Talk:Orders of magnitude (length)/Archive 1

millimetre redirect
Hi,

I post this here, since I reckon the odds of anyone reading my message will be higher here than on the millimetre talk page.

Now here is the question: can anyone tell me why millimetre does not redirect to metre? I was looking here following the suggestion to merge the articles on arcsecond, arcminute and maybe even degree (see arcminute talk page), since the former two are both subdivisions of the latter. My thought was that if there is a convention on Wikipedia on redirection of subdivision of units, at least keywords like millimetre would comply.

MHD 10:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible merger
There are many pages such as 1 E20 m which are basically covered by this page. Shouldn't they be merged? --PhiJ 17:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger, separate pages allow more examples and give you better idea of the scales of the Universe. Additional material like diagrams could be included in these articles.--Jyril 19:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * oppose &mdash; Merging all those examples into one page would make for a terribly cluttered page. Getting rid of the examples is not a good option, either, since the examples are a good way to give people a sense of scale, even if they don't recognize all of the examples. One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * oppose &mdash; The challenge is we want to show various views of the data set. Different breadths of scale, and different topical emphases.  There is no catch-all view - different views clarify and obscure different things.  Right now we have the way too long to see the whole picture Orders of magnitude (length), the assorted peephole  1Enn pages (great for accumulating facts, less good for providing context), and unassociated topical pages (eg, Grain size for small non-"astronomical" rocks).  What's needed is not fewer tables, but more.  A brief several oom per line, a readable one line per oom, etc.  Anon 17:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Many pages link to specific 1Enn pages. Eg, Special:Whatlinkshere/1_E4_m. So Orders of magnitude (length) would need id= tags Help:Anchors added to support this, no? So the redirects can do the right thing?

Some of the 1Enn pages are just lists of factoids, and look like Orders of magnitude (length) excerpts (eg 1 E-9 m). But others provide interesting categorization (eg 1 E0 m) or discussion. Perhaps the former should be merged and the latter not? Are the ones with other content contiguous?

How does this all evolve? Would 1 E-9 m be un-merged if someone was ready to enhance it like 1 E0 m?

It seems this has been discussed in the past [].

Well, I'll remove the merge tags, and maybe try to do the suggestions some time, if/when I get the time. --PhiJ 18:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to 1 Ex m pages
I think we need links on this page to pages like 1 E11 m, but where do we put them. I was thinking that we could put them where it says 1011m, but I thought I'd try to get consensus before going ahead. --PhiJ 16:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey State Highway 59
SPUI, I have no idea why removing this entry is so important to you? Neither is it to me, but each time you head-over-heals remove it, you destroy the layout of the table as well! Not an example of carefulness...

You say it's not the shortest highway. If that's your reason, then replace it by the shortest one instead of scrapping it.

If you think something like the "shortest highway" deserves no mention in this list, then at least say so. Personally, I think this kind of 'trivia' has its place here. It gives it a lighter touch. Let's deal with this like grown-ups. --JH-man 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what the shortest highway is. Route 59 is just a random short road that someone decided to add for the hell of it. --SPUI (T - C) 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

suggestion for additional article
In my opinion it would be useful and interesting to add an additional feature to this page. Or, alternatively, another article if this one would become too crowded (likely). To get an even better idea of some of the enormous scales involved, we could add comparisons with known/imaginable entities. I already added something like this for the 'lightyear' (the time it would take voyager to cover such a distance), and I also added some distances covered by running/cycling/automobile races which accomplishes the same, but it could be expanded further.

Like, how long for a hypothetical airliner flying to the sun? Or how long would it take to walk around the earth? JH-man 19:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

DO IT! DO IT!! and if you don't do it here, tell me where I can find such a table! Sys Hax 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never created an article from scratch and I'm not sure I would be good at it. ButI would certainly try to contribute if someone started one. JH-man 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed depth Titanic
I corrected two rowspan-errors. One by adding one row, one by simply removing the new entry. I really don't think the depth of the Titanic in the ocean is relevant enough in this list... In a way, this 'sense of scale' is already covered in the list by mentioning the deepest part of the ocean. This is both a 'record', and relates to a fundamental sense of scale of the earth. This in itself wouldn't be reason enough, but it is also a very 'invisible' quantity. People can not check out the depth of the Titanic with their own eyes, so as a comparison it is quite useless.

I am happy that you agree about the usefulness of a 'comparison'-page, though ;-)

JH-man 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Linking to units
Should we remove the links to unit names such as petameter and exameter since they just forward to metre? --LRG 00:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Exameter
For the blank spot on Exameter, how about the distance to some stars with extrasolar planets, such as 79 Ceti or HD 209458, or the diameter of a typical globular cluster? --LRG 00:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Distances to the nearest known extrasolar planet, distance to the nearest known earth-like extrasolar planet and/or nearest planet with properties suitable for life-as-we-know-it? I'd say go ahead... JH-man 07:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Full stop vs. commas
I attempted to standardize the use of commas and periods in this article for the sake of consistency, but my edits were reverted. As it stands, the article is very confusing because there is no agreed upon use of commas vs. periods to indicate thousands and millions as opposed to tenths, thousandths, etc. I don't care which is used, but I do think the article suffers from a lack of clarity until this is standardized. X3210 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your honorable intentions, your edits were reverted because they introduced thousand-fold errors. It seems to me such a "standardization" as you propose could easily lead to a worse lack of clarity.  As the table is presently set up, the units change every decade, or every few decades, as indicated in the "Multiple" column.  The values appear to be expressed in the conventional way for each range.  Sometimes that involves multiples and sometimes fractions.  I can see that that might lead to some confusion.  However, attempting to "improve" the scheme would probably make matters worse.  Please let's not fix it if it ain't broke.  I doubt there would be a consensus for change.  Perhaps we will hear from others on this.  Hertz1888 (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. The article consistently uses a period as a decimal point (as opposed to the European use of a comma), in keeping with WP:MOS. There is no ambiguity. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Asteroid-planet?" :
 * The exact category (asteroid/dwarf planet/planet) to which particular solar system objects belong, has been subject to some revision since the discovery of extrasolar planets and trans-Neptunian objects
 * category

Too many?
I found it such a grate article. But perhaps it's too big and should have no more than two examples per order of magnitude, to make clearer the concept of order of magnitude.--200.125.56.226 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-Ordered the Units
To add clarity, I ordered the paragraphs giving examples above differently. For SI prefixes greater than one I went from smaller to larger, for those less than one I went larger to smaller.

GeoPopID (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC) - Sorry ! I don't know who or how to ask a question- to get a page corrected!! on Orders of magnitude (area) the earth figures appear to be incorrect - they sould be square Kilometres not metres, (land, sea - in fact everything after 10^11)?? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.83.16 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional tables; itsy bitsy?
Derived from How Big Are Things?.


 * I love the idea of putting a summary table at the beginning. But I propose changing some of the words in it to be more encyclopedic; namely, "itsy bitsy", "everyday stuff", and non-descriptive words like "tiny" and "familiar". Also, maybe some column headings would be useful, as it really just seems like a collection of miscellaneous data right now. I'll gladly tackle this if nobody is opposed. TWCarlson (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Itsy bitsy? That's encyclopedic?  Can't we find something a little more formal, scientific and, above all, grown-up? Hertz1888 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Itsy bitsy? Is that an officially accepted term?  Serendi pod  ous  16:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to my knowledge. It seems to be a form of baby talk.  Due to lack of comment in defense of the term, I am taking the liberty of changing that section's name to "subatomic", matching the term used in its sole sub-section in the lead table. Perhaps an even more appropriate name will be found later, but I trust this will do for now. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I never thought "itsy bitsy" was encyclopedic - I wanted to change it. Since it seems like a lot of people agree with me, I am going to change some of the other terms that I mentioned wanting to change. @Hertz1888, thanks for adding subatomic - that's much better. TWCarlson (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section titles
I think the idea of breaking the table into sections is good, but it is really arbitrary (according to the history, it is based on somebody's personal website, not any encyclopedic information). "Atoms to kilometers" is really not helpful to me...it basically covers the entire scale of distances (and more) that a human is likely to encounter. I'd like to change them to something more useful. I'd almost rather just break it up and say "10^-15 to 10^-6", and have section names like that to be more objective. TWCarlson (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

clickable image for the 10^-6 to 10^5
In response to a request to make a clickable image for the 10^-6 to 10^5 metre "Human Scale" range, I am listing possible images for each component thumbnail. Here is a quick list of icon-like images so far that seem to match each relevant scale, although I feel better images must exist. I'll wait a few days for better examples and create a a couple of example collage.























84user (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC) (added more: 84user (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

clickable imagemap for Human-scale section
I have finally cobbled together the above public domain images into some image maps:

And this image map uses slightly larger 64 pixel squares:

84user (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

imagemap using timeline markup?
The Graphical timeline of our universe has a visual impact that seems better than just numbers and text. So, I tried to make a version for lengths instead of times. It's more difficult that I thought. Here's an example using the '' [[User:84user|84user (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Error in Universe Size
The page says (under "approx. diameter (comoving distance) of the visible universe"): 92 × 10^9 light years = 9.2 × 10^26 m = 920 Ym

I think the meters are wrong; a light-year isn't an "even" multiple of meters, so the numbers ("92" and "9.2") can't be the same.

My calculation gives: 8.798479339500144 m for 92E9ly. Can someone please verify this? Digulla (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Geographical" section
The Trans-Siberian railway, the Trans-Canada Highway and the Great Wall of China are not astronomical. Nor is the Mariana Trench really on a human scale. There needs to be a median scale, "Geographical" to go between human scale and astronomical, beginning at 1 km and ending at 10,000 km. I'd make it myself but I can't split the image maps.  Serendi pod ous  13:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Question 1
Is the value correctly stated for "wavelength of the lowest UHF and highest VHF radio frequency, 300 MHz"?

--Richard Ong 06:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean the overlap? By definition: VHF = 30 MHz - 300 MHz and UHF = 300 MHz - 3 GHz. The boundaries are defined to simple numbers simply for easy of use. In reality there is only a fuzzy boundary. An example is the visible spectrum where it's difficult to see where one color begins and another ends. Another example is taking a gradient from black to white and trying to define where gray is.

Philosophically, we make just not be sophisticated enough to see the boundaries (like looking at things through a window covered in mist).

Zephalis (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Question 2
"average width of human hair (ranges from 18 to 180 µm)"

Does that not make it 99 µm, rather than 80?

--Thangalin 13:00, 27 Sep 2006 (PST)


 * No. You're assuming that the distribution is symmetric about the average.  The frequency could fall off faster in one direction than the other. --Strait 20:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Error in length at the table
am must be E-18 fm must be E-15 pm must be E-12 nm must be E-9 μm must be E-6

HalilKilic (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)]]

Nonsense nested exponents
This is hopelessly unhelpful:
 * $$10^{10^{10^{122}}}$$

There's no reason to show nested exponents, and there's no clarity what it means in any imaginable way! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one objects, after allowing a reasonable time for comment, I would be amenable to your removing the above from the article. Whoever put it there originally must have seen some reasonable basis for inclusion. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If the data is so offensive to some, be my guest. I just thought that some researchers would be interested in the incredible numbers scientists are coming up with these days and the mind-boggling size of our universe.  Who could tell that a calculation made by a protégé of Stephen Hawking would be irrelevant/nonsense? Chasrob (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds to me like an objection, albeit a backhanded one. I should think the hypothetical maximum size of the universe would interest non-researchers as well. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a table of "orders of magnitude". Without this entry the limit is 27, WHICH IS larger than the universe at present! WITH this last crazy entry, the limit is $$10^{10^{122}}$$!!!! That's not an order if you can't write it out as a number!!! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk)
 * Well, I just added another one. I don't think information should be outlawed simply because it is difficult to understand. If you want, we can include a note explaining the nature of double exponent notation.  Serendi pod ous  19:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

1 E3 m
Should 1 E3 m be a redirect to this page or to 1 kilometre? --Ushau97 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it should redirect to 1 kilometre, as that is a more specific article on the subject, rather than this general Orders of magnitude page. Similarly with other articles, e.g. 1 E2 m should redirect to 1 hectometre 86.156.156.19 (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Planck length - quantum foam
It says here that quantum foam is an example of Planck length (10e-35m). However, the latest is that quantum foam is <10-48m. People have a tendency to assume that the Planck length is a limiting factor for a lot of things to which it does not apply. For the example, there's no reason why a photon couldn't have a wavelength many orders of magnitude shorted than the Planck length. For references, try searching on "quantum graininess" (or "quantum foam") and "10-48 m". You'll get plenty of hits, along with explanations. Or try this: ESA.INT Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

removed images & imagemaps
I removed the images and imagemaps (one of them being broken) because they added nothing useful. They merely cluttered and confused an otherwise nice listing. – JBarta (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC with potential merge to here
There is an RfC going on at Talk:1_metre. It may potentially have a huge impact on this article (multiple merges), so I thought I would notify potentially interested editors. Tigraan (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 June 2016
Add Godzilla to the list as In fiction

— 2601:183:4000:D5BD:5D43:3ACD:3B56:D87E (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion, but I don't think it would fit in this list. Every example given here is a real-life object, but Godzilla is fictional. It's height is whatever the creators say it is; it can't be independently verified as with the other items in this list. Altamel (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Post-merge cleanup still needed
That is a note to myself mostly, but if you want to help, please do. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Exchange the "≥" and "<" columns in the overview table. it's fine now.
 * Copyedit the "subatomic" section.
 * Merge (selectively) all the foometre into the table.
 * See what to do with images (one per ODM would be cool, can they be put in the table?).

Images that I will remove: Last edit: Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * semiconductor process nodes.

Kilo, mega, giga etc.
There are several mistakes in this article where the naming of numbers are mixed up. It is really confusing to read when it claims one million meters is a Gm and not a Mm. Beatitudinem (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This needs work
I propose that until the page and all of the old merged pages are cleaned up, we add a tag about the cleanup or move it into draft space, to not confuse the average reader. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Go ahead for the tagging, or better yet, clean a bit of it yourself. I merged some of the low ODMs, but TBH I grew bored because of the sheer magnitude of the task... Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 one external links on Orders of magnitude (length). 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/20080428132510/http://news.smh.com.au:80/milky-way-fatter-than-first-thought/20080220-1tbv.html to http://news.smh.com.au/milky-way-fatter-than-first-thought/20080220-1tbv.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=O/ageGroup=N/season=0/gender=M/discipline=HJ/legal=A/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.iaaf.org/results/past/WCH91/data/M/LJ/Rf.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/human_body/extreme_bodies/tallest_man.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/AnimalRecords/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rcdb.com/id2832.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://regex.info/blog/2008-12-09/1021
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/24/content_3397297.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/imported/42192.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc14/23/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202081347/http://www.braincampaign.org:80/Pub/Pub_Main_Display.asp?LC_Docs_ID=2769 to http://www.braincampaign.org/Pub/Pub_Main_Display.asp?LC_Docs_ID=2769

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring
I propose a merge of the "Detailed list" section and the main article, considering that there's already an overview on the main page, eliminating the now-redundant list, as well as expanding the microscopic and submicroscopic sections of the main article. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I have been working towards a selective merge of the sections to the "detailed list". (Those sections were created as part of a mass-AfD of previous split articles). It seems to me to be the general opinion at that RfC, although it is not part of the closing statement. Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

5.56x45mm NATO cartridge
The article says 5.56mm: Width of the standard ammunition cartridge 5.56×45mm NATO. This is demonstrably incorrect; 5.56mm is the nominal diameter across the lands of the rifle barrel that accepts this round, not of the bullet, which is 5.70mm, and certainly not the cartridge, which has a diameter at the shoulder of 9.00mm, at the base of 9.58mm and at the rim of 9.60mm. The relevant Wiki article is here.

Daggilli (talk) 18 Jan 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Orders of magnitude (length). 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/20160723113019/http://www.biosbcc.net/doohan/sample/htm/Blood%20cells.htm to http://www.biosbcc.net/doohan/sample/htm/Blood%20cells.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719093559/http://www.niagaraparks.com/media/geology-facts-figures.html to http://www.niagaraparks.com/media/geology-facts-figures.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5x3rxgUGX?url=http://heavens-above.com/solar-escape.asp to http://heavens-above.com/solar-escape.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.smh.com.au/milky-way-fatter-than-first-thought/20080220-1tbv.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124162615/http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/ to http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjuric/universe/
 * Added tag to http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2157.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout%3DO/ageGroup%3DN/season%3D0/gender%3DM/discipline%3DHJ/legal%3DA/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-7-the-pitch%2C33%2CAR.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/AnimalRecords/
 * Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120810121037/http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/16049.htm to http://www.highways.gov.uk/business/16049.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rcdb.com/id2832.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://regex.info/blog/2008-12-09/1021
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/24/content_3397297.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/imported/42192.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc14/23/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.poezda.net/en/train_timetable?tr_code=898975%3A%EF%BF%BD
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.poezda.net/en/train_timetable?tr_code=907081%3A%EF%BF%BD
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.braincampaign.org/Pub/Pub_Main_Display.asp?LC_Docs_ID%3D2769
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120702055359/http://microcosm.web.cern.ch/microcosm/P10/english/welcome.html to http://microcosm.web.cern.ch/Microcosm/P10/english/welcome.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412094332/http://www.shekpvar.net/~dna/Publications/Cosmos/cosmos.html to http://www.shekpvar.net/~dna/Publications/Cosmos/cosmos.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger of gigametre and megametre
The pages megametre and gigametre have been proposed for merger into this page. See here :Talk:Megametre for a brief discussion of the proposed merger on the megametre talk page. The rationale for merging both pages is the same: most of the content on those pages is either the same as what's already in this list, or uncited original research, or WP:DICT dictionary definitions. Readers would be better served by the higher quality list of examples presented in this article, in my opinion. Please discuss. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"1 foometre" sections are back... why?
In 2016 multiple "1 foometre" articles were merged in here (see Talk:1_metre and Articles_for_deletion/1_myriametre for context). I tried to gradually remove them, keeping two to four relevant examples in the list at Orders_of_magnitude_(length) and removing the section in doing so, because that is the general idea that emerged from those discussions.

I had gotten to around 10^5 m (myriametre). I now see that the sections are back, replaced by 24.150.136.68 in April 2017 (sample). I believe the community discussions (cf. above links) show some kind of consensus to not do that, but considering that none of those who participated in them has really edited the article + it was a long time ago, I am OK with rediscussing it.

However, I am not OK with edit-warring in slow motion over what the article should contain. So: in my opinion, we should eventually remove all "1 foometre" sections, merge 2 to 4 examples in the #Detailed list section, leaving in the end only that list and the refs. The reasoning behind it is WP:IINFO (I can give more details obviously, if someone comes to discuss). If you disagree, please discuss. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Orders of magnitude (length). 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/20081217023721/http://www.physics.queensu.ca/~phys216/ch16B.pdf to http://www.physics.queensu.ca/~phys216/ch16B.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201183951/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Arvidsson.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Arvidsson.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514141304/http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-7-the-pitch%2C33%2CAR.html to http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-7-the-pitch,33,AR.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131060040/http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/ask/terrain-geo/highest_and_lowest_points_on_Mars.txt to http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/ask/terrain-geo/highest_and_lowest_points_on_Mars.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Dubious subatomic "lengths"
The length of a top quark is not 100 ym. The inverse of that (in natural units) is over 10^6 GeV, which is far above the scale where anything top-quark-related happens. A top quark has a Compton wavelength on the order of 10^-18 m, which is 10^6 ym.

The other subatomic particle "lengths" are similarly perplexing, especially the neutrino. Are these supposed to be upper bounds on substructure? I've taken the liberty of adding lots of citation-needed tags. Some of these might be easy to resolve, especially the neutrino cross-sections, and I'll look for sources myself later. I think roughly half of these are fine (but need sources) and half are gibberish. Patallurgist (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The largest atom?
The article mentions in 100 picometers that a caesium atom is the largest known atom. Is this using a different definition of atom? Because caesium is certainly not the largest discovered element... WikiMaster111 (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Caesium has the largest known atomic radius, as opposed to mass (or size of nucleus). Francium is probably larger, though. Patallurgist (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

6.3e-44 square centimeters is the square of 2.5e-24 meters, and other scientific controversies
User:七战功成 keeps editing this page, adding an incorrect value of 2e-23m for the length corresponding to an area of 6.3e-44 cm^2. This user seems to be a vandal judging by their talk page.

As you can easily verify via Google, the correct number is close to 2.5e-24m. This decreases slightly to 1.4e-24m or 1.3e-24m if you take "radius" seriously (for a disk or square respectively) but the order of magnitude is pretty straightforward. I'm not interested in a protracted argument about creative uses of arithmetic, but maybe a mod wants to step in if they keep reverting? Patallurgist (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude
I changed a number at Orders of magnitude previously, but I later found that it's a result of a incautious miscalculation. That edit was reverted by User:Patallurgist. I agree with this action, but I don't accept other groundless speculation such as "seems to be a vandal juding by their talk page". I am never a vandal. That's why I think I should leave a message here. 七战功成 23:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Sections
Hi, i just want to let all of you guys know, is it a good idea to delete all the sections? For example: To help compare different orders of magnitude this section lists lengths shorter than 10−23 m (10 ym). I mean, we already have a table at the top of the article? So should it be a good idea to erase all the sections listing lengths? Thanks! 24.150.196.3 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed
I removed the "Citation needed" tags from the "Nature" section of the article. Every item tagged had a link to a Wikipedia article which did indeed have a reliable citation to the claim. I also updated the Wikilinks to point to the section of the article which actually gave the size rather then to the entire article as a whole, which is how I found them. This is the English Wikipedia so I replaced the Spanish word with the English word. Nick Beeson (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"1 meter" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1 meter. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This page and List of examples of lengths
Next to the link to List of examples of lengths I see a comment reading "should be merged". On the page List of examples of lengths, next to the link to Orders of magnitude (length) I see another comment reading "should be merged". I also see that half of the sections on the other page are links to articles that redirect here. Is someone able to explain how this happened, and do we want to put the examples here or on the other page? Arcorann (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

300nm 0.3micron HEPA filter error
Page incorrectly says this is the largest size that can fit through a HEPA filter. While the size is about right, how it is described as wrong. It is based on the falacious notion that a HEPA filter works like the holes in net. 0.3micron particles are the approximate size least effectively filtered and why they typically measure/specify filtration at that size. Particles that are substantially smaller than 0.3micron are bounced around by air molecules and don't make it through the holes because their random sideways movement is much bigger than their forward movement. see HEPA This is a particularly important distinction in light of SARS-COV-2 which causes COVID-19. Change it to something like "This is the size at which the filtration efficiency of HEPA filters and masks are measured and specified at and designed to because this is the size range that is least effectively filtered; particles either substantially smaller or larger are trapped by different mechanisms." Whitis (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Lengths of other orders of magnitude" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lengths_of_other_orders_of_magnitude&redirect=no Lengths of other orders of magnitude] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Quettameter
It doesn't say how big a quettameter is, making it not helpful. 2603:6000:8740:54B1:1FB:5016:5EED:828C (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant information
on the "Atomic to cellular scale", 10nm reading "As of 2016, the 10 nanometre was the smallest semiconductor device fabrication node" The issue here lies in that the fabrication 'node' does not correspond with physical dimensions of semiconductor, current actual fabrication dimensions are on the order around for example 10-50nm on say Y axis, and 10-20nm on the X axis. I did not remove this part myself for I am not clear if it should be, I think it should be removed but prefer a second opinion so to speak. John2376 (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)