Talk:Non-SI units mentioned in the SI

message: Isn't year accepted for use with the SI? —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: This template contains a mixture of information from both sources referenced as well as some that is not found in either (such as square degree). The NIST document is, according to its foreword, meant to reflect the 7th ed of the BIPM source document. The BIPM website referenced is the 8th ed. There are differences between the two documents and I can't determine whether the differences are due to differences in the two editions of the BIPM source (I haven't seen the 7ed.) or whether more than just the spelling has changed between the BIPM 7th ed. and the NIST version. A new version of the NIST doc is due to be published, reflecting BIPM 8th ed. Until then the NIST document is probably out of date. This template needs reworking to reflect the latest BIPM source. That is beyond my scope at this point. One thing that I do understand is that BIPM regard hectares as being in the same category and hence described in the same table as minutes, hours, days, degrees, minutes, seconds, litres and tonnes. These are all units accepted for use with SI. So I will move hectare up to the first table. Bleakcomb (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a year has passed and the table still lists square degree, claiming to cite BIPM's SI brochure (8th edition) which contains not a word about square degree; neither does NIST's brochure. I am removing square degree from the article since no traceable reference has been given, and the claimed reference was false. I wonder who originally added it and why. --Jmk (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hectare 

message: Hectare, litre, metric tonne are NOT units, they are just psedudonyms for SI units with a multiplier (1ha = 10k m2, 1mt = 1000kg) or straight name alternatives (1 Liter = 1 dm3). There is absolutely no reason to include them in this article!
Hectare, liter, metric tonne are not guilty in the same way as the historically legacy, illogical muliplier units of nm, knots and minute of time, etc. are guilty of poisoning the beautiful logic of a completely unified systems of measurements.
My prof says the bureau of measurement experts are like the Vatican and the eastern orthodox theologists. They have been infighting about the filiale's comma and the iota for centuries, even though they should unify and aim to crush the protestant heretics, who refuse to adore the all-important eucharist. Similarly, there should be no petty talk about which base 10 multipliers are allowed for use in SI, but the unified metric crusade should march to uproot the silly anglo-saxon units of measurements.
We had great hope the Airbus company was founded to eventually extirpate the nm, knots, feet, gallon madness from aviation, yet here is no progress, but regress, as even the non-NATO military aviation "feets" under US pressure. Computing, flatscreen TV are imposing inch around the world, metrication is losing much ground day by day. "Experts" issuing bulls against hectare should be shot on sight and then lets march against inch!
Let's revise this article from an "ecumenical" metric point of view and move on versus the "imperial" folk! 91.83.26.110 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is article is about the what the SI says. It does not contain any opinion other than the SI's. It doesn't matter if you agree with the SI or not; we're not promoting the SI with this article, just providing information about it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is intentionally pro-imperial subverson! 

message: Looking at the conversion given between degrees and radians, it seems like the conversion factor was somehow inverted. Currently, the article has "1 deg = (π/180) rad". I'm fairly sure it should be "1 deg = (180/π) rad". Does this need to be fixed or am I just not thinking? —68.170.177.190 (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is correct.  1 degree = 1/57 radians (approx). Martinvl (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angle problem? 

message: If this isn't an accepted unit (which surprises me), then shouldn't it go in the lower section, since it's probably quite a bit more well-known than the likes of barn and torr.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.74 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The SI manual does not define the "year" either, but then which "year" should be defined? Instead, eh SI manual gives astronomers, economists and others all the tools that they need to define their particular "year". Martinvl (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light-year? 

message: To keep with the listing of units in BIPM table 7, surely one should not omit the duplicate values under atomic units (ħ and me)? (Aside: I find it curious that me is classified as a natural unit by BIPM.) — Quondum 19:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would favor following the sources unless a reason to do otherwise can be stated. Although I'm familiar with many of the units mentioned, I'm not familiar with the phrases "natural units" and "atomic units" and don't know what the expectations would be from people who use those phrases on a daily basis. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur – I've updated the table to reflect the source accurately. One of the problems was the omission of the unit names given in the source; since they start "n.u. of ..." and "a.u. of ...", it is now a bit more obvious what's happening. — Quondum 19:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural/atomic units 

message: Should this common measurement of acidity be included here? 199.27.158.217 (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No - pH is not mentioned in the SI Brochure.  Another noteworthy ommission is the "year", probably because the word "year" has many definitions, depending on who you are - astronomers use fractions of a day in their definitions, bankers do not.  Martinvl (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  pH 

message: I was under the impression that kiloPascals is the preferred unit to hectoPascals in most applications.  The conversions to Bar should probably be in kPa (A trivial decimal place I know) unless I am mistaken.  Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.185.24 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that aviation circles prefer hectopascals - on safety grounds - millibars and hPa are identical. Martinvl (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  hPa/kPa 

message: It seems that the ninth SI brochure will omit any mention of atomic units and natural units, listing only 15 non-SI units (counting 'B' and 'dB' separately, and not counting 'u' that is mentioned as an alternative to 'Da').  The mention of any further units is omitted.  I suggest that this article should be updated reflect that brochure once it is officially published.  We would then face the choice of removing mention of the further units, making a section for historical tracking of other units mentioned in earlier revisions of the SI.  I incline towards the former: using this article to record the (contemporary) position of the SI on this aspect, and limit history of this aspect to a link to the earlier revisions of the SI brochure.  —Quondum 19:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impending revision of SI