Talk:International System of Units/Archives/04/2015

Comments demand for this dffs.
If you have some time and for fixing the text without edit-waring.







Thanks. Trackteur (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Trackteur, please follow WP:BRD and explain why you wish to make those edits. For the benefit of other editors, I should explain that all three of those edits removed piped text leaving just bare article titles, so that the second sentence of the article changed from
 * to
 * Trackteur has edit-warred to make those changes but never given any justification. NebY (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Trackteur makes the article needlessly wordy. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Justifications: full direct links easier to understand for readers and not just for editors. Trackteur (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For easier comparaison beetwen NebY version:


 * and the Trackteur version:
 * Trackteur (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, those repeated insertions of "SI" and "metric" are overly specific and confusing to the reader, for whose benefit (rather than that of editors) the piped text was written. They are also simply poor English, as are your recent changes such as this breaking up of the English phrase "building trade", this change to "the SI" (English usage in this context is "SI" or "the Systeme Internationale" but not "the SI") or this replacement of "countries in the developed world" with "developed countries". As you said just today that your English is poor and demonstrated that in the title and text of this section, it is baffling that you insist on changing the phrasing of this article. NebY (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC) And now you have made the article state that "Retail grocery store ... is weighed in SI units"! Please stop. NebY (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The SI and the ISQ
It is not correct to say that the SI is based on the ISQ. On the contrary, the SI came into existence half a century before the ISQ, and therefore could not have been based on it. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The reference does use words that say that SI is based on the ISQ, but I think that it should not be taken verbatim on this. The truth is probably closer to that the ISQ retrospectively enumerates the base quantities for which the SI defines units. The wording, as given at the moment (notwithstanding the reference), creates the incorrect impression that the SI was fundamentally dependent on the ISQ as a standard. This impression should be corrected. —Quondum 19:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's explicitly based on the ISQ in a logical and scientific sense. See for example the second paragraph of this page on the BIPM site, the one beginning
 * "In order to establish a system of units, such as the International System of Units, the SI, it is necessary first to establish a system of quantities, including a set of equations defining the relations between those quantities."
 * or the reference I provided
 * "International System of Units: system of units, based on the International System of Quantities, their names and symbols, including a series of prefixes and their names and symbols, together with rules for their use, adopted by the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM)


 * "NOTE 1 The SI is founded on the seven base quantities of the ISQ and the names and symbols of the corresponding base units that are contained in the following table."
 * Historically speaking, it's true that much discussion was couched in terms of units rather than quantities (though not all). But SI's own documentation as it now stands explicitly bases SI on the ISQ. NebY (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I should add that my edit to this article was one of a pair. International System of Quantities claimed that ISQ included SI. That was wrong and I've tried to improve it. While I was doing that, I came here and found "The International System of Units is a base specification in the International System of Quantities", so I tried to improve on that as well. I'm sure we can still improve both. NebY (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would be more comfortable with the wording you have given here: "The SI is founded on the seven base quantities of the ISQ". This seems to be historically true. NebY has a point about the original wording (as quoted immediately above) had problems. It might make sense to clarify the relation of SI and ISQ. —Quondum 20:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I take 's point too in reverting their addition of the ISQ to the lede. It's a fairly abstruse concept and one can understand SI quite well enough without it. But now I see we do still have this at International System of Units:
 * "In 2009, the International System of Quantities (ISQ) was completed with the publication of ISO Standard ISO 80000-1:2009. The SI forms an integral part of the ISQ." (my emphasis)
 * Are any of us happy with that now? Perhaps:
 * "SI is now underpinned by the International System of Quantities, which defines the quantitities that the SI units measure are measured using SI units."
 * I don't think we need the publication date or ISO number in the text. I suggest "underpinned" to avoid implying ISQ preceded SI, which - from reactions above - "based" clearly can and "founded" might. We could even strip the paragraph down further, to simply: "The International System of Quantities now defines the quantitities that the SI units measure are measured using SI units" but that seems a bit bald and loses the sense of a structure of systems. NebY (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I quite like your stripped-down version, but would omit the "now": "The International System of Quantities defines the quantities that are measured using SI units". It seems to me to give the structure – what is it that you feel that it loses? —Quondum 16:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it loses the explicit statements of relationship - base, based on, founded on, part of, includes - used or discussed here or at ISQ. But you're right, it does work fine without. NebY (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seem then that you have an uncontroversial start for inserting, and if you wish, you can work on the relationships wording from there. Someone more knowledgeable than I on both systems would have to comment, though. —Quondum 18:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - thanks. NebY (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)