Talk:Ellenborough Park, Weston-super-Mare

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Bobblewik in topic Comment

Comment

edit

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

Yes I agree with you. 1.8 is easier to visualise than 18,000. However, the unit hectare is more obscure than metre based units.
We could test visualisation of each unit. We could take Wikipedia readers to the top of a hill looking down on the countryside and:
  • tell them to guess the areas of pieces of land that we point out. Doing it 10 times for each unit.
  • give them numeric area values and get them to point out at pieces of land equivalent to those areas. Doing it 10 times for each unit.
I am sure that overall accuracy for all units would be bad. But I am convinced that accuracy would be worst for hectares.
But having stated my reasoning, I accept yours and defer to your edit. Thanks for the feedback and for your support for work towards unit improvements in general. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 13:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply