the historical prototype. With a bit of high school maths, this can be calculated by measuring how far it travels while counting a certain number of transitions of the caesium atom - see https://www.bipm.org/metrology/length/units.html.  Stepho  talk  08:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

hidden error

The article mentions an error in the initial French survey. What/Where is it? Wizzy…☎ 17:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT Meters (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
He's asking about an error that is mentioned but not described. I assume this is the Ken Alder reference. I don't know it either but it does seem strange to mention that there is an error and then never say anything more about it. Does anybody have the book?  Stepho  talk  22:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
In his book, The Measure of All Things: the seven year odyssey and hidden error that transformed the world, Ken Alder recalls some errors that crept into the measurement of the two French scientists and that Méchain had even noticed an inaccuracy which he had not dared to admit. When Carlos Ibáñez e Ibáñez de Ibero, founder of the International Bureau for Weights and Measures, was taking part to the measurement of the West Europe-Africa Meridian-arc (remeasurement and extension of the Paris meridian arc), mathematicians like Legendre and Gauss had developed new methods for processing data, including the "least squares method" which allowed to compare experimental data tainted with measurement errors to a mathematical model. This method minimized the impact of measurement inaccuracies. The Earth measurements thus underscored the importance of the scientific method at a time when statistics were implemented in geodesy. Ferdinand Rudolph Hassler's use of the metre in coastal survey, which had been an argument for the introduction of the Metric Act of 1866 allowing the use of the metre in the United States, probably played a role in the choice of the metre as international scientific unit of length and the proposal by the European Arc Measurement (German: Europäische Gradmessung) to “establish a European international bureau for weights and measures”. As Carlos Ibáñez e Ibáñez de Ibero stated, the International prototype metre would form the basis of the new international system of units, but it would no longer have any relation to the dimensions of the Earth that geodesists were trying to determine. It would be no more than the material representation of the unity of the system. At that time, the main problem was that metallic standards used on the field changed size with temperature. The History of the metre recalls that the first international scientific organisations were founded in central Europe during the 19th century, among them the International Association of Geodesy at the initiative of Prussia. The BIPM's thermometry work led to the discovery of special alloys of iron-nickel, in particular invar, for which its director, the Swiss physicist Charles Édouard Guillaume, was granted the Nobel Prize for physics in 1920. In 1900, the International Committee for Weights and Measures responded to a request from the International Association of geodesy and included in the work program of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures the study of measurements by invar's wires. Edvard Jäderin, a Swedish geodesist, had invented a method of measuring geodetic bases, based on the use of taut wires under a constant effort. However, before the discovery of invar, this process was much less precise than the classic method. Charles Édouard Guillaume demonstrated the effectiveness of Jäderin's method, improved by the use of invar's threads. He measured a base in the Simplon Tunnel in 1905. The accuracy of the measurements was equal to that of the old methods, while the speed and ease of the measurements were incomparably higher.Charles Inigo (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Does that mean the error was just a measurement/recording errors? Ie what should have been a true figure of 123456 m was measured as 123478 m (every measurement has a certain error) or was written down as 128456 (kind of like a typo in one digit). Or was one particular measurement wildly wrong? I've done some measurement analysis at work (on the scale of metres) and we do lots of curve fitting and automatic detection/rejection of outliers (techniques not available way back in their day).  Stepho  talk  23:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The problem with triangulation is that one measures a baseline and a serie of triangles and then an other baseline to confirm that all the angles of all of the triangles were correct. So if the baselines dont match it can be due to errors in the measurement of the baselines and/or to errors in the measurement of the angles of the triangles. Between the end of the 18th century and the end of the 19th century there was a lot of progresses in the instruments for measuring angles on the fiel and astromic latitude, for mesuring baseline and in mathematical processes to minimise the effect of the errors. According to Ken Alder, the implementation of the least squeares method was the most important progress in geodesy as it represented the arousal of the figure of the scientist replacing that of the scholar (I mean what the French call "savant"). For metrology in the 19th century, the question was to overcome the problems caused by thermodynamics and the thermal expansion of standards. As the standards changed size with temperature the problem was to compare different standards at different temperatures knowing that similar standards in the same alloy had slightly different coefficients of linear expansion. This was particuliarly important for geodesists who measured baselines in the field with changing temperatures. In France the main geodetic standard was a double toise constructed for the survey of Delambre and Méchain and devised by Lavoisier and Borda. The metre was defined as a fraction of this standard at a precise temperature. When the International Association of Geodesy choose the metre as international scientific unit three country had standards calibrated against the metre : the United States, Spain and Egypt. Among them Spain was a member of the association and was represented by the ingeneer who had devised the Spanish standards with which the baselines were measured in Spain. In short at that time it was known that the measuring instruments changed size with temperature which had to be precisely measured to allow the accuracy of length measurement. As the science which was concerned by the problem was geodesy, geodesists choose an unit of length which had been defined by geodesists and which was in use in France, United States, Spain and Egypt as a scientific unit and in numerous European, Latin American countries and USA (since the Metric Act of 1866) as a legal unit. Charles Inigo (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposing to add motivation of metre

I just added a sentence "Together with gradian as measurement of angles, the kilometre would have served the role of the nautical mile in navigation." which was removed for lack of reference. I dug around a little and this was one reference I could come up with (note that "grade" is listed as synonym of "gradian" on the gradian Wikipedia page) https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/6035A87C6F5260BFA938D3502289D61A/S0373463300032410a.pdf which states at the bottom of page 2: "If decimalization of angular measure be required, then the correct unit is the grade. 400 grades equal 360°, 100 grades equal 90° and, for all practical purposes at sea, an arc of 100 kilometres subtends an angle of one grade at the centre of the Earth. (It should be remembered that the original definition of the metre was the ten-millionth part of the distance from the pole to the equator; compare definition (ii). The latitude scale on charts may then subdivide the grade into 100 nautical kilometres, each of which subtends an angle of o-oi grades at the centre of curvature at that place."

Would that be acceptable? My sentence didn't really make any historic claim but just pointed out that, geometrically, using gradian, the kilometre would serve the role of the nautical mile, which anybody can verify, based on the information on the linked Wikipedia pages. I've tried to find a reference about how people around the French revolution discussed this but my expertise is more in the science aspects and in navigation of sailboats than history. Anyone who has done navigation on a sailboat, which entirely revolves around the relationship between nautical miles and minutes latitude, is not going to have a doubt that it isn't a coincidence that gradian and metre were proposed around the same time by the same people. Knowing that I would have to give a historic reference to tie them together historically, I refrained from historic claims. Again, if you want me to, I'll spend some more time scouring history books.

As it stands, the metre page does not explain why anyone would have thought of making the unit of measurement a ten-millionth of the distance from equator to pole. The motivation was very thoughtful: Keep in mind that the French revolution was a time of navigating ships using terrestrial and astronomical means. This wasn't a time of GPS. That being said, anyone sailing a ship on the oceans or flying an airplane nowadays is most definitely going to know why the nautical mile is what it is and the Wikipedia page on the nautical mile explains that. The Wikipedia page on gradian also explains nicely how the French around the French Revolution were going to decimalize angles. If that move had succeeded the nautical mile would no longer be suitable for navigation, because the nautical mile is inherently tied to degrees with 360 degrees being the full circle and sixtieths thereof being minutes. One nautical mile is one arc minute using 360 degrees and 60 minutes. One kilometre is the equivalent in gradian, where the a right angle has 100 degrees and 100 minutes per degree. That's just basic math. If the switch to gradian for ship compasses and nautical charts had gone ahead, the nautical mile would no longer have served its vital role in navigation, and the kilometer would have taken over. Keep in mind that every ship's compass, every chart, every sextant would have had to be changed. This would have been a comparably difficult change to metrification itself. Europeans didn't go ahead with this portion of decimalization, except in some niche areas, as detailed on the "gradian" Wikipedia page, and nor did anyone else. So that's why the motivation of the metre is now somewhat dangling, and this lack of motivation comes up routinely in discussions among science-minded people. Without this motivation the "scientific" choice of length unit would be the nautical mile.

I run into this type of discussion often enough that I figured I would add the motivation right to this article. What would you like me to do to get this connection added? Without it, the definition of the metre appears arbitrary. If you want me to, I can add the above source or find a historic one. The pages on gradian and nautical mile are already well-sourced, so I figured the connection was self-explanatory using the basic math that the kilometer is 1/(100*100) of the distance between equator and North Pole while the nautical mile is 1/(90*60) of that distance. Anyway, let me know what you would like me to do:

Edit: I found a new link after the one that I had in a previous version disappeared on me (even reloading the page I had open, no longer showed it)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne.denton (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Another alternative (possibly in addition to any or all previous edits) would be to create a Wikipedia entry for "Nautical Kilometre", which does not yet exist. When I searched for the above concepts, that search provided the most informative sources. I think adding that entry would tie everything else together nicely. I'll hold off on any of the changes until I get feedback. AnneDenton (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Both the Wikipedia article and the other sources I've read simply state that the metre was to be 1⁄10000000 the distance from the equator to the north pole. If there are historical documents that do a good job of explaining why this was chosen, I would certainly like to see a supported statement added to the article.
The problem with the source you provided is, at first glance, the only thing in it's favor is that it's hosted on the Cambridge University website. But university websites host all kinds of crud. What publication did this text come from? Who are the people engaging in this "forum"? Why should we pay any attention to a document from the 1950s (apparently) when (if you believe the Wikipedia article) the definition based on a meridian was adopted in 1791? It seems to me the document cited by Anne.denton is not about why the metre was defined as it is, but whether, as part of the metrication process, the UK ought to change nautical charts and instruments to gradians and kilometres.
There are tons of current ways of doing things for which I imagine a plausible explanation for how the practice might have evolved. But I will not add my personal guesses about why things are as they are to Wikipedia until and unless I come across good sources to support my ideas. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
While your edit didn't say so, it implied that the use of gradian and nautical kilometers was a motivation for the definition of the meter. In your comment on this talk page, you explicitly state that you wanted to add the motivation for that definition. Unless you can provide a clear historical reference (e.g. a someone saying that the meter should be defined in that way for that purpose) that's original research. Basically, inserting your own interpretation and view that the motivation was "obvious", without evidence that it was actually a motivation. The reference you give could just be someone saying, "by the way, this definition would also be convenient for navigation if we also replaced degrees with gradians." What's lacking is a reference to anyone who said that definition of the meter should be adopted because, combined with the adoption of the gradian, it would make sense for navigation. Fcrary (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I did not write that "definition of the meter should be adopted because, combined with the adoption of the gradian, it would make sense for navigation" and I do not believe that to be true at all. Gradian was de facto not adopted. The whole discussion is moot as far as current adoption goes.
What I rather wrote was that when gradian was invented around the time of the French Revolution, the kilometre was a necessary analog to the nautical mile. If gradian had been adopted for the latitude and longitude measures of nautical charts, navigators would have had no choice but to use nautical kilometres instead of nautical miles, because navigation with charts in Mercator projection requires that the distance measure is tied to a unit of latitude. Distance is not constant on Mercator-projected charts, so the only way to get an accurate distance is to measure the number of minutes latitude and fractions thereof at or near the latitude under consideration. Keep in mind that precise distances are of utmost importance in dead reckoning, so this is really the 101 of navigation.
Just as people navigating on ships or in airplanes pretty much exclusively use the nautical mile, the adoption of the gradian would have necessitated the adoption of the nautical kilometre (which would have appeared as the measure of latitude on Mercator-projected charts that are based on gradian). So instead of maintaining separate nautical and terrestrial distance measures, they designed a distance measure, the kilometre to be used in both contexts. Their plan flopped, because the gradian never did get adopted, and even countries that use the kilometre still need two different systems nowadays.
So at this point, in 2022, realizing that the kilometer is for gradian what the nautical mile is for regular degrees does not help in deciding whether to go metric. I still consider it important to understand these connections. I've multiple times seen comments of the type "if you really wanted to be scientific you would use nautical mile not kilometre" or "Eventually the definition of the metre is just as arbitrary as any other". These statements are misleading because given the choice of gradian as angle that would determine latitude and longitude, those who defined the metre did not have any other choice of what would be the scientific length measure in a fully metric system.

AnneDenton (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of how navigation works and how linear and angular measurements of distance are related. But that's irrelevant. The whole point about the policy or guideline on original research is that Wikipedia editors should not put their own interpretations, conclusions or opinions into an article. We're supposed to be reporting not creating content. In your above comment, you wrote "they designed a distance measure, the kilometre to be used in both contexts" i.e. to be compatible with the gradian. That is a statement about their intent, not about the geometric fact. If you have an independent reference to support that, then adding it to the article is fine. If you don't such a reference, but have concluded that they must have done, based on your own reasoning, then it isn't appropriate. No matter how sound and reasonable your logic is, that would be content you personally came up with. The most you could do was add a factual statement that, if the gradian were used instead of the degree, kilometers would be the equivalent of the nautical mile. That's just math which follows from the old definition of the kilometer. But the idea that this was a deliberate choice or the basis for the definition they adopted, and any implication that it this is true, doesn't belong in the article without a reference. Fcrary (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Listing the long standing title conflict as a part of the Lamest Edit Wars

The conflict on whether the title should be metre or meter is pretty stupid in my opinion, its mostly just a bunch of americans making up policies that dont even exist to change the article title of a measurement system they dont even use. The conflict honestly deserves a listing on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ive started a discussion here at Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars#Metre vs Meter i am going to give it a week atleast before making a decision on whether or not to list it there. NotOrrio (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The neo-geocentric philosphical problem of "c-bound" meter definition should be addressed in the article.

The current article fails to treat a particular issue with the "post-krypton" meter era: that it's a regression to Ptolemy's geocentrism to define distances in terms of c. After all, physicists have only verified the constancy of "c" for light rays which have reached planet Earth during the past and the present, but not for those in the future and especially not for light rays which travelled e.g. between Betelgeuze and Fomalhaut, or the Andromeda and Meissner galaxies. We saw nothing of those and could not measure their speed, even if we wanted to. Considering a universally accepted and experimentally verified "Theory of Everything" a.k.a. Quantum-Gravity does not exist yet in human knowledge, it seems excessively bold to rely merely on earthling observations and on incomplete human speculation to declare c to be unchanging "for all times and all places" as the motto of the metric system goes. In that sense the earlier defintions of meter were more universal, since it can be said with great certainity that krypton and platinum atoms can and do exist in all corners of the Universe. 94.21.154.101 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We know that the speed of light is constant elsewhere about as well as we know that the properties of atoms are constant elsewhere. If it did turn out that basic physics is different in different parts of the universe, having a definition of the metre that varied along with basic physical law would be the least of our problems.--Srleffler (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

"in vacuum" vs "in a vacuum"

Revert good faith edit. Technically both are correct but "in a vacuum" is by far more common. Similar to "in an atmosphere".

Are you that sure, Stepho-wrs? On the first count, technical documents tend to be biased to using "in vacuum" (for example The International System of Units (PDF) (9th ed.), International Bureau of Weights and Measures, Dec 2022, ISBN 978-92-822-2272-0). On the second, the count across the literature is fairly even: see [1]. Also, remember, an encyclopedia does not just parrot common usage; it prefers usage in reliable sources. (Also, what about similar to "speed of light in a water"?) —Quondum 01:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not a physicist (only a biologist!), but as a native speaker of British English, I find that "in vacuum" definitely sounds wrong, whereas "in a vacuum" sounds right and according to common usage. You are right that "in a water" is wrong, but "in a solution" would be right. Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
As probing the ngram shows, "in vacuum" tends to appear more often in the more technical works and compact phrasing. In, yes, the reliable sources shown when probing the ngram, there's a tendency towards "in a vacuum" for discursive sentences such as the one in question aimed at the general reader. It might not be "far more common" but I don't see a case for replacing it, and would even switch to it. NebY (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Just from a what-sounds-natural POV, I would pick either "in a vacuum", or in vacuo. Omitting the article in English sounds like an awkward calque of the Latin. I don't care enough to fight about it one way or the other, but just dropping in my two cents. --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Not a good reference, but if it helps, chatGPT says "in a vaccum" when asked about the speed of light. And when asked which one is correct it chooses "in a vacuum".--ReyHahn (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Apologies for waiting so long to reply.
As I said in the revert summary, both forms are correct. Here's a cherry picked example of Encyclopaedia Britannica using "in a vacuum": https://www.britannica.com/science/speed-of-light
A quick google search of "speed of light in vacuum" and "speed of light in a vacuum" shows about 600,000 results for each form. I'm aware that WP doesn't use web searches to be a deciding factor (huge biases involved) but it does show that both forms are in common use.
My own decision was mostly based on the spirit of WP:RETAIN, WP:DATERET and WP:ENGVAR - if multiple forms are correct then don't swap between them, just leave the existing one in place. So, if the article had originally left out "a" then I would have favoured leaving it out, even though my personal preference is with "a".  Stepho  talk  00:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
PS: your example of "in a water" is of course bad grammar. A better example would be "the speed of light in a fluid can manifest as Cherenkov radiation".  Stepho  talk  00:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The indefinite article is incorrect for vacuum because there are not different distinct vacuums. It is analogous to "in water", and not analogous to "in a fluid" or "in an atmosphere", because there are multiple fluids and atmospheres so one can speak about them generically. It's wrong to say "in a water", "in an air", or "in a vacuum" for exactly the same reason. We're speaking about a specific medium, not one of a class of media. --Srleffler (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Two problems with this argument. (1) At least in common parlance, I can have a vacuum in this pot and another vacuum in the next pot. So there are multiple different distinct vacuums in this sense, which may be why the "a vacuum" feels right. (2) More importantly, you cannot decide what is idiomatic by arguing what is logical or consistent. Human languages are full of inconsistencies. Linguists follow the rule that the gold standard of what is correct is what feels right to a native speaker. I do wonder how many of the online hits for "in vacuum" have been written by non-native speakers. Jmchutchinson (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. We speak of low vacuum and high vacuum, neither of which is truly a vacuum, and the vacuum of outer space, which is also not an absolute vacuum or the perfect theoretical vacuum of c. In space or in a vacuum, no-one can hear us scream. NebY (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Native speaker chiming in to say "in vacuum" sounds/feels right. Well, until I say "vacuum" too many times, at which point that word itself sounds wrong. XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@Srleffler:, can you please inform Encyclopaedia Britannica that their grammar is wrong. https://www.britannica.com/science/speed-of-light
This has an unnecessarily sarcastic tone. —Quondum 12:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Sarcastic - yes. Unnecessary - no. I'd already given a reference to a well respected organisation that is expected to be an authority on grammar, spelling and usage of British English. Srleffler made a bold claim that contradicted that authority and made no allowances or explanations for that contradiction.  Stepho  talk  22:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm also a native speaker (Australian, closely aligned with British English). "in a vacuum" sounds more correct to me, although I also accept "in vacuum" as correct in this usage. I can find examples from well respected sources of both forms. As I said above, both forms are technically correct.  Stepho  talk  04:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Several words in English can be used for both a substance/medium (uncountable) and an object (countable). This context often determines whether the word takes the indefinite article. Any argument that fails to be clear about which use is being referred to makes it unhelpful in this discussion. For example, we refer to the mass of a diamond, but the refractive index of diamond. "The mass of diamond" sounds confused and "The refractive index of a diamond" has a changed meaning: that a given piece of diamond to being referred to, not the substance generally. —Quondum 12:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, except that I can equally well interpret "the refractive index of a diamond" as meaning that of ANY diamond rather than of one particular diamond. Similarly, the speed of light in a vacuum refers to the speed in any vacuum. Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I understand that usage varies, but I my point was not to argue a preference, but rather to point out that without referencing the countable/uncountable distinction, a viewpoint is valueless (almost all viewpoints expressed here seem to be deficient on these grounds). I missed that some might see it that way with "diamond"; I was trying to find an example where such a dual use would be very uncommon for the purposes of illustration. —Quondum 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
So, we're back to what I have been saying all along - both forms are valid. Possibly it's a British English vs American English thing. Many of the sources that I see with the "a" are British - which matches the anecdotal stories given here by Brits and myself.
Going back to the diamond example, I could be talking about the speed of light in a particular vacuum chamber in a lab in London, or a vacuum in a lab in California or in many other places. English grammar is not always as strict as we'd like and sometimes there are multiple forms that work.  Stepho  talk  22:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
For clarity, it was clear to me from early that this was going to be "I'm a native English speaker, and this is what I think sounds right" type if thing while ignoring pertinent WP criteria, so I assumed that this was going nowhere. My subsequent input has only been to stir the pot about debating English usage. —Quondum 16:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure I understand what you are saying. On the one hand, you say it's an English dialect thing. This is covered by WP:ENGVAR which basically says don't flip-flop between 2 correct usages.
You say that we should follow reliable sources. Agreed, see WP:RS. But we can both cherry pick sources for our position, which implies that both forms are correct. Back to ENGVAR for not flip-flopping.
You gave a link to ngrams showing that both forms are roughly equal in usage. And I mentioned my own google search of both terms that showed the same thing. Back to ENGVAR for not flip-flopping.
But then you say we didn't follow some Wikipedia criteria. What criteria did we miss? So far, the only one who has listed actual WP criteria/guidelines is me.  Stepho  talk  22:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this related to any variety of English, in which case WP:ENGVAR (including its subtopic WP:RETAIN) does not appear to apply. Inasmuch as it could be considered a style, WP:STYLERET may apply, as you say to avoid flip-flopping.
Even limiting this to a specific uncountable case, both forms seem to be common. My expectation is that there is a leaning in technical literature compared to general usage, for the reason that the indefinite article is a useful disambiguator in contexts such as this. The first two hits on Google Scholar, seem to confirm this, and "speed of light in vacuum" has 63,100 hits against "speed of light in a vacuum"] with 19,900. Also cherry-picking a site: "speed+of+light+in+vacuum" BIPM (69 hits) versus "speed+of+light+in+a+vacuum" BIPM (2 hits). NIST has a smaller predominance. This seems to corroborate my expectation, but is not properly weighted by reliability of source.
To apply this, my claim of "actual WP criteria/guidelines" was something I remembered, but the closest I find is "Generally, one way to determine which usage is appropriate on Wikipedia is to look at prevalence in reliable sources in addition to relevant style guides, per WP:WEIGHT", which I can't argue is intended to apply here, though it seems like a good global principle for anything scientific in WP.
All that said, and despite my preference for language that improves clarity, the fact that the majority of editors here do not seem to think in these terms implies that my perspective is not self-evident, contrary to what I had hoped/assumed in my original post. Given this, what is chosen for the article itself is not significant to me. —Quondum 15:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, no worries. We can end the discussion on a civil note. All the best.  Stepho  talk  21:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure. One point that may interest you, which I had forgotten during the discussion, is that both versions occur with roughly equal numbers in the article – that is, it is currently inconsistent in this regard, FWIW. —Quondum 21:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metre/Archive_5&oldid=1191254332"