Talk:History of measurement

message: Friends:  I would like to suggest that this entire article be merged into the History section of the Metrology article currently in work.  Metrology is, after all, the overall science of measurement.  This section, if left here, will be redundant of that in the history section of Metrology.  I would like to hear your feedback on this request.  --David.c.h 23:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see Metrology tidied up a bit first.  However, I'm not sure that these should be merged.  I don't agree that this section will be redundant when Metrology is completed.  It seems to me that the subject matter here & there is different enough to justify keeping them seperate. Jimp 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Jimp:  I agree with you that the article on metrology needs to be cleaned up a lot.  However, I wonder why you believe that the History of measurement is significantly different from or not an integral part of metrology.  Metrology is the science of measurement.  It is fundamental to all other fields of scientific study.  That science not only incorporates how measurements are made and agreed upon by society, but also how measurements and measurment science have developed over time.  The article as now written does not in any way fall outside of the realm of metrology in my opinion.  However, I am amiable to cutting and pasting this article into Metrology and also keeping it a separate article if you think it best.  Please give me your feedback on this.  Oops, I forgot to sign and date this input.  Sorry, --David.c.h 07:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Metrology 

message: This article is way too short. It should include more about the realationships between the systems and also why there is a realationship. -from greek to roman to english. The history of measuring for humans in an encyclopedia would include a lot of more facts than this. Also there should be linked to the roman system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.148.20 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: short

message: This ungrammatically named stub is up for deletion - it certainly needs improvement. Can anyone help?  Johnbod 01:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it ungrammatical? The plural form would have the apostrophe after the "s" but not the singular. Or am I missing something? Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Day's journey]]

message: Was there ever an attempt to achieve standardization prior to modern times that was not dependent upon some reference copy?
For example, did ancient Greeks, who had an idea of the earth's circumference attempt to use this as a basis for measure similar to the metric system?
When was it first possible to get a standard second for time measure? Could this then have been used to measure length by determining the distance traveled by a stone in such a standard second?--Jrm2007 (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a direct answer to any of your questions, but I remember reading that the idea of translating between length and mass by means of cubic containers and water goes back to antiquity. I think your questions are basically what the 17th/18th century science called metrology was about, and a lot of ideas in this direction were discussed in that era. While somebody might have proposed your method for translating between time and length at the time, I guess this wasn't practical. I think what people did consider was defining the second in terms of the day, and then using pendulums to derive a length unit. But I don't remember the details or where I read this. In any case there are some old metrology works in English and French available as scans on the web. Unfortunately I don't have any pointers ready. Hans Adler 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Question: Standardization 

message: I think the bibliographical quote should be better specified, as "Baber, page 23" does not mean anything. Please at least post a more precise indication of this work (book?) on this discussion page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effeeffe (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. More refs  needed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  extended bibliographical citation needed 

message: We read "The point, which is a unit for measuring print type, is recent. It originated with Pierre Simon Fournier in 1737". This is dubious on two grounds: first, the point was not a unit for measuring print type, but a unit for measuring length, equal to one-sixthtwelfth of a ligne, which in turn was a twelfth of a pouce (which was not an inch), which in 1737 was probably one-twelfth of a pied du Roi, which was not a foot. Secondly, it was in use before 1737. To take just a single example which I happen to have to hand, Louis-Léon Pajot, comte d'Onzembray in his Description et usage d'un métrometre, ou machine pour battre les mesures & les temps de toutes sortes d'airs of 1732 gives an exhaustive table of pendulum lengths calculated in pouces, lignes, points and fractions of a point. It may be of course that Fournier was the first to describe the use of the point in measuring fonts; if so, perhaps that should be specified? And referenced? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a newly added reference, Fournier's point was part of his new system for measuring length and area of type. Only fifty years later did François-Ambroise Didot define the unit in terms of the  ligne. This doesn't invalidate Fournier. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As must be obvious, this is not my field, so I have neither the knowledge nor the library to distinguish between the typographical Truchet point, 1/1728 of a pouce-du-roi, and the ordinary point-du-roi, 1/1728 of a pouce-du-roi. I was struck by the blatant anachronism, that's all. This topic probably needs some attention across several articles, and this may not be the place for some of what I have inserted in the hope of clarifying it here. The evident conflict between the few sources available online does not help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point 

message: I agree with this edit comment by User:Wtshymanski, who removed part of the caption I had placed on the "Vitruvian man" image. However, anything you read on Wikipedia can be challenged, and if not verifiable, removed. There is no method for challenging the content of an image (Commons does not have verifiability criteria). With all respect to the author of the image, it makes assertions or implications which are unreferenced, unverified, incorrect and/or deceptive, such as "18 handsbreadths = 1 fathom" (18 hands, or 24 handsbreadths, perhaps; but when and where?) or "1 fathom - 1 cubit = 1 French ell" (which fathom? which of the many cubits? which of the dozens of different French aunes or ells?), I believe the correct course is to remove it, which I have done, per "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed", replacing it for the present with another. There is discussion of this image (or rather, a template that contains it) at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Vitruvian Man measurements.Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  everything you read 
on the Wikipedia
 should be treated with caution 

message: This is an  important subject-- We should try to get to the bottom of it
I am a retired Engineer and come to this subject as one who has used accurate measurement all his professional life
It is inconceivable  to me that trade, taxation, or the building of great engineering monuments could be based on someones foot or arm length.
I have prepared a paper for publication which i hope will shed some light on how these standards could have been develkoped 
It will also show how many of the differeent standards would have then been related.
I would appreciate any help in finding the EARLIEST date the well known atandards of the ancient world were used.
For example the Mesopotamian cubit, step, cable,and foot were before 3000 BC but how much earlier ?
The Egyptian royal Cubit, standard cubit, Reman, and foot must have been established before the pyramids but when
The megalith Yard and minoan foot are directly related but which came first ?
The moundbuilders in the south eastern USA used a standard of 1.666 meters ( two megalith yards ??)  who brought this over and when
The Olmec used a standard of 1.54 meters -  this is 1/20 arc second along the polar circumference of the earth OR 5 attic feet of 0 308.4 mm.  WHY ?
I intend to make a start at answereing SOME of these questions when my paper is published
Rolandfly (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an  important subject-- We should try to get to the bottom of it 

message: the last two-thirds of paragraph two are almost pure junk, as is the entirety of paragraph three.Adavies42 (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest known systems--loaded with off-topic unreadable unsourced gibberish 

message: was banned in 2005 from all articles dealing with weights and measurements and after frequent violations indefinitely blocked. He has come back recenty editing from two accounts and several IP addresses. Those accounts are now blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rktect. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So is that where the current mass of // material on inches and modern Indian architecture deriving from Harappan yardsticks came from? Is it ok for someone to take an axe to it? — LlywelynII 15:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: the "Sources of Information" section, ironically, contains no citations. Also, It reads like a paragraph from the middle of a separate essay on the topic. 97.118.208.160 (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sources of Information" section has problems 

message: Need history about East Asia units.
Trinhhoa (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Asia Unit