Talk:Ellenborough Park, Weston-super-Mare

Comment
Explanation of revert of 18,000 metres squared to 1.8 hectares - I think an average Wikipedia reader would find it much easier to visualise 1.8 of something than to visualise 18,000 of something. I wholeheartedly support Bobblewik's crusade to bring standardisation to units, but the standards need to be well thought-through. SP-KP 18:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with you. 1.8 is easier to visualise than 18,000. However, the unit hectare is more obscure than metre based units.


 * We could test visualisation of each unit. We could take Wikipedia readers to the top of a hill looking down on the countryside and:
 * tell them to guess the areas of pieces of land that we point out. Doing it 10 times for each unit.
 * give them numeric area values and get them to point out at pieces of land equivalent to those areas. Doing it 10 times for each unit.
 * I am sure that overall accuracy for all units would be bad. But I am convinced that accuracy would be worst for hectares.


 * But having stated my reasoning, I accept yours and defer to your edit. Thanks for the feedback and for your support for work towards unit improvements in general. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 13:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)