Talk:Hectare

message: The article suggests that the hectare is used in place of the square meter where it 'would be cumbersome and unnecessarily precise' to do so (added here). But surely units could be given as 270,000 sq m. rather than 27ha which is equally precise and not particularly cumbersome. My view, on the basis of no hard facts at all is that the hectare is a historical hangover used predominantly in countries which transitioned from the imperial acre to the quasi-metric hectare. But I could of course be totally wrong? orizon 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fully metric, just not SI. Jɪmp 05:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of Hectare (Explanation Section) 

message: Google search shows (1) that both "hectare" and "acre" are widely used in Canada, (2) "hectare" is slightly more common, (3) "hectare" is almost universally preferred in official (government) publications and widely preferred in journalism and education, (4) "acre" is widely used in commercial contexts, notably real estate. Avt tor 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While mkevlar's comment saying only hectares are official is probably true, I (in western Canada) have never once seen a piece of real estate advertised in hectares, and I think Avt tor's original statement is essentially correct. I don't think it's for any nostalgic reason - acres are much smaller, making it sound as if you're getting more land. (Similarly, stores here advertise their meat prices by the pound, even though it's weighed in kilograms - because the kilogram price sounds like more than double.) TooManyFingers (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian usage 

message: BIPM have moved on. The 8th edition of SI has brought the hectare in from the cold and includes it in a group of units that are accepted for use with SI. (Table 6). The article text as it stands reflects some of the 7th edition, has been edited several times and reads awkwardly. I intend to update the article to reflect the current standing of hectare in SI by BIPM. Bleakcomb (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIPM SI 8th ed 

message: Square kilometers, as in square miles, are too large for such close resolution tasks in the needs of daily life, and square meters or square yards or feet too large.
Is it possible that the last word of the first paragraph should have been 'small'?
Muddyork (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last word 

message: Please see Talk:Decare. ANDROS1337 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have proposed merging the articles are, decare and centiare into this article.  The articles decare and centiare are so short that they should be merged into other articles, while the history of the are and hectare (which I am currently writing) are so tightly intertwinned that merging the two makes sense.  I propose that this article should be the "host" article as the hectare is the most widely used of the four units of measurement. Martinvl (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not seen any comments on the merge proposal, so I am going ahead.  It will be done gradually over the next few days.  Martinvl (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Decare]] 

message: Areas less than one hectare are often expressed in square metres, and areas 10,000 ha and above in square kilometres. The number of significant figures is often limited to four digits. 
Several people have had a go at these sentences and they don't seem to be improving. The often is weak and borders on a weasel word. It is the equivalent of it often rains, which is quite true but very vague. And the reverse of the limits given is often true as well - areas less than one hectare and greater than 10,000 ha are often expressed in hectares. The problem is probably that the sentence is just POV. By the way here are some examples of hectares in use (even millions of hectares). and --Bleakcomb (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some weak sentences. 

message: The image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hectare.png illustrates that one are is equal to 10m^2 and that a hectare is equal to 100m^2, when in fact an are is 100m^2 and a hectare, as the article states, is 10000m^2. I think the person who produced the image does not understand what m^2 means.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.204.141 (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary - since one are has an area of 100m^2, it can be made up of 100 squares, each on 1m^2.  These squares can be laid out in a larger square, that has sides of 10m. Martinvl (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading image 

message: I don’t know how useful this information is or how best (if at all) to incorporate it into this article, but this list was at  before it redirected to here.
To help compare orders of magnitude of different areas, areas between 1 hectare (10,000 m²) and 10 hectares (0.1 km²) are listed below.
* Areas smaller than 1 hectare
* 1 hectare is equal to:
** 1 E+4 m² or 10,000 m²
** 100 m × 100 m
** 100 ares
** 108,000 square feet
** 2.47 acres
* 1.2126 hectares -- Plaza Mayor of MadridSee List of city squares by size
* 1.35 hectares -- Piazza del Popolo, Rome
* 2.3 hectares -- Red Square, Moscow
* 2.68 hectares—area of the RMS Queen Mary 2's passenger decks
* 3.2 hectares -- Palace of Westminster
* 3.76 hectares -- Castelmoron-d'Albret, the smallest commune of France
* 4 hectares -- Fort Severn, the first campus of the US Naval Academy
* 4.5 hectares -- Wenceslas Square, Prague
* 5.5 hectares—base of the Great Pyramid of Giza
* 5.7 hectares -- Plaza de la Constitución, Mexico City
* 6  hectares—1 Chinese qǐng
* 8.055 hectares -- Charles Square, Prague
* 8.4 hectares -- Place de la Concorde, Paris
* Areas larger than 10 hectares
—Frungi (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size comparisons from redirected article 

message: Although a good article, I could not find here an answer to my question: how is a piece of land REALLY measured in hectares? What I mean is that all the examples you give are "flat"; what would be appreciated is an example of a non-flat surface: what happens there? Is an "hectare" of flat land equal in terrain size to an "hectare" of slopped land or not? A.R. (alainr345)
If it's not clear, for an example of what I mean, I could find this sentence on a website which seems to point to the answer being "No, it would be different in terrain size", but that applies to the term Acre: "The acre is not a measure of surface area on the actual surface of the earth, but on an imaginary, hill-less, standardized ellipsoid. That result comes from using only strictly horizontal dimensions in calculating acreage."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.151.119.119 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of the are and hectare are strictly in terms of square meters on a plane. I don't believe that the application of these measures to the legal measurement of actual land is in scope for this article, as the issues are the same whether the unit is the square meter, the hectare, the acre, the square mile, etc. I'm not sure where this issue belongs -- perhaps surveying or geodesy? --Macrakis (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does an hectare measure in "practical" terms ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hectare. 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/20091001100650/http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table6.html to http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table6.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101022061357/http://www.bnr.bg/sites/en/Economy/Pages/0510Marketofagriculturalland.aspx to http://www.bnr.bg/sites/en/Economy/Pages/0510Marketofagriculturalland.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hectare. 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/20130515190933/http://www.agrifoodconsulting.com/ACI/uploaded_files/project_report/project_46_364535920.pdf to http://www.agrifoodconsulting.com/ACI/uploaded_files/project_report/project_46_364535920.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As of May 2018, Google calculator recognizes "ha" in calculations with explicit units, but does not recognize ha with any metric prefix (e.g. k, M). This article doesn't seem to indicate that metric prefixes are accepted with ha, either. Coincidence, or French conspiracy? — MaxEnt 20:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 ha = 1 hectare = 1 hect(o)-are. Get it? Komischn (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The view from Google calculator 

message: Today, User:DeFacto made a number of edits to this content page, the first of which deleted practically all examples with the mention "Removed illustrated examples per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK". Well, under WP:NOTTEXTBOOK I find, among others, the following sentence:
: Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
IMHO, the above-mentioned deletion went too far, removing many examples meant more to inform than to instruct. I'm reminded of the sentence which Pierre Larousse wrote on the half-title page of his dictionary: Un dictionnaire sans exemples est un squelette ("A dictionary without examples is a skeleton"). — Tonymec (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO they dominated the article and were excessive. Perhaps one would be ok, but I'm not sure even that is necessary as using a unit of area to measure area is not a very challenging concept to grasp. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I notice you left only the example mentioning Trafalgar Square, and removed, among others, the Statue of Liberty and the athletics field. Wasn't that, shall we say, a little anglo-centric? I'd give long odds that the Statue of Liberty is better known to the average American than Trafalgar Square, and OTOH, the athletics field is a more international example, IMHO more appropriate for an encyclopædia addressed de facto not only at native anglophones, but at people having a certain minimum mastery of English anywhere in the world. — Tonymec (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no examples? 

message: The History section of the article cites a source which contains the text of the law from 1795 (in French). That law from 1795 explicitly extended the deadline for the usage of the system of units to become mandatory, which was given by the decree from 1 August 1793. Therefore the first legal definition was in 1793.
But most units defined on the 1795 law differ from what was defined on the 1793 decree, particularly on pages 6 and 7.
Notably, the meter was already the key unit, so it was a metric system, but the names of several other units were different and while the are was defined as a unit of area, it was defined as 10000 m², or 100 larger, but there was an inconsistence in the conversion factor to square feets which would effectively divide it by a factor of 100.
Is the 1793 system considered to be a different system or already the metric system, but later modified? Does any one knows more about the subject or has another source which comments on the differences? And lacking that, is it still possible, or relevant to mention any of this? Nativeblue (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First legal definition of the metric system of units 

message: While some deletionist editors have a problem with "too many photos" in this article, I can't see any problem, because, according to me, there are no too many photos here, and the border between "enough" and "too many" is vague, subjective and arbitrary. All those "too many photos" help many readers, including me, to understand the comparison between different units of area, so please, do not delete photos just because of phobia of "too many" (too many photos, too many planets in the Solar System, too many chemical reactions, too many examples, too many  tags, too many sections, too many list entries, too many table rows, too many tables, too many information, ...), truncating the important information on Wikipedia. Bernardirfan (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the tag is not warranted. There is no sandwiching, and the number of photos and illustrations is not excessive. Indefatigable (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only are images useful to understand this kind of subject, IMHO in this case there are certainly not too many of them; I would even say that there might be too few pictures to illustrate the subject at hand, but opinions vary. I'm going to remove that tag — if someone puts it back the three of us might have to find someone having the authority to arbitrate. — Tonymec (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The {{tl|Too many photos}} tag on the article

message: The symbol ㏊ redirects to this article. Can someone add a paragraph about the Unicode usage please?
Simon de Danser (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The character ㏊ (U+33CA SQUARE HA) is part of the block U+3300 – U+33FF "CJK Compatibility", in subsection U+3399 – U+33DF "Squared Latin abbreviations". IIUC those characters are meant to represent Latin abbreviations as wide-CJK glyphs to be used in CJK text. See page https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U3300.pdf for details. — Tonymec (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Macrakis (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Unicode

message: I added a non-metric approximation for the decimilliare; its use of two prefixes is confusing. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decimilliare