Talk:International System of Units

message: The origin of the name SI is hidden away very far down in the article. Mateen Ulhaq (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention "Le Système International d'Unités" earlier 

message: There used to be an Introduction section which competed with the rest of the article. First, the lead is supposed to be the intro (MOS:INTRO). Second, two sections titled in the same way (e.g., #History) cannot receive different incoming links. Third, many Intro subsections were very long, some were even longer (in prose) than the corresponding section outside of the Intro section, which contained mostly lists (via templates). If the intent was to create an introductory article, then it should have been split into Introduction to the International System of Units instead. It felt as if someone didn't like the existing article and decided to write a new one, except it was left in a subsection. fgnievinski (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal duplications 

message: This article is too long and should not duplicate content in subtopics, such as SI base units, SI derived units, SI prefix, etc. Other notable subtopics could be mover into the respective main articles, e.g., SI#Realisation. fgnievinski (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External duplications 

message: There is some disagreement about the meaning of "gram per cubic centimetre" and "kilogram per cubic metre". Editors are invited to comment at the g/cm^3 talk page. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gram per cubic centimetre 

message: This article was recently tagged "More citations needed", but it has 97 references and not a single "citation needed". Can you help me understand the reasoning? @AirshipJungleman29 @CactiStaccingCrane Johnjbarton (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your question ; it is not a requirement to have "citation needed" tags in an article when adding a "more citations needed" banner, and the number of references is not really relevant if there is significant uncited material in the article. If it helps, I'll add citation needed tags, so you can see the unsourced material easier. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please. In a Start class article "More citations needed" is a good hint. In a B class article, it is only frustrating. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  More citations needed? 

message: We have a long section called "Lexicographic conventions" much of which reads like a guide contrary to WP:NOTGUIDE.
I propose to reduce the General rules subsection to a sentence and a for-example discussion of the figure. I think that gives the general idea without the detail. Any real use of the detail would need to consult the brochure anywayl. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut down the general rules to a paragraph after moving some bits up in the section. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lexicographic conventions 

message: The section "Realisation of units" has a lot of duplicate material. 
* we don't need another list of seven units 
* "Specifying fundamental constants vs. other methods of definition" this subsection is almost entirely historical material.
Johnjbarton (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut the redundant material from this section. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realisation of units 

message: I think the weakest part of the article now is discussion of the defining constants and how they relate to the base units.  This is the heart of the (new) SI. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining constants