Talk:Micron (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. chaser (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Micron → Micron (disambiguation) — The overwhelmingly most common meaning for micron is the unit of length; therefore micron should redirect to micrometre, with a hatnote in the latter article about other uses of the word. Trovatore (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support hatnote disambiguation for a redirect is enough for this. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Leave alone. The diacritic mark in linguistic use, e.g. in ă ĕ ĭ ŏ ŭ, to indicate shortness, is also common. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'll take your word for it that that's called a micron, but I don't really recall coming across the name, whereas macron I definitely recognize. I don't think this usage is of comparable diffusion to the unit of length, nor that it's anywhere near as likely to be the target of an internal link. --Trovatore (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the diacritic mark article calls this symbol a breve, and the latter article doesn't mention the word micron. It seems that this is not the terminology of choice among those who have edited those articles. Doesn't prove the point about the field in general, of course, but it's at least a data point. --Trovatore (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are pairs, spelled out for example o-mega and o-micron. --Una Smith (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but that has little to do with the question at hand. It's unlikely that someone serching for, or linking, the term micron, is actually looking for omicron. --Trovatore (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The unit of length does appear to be the overwhelming primary usage for this term. The supposed meaning as a diacritic mark is not even mentioned in the Diacritic mark article, and so should not really even be included in a disambiguation page like this. --DAJF (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - µ seems to be by far the most common definition of this word. The other uses seem to be minimal and specialized whereas the use as a measurement seems to be understood even outside technical and scientific fields. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 13:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose — µ (meaning micro-) and micrometer are not the same, so here we have inconsistent opinions of what is the primary topic. --Una Smith (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • comment No one uses the word "micron" to mean "µ (meaning micro-)". They use it to mean "µ (meaning micrometre)" (where I've used the British spelling to avoid confusion with the measuring device). Perhaps you didn't know that the letter µ is sometimes used with this meaning? --Trovatore (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support the metric unit of length is the predominant usage of the term above others. --Polaron | Talk 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Tevildo (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Micron as a microinch?

I believe that there is a common (but, I think, incorrect) usage of the term "micron" to mean "microinch" in the technical field. This can (and does) lead to confusion; therefore, it is notable. Here is the list of the first ten web examples of using micron to mean "microinch" (Google produces many more, but perhaps 10 is enough):

• http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl_062599.html
• http://www.consciouslivingsystems.com/ster_o_tap_microfiltration
• http://www.rense.com/general11/nan.htm
• http://getgibbs.com/tips.php
• http://www.abccables.com/412-5112.html
• http://www.mednetconnection.com/20301.html?*session*id*key*=*session*id*val*
• http://www.rmh.com.mx/en/Cleanroom.pdf
• http://www.glmmarine.com/pdf/OMC_Catalog.pdf
• http://www.pioneersi.com/content/pioneersi/Manuals/PNR/PNR_12-225.pdf
• http://repairingsmallengines.com/2008/01/28/gas-engine-basics-lubrication/

Therefore, a description of the confusion may be of benefit to the reader although the reference (http://www.finishing.com/226/71.shtml) could have been improved.

Cheers. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, put it back if it's genuinely a usage in diffusion. The reference given seemed unconvincing. But then references in a disambig page are a bit of an iffy concept in the first place, as are entries that don't link to an article. Maybe better would be to add a wiktionary link, and then add it to the wiktionary page, where what you need is attestations rather than sources. --Trovatore (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Thank you. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the references above, I think most of them have just put "inch" where they should have put "meter". Certainly fiber-optic cables are usually 62.5 μm, not 0.0000625" (1.58 μm). What we need is a reference where "micron" is unambiguously used to refer to 0.000001". And, have you read the safety information on #9? A depressing comment on the state of the US legal system, I think... :) Tevildo (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)