Wikipedia

Talk:Kilogram/Archive 2

< Talk:Kilogram
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Greg L in topic No source for ..
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Bravo & a proposal

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Bravo to User:Greg L for doing some needed heavty-duty article improvement in the past days. I do have one suggestion; I know it is generally accepted to start with a History section, but it feels to me as if this article jumps in too hard and too fast to details most people will skip right over. I suggest a different organization. How about we start first with what is now "Link with weight," rename it to something like "Common use" and put the lead section approximate weight and some other example masses (like gram does) in this new section. How does this sound?

On a side note, do the current "examples" in "link with weight" belong in "SI multiples?" Enuja 19:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ‘attaboy’ Enuja. I saw all that disorganized stuff below (“Ugh” factor) and let it lie. I had already spent more time than I bargained for making the computer-generated ray-tracing and editing all that text. Given your prompting, I waded in again. Fixing the rest necessarily entailed the removal of some rather spurious writings, which I am loath to do as it often results in revertings that undoes a lot of hard work. I’ve revised and reorganized everything from the opening definition through “Stability of the International Prototype Kilogram.” I think the article reads better now; it’s certainly makes more accurate and factual statements. Greg L (my talk) 18:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mass vs. weight" section

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I deleted the section for two reasons. First, the concepts are covered in weight and don't need to be replicated here. Second, because it contains speculative statements (referring to people wanting to know how much "heft" there is) combined with inaccurate statements - such as an unqualified claim that weight=force due to gravity. The narrow definition of weight is only force due to gravity is specific to scientific and engineering contexts, while in general use, weight can either mean force due to gravity or mass. See weight for more on that. --Yath 08:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A different “mass vs. weight” section was already there to begin with so your opposition based on the fact that the topic is also covered in the Weight article is severely undermined. I note too that what had been there previously also made “speculative statements” about what people intend (except that what was written there made no common sense). Further, it seems to me that a good discussion of mass vs. weight solidly belongs in an article on the kilogram. Since I feel one way and you another, the proper Wikipedia way is to have a vote. That's certainly a more equitable way of handling such a radical edit (wholesale deletion) and makes the decision according to the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Accordingly, I've placed the text back in so readers who want to vote can see the text in question in the proper context. I’m particularly interested in what Enuja’s vote will be; she seems to be a frequent contributor to the article.

Greg L (my talk) 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So…

This vote was called a bit hastily, don't you think? --Yath 09:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Beats a reverting war. Can you live with it as currently revised or shall we press to a vote? Greg L (my talk) 09:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, there is a third option (along with revert war and vote) called "discussion", which I prefer. Note that that's how I began this interaction, with the hope that other editors might follow suit. At any rate, with the threat of reversion looming, I certainly won't go toe-to-toe with you on the undo button.
Getting back to the subject, I don't find arguments along the lines of "this is how we have done it, thus it must be right" to be at all convincing (A different “mass vs. weight” section was already there to begin with). I prefer to concentrate on questions of how the article is served, and whether it is improved or degraded by certain content. So, with respect to the proposition that "shorter is better", we have material regarding the basic differences between mass and weight, which are discussed in at least three other articles (weight, pound (mass), and pound-force). You may understand why I find it counterproductive to bulk up yet another article with the same material. --Yath 22:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yath, I'll take your recent contribution to the section in question as a sign of an armistice — if not a declaration of peace. I'm OK with what you wrote in your edit. Accordingly, I've deleted the voting-related stuff from the article itself (the editors note). Greg L (my talk) 01:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The length of this section rather interrupts the article's exposition on kilogram - it ought to be either 1. moved to later in article, 2. greatly reduced in size, AND/or 3. briefly discussed with a link to the appropriate article - (which I'd think would be a section in the mass article) --JimWae 03:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I broke it into sub-sections. That goes a long ways towards making it more reader-freindly. Greg L (my talk) 22:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling: National conventions

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia’s official policy is that the spelling convention used by the first major contributors should be retained. The Kilogram article is written throughout with American spelling (kilogram instead of kilogramme, liter instead of litre). Note the following passage, taken from Wikipedia:Manual of Style:


Note that “liter” is the proper American spelling. Note further that two other instances of liter are elsewhere on the page. Please also take note of another common-sense policy from Wikipedia:Manual of Style:


Accordingly, your insistence at “correcting” this one instance just makes the article non-harmonious. It would be highly inappropriate of you — and against Wikipedia policy — to go through the entire article to change the rest of the article to British spelling.

As regards consistency from article to article within Wikipedia, there is none. Note the Pressure article. It uses British spelling throughout. Further, if you click on a link in the article spelled centimetre (of water), you go to an article titled Centimetre of water wherein the spelling within the article uses the “centimeter” spelling!

Wikipedia’s policy (that the spelling convention used by the first major contributors should be retained) seems a good one. It encourages contributors to begin or substantially expand articles. Further, it reduces frustrations for contributors such as when someone later wades into an article (like the Kelvin article, which uses American spelling throughout) and changes “color” to “colour.”

Please adbide by these policies.

P.S. On a final note, I’m not entirely ‘hung up’ on American conventions. For instance I used the European date convention of “7 April 1795” in the History section. It is such a steaming logical way of doing it and eliminates a comma. And although I am an American engineer, I do all my primary design in SI units and only convert to inches etc. at the last step when generating prints for machine shops or writing an owners manual. (19:09, 13 August 2007)

Greg L (my talk) 18:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't keep track of which spelling was originally used on each article - I linked the article to litre in such a way that did not require piping. It is true also that I find the meter/metre variant for meaning useful. You will also find the vast majority of spellings for SI units on wikipedia use -re. I was not "insisting on correcting" - and, being in Canada, I would never myself use the "kilogramme" spelling. The fact that it was not "kilogramme" does not in itself establish that it should be "liter". It seems even in UK "gramme" is often considered archaic. "Litre" was also the exclusive spelling in this article long before your arrival (over 3 years since [1]). Although it was you who made an issue of spelling, so far the first-use policy would support (but not require) your reversion to the non-functional -er spelling that requires piping. But go ahead, make yourself happy --JimWae 18:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

having originally been defined relative to this volume of water.

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

a quantity "having originally been defined relative to this volume of water" could have been "relatively" defined as half that volume. More information is conveyed by the statement (similar to one long included in this article) - that it is "almost exactly equal to" the mass/weight of 1 L of water.

JimWae: You're right. Done. Greg L (my talk) 20:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed organization

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wow, I go away on a measly 3 day vacation to (the excellent) Zion National Park, and this article improves by leaps and bouds! How exciting. Honestly, I've only had it watched to keep it from getting any worse; although this article certainly needed serious work a week ago, I wasn't planning on doing any of it. Bravo again to Greg L for doing so much work on this!

Philosophically, I think that this article should do a quick sketch of the mass v. weight issues, and direct readers over to weight. However, the current mass v. weight section has some details and approaches that are better than the treatment at weight. Personally, I think that User:Greg L should put that section in his user space, we should re-organize this article, and Greg L should edit his stuff into weight to make it excellent as well.

Here is a proposal for the organizational scheme: 

 ==Common Use==
 ===Mass versus weight=== link to main article (weight, yes?) contents of current "the distinction between the two" subsection
 ===Converting mass to weight === contents of "unit of measure for weight" and current subsections, shortened and put together
 ==History== (complete with current subsections)
 ==Stablity of the International Prototype Kilogram==
 ==Proposed future definitions== (complete with current subsections)
 ==SI multiples ==
 ==See also==
 ==References==
 ==External links==

This would remove the current section "The nature of mass" and the contents of the subsections "Effect of bouyancy" and "Types of scales and what they measure," and I'd also like to work on streamlining much of the new content to be a short and readable as possible. How does this organization sound to everyone?

I'm also going to play around with the lead section; everyone, feel free to revert me or fiddle with it. I tried to do a long talk page post last night with lots of detailed wording proposals, but the computer I was using restarted in the middle of the process, so I'm just going to try doing before talking. I'm very willing to talk after doing. Enuja 23:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of sections of the Kilogram article

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
  • Well, Enuja, I think you missed your calling; you should’ve been a diplomat. All I can say is that as an engineer, I once pondered all the details about the kilogram that are now covered in the Mass vs. weight section. Of course, that was when I was a younger engineer (before the Internet) and one had to go to scientific papers (subscription… which I didn't do) or other means. One time in the early 90s, I even called the NIST to find out about buoyancy’s effect and how it was compensated for with our kilogram prototypes.

    What I'm inferring from what you wrote above is that my recently-added subject matter is too arcane for inclusion in a Wikipedia article on the kilogram. Having worked for decades with other engineers, I believed I knew how their minds worked (don’t ask) and what they would find interesting. To that extent, I thought I could write from that point of view, which would reliably serve as a microcosm for the engineering-type audience. Perhaps though, it's just me. Or perhaps you don't believe engineers as a group, are really representative of the average Wikipedia reader who will come to this article. Given though, that some Wikipedia articles are brimming with arcane formulas suitable only for mathematicians, I think that what is now there is very middle-of-the-road for an article on a technical subject.

    I note that we four (you, me, JimWae, and Yath), who are currently quite active on this article, all have our opinions on the matter and the votes seem 3:1 against me. Of course, I'm a newcomer and have really stirred the pot this time! I would hope that before large swaths of this information are deleted, you all see how well-received the information is by a wider audience. I would suggest that passages that don’t really belong, soon get deleted anyway in “drive-by shootings” by the average reader after they have a WTF?!?–reaction. Greg L (my talk) 02:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that one of the largest flaws of wikipedia is that the articles keep getting longer and more archane, and I'm a bit of an activist for short & sweet articles. In my admittedly short experience, new editors rarely delete sections (as anything another than vandalism) and people rarely edit things to make them shorter. I DO think that the level of engineering detail in the current version of this article is relevant to the lay leader, and I admit that I'm learning a lot from what you are writing {and isn’t that what any good encyclopedia ought to do – greg}. However, the effect of buoyancy and the difference between a scale and a balance applies to more than just kilograms; it applies to the general measurement of mass (and weight). Therefore, I think that much of your very useful engineering detail should go into weight and mass with links from this article to those sections. I have not even read weight and mass, however, so I don't yet know exactly where all of your information should go, and how much should stay in the article. I do think things like the inclusion of and link to kilogram-force are really vital parts of the article. I need to buckle down and do some actual work, though, so I am very much willing to let the article sit as-is for the moment. Enuja 18:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I must repeat that the section on mass & weight, as good as it is, is NOT specific to this article & interrupts the exposition of the main topic. It needs a new home - either mass or weight or an article of its own --JimWae 01:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, eventually this section will get removed - because it just does not really belong here. It would be a shame if it just disappears rather than finds a good home --JimWae 04:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I went and did it. So much for me being diplomatic.  :-( I wanted to wait and let you do it yourself, Greg L, but you continued to work on trying to making your good engineering explinations fit into this article. The stuff you wrote needs to go, variously, into mass, weight and weighing scale, or a new article called something like mass versus weight. I think it would be much more useful for you to spend time making your recent contributions fit into those articles instead of making them fit into this article. If you don't do it, I will; I'm not going to let your good explinations of bouyancy and a bunch of other things just go away.
I think I've left the correct amount of information, but it needs to be tied together a bit more (and I like the moon rather than the tire example-- why did you change that, Greg L?) and I would greatly appreciate if someone else came up with a better name for the section. Enuja 05:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Taking perfectly good encyclopedic information that is geared very specifically to the topic of the kilogram and deleting it in the name of keeping articles "short & sweet" really compromises the quality of the encyclopedia; you end up with a squeezy Collier's Encyclopedia suitable for children rather than a tool suitable for serious work. Taking JimWae's comment to heart that the section “interrupts the exposition of the main topic,” I moved the section down near the bottom of the article. Jeez, I created the graphic, completely rewrote the history section (which was incorrect junk before), and some of you are objecting to one section—not because any of it is “wrong”—but because one can find some (but by no means all) of the information by digging around elsewhere on Wikipedia. Come on At 27 kB, this article isn’t at all big by Wikipedia standards and wholesale deletion of relevant information is uncalled for. Greg L (my talk) 07:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Greg L, you misunderstand my intentions. I want users of this encyclopedia to be able to find out how the bouyancy of an object effects how it is massed. I want users to understand the difference between mass and weight. And I want users to be able to FIND these things. Putting the best treatment of these subjects into kilogram is HIDING the information away from people who want to find it. You can be more than an editior of kilogram; you can make the treatment of bouyancy in massing and wieghing (which might even deserve its own article!) really really understandable and easy to find. It isn't going to be easy to find if it's tossed away into an article about one specific unit of mass. Yes, your good explination should be linked from kilogram; it should also be linked from pound (mass) and a TON of other places. Wouldn't it be silly to link from pound (mass) to here to explain the effect of bouyancy on massing? The first thing I posted on this talk page after you started your really impressive improvement of this article was a Bravo, and I wasn't kidding. I also posted a suggestion about re-organization to prevent you from doing work that would just be reverted.
I'm really impressed and grateful for your work on this article. Instead of being upset at some of us for giving you trouble about "one section," realize that the reason I am giving you trouble is that I don't want you to waste your effort making something fit in a place that it isn't going to stay. Even before you put it back at the bottom of the article, the stuff you wrote was still there in the history, and I am planning on finding a good place for it, that it can be linked to from lots of relevant places, so MORE PEOPLE will be able to read it and gain understanding. I am not worried that this article is too long; I am worried that this article is not what a reader is looking for when they type in "kilogram." Enuja 19:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Very well. I appreciate your thoughtful answer. However, there is a practical limitation inherent in Wikipedia that makes doing what you propose untenable. Also, there is an editorial reason for keeping a copy of the information here. I'll touch upon the latter first (the editorial reason): Closely-related information should be available in a single article; that’s why encyclopedias like Brittanica have some depth to their articles. Not that I’m advocating going into that much detail, but 27 kB is far from being Brittanica-like and this article is still quite succinct. So let’s look at how closely-related the information is. The “Mass vs. weight” section deals with five sections:

  1. The distinction between the two
  2. The unit of weight: kilogram-force
  3. Converting mass to force
  4. Buoyancy and “conventional mass”
  5. Types of scales and what they measure

The first one (“The distinction between the two”) is short. Also, common-sense clearly shows it belongs in an article on the kilogram. Notwithstanding that someone might be interested in the concept of ‘mass vs. weight‘ in its own right (there is, after all an article on just this topic), it makes too much sense that someone reading an article on the kilogram would be interested in a single, succinct paragraph about how the kilogram isn’t technically a unit of weight. This clearly is quite topical to the subject of the kilogram given that common usage of the word ‘kilogram’ is often in the context of “weight.”

The second one, “The unit of weight: kilogram-force”, clearly is highly relevant and topical to the subject of the kilogram. It directly addresses the distinction between the common usage of a “kilogram of weight,” and what the unit of measure really is. This article is clearly a highly suitable place for the information.

The third, “Converting mass to force”, is geared specifically to the converting from the kilogram to newtons. It is not a generalized text on the broad concept. Accordingly, it too solidly belongs here in the Kilogram article (and possibly too in the Newton article).

The fourth, “Buoyancy and ‘conventional mass’ ”, deals specifically with mass standards. What would you propose(?) create a new Wikipedia article on mass standards? Even if one did create such a page, this information is obviously still highly relevant and belongs here.

The fifth, “Types of scales and what they measure” is a short paragraph that ‘connects the dots’ about the real distinction of what technically determines the difference between a kilogram and a kilogram-force.

Lastly, the first limitation I cited: the “practical limitation.” Spreading this information all about Wikipedia just exposes it to decay and degradation as it gets edited and and deleted in (now-multiplied) “drive-by shootings.” That’s the downside of Wikipedia.

Your quest to keep articles “short and sweet” is at odds with the very nature of what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia articles are supposed to grow and expand, otherwise, it would still look as it did in its very beginnings. As long as added information is topical and relevant, the articles improve. Again, at 27 kB for a technical article, this one is still far from bloated. There is no valid reason for anyone to wade through any Wikipedia article and do wholesale deletions on entire sections just because they feel the text could arguably also fit elsewhere. Perhaps the section in question would fit well in other articles too (and should also be copied to these other articles). However, they are clearly topical and relevant to the kilogram, the article isn’t ‘big’ by any means, and wholesale, industrial-strength deletions of entire passages—unless they clearly have little to do with the article—isn’t the Wikipedia way.

If everyone else tried to do what you’re doing, Wikipedia wouldn’t have grown into what it is. It would be a supremely frustrating place to contribute to if others deleted recently added information in the name of keeping already-short articles “short(er) and sweet(er).” Enuja, I think Wikipedia articles would benefit if you expanded them with additional, encyclopedic information, rather than delete other’s work. You’ve got to stop doing this unless the information just plainly doesn’t belong. Greg L (my talk) 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Greg L, when you call my recent edits "wholesale deletion" you neglect that 1) I plan on putting your very good information back in different articles if you don't do it before I do (I'm waiting because I'd rather that words written by you come from your account when people look back at the histories of the articles) and 2) I did keep short paragraphs on the difference between mass & weight, the kilogram-force, and types of scales and what they measure. I'm not trying to toss information away or hide it in lots of hard to find articles, I'm trying to help organize the encyclopedia so that people can find what they want. I'm trying to make maintenance and linking easier, not harder. I want to work with you; I don't have the information you have, and what you are contributing to this encyclopedia is very useful. I can help by editing the article to be in simpler grammar with smaller words that mean the same thing, and by helping to re-organize the articles. Please, let's work collaboratively so that the end result is not just a better article, but a better encyclopedia. Enuja 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Enuja: Your efforts, while well-intentioned, are not going to be well-embraced if your first act in this process is to simply delete the hard work of other contributors. That methodology is seriously flawed. Greg L (my talk) 01:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) My first act was to say Bravo! on this page and suggest a different organization. My second act was to propose an organization in more detail while highlighting my agreement with other editors that the mass v. weight section was out of place in this article. Then I waited, as you asked me to, to see what other people thought and what reactions the section would get. However, you did not wait. You kept making the section longer, when the other three editors on this page had all said that it should be shorter and should link to other sections. For my third act, about three days after my second proposal, I edited the section, keeping a lot of the information you had added, and removing the things I had suggested above should be removed. To me, this is the very opposite of simply deleting as my first act. Enuja 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, swell. Pat me on the head with “Bravo”, wait three days, and then delete the stuff. Someone once said “Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to ‘go to Hell’ and making them think if was their idea to do so.” Only after I go there (blazes), I stop and realize “Hey, Enuja just deleted all my stuff (but she gave me a ‘smiley face’ on the way).” ;-) Greg L (my talk) 04:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Scope of Kilogram article

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

How much information about "Mass versus weight" and the methodology of measuring mass should appear in Kilogram? 00:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • The article kilogram should cover information specific to this particular unit of mass, and the very useful information added by User:Greg L about the effect of bouyancy on measuring mass and the difference between mass versus weight should appear in articles such as mass, weight and weighing scale so that this information is available to all interested users, and not hidden away in the kilogram article. Having duplicate content in multiple articles makes keeping the content correct and up to date much more difficult. As this information is precisely as relevant to articles such as pound (mass) as it is to kilogram, the information should be in articles that are linked to from both kilogram and pound (mass) as well as from a variety of other articles. Enuja 00:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. informative to the typical visitor to this article,
  2. interesting to the typical visitor to this article, and
  3. does it enhance the article.
If others feel the information—when placed in the Kilogram article—is “hidden away,” they are always free to place variations of relevant passages elsewhere in suitable articles throughout Wikipedia. Greg L (my talk) 01:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree that it is specific to the kilogram. It could apply equally to any unit of mass, such as gram or pound (mass). It makes sense to mention the subject in each of these articles, but it does not make sense to cover it completely. There is only one place for that: weight. The alternative would be to duplicate the information in all articles related to units of mass - which is clearly not appropriate. --Yath 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from others

1) KEEP. Why was this even brought up for a vote? The section is extremely informative and touched on stuff I wouldn't have known to go looking for. Signed: Rob Fry (I'm not a regular Wikipedia author and I don't know how to sign my name) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.28.133 (talk) 02:03, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

To sign your posts on talk pages, simply type four tildes (~~~~). Also, wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, not votes. Enuja 02:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

2) FIND A BETTER HOME - this section, as good as it might be or become, is only marginally about the kilogram - and not at all specific to the kilogram. AND, it is not nearly as good as it could be. While it might be technically accurate (nearly without error), it is not succint, and does not stick to one topic at a time. Nor is it anywhere near comprehensive - it mentions that air pressure can slightly affect weight, but never mentions that weight can change drastically or even be (nearly) zero (a fundamental difference). It needs to be improved, moved, & -- after a very brief summary -- linked to from this article & numerous others--JimWae 07:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

3) The Mass vs Weight section is encyclopedic, but, as it applies equally to all units, should be merged into Mass and weight (or, indeed expanded and placed in Mass versus weight) with a note somewhere in this article to the effect of "The kilogram is a unit of mass. It is important to note that there is a distinction between mass and weight." The content of mass vs weight is relevant to this article, and I agree that a reader would want to read it, but that can be accomplished with a link to another article, rather than placing the material here. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

  • Jim, quoting you: “…but never mentions that weight can change drastically or even be (nearly) zero…” Yes it does. In the first footnote in the section in question. There, it says “Masses with densities less than that of air float and have negative weight; that is, they are buoyant. Such masses have weight in a vacuum.” This article would swell to the size opposed by Enuja if every single scientific exception was elobrated upon in-depth right in the main body text. Details such as this are best delt with via footnotes. Also, let's get a good consensus from a wider constintuency of Wikipedia than just Jim, Greg, Enuja, and Yath. We all know each of us has strongly-felt opinons. We should obtain the opinions from people who are less biased. Greg L (my talk) 17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • are you suggesting I not have an opportunity to present my opinion here, but you do? There IS STILL NO MENTION of drastic change in weight on moon & in space - fundamental aspects more easily understood than buoyancy. Btw, helium balloons have weight everywhere on earth - they just weigh less than the air they replace - they have "negative" weight relative to air - but not any kind of absolute negative weight. With respect to weight, all this article needs to discuss is how kilograms are often presented as units of weight (as in: How many kg do you weigh?) - even on medical documents - and that such usage is inexact, but not any big deal since we don't really think that by going to the moon, one's body content is drastically reduced. Buoyancy is a detail, near-zero weight outside a gravitational field is fundamental --JimWae 20:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on your text, one would easily get the idea that the hallmark difference between mass & weight is buoyancy - and that the weight of a helium balloon actually increases (from negative to zero) as its distance from Earth increases --JimWae 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Point taken JimWae. Of course your opinion matters and I added some proposed text to accommodate your suggestion. As with all Wikipedia articles, you are free to sincerely edit what I just added. And given that you are the origin of this “moon-gravitiy” topic, I would be pleased to afford you great latitude with your edits on this issue. There are two issues simultaneously at play here: 1) the very existence of these sub-sections in the Kilogram article, and 2) making good-faith edits to what I've added to make it better. The opening definition has benefited immeasurably by sincere, multiple back & forth edits by all of us. Those first two paragraphs are now a pithy, tight, well-crafted ones. Wikipedia has benefited from this good-faith collaboration. Greg L (my talk) 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I submit that good-faith collaboration applies to more than just editing extant text. It also applies to deciding what articles should exist, what information should be in what articles, and to moving and removing text. I do not understand why you appear not to consider suggestions and actions about moving text to different articles good-faith collaboration. Enuja 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the Request for Comment template because we haven't gotten any new comments in three days, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology really doesn't appear to be a very lively place; other RfCs there are also only netting one or two outside editor comments. This RfC only netted two outside editor opinions, one for the inclusion and one against. The argument for inclusion, from an anonymous editor, boils down to "I wouldn't have been able to find it if it wasn't in this article," but I think that is untrue, as any version of this article without extensive discussion of mass v. weight and the issues in massing objects WILL have extensive and obvious links to locations with that information.

So, here's my summary of the current state of opinions. Everyone agrees that mass vs. weight and issues of massing are important.

User:Greg L and 66.108.28.133 (note: this IP has made no edits outside of contributing to this RfC) think that these issues should be in this article because otherwise they'd be hard to find and/or hard to maintain against degredation. User:Enuja, User:Yath, User:JimWae and User:Seth Bresnett think that these issues should be in one common article, to which all mass and weight units can all linked, so that there is one clear, correct, and accessible explanation in Wikipedia.

We haven't come to a consensus on where mass versus weight and the issues of massing should be.

Does everyone agree with that summary? Is this status quo a consensus for taking a detailed treatment of these subjects out of the article? If so, does everyone agree that the next thing we need to do is decide where all of this information should go? Because some of it is already in weight, I figured that the place for that discussion is Talk:weight but no one has yet responded to my talk page post there. Enuja 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SI multiples

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have nominated Template:SI multiples (transcluded or subst'ed in this article) for deletion on WP:TFD. Han-Kwang (t) 16:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This issue arose because of a dispute (see discussion here) over the inclusion of table of SI-prefixed versions of the kelvin in the Kelvin article. Somone didn’t see the value of it and simply deleted it (notwithstanding that an editors’ note warned of other articles that linked directly to the table). That table lists the full range of the kelvin’s SI-prefixed forms. An individual SI table placed in each article on units of measure serves a purpose that a general link to SI prefixes can't do: as demonstrated in the Kelvin article, it shows which prefixed versions of the unit in question (in bold) are the common ones that one might want to limit themselves to to avoid using those that are overly obscure.

    There’s another—and more important—consideration: These tables prevent bloat in articles by avoiding having to explain units of measure in each article that uses them. For instance, the Absolute zero article (as do other articles) might mention a 450 nk record-cold temperature. Note the “nk” link in this just-cited example. It takes the reader to the table where one can see the magnitude of the value in relationship to others. The same thing is done when an article uses “nm” (nanometer) or “µg” (microgram) in a technical article or . Articles would become bloated if they each had to individually explain every prefixed form of a unit of measure. Yes, one can use scientific notation. But this sort of stuff quickly starts going over the heads of many readers depending on the nature of the article and how soon in the article it begins using scientific notation; that is, after all, one of the purposes of SI prefixes: to simplify. These tables have been in articles for years now and have served a most useful purpose. Just because someone doesn’t see the value in a template is no justification for deleting it. If they don’t see the value of it, don’t use it. And please stop deleting or truncating the tables; it breaks links to it in other articles. Greg L (my talk) 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The "nature" of mass

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This section of the article is presently more about force than about either mass or kilogram. Nothing AFTER the 2nd sentence is about the "nature of mass".

1st sentence fine:

  • The kilogram is a unit of mass.

Alternative 2nd sentences:

  • Mass is an inertial property; that is, the tendency of an object to remain at constant velocity (which may be zero) unless acted upon by an outside force.
  • Mass is an inertial property; that is, the tendency of an object to remain at rest or at constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force.

The rest is not about mass - and certainly not about the nature of mass:

  • An object with a mass of one kilogram will accelerate at one meter/second² (about one-tenth the acceleration of gravity) when acted upon (pushed by) a force of one newton (symbol: N). Note that the newton is the SI unit of force. In fact, the newton is defined by the kilogram: the newton is the force required to accelerate an object with a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one meter/second². Accordingly, if the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram were to change slightly, so too must the newton by a proportional degree.

--JimWae 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

re alternative 2nd sentences

Actually I do prefer the 1st to the 2nd. Saying "to remain at rest or at constant velocity" makes it seem like there are 2 separate possibilities - whereas saying "remain at constant velocity (which may be zero)" does not treat "at rest" as being somehow a separate state of affairs --JimWae 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Knock yourself out. I don't like battling over ever little edit. “([A velocity] which may be zero)” is precisely identical to “remain at rest.” Except that the latter certainly seems less awkward to me. It’s either moving (at a constant velocty), or it’s stationary.Greg L (my talk) 20:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Jim's point is that being at rest is a subset of moving at a constant velocity, not something different from moving at a constant velocity. And I agree that it's important to avoid giving anyone the impression that being at rest is not moving at a constant velocity. Enuja 23:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

SI Unit of weight

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The unit of weight" is not the kilogram-force, at least in the SI system. A weight is a force, and therefore the SI unit of weight is the newton. As its page says, the kilogram-force is non-SI. Personally, I think it belongs in the article, but not in the lead. Enuja 00:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The nature of mass

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Comone JimWae, if you're going to write something technical, make it technicaly correct. That last thing you wrote…


…is so chock full of scientific errors it just had to be replaced. You wrote how “objects in zero-gravity are far easier to lift than they are on Earth.” Of course, there is zero effort to lift something in zero-gravitiy. Then to demonstrate the example of the difference in effort to move two different-mass objects, you used the example of a boat vs. an ocean liner for God’s sake, where there water friction is a gigantic effect that makes it hard for the reader to appreciate what the point is. Finally, the very definition of mass is resistance to acceleration. On what could have been a very simple statement about the nature of mass, you get all sidways on trying to compare and contrast with weight and zero-gravitiy stuff. Good grief, keep it simple. If you’re going to be stuborn about getting your two-cents in, it would be helpfull if you made the article better.

Accordingly, I replaced it with the following (which is scientifically factual, pithy, and succinct:


Greg L (my talk) 05:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Do you not notice how long other people have discussed things before they revert them, and how quickly you reverted to your own pet sentences that are off-topic & not about mass? --JimWae 05:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How long must people discuss things that are flat wrong? It’s not a matter of whether it’s “too much bloat” or “a little off-topic.” Comeon. Besides, I left the other paragraph completely alone. While not what I would have written, it’s still arguably encyclopedic and is factually correct. Making a point about the nature of mass by pushing an ocean liner through water?!? Greg L (my talk) 05:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • We'll see how long that text lasts before someone else fixes it. I think it's sub-standard and far from enclyclopedic but don't have the patience for someone who can't see that and reverts back to it proudly. Greg L (my talk) 05:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think the row boat and oceanliner example is very useful. I keep thinking about fluid-fluid boundary effects, vortices from row-boat paddles, turbulence from propellors and, most importantly, the effect of buoyancy. I recommend that that analogy be removed. Enuja 06:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think some analogy of some sort is called for - to relate the concept to something that can be experienced on Earth. And certainly an analogy more apt than "This is the property one senses when they place a bowling ball on smooth surface and push on it horizontally." (That is in the article & I sense noise, smoothness, smelly shoes.) With the boats, the primary difference is still that of mass, not friction. If both boats were at rest (propellers & oars not moving), turbulence would clearly be a minor issue. I am open to a better analogy - Btw, what we are discussing is not just an analogy, either --JimWae 06:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Buoyancy simulates the micro-gravity environment - the downward & upward forces are balanced (doesn't our later disputed section make a similar point re negative weight?) & still the larger mass is harder to move. There may be a better EXAMPLE with friction (areas) equal, but friction is hardly the major issue here - Maybe 2 equal-sized boats, one empty & one loaded - but there the comparison is less easily experienced.--JimWae 06:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Water friction is entirely the issue. Why can you not see that? The tens of thousands of horsepower necessary to keep an ocean liner moving through the water are 100% due to friction. The 10 H.P. necessary to keep a 16-foot boat scooting in the water is 100% due to friction. It’s similar to saying “a glass marble dropped into molasses vs. a big glass ball dropped into molasses”. Friction. It's like the paragraph was designed to confuse by introducing weird analogies that are not only hard to relate to but have spurious and significant physics factors at play that entirely mask the point you were trying to make. Even a sentence that read “the force necessary to accelerate Jupiter" is greater than that required for Mercury" would be better because the issue would be purely one of mass. Did you notice my bowling ball analogy in the second sentence of the Mass vs. weight section. That’s an analogy that 1) people can relate to from personal, everyday experience, and 2) is scientifically supportable because frictional losses are negligible. I had it there before you added your paragraph. Then there's your odd ‘1000 divided by 100 = 10’ math. And why have you taken a paragraph that should solidly be about the nature of mass, and try to kludge your hodgepodge of weight and mass? This is not the best you can do. Go back and work on it.

    It's not about the paragraph now for me, it's that I replaced it with something that was 100% scientifically correct—after explaining to you about the enormous friction issue—and then you'd restore it and defend it! I don't mean to be rude but you’ve really got me curious; have you had any formal training in physics beyond the basics in K–12? Even the little things, like a lack of curly (typographers) quotes and the period outside of the quote mark (the British method that hasn't been used for the rest of the article) aren't proper. I was tempted for about one second to fix these but then that would have memorialized in the history section that I had somehow had a hand in crafting this abomination. This is the last you’ll hear from me on this particular paragraph since this is a total and utter waste of effort. You aren’t listening and have developed a stubborn streak. Either that, or your grasp of basic physics is sufficiently wanting that you are somewhat out of place trying to contribute to a technical article in an encyclopedia. Although this might be construed as a “personal attack,” (notice the punctuation inside the quote), it is, unfortunately, the simple, true facts that go to the heart of your writing this stuff and then defending it after someone pointed out its flaws. In other words, it’s reality, not new-age, self-esteem-building bull crap. If you don’t fix this paragraph, someone else will stumble across it in a matter a days to a few weeks, have a total WTF(!)-reaction, and fix it. I’m perfectly content to sit back and watch that process. Greg L (my talk) 15:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps a better example would be stopping an ocean liner vs stopping a rowboat - unfortunately few have direct experience with the former. No. Friction. If you just turn off the 20,000 H.P.-worth of engines necessary to plow the ocean liner through the water, the ocean liner soon stops on its own—even though it has lots of mass—because of friction. Why aren’t you “getting” this? Greg L
  • Certainly if one says, as above "Of course, there is zero effort to lift something in zero-gravitiy" one might think that friction is ENTIRELY the issue in MOVING something. Many naive people suppose there is no effort required to move a 100 tonne mass in space. No. “Lifting is an action against the force of gravity. No gravity = no effort to lift. Greg L
  • The motors are needed to keep the liner moving at constant speed, but to START it moving or to make any change in motion requires also that inertia be overcome. Liners have to reverse engines long before they approach the dock, whereas stopping a rowboat is far easier. Buoyancy discounts weight (downward force) being the important factor. I knew you'd bring that one up. No. The amount of velocity necessary to make frictional forces dominate come into play so rapidly, you can't discerne the effect of accelerating the ocean liner. For instance, if a mass/force system were frictionless, a 10 HP outboard motor would eventually accelerate an ocean liner to relativistic speeds. In reality, it would never get it moving any faster than 0.01 km/hr. Greg L
  • Before you go changing punctuation, read the WP:MoS - especially WP:MoS#Quotation_marks - there IS a set style for punctuation on WP. Any single article should be consistent rather than boucing around from one style to the next. You know, before I went to get my fifteen patents in the technology world, I used to make a small living in the computerized graphic arts/typography business. Greg L
  • I am more open to reasoned argument than suggestions that I am out of place editing this article No, that doesn’t seem to be the case regarding “reasoned arguments.” You don’t ‘get’ it. If no one ever explains to you in real terms (bluntly and to-the-point), you'll never understand why the outside world reacts to you the way it does. All you'll get is a weird range of reactions, like Enuja, who diplomatically suggests something in the hopes that you’ll catch on. Or people like me who just get annoyed. Greg L
  • I will get back to the problems with your bowling ball example later - Did you not read the part (within this section, above) where I already touched on its problems? Foolish quibling over nonsense crap (“I can't perceive the property of mass because I have five senses and my nose smelled popcorn at the time”) That’s a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. Mass is the inertial property one perceives when they push on a massive object horizontally absent significant friction. What's your problem? I'm leaving your B.S. alone for others to fix; leave mine alone. I don't want it messed up with ‘ocean liner’ business and whatever else makes perfect sense to you. I’m done trying to correct your stuff (and then, after you revert it, trying—in vain—to explain to you why the physical world works the way it does). Let's part ways. If my stuff has shortcomings of some sort, others will fix it soon enough. I'm quite confident your recent ‘contribution’ will be soon corrected by others. I hope you leave the ‘ocean liner’ paragraph in its current form so you can see this process in action for yourself. Greg L
  • The section on buoyancy does not belong in this article. Heard of a pot calling a kettle stubborn? But then, when was I more stubborn - when I made minor changes to the paragraph after opposition that was rapid & mostly unreasoned, or when I removed a disputed sentence after more reasons were presented here *Sigh* Greg L (my talk) 17:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC) --JimWae 16:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Your replies seem to indicate that you are not aware (among other things) that I have already removed the ocean-liner sentence, which I did mention here --JimWae 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

JimWae: I’m back in the saddle today. This is regarding the same paragraph again too. Why do I give a crap? Regarding its last sentence in that paragraph…

…the sentence is 1) either incomplete or has extraneous information, and 2) even if there is extraneous information, it’s context is incorrect, and 3) there’s more information that is incorrect. Okay…

1) The “strength” of a gravitational field is dependent upon two things: A) the mass of an object, and B) one's distance from the center of mass of the object. If you make a statement about the weight of an object being dependent upon the “strength of a gravitational field,” and then tack on the additional qualifier “and distance from it,” the latter is meaningless; it’s sort of a self-referential, illogical point. The “strength of the field” IS the determining factor in fixing the strength of gravity the mass is exposed to.

2) In the last sentence, you somehow shoehorned a caveat about “velocity being constant” as a requirement for mass being constant. That, of course, is entirely incorrect. And it’s in an encyclopedia, masquerading as fact. Did you not know that mass is constant under acceleration (lack of constant velocity)? As I originally had the paragraph (that you kindly replaced with this “stuff”), mass is actually defined by how quickly it accelerates (has a lack of constant velocity) for a given force acting upon it. Now, one could say that mass is not constant at different velocities relative to an observer, but one needs relativistically high speeds to obtain a sufficiently high γ (gamma) to make this a significant effect. But I doubt that was your point. I don’t know, maybe that is what you were trying to say.

After stripping away the “constant velocity” stuff, the last clause of the above-quoted sentence essentially says ‘the mass of an object is constant as long as pieces of it aren’t missing.’ That’s sort of a ‘Well… Duhh statement don’t you think?. And what does the entire sentence say after it’s been corrected by leaving off the ‘constant velocity’ stuff(?): ‘The weight of mass varies with the strength of gravity.’

I guess the reason I give a crap is this is an encyclopedia that students and other people go to. It really kills me to see incorrect stuff in an encyclopedia. It would be so much easier if you’d let others fix your contributions rather than just reverting their repairs and requiring everyone go here to educate you about physics and technical writing. For how many more days or weeks are you going to force people to deal with you this way in order to work on this article? Greg L (my talk) 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I am not sure you are truly aware of the difference between being incorrect & being incomplete. I did not say constant velocity was a requirement for contant mass. I was indeed keeping in mind that which you apparently think I am too unlearned to know anything about - accelerations near the speed of light. I have made an adjustment so other people will not fall into the hole you did and think it is "entirely incorrect" - when it was actually "overly correct" - as even at low velocities there is a minute effect.
  • The gravitational field is also not "incorrect". It might be clearer though to say "the mass at the center of the gravitational field". I find that cumbersome, but will consider it. (The maximum strength of a gravitational field does not depend on distance.)
  • So you'd also "strip away" any assertion that "mass is constant"?
  • I have not seen any effort on your part to "fix" my contributions - you have not proposed modifications to the text I added, you have only proposed wholesale reversions. You have at least begun to discuss here, though you mix in far too much commentary on the personal or intellectual attributes of other contributors. Has anyone here spoken to you in that manner? --JimWae 07:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Such an awkward and cumbersome sentence. You still don't get what I'm talking about with “the strength of a gravitational field.” Take the analogy of a light. The power of the light is analogous to the mass of an object. When you measure a light’s brightness, that’s how bright it is for you, at a particular distance. The “strength of a gravitational field” is analagous to brightness; you’ve already specified ‘strength’ so “distance’ is superfulous. As now ‘fixed’ by you, this cumbersome last sentence reads…


Note also that it’s not the fact that an object is “accelerating” near the speed of light; only that it has a velocity near the speed of light (with respect to an observer). While not “incorrect,” the added specificitiy is misleading.
All that could be streamlined into…


or, since inertia had been discussed earlier in the sentence, it could be tightened even further to…


One can get bound up in the effects of radiation and all sorts of stuff. However, the above sentence does not speak of how an “object’s weight” doesn't change (which could be influenced by radiation as its constituent particles decay), nor does one need to consider that pieces are added or taken away from it (as you’ve got yourself tied down with). By wording it this way, the sentence speakes directly to the issue of matter; how “matter” has fixed “mass.” Thus, the only possible influence upon matter’s mass is relativisitc effects.
Actually, the last two sentences could be replaced with this to de-bloat the paragraph. As currently stands, it uses a lot of words and says little. Greg L (my talk) 19:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Relativity’s effect on mass

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

JimWae: You originally had


While this isn't incorrect (with respect to “accelerating,”) it is misleading. That’s why I changed it to…


You reverted it by stating the following in the edit comment: “if velocity was constant at 90% c, mass would still be constant in that frame of reference”

OK. What you appear to be asserting is that the mass of matter not only increases as it approaches light-speed, but even though it has this relativisticly inflated mass, it is still a stable—though inflated—value. Why in the world would you write something so obscure in this article? It's already obscure enough in that it is an exception for relativistic effects but now you're trying to talk about variable relativistic effects!.

Note that anytime an object has no relativistic velocity with respect to an observer, it has normal “rest” mass. If the object is traveling with respect to an observer at a high, relativistic speed, its mass is substantially increased. To use your example of 90% the speed of light, the object would have a γ of 2.29415 and, accordingly, would have a mass (m) of over twice its rest mass (m0). This is more than an abstract, theoretical situation: the mass of muons entering a laboratory from high in the atmosphere display spuriously long lifetimes—and relativisticly high mass—due to their velocity. This is a reasonably important point to make, that high velocities changes the mass of matter. It logically follows that accelerating at near the speed of light is a variable amount of this mass dilation. Jumping over the first effect (traveling near the speed of light changes mass) and going directly to the next effect (accelerating near the speed of light has a variable change of mass) is just confusing. The whole point of technical writing is to educate, not confuse the typical reader with way-abstract points.

In hopes of achieving yet another compromise with you, I've changed it to “traveling near the speed of light.” It avoids nailing the issue down to just “velocity,” while dodging the potentially misleading added specificity of “accelerating.” Please also consider allowing the change from “object” to “matter.” This permits the deletion of “gaining atomic material” and similar caveats. As you can see, it conveys the same concept, just in a much more compact way.

As regards your wondering about this ‘newton thing’ (OMG!), that's the very definition of the kilogram. Along with the units for acceleration, it adds extra specificity to mass, acceleration, and force. It solidly deserves to be in this Wikipedia article.

Greg L (my talk) 04:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


  • Mass is NOT defined via force, force is defined via mass - as you must be aware at some level, mass & length are fundamental units, force units are derived units. While Newtons might deserve to appear, they are off-topic in a section called "the nature of mass"
That's true. In fact, what I originally had in the paragraph is that the newton was actually defined by the kilogram. However, you deleted that because because you felt it made the section too much about the newton. What is writen there now is 100% true and is not misleading. It simply adds some much-needed specificity the basic concept that already there in the paragraph: that the kilogram has inertia and will accelerate only when acted upon by a force. Greg L
  • objects travelling at a constant velocity have a constant mass - it is misleading to leave open the suggestion that mass is not constant at 90% c if velocity is constant - --JimWae 05:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That's an obscure argument that most readers will be mislead by. The mass of matter at 99.499% the speed of light has ten times its rest mass, but you want to say “But—though ten times greater—it’s still constant! Why would anyone want to put such an obscure point in the article?!? Greg L
  • "constant velocity (including zero)" makes it clear that rest is just a special case of constant velocity, while "at rest or at constant velocity" can easily be interpreted (as I did when I forst heard this) as 2 separate possibilities - almost as if they could "jump" to one state or the other. Another editor has agreed on this point. Articles are not individual projects.--JimWae 05:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That was a compromise because you had a problem with just “constant velocity” (which is the wording that any physics book uses and seems to communicate clearly enough to children). I restored it to the classic, textbook example children read. I just hope you don’t do what you did before: add “or decelerate” after the word “accelerate.” The definition of words in physics shouldn’t have to change because JimWae says so. Greg L
  • if we are going to have a section on "the nature of mass", then the fact that the mass of an object changes when it accelerates near c is something that should be noted in that section. Alo notable there is loss of mass when it is converted to energy in radioactive decay. --JimWae 05:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the “radioactive decay”part (wherein energy is always radiated away): In that case, some of the matter has disapeared. That's the beauty of speaking in terms of “matter” instead of “an object.” “Matter” has constant rest mass. By using logical words, one avoids awkward caveats like “assuming it [an object] has not lost or gained any atomic material.” As regards the rest of the above statement, Enuja: Weigh in here. Please. Editors are asked to be mindful that Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Lead section) is that articles on technical subjects, and in particular their lead sections, should be as generally accessible as possible for the subject matter. Now JimWae wants to add to a lead section about relativistic effects and how, if one changes their velocity at near-light speed, that this has a changing effect on relativisticly dialated mass. Good grief. Greg L (my talk) 17:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Result of RfC

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

To quote myself from this very page

Unfortunately, no-one replied to that.

As far as I can see, there is as close to a consensus as possible that issues about mass versus weight (and, I'd assume, about relativity!) should be in other articles, so that the hard work is accessible to many readers. Instead, Greg L and JimWae continue to edit here the sections mentioned in the RfC. JimWae, do you still think that these sections should be in weight? Personally, I was trying to avoid stepping on toes by building a consensus here, but I feel that I, and the consensus, are being ignored. I'm trying to avoid editing here the sections that I think should go elsewhere; JimWae, if you still think that they should go elsewhere, we should move those sections instead of working on them here. Enuja (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Enuja. I don't believe you are an administrator, are you? You are too invested into this article to self-declare yourself as the unbiased editor who decides what stays and what goes in a Wikipedia article. Further, your intent is clear: strip articles down to keep them short. Up to nineteen days ago, your user page consisted of nothing more than this:
Shorter is Better!
Useful links:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style
Wikipedia: Featured Picture Candidates
User:Enuja/Sandbox
That “shorter is better” bit (with an exclamation point) really explains your motivations. And you’re wrong. While article bloat isn’t desirable, encyclopedias would rarely get better if they embraced “shorter is better” like you do. You only recently—apparently as a reaction to the goings-on here—updated your user page with a more expansive explanation of articles also being “good” (‘Oh yeah, that attribute too’). It is not your job to be a censor and delete encyclopedic information that other contributors add to Wikipedia articles. You have to let other contributors contribute. As you pointed out, the only ones who give a crap about this is your above-cited gang. Greg L (my talk) 17:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Greg L, my height is 5'2" or 1.57 meters. I'm short. A username I used on online talk boards was "elfy" and came from that. I liked how "elfy" sounds, but not the diminutive "y", so I turned a description of me (A June, as June is my first name) backwards for my username. Then, one of the first major editing things I did was trim some bloated parts of Whaling (which is still a fairly unreadable article), so I figured it would be cute, consistent with my personality, and consistent with the fact that I didn't have much on my user page, to say "Shorter is Better!" Why do I have to explain this on the kilogram talk page?

Yes, I recently updated my user page (which also had five userboxes and the wikipedia signpost template) as a result of goings on here, because I realized that you misinterpreted what I thought was a funny, succinct statement. I did not want you to continue to misinterpret that, and I did not want other people in the future to misinterpret it, so I changed it. How is that a problem?

Please stop attacking me (and JimWae, and anyone else) personally. How did all everyone who contributes regularly to this article become "my gang?" Greg L, you went to my talk page, twice, to ask to me wiegh in on this issue. Just because I ended up disagreeing with you does not mean that I'm part of a gang opposing you. You did an edit which several editors, including me, disagreed with. I tried to convince you to approach this article differently. You were not convinced. I put out a request for comments. Then I tried to summarize the request for comments. I am not acting like an administrator in any way; I am trying to follow general wikipedia guidelines for writing collaboratively and buiding consensus. Nothing I am trying to do is in any way reserved for the use of administrators.

Honestly, Greg L, you are the reason kilogram is currently in relatively GOOD shape. It IMPROVED recently. I'm not trying to tell you this to pat you on the back and make you feel better. You have made lots and lots of good contributions to this article. But that doesn't mean what you write is the best this article can be. You need to let other editors edit what you add, and sometimes even remove what you add, without attacking them. Please re-read WP:OWN, please keep contributing to this article, and please stop attacking people whenever they disagree with you. Enuja (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not a personal attack to state the obvious: that your clearly stated philosophy of “Shorter is better!” is at odds with the ‘Wikipedia way’ of doing things. How would you expect other contributors to articles to react when faced with what you are trying to do? But thanks again for the pat on the head. I’m running off to a lunch meeting now. Greg L (my talk) 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • When I think shorter is better, I mean that when presenting a given fact, it is better to present it using a smaller number of words and more clear grammar. I know this is ironic because I naturally construct really convoluted sentences, I am enamored with unique terminology, and I use lots and lots of words to say simple things. In a way, "shorter is better" is a way of convincing myself not to contribute in too wordy a manner. Above, you ask me to weigh in on what should be in the lead section, because you think it shouldn't include discussions of relativity. "Shorter is better" is not at odds with Wikipedia. If I shorten things, and JimWae lengthens things, and we collaborate, hopefully the end result is something of readable length that includes the maximum possible information. I'm not trying to be a high and mighty neutral arbiter; I'm trying to state my opinions and summarize other people's opinions in as clear and neutral a manner as possible. I'm also trying to avoid editing the article until we resolve basic organizational issues. Please comment on the consensus, not on me. Enuja (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Enuja, I'm not interested in what a (very) small group of regular editors feel. Revised: I have no intention of just sitting back and watching you act as a censor who decides for herself to delete the recently added section. I find that attitude to be contrary to the Wikipedia-way of doing things, your arguments to be wholly without merit, and your solicitation of another editor to do your dirty work for you to be underhanded and cowardly. Accordingly, whereas I understand your position, I couldn’t possibly disagree with it more. Greg L (my talk) 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC) As you stated above: “We haven't come to a consensus on where mass versus weight and the issues of massing should be.” And that’s because hardly anyone cares. If the issue is one wherein less than a handful of regular contributors feel animated about, then it isn't much of an issue, is it? The fact that you pulled the Request for Comment template because, as you wrote, “we haven't gotten any new comments in three days,” reminds me of the old Vietnam war slogan “What if they declared a war and nobody came?”

    If entire sections don't really belong in any article, or are poorly written, they get edited and/or deleted soon enough by others. For instance, check out Specific heat capacity. I did to that article, what I essentially did here: I completely re-wrote it. I fixed gobs of errors along the way. There was a serious misstatement of fact in that poor article that persisted for 229 days just because the text got so convoluted, no one wanted to wade through its to really understand what the hell it was trying to say. There was no vitriolic hyperbole over my re-write, as if I was playing in someone's sandbox and was unwelcome. Don’t bother poo-pooing this last statement; that's what JimWae’s actions and attitude comes across to me as. In fact, with the Specific heat capacity article, another editor later suggested we merge Heat capacity into Specific heat capacity. So I then transplanted the necessary text and two other editors collaborated to delete the Heat capacity article (which no longer exists). Now this is the important part: Note the article's history. Do you see how we regular contributors (those with user pages) are sitting back letting the rest of the world (regular folk with only I.P. addresses) have at it. We’re just watching for now, ready to correct obvious goofs or piss-poor wording.

    Have you considered allowing this process—letting others (the rest of the world) have a crack at it—to take place on the Kilogram article, instead of taking it upon yourself to decide what you’re willing to permit stay and what must go? Greg L (my talk) 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

    P.S.: I also have little patience for your tactic of stating a fact: “We haven't come to a consensus on where mass versus weight and the issues of massing should be” …and then trying to create the impression that a consensus has been reached by ‘suggesting as much’ in the form of a question: “Is this status quo a consensus for taking a detailed treatment of these subjects out of the article?” …and then proposing specific action to begin deleting the section founded upon your own, faulty, rhetorical question. You even solicited JimWae to begin doing the dirty work and heavy lifting for you. I’d tell you what I really think about that stunt, and trying to pass yourself off as an unbiased mediator seeking only Truth, Justice, and the Wikipedian Way™® SM ©, but you’d likely claim it was a “personal attack.” Greg L (my talk) 22:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • PPS, 15:40, 5 September 2007: The first outside edit to the Mass vs. weight section by some other registered editor besides we group of bickerers occurred (see edit). That editor added to the section (I later gave it a compaction treatment but preserved all its meaning). Greg L (my talk) 15:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And here's another edit made a day later to the Mass vs. weight section by an unregistered editor: the difference This editor, 199.125.109.105, is the same person with whom you’ve corresponded before. With this most recent edit, he or she obviously read the section and appreciated it enough to desire to improve the syntax. The editor also addressed an objection that JimWae made over the ‘childhood riddle’ paragraph. As I’ve mentioned above, I hope you afford other editors the opportuntity to weigh in with their edits. You might find that others value the information available here and seek only to improve it. Greg L (my talk) 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No source for ..

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Which weights [sic] more, a ton of lead or a ton of aluminum? Thanks. I corrected the spelling error. Greg L (my talk) 23:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The children's riddle is more like "Which weighs more, a ton of lead or a ton of feathers?" This (ton of aluminum) seems to be an example of inventing "common mistakes" just to make a point.

compare


  • JimWae: Here’s an edit made today to the Mass vs. weight section by an unregistered editor (I.P. address-only): the difference. In this case, the editor obviously read the section and appreciated it enough to spend the time addressing the very issue you raised. Greg L (my talk) 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

overall

Some rationale can be made for a section distinguishing mass from weight in the mass article, the weight article, and perhaps even in the kilogram article - but little if any case has been made for distinguishing 2 (or 3) types of weight (weight in vacuum, vs weight in air, vs weight in any fluid) in the kilogram article. Such distinctions belong in the weight article. Our new contributor continues to make massive edits (some good, several incorrect or misleading) to the article & ignores (per:"I'm not interested in what a (very) small group of regular editors feel") all pleas for sober second thought here. He justifies his editing of others' contributions with arguments he rejects when others try to apply those arguments to his edits --JimWae 18:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

paragraph a mess

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

While the weight of matter is entirely dependent upon the strength of gravity, the mass of matter is constant (assuming it is not traveling at a relativistic velocity with respect to an observer). Accordingly, astronauts in microgravity exert no effort to lift loose objects inside their spacecraft since those objects are hovering. However, since objects in microgravity still retain their mass, a 100-kilogram object accelerates at only one-hundredth the rate of a 1-kilogram object when an astronaut pushes on them with equal force.

1. Effort is required in both cases

No, that is not at all true. Let's simplify this discussion for the moment and call “microgravitiy” “zero gravity”. The difference between the two is that there are small accelerations on spacecraft in all sorts of directions. Sometimes an object will float up, and sometimes down. On average, for the sake of this discussion, let's say these drifts average zero and call it “zero gravity”. It's simple: when there is no gravity, no effort is required to lift.

2. There is no connection between sentences.

No, that is not at all true. The first sentence tells how matter’s “weight” and “mass” are two different things. The second sentence amplifies on the distinction of weight. The third sentence amplifies on the distinction of mass.
1. Sentence 1: talks about diff betweeen mass & weight (It has several other problems too:
1. introduces "relativistic velocity", instead of the more directly accessible "travelling near the speed of light"
2. suggests that mass could somehow fluctuate as it passes a frame of reference [I think what is meant is that the mass would be measured differently in each frame of reference, not that it would not be constant within each frame]).
No. It doesn’t have “other problems” (at least not now after a revision I made in response to this post). You raised multiple issues but I’ll address your advocacy of “travelling near the speed of light” vs. “relativistic velocity”:
Again, you’re wrong. “Traveling near the speed of light can only be interpreted as written: “near the speed of light.” In fact, the mass of matter increases 0.5% at only 9.96% c and is 1% more massive at only 14.04% c. By no reasonable stretch of the imagination would these speeds be considered to be “near the speed of light.” And still, significant and measurable relativistic effects are already at play. By using the term “relativistic,” the meaning is quite precise.
As for all your “frame of reference” confusion, the language I’ve used is standard boilerplate and no one should have to educate another contributor on relativistic effects to avoid the hassle of having them revert their work. The present wording does not remotely suggest that “mass could somehow fluctuate as it passes a frame of reference.” If it’s moving with respect to an observer—no matter where it is or at what distance or what direction—if it’s traveling at a relativistic speed with respect to an observer, it’s mass is relativistically dilated (increased) and is greater than the rest mass one would normally measure. Period.
2. Sentence 2: "Accordingly" suggests some connection to previous content, but none of what follows relates to the 1st sentence - what it does relate to is the unmentioned "inertia". Then it talks about EFFORT - incorrectly stating that NO effort is required to change direction of movement - when SOME small amount is needed
Nothing but falsehoods. What you just wrote is a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. Are you reading the same thing you quoted above? Where does it state “that NO effort is required to change direction of movement”? As I stated above, the only thing that is written is that no effort is required to lift.
Update: Greg L (my talk) 21:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Another contributor (one not associated with ‘us’—those who are endlessly arguing) edited the same ‘lift’ sentence you did (see edit here). He (or she) balled it up too by changing it to “…no work is required to displace loose objects…” as displacement would require acceleration. Since my original sentence is clearly not worded well enough, it causes confusion and must be changed. Accordingly, I've revised it to read as follows:

While the weight of matter is entirely dependent upon the strength of gravity, the mass of matter is constant (assuming it is not traveling at a relativistic speed with respect to an observer). Accordingly, for astronauts in microgravity, no effort is required to hold an object above the cabin floor since they naturally hover. However, since objects in microgravity still retain their mass, an astronaut must exert one hundred times more effort to accelerate a 100-kilogram object to the same velocity as a 1-kilogram object.

3. Sentence 3: uses "however" but does not talk about effort but about acceleration. Considerably more effort is needed to move a 100-times-more-massive object in space - and also something to stabilize oneself against (action & reaction) must be found.
Fine. Point taken. The “effort” part logically follows. Nevertheless, it was not explicit. Accordingly, I’ve revised to a form where “work” is not performed to “lift” but is required to “accelerate” different masses at the same rate. The following—the whole section—is what is there now, after my lastest edit per your suggestion:

The kilogram is a unit of mass, which corresponds to the intuitive idea of “how much matter there is in an object.” Mass is an inertial property; that is, the tendency of an object to remain at constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. An object with a mass of one kilogram will accelerate at one meter/second² (about one-tenth the acceleration of Earth’s gravity) when acted upon (pushed by) a force of one newton (symbol: N).

While the weight of matter is entirely dependent upon the strength of gravity, the mass of matter is constant (assuming it is not traveling at a relativistic velocity with respect to an observer). Accordingly, for astronauts in microgravity, no work is required to lift loose objects inside their spacecraft since those objects are hovering. However, since objects in microgravity still retain their mass, an astronaut must perform one hundred times more work to accelerate a 100-kilogram object at the same rate as a 1-kilogram object.

This entire section needs to go to end of article --JimWae 18:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As for your last parting shot, once again, your own writings and past actions undermine your position. Here’s what you originally wrote for this exact section at this exact point in the article:

The kilogram is a unit of mass, a property roughly corresponding to the intuitive idea of "how much matter there is in an object". Mass is also an inertial property; that is, the tendency of an object to remain at constant velocity (including a velocity of zero) unless acted upon by an outside force. While objects in zero-gravity are far easier to lift than they are on Earth, moving a 1,000 kilogram object, even in zero-gravity, requires 100 times more force than moving a 10 kilogram object (assuming both objects were equally accelerated). This can be experienced on Earth by comparing the force needed to push a rowboat in water with the force needed to push (and move) an ocean-liner. While the weight of an object can change depending on the strength of the gravitational field it is near and its distance from it, the mass of an object is constant (assuming it has not lost or gained any atomic material, and that its velocity is also constant).

That was your infamous “ocean liner” paragraph; which you actually defended! What you (tried to) cover were the exact same issues that are still covered in that section. Only, what you wrote was chock full of errors; such as “objects in zero-gravity are far easier to lift” than on Earth. Or trying to use the example of an ocean liner to illustrate a high-mass object, except that frictional forces with ocean liners totally dominate the physics at play and make this just about the worse example on the planet. You even hyphenated “ocean liner.” What you wrote wasn’t factual, it wasn’t well-written, and it wasn’t encyclopedic. You were happy to have this abomination stay—apparently because you wrote it. You certainly defended that paragraph enough.
Notwithstanding that a to-the-point discussion of the “Nature of mass” solidly belongs 1) in this article, and 2) at this location within the article, and 3) comparing and contrasting these distinctions (all of which which you yourself touched upon, though incorrectly so), you now opine that it needs to go to the end of the article. This is a double standard, which is simple and pure B.S. and I’ll have none of it.
I don't want to go far off into conjecture about your motives here. The section title you chose for this discussion: “paragraph a mess” is laughable. You aren't being helpful. What you proposed here, were it actually carried out with editing action on your part, wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination be considered as good-faith edits. When someone comes along and edits your work (correcting logical lapses, factual errors, and improving syntax or punctuation) you mustn’t be so enamored with your original contribution that you don’t allow others to improve it and hound them day after day. I often wonder if you’ve got a “territorial issue” here.
Greg L (my talk) 02:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Here’s what the Kilogram article looked like before I started on it 22 days ago (after the standard club of contributors—you included—had been at). It was industrial-strength crap and was chock full of errrors. So stop your petty badgering until you have something useful to say. Greg L (my talk) 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kilogram/Archive_2&oldid=1194543763"