Talk:Unit of measurement

The discussion about the redirection of prefixed metric units to their main unit has been moved to Talk:Units of measurement/Format of articles about units

How many basic charged particles in a coulomb?

Why does the number of charged particles (protons, presumably) in a coulomb (6.24150962915265×10E18) cited in the page on the coulomb, [1], differ significantly from the figure used to define the atomic unit of charge in the atomic system of units (1.60217653(14)×10E19) on page [2].

--207.30.168.9 17:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Karl Kaiser

Look more closely, it says the elementary charge = 1.60217653(14)×10E-19 C. Note the negative exponent. Invert that number and you will get 6.24150948...E18. That doesn't quite match 6.24150962915265×10E18, presumably because the later is a "newer" value, based on recent measurement conventions. --agr 19:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The unit definitions are expected to change in 2011 anyhow. The CIPM Consultative Committe for Units is hard at work on simultaneously redefining the kilogram, Ampere, kelvin and Mole. This is being done principally in order to obsolete the International Prototype kilogram (which drifts an embarassing 60 micrograms/century), but also to fix the values of the Plank constant h, the elementary charge e, the Boltzman constant k_B and Avogadro's number N_A (see the Oct 2005 minutes of the CIPM or ampere). The results will include an exact integer number of elementary charges in a coulomb and an exact integer number of (isotopically pure) silicon atoms in a kilogram. In the end most of us will be left wondering what all the fuss was about.LeadSongDog 18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

are, hectare, decare

See Talk:Units of measurement/Format of articles about units

I notice that somebody recently created the 'decare' article. We now have 3 articles (are, hectare, and decare) that are very similar. The difference is a multiplication factor. A large proportion of the article content is merely duplication or cross referencing. That is just what happened with the other prefixed units (e.g. farad, millifard and microfarad).

It would be easy to convert the 3 articles into a single article. Thoughts?

Incidentally, megahertz is an anomaly in that it is the only multiple of hertz that has its own article. Similarly megawatt is the only multiple of watt that has its own article. Bobblewik 18:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge 'em all, I say!

Urhixidur 05:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should go back to individual articles for all of the prefixed units in use.

We could also get rid of those ugly tables in each base unit article, listing combinations that nobody had ever used before, and that nobody will ever use in real life.

• Many of those tables had all the unit symbols wrong, before I recently fixed some of them: kLm for kilolumens, zKat for zeptokatal, etc.
• That latter, of course, is an additional big problem. Why are these base unit articles so cluttered up with prefix combinations that nobody has ever used before, and nobody in their right mind would ever use in the real world? We don't need decilumens. We don't need exateslas. We don't need petakatals. We don't need to list centi-, deci-, deka-, and hecto- for anything other than meters and liters and the handful of other cases in which one of those prefixes is used with something else, mostly with non-SI units such as centistokes.

The individual prefixed articles should also be the repository of orders of magnitude information, other than one Orders of Magnitude article for each quantity. None of that 1 E7 W stuff. Gene Nygaard 12:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the distinction between Category:Systems of units and Category:Units of measure

I noticed that Ancient Persian units of measurement is in [Category:Systems of units] and [Category:Units of measure].

Is the distinction between these two categories useful? Bobblewik 17:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles

User:Bobblewik today moved the page from Fahrenheit to Degree Fahrenheit.

To me, that looks funny. I think of Fahrenheit as a scale or system of measuring temperature rather than as a unit like the meter or ounce. I might ask, "What is that (Celsius temperature) in Fahrenheit?" I probably wouldn't say "degrees Fahrenheit" in that situation. -- Mwalcoff 01:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Strictly speaking, "Degree Fahrenheit" seems like it should basically just say "one 180th of the difference in temperature of boiling water and icewater at standard pressure" rather than discuss the entire temperature system, which is what this page should be doing. ―BenFrantzDale 04:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Also agree, it should be "Fahrenheit". --Yath 05:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this to the units of measurement page because the solution affects several units of measurement articles.

I think the two options are:

• Fahrenheit scale - on the basis that it is the name of a scale
• degree Fahrenheit - on the basis that it is the correct name for the unit.

It would be a shame to have two pages. I happen to think of it as a unit not a scale. I can understand that some people saying that they are thinking of it as a scale.

I would object to it being 'fahrenheit' merely because people (and editors here) often fail to say 'degrees'. That is just colloquial usage and could be mentioned within the article text but should not be a feature of the name.

What do others think? bobblewik 18:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it’s actually degrees on (of?) the Fahrenheit scale. You divide any scale into degrees, even if it’s a clock face—1° used to mean one hour too. A degree of any kind is not a true unit, but many are used much like ones. IMHO the correct place would be Fahrenheit or maybe Fahrenheit scale and there should be redirects from, amongst possibly others, °F and degree Fahrenheit. Christoph Päper 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand some of your point. Somewhere I saw that the unit is degree and the type is Fahrenheit (the sequence: noun-adj) but I can't remember where. I think that is similar to what you said. The same would apply to Celsius. I looked up what the BIPM says at it said "The unit of Celsius temperature is the degree Celsius". They do not distinguish between the two words. I found no official recommendation giving permission to use the noun without the adjective (if that is what they are) but it is widespread colloquial practice. Even the BIPM uses the word 'degree' by itself e.g. "a temperature within one degree of the triple point of nitrogen;".

I still think the page should be about the unit not the scale. Most references to "Fahrenheit" or "Celsius" are references to the unit and not the scale. Clearly this is true for reports of temperature that we hear and see all around us. A small survey indicates it is also true in Wikipedia. I looked at the first ten links to the page and found that 100% were references to the unit, not the scale. bobblewik 10:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say I prefer "degree Fahrenheit" over "Fahrenheit" (which ought to be a disambig between the unit/scale and the man). The term is also what is used by the SEG (Society of Exploration Geophysicists), the Unified Code for Units of Measure (Regenstrief Institute for Health Care, Indianapolis), the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) and various other organisations.

Urhixidur 12:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The usage I am familiar with is 273 Kelvin = 0 degrees Celsius = 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature article agrees with this usage, by the way. In other words, the measurement 'yy degrees xxx' refers to yy units on the xxx scale, according to the usage which I am familiar with. Now Kelvin is both a unit and an scale. --Ancheta Wis 22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC) So if the article says 'yy degrees' I would vote for including the scale. But if the article says 2.71 Kelvin (the background temperature of the universe) for example, that is both unit and scale. --Ancheta Wis 22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A survey of 'What links here' showed it is used as a unit name (100% of the first ten links to the Fahrenheit page, 100% of the first ten links to the Celsius page) not as a scale name. This majority seems consistent with experience outside Wikipedia. So I think the pages should use the unit name, not the scale name. bobblewik 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, seems a little more subtle than that. Perhaps we should have Fahrenheit scale (main article), Fahrenheit (dab or redirect to FS, in which case we keep Fahrenheit (disambiguation)), [Degree Fahrenheit]] -> F S, and of course [[Gabriel Fahrenheit]. We do have, for example Delisle scale, and seem to have this approach where we are not so fmailiar with the terms as to become blinded by usage as to their meaning. Rich Farmbrough. 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Voted to keep 'degree' out of the article names; any concern about thinking 'a Fahrenheit' or 'a Celsius' is the name of the unit should be handled by saying it's not in the introduction to each article. But I would support Fahrenheit scale and Celsius scale. -- Perey 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

^ Thanks Bobblewik for telling me about this vote but I'm afraid I'm voting against your idea. A degree (as far as I'm aware) is not so much a unit as a division. In this case it's a division of temperature scales. It seems to me that Celsius/Fahrenheit are the best names but I also would be happy with Celsius/Fahrenheit scale. Jimp 04:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get the scale thing. There doesn't seem to be a scale article to explain that either (does it have to do with the lack of an absolute point 0?). In my view, Kelvin, Celsius an Fahrenheit are units for the quantity temperature. And degree is a unit for the quantity angle. Degrees Kelvin, Celsius and Fahrenheit don't exist in my vocabulary. I was disappointed to see that this discussion is just about the titles of the articles. I hoped it would be about the whole usage of 'degree'. I'd say the whole misuse of that unit should stop. I don't see any point in adding that to temperature units. Is there a point?

Since I seem to misunderstand something here and the vote is already 'going my way' (for a different reason), I'll refrain from voting unless someone manages to help me understand it. You can also regard this as a tip that the scale/unit thing should be better explanined. I'm no stranger to science (albeit not a scientist), so if I don't get it from Wikipedia a better explanation is obviously needed. 80.126.178.133 08:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message on my talk page; while I think "Fahrenheit" makes more sense, I defer judgement on this matter and therefore will not be voting. Neonumbers 10:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep Celsius as it is; merge Fahrenheit into List of strange units of measurement and redirect there :-) MPF 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

But Fahrenheit is a much more sensible unit for everyday temperatures than Celsius. There are 100 Fahrenheit degrees between "damn cold" and "damn hot", but only 40 or so Celsius degrees. :-) --Carnildo 03:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We europeans are not that sensitive ;-) --FvdP 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Interresting point, although not relevant here; can a human feel the difference between, say, 40 F and 41 F? DirkvdM 07:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No; even a difference of 1°C cannot be felt reliably, since 'temperature feel' also depends heavily on wind speed, air humidity, insolation and the observer's muscular activity MPF 16:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My two cents:

• "Fahrenheit" looks too ambiguous a title, the title should clearly delimit the contents, so "Fahrenheit scale" would be better; "Fahrenheit" should be a disambiguation page, and we can add redirects.
• "degree Fahrenheit" is not really bad, but given my first argument here above and other people's arguments, I think "Fahrenheit scale" is better. Of course, we should redirect "degree Fahrenheit" to whatever the article goes.
• the fact that most links come from phrases like "degree Fahrenheit" looks trivial (most mentions of Fahrenheit are bound to be in expressions like "32°F") and irrelevant.
• For minor older temperature scales named after celebrities, like the Newton scale, the title is already "Xyz scale". Then it would only be consistent to rename "Fahrenheit" as "Fahrenheit scale", etc.

--FvdP 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Vote will close on 1 March or when total of 20 votes have been cast, whichever is the later. The page names will then be made to reflect the view of the majority.

The page names should be the unit name i.e. 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'degree Celsius'

1. bobblewik 21:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Tevildo 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Atlant 23:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (Well, Degree Fahrenheit and Degree Celsius; Wiki forces the case of that first word)
4. Urhixidur 23:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
5. With the suggestion that "degrees" rather than degree is preferable (the singular is almost as wrong as not having a unit name), and that 96°F would be better written with the degrees symbol as shown than either of these solutions. --Improv 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Same provision as Improv said. This format is very concise, and disambiguates from the person the unit is named for. Rhialto 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

i vote for degree Fahrenheit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.208.183 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The page names should be the scale name i.e. 'Fahrenheit' and 'Celsius'

1. Kusma (討論) 22:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Mike Dillon 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Unimportant, that's why we have redirects. But. Use the most common name. Bobblewik's distinction may be technically correct but is not commonly made by laypersons. Article itself can provide whatever explanation is needed.
4. —Moondyne 00:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC) per dpbsmith
5. Perey 01:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Ex nihil 01:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC) But preferably 'Fahrenheit scale' or 'Celsius scale' as usage distinguishes between 'degrees Celsius' (a specific temperature, freezing point is 0C) and 'Celsius degrees' ( a range of temperature as in ' the temperature rose 5C degrees) Also Both F & C are adjectives and should have a noun after to describe, unlike Kelvin, which is a unit and a noun.
7. Carnildo 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Either "Fahrenheit" or "Fahrenheit scale". "Degree Fahrenheit" is the name of the common division of that scale.
8. Obviously, for all the above reasons Fawcett5 04:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Jimp 04:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
10. --Yath 07:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Woodstone 08:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC); this name applies both to the degree and the scale; the degree alone does not define the scale. Also it is the most likely term readers are to type when looking for this article;
12. Akosygin 08:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC) - It has been to my perception that Wikipedia would choose common practice over official naming if the official naming is not common use for a page title to minimize the redirect loads on the server. In which case, most people (IMHO), would just type 'Fahrenheit' or 'Celsius' without the degrees. Since it is more or less acceptable either way, then I believe we should think of what is best for Wikipedia on the technical aspects to reduce work for the servers.
13. Either would be technically correct, so use the common name for article titles, redirect from others. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
14. I don't really have a strong opinion about this, either way is fine. But I think I prefer to use the scale names if both temperature systems are going to have their own articles. Although the official names of the units include the word "degree", there's more to the history of the temperature scales than the units themselves. (However this makes it harder to spot the fact that there's no such thing as "degrees Kelvin", no matter how many people think so. They're kelvins and that's it.) JIP | Talk 09:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
15. Davidkinnen 15:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
16. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
17. Williamborg 02:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Yurik 03:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
19. Wolf ODonnell 10:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
20. For simpler linking MPF 11:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Doradus 13:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
22. Ravedave 19:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
23. --agr 11:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC) As there is no perfect answer, I think the simple linking argument wins. Go to Celsius and click What links here. There are over 1000, most, not all, to just Celsius.
24. Keep it simple. Thewikipedian 17 February 2006, 18:28 (UTC+1)
25. I think keep the simplest term, have redirects for the alternatives if required pointing to the main term. - SimonLyall 21:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Simple is best. Though if we had to add a modifier, I'd go with "scale" rather than "degree". -W0lfie 16:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
27. Keep it simple, the editors can always add the extra words. The intro sections handle such formalities as raised by Heron below. FrankB 02:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The page names should be Fahrenheit scale etc. or similar names mentioning "scale", at least for the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales

1. --FvdP 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC) See my arguments above. Note that I just added this section here because neither of next two sections truly represents my position. I think these three sections should be merged, for fairness sake (even though it seems they are losing anyway...). I've seen "F. scale" arise more often than "F. t. scale" in the discussion above. --FvdP 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC).
   • Perhaps we should merge all "scale" categories (as seems to have been the original intent), and remove or replace the overly restrictive "i.e. Fahrenheit or Celsius" (which mislead me) by, say, "i.e. Fahrenheit or Fahrenheit scale or similar, and ditto for Celsius". --FvdP 19:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've already voted for simply Celsius & Fahrenheit however, as I've mentioned above, I'd be happy with Celsius scale & Fahrenheit scale. This is my second preference. Adding temperature in there I don't believe would be necessary: there are no other Celsius or Fahrenheit scales besides the temperature ones. Jimp 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The page names should be Fahrenheit temperature scale, Celsius temperature scale, Kelvin temperature scale, etc.

1. these names are the most descriptive. The base names Fahrenheit etc. might redirect there, although perhaps they should redirect directly to the scientist as for example Newton does. Another option is that a base names becomes a disambiguation page. Clear article titles give better articles through information organization.MarSch 17:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
2. as above. Avalon 20:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The page names should be Fahrenheit temperature scale, Celsius temperature scale, kelvin, absolute temperature scale, etc.

1. There is no such thing as a Celsius or a Fahrenheit, so these words should redirect to the longer versions. Yes, people say "Celsius" when they mean "degree(s) Celsius", but it's only an abbreviation. "Degree(s) Celsius" and "degree(s) Fahrenheit" should not be articles either. We have an article called "cheese", but we don't have one called "piece(s) of cheese". "Kelvin" is different, since the kelvin is the SI unit for the absolute (thermodynamic) temperature scale. --Heron 21:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The naming convention is "use the most common name," not the most technically correct name. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree with thisBlaise 21:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody moved 'Square metre' to 'Square Meter'. Please can somebody move it back?

Somebody moved 'Square metre' to 'Square Meter'. I tried but can't move it back. Please can somebody else do it? bobblewik 19:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

They did the same to 'Cubic metre'. bobblewik 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Done both by copy and redirect. &minusWoodstone 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! bobblewik 20:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears to have been corrected to metre again. Only American English uses the meter spelling for the unit. In most of the English speaking world a meter is a measuring device. LeadSongDog 16:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the United States shares with Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe its dedication to its own system of measures, could they maybe restrict their peculiar spellings to the Wikipedias of those peculiar countries?

The metric system is one of the perhaps few genuine benefits of the French Revolution, so it is natural that the Romance spelling should carry through into the English language as most of the world speak and spell it.

Then again, there's an American rule of thumb that applies to the spelling of "metre." They no playa da game, they no make-a da rules.

The Americans may catch on -- once they catch up with the rest of the world in arithmetic, Internet access, medical care, and other signs that the world has moved past 1776.

207.245.236.153 (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Online unit converter

I've linked my site to this article. www.conversionstation.com. My intent is to add value to the wiki, not to spam. Some of the areas are still under construction, but if you visit any part of the converter and would like me to add some units, please let me know by posting to mytalk. Thanks. —This unsigned comment is by Zakian49 (talk • contribs) .

Please watch changes to Metrication

Please can people look at recent changes to Metrication? The edits being made by User:Arfon and the associated IP address do not seem to me to be correct/NPOV. I do not want to get into a revert war. Thanks. bobblewik 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

bad sentence

"The United States of America is almost certainly the last to adopt the system but even there it is increasingly being used."

What is this sentence saying? It's hard to decipher.

Just popped in to say the same thing. Is it the last or one of the last. why is it important anyway? Perhaps it would be better to say, "The United States, one of the largest countries, has still not converted to using SI units ... " or something paraphrased to fit the context, or just leave it out. --Candy 13:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy and precision

Removed the section below from the article. In my opinion it does not belong in an article on units. It might fit in an article on measuring procedures or reporting of measurements. −Woodstone 08:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy is a term used to specify the maximum overall error to be expected from a device, such as one that measures a process variable. Accuracy usually is expressed as the degree of inaccuracy and takes several forms:

• Measured variable, as the accuracy is ±1 psig in some pressure measurements. Thus, there is an uncertainty of ±1 psig in any value of pressure measured.
• Percentage of the instrument full-scale (FS) reading. Thus, an accuracy of ±0.5% FS in a 10-volt full-scale voltage meter would mean the inaccuracy or uncertainty in any measurement is ±0.05 volts.
• Percentage of instrument span, that is, percentage of the range of the instrument’s measurement capability. Thus, for a device measuring ±2% of span for 20-50 psig range of pressure, the accuracy is (±0.02)(50-20) = ±0.6 psig.
• Percentage of the actual reading. Thus, for a ±5% of reading current meter, we would have an inaccuracy of ±1.0 milliamps (ma) for a reading of 20 mA of current flow.

A measurement may be quoted to a certain degree of accuracy.

Burma?

I have been told in a college class Burma doesn't use metric either.

Nice. But unless you have a documented cite for that, it isn't relevant to wikipedia. Rhialto 11:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

From the CIA World Factbook (online edition)

Note: At this time, only three countries - Burma, Liberia, and the US - have not adopted the International System of Units (SI, or metric system) as their official system of weights and measures. Although use of the metric system has been sanctioned by law in the US since 1866, it has been slow in displacing the American adaptation of the British Imperial System known as the US Customary System. The US is the only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric system in its commercial and standards activities, but there is increasing acceptance in science, medicine, government, and many sectors of industry.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-g.html Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rating

I've made an initial rating on this article above, perhaps a tad optimistic. Still quite a bit of unsourced content that needs to be corrected to really justify it.LeadSongDog (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

External link to Complex Unit Converter

A useful converter between SI and other units is available at http://AnalysisChamp.com/EEx/ExpEvalCV.asp. This converter is capable of performing complex conversions between any and all proper unit expressions and should be included as an external link to this article. MikeVanVoorhis (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

External links to converters are at the Conversion of units article; I don't see any converters linked to in this article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(I apologize for taking so long to get back to this post) The Conversion of units article contains an external link to a site containing numerous other external links. I feel that this link is too difficult for users to use because it adds another level of access before usable conversions are performed. I will add the http://AnalysisChamp.com/EEx/ExpEvalCV.asp link to the external link and see if it is utilized at that level. MikeVanVoorhis (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Units have no plural form

A unit is not a thing, it is a dimension. Words like Watts, Volts, Amperes are faulty. The correct form is 2.5 Volt, 23 meter, 205 Watt. A few exceptions are tolerated, like seconds, minutes, because they are so commonly used but that usage is not correct. I tried to use the word metre above but the spell checker marked it wrong so I changed it to the international word meter.

This article should mention that units must use singular form, as I explained it above. The authors of this article should also find out if the word metre is correct English or not. I am from Sweden so I am not sure but as far as I know the word meter is correct, and the wikipedia spell checker agrees with me. (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, words like Watts, Volts, Amperes are faulty, but not for the reason you claim. The words should be watts, volts and amperes. Per the BIPM, units spelled out are not capitalized. The fact that they are all named after persons is memorialized in the fact that the symbols W, V, and A are upper case, but the words are not, unless they actually refer to the person.

But the use of plurals is fine when applied to the spelled out units. Watts is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, but not otherwise. Unit symbols are never pluralized. E.g., ms does not mean metres, it means milliseconds. Plural forms of kilograms, degrees Celsius (note that the d is lower case), kelvins, newtons, seconds--all of these are fine. Jeepien (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

See International_System_of_Units "The SI rule is that symbols of units are not pluralised, for example "25 kg" (not "25 kgs")." "The official US spellings for deca, metre, and litre are deka, meter, and liter, respectively." (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The units have plural form when spelled out, such as "10 metres", but there is no plural form for SI unit symbols, such as "10 m". For non-SI units the conventions vary. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In Europe, and probably in the rest of the world, except for USA, we do not pluralize unit even when spelled out. We don't say 2 meters, we say 2 meter, and we write 2 meter or 2 m. The only exceptions I know are seconds, minutes and hours. We say "I'll be back in 10 minutes", for example.

If USA decides to go metric they better do it right to begin with to avoid having to change the way they speak and write twice or three or four times before they have harmonized with the rest of the world. I am considering asking some wikipedia admin to do a global find and replace in all articles. Change all metre and metres into meter, and all litre and litres into liter. Authors who write metre obviously ignore the wikipedia spellchecker, and that should be reason enough to do such a global find and replace. (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Although SI symbols are meant to be international, spelled-out unit names are not. The spelling, and the grammar when forming plurals or combining unit names with neighboring words, are determined on a language-by-language basis. Furthermore, CGPM is a treaty organization, and its decisions are only advise to individual countries. Each country decides whether to accept and enforce some or all of the CGPM decisions. So, can you find any source from English-speaking governments supporting your claim that "in Europe, and probably in the rest of the world, except for USA, we do not pluralize unit even when spelled out"? I note your IP is from Sweden. Swedish rules for writing spelled-out names of units do not apply to the English language. The brochure published by the BIPM under CGPM authority, in section 5.2, clearly indicates that spelled-out names of units may be treated differently in different languages. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I refer you back to the reasons I have already given, the wikipedia spellchecker and the quotes from: See International_System_of_Units "The SI rule is that symbols of units are not pluralised, for example "25 kg" (not "25 kgs")." "The official US spellings for deca, metre, and litre are deka, meter, and liter, respectively." Check out the source of those quotes and force that authority to change their rules, and force some wikipedia admin to change the rules in the spellchecker if you want to continue to be wrong. (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

First, there is no such think as a wikipedia spellchecker. Second, the quote you give is about symbols, not spelled-out unit names. If you check the source for that statement, you will find that in English, unit names should change depending on whether they are singular or plural. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When I write metre a dotted red line appears under the word, what is that, if not a spelling checker? (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That is probably a spell-checker that is built into your web browser. When I use Firefox, I get the same thing (if I have my language set to US English rather than UK English). I get the same thing with any text field that I fill in with my browser from any web site. When I use Internet Explorer, I don't get the red lines because Internet Explorer does not have a spell-checker. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, obviously it is my Opera spell checker. But I still think USA should accept international rules, and listen to the scientific community, and listen to what English language spell checkers say about how to write units. People should use a spell checker when writing in wikipedia. I don't have time to dig up enough references, but I have discussed a lot with my highly educated civil engineer friends in sci.electronics.design and I know they agree with me. (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Teaspoons and tablespoons

I have watched a few episodes of "Are you smarter than a fifth-grader?" It surprises me that schools in USA teaches units like teaspoons and tablespoons when spoons are made in very different sizes and few, if any, are made to exact measurements. Stop teaching the children such stupid units, and teach them to buy a set of milliliter measuring tools instead. I bought such a set with 20 ml, 10 ml, 5 ml, 2 ml and 1 ml cups for about a dollar and I often use them. Questions like "How many teaspoons are there in a tablespoon?" are impossible to answer correctly. They teach children units which are illusions. Instead the children should be informed that these units are not exact units, and that when they are used in a recipy it doesn't matter if the amounts are a little less or more. (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing Wikipedia articles. Please feel free to visit the Category School districts in the United States and write protest letters to as many of them as you wish. Just type Category:School districts in the United States in the search box to the left. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrote about spoons because I think this article should mention those "units" and explain that - they are not exact units and cannot be divided or multiplied and expect the result to be exact and even less expect the result to be a whole number and that when they are used in a recipy it doesn't matter if the amounts are a little less or more. And explain that spoons of different make and models give different results. That is obviously something teachers and pupils need to learn, and we can hope that enough teachers and pupils consult wikipedia so the awareness of this spreads. (Roger Johansson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.249.177.148 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Look at tablespoon and teaspoon and you will see that these words are used as units of volume (often defined as 15 and 5 ml respectively). Ulflund (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The British Imperial system (1824 - 1971) had the following system of Culinary Measures:

1280 teaspoonsful = 640 dessertspoonsful = 320 tablespoonsful = 64 wineglassesful = 32 teacupsful = 16 tumblersful

These were coordinated with the Liquid and Dry Capacity Measures as follows:

= 8 pints = 4 quarts = 1 gallon = 160 fluid ounces = 1280 fluid drams

The imperial gallon was was originally (1824) 277.274 cubic inches, but in the late 20th century went metric (1964 in Canada, 1985 in the UK) at which point it became 4.546092 liters or approximately 277.419555 cubic inches (often rounded off to (277.420). To convert cubic inch to cc just multiply by 2.54 x 2.54 x 2.54. Thus, the imperial teaspoonful should be 3.551634375 cubic centimeters. (Or did I make a mistake in my arithmetic?) Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Vitruvian" man

I have (again?) removed this incorrect, misconceived and misleading image, created in unquestioned good faith, from the article. The caption read "This derivation of the Vitruvian Man by Leonardo da Vinci, depicts nine historical units of measurement: the yard, the span, the cubit, the Flemish ell, the English ell, the French ell, the fathom, the hand, and the foot. The Vitruvian Man was drawn to scale, so the units depicted are displayed with their proper historical ratios." Those units belong to different systems, and their relative and absolute values were subject to change according to time, location and indeed source consulted; nor does Leonardo, writing in Renaissance Italy, mention any but one of them (the cubit). It is a compete farce to present them as a coherent single system with "proper historical ratios", an embarrassment to the article and to the project. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, why not correct problems in the caption rather than delete the image? It provided clear and consisely conveyance that the origin of each of those different units was rooted in human body proportions. If there are any that you think were not, please name them, we can certainly check sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Because what the image so concisely conveys is that those units had fixed values in time and place, and that there were fixed relationships between them, none of which is either true or verifiable from reliable sources. Their superposition on a Renaissance drawing lends them an authority which is entirely spurious, and (almost) entirely unsupported by that source. Which of the twenty or so specifically French aunes, brasses and cannes discussed by Savary would you say is a "French ell", for example? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. The various sources I find, including that, acknowledge that there were wide variations in local standards for the ell, consistent with the etymology for "ell", "eln", or "elne" going back to the latin "ulna". While my French is somewhat challenged, I'd take Savary p.191's "En Angleterre on ce cert d'une aune pour auner les toiles, que est semblable à celle de Paris. On tient aussi que l'aune d'Osnaburg est de même longueur" as reading that an aune comparable to "l'aune de Paris" is used in England for cloth. The same page gives that unit as comprising "trois pieds, sept pouces, huit lignes". Recalling that the Paris foot is 12.789 Imperial inches, we have an aune de Paris of about 46 inches, rather less than the 50 suggested by scaling the figure. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiplication

For example, length is a physical quantity. The metre is a unit of length that represents a definite predetermined length. When we say 10 metres (or 10 m), we actually mean 10 times the definite predetermined length called "metre".

I would argue this is not really accurate. A unit is any measurement that there is 1 of. Injecting multiplication between the value and the unit is to really multiple the value by 1 of that unit. Eg. 10 meters => 10 x 1 meter. To literally say "10 x meter" is meaningless, since a physical dimension is not a number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.230.177 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the text you are objecting to is actually trying to explain that, although "unit" may actually be thought of in the way you describe in normal parlance, "unit" actually means 1 (of something), as in hundreds, tens, and units; in your terms, the metre is "1m"; ten metres is 10*1m. One should perhaps change the last word from metre to the metre to make this clearer. --Boson (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "measurement unit"

The latest VIM () defines "measurement unit" as

1.9 (1.7)

measurement unit

unit of measurement

unit

real scalar quantity, defined and adopted by convention, with which any other quantity of the same kind can be compared to express the ratio of the two quantities as a number

This should replace the definition in the article.

Beardedchemist (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to explain concepts to a wide, general audience, not to regurgitate some legalistic document. SpinningSpark 15:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Money is also a physical quantity

Notes and coins are physical quantities. Everyone in the world knows that money is a monetary unit of measure. Homni (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Money is not a Physical quantity. It is an artificial concept. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course money is a physical quantity. Notes and coins are physical objects. It is impossible and unthinkable to have an article with the title "Units of measurement" and not to have money listed. Money is a concept, yes, it is physical, yes, it is virtual, yes. But, it certainly is physical. Who do you think would agree with you when you state: "Money is not a physical quantity" when everyone walks around with physical coins and notes in their pockets all around the world. Homni (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ask any child to show you what money is and the child will show you a coin or a note. Any adult would do the same. Homni (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree that it is a mistake to say that money is not a physical quantity?Homni (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Money is not a physical quantity. Coins and banknotes are physical, but they are not money per se; they are a physical representation of money. The money itself is an accounting unit. A number on a bank statement or a computer screen or even just a particular magnetic pattern on a computer's hard drive can be just as correctly described as money. Rhialto (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Money is, in fact, a physical quantity too. Coins and bank notes are, in fact, money. Please send me your bank notes and coins if you were to really think they are not money.

The problem is the sudden requirement shown here on the talk page that what this article refers to, namely, "Units of measurement" are only physical units. Celsius and Fahrenheit and Ohm are also "units of measurement", but they are not physical. Money is certainly a unit of measurement as defined by the best possible authority, namey, the United States Financial Accounting Standards Board. This article needs a lot of work to include non-physical units of measurement. Money is a unit of measurement. See this reference: Homni (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a copy of the lead paragraph in WP article Money: Money is any object or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context.Homni (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think coins and banknotes are money. I think they are a representation of money. And I am sufficiently atavistic to want to keep my representations to myself, thank you very much.

Anyway, "money" is not a unit of measurement. "Dollars" or "euros" or "yen" are units of measurement, and the thing being measured is "wealth". Coins and banknotes are ways to represent that wealth (a physical way to represent it), but they are not the only possible representation, and wealth is not inherently a physical object (the right to extract minerals from a given parcel of land can conceivably be measured in dollars, but it isn't a physical thing either; that right is a social construct). Rhialto (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The thing being measured is real value.Homni (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Real" value? No, it is only the agreed value of the parties exchanging that currency (or tokens thereof) for something else. When the shared consensus on a value disappears, so does the value. See hyperinflation for examples. Even for benchmarked currencies (as under the gold standard), the issuer of the currency can and occasionally does decide to unlink the benchmark from the money supply, either to circulate more money or reduce reserves. The closest thing to a real value currency today is probably the barrel of oil, and even it is subject to artificial supply manipulation. Dollars, euros, yen, bitcoin, etc are at best exchange-value currencies. We know that the value of national economies doesn't actually change by percentage points in hours, but the currencies used in those nations very often do. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wealth doesn't measure "real" value; it measures "perceived" value. "Real" value has no objective meaning. This is yet one more nail in the coffin for the idea that wealth is a physical quantity. Rhialto (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, Yes, it is always "real value" at least at the moment of exchange. You agree: you state "agreed value". No, "when the shared consensus on a value disappears" the value does not "always" disappear under "all circumstances". It may only disappear for the two parties who previously agreed. A gold coin may have had no value for the victims of the Titanic at the time the Titanic went down. That gold coin always had value till today and will have value in the future. Adam Smith regarded a bushel of wheat as a stable measure of real value. Every daily inflation-indexed or daily deflation-indexed national currency (that means it is possible in all currencies - bitcoin is not included here) is a perfectly stable in unit of real value and will always be that for a indefinite period of time during all levels of inflation and deflation. Wow!! now I have revealed the perfectly stable unit of real value to you. Well, it was possible since 1927 when the ILO institutionalized the CPI. You cannot group bitcoin with the dollar and euro: the last two are money. Bitcoin is not money. Bitcoin is a medium of exchange like the dollar and euro, but it is not money: it is not a monetary unit of measure: no financial reports are prepared in bitcoin. During all levels of inflation and deflation the real value of ONLY the MONETARY economy (the internal money supply) changes EXACTLY with the real value of the local currency WITHIN the local economy, obviously excluding daily inflation-indexed monetary items (government bonds). Homni (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Rhialto Real value has an objective meaning: real value is constant purchasing power. Every daily inflation-indexed national currency monetary item(that means all of them) is an unit of perfectly stable real value. Homni (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The sale value of anything is exactly what the buyer and seller agree on, nothing more, nothing less. since any purchasing power depends on such agreements, purchasing power must be a social construct. The fact that there large number of such agreements that can be analysed statistically doesn't change the fact that it is a social construct. It doesn't matter whether it is "gold" or "dollars" or "wheat", the same issue applies. For something to have objective value, it would have to have the same value regardless of human interaction. Real values of commodities do change, and those changes are the result of human interactions, not changes in the items themselves. A good example of this is the varying relative prices of gold vs. silver through history, as new deposits of each were discovered. That was human exploration of mineral deposits that caused the change, not an innate change in what gold or silver are on a fundamental level. Rhialto (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In economics, an economic entity always seeks real value as opposed to nominal value. In our private lives it is equally important to find real value because we do not want to live as cynics: “What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." #OscarWilde — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homni (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Homni (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting the distinct impression that "real value" is a piece of economics jargon that is unrelated to the engineering idea of physical units. This page is primarily about engineering (specifically, ways of measuring things). Rhialto (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I am dealing with the concept in other articles. There is the specific matter of real versus nominal as a result of inflation and deflation because of money. Once money enters, unit of account enters which is actually unit of measure. Real value itself then has to deal with purchasing power parity. It needs a level head to keep track of all the concepts and to know which one applies when. Human beings do what comes naturally to them and mix them all up. You are right: this article is only about physical units. Homni (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have done no work on purchasing power parity. I could imagine that it takes "real value" to another level. I have a feeling that PPP could be the future of real value. However, we are still in the era of the historical cost paradigm (HCA is still the traditional accounting model). The historical cost paradigm will be (is being) replaced, very, very slowly by the constant purchasing power paradigm. Once we are all there - in 100 or 200 years time - I think we will then move on to the PPP paradigm. Although I think there is also a possibility that the CPP and PPP paradigms may unfold at the same time. As I say, I have done no work on the PPP paradigm.Homni (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand: The historical cost paradigm is slowly but surely being replaced in the world economy. It would be wonderful if we could symbolically bury a HCA textbook together with the infamous stable measuring unit assumption on some university campus. That would be great. However, I know that is not going to happen. The historical cost paradigm is the first and only accounting paradigm we have had since the start of money/accounting. It is still going to be with us for another 100 or 200 years. (The IASB, FASB and national accounting standard authorities love the stable measuring unit assumption and HCA). Although Robert Shiller states that unit of account pre-dates money. So then constant purchasing power is older than the stable measuring unit assumption (inflation). I am quite sure I will pick up a ban for making WP a forum :-) Let´s see.Homni (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So, you are right: real value is a social construct. I think that is what you said. Real value is older than all the paradigms I mentioned above. Real value arrived with Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve and there is no real value. And I am not talking about sex. :-)Homni (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Rhialto and LeadSongDog, Homni was blocked for sockpuppetry [today, since 3 of us on the bitcoin page noted similarities to a previous user that had haunted the page with unconstructive if not vandalizing edits.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Proportion as a standard of Measure

I'm curious why proportion as a unit standard of measure is not addressed in the article? For example in exchange rates and legal definitions of taxes that are subject to redefinition of not just currency but actual physical measures as where a property owner is taxed so much an acre, but the definition of an acre is changed by the redefinition of units of length between the Roman standards and the English system and later the Metric system, but actual users go back to the original unit fractions because they are more utilitarian 142.0.102.230 (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the unit? What is being measured? Is that unit readily convertible into SI (sometimes called metric) units? Rhialto (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Parts-per notation is related. It is implicit in SI in a sense, as the "dimensionless" unit. Similar to zero being so fundamental that it took people ages to acknowledge it as a number. —Quondum 16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ratios strike me as an example of a dimensionless unit. Within the paradigm of this article, they are no more a unit of measurement than bald is a hair colour or atheist is a religion. And just a few months ago, we had a long debate with the sock puppet Homni over the point that this (and many related) articles are about things that don't change as a result of human interaction with them, but have an objective reality outside of what humans have done. That certainly doesn't apply to a rate of exchange. Rhialto (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Distinction between Units and Standards

Is it necessary or even correct to make the distinction between units and standards? The article states, "One metre is the same length regardless of temperature, but a metal bar will be exactly one metre long only at a certain temperature." But aren't units typically defined under specific conditions? Tylercrompton (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

For example, the metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. Doesn't that depend on the frame of reference and the environment through which the light travels? That definition would vary if the environment were permitted to vary. Similarly, when we measure the length of some metal bar, that particular measurement depends on the conditions in which it is measured. Sure, the length of the bar could change, but that doesn't change what the previous measurement was because past conditions cannot be changed. Tylercrompton (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Instead, I think that it should be noted that measurements depend on the conditions in which the measurement is performed and that standards are generally defined under very specific, reproducible conditions. Tylercrompton (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Units of measurement. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160204133045/http://www.bwmaonline.com/ to http://www.bwmaonline.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Smaller base unit sets?

The Base and derived units section of the article contains the following passage which I am having trouble understanding:

The base units of SI are actually not the smallest set possible. Smaller sets have been defined. For example, there are unit sets in which the electric and magnetic field have the same unit.

I can't exactly see what it means- the base units of SI only seem to include a unit for electric current (Amperes), which is a distinct (but related) concept from electric field as far as I understand. Since the base units don't include a system for magnetic OR electric field, these must be in the derived units (or, strictly, they could just not exist, but that's unlikely). As such, since we're only discussing the base units, this passage is a bit of a non sequitur- you can't merge the SI base units for magnetic and electric field into one because there are no such base units. Since this passage is also uncited, I can't check the source to see if the original author explained it better, or perhaps was talking about something entirely different. I've added a citation needed for now.

(Also, to a proper math pedant, I must point out that of course the SI base units aren't the smallest possible- I can make a system of measurements with no base units; it can't measure anything that isn't dimensionless, but I can make it). Hppavilion1 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Units of measurement → Unit of measurement – Per WP:SINGULAR, an article's title should be singular not plural. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The policy in question states, "exceptions include . . . the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages)". The policy also links to WP:PLURAL, which provides further detail and seems to apply here. This article isn't about the concept that something could be measured by the unit, but about different units of measurement as a class; therefore it makes perfect sense to have the article under a plural title. Note that this is different from articles about specific units, as mentioned in the latter page, using foot vs. feet as an example. P Aculeius (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. While P Aculeius has a point, I'd say that this article is about "the concept that something could be measured by the unit" (i.e. along the lines of a WP:BROADCONCEPT article) – it starts with a definition of one (in singular) and mostly continues in abstract terms. I'm usually wary of overapplication of WP:SINGULAR, but it seems to gracefully apply here. No such user (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Yes. The article could have been an attempt to systematically list (all?) units of measurement, but it is not. Instead it is about the concept of a unit of measurement, for which the singular form seems more appropriate. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The article is mainly about the concept of a unit of measurement, which is singular. −Woodstone (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.