Talk:History of measurement

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Merge with Metrology

Friends: I would like to suggest that this entire article be merged into the History section of the Metrology article currently in work. Metrology is, after all, the overall science of measurement. This section, if left here, will be redundant of that in the history sect so wrong ion of Metrology. I would like to hear your feedback on this rnkghvbvbnvnvnbequest. --David.c.h 23:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see Metrology tidied up a bit first. However, I'm not sure that these should be merged. I don't agree that this section will be redundant when Metrology is completed. It seems to me that the subject matter here & there is different enough to justify keeping them seperate. Jimp 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimp: I agree with you that the article on metrology needs to be cleaned up a lot. However, I wonder why you believe that the History of measurement is significantly different from or not an integral part of metrology. Metrology is the science of measurement. It is fundamental to all other fields of scientific study. That science not only incorporates how measurements are made and agreed upon by society, but also how measurements and measurment science have developed over time. The article as now written does not in any way fall outside of the realm of metrology in my opinion. However, I am amiable to cutting and pasting this article into Metrology and also keeping it a separate article if you think it best. Please give me your feedback on this. Oops, I forgot to sign and date this input. Sorry, --David.c.h 07:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree on Move/Merge concept. A brief synopsis with a cite over in Metrology "See Main Article History of measurement" would be the least work and most flexible approach. Secondarily, but more telling, people need titles that make sense to them to search, and a history of title will be specified and wanted, not to mention found far more frequently than Metrology which is difficult to spell if you aren't into the fields arcana. It's a specialists term, and deserves article space, whereas History of... articles may be entered by a whole host people having very diverse circumstansially derived possible rational reasons. Keep this as the more esoteric, and less friendly to the casual user, and I'll get back Metrology to dumb it down for the average reader. I placed that task on my to-do list moments ago for just that sort of edit. I seem to have a talent being a generalist for such. (I just can't wait, looking at the preceding and the Talk: Metrology!) Well, I guess fools still rush in where Angels... (Sigh!) FrankB 23:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope it's all a lie. it's a government conspiracy to cover up atlantis. This article is way too short. It should include more about the realationships between the systems and also why there is a realationship. -from greek to roman to english. The history of measuring for humans in an encyclopedia would include a lot of more facts than this. Also there should be linked to the roman system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.148.20 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day's journey

This ungrammatically named stub is up for deletion - it certainly needs improvement. Can anyone help? Johnbod 01:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC) jujujujujujujjujujuju boobs inception cat[reply]

Historical Question: Standardization

Was there ever an attempt to achieve standardization prior to modern times that was not dependent upon some reference copy?

For example, did ancient Greeks, who had an idea of the earth's circumference attempt to use this as a basis for measure similar to the metric system?

When was it first possible to get a standard second for time measure? Could this then have been used to measure length by determining the distance traveled by a stone in such a standard second?--Jrm2007 (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a direct answer to any of your questions, but I remember reading that the idea of translating between length and mass by means of cubic containers and water goes back to antiquity. I think your questions are basically what the 17th/18th century science called metrology was about, and a lot of ideas in this direction were discussed in that era. While somebody might have proposed your method for translating between time and length at the time, I guess this wasn't practical. I think what people did consider was defining the second in terms of the day, and then using pendulums to derive a length unit. But I don't remember the details or where I read this. In any case there are some old metrology works in English and French available as scans on the web. Unfortunately I don't have any pointers ready. Hans Adler 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Have a look at the Google Books image of Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, appendix B. This article must be re-written since it is nearly a word-for-word copy of the book. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell this is not a copyvio but 'just' plagiarism that can be fixed by saying explicitly that part of the text is based on that appendix. Works produced by the US government are generally not subject to copyright. Public Law 90-396 defines specific exceptions that apply to much of NIST's publications, but does not appear to apply here. A historical overview over measuring and units is certainly not "standard reference data", which the law defines as "quantitative information, related to a measurable physical or chemical property [...]".

I am not a lawyer, but my analysis is supported by the fact that the 1995 edition of the NIST Handbook (the only one I have looked at) does not appear to have a copyright notice. Since 1989 copyright notices are no longer required in the US. Unfortunately I couldn't find an earlier edition. Also worth noting: The latest edition can be downloaded from NIST in PDF and Word(!) formats. [1]

By the way, the quality of the text is an entirely different matter. The article may have to be rewritten because most of it is substandard or severely outdated, including the plagiarised paragraphs. Hans Adler 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is not legally a copyvio, it's exceptionally scummy practice to lift text wholesale from another source without acknoledgement. This must be fixed or reverted a long way back to a prior non-infringing version (around 2005 is when this text was dropped in). --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text is already in the first version that is part of the present wiki. I don't know if earlier versions can even be imported, and I doubt it would be helpful. If I am right about the copyrights, we need only add {{NIST-PD}} at the end of the article, the same kind of thing we do with EB1911 text. That's the good thing about 'mere' plagiarism from PD sources when compared to copyvios: It's much easier to fix. See here for a long list of articles that presumably do this correctly. This is just going to be another one. Hans Adler 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost true; here [2] is where an earlier version was overwritten by the NIST text. True, the first version is no FA contender either. But at least it's not stolen. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now that I am aware we do have the relevant history, I have researched it further. This was the explanation on the talk page at the time, and this was the relevant section of Units of measurement before Jimp moved the material here. At the time the article listed NIST Handbook 44, Appendix B as the only reference. That was still plagiarism, but at least with a proper citation to the plagiarised source.

Anyway, if it's just plagiarism of a PD text there is no need to hide the text and use that enormous template. All we need to do is add the attribution template. But we must be sure that it is correct.

At some point I would like to rewrite the entire article from scratch, but that's very hard and I certainly don't have the time right now. Hans Adler 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is the timeline:

12 September 2005 – The material sits at weights and measures (later merged), more or less properly attributed as follows: "The above is based on Appendix B of NIST Handbook 44, 2002 Edition."
20 September 2005 – Bobblewik moves it to Units of measurement. It's still attributed.
24 September 2005 – Jimp apparently misunderstands the text attribution as a malformatted reference to a source for the information, and changes it accordingly.
27 September 2005 – Jimp moves the material here and forgets to include the reference. At this point this is a natural mistake because it has been separated from the text. Hans Adler 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

extended bibliographical citation needed

I think the bibliographical quote should be better specified, as "Baber, page 23" does not mean anything. Please at least post a more precise indication of this work (book?) on this discussion page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effeeffe (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I strongly suspect that the author's Surname (Baber) is wrong: there's a scholar who deals with standardization and measurements whose name is John Barber --Effeeffe (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. More refs needed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point

We read "The point, which is a unit for measuring print type, is recent. It originated with Pierre Simon Fournier in 1737". This is dubious on two grounds: first, the point was not a unit for measuring print type, but a unit for measuring length, equal to one-~~sixth~~twelfth of a ligne, which in turn was a twelfth of a pouce (which was not an inch), which in 1737 was probably one-twelfth of a pied du Roi, which was not a foot. Secondly, it was in use before 1737. To take just a single example which I happen to have to hand, Louis-Léon Pajot, comte d'Onzembray in his Description et usage d'un métrometre, ou machine pour battre les mesures & les temps de toutes sortes d'airs of 1732 gives an exhaustive table of pendulum lengths calculated in pouces, lignes, points and fractions of a point. It may be of course that Fournier was the first to describe the use of the point in measuring fonts; if so, perhaps that should be specified? And referenced? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to a newly added reference, Fournier's point was part of his new system for measuring length and area of type. Only fifty years later did François-Ambroise Didot define the unit in terms of the ligne. This doesn't invalidate Fournier. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As must be obvious, this is not my field, so I have neither the knowledge nor the library to distinguish between the typographical Truchet point, 1/1728 of a pouce-du-roi, and the ordinary point-du-roi, 1/1728 of a pouce-du-roi. I was struck by the blatant anachronism, that's all. This topic probably needs some attention across several articles, and this may not be the place for some of what I have inserted in the hope of clarifying it here. The evident conflict between the few sources available online does not help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

everything you read on the Wikipedia should be treated with caution

I agree with this edit comment by User:Wtshymanski, who removed part of the caption I had placed on the "Vitruvian man" image. However, anything you read on Wikipedia can be challenged, and if not verifiable, removed. There is no method for challenging the content of an image (Commons does not have verifiability criteria). With all respect to the author of the image, it makes assertions or implications which are unreferenced, unverified, incorrect and/or deceptive, such as "18 handsbreadths = 1 fathom" (18 hands, or 24 handsbreadths, perhaps; but when and where?) or "1 fathom - 1 cubit = 1 French ell" (which fathom? which of the many cubits? which of the dozens of different French aunes or ells?), I believe the correct course is to remove it, which I have done, per "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed", replacing it for the present with another. There is discussion of this image (or rather, a template that contains it) at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Vitruvian Man measurements.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC) WTF y does every you like being so dificulte[reply]