Talk:International System of Units/Archives/08/2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Quondum in topic History of the SI
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
History of the SI
The more I correlate the content of other articles, particularly History of the metric system, the more I think the History section of SI should begin in 1948 with the working paper. Earlier history is NOT of the SI, but of other or evolving metric systems. That gives a clear division of topics. The history here has been extensively vetted by me; I am confident of it. The History of the metric system while GA, is not so rigorously vetted. See my Talk:History of the metric system/Archive 1#Article review notes. So I am reluctant to simply delete the history here. In time, I think that's what should happen. I need to address the other article first. Sbalfour (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with what you say here. The SI article should focus on how the MKS system became the SI. The development of the MKS and CGS systems does not belong here. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- I concur as well, and this speaks to the anachronism stuff I was talking about in the thread above this. What I said there about it being off-base to have tagged that section should be interpreted as about having tagged it as redundant, when then actual problem with it is that the pre-ISU material in it is simply off topic (other than brief mention that ISU was an outgrowth of prior work). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- I tend to concur as well. Having the articles written from the perspective of a tighter definition of what is part of the SI would be good. Including excessive related material unnecessarily bloats and duplicates; detail on CGS and MKS should be merged to the relevant articles. If you're volunteering ... —Quondum 02:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- In this case I'm not; plate's already full. More trying to give Sbalfour some ideas, since that editor already seems committed to the effort. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant I concur with all, but was referring to Sbalfour w.r.t. volunteering. —Quondum 02:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- In this case I'm not; plate's already full. More trying to give Sbalfour some ideas, since that editor already seems committed to the effort. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- I tend to concur as well. Having the articles written from the perspective of a tighter definition of what is part of the SI would be good. Including excessive related material unnecessarily bloats and duplicates; detail on CGS and MKS should be merged to the relevant articles. If you're volunteering ... —Quondum 02:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- I concur as well, and this speaks to the anachronism stuff I was talking about in the thread above this. What I said there about it being off-base to have tagged that section should be interpreted as about having tagged it as redundant, when then actual problem with it is that the pre-ISU material in it is simply off topic (other than brief mention that ISU was an outgrowth of prior work). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)