Talk:Metrology

message: I removed
"Traceability is used to extend measurement from a method that works in one regime to a different method that works in a different regime, by calibrating the two using an overlapping range where both work. An example would be the measurement of the spacing of atomic planes in the same crystal specimen using both X-rays and an electron beam. Traceability also refers to the methodology used to calibrate various instruments by relating them back to a primary standard.
An example of traceability used in this way is described for several types of He-Ne lasers in 
"
from the tracebility section. The information is not correct nor does the supplied reference support the statement.
The information provided in the Traceability section is sufficient.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveOak (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traceability section edit 

message: I think I improved it. I tried to take my Los Angeles POV out of my additions. The details of other national programs should be added, particularly Germany and the UK.
The professional societies that drive metrology development in the US make most of their income from copyrighted materials they develop. So I was careful to not steal any of it. 
The subject of calibration also needs work. I can throw something in that pot too. 
George5530 (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions Completed 

message: I don't know who wrote this article, but it is clearly not a metrologist! I will give it a shot in the near future, but will start with some comments:
Metrology IS the science of measurements. It may be divided into three levels: 1) Fundamental or scientific metrology, which concerns the establishment of systems of units of measurement, the definition of units, their realisation and the means of dissimination of traceability. Traceability further requires the quantification of uncertainy of measurements, almost a subfield in itself. 2) Applied or industrial metrology, which concerns the use of measurements and measuring instruments for manufacturing, trade, health care, environmental monitoring, etc. 3) Legal metrology, which concerns legislation on allowed units of measurement, requirements for measuring instruments and measurement methods used in society, and quantitative limits for e.g. alchohol in blood, toxic substances in air and water, radiation levels, etc.
The core concept in metrology is traceability, defined as "…the property of the result of a measurement or the value of a standard whereby it can be related to stated references, usually national or international standards, through an unbroken chain of comparisons, all having stated uncertainties." The level of traceability establishes the level of comparability of the measurement: whether a measurement needs to be compared to the previous one, or to a measurement performed anywhere in the whole world.
The Historical part is nonsense! Metrologists are neither historians nor anthropologists! Metrology is linked to science and trade. As soon as a culture needs or uses quantitative description of itself, its parts or its surroundings, measurements are performed, any measurement requires a unit, and metrology is established - it may not be on a strict scientific basis at first, but the basic concepts are there.
The historical development has many interesting aspects, and the basis is comparability. The Egyptian master builders responsible for the Pyramids had a strictly enforced metrology system. Their unit of length, the cubit, was traceable to the width of the palm of the Pharao. It was realised as a granite "Royal Cubit Master". Workers were required to take their working copies of the cubit to the Royal Architect for calibration and adjustment each full moon. Failure to do so was punishable by death! (See an account at http://www.ncsli.org/misc/cubit.cfm)  **link not working as at 25/4/2024 - never seen these statements elsewhere!!User:Nojoking
:This is a great start. Other references to medieval weight measurements can be found in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Ch 4, On the Origin and Use of Money. There is probably a long story of measurement of weight needing to be exact to support reliable coinage, Smith just gives French, English and Scottish measures as examples. I wish I was competent to write such material, I was hoping to find it here already! But I think an improvement is necessary to the currently published claim that there were few advances in metrology until the scientific revolution. Would adding the Egyptian reference and something from Adam Smith's findings from the middle ages be better than nothing? Dominic Widdows (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I like Adam Smith, the greatest scholars of his day had access to less reliable information about the Middle Ages than the average person today with access to a good public library. If you are interested in researching this topic, I'd like to suggest the works of Ronald Edward Zupko.Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

text: It's true, this current Metrology article is a dishonour for en:Wikipedia.  With your endorsement, later on, perhaps, I can try to improve.  Meantime, please have a look to SMH.  -- Paul Martin 22:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  then puleeeze, someone who's knowledgable enough in metrology, enough to recognize the deficiencies in this article, please correct technical mistakes, bad writing, whatever.  i am an electrical engineer, pretty knowledgable in classical physics and applied mathematics, and could make use of a good reference in metrology, but i do not feel competent to fix this article.  i have made some changes to articles like ampere and kilogram and wrote the current natural units article as well as a major rewrite of Planck units (which has since been rewritten even more), but i can't do this article.  so Dalle or Paul Martin, please can you guys, at least incrementally, fix what you know to be bad in this? r b-j 02:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite urgently needed 

message: Friends, I appreciate all of the inputs on this topic I have read thus far.  However, this article still does not effectively define "metrology" as I know it. One way I think we can make this a stronger and more efficient definition is to cite sources for some of our inputs.  For example, while the previous discussion this group had on "accuracy" and "precision" were close to the mark, the competing arguements lacked the integrety of peer review.  Accuracy, as defined by NIST in its Handdbook NIST/Sematech handbook for Engineering Statistics is as follows: Accuracy:  “…a qualitative term referring to the closeness of agreement between a measurement made on an object and its true (target or reference) value.”  (NIST/SEMATEC, undated.  Precision, as defined by the National Conference of Standards Laboratories is simply: Precision:  "The resolution to which the value of a quantity can be specified."  (NCSL, 1994)" 
However, neither of these terms really get to the roots of metrology.  By the way, I have taken the liberty of ammendmening the article to reflect the internationally accepted definition of metrology which is simply: The science of measurement.  Note, "measurement" and "measures" are two different concepts. In truth, the goal of metrology is to minimize the "uncertainty" of measurements by using measures (standards) of known quality and applying statistical annalysis to compensate for sources of possible "errors."  Consequently, we metrologists have coined the phrase of "uncertainty analysis" as being the primary tool for performing reliable metrology.
One thing I suggest we all remember is that metrology is not a derivative of "science".  Metrology is a precurser to science. If anything, metrology allowed the sciences to grow and gain acceptability. Metrology has always been a tool of commerce. It was started well over 4,000 years ago in ancient Summaria.  In fact, a well know phrase amoung metrologists is: "Mathmatics is the language of science and metrology is the language of commerce."  Statistics and Probability theory are the rules or syntacs of metrology.
I urge you all to review the literature below to help get some ideas of how we can make this article a little more reliable and give it some strength.  Thanks for your inputs to this discussion which I am sure will follow soon
===Suggested Reading===
NIST/Sematech Engineering Statistics Handbook
Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. (2000), The International System of Units (SI)
Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. (2000), The Convention of the Meter
Melville, D.J. (2001). Sumerian metrological numeration systems, Mesopotamian Mathematics
Office of Weights and Measures
--David.c.h 10:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncertainty Analysis and Certification

message: NIST/Sematech Engineering Statistics Handbook
Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. (2000), The International System of Units (SI)
Bureau International des Poids et Mesures. (2000), The Convention of the Meter
Melville, D.J. (2001). Sumerian metrological numeration systems, Mesopotamian Mathematics
Office of Weights and Measures
--David.c.h 10:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Reading

message: Friends:  OK, here is what I did today:  
First paragraph, the debate over the definition of "metrology" hopefully was put to rest by citing international authorities. 
Second paragraph was tagged for clean up.  While the discourse on the Time and Space continuum was interesting, I believe it to be irrelevant to the subject this early in the article.  Perhaps it would fit in a subsection titled "History or metrology."  However, I have some serious disputes with the author’s fundamental assumptions.  Hopefully we can work it out amiably.
I have a serious dispute with the author of the third paragraph.  The concept of standards and measurement processes is far from a “small subset” of metrology.  Standards and measurement processes is metrology.  The proper use of standards and interpreting measurement results is the backbone of metrology theory.  I believe this paragraph should be deleted in its entirety.  However, I am more than willing to discuss the issue with the author to see if we can’t find an acceptable compromise of some sort.  If not, we will probably require some form of mediation by the administrator.
Still in the third paragraph, it is true that the accuracy ratio for the standard to the unit under test has traditionally been 10:1.  With this wide a ratio it dramatically speeds certification of the test with minimal work.  Unfortunately, with today’s modern technology, maintaining a 10:1 ratio is becoming increasingly hard to accomplish.  NIST, NCSL, BIPM are now recommending a four to one (4:1) ratio as desirable.  However, even with that, 2:1 ratios and a lot of uncertainty analysis is becoming more commonplace.  Manufacturers are now delivering production equipment almost as accurate as some of our national standards.  In some cases, companies like HP are now creating and maintaining the national standards for physical attributes NIST can not afford to develop.
I next added some more recommended reading on the subject of metrology.  I hope you will all find them appropriate.  In addition, I added a couple of new external links for your review.
Finally, I reinstated this article to the category of “Science.”  As shown by my modifications to the first paragraph, the rest of the world considers metrology as a separate scientific study.  This recognition is also formalized in many universities around the world that offer science degrees in metrology.
I look forward to further discussion with all of you on this subject.--David.c.h 08:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major changes and tags added 

message: I believe that there are enough links to this article that it has earned subcategory status.  I believe that it should be a subcategory of Science because it is a seperatly recognized scientific field of study.  I also believe it should be a subcategory of Manufacturing as metrology is intregal to commerce.  Metrology in the USA is controlled through the Department of Commerce though the NIST.  I will leave this article as is but utilize the first paragraph to start the Metrology subcategory.  I may have to ultimately remove some of the categories for this article though to prevent looping.  Your inputs on how to best effect this change are appreciated.--David.c.h 00:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metrology rates category status 

message: First, I must apologize.  I accidently submitted these changes the first time when I was logged out.  I didn't know Wikipedia had a time out feature.  The input directly before this one was mine and is the same.
===My reasons for change===
This article is in serious need of help.  An awful lot of uncoordinated, irrelevant, and unsubstantiated information is contained here.  I would suggest that all contributors make better use of citations for their inputs if they expect universal buyoff.  I would like to refer everyone to  Wikipedia:Cite sources.  I am sure following some of the simple guidelines in it will dramatically aid in developing this article further.  Here are some of my changes for today.   
:# I added major section for Introductory information 
:# I added subsection for “historical development.”  See Wikipedia:Guide to layout
:# I added a subsection for the “Mechanisms of metrology.” 
:# I addes a subsection for “References” and moved cited material from “Recommended reading into it.  See Wikipedia:Cite sources
:# I renemed the “Recommended reading” section to “Further reading” to put in line with Wiki guidelines in Wikipedia:Cite sources
:# I added a few tags. 
Wikify tag:  I believe following the guideline of Wikipedia:Guide to layout will make this an easier to read product and add strength to it.
Section Fact dispute tag: in the new “historical development” section.  I contest the author’s assumption that the space time continuum has anything to do with metrology.  Metrology can be accurately dated back to 4,000 years BC to ancient Mesopotamia.  The earliest use of units of measurement can be found on clay tablets from ancient Uruk.  I refer our contributors to the following articles:
:* Melville, D.J. (2001).  Sumerian metrological numeration systems, Mesopotamian Mathematics, [On-Line] St. Lawrence University web pages, http://it.stlawu.edu/%7Edmelvill/mesomath/sumerian.html
:*UCLA, (2005) copyright Cuniform digital library initiative, [On line] http://cdli.ucla.edu/projects.html
:*And: http://cdli.ucla.edu/edu/lateuruk_intro.html  in conjunction with the Max Planck Institute 
These tablets represent the oldest know writings of mankind.  Uruk is believed to be the birthplace of literacy and mathematics.  Most of the tablets were, in actuality, ancient bills of lading.  They were probably used between cities when shipping goods to help ensure there was no pilferage along the way.  These tablets consisted of symbols representing weights and measures of products.  They were tools of commerce, not science.  They were the precursors to written languages and mathematics.
Dispute about tag: The author contends that “standards” and “measurement” are only a “small subset” of the field of “measures.”  I strongly disagree.  Metrology is about “measurement science,” not measures.  The very act of making a measurement is to compare one thing against another.  However those two things disagree with each other requires one to be a base (standard) unit and the other to be a differential (test) unit.  For example: stick "A" is longer than stick "B."  This statement makes stick "B" the standard of measure and stick "A" the differential (test) unit.  If we were to say; on the other hand, that stick "B" is shorter than stick "A", than their roles would have to be reversed.  "A" becomes the standard and "B" becomes the test.  No “measure” can be absent a standard.
Globalize tag:  Finally, many points in this article fall outside the realm of world wide agreement on the term “Metrology”  I have cited my authorities in paragraph one.  I urge all other contributors to cite their authorities likewise.
I welcome discussion on this topic.--David.c.h 03:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for changes 

message: This article is in serious need of help.  An awful lot of uncoordinated, irrelevant, and unsubstantiated information is contained here.  I would suggest that all contributors make better use of citations for their inputs if they expect universal buyoff.  I would like to refer everyone to  Wikipedia:Cite sources.  I am sure following some of the simple guidelines in it will dramatically aid in developing this article further.  Here are some of my changes for today.   
:# I added major section for Introductory information 
:# I added subsection for “historical development.”  See Wikipedia:Guide to layout
:# I added a subsection for the “Mechanisms of metrology.” 
:# I addes a subsection for “References” and moved cited material from “Recommended reading into it.  See Wikipedia:Cite sources
:# I renemed the “Recommended reading” section to “Further reading” to put in line with Wiki guidelines in Wikipedia:Cite sources
:# I added a few tags. 
Wikify tag:  I believe following the guideline of Wikipedia:Guide to layout will make this an easier to read product and add strength to it.
Section Fact dispute tag: in the new “historical development” section.  I contest the author’s assumption that the space time continuum has anything to do with metrology.  Metrology can be accurately dated back to 4,000 years BC to ancient Mesopotamia.  The earliest use of units of measurement can be found on clay tablets from ancient Uruk.  I refer our contributors to the following articles:
:* Melville, D.J. (2001).  Sumerian metrological numeration systems, Mesopotamian Mathematics, [On-Line] St. Lawrence University web pages, http://it.stlawu.edu/%7Edmelvill/mesomath/sumerian.html
:*UCLA, (2005) copyright Cuniform digital library initiative, [On line] http://cdli.ucla.edu/projects.html
:*And: http://cdli.ucla.edu/edu/lateuruk_intro.html  in conjunction with the Max Planck Institute 
These tablets represent the oldest know writings of mankind.  Uruk is believed to be the birthplace of literacy and mathematics.  Most of the tablets were, in actuality, ancient bills of lading.  They were probably used between cities when shipping goods to help ensure there was no pilferage along the way.  These tablets consisted of symbols representing weights and measures of products.  They were tools of commerce, not science.  They were the precursors to written languages and mathematics.
Dispute about tag: The author contends that “standards” and “measurement” are only a “small subset” of the field of “measures.”  I strongly disagree.  Metrology is about “measurement science,” not measures.  The very act of making a measurement is to compare one thing against another.  However those two things disagree with each other requires one to be a base (standard) unit and the other to be a differential (test) unit.  For example: stick "A" is longer than stick "B."  This statement makes stick "B" the standard of measure and stick "A" the differential (test) unit.  If we were to say; on the other hand, that stick "B" is shorter than stick "A", than their roles would have to be reversed.  "A" becomes the standard and "B" becomes the test.  No “measure” can be absent a standard.
Globalize tag:  Finally, many points in this article fall outside the realm of world wide agreement on the term “Metrology”  I have cited my authorities in paragraph one.  I urge all other contributors to cite their authorities likewise.
I welcome discussion on this topic.--David.c.h 03:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My reasons for change

message: I came to this article while doing wikification. I wikified the article and removed tag. I also moved introductory material to the introduction section, which was empty. I moved the globalize tag to the top of the article because the complaint on talk (see above) doesn't give a specific section as being the problem. Finally, I removed the section dispute tag. The person who placed the tag gave no reason for doing so in the edit summary or on the talk page and it is not obvious what the reason for the tag is. Also, the location of the tag made it ambiguous as to what section the person was referring to. The other dispute tag remains on the article. This concludes my work on the article, as I do not know much about the technical aspects of metrology. Good luck, Kjkolb 12:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the mess is left over from someone who was pushing his personal theory of the interconnectedness of all non-Metric systems of measurement. --Carnildo 02:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, Dalle 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The units was often realised by a material artefact kept by some proper authority. A new King could then easily decide to change the unit. Dalle 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For the SI the "top" is the Metre Convention, the member state metrology institutes, e.g. NIST. SI units voted upon at the CGPM from proposals put forth by the CIPM, presented by the consultative committees, developed by the science staff of the metrology institutes. Dalle 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest to keept the metrology article mostly on the concepts and mechanisms of metrology, and elaborate on the SI in the SI article or the units of measurement article. Dalle 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Good that the revision of the metrology article has begun. I have taken the liberty of expanding the definition a bit, introducing the three distinct sub-fields. I have also corrected some inaccuracies concerning the organisation of SI. And added a few things here and there.
May I suggest that contributors download and read the vocabulary documents referenced and add text in compliance with the definition of terms in there. 
Dalle 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I hope that this is the beginning of a real collaboration on this.
:Good efforts on rewriting Dalle and Pancho-Villa, the article is now in a much better state, I wanted to do something like this a while back but was wary of jumping in (and also never got round to it). To make the article a bit more international I would suggest that the references to NIST and ANSI be taken out as well as all the references to NMIs in the external links and something like a List of National Measurement Institutions be created where all this can reside. In the meantime I will try to do what I can to improve the article and other related ones. JMiall 22:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is presently some overlap between the metrology article and the articles on units of measurement, SI, the information in the articles on the meter and kilogram. I suggest to move the information specific to SI to those articles and keep the metrology article more clean. However, on the historical side, it is useful to get the point across concerning the introduction of the scientific approach to metrology (rational system of units).Dalle 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Where are we on the tags attached to this article and the talk page? Are we still controversial? Dalle 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that the article is currently at all controversial. As far as I was concerned the main controversial bit was the 'one small subset' section which isn't there any more. JMiall 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstruction of article 

message: : the first sentence here needs some citation, or it should simply be removed as inflammatory:
"It is a field of study which has been highly politicized and nationalized with sharp and sometimes severe rhetoric as the field progressed." Memobug 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, metrology is not political.  The inflammatory language has been removed.  Rlsheehan 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Controversial' tags removed. Rlsheehan 21:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflammatory Language - citation needed 

message: Well i m not a expert metrologist but i do know a little about metrology, this article definately needs a rewrite with several citations and referances  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalivd (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Line and End Standard methods

message: i think the photo with the 'microarcsecond testedbed' should be removed (also it not well explained)
it is a bit too high-tech and 'specialized'
simply show a photo of more common precision measurement, such as length
for example a photo of a mitutoyo digital caliper would be ideal  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.114.53 (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo of a caliper 

message: I didn't see a definition of "realisation" for the context of metrology, in the article.  I think it's somewhat related to the article Realization (probability). Perhaps a source should be found and a definition should be added? Anyone know of a source? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of realisation 

message: this was news to me. I was under the impression that an amp = coulomb / second  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorminton (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  amp 

message: haha,
"Typical State Seal application: Even in Las Vegas, people prefer not to leave volumetric gasoline measurements to chance."
funny joke  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.17.178 (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  funny 

message: * National Institute of Standards and Technology
--222.64.22.162 (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The topic of [[Metrological authority]] is created based on the following..... 

message: * http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_q=metrology+standardization&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
--222.64.22.162 (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info abut the standardization..... 

message: Measurement standards laboratory is one line that might as well be here. Referring to national standards laboratories here would improve this article, and the stub should redirect here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest merge

message: The second paragraph of the "Historical development" section is seriously problematic. Imagine if the Wikipedia article on astronomy had a history section that said: "Astronomy was invented by Isaac Newton in the 17th century. Before Newton, proto-astronomers stared stupidly at the sky, with no understanding of what they were looking at." The article Astronomy actually provides a good model for how the history section of this article should look. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Little progress was made with regard to proto-metrology until various scientists, chemists, and physicists started making headway during the scientific revolution.
The first paragraph may be an accurate description of the state of metrology in the upper paleolithic, the mesolithic, and even the early neolithic. The middle and late neolithic are a bit of a gray area, but by the Bronze Age practical (pre-scientific) metrology seems to have been about as advanced as Bronze Age astronomy. For example, the Great Pyramids of Cheops at Giza are square and level. You don't need flying saucers or the lost continent of Atlantis to explain the pyramids, just really good engineering.
In the 2nd century, the Roman Empire had a population of 100 million. They were able to transport huge amounts of grain from their "breadbasket" in Egypt to the far corners of the empire. They had an entire massive weights-and-measures bureaucracy.
A bronze yardstick commissioned by Queen Elizabeth in the 1580s is only 1/100th of an inch shorter than the imperial yard of today. The troy weights she commissioned in 1582, constructed in 1588 (on display at the Science Museum in London) are so accurate that the greatest error (in the 64-ounce weight of 30720 grains) is 5.04 grains. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I changed the sentence in question to make it more neutral -- please check if this addresses your concern.-Dbrukman (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical development 

message: The examples of 'exact measurements' in 'Basics' seem incorrect, to me. They seem to confuse true values with observations (measurements) made on them. For example, the voltmeter _should_ read zero - but it won't, exactly. The temperature of a triple point cell might be at its defined triple point on the ITS-90 scale, but it would NOT be true to claim that we have measured that temperature with zero uncertainty. And the ratio scale example simply says the uncertainty is negligible, which is not identical to the measurement being 'exact'. 
And while I'm here, 'error' and 'measurement uncertainty' are so different that it is not true to say that the terms are both equivalent statements for 'inexactness'. 
Some rewriting required?
SLR Ellison (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basics - poor examples? 

message: As already discussed, there are not enough inline citations to figure out where the original author got his/her information.  Without the sourcing, many statements seem to be the result of synthesis on the part of the editor.  This reads more like a term-paper with many conclusions being drawn about "correct" methods, etc. without referencing an authoritative source.  I wish I knew more about the subject (and I'm not going to say that if I have time, I'll look into it)  I flagged it so that the need might catch someone's eye that can do the job.  Bobsd (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The historic section seems to particularily need work; or it could be shortened to the minimum and point to the more detailed related article.  Beginning with Solomon said: "A false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but an accurate weight is his delight.[14], with [14] pointing to a primary source from the text of a particular translation, both seems like original research and a poor choice (historicity disputed, attribution disputed, translation possibly disputed, does not include any useful information about actual ancient systems in use, etc).  We'd need a reliable secondary source which does reference to that verse to keep such a sentence.  Although that assertion attributed to Solomon could serve as an example, if we solved the aformentioned issues, we still know of less disputed, more detailed information from archeological discoveries made in Sumer and Egypt, about older measuring systems, which would seem more interesting, and more encyclopedic, to begin the section with... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to all the folks that put effort into cleaning up this article.  I can read it now without having to take 2 Tylenol before I start.  Bobsd (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

text:  Indeed, thanks to  and , especially (I was that above IP address user at the time).  — PaleoNeonate — 17:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks  and , I am glad that I could help improve what I feel is a very important wikipedia article. Also major props to  for the great copy edit! When I have some time I am going to try and put some finishing touches on the article and take it to a GA review. --Imminent77 (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagging entire article for Rewrite. 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Metrology which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.sgs.com/en/Construction/Project-Management/Industrial-Projects-in-Russia/Metrological-Compliance-Consultancy.aspx
*:Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Metrology]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Metrology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928030048/http://www.oiml.org/publications/V/V001-ef00.pdf to http://www.oiml.org/publications/V/V001-ef00.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metrology. 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/20110425025041/http://www.french-metrology.com/en/history/history-mesurement.asp to http://www.french-metrology.com/en/history/history-mesurement.asp
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) 05:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Metrology. 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/20110927012931/http://www.bipm.org/en/convention/wmd/2004/ to http://www.bipm.org/en/convention/wmd/2004/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120926233323/http://www.bipm.org/en/convention/cgpm/ to http://www.bipm.org/en/convention/cgpm/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527174210/http://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cipm/cipm_criteria.html to http://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cipm/cipm_criteria.html
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) 14:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Metrology. 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/20130701061631/http://www.amazon.co.uk/Springer-Handbook-Metrology-Testing-ebook/dp/B007C5Z1M8 to https://www.amazon.co.uk/Springer-Handbook-Metrology-Testing-ebook/dp/B007C5Z1M8
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170325201512/https://www.a2la.org/ILAC/ILAC_MRA_English.pdf to https://www.a2la.org/ILAC/ILAC_MRA_English.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) 17:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified