This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Biota of Great Britain and IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandBiota of Great Britain and Ireland articles
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Explanation of revert of 18,000 metres squared to 1.8 hectares - I think an average Wikipedia reader would find it much easier to visualise 1.8 of something than to visualise 18,000 of something. I wholeheartedly support Bobblewik's crusade to bring standardisation to units, but the standards need to be well thought-through. SP-KP18:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yes I agree with you. 1.8 is easier to visualise than 18,000. However, the unit hectare is more obscure than metre based units.
We could test visualisation of each unit. We could take Wikipedia readers to the top of a hill looking down on the countryside and:
tell them to guess the areas of pieces of land that we point out. Doing it 10 times for each unit.
give them numeric area values and get them to point out at pieces of land equivalent to those areas. Doing it 10 times for each unit.
I am sure that overall accuracy for all units would be bad. But I am convinced that accuracy would be worst for hectares.
But having stated my reasoning, I accept yours and defer to your edit. Thanks for the feedback and for your support for work towards unit improvements in general. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik13:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
