Talk:International Committee for Weights and Measures

"Interglobal Committee for Weights and Measures (ICWM)"

If the abreviation ICWM is "not used" (according the the 4th sentrence) then why is it used in the first sentence of this article? --Oceans and oceans (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Oceans. I have read hundreds of peer-reviewd metrology papers and never seen this phrase. Logically, it means "Interplanetery Committee for Weights and Measures", and I'm not aware of such a body (or if there is, I'd like to join it). So I'm changing this to the name that is used in dozens of journals, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM)" Adamtester (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC).

Haha! I didn't pick up on "interglobal" ... so i also removed the sentence about the acronym ICWM not being used, since it seems that it has served its purpose --Oceans and oceans (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Committee for Weights and Measures. 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/20120417051227/http://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/cc_criteria.html to http://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/cc_criteria.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Problems of primary sources, verifiability and notability

This article has inline references to a total of nine different citations. One of the citations is of an English translation of a BIPM publication, hosted on a Portuguese-language website. The other eight citations are of web pages on the BIPM's own website.

• Given that the BIPM website is also the website of the "International Committee for Weights and Measures" (the subject of this article), we clearly have an article here which is totally reliant on the website of its own subject, a primary source - contrary to WP:PRIMARY.

• Given that few, if any, of the nine citations support the fact(s) that they are used as references for, and given that much of the content is not supported by any references at all, we clearly have a problem with verifiability here - contrary to WP:VERIFY.

• Given the above, and given that WP:ORG requires: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", we clearly have a problem with notability here - contrary to WP:NOTABILITY.

Can anyone help fix these, to prevent this article being nominated as an AfD? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)