User talk:Bobblewik/units of area

Supplying metric equivalents for U. S. Customary units is a good thing, but in some cases you are using unfamiliar units that are probably not the appropriate ones to use.


 * In the Logan International Airport, you converted acres to square kilometers. However, the usual metric unit for land measurement is the hectare, 10000 m2. When the an area is given in "acres," I think the metric equivalent should be given in hectares. (On the other hand, if it is given in square miles, it would be appropriate to convert it to square kilometers).


 * In the William Pène du Bois article, you converted "pounds" to kN (kilonewtons). See the talk page for my explanation of why I changed these values to kilograms. Dpbsmith 01:32, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re your reply on my talk page:


 * Thanks for your reply, and for the spirit in which you presented it. As for km 2 being preferred over hectares, let me begin by saying that I think you are right in implying that it is much more important to provide the conversions than to argue about which units are most appropriate. I think I was probably justified in replacing kilonewtons with kilograms (with an implied meaning of kgf&mdash;after all, the original said "pounds," not "poundals"), but I think I should not have fussed over km2. Sorry.


 * Your remark that the bipm prefers km2 to hectares made me think that I ought to look into this myself. (Couldn't actually find the statement on their website, but didn't look very hard. NIST classifies the hectare as a "unit outside the SI that are currently accepted for use with the SI, subject to further review"). Off the top of my head I would have agreed that in scientific writing, there is a preference for the units that are exact squares or cubes of units that have power-of-1000 multipliers, but that this preference doesn't necessarily extend to nonscientific writing. But, I don't really know. I did a quick reality check. I Googled on "superficie Orly de l'aéroport" with the language restricted to French, and the top hit&mdash;a reference to gardens and open space&mdash;was "Superficie des espaces verts : Roissy : 1400 ha et Orly : 800 ha" I then did Google searches on "superficie kilomètres carrés" and "superficie hectares" and got, respectively, 14400 and 74000 hits. So, provisionally, I continue to hold the belief that hectares are not SI but nevertheless are "hectares" are commoner parlance within what I'll call the "customary metric system."


 * But as I say I really don't know. So when occasion arises, I'll use hectares but won't mind if anyone changes them to km2 Dpbsmith 12:19, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm probably just suffering brain fade, but I noticed a conversion you just did, of 75,000 hectares to 750km^2. And it occurred to me to ask *exactly* how does the reader differentiate between 750 * 1 km^2, and 750 km^2 = 562500 * 1km^2 ... there's no ambiguity in hectares ... am I alone in finding the 750 figure ambiguous? --Tagishsimon 07:45, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to support Dpbsmith's claim here: hectares are the conventional European measure of area for magnitudes measured in acres in the Imperial system. It might not be core SI, but it is the normal everyday unit to use. BrendanH 09:10, May 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are probably not alone, all of us have to be told at school how to read numbers. I missed that lesson ... your reply answered my question, though; thank you. I think it was just brain fade after all; and, fwiw, I'm happy with banishing acres & hectares where there's a more appropriate unit.

Please take care to use appropriate units in conversions. For example on List of carfree places, acres should be converted to hectares, not square meters. Erauch 23:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Is there a particular reason why you insist remove all references to hectares? If you prefer integers, you'd be better off using hectares in the 1 E6 m² and 1 E7 m² ranges.


 * The orders of magnitude series (e.g. for areas at Orders of magnitude (area)) were not made specifically for "Swiss reference data", they were made for any area numbers in Wikipedia. Removing links to them, or converting 155 heactares to 2 km² is mainly destroying information.


 * Adding links the appropriate page of Orders of magnitude (area) would probably better serve your objective than the deletion/conversion. -- User:Docu

Hectares are still a unit in modern usage. There is no reason to delete every mention of them in Wikipedia. Especially from articles which already include both hectares and sq. km. Rmhermen 20:03, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Certainly for agricultural and quasi-agricultural objects, like Parks, hectares are the units conventionally used so far as I know.  Is there a WikiProject page where this could be discussed, so we can get a consensus?  There are points to be made on both sides, because I do agree that most people who don't use the metric system for everyday purposes will find it easier to think what a square metre or a square Km would be like than to remember how much a hectare is.  So long as we can all unite to abolish the wretched acre...  seglea 23:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Me too - hectares are standard terms in forestry measurement as well. Seglea, well said on the acre! (about the only thing worse is °F :-) - MPF 00:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * have you ever looked at irrigation literature? They use a barbarity called the acre-foot (the volume of water required to inundate an area of one acre to a depth of one foot).  seglea 02:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * User:Rmhermen has started a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) about the use of hectares. Shall we move the discussion over there? -- hike395 11:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes. I will try to resolve the discrepancy. I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) as suggested. Nelson Ricardo 15:43, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * I actually just took a close look at the conversions you made on the various freguesias of Caldas da Rainha (but not this page itself). I agree with the change from hectare to km2, but I am opposed to the rounding.  Shall I make the changes or will you fix?  Thanks.  Nelson Ricardo 11:12, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Perhpas you would find yourself in less controversy and being reverted less if you worked on writing the encyclopedia and not just changing units and redirecting Great Britain. Have we reaching a consensus on hectares? If not please stop changing them. Rmhermen 12:49, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ther debate appears at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/archive8 and Measurement debate but I fail to see any consensus being reached. The Manual of Style says that hectares are acceptable but not required. If so many authors want to use them, please just leave hectares alone. Can't we all just get along. Rmhermen 13:11, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I feel you are completely mischaracterizing the debate and ignoring the objections of metric users -even to the extent of calling them non-metric users. There is no consensus for these changes and the Style manual says that they an allowed style. Please stop changing or buiild a consensus to change the Manual. I will be reverting many of your changes - those in geographic, non-scientific contexts. Rmhermen 14:51, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pointing out the size issue. My original assertion of "many hundreds of hectares" overstated the maximum size of floating islands, so I downsized it to "many hectares" yesterday. This may still not be the best terminology. I am trying to locate my original source (an online scientific paper). As I recall reading it they are rarely more than a few hectares in size. --Gene_poole 21:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed your addition to Peoria, Illinois that I can across by random. You had added just "km²" to the phrase "several thousand acres (km²)". I think this gives the false impression that km² are equal to acres, not that km² are equal to thousands of acres as you intended. Any ideas on how to better write this? Rmhermen 13:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * There are quite of few of these things on Wikipedia. I put them at a lower priority than exact values. It is difficult to translate figures of speech that include rational numbers in one unit system, but it is not impossible. In some cases, the solution is to provide more specific information e.g. the exact value used in official data. I took a quick look online. I got the impression that it is the county that has 'thousands of acres' rather than the city. Perhaps the figure is in the 8,000 to 10,000 acre range. However, I could not come up with a figure that I was happy with. Since 1000 acres is 4 km&sup2;, an equivalent phrase might be 'several square kilometres' or 'tens of square kilometres'. But I am not really happy with such phrases. I accept your revert and hope that a better solution will be found by me or by somebody else. Bobblewik (talk) 14:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could you please show me where you have built up consensus for changing units from hectares to square kilometers. If you haven't please stop doing it. You may not like hectares but they are in widespread use in several fields. Rmhermen 14:30, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Editors do not need to seek consensus on edits. Everything is allowed except that which is not. If there is consensus amongst metric readers that square kilometers are unacceptable, then the circumstances should be documented in the manual of style. Otherwise, the normal Wikipedia process can take care of it. Any metric reader that finds square kilometers more difficult to understand can make their own subsequent changes or reversions to articles. Please assume good intent, I am trying to improve articles. I welcome your feedback. I have learned from it and modified my actions in response to it in the past. I would like us to be closer on this, but I can't see a way. Bobblewik (talk) 20:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it would be good to leave hectares for many of the smaller numbers, but it is ludicrous to use them when the numbers are huge, as in a large national park or a huge forest fire.  Square kilometers are much better than "thousands of hectare" or "millions of hectares".  Both would be good once in a while, at least for the first conversion in an article.  Gene Nygaard 13:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * It's simply not a question of magnitude, as I have previously pointed out elsewhere. It's about what is being measured. Just like you would say that a steel bar is 1320 mm long, but you would say that a child is 132 cm tall. In the context of land as owned and used by humans (farmland, woodland, etc.), hectares are the conventionally used unit since discussed surfaces are often small and km&sup2; is a big chunk of land. In other contexts, km&sup2; is used, sometimes for the same piece of land. Zocky 16:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I approve of your replacing this with km squared. Hectares are not ambiguously defined, at least match with SI units (even if not a true recognised unit), and are a commonly used term (at least here in Ireland now that acres are mostly abolished).

I would prefer we leave mentions of hectares alone. Link the term if you must (for the non-metricated US/UK people).

zoney &#09827; talk 09:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct to say that there is no ambiguity in the definition although the SI official body says that their use is not encouraged http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/4-1.html
 * I am trying to increase understandability, 4 square kilometres is easier to understand than 400 hectares. I was trying to make it easier to understand. It isn't a big deal though, if you want to make a further edit, I don't mind. Thanks. Bobblewik (talk) 18:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If it really is no big deal to you I would have thought that after numerous complaints over several months on numerous pages, you would just stop changing it. You don't like hectares. Apparently many other writers do. Please respect that. Rmhermen 18:08, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I can see no benefit in terms of scientific consistency or clarity to the reader in changing "96.8 ha" to "968,000 square metres" in Soay, Saint Kilda. There seems to be no Wikipedia policy or consensus urging such a change. I wish you had not done this. I have not reverted you but put the more sensible units in as well. Had you put in acres as well as hectares, I would have had no complaint. Thincat 11:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a benefit in terms of science because a principle of SI is that it only provides one unit for each quantity. Thus length is measured by the metre and its derivations. Area is measured by the square metre and its derivations. The SI authority says that the hectare is not to be encouraged. When an area exceeds 1 km&sup2; or is a non-integer value in hectares (as in the Soay article), I think the case for SI units is even stronger.


 * There is a benefit in terms of clarity because the metre and its derivations are widely understood. SI units are easy to write, recognise and compare up and down the range of sizes. Nobody says 'millihectare' or 'kilohectare', although the hectare is itself a multiple of a unit called the 'are' so there might be a milliare and kiloare. I have discussed this several times and I know that some people have yet to be convinced. Ironically, a lot (but not all) of the promotion of the hectare over SI units comes from those in non-metric communities.


 * If you want to revert that article, go ahead. We can address the variation in our viewpoints some other time. Thanks for mentioning this to me. Bobblewik (talk) 18:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I am not going to revert your change but I have already put back hectares as well. I can certainly see the benefit of measurements being given in scientific notation and SI units in which case the area of Soay would be expressed 9.68x105 m² and not so properly as "968,000 square metres" which (barring the plural metres) is the Wikipedia advice in Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The advice km² is, of course, not SI and some people think it is ambiguous. My problem is that 968,000 square metres is  a ridiculous-looking way of saying how big the island is! If the SI people had invented the "squam" as a unit we could have had the kilosqam and, if people used it, life would be lovely. m² and km² are far apart in magnitude. Also, even in Wikipedia, hectares are very widely used for "agricultural" areas. I think each case needs careful thought and not simply replacing every occurrence of hectares. In the case of Soay, I suggest changing "Soay covers about 96.8 hectare (968,000 square metres)" to "Soay has an area of about one square kilometre (96.8 hectare,  239 acres)". Leave out the acres if you feel strongly. What do you think about this? I still really feel "blind" changing from hectares is not helpful, but, if you really want to, give a "Wikipedia-standard" alternative. That is my POV! Thincat 10:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What you say makes sense to me. Your point about 'squam' is one that I have thought about before. For some reason, people are not always comfortable with powers. Most people know that 'kilo' means 1000, but don't quite understand that there are 1,000,000 m&sup2; in 1 km&sup2;. This is not just an issue for SI, it is inherent in measuring e.g. 10 square units is not the same area as 10 units square. There is also the issue that english language does not match mathematical terminology. For example, the word is 'square' yet the symbol is '2'. The word is placed before the unit 'square units' but the symbol is placed after 'unit&sup2;'. Furthermore, it takes effort to make superscripts on a normal keyboard. There is a tendency to create words such as squam for commonly used measures, that is part of the reason why we got so many regional and domain variations for non-metric units. For example, the litre sounds and behaves like a one-dimensional unit. Thus a kilolitre is simply 1,000 times as big.


 * All that being said, one of the benefits of SI is that a single quantity (length) has a single unit name. So comparison is easier and the unit name is repeated more often (good for familiarity of sizes). Wikipedia is not merely a resource for farmers familiar with expressions such as 'quintals per hectare', it is a resource for all. So whilst I accept the point that hectares are sometimes in our source material, I don't necessarily think that Wikipedia readers benefit more from that unit than from the square metre and square kilometre. I would be surprised if many readers could point at a piece of land and guess the area in hectares, or given an area in hectares could point at a piece of land that size. I am sure most people could do a better job with m&sup2; and km&sup2;.


 * As far as '968,000 square metres' being 'ridiculous' is concerned, I don't agree. If that is the size, then that is the size. I do agree with your implication that a person living in a metric world might have written the text in a different way. One of the problems that we face in a world of double measuring systems is that we pay the price of trying to be bilingual. Or we see translations of things that look natural in one measuring system but unnatural in the other. Sometimes we attempt to cover both interest groups and look unnatural in both. C'est la vie.


 * A tour guide for the island might say the island is 'one square kilometre' and that is probably what I would write in the text. A taxation datasheet might say '968,000 m&sup2;' and that is probably what I would write in a side table of specification. A farmer might say 97 hectares or indeed 96.8 hectares.


 * I have done quite a lot of edits to add metric units where none are present. So it is not surprising that I get involved in debates about the finer points. Nor is it surprising that I get involved in issues local to articles when the benefits really acrue by using metric units throughout. In the interests of cooperation, I try to resist the temptation to edit out hectare values that are integers smaller one square kilometre. So in this case, it is the '.8' part that made me change it. Now that we have discussed it extensively, I hope that I may have made some influence on you. I have certainly taken note of yours, and already share some of your views as I have said. As far as the article is concerned, leave it as it is, or change it, I will accept whatever you want.


 * I do appreciate the interest the you and others take in metric units. The more of us ensuring that measures are well expressed the better. Thanks for your feedback. Bobblewik (talk) 15:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Units of area in article 'Signal Hill, California'
I don't mind you adding the metric measurements to the Signal Hill article (I had already included the metric conversions when my information sources already had them, and I had considered returning to the article to add metric info for the rest of the measurements in the information that I had added to the artice), but I noticed a number of inconsistencies and inaccuracies that suggest that you need to be more careful with your editing.


 * 1) Both 300,000 acres and 167,000 acres were converted to (1,200 km²)
 * 2) You converted "meters" to "m" once where I had already included the metric equivalence, but missed the other instance where I also had both feet and meter measurements.
 * 3) You missed one instance to add kilometers to a measurement in miles.
 * 4) You converted 11 acres into 45,000 m², but your other acre to metric conversions used km², which to me appears to be inconsistent.

PS: You should think about archiving some of your Talk page. I didn't have any problems, but I know that there are browsers that have major problems with date in forms that is greater than 32KB, and you are now over 100 KB. gK [[User talk:GK|&iquest;?]] 11:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The first point was a copy and paste error. The second point was an oversight, my convention is to use the symbol form inside parentheses (10 kg) not the word form (10 kilograms). The third point was also an oversight. I have made further amendments to deal with these points. If you see instances like this in future, feel free to make corrections as you wish.


 * The fourth point is a feature of the two measurement systems being different. They are not one-for-one translations of each other.


 * In response to your PS, I have now created an archive page. I will move stuff over there or delete it in order to keep the size of this page down. Thanks for all your comments. Bobblewik (talk) 22:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Units of area for lakes
While it's great to get consistency in units thruout Wikipedia, your recent switch of Lake Bolsena is odd. It's much like measuring a lake in square feet in the US: theoretically OK, but not customary at all, either among laypeople or among hydrologists (I worked for several years as a translator of technical documents with dambuilders). The choice is between hectares, as was indicated, or sq.km. (much as in the US, between acres and sq.mi.) Best, Bill 11:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I am a little confused about what you say. The conversion related to the island of Bisentina, not a lake. Regards Bobblewik (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yipes, sorry to get back to you this late! Yes, I noticed that almost immediately, as I made the correction; but the principle is the same. Small plots of land, gardens, farms, small islands, etc., are customarily measured in hectares; large islands, cities, counties, etc. in sq. km. Best, Bill 13:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

square metres vs. km&sup2;
I noticed that in KLCC Properties, you changed "1.67 million sq. meters" to "1,670,000 square metres". How about just writing "1.67 km&sup2;" which is shorter, easier to picture (IMO), and doesn't suggest that there might be more significant digits? Rl 19:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. What you say is reasonable. What caught my attention was the format. It should be either full form or symbol form rather than the odd mixture that it was. Please feel free to change it to what you suggest. Bobblewik (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. I find the text in the article rather confusing but I don't have the information to fix it. Rl 12:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm replying to a different message, but part of what I wanted to say is relevant here. The relevant part is that Wikipedia generally prefers to avoid abbreviations, and that in this case there's the further point that many people find superscript-2 very difficult to see (either because of their monitors or because of their eyesight, or both); "square kilometres" is therefore preferable.

The irrelevant part is that my edit summary on Planting Fields Arboretum was the result of a brain-storm; my apologies. It came from juggling acres, hectares, square miles, and square kilometres in my head. (I don't understand, incidentally, why Wikipedia insists on using square kilometres rather than the standard SI unit, hectares; still, that's another matter.) Sorry again; I'll go back and reinsert your figures. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Answered with apology. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Re "another matter". Hectares are not SI units.  They are acceptable for use with SI, for some purposes.
 * Manual of Style (dates and numbers) also says that hectares are acceptable for certain purposes. Just accept the fact that if Bobblewik is the first to add a conversion, he is not likely to add them because he'd rather use square meters or square kilometers, and may even change some that have already been converted to hectares.   Gene Nygaard 19:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * While Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says that "in text written out units are preferred ", it also says in its own text that "Areas of land should be given in km&sup2;". And the "Examples" on that very page don't write units out, either. Instead, abbreviations are used throughout. Fascinating. (FWIW, I favor abbreviations in most cases) Rl 20:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hectare is not SI
How odd; did it use to be SI? I have an old reference book that lists it as being an SI unit, but newer ones don't.

As I typed that, it struck me that I hadn't looked it up on Wikipedia; now I have, and I still don't know its history. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The "are" goes back to the design of the original metric system in the 1790s. It is my contention, though I have no authorative source for it, that it was actually the "hectare" which was first defined, as a shorthand for "square hectometre", and that "are" was backformed from it.


 * The are is not an SI unit, and never will be, because the SI is a "coherent" system of units. That means that there is only one SI unit for each quantity (it could have different names, and the names for units of different quantities can be dimensionally equivalent, such as joules for work and newton-meters for torque), and that unit is a unitary combination of the base units.  In other words, the SI unit of area must be the square meter, and the SI unit of volume must be the cubic meter.  A unit of 100 square meters, or a unit of 0.001 cubic meter, cannot be an SI unit, if the SI is to remain a "coherent" system of units.


 * Both the litre, and the hectare, are now listed as acceptable for use with SI. But when SI was introduced in 1960, the liter didn't even make that category.  That's because at that time, it was not some power of 10 times the SI unit of volume, the cubic meter, but rather it was approximately 0.001000028 m&sup3;, and had been since a 1901 redefinition as the volume of a kilogram of water at maximum density.  It is only after the liter was restored to its original meaning as exactly 1 dm&sup3; that it made the list of units acceptable for use with SI. Gene Nygaard 22:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverting units of area
I love having to come back and revert your hectares changes over and over. Rmhermen 13:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Lots and lots of m&sup2;
I know it is very much a judgement call, but I'd have converted 222 acres if not to hectares (which I know you don't like) than to 0.90 km&sup2; rather than 898,000 m&sup2; which seems a bit longish. Rl 19:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You could be right. On the way down in sizes, I am comfortable with values expressed in km&sup2; down to at least 0.1 km&sup2;, perhaps even beyond if somebody insists. On the way up in sizes, I would be comfortable with square metres for areas somewhat beyond 1 km&sup2;. I would accept arguments that they could be used for even larger areas since the square metre is the SI unit of area. Conversion is part science and part art, just like language translation. Some of the judgement call involves predicting what the author may have said if they were thinking in metric terms. However, I can't imagine that I would hold a strong view either way on any pro-SI edits that anyone else made.


 * I know that my preference is not necessarily that of others. So my judgement call involves more than just my opinion of what is acceptable. It also involves my prediction of what others regard as acceptable. That judgement call is more difficult. My working threshold is to switch from m&sup2; to km&sup2; at 1 km&sup2;. If you think I should drop the switch threshold a little, then perhaps I should. Sometimes I don't know what to do. All I know is that there are lots and lots of articles that need some conversions. My conversions may be sub-optimal and if others want to optimise them, then that is the beauty of Wikipedia.


 * I am happy to receive feedback such as yours about the nuances. In summary, what you say makes sense to me. Feel free to make the changes that you think will improve the article. Thanks. Bobblewik (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't mention my POV to correct you, but because, like you, I am interested to exchange ideas about these judgement calls. My personal rule of thumb has been to keep things short, i.e. I switch units when the resulting string is shorter or the number is closer to one. In my experience, people find it easier to imagine different units than very small or very large numbers. Most people have a rough (order of magnitude) idea of a km&sup2;, a mm&sup3; or even a square inch, foot, or mile. However, most people will have a hard time estimating the extent of 5'000 of something, no matter what unit. That is incidentally why I see the point of using units like hectares &mdash; taking into account the weaknesses of the human mind. Rl 07:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keeping the string short or the number close to one are both worthy objectives for conversion. I agree with you that people find large quantities harder to imagine than small quantities. On a numerical basis alone, that is a factor in support of hectare values between 1 and 100 ha. My rejection of it is on balance of several factors. Our positions are not so far apart on this issue, the compromises that I suggested were based on number size. Bobblewik (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

units of inverse area
On Charter township, you converted 150 persons per square mile as 388 persons per square kilometer. This doesn't seem correct to me. If a square kilometer is a smaller area than a square mile, shouldn't the figure be lower not higher? I think you should have divided 150 by 2.59 rather than multiplied. older &ne; wiser 18:46, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oops. You are right, I should have divided it. I have now corrected the value. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Bobblewik (talk) 17:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mary Hayley Bell
AS you know, I support your excellent endeavour to introduce metric conversions for imperial units throughout Wikipedia. I imagine that your addition of the metric equivalent of the area of Mary Hayley Bell's garden in square metres arises from an enthusiasm for SI units rather than mere metrification. It is my understanding that the standard metric unit within the real estate industry is the hectare: so Bell's garden would be 1.6 ha rather than 16,000 m&sup2;. Please consider using hectares for land areas at a local level. --Theo (Talk) 15:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support. I am aware of it and it is nice to read at any time.


 * My motivation for adding metric equivalents is more than mere enthusiasm for SI units. It is because I believe that metric units make an article more understandable for ordinary readers. If a Wikipedia article about X was only intended for those within industry X, then industry specific terminology might be reasonable. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be confined to those readers already in the know. As an encyclopedia, articles are specifically intended to be accessible to those not in the know. People should not have to learn or maintain knowledge of units each time they encounter a new subject.


 * If the expression 'unit-X is standard' means 'unit-Y is not used' then that is a statistical argument that we can attempt to measure. If we hypothesise that square metres are not used for measuring gardens, a simple google test or a visit to a garden centre disproves it.


 * We could go on to say 'unit-Y should not be used because unit-X is more understandable'. I would be surprised if anybody would rank the hectare as more understandable than the square metre or square kilometre. We could test ordinary people by asking them to look at a piece of land and say how many hectares it is. Or give them a number of hectares and ask them to point out a piece of land equivalent to it. We could then do the same test with square metres and square kilometres.


 * However, if my arguments do not persuade you, I would still like to find a way to cooperate with this long standing issue. I think it is reasonable to use small units (e.g. square metres) for small areas and large units (e.g. square kilometres) for large areas. A guideline based on the area size would be simple to apply. It would make the merit of article changes less subject to interpretation. We would not need to debate the context of each particular article. For example, we could simply say that integer values of hectares up to 1 square kilometre (100 hectares) are acceptable. Bobblewik (talk) 20:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that we may be in vociferous agreement. I am advocating that we aim to use the units that give us numbers in the range 0-100; in this case, hectares. Thus, I expect floor areas to be expressed in square metres, garden areas in hectares, and town sizes and above in square kilometres. Hence, 1.6 ha for Mary Hayley Bell's garden. --Theo (Talk) 01:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good. Feel free to modify the article as you suggest. Bobblewik (talk) 20:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Acre to m^2
This is more of a question than a comment. The Grace Murray Hopper Park article was a direct quote from the Arlington County (VA) Web site. Is it appropriate to change a press release to standardize measurements? Additionally the county uses the 'acre' as the form of measurement in keeping with the Commonwealth of Virginia tradition for measuring public areas. The county Web site also publishes the size of its parks with the footnote: "* Acres shown are based upon GIS calculations and may not represent true legally deeded acres." Source: Arlington County. Changing to the metric system adds the illusion of accuracy when it didn't exist in the original text. Thank you, FrankTownend 19:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't convert acres to m^2. Areas that would be measured in acres are measured in hectares in metic. To convert acres to hectares, just multiply by 0.4047 -Harmil 12:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Harmill; quoting from the hectare article:
 *  It is the most commonly used metric unit of area in everyday life, and is the unit of area normally used in agriculture, forestry, town planning and related fields worldwide, .
 * I'm reverting your edit to Great Yorkshire Show accordingly, including your unsubstantiated increase of the area concerned from 250 to 450 acres. If you can substantiate this please do so, however I'm working from the figure given on the greatyorkshireshow.com "Facts and Figures" page. If you have an alternate source of information I'd be glad to see it. Tonywalton | Talk 12:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I found the following reference to area:
 * http://www.greatyorkshireshow.com/about.php "The three-day countryside showcase takes place from Tuesday 12 to Thursday 14 July at the 450 acre site on the edge of the spa town of Harrogate."
 * That was why I updated the area. It seemed a respectable reference to me. If it is wrong, feel free to modify that article in any way you think best. Thanks for your feedback. Bobblewik 12:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like one of the sources may be a typo... Thanks for that, I'll investigate further. However I'd have appreciated it if you'd made a note either in the edit summary or on the talk page. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. The summary mentions that I am focussed on units. I hope that is a fair description. I try to use standard summaries because I can do a lot of similar edits in a short space of time.


 * As far as being specific is concerned, I think the information content of the summary is within the range for this article or others. As this discussion shows, I am willing to respond to questions. However, I do accept that a change to the value is more important than many other types of edit so I understand your suggestion that it would have helped if I had remarked on it. You make a valid point and I will bear it in mind.
 * Thanks. Had it just been a matter of units I wouldn't have wondered what was going on, however a substantive (and fairly major, given that the quoted area almost doubled!) change can hardly be described as a m edit. IIn such cases I think you might consider two edits; one minor for units, the other not (fos a substantive change). Up to you, of course, and I see you do do a lot of editing!


 * Hopefully, Wikipedia will end up with the correct value due to the open editing. Another win. Keep up the good work. Regards. Bobblewik 13:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's good to see a system working! Regards  Tonywalton  | Talk 13:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Vergée
Thanks for sorting out vergée - I'm sure it's much clearer now for all concerned. Just one thing: are you sure of the etymology from vèrgi (orchard)? I'd always assumed that like vèrgue/verge (yard), it derived ultimately from Latin virga (rod). English verge for boundary derives likewise and I'd have thought that the orchard was something that was bounded (rather than the boundary deriving from the orchard). Perhaps you have a handy authority to quote to demystify me? Thanks! Man vyi 13:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I copied the 'orchard' assertion without confirmation from :http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictV.html It seemed plausible, particularly in terms of size. But I don't count the source as authoritative so I take it back. If you don't delete the assertion from the page, I will. We can put it in the talk page in case somebody else wants to confirm it.


 * Whilst we are on etymology of unit names, it occured to me that perch, perque, parc, park etc could have common roots. Just a thought. Bobblewik


 * Thanks for the source. It's accurate in that Norman vergi (orchard) and vergie (vergée) coincide in form (but they are however different in gender). Article duly amended. On your other suggestion, perch (both the measure and the bird's resting point) and perque derive from Latin pertica (pole). Whereas park derives (via mediaeval Latin) from a Germanic root cognate with paddock (source: OED) Man vyi 15:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am impressed with that response. Thanks for the clarification. As part of the general discussion on improving all unit articles, an 'Origin' section is one of the proposals for content. I am glad that Wikipedia has people like you to ensure it is accurate. Bobblewik 18:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

m² vs. hectares
Hello Bobblewik,

you changed some of "my" area figures from hectares to m², most recently in the "Rocas_Alijos" article.

Before respondig, I perused your discussion page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobblewik/units_of_area.

The problem I have with expressing areas that are in the orders of magnitude of 0.1 ha, 1 ha or 10 ha and that are approximate, in square meters, is that the use of these units pretends many more significant digits than there actually are. If you must stick to the strictest interpretation of the SI bible, and where the scientific notation is not practical, IMHO it would be more appropriate to say 0.001 km² than saying 1000 m².

What about "square hectometers" (hm²) (same as hectares), would that be totally SI-conformant? "Hecto" is a SI prefix, is it not? Ratzer 18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Units of area
I noticed you have changed some formats on areas in metric s shown here by this diff. Should I just cut and paste that uppercase "2" or am I doing something wrong. I respect your ability to explain my mistake as I know you have a lot of understanding of these measurement issues. Thanks.--MONGO 12:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just cut and paste it. That is what I always do. I am sure there must be another way, but I don't know it.


 * I like that format because it looks the same in edit mode but I was concerned about whether it was browser dependant. If you look at the section titled 'Superscripts in HTML' on this talk page, you will see that somebody with more technical knowledge has investigated it. If I understand it correctly, some people have suggested a bot to do the format conversions. Bobblewik 12:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox French commune
Cheers for the great job you've done tidying up Template:Infobox French commune and fixing the units. Just one question - I besically translated the box from the French, where they used hectares for measuring areas. In translation I added the area in acres because English-speaking countries are 'less metric' :D. Now that you've changed the hectares to square kilometres they look bizarre next to the acre measurememnt - do you not think hectares are a more appropriate unit of measurement than square kilometres for small administrative regions such as French communes? Terrafire 19:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the positive feedback.


 * As far as hectares->acres is concerned it is a difficult for me to give my thoughts succinctly. Here are some comments
 * There are plenty of articles that have square kilometres only in their infoboxes. I think country articles are one category but I have not checked. When it comes to French communes, I think there is even less incentive to add alternative units. When you say 'English speaking countries', yes they are 'less metric' but I think that all them use square kilometres in one way or another except the US.
 * I understand that you may think it looks odd to have have acres next to square kilometres but that only looks odd when you think in terms of word translations. I try to avoid word-for-word-translation of units because I think it is not a useful strategy. As you know, there is no alignment between the systems. Furthermore, there are many more units in one system than the other. Although 50 miles translates to 80 km, 1/4 mile translates to 400 m. People that think metric do not check what a non-metric person would say, just as the English do not say 'ground apple', they say 'potato'. I remember somebody saying that the French were irresponsible for labelling the hot tap with a 'C' because everybody knows that 'C' is for 'Cold'!
 * Even metric countries vary in what they use. Some metric countries commonly use decilitres whereas in others the unit is almost unheard of. Australians seem comfortable with megalitres and if you do a websearch or a Wikisearch, you will find that Australian references cause most of the results. Brits generally seem fairly comfortable with seeing areas on maps marked out in kilometre square s but Americans might find that odd. I rashly assume that Brits are happier with square kilometres than with acres or hectares.
 * Some of the data sources for areas are taken from 'official' publications. Official publications and farmers may not use units that ordinary people and Wikipedia readers understand. Tell somebody that a village or a park covers 2 square kilometres and it would probably be more meaningful to them than if you said it was 200 hectares.


 * Just my thoughts for what they are worth. Bobblewik 20:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with square kilometres now, it was just a minor aesthetic quibble I suppose. For what it's worth I am a Brit, and I have to say that really I'm equally comfortable with hectares and square kilometres, I was concerned about international readers! But as you say, square kilometres are more accessible to most. Thanks again for the help; I might just pay some more attention to units in future! Terrafire 19:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Cheers. From a fellow Brit! Bobblewik 23:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Small cleanup job
Hi - I've done some editing on Bryher (island). There's a little cleanup chore left to do, but I thought of you and so stopped myself doing it. Enjoy! SP-KP 19:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. I simply typed '327 acres' into Google and pressed 'Search'. It does the conversion to metric units. Hope that is what you wanted. Bobblewik 19:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone help me please. I was wondering. How many heactares have been irrigated in Australia todate? i would appreciate notice of this quickly as i have an assignment that needs to be handed up next week. thatnk you!

Manitoba - Units
Thanks for correcting some of the units on that page. However, I have one quibble. In farming in Canada, the most commonly excepted units of land area are acres and hectares, not square kilometres. The other changes you made were fine. But all farming-related measurements should use hectare and / or acres. Thanks. 07:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I just realised the change in question was about forestry, not farming. I believe they also use hectares, but I'm not as sure about it as I was when I though it was farming.  So I won't change it back. Sorry again. Kevlar67 07:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hectares
Could you please screw off with your edits. Hectares are a standard unit for land area meansurement in forestry. The BC Parks website lists all of their provincial parks in hectares. I do not appreciate your changes to km2 and have reverted all your changes. Please keep your edits away from British Columbia Provincial Parks. --Dogbreathcanada 20:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not swear. bobblewik 20:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Entry to Native Forest Restoration Trust
Good morning Bobblewik, I noticed your adjustment to the Native Forest Restoration Trust is incorrect in terms of size. My prior amendment from from figures were supplied on their offical website[] (aquired land-250 hectares per annum and 6000 hectares in protected forests). Therefore your figures have incorrectly downsized the true figures reversing the articles accuracy from the previous update(s). Do you wish to change the figures to acres? or update the figures to previous amendment to match the offical website figures in hectares? --Tom Webb 16:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, I did not downsize the figures. 100 hectares is exactly the same area as 1 km². So 6000 hectares is exactly the same as 60 km² and 250 hectares is exactly the same as 2.5 km².


 * So I am not sure what you mean. Bobblewik 16:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry Booblewik, I miscalculated my figure by a factor of ten :( Please continue the good work. Are you a kiwi as well? --Tom Webb 03:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. No problems. I am not kiwi, I am British. Thanks. Bobblewik 11:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)