Talk:Metric (unit)

message: Edited for content. Still needs the overhaul. Who in the world put part of the metric system in this? Phil.andy.graves (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

message: Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, and I ahve yet to find a dictionary that defines the word "Metrics" as anything close to what this article claims.  The word "Metrics" can be used to describe mathematical statistics and measurements as they relate to a given field i.e. "Biometrics" but the use of the suffuix "metrics" as a free-standing word is ridiculous (unless it is describing poetry. music or the Metric system of measurement specifically), and stems primarliy from corporate culture cliche-speak, not from any real foundation in language.
This word's emergence and use in this improper context is lazy, a fallacy and should be abolished immediately.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.23.82 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop. Stop Right Now, This could not be more wrong. 

message: Read it three times, I thought it made sense. My understanding of it is: solely from reading the wiki... It is a term describing the quantifying of measurement, of anything, a general term. It is one step from a massive philosophical argument. I may be wrong. Symbol-tastic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.20.20 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  drunk persons interpretation 

message: :Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

message: The concept of "Metrics" is a universally fundamental concept.  They are how most living things relate to the universe.  They are measures and without such, we cannot describe.
Sometimes metrics are physically tangible, such as time, space, temperature, pressure:
- The house is 4 miles from here.
- It's 3 o'clock
- It's 70F outside today
... or somewhat subjective, such as employee performance, brightness, softness, sometimes expressed as adjectives
- That painting uses vibrant colors
- The paper tears easily
... or very subjective; desireability, attractiveness,...
- She is beautiful
- I really want that car
Yes, "really" is a metric, it is a subjective form of the degree the person "wants".
Note that you cannot control or improve what you do not measure.  You cannot control a paint brush if you cannot measure where it is relative to the the palete or canvas.  You cannot control house temperature without measuring what it is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JWMcLeod2 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Proper Definition is Critical 

message: ojoujiuiuyi uuiyi
To conform to Wikipehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metric_(unit)&action=edit#dia conventions, such as the use of singulars for topic titles, I propose moving this article to Metric (measurement standard).
Then I propose the following edits for the first paragraph of the article. I think my language is more succinct and direct. On the other hand, I probably ought to come up with a citation to support it. I'll try to find one, but does anyone else have a suitable one, assuming you agree with my change?
:A metric ismay be a standard unit of measure, such as meter or mile for length, or gram or ton for weight, or more generally, part of a system of parameters, or systems of measurement, or a set of ways of quantitatively and periodically measuring, assessing, controlling or selecting a person, process, event, or institution, along with the procedures to carry out measurements and the procedures for the interpretation of the assessment in the light of previous or comparable assessmentsor it may be a methodology for expressing inherently qualitative evaluations in quantitative form, so that successive evaluations can be compared with each other in an objective manner and so that objective benchmarks can be defined. The latter type of metric is subject to challenge, as individuals can disagree over the validity of the method used to reduce qualitative data to one or more numbers. They may even disagree over whether a particular type of qualitative information can be expressed meaningfully or reliably in quantitative form at all..
I think the second paragraph needs a rewrite or omission. I'm not sure what it means, since what it seems to me to mean is at odds with the purpose of a metric: to allow one (assuming one isn't deluding oneself as to the validity of the metric) to compare what has thus far not been considered directly comparable. As far as going outside the domain is concerned, it isn't clear to me why one would be comparing, say, the performance of a stockbroker with the performance of a school teacher.
Comments? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for article move and edits