Talk:International System of Units#Top image confusion

As a matter of background for the Introduction section, I think providing the French translation ({{langx|fr|Systéme international d'unités}}) can help explain how the abbreviation "SI" arose, so I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_System_of_Units&diff=1127679840&oldid=1127546293 added] it to the article. My edit was reverted by someone saying "Not required in English Wiki (MOS:FOREIGN)". Because of the abbreviation and the prevalence of this term in international use, I suggest there is more justification for including this term than would ordinarily be the case for a foreign-language translation. I see that [https://www.britannica.com/science/International-System-of-Units Britannica] puts the French in boldface in its opening sentence. There is also a very close relationship between France and the SI system, e.g. as explained [https://the-gist.org/2014/05/the-history-of-the-metric-system-from-the-french-revolution-to-the-si/ here]. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

:I agree that the French term is relevant here. If it is the origin of the abbreviation "SI" (is it?), especially so. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

:It's useful to know the origin of the abbreviation, yes. It's already covered in the article though, in its own section - "Birth of the SI". I'm not sure it's important enough to repeat in the lead though. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

::I somehow had not noticed that existing mention. However, that is buried pretty deeply within the article. I still think it might be worth putting into the Introduction, along with some mention of the origination of the system being led by France. (I had not tried to put it in the lead, although Britannica does.) FWIW, [https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/international-system-of-units-SI/623433 here] is a page on Britannica Kids that directly says "SI" came from the French. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

:::Yes, it's a huge and unwieldly article here, which is difficult to follow or navigate. As well as a dedicated article, History of the metric system, there are two "History" sections in this article covering the role the French played in the development of the system. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

::::@⁠BarrelProof, @DeFacto: Thank you for the clarifying reference to kids.britannica.com. I will be very specific in response to the opening thrust of this discussion. Any thinking reader will see the SI abbreviation as being disassociated from any logic apparent with regard to the opening text of the article. Every standard and convention has a history. To add a phrase making clear the origin of the SI abbreviation—in the article, rather than in a footnote—is a way to avoid reader confusion and wasted time. That there are other issues with the article's length and complexity: about this there is no quarrel. But a simple change, immediately (adding "SI, deriving historically from its original name in French, Systéme international d'unités...") will avoid continued reader pause. Remember, even following WP markup conventions for notes and footnotes is a learned behaviour, not always brought in to the first reading of an article. And this is the sort of article that might draw young readers. (A retired academic.) 2601:246:C700:F5:18B0:5EF:D03:EBA0 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::

:::::People should be used to it by now. We have ones like NATO OTAN and such. Even more, CERN is the European Center for Nuclear Research, without any confusion. Gah4 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

:::Yes, it's easy enough to include a very brief mention of the words Système International; it doesn't require that we expand the body text with digressions into explaining that it's French or what it means; the words are so similar in English and we have a very full footnote too. Indeed, we can save a little padding: "in all languages" is not supported by the source, the SI Brochure, and quite right too, as it would be immensely difficult to prove even if we had confidence that all human languages are now known, and we've already asserted internationally anyway. I'll edit the sentence accordingly. NebY (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

::::The abbreviation is supported by the SI brochure. On page 165: The 11th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) [...] decides [...] the international abbreviation of the name of the system is: SI. -- Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::Yes indeed, and we can and do say that it's internationally known by that abbreviation. We can't make the stronger claim that "SI" is used "in all languages", and the SI brochure doesn't make that claim either. NebY (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::

::::::I see that this one has been fixed. But then notice, in the very next sentence, no note of CGPM and its naming. Gah4 (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Please be specific. There are lots of "next sentences" here. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::::There is a note in the #Controlling authority section that explains the CGPM derivation from French. To me that seems less important than explaining SI, so it doesn't need to be in the lead section. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

::::::::

::::::::My choice would have been to put the official name in the lead, and explain the other later, but either way is fine. Gah4 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

::::::::OK, but it doesn't explain it there. Maybe people are used to French acronyms for English terms by this point, though. As above, should we (and I am not saying one or the other) give the French name, too? Gah4 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Ok take a look, I did something different in the intro: use BIPM with explicit call out on the French origin of the acronym. I think this is better aligned with the article, which uses extensive refs to the brochure. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

At the beginning of the article, you reference a chart (presumably the same as the header of the article shown at half size). There a description indicating inner and outer rings but no picture. Bradcall (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:@Bradcall the image shows up for me on an Android phone. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

::Swear it wasn't there. Just went back and viola! Thank you, and for your edits! Bradcall (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I am a common sense person, and IS does not sit well with me. Here is an example: Discrete-time_Fourier_transform#Relation_to_Fourier_Transform.

{{Equation box 1|title=Poisson summation|indent=|cellpadding=6|border|border colour=#0073CF|background colour=#F5FFFA|equation={{NumBlk|:|$$

S_{1/T}(f) =

\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} s[n]\cdot e^{-i 2\pi f T n}\;

= \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} S\left(f - k/T\right).

   |{{EquationRef|Eq.2}}}}}}

Variable $f$ has units of ordinary frequency (cycles/sec). Variable $T$ is the number of seconds/sample. Dimensional analysis concludes that the dimensions of variable $k$ are cycles/sample, which is a normalized frequency that just happens to have integer values in this context. Yet the IS proponents insist that $k$ is unitless. To support that, they also claim that cycles and samples are unitless, and therefore cycles/sec and samples/sec are both just hertz. That is an obfuscation, denies common sense, and likely to confound newbies.

--Bob K (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

:See WP:NOTOPINION for a refresher on why this kind of post is not useful. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

::

::Many things not allowed in articles, are allowed in talk. When there is question about being useful to the article or not, I give benefit of the doubt toward allowing it to be discussed. Gah4 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll probably delete it, but I did try to present "a reasonable perspective". And I stated both sides of an issue. Did I misstate the IS position? The problem is that I do not understand its value. I would like that explained to me, or show me in the IS article where that is explained. For instance is IS just to facilitate mathematical proofs?... and Dimensional analysis is better for more practical applications? Is it the IS article that needs more balance?

--Bob K (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

:If you wish to challenge the content of the article, please provide sources to document the issues. These do exist if you want to find them. The SI system was worked out over centuries of compromise by a large number of scientists and engineers. Many issues were contentious but decisions had to be made. If you can establish that the sources are reliable I think a short section contentious issues in the History section would be great.

:If you wish to challenge the SI itself, go elsewhere. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I think it's enough to know that IS is controversial. I hope someone else undertakes the task of documentation. --Bob K (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:

:If someone finds it useful to use other units, the BIPM won't stop you. There are more cases, such as cycles vs. radians. Physics is commonly done with c=1 and hbar=1. Length and time have the same dimensions, and mass has inverse of those. In any case, since cycles and samples don't need a standard, I don't expect SI to change. Gah4 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

::Good to know. Thank you.--Bob K (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I propose to replace in the article History of the metre the four sections [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_metre&oldid=1271854731#Universal_measure Universal measure], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_metre&oldid=1271854731#Meridional_definition Meridional definition], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_metre&oldid=1271854731#M%C3%A8tre_des_Archives Mètre des Archives] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_metre&oldid=1271854731#International_prototype_metre International prototype metre] by the recently suppressed subsections in the article Metre, section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metre&diff=prev&oldid=1271733612#History_of_definition History of definition]:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metre&diff=prev&oldid=1271733612#Universal_measure:_the_metre_linked_to_the_figure_of_the_Earth Universal measure: the metre linked to the figure of the Earth],

the introductory paragraph of the section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metre&diff=prev&oldid=1271733612#Metrology_and_paradigm_shift_in_physics Metrology and paradigm shift in physics] and

the text of the subsection [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metre&diff=prev&oldid=1271733612#Wavelength_definition Wavelength definition] up to Albert Michelson soon took up the idea and improved it.

Alternatively an article named for example Errors in sciences and Internationalisation of the metre could be created.

Charles Inigo (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:Feel free to create Draft:Errors in sciences and Internationalisation of the metre so that everybody can have a clear view of what you have in mind. fgnievinski (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::I rather propose the article History of the metre should beginn with the sections which have recently been removed from the article Metre.

::You can consult the old ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metre&diff=prev&oldid=1271733612 12:24, 25 January 2025]) version of the article Metre of which a link is provided below in order to have a clear view of what I have in mind :

::From [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metre&diff=prev&oldid=1271733612#Universal_measure:_the_metre_linked_to_the_figure_of_the_Earth Universal measure: the metre linked to the figure of the Earth] up to "Charles Sanders Peirce's work promoted the advent of American science at the forefront of global metrology. Alongside his intercomparisons of artifacts of the metre and contributions to gravimetry through improvement of reversible pendulum, Peirce was the first to tie experimentally the metre to the wave length of a spectral line. According to him the standard length might be compared with that of a wave of light identified by a line in the solar spectrum. Albert Michelson soon took up the idea and improved it". Charles Inigo (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The content of History of the metre should not be discussed here. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SI&redirect=no SI] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 13#SI}} until a consensus is reached. BD2412 T 21:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} the result was keep Johnjbarton (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Why o why are the colours in such a weird order ? Why not just stick with the order of the colours in the rainbow. The use of the colour yellow for seconds screams off the page as an anomaly. Who in their right mind would put yellow next to red and then orange next to green. Please, please can someone recolour this graphic so it is not so offensive. Thank you ! 46.208.209.96 (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:thumb

:"Who in their right mind" is the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, from whom the image was obtained.

:You have not explained why you consider having certain colours adjacent is so "offensive". The only improvement might be to invert the text colour for any segment whose colouring currently contravenes MOS:CONTRAST. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:This seems to be an old version of the SI circle. The correct circle (with colours in rainbow order) can be found at https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/si-promotion. I suggest changing it. /Tobias 192.71.100.250 (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Please provide your opinion at Litre. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't get the formula for 1 Kg to work, computing the expression on the right side of the equal sign gives you 1/Kg, so how that can equal 1 Kg beats me. Planck's constant is Js and when you multiply that with the hyperfine transision frequency which is Hz you get J which is kg times (m/s) squared and if you then divide that by the speed of light squared you get Kg. The equation has numerator and denominator switched I think. 178.174.125.168 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Most of what you say is correct, up to "you get kg". And kg is what you want, so the numerator and denominator are the right way round. However the formula would be much easier to follow if it were developed as a product of its three constituent ratios.---Ehrenkater (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)