Template talk:Systems of measurement

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
[edit]

I don't particularly like these colors, but it shows what can be done. Garamond Lethet
c 14:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly goes part way to solving the colour issue. Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Specific suggestions? I can throw up a few variants, but it would be easier if I knew what you found to be most annoying. Garamond Lethet
c 14:58, 25 October 2013

(UTC)

Just a thought about the space. If Group 4 was labelled "Other" or "Other units" the width of the first column would be reduced. This would save space. As for colour, I have no problem with the green and the lilac, but the rusty colour is harder to take. What about shades of lemon yellow instead? This would go better with the lilac. Michael Glass (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction is that the red looks out of place? I would be tempted to move around the colour chart from new purple (the current header) to say a yellow-green as the last entry, all having an intensity of say X%. The second pair of columns could then be the same colour, but at lower intensity. Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both are helpful suggestions. Hope to get another iteration out in 12 hours or so. Garamond Lethet
c 15:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To save more space we could replace the full names of the articles with
  • Metric System: Introduction, History, Outline
  • UK & US systems Overview, Detailed comparison.
This would reduce the length of the lines and could help. Michael Glass (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Background" row is out of place here, all those articles are linked from within the headline system articles - as they should be. They have no place here. I propose this version, keeping the layout but with Michael's idea of an abbreviated title on the last row and removing that out-of-place background row:
EzEdit (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up my ideas of layout, but I still favour the idea of including the links you omitted. I think the comparisons between the imperial and US customary systems are particularly useful. Ditto the history of the metric system and the simpler accounts of it. If we can find room for humorous units of measurement then surely we can find place for these articles. It beats me why you appear to be so dead set against them.

On other matters,

  • I wonder about the "Industry specific" heading. I don't think astronomy is exactly an industry. "Other" or "Other units" would be more accurate here, and shorter.
  • I think that we could safely consign the Apothecaries System to "history". According to this link, it was abolished in the United States in the 1970s [1] The fact that a few physicians still use this historic system is an oddity, but the 1970s is about 40 years ago. For further evidence of its place in history, see [2]. Of course, pharmacists in the US still need to know about it [3] but that strikes me like English teachers having to know the length of the league when explaining "The Charge of the Light Brigade."
  • "Imperial system" should be changed to "Imperial units," as with US units.

Michael Glass (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glass, those additional suggestions seem reasonable. EzEdit, I understand that you want to remove some links, but I don't see a consensus forming for that option.
I'm wandering in the weeds of parser functions trying to find the correct way of handling repeated style variables. As we're going to have article protection for a while longer I might as well learn how to do this right. Garamond Lethet
c 19:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the the difficulty with keeping the "Background" row will be the disproportionate size it could end up with all the background articles from all the systems of measurement articles being candidates to be included in out. EzEdit (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) You (Michael) ask why I'm against including links to all the background articles. Let me tell you. The idea of the template is to index the systems of measurement, right? The SI system is included, those interested in the background to it can click through to it and find all its background articles there. Otherwise, we could end up with all the sub-articles from all of the system articles in the "background" section of this template. The US customary system background includes these articles: Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States, Mendenhall Order, international yard and pound agreement of 1959, North American Datum, State Plane Coordinate System and Cooking weights and measures. Would you include all those too? No, I think we should limit this template to just the main system articles and leave readers to visit those for all further information. EzEdit (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Garamond Lethet
c 09:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EzEdit, I agree that the template is to index systems of measurement. Therefore it makes sense to include information on SI as well as the simpler explanations of it. When it comes to the imperial and US customary measures, a comparison between these two closely related systems is in order. The first three of your suggestions are of historical interest, the next two are about mapping and the last one appears to have no real evidence to back up its assertions, so I wouldn't be pushing to have them included. On the other hand, if Garamond wanted to include some of them I would not object. (NB, When I said that the Apothecaries should be consigned to History I didn't mean that it should be excluded but that it should with other obsolete systems of measure.)
If you are objecting to the category of background information because it might open the floodgates for all sorts of articles to be added then the answer might be to include some or all of the articles under other headings or to work out a different name for the category, or both. It is plain that there is very little difference between the list of articles you favour and the list of articles that I think should be included. With a little bit more flexibility we might be able to agree on a common list that all might be willing to accept. Michael Glass (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we're moving away from it being an quick index into the various systems of measurement articles, and instead to being a list of all articles written about the metric system and some, objectively selected, other articles. I cannot understand why you do not think that just the main article of each measurement system is enough. A reader interested in the history of the metric system can find that summarised in the main article, and click through to the more detailed article from there if desired. EzEdit (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This way the user doesn't have to click through to find what is available. There comes a point of diminishing returns, of course, but and if we get up to forty or fifty links then yes, it should probably be pruned. Garamond Lethet
c 20:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing it all together

[edit]

Another try then, based on the general preference to keep the background articles in. This one inserts a group for "background" articles under the current system entries.

Colors/colours subject to tasteful redefinition. EzEdit (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this looks pretty good (apart from the colour). Here are a few suggestions that might help to save space:

  • As the main heading says, "Systems of measurement" we don't need the to repeat the word "system" in the side bar. The first side bar could just be as shown below:
  • I have made some other minor edits (backgrounds > background)
  • Colours are way beyond my level of expertise so I have left them unchanged.
  • For appearance sake it would be good if the second column could be even in width instead of going in and out (but I don't know how to do that).

How do others feel? (If I've gone too far, I'll be guided by others about puttng back some of the words.) Michael Glass (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with that, including even wide columns if that's possible. Let's see what the others think, and if GL could get some decent colors/colours into it. EzEdit (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that, EzEdit. I have made a few refinements (below).
  • To bring the second column more nearly into line, I have changed the adjectives to nouns: Europe, Asia
  • In the Background section I have added a link to the main metric system article. (a different article to the one on SI linked higher up.)
  • I have kept the hot linking of Metric. This goes to a disambiguation page about various uses of the word.
  • In the UK/US section I have removed the hot linking on UK/US and put the same link under the word Overview. This is more intuitive for the reader looking for an overview of the two systems than having the hotlink under the title UK/US.
Everything else should be the same.
I hope these changes are acceptable to all, but please don't hesitate to change and refine further, if desired. Michael Glass (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "metric" and "metric system" links were wrong, so here it is again, with them corrected. And made capitalization consistent and removed parentheses around UK and US main systems and used "Overview" for metric system overview article. That's acceptable to me still.
EzEdit (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Those changes are better and make the template more consistent. I think it's good to remove the hotlink to the the disambiguation page, as anyone who is looking for information about systems of measurement doesn't need that distraction. I think the template draft is just about ready to go. It is certainly better than either of the versions that were in contention. The only refinements I can think of are the colour coding, as discussed, and straightening up the second column. Perhaps Garamond would like to make some input into wording and layout before we go any further. Michael Glass (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

working... Garamond Lethet
c 19:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chromacoding improved

[edit]

This updates the last version from EzEdit.

Garamond Lethet
c 01:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I like the revised colours. However, the first three cells of the first column are too dark. This makes the wording harder to read. I suggest keeping the general colour scheme but use the colours in the second column for the corresponding cells in the first column. I think this would remedy the problem. Michael Glass (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what it would look like:

Any comments, criticisms or suggestions? Michael Glass (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no comment in two weeks. If there is no objection in the next 24 hours I will put the latest proposal into the text.Michael Glass (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I completely missed that you had made this improvement. Nice work! Go ahead and make the change whenever is convenient for you. (And thanks for keeping up with this; it had completely fallen off of my radar.) Garamond Lethet
c 00:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the change as proposed above. Michael Glass (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chromacoding removed

[edit]

I notice that the chromacoding has been removed from the template? Why?Michael Glass (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

seems contrary to wp:deviations, but could be added back if there is a real reason for it. Frietjes (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there are two issues mentioned by wp:deviations.
  • consistency
  • accessibility
Regarding consistency, the chromacoded version doesn't seem to deviate significantly from the standard colour scheme. Rather than looking unprofessional, the chromacoding makes things clearer. I'd suggest that unless there are real accessibility issues, we return to the chromacoding. Jimp 08:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a vote, I would vote no additional colouring. I think it looks cleaner with the default colours. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I originally added the chromacoding at the request of Martinvl and others who were concerned about accessibility. I'm not an expert in either accessibility or design, so I can't speak from personal knowledge as to whether the accessibility issues are significant or if the alternate color scheme was helpful. Someone at the WMF might be able to speak to this. Let me see if I can find out who that person is. Garamond Lethet
c 16:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English engineering?

[edit]

Would it be appropriate to add English engineering units?

One immediate problem is that the relevant line is entitled "UK/US" but these "English" units are not used in England (or anywhere in the UK, for that matter - professional engineers use metric). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are already listed. Last item in the second row.--Srleffler (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a bat! I was mesmerised by "US/UK". Thanks. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]