Talk:Kilometre

message: I pronounce "kilometre" with the stress on the first syllable, and so do a significant minority  (though admittedly it is a minority) of people I know. Is there a prescribed "correct" pronunciation? The section about this in the article itself seems to brook no dissent! Loganberry 23:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Per dictionary.com I have removed the claim that pronouncing it 'ki-LOM-i-ter' is incorrect.  Despite the pronunciation's origins, it is entrenched in the USA (first attested to "before 1830", and preferred by ~70% of the prescriptionist American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel). — Saaber 22:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would dispute that the BBC or the scientific community in general use kilo-metre. That is very rare, almost all use ki-LOM-etter these days. My argument always is that 'kilo' is the important bit. These people don't say kil-LOG-ram or cen-TIM-etter Cannonmc (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My observational but (so far) unsubstantiated view on this is that the familiar American speech pattern differs from the British/other English speech pattern by virtue of common use and a simple way of going about things.  For example, American pronunciation of multiple syllable words often stresses the second syllable, whereas the same word spoken by a British person would typically stress the first and third.  Examples: Ca-RIBB-ean vs CARR-i-BE-an, cen-TRIF-ugal vs CEN-tri-FYOO-gal (same goes for centripetal).  I use the word kilometres a lot when talking with international visitors to my place of work.  It is certainly common that British people (in my experience) tend to prefer the American-sounding ki-LOM-etre in everyday speech, but I find that saying KIL-o-MEE-ter lands better with non-native English speakers, especially those from European nations.  Which, tangentially, brings me to an amusing memory of an interview with Andre Agassi.  The interviewer was stressing his surname as a-GASS-ee.  Mr Agassi, quick as a flash, responded "you're putting the em-PHAS-is on the wrong sy-LAB-ul". Weasley one (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I always argue for the KIL-o-metre over the kil-OM-etre, not only for the consistency with other units of measure (millimetre, centimetre, etc.) as has already been mentioned, but also for the fact that putting the emphasis on the second syllable is consistent with measuring INSTRUMENTS, such as mic-ROM-eter, ther-MOM-eter, ba-ROM-eter, tac-OM-eter, speed-OM-eter, etc., not measurements themselves. Supt. of Printing (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Why isn't the abbreviation Km? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.250.72.165 (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is they way it is. A small "k" for Kilo, see SI prefix and Kilo. - SimonLyall 11:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I was going to ask... Albo NL 17:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  km 

message: I've pulled this page back from Kilometer to reconnect its history and because the move was inappropriate in the first place.  Refer to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. --ToobMug 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moves 

message: "The USA is gradually kilometerising its road signage". Is it? I hadn't heard. Is this actually the case? KILOMETERISING - what a dreadful word; a classic example of verb misuse. Arcturus 22:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, like Calvin say, verbing wierds language. —johndburger 02:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Over the past few years I have travelled about 10,000 miles on the US interstate system in the midwest and west of the Mississippi. I do see mi/km signs appearing where roads have been repaired and old signs are replaced with new. I don't know whether it is a decision made by state or nat'l gov't but the km is becoming apparent in the system. MarlaB 22:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. roadsigns 

message: It states in the article that 1 km equals 0.621 miles. Wouldn't that mean that 1 mile equals 1.610305958 km? In that case there's something wrong because 1 mile = 1.609 km. I know its a small difference, but if you guys calculated all the rest with the wrong numbers, eventually it would add up... Albo NL 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The yard is defined as 0.9144 m. Which makes the mile exactly 1.609344 km.  Thus 1 kilometre is about 0.621371192 mi. which you can round off to 0.621 mi.  Your error is due to this rounding off.  Yes, you're right to point out that these errors would add up.  Each time you do a new calculation it's best to go back to the exact figures. Jɪmp 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you read the article, or the answer above, you'll see that a mile is 1.609344 km, whereas if 1 km was five-eighths of a mile that would have meant that a mile was exactly 1.6 km. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: whats the thing one longer then kilometer (if there is one) like meter * 1000 = kilometer kilometer * 1000 = ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.121.168 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1000 km is 1 Mm (one Megameter).  See also SI prefix. — Monedula 09:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longer 

message: Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Wikipedia, and are even regarded as Vital articles. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Measurement to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed WikiProject

message: This page needs some better organisation - the first tow sections have a lot of duplication. --jazzle 09:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Layout 

message: This section starts off with "The United States of America and the United Kingdom are the only two developed countries that have considered changing their road signs from miles to kilometres..."
What about Canada? We ONLY use km/h signs here... This page shows some examples of Canadian signage:   99.252.30.48 13:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed wording, not sure how it eneded up like that. - SimonLyall 00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a sentence missing a not. JIMp talk·cont 06:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: International Usage

message: The following appears on this article, and other articles for SI units of length:
: nanometre <<< micrometre <<< millimetre < centimetre < decimetre < metre < decametre < hectometre < kilometre <<< megametre
I think this list should be made using a template, or it should be removed. I would create the template myself, if I had experience with the MediaWiki template language, but I don't know if this list is really desirable on every length unit article. If the list is desirable, I think it is more appropriate to show it in a box (maybe on Template:Unit of length box?), with a better description. --Eduardo Habkost (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it: I have created Template:SI units of length. If the list of length units is supposed to appear on the many articles, at least it is on a template. If the community thinks the list of units on each article is not relevant, the template may be proposed for deletion. If this template is considered useful, maybe it could be expanded into a SI units template, referencing all SI base units and derived units that have a wikipedia article. I suggest further discussion to be done on the template talk page. --Eduardo Habkost (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of other SI length units 

message: My edits today were reverted by SimonLyall who states:
rv edits by Jimp. Big step backwards. We do not need the whole first section to be evivs in other units. Please discuss before reformatting the whole article. Perhaps make you wording changes only
... perhaps I make wording changes only ... or ... perhaps I go clean up whatever mess I see ...  
There is no requirement to discuss edits before you make them even if that does mean reformatting a whole article.  I saw an article in a sorry state and tidied it up.
We don't need the whole intro to be "evivs" in other units, fine, let's stick the evivs in their own section again.  
Here's what we don't need. 
*We don't need some drawn out ramble about the different ways one can express 23 × 53.
*We don't need undue weight given to other units, i.e. the metre, the square kilometre, the cubic kilometre and the kilometre per hour: they've got their own articles, we need only mention and link to them.
*We don't need the list of equivalences to other units of length to be cluttered with wordy details.
*We don't need to mention the abbreviation, CJK, if we're never using it in the article.
*We don't need to link to Chinese language, Japanese language or Korean language; CJK characters alone will do.
*We don't need to link to country articles, especially not twice.
*We don't need to link to particular measuring instruments: these are only examples.
*We don't need to link to kilometres per hour and km/h.
*We don't need incorrect capitalisation.
*We don't need inconsistant spelling.
*We don't need false claims about the length of the light-year.
*We don't need the implication that all developed countries once used miles on their road signs.
Another thing I'd like to suggest we don't need is blind reverts sweeping away the good, the bad and the ugly all in one shot.  You say it's a step backwards, SimonLyall; no, it was many steps.  Some steps might not have been in the right direction, others certainly were.  You mention only one aspect: the moving of the equivalences into the intro.  Let's revise this, otherwise, the ball's in your court, SimonLyall, the discussion has begun, I've indicated why I see your reversion as the over-all backwards step, you're invited to explain why you see otherwise. JIMp talk·cont 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: thankyou for fixing your previous edit and the problems above - SimonLyall (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, glad we can come to an agreement. JIMp talk·cont 09:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big step backwards 

message: The intent was good I'm sure but if we want a traffic sign showing kilometres there are thousands which will do so more clearly. JIMp talk·cont 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: === Sydney Harbour Bridge ===
It may be of interest to note that the main span of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is 503 metres, almost exactly half a kilometre. See  Michael Glass (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. There is a picture on Wikipedia but I could not manipulate it into a thumbnail (my first attempt at such a thing). I'll leave it to you to decide what is excessive or not, but a few more examples might not hurt. For example, Central Park in New York is 2.5 miles long. That's about 4 km. Michael Glass (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Point taken, changes made. Martinvl (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bridges

message: It may be of interest to note that the main span of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is 503 metres, almost exactly half a kilometre. See  Michael Glass (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney Harbour Bridge 

message: The Forth Road Bridge's main span is 1006 metres long . There's a photo opportunity for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Glass (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forth Road Bridge 

message: There is a risk that the section on visualisation might get out of hand if we include every bridge that is about a kiliometre, about half a kilometre and so on.  When I selected the original three items, I found one on each continent and they were as varied as possible.  I notice that your addition of the Forth Bridge did not include a picture.  I had in fact considered using that example, but I could not find a suitable picture.  Also I did not want the examples to be too UK-centric.  Martinvl (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. There is a picture on Wikipedia but I could not manipulate it into a thumbnail (my first attempt at such a thing). I'll leave it to you to decide what is excessive or not, but a few more examples might not hurt. For example, Central Park in New York is 2.5 miles long. That's about 4 km. Michael Glass (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MartinVl's Comments 

message: The Severn Bridge doesn't link England with Wales, the 988m span is between England and England; Aust to Beachley. The Wye bridge which connects with the Severn bridge does cross between England and Wales, but is only 408m long. And why does Wales have a link, while Scotland and England are not links? Sjtaunton (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, changes made. Martinvl (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severn Bridge 

message: Two editors, Ehrenkater and Hgrosser, have now added the term that makes up the heading of this section, inside an already bracketed expression in the article, the latter adding an Edit summary of "it is reasonable to make this distinction". After each of those two additions, I have reverted the change. Don't want a three revert situation, so here are my thoughts.
I can't see the point, and would rather not see it there.
Firstly, the construction, with the double brackets, is very clumsy.
Secondly, I'm not even sure what the addition is trying to say. Of course micrometer, the measuring instrument, is distinct from micrometre, the distance. They are spelt and pronounced differently, and mean different things. Why say it.
To Ehrenkater in particular, or anyone else, why is it reasonable to make this distinction? Can we find a less clumsy way of saying it?
HiLo48 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the extra wording is required. We have said we are talking about the instrument so there is no need bring up the unit of distance at all. - SimonLyall (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  (as distinct from ''micrometre'') 

message: I reverted the addition regarding sporting venues because saying that a kilometre is equivalent to ten football pitches is not very helpful - I know that journalists do that a lot, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  If however you can find a venue that is one kilometer long, please add it.  I checked the Indy 500 article, but it appears that the land set aside for that venue is one mile by half a mile.  Also, if you do add examples, try to get them as international as possible (or give a number from different parts of the world).  You will notice that the three example that I gave span three continents.  I could also have added the width of the Mersey in Liverpool, but as I already had already mentioned London, I felt that this would be too UK-centric. Martinvl (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got to say that the examples did not help me in the least - though I have been to only one of them. I am however very familiar with what a kilometre is. I added Central Park in Manhattan - a distance millions commonly walk - though it is a bit less than a km, so I added one more block also. Btw, the sports venues had nothing whatsoever to do with wp not being a newspaper - a 100 metre and/or 100 yard track is known in most of the world - so it was totally non-current-event-like & internationalized also. I can understand that one cannot truly "visualize" 10 or 11 of them - but the others have little to do with visualization either. I think the sporting venues EVENTS were more helpful than some distance across Niagara Falls between some pretty arbitrary or at least less significant points--JimWae (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi JimWae.  Thank you for adding Central Park - it is cetainly a prominent enough landmark to warrant inclusion even if it is a little short of a kilometre.  As I have never been to the US, could answer a question for me - "Is it posible to see one end of the park from the other?"  You will notice that of the three pictures that I used, two were able to do that.  I was unable to find a picture that did justice to The Mall, but I know that Buckingham Palace is visible from the Admiralty Arch (and I suspect the other way round as well though I have never had the opportunity to check that out for myself!).  If in your view it is not possible to actually see the other side of the park, it might be appropriate to replace Central Park with the George Washington Bridge whose towers are 1100 m apart.  If it is possible, could you look through Wikipedia Commons for a picture to illustrate that (or take a picture yourself)?   Any thought? Martinvl (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that there are many pictures of Central Park taken from a nearby skyscraper, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:26_-_New_York_-_Octobre_2008.jpg and 3 more in the Central Park article.   It has the added advantage of being walked daily by so many people. It is not visualization that needs to be developed, but familiarity - and walking it makes it much more familiar than simply viewing from a distance. Hardly anyone walks the GW bridge - though the Brooklyn Bridge more do. BUT walkers do not primarily think of bridges as being from tower to tower. The skill one might find helpful to develop is the ability to estimate distances in kilometres w/o converting from miles. --JimWae (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sporting venues 

message: "the rule-of-thumb "multiply by 8 and divide by 5" gives a conversion of 1.6, which is approximately 0.6% too low."
This must mean 5/8 is part of a continued fraction sequence. What is the next member of this sequence?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the question, but I will admit to being a Maths teacher. Are you telling us you cannot multiply simple fractions? Maybe you need to give us an example of what it is you would be likely to want to work out. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it neccessary to give algorithms to conmvert miles to kilometres? This article is about kilometres, not miles.  Such conversions might be useful in articles on metrication, but not in this article. Martinvl (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reasonable guess by looking at the username that our questioner comes from the USA, although there are other Georgias in the world.  I suspect we have a simple case of US-centrism, both with the question and the username. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know how to multiply fractions. However, to understand my question, you'll have to know what a continued fraction sequence is. Look at the Pi article for some info on one. Georgia guy (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I get you now. No, I've never seen a conversion from metric to US units represented as a continued fraction. People just use as many significant digits in a decimal number as they need for conversion  The precise definition of a kilometre is given in the article to nine significant digits. I think that's all there is, so it doesn't go on forever like pi. There is a conversion in the Mile article to seven significant digits. Some hunting might give you a more precise conversion, but it would be rare for it to be practically useful. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding... 

message: I really don't get the point of the visualisation section. Perhaps one sentence, if that, could be devoted to a single landmark that is very near to 1km long, high, wide, etc, but even that seems to be a bit pointless.
I'm not sure if the section is just meant to fill space in an article that seems like it should be larger. But some of the statements included in that section are absolutely pointless:
*"Central Park is the most visited city park in the United States." - that's nice, but does it have anything to do with the unit of measurement?
*"Hong Kong Harbour boasts one of the busiest waterways in the world. Until 1970 the only way to cross the harbour was the Star Ferry which had terminals on the Kowloon peninsular and the island of Hong Kong itself." - once again, irrelevant.
*"The Mall, which leads up to Buckingham Palace, is one of London’s main tourist attractions. Immediately in front of the palace is the Victoria Memorial, erected in memory of Queen Victoria (foreground of the picture to the right). At the opposite end is the Admiralty Arch which links The Mall to Trafalgar Square" - ditto.
The only sentence out of the whole section I can see that is remotely relevant to the article is: "The George Washington Bridge in New York (central span 1067 m) was the first bridge in the world to have a span of more than a kilometre..." I'm in favour of getting rid of the whole section. IgnorantArmies?! 11:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks for raising this. I've thought that section was a bit odd too, but never got around to saying anything. Now that you have, I'll simply say that I agree completely. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe (some of) it could be moved to 1 kilometre. JIMp talk·cont 16:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many articles on measurement (for example gram) have something about visualisation. Can you suggest something better for this article?  If so so, please share your comments, if not, please leave it - it is better than nothing.  If you read previous sections on this Talk Page, you will see earlier discussion about visualisation. Martinvl (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that "it is better than nothing". Of what use is an example where the reader has never been? For most people, most if not all of the examples will fit that description. HiLo48 (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Visualisation section

message: This blanket reversion of my 3 recent edits (this one, this one, and this one) included the acronym "POBV" in the edit summary.  I'm not familiar with that one, can the editor enlighten me please? -- de Facto (talk). 15:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "POBV" was a typo - it should have been "POV". Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, a bad faith knee-jerk edit - or can you rationalise that accusation by explaining the POV aspect you believe to be behind each of the 3 individual edits? -- de Facto (talk). 15:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the reason for the blanket reversion of 3 edits? 

message: Rather than edit war, we need to discuss this here. 'k' is defined in the free online version of the Oxford Dictionaries as an abbreviation (not slang) for kilometre. Why therefore should it not appear at the start of the lead described as such? -- de Facto (talk). 11:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is it is not an "official" symbol for kilometre. It is a common term much like klick but it is still not official. So it is mentioned opening section of the article but not the first paragraph (which is restarted to official symbols, terms and abbreviations). - SimonLyall (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We agree that it isn't slang then. I wouldn't say that it's a symbol either - more a synonym. It is commonly used as an alternative for "kilometre". So why can't it be added to the beginning of the lead like this: "The kilometre (American spelling: kilometer) or k (SI symbol: km)..."? -- de Facto (talk). 09:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When I checked your reference, it only memtioned a "10k run". Extracting "k" from that expression is WP:SYN. BTW, "k" does not appear in the OED on its own. Martinvl (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't check it very thoroughly then! That reference is the "k" page, with all the different definitions for 'k'. Under the definition as 'kilometre' it gives the example: "a 10K fun run". That it is defined in that dictionary as a kilometre is not OR. -- de Facto (talk). 14:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Please note that I added the term to the article in the first place (and the references) and that I use it in daily life. I just don't think it is "official" enough. For example from the page would you add "K" in the lead sentence to "Cambodia" or "kindergarten" ? - SimonLyall (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It being included in the same sentence as the description of the slang term didn't help. I've at least separated that into two sentences now. However, with 'k' being used interchangably with 'kilometre', I think that it should be put in bold at the start of the first sentence of the lead. It may not be the "official" term as defined by some organisations, but Wikipedia isn't the SI brochure and it isn't a sciece textbook, and should rather reflect common and everyday reality, and not prioritise niche or specialist views. -- de Facto (talk). 09:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'k' is not slang 

message: ;Current version
Units are given to three significant figures:
Comparison to other units of length	Comparison to other units of length
One (1) km ≡                       	() m
One (1) km ≡                       	() cm
One (1) km ≈                       	parsecs
One (1) km ≈                       	light-yearsA light-year is equal to  the distance light travels through vacuum in one year (365.25 days).
One (1) km ≈                       	astronomical unitsOne astronomical unit is currently accepted to be equal to 149,597,870,691 ±30 m.
One (1) km ≈                       	(0.621) miles
One (1) km ≈                       	(0.540) nautical miles
One (1) km ≈                       	(1,094) yards
One (1) km ≈                       	(3,281) feet
1.61 km≈                           	One (1) mile
;Proposed version
Approximations are given to three significant figures.
:
1 kilometre	≡	1,000	metres
1 kilometre	≈	3,281	feet
1 kilometre	≈	1,094	yards
1 kilometre	≈	0.621	miles
1 kilometre	≈	0.540	nautical miles
1 kilometre	≈	     	astronomical unitsOne astronomical unit is currently accepted to be equal to 149,597,870,691 ±30 m.
1 kilometre	≈	     	light-yearsA light-year is equal to  the distance light travels through vacuum in one year (365.25 days).
1 kilometre	≈	     	parsecs
;Discussion
I'm proposing a new version of this section.
*I believe the proposed version is clearer.
*The table is gone. The use of a table, I believe, obscures the fact that this is a simple multi-line equation.
*The table title is gone. This was more or less a repetition of the section title (except that equivalence is replaced with comparison).
*Conversions are arranged so that the units line up.  This makes it easier, I think, to find the conversion you're looking for.
*The non-metric conversions have been sorted in order of increasing length.  Again I think this makes it easier to find conversions.
*The numbers in brackets have been removed (or have replaced the scientific notation).  I don't believe that there is anyone unaware that 1 is one (if they are capable of reading English at all) nor is there any use in giving a number both as a plain decimal and in scientific notation.
*The conversion to centimetres has been removed.  Anyone that unfamiliar with the metric system should probably look at different a page.
*The conversion of the mile into kilometres has been removed.  Mile-, nautical-mile-, astronomical-unit-, etc.-to-kilometre conversions can be found on the pages dealing with those units.
*The word units is replaced with approximations in "Units are given to three significant figures": the units are the metre, mile, the parsec, etc. it is the approximations which are rounded to three sig figs (note that approximations excludes the conversion to metres).
*"Approximations are given to three significant figures." is a sentence.  It should end with a full stop.
JIMp talk·cont 07:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your new layout a lot. Much nicer. One tiny quibble. 3,281 feet and 1,094 yards are to four significant figures. (I could live with it though.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I echo HiLo48's view.  One small point - since you are lining up decimal points and thousands separators, the use of  might be worth considering (a thought). Martinvl (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Four significant figures, yes, I hadn't noticed that.  The simplest solution would probably be just to delete to sentence about sig figs altogether & let any reader who wants to know count them.  I'm all for using  but if we use it here, we should use it throughout. JIMp talk·cont 01:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I prefer the proposed layout. I also think it would be of value to note that a kilometer was initially intended to be 1/10000th the distance from the North Pole to the Equator. This is mentioned in the article for meter, but not for kilometer. RichBryan (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalence to other units of length 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kilometre. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/f/faqklickdef.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814002439/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20023113.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm
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) 21:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kilometre. 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/20111126154615/http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTUxMjc&LangId=1 to http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?MenuId=MTUxMjc&LangId=1
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) 00:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kilometre. 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/20170227120542/http://resources2.kb.nl/010285000/pdf/DDD_010287511.pdf to http://resources2.kb.nl/010285000/pdf/DDD_010287511.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205184935/http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-181536-198754-94643-0-file,00.pdf to http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-181536-198754-94643-0-file,00.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) 09:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why kilometre is spelled differentely than kilometer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.223.135 (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2017‎ (UTC)
: Try reading the first sentence of the article.  You can also read Metre#Spelling. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Try also the section #Spelling further up this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: "K" or "k" simply means kilo-, or 1000; it can be 1000 of anything. Yet, you now seem to have a problem with the claim "k" or "K" as an abbreviation specifically for kilometre(s) is unofficial. What is your reasoning here? Getsnoopy (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: those abbreviations are in common use and are defined in the OED. They are neither 'official' or 'unofficial", they are just abbreviations that have entered the lexicon. To suggest that they are 'unofficial' is, at best, to misunderstand the way the English language works and evolves. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  "k" as an abbreviation to represent the kilometre specifically is not part of the SI; hence, unofficial. This has nothing to do with the English language or its evolution, but the SI specification. Unless you have a better word to describe that idea, unofficial is the correct one as far as I can tell. Getsnoopy (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  this article is not about the style guide of the SI or BIPM. This article is about the unit of length named "kilometer" or "kilometre" in English, commonly abbreviated as "K" or "k", and with the SI symbol "km". Sure we can have a section in the article about compliance with the BIPM's recommendations which "", but we mustn't imply they have any greater role than that, or lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a general purpose encyclopaedia, and not an arm of the BIPM and not a physics textbook. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you'd be OK with saying that those abbreviations are "non-standard" or "incompatible with the SI"? The WP:NOTTEXTBOOK guidelines have to do with content structure, not the idea of presenting facts as they are. And the fact of the matter is that using "k" or "K" for kilometre is unofficial, non-standard, and informal. However we want to word that, though, is another matter. Getsnoopy (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, they are standard abbreviations, they're in the dictionaries. So I'd word it something like: ". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point isn't about scientific and technical papers; the SI isn't only invoked in those context nor does it serve only those purposes. The literal motto of the SI is  (); it applies everywhere where those units are used. So I can change it to  Getsnoopy (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  sure the units are for use by everyone, but that doesn't mean everyone will stick to the BIPM rules for writing scientific and technical papers when they use them, and the OED, and other dictionaries, will carry on documenting how they ae used in the real world - regardless of the views of USMA. The use of abbreviations is not only done "informally", or the OED would say so, so that shouldn't be said. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The abbreviation 'km' is used in many contexts and countries and languages. The abbreviation 'k' only in the English language (and maybe not in all English dialects that are mentioned in this sidebar). I think that should be specified on the page. Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  K or k is unofficial