Talk:Kilogram/Archive 1

message: From the article:  Although it is accurate to state that all other objects in the universe have gained 50 micrograms per kilogram, this perspective is counterintuitive and defeats the purpose of a standard unit of mass.
This makes no sense to me.  If you counted the number of micrograms in a kilogram 100 years ago, you'd get a billion (if my metric conversions are correct).  And the article is implying that if you count the number of micrograms in a kilogram today, you'd get 1,000,000,050?  Wrong.
Maybe a more clear way to say it would be "It is accurate to state that any object in the universe (other than the reference metal in France) that had a mass of 1 kilogram 100 years ago, and has not changed since then, now is considered to have a mass which is 50 micrograms larger than a kilogram.  This perspective is counterintuitive and defeats the purpose of a standard unit of mass, since the standard should not change arbitrarily over time." 
--24.29.11.65 11:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it known that the standard has lost weight?  How can one compare a standard to itself over time?  It seems like a paradox to me. Prometheus235 19:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably because you can compare the weight of other objects over time.  If you consistently find that items measured 100 years ago appeared to possess slightly greater mass than they do today, the simplest explanation is not that all of those items gained mass, but that the standard lost mass. - Nik42 18:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the standard has "official copies" that are stored and treated in the same manner as the standard itself.  What's actually been found is that the standard is lighter in comparison to the average of these copies than it previously was.  Pakaran 19:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole paragraph save the first two sentences should be removed. I'm not going to edit it cause no-one else seems to have an issue but I mean, 1. the average person out there is (probably) going to be confused by it and 2. it's not really true; yes, in a way, everything has gained 50 micrograms relative to the SI mass, but our very awareness of this fact means that things haven't gained 50 micrograms from our perspective.  It's a lot like saying "My bathroom scale is calibrated slightly high, therefore I have gained weight and need to diet", which is just silly. 202.37.62.123 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, actually.  I'd integrate those first two sentences into the previous paragraph, and the result would be shorter and clearer.  While the current version IS amusing and I love the word "paradoxical", I think we should be striving to be concise and understandable, not eccentric and amusing.  In fact, I will (assuming we don't get a flood of comments here) integrate those first two sentences and delete the rest if you don't get to it in a few days.  Enuja 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify changes over the last 100 years 

message: User:Lee S. Svoboda recently deleted the SI multiples section, replacing it with a redirect to SI prefix.
That is unacceptable.  What used to be separate articles at milligram and microgram and gigagram and the like now redirect here, to kilogram (megagram redirects to tonne, however).  Part of the reason for including the prefixes here (and to similar unprefixed units for other quantities--the prefix is only included here because it is included in the SI base unit) was that people getting redirected here from a link to a prefixed unit were not finding anything about what the prefix means (and that's likely to be the main reason they click on a link to a prefixed unit).  Part of the deal on eliminating the separate articles for the prefixed unit is that this information would be included in articles such as this one, not requiring people to chase all around the Wikipedia to find what they were looking for.  Gene Nygaard 15:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of SI multiples section

message: The absence of Imperial/US equivalents seems to be a major omission to me. Grant65 (Talk) 13:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Approximate equivalent in pounds?

message: Recently, an edit claiming that mcg is occasionally used for micrograms was reverted.  The prefix mcg is used when the µ symbol isn't available, particularly in the medical field. Andros 1337 00:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mcg for micrograms 

message: I just added a link to the "weight" page in the "Link to Weight" section, because the section, while very explanatory, seemed over the head of a novice reader.  Also, I couldn't find any other links to the weight page.  If there is a better place to put the link, or if I simply missed a previous link, please change it.  I know the word "weight" appears earlier in the article, but it is always a part of a title (weights and measures) or is a heading. Enuja 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: I combined the two paragraphs (in the history section) about the repeatibility of the standard, and took out the tangent about the change in mass of every single item, when measured in kilograms.  An editor had recently suggested that the tangent was confusing (hidden up in the "clarify changes over the past 100 years" section), and another editor had changed the new mass of a hypothetical 1 Kg mass to 1 Kg - 50 micrograms instead of 1 Kg + 50 micrograms.
In the same paragraph, does anyone know why the official standard and it's copies are only of "roughy the same materials" when the previous paragraph describes them as all being "an alloy of platinum and iridium of 39 mm height and diameter"?  In other words, what source did the content of the offical standard come from, so I can check to see that the standard and its copies are of the same alloy? Enuja 02:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeatibility of Offical Standard 

message: While I doubt the kilogram makes many appearances in pop-references, it did just get mentioned in the latest Dinosaur comic:
http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=917   --MacAddct1984  03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kilogram in Popular Culture 

message: The current third paragraph is misleading. A pound is exactly 453.59237 grams. No appoximations needed. I will rewrite when I get around to it.CorvetteZ51 17:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current precision is a compromise, and I think, a good one.  There is no need to for 8 significant digits in a lead section.  Enuja 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the pound is metric 

message: Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Wikipedia, and are even regarded as Vital articles. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Measurement to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed WikiProject

message: The latest on one of the attempts to redefine the kilogram  Nil Einne 07:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already added as a reference to the article.JimDunning 13:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redefining the kilogram