Talk:Orders of magnitude (volume)

message: Incorrect link
"Planck volume" takes you to a page about planck length...
There doesnt seem to be any explanation of whether a planck volume is just a planck length cubed, or some other value.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.114 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect link

message: So wait a second...  There is both an Orders of magnitude (volume) and also articles like 1 E12 m³ and 1 E6 m³?  Shouldn't there be one or the other?
For instance, 1 E11 W redirects to Orders of magnitude (power).  That makes more sense to me.  Should we move all the information from the individual volumes to this one article? - Omegatron 13:38, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
No, I like it how it is -- when I say that Lake Gatun contains 5 billion cubic metres, for example, I can link to a page that explains what 5 billion cubic metres equates to.  - Johantheghost 19:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The box illustration--I can't figure it out.  Is the 1000 the biggest purple box, or is it the big purple box within the biggest purple box? Confusing. Chasrob (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boxes 

message: In short, Orders of magnitude (length) provides an excellent model of how this page ought to be structured. The current structure is extremely confusing and difficult to maintain, and based on above comments, this was noticed long ago. I am planning to merge all of the volume articles, such as 10-14 m3 and 10 dam3, into this article, create sections for microscopic, human scale, and astronomic scales, and add some new items and suitable images to the list. If anyone objects please let me know. Dcoetzee 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge impending 

message: The second column in the table has units of capacity in the higher rows and units of volume in the lower rows. This table is supposed to be about volume, not capacity. Any thoughts on what goes in an Orders of magnitude (capacity) table?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume or capacity 

message: Is there any source for the volume of a proton (listed as 1.5*10^-41 m^3)? The only measurements for protons that I've found are the radius, 0.87 femtometres (it can be found on the page for proton, and is cited there), and this would yield a volume of 2.76*10^-45 m^3, which is significantly different. Any explanation for the size given here? Yosho27 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proton volume 

message: These:
* Orders of magnitude (less than one cubic millimetre)
* Orders of magnitude (one cubic millimetre to one cubic metre)
* Orders of magnitude (one cubic metre to one cubic kilometre)
* Orders of magnitude (one cubic kilometre to one cubic megametre)
* Orders of magnitude (one cubic megametre to one cubic gigametre)
* Orders of magnitude (one cubic gigametre and greater)
...Should all be merged into this article. Any objections? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 23:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And then Template:Orders of magnitude (volume) should be deleted. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 23:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion

message: Why is there an extra digit on the tables last row's ~1×10113 part when I think it's supposed to be ~1×1113? That makes no sense! Not if they are in the right order! Unless there are some, like a lot of numbers skipped(Mohamed Naufan (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra digit in number 

message: The "deletion discussion" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orders_of_magnitude_(volume) is a joke, right? The gut feeling of a chosen few is chosen as normative and a few over-zealous editors overturn a completely good,  and very copious article in the orders of magnitude list. People in general lack a good measure for comparison of sizes of units outside the everyday range. You, deletionists, redirectors, have taken a beautiful aiding guide and thrown it into the dustbin. What have you gained? Please try to widen your scope before blundering ahead like that. All in all, I strongly vote for a resurrection of the page in its earlier form -- Kku (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  highly dubious speedy redirect