Talk:Height above mean sea level/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger proposal (2013)

I propose that this article Height above mean sea level be merged into the Sea level article. Both articles basically cover the same concept, Mean sea level (which at the moment redirects to Sea level). The term 'Height above' is self-explanatory and unnecessary to warrant a separate article (i.e. we do not have, or have need of a Height below mean sea level article).

I think that the content in this article (Height above mean sea level) can easily be moved to Sea Level, and the Sea Level article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Height above mean sea level will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. -- Marek.69 ^talk 06:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What is this map about?

What exactly is this map about? There is nothing in the article about "vertical references" or "vertical reference systems". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

About different vertical Geodetic datums / height definitions / height references used troughout Europe. There can be an virtual drop between two countries using different vertical references systems. The Zero-level elevation of Heights above mean sea level is often derived at one point in time from an ever changing main Sea level, but normally not equal to it. --Rknbg (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

merge (2015)

It's like having separate articles for miles per hour, km per hour, and speed. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct, no separate articles. Therefore Metres above sea level should be moved (not merged) to Height above sea level and the lead section should mention both, metres and feet. Since I'm a bit confused about the two recent actions (move Height to Metres and Feet above sea level) I'll stay away. Note that there is a variation using the word "mean", ie. Metres above mean sea level and that there is also an acronym MAMSL, which might exists/be created for the new title after the move. Also, Height above mean sea level currently redirects to Sea level and needs to be changed after the move as well. Please proceed. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 14:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• We have separate articles for MPH, km/h and speed; so by that basis, this should not be merged. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the analogy is being interpreted literally. fgnievinski (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's your example. If you choose an example where on Wikipedia, each are a separate topic, then you obviously haven't based your statement on a good example. Clearly by your own example, these should not be merged -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Look up analogy in the dictionary. fgnievinski (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Your wikt:analogy is based on a similar situation, except the similar situation shows up as three separate articles, so, using that analogy, we should have three separate articles. A relationship of resemblance or equivalence between two situations, people, or objects, especially when used as a basis for explanation or extrapolation. your extrapolation based on a situation with three articles which exist as articles, is not analogous to the situation you wish as outcome of the merger. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 09 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Metres above sea level → Height above sea level – "Please proceed" signaled in Talk:Metres_above_sea_level#merge – Fgnievinski (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested by whom, where? I only see #merge above. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Leave as is. See the current discussion on use of SI units in scientific topics in WP:MOSDATE. There is no wriggle room on this. It's SI exclusively. --Pete (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• You're missing the point: the main concept is the physical quantity (height), not its units (metre or feet). Fgnievinski (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I considered that aspect very carefully before providing my input and no, I am not missing the point. It is the exact concept I contemplated. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with with joining Metres above sea level and Feet above sea level, in one single article Height above sea level? --Rfassbind -talk 02:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

See above. --Pete (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not good enough. Please have the courtesy to articulate your concern in your own words. Don't just post a link and let me find out what might be your problem with the proposed move. --Rfassbind -talk 03:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Above" is a link to a long talk page; next time, please quote selectively, preferably from the non-talk main text of a policy or guideline. The linked discussion refers to metric vs. imperial units of measurement, which is tangent to the present issue -- nobody here is advocating for feet over metre or vice versa. What is being proposed is a renaming, equivalent to that of, e.g., "words per minute" to "typing rate", or hertz to frequency, or bits per second to data rate. If there is any outstanding objection, please be very explicit and specific. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You do notice that we have separate miles per hour and kilometres per hour articles right? The concept is speed, the articles are about the terms/units, and not the concept. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal to merge miles per hour into speed is worth a try, I guess. Let us know how you get on. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Speed doesn't currently exist other than as a redirect to km per hour, in this analogy. fgnievinski (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

*shrug* See above, brother.

I'm afraid the analogy is being interpreted literally. fgnievinski (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose your proposal to to convert this article into a different topic the current topic is the terms "MASL" metres above sea level and "MAMSL". The concept of "height above sealevel" is a separate topic. You should start a new article for that. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Fine; I did start a separate article at Height above sea level, please have look at how substantial the differences are. fgnievinski (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• We should start and RfC to discuss that. I think it's a right proper idea to have a separate article on the concept, such as the one you started. But the way you wrote that article was very poor, since it looks like a search-and-replace of this article, and was completely unreferenced. Please atleast have a few references that are not references for MASL/MAMSL -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• The main reference cited refers to "altitude above sea level" in its title; I'd find that an acceptable compromise over the two options considered here ("metres" and "height"). fgnievinski (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems like I misjudged things. fgnievinski, why would you claim that there is no article Speed? MPH, km/h and speed do all have their own articles, contrary to your opening statement. I don't think it's a good idea to start working on former redirect Height above sea level at this time. As long as there is no good argument as to why Speed and Height above sea level are not comparable in this regard, I have to change my position on the subject to opposing a merger. Please, this is not a contest. Just try to explain yourself. --Rfassbind -talk 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• In the analogy -- speed ~ height, km/h ~ m -- there was no speed ~ height article. Currently WP is describing the units of measurement km/h ~ m without describing the physical quantity first. The analogy was meant to show how absurd the current situation is. Let me risk a second analogy: wattage correctly redirects to electric power, not the other way around as in the present article. fgnievinski (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Your analogy fails, because we have articles called Watt (unit) and electric power, which are separate articles -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• For consistency, you'd have to rename Height above average terrain and Altitude above ground level to Metres above average terrain and Metres above ground level respectively, which would be absurd. fgnievinski (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• As detailed in Altitude above ground level, in aviation, we strictly use the terms "height" to imply a ground reference point, and "altitude" to mean above sea level. To me, the (unreferenced) title of Altitude above ground level is not correct as an aviation term. Likewise, "height above sea level" would be self-contradictory. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Altitude/elevation/height a.s.l. are used in many fields other than aviation, such as in geodesy and meteorology. Besides, your aviation interpretation fails verification; quoting the Civil Aviation Authority: "Height: The vertical distance of a level, a point, or an object considered as a point measured from a specified datum (ICAO)." In fact, the same document (CAP143) most often refers to altitude/height in conjunction, as in "Decision Altitude/Height: In relation to the operation of an aircraft at an aerodrome means a specified altitude/height in a precision approach at which a missed approach must be initiated if the required visual reference to continue the approach to land has not been established (ANO)." fgnievinski (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I've no doubt the terms are used in other fields. This article currently refers to "the altitude of an airplane or other flying object". This would not be a good fit with the new title. I have responded to your comments on verification at Talk:Altitude above ground level#Verification of CAP413 reference. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• You quoted selectively one third of section Usage; the other two thirds that the current article also refers to are "geographic location such as a town, mountain, or other landmark" and "the elevation of the top of a building or other structure". For these, altitude/elevation/height are mostly synonyms. fgnievinski (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I quoted what I know to be verifiably true. Forgive me for not being a specialist in all three areas. I don't believe they are mostly synonyms. The way I read it, "the height of the top of a building or other structure" would be ambiguous at best. Anyway, it only takes one exception to make the article title inappropriate for its content. In fact the word "height" doesn't appear even once in the article body. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I have given above. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No good reason to, and breaking the connection with a standard abbreviation is a significant cost. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prick

I note that an editor has reversed the redirect of Height above sea level, resulting in the separate existence of a pointy article which is essentially the same text as this one. --Pete (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)