# Talk:Square metre

WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

## square miles

how many square miles r in a square kilometer? or maybe that was sq mi in sq km.

 8 km ≈ 5 mi thus 64 km² ≈ 25 sq mi thus 1 km² ≈ 25⁄64 sq mi ≈ 25⁄65 sq mi ≈ 5⁄13 sq mi ≈ 0.39 sq mi thus 1 sq mi ≈ 2.6 km²
This is approximate (about 1% error), if you want something exact, start from 1 inch = 25.4 mm. Jimp 23:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 1 inch = 25.4 mm thus 5 inches = 127 mm thus 5 yards = 36×127 mm thus 5 furlongs = 220×36×127 mm thus 1 furlong = 44×36×127 mm = 11×16×9×127 mm thus 1 mile = 8×16×9×11×127 mm = 27×9×11×127 mm thus 1 sq mi = 214×9²×11²×127² mm² = 2589988110336 mm² = 2.589988110336 km² also 27×9×11×127 mm = 1 mile thus 27×9×11×127 km = 106 miles thus 2×9×11×127 km = 56 miles thus 2²×9²×11²×127² km² = 512 sq mi thus 1 km² = 512⁄2²×9²×11²×127² sq mi ≈ 0.386102159 sq mi
P.S. the above calculation was posted by me. Jimp 03:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

## Square Metre

Why not move this to a homework help section? I needed this info. Thanks!

## Meter vs. metre

Metre is the wording used by S.I. so it whould be what the articles use and are named, while noting that meter is the common U.S. spelling as well as with redirects. Evolauxia 08:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Facts&moreFacts seems to be systematically changing the articles on metric units to the American English spellings. I have placed a message on his user talk page asking him to justify this. If he fails to do so I will revert the articles to the original usage. Arcturus 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no justification. WP:MOS is pretty clear: in neutral articles stick with what ever was first. Jimp 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I already gave my justification. Some people are just too dumb to understand. Though they would understand if it were about moving an article relating to fish from using "ghoti" in the title to using "fish". If I were to start an article relating to fish and used "ghoti" in the title, people surely wouldn't have any objections to moving it an article with "fish" in the title. "metre" and "ghoti" aren't phonetic, whereas "meter" and "fish" are. That's why they're better. When a word has a variant that's more phonetic than the other variant, it's best to use that variant. Besides Wikipedia is based in Florida. Facts&moreFacts 23:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Some may be too dumb to understand others see your "justification" for what it is. "Ghoti" is not a valid spelling in any dialect but a joke invented by G. B. Shaw. As I'm sure you've noticed, English is not spelt 100% phonetically. This is something we've got to live with. Jimp 01:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall ever saying that English was spelled 100% phonetically. The only thing I said is that when a word has a variant spelling that's more phonetic than the other variant, it's best to use that variant. For that reason, the article drive-through would be better at drive-thru. Facts&moreFacts 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's your take on it. I don't agree and nor does the Manual of Style. If you want things changed go to the MOS Talk page. Jimp 00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

### Dispute is Done

• The Law caught up with User:Facts&moreFacts ... evidently a socketpuppet of a known troublemaker as you can see from the notice on his user page. So I wasted my time with my below 'Oil on T.W.' effort following! The Metre has it!
FrankB 05:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

### Spelling Fire Retardant

• Dear User:Facts&moreFacts:
• Consider THE MYSTERY OF EYE MIND FUNCTION.

I Cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs psas it on !!!

• If you read any history to any significant depth and extent you will be constantly stumbling over commonwealth spellings and vice versa. As G.B. Shaw said "Americans and the British are two people separated by a common language." So Lighten up. Edit wars help no one and only raise the stress level for all. The question is whether or not 'it' is comprehensible, not whether it is common in your own sociologically backward backwater <G>. (That is to say we all have cultural baggage we have to overcome.) Doing so is known as becoming 'well cultured'; not doing so (and being content with your predjudices) is to brand yourself a 'rube'.
• Next thing— there is no such thing as a 'proper spelling', there are only more and less common spelling conventions. (See: Simpified spelling hmmmm the link has broken, also removed from Theodore Roosevelt, who generated the push to 'standardize spellings' (here in the USA), as did a related effort at Columbia University and several other 'congresses', 'commissions' and institutions. The upshot is in the end, all those many efforts failed, and had to 'agree to disagree') If your language teachers taught you otherwise it was simply brainwashing by folks ignorant of etymological history s.a. the cite abovefollowing... (Aha! Found it, so if you think this issue is a problem take a look at Spelling reform and it's talk page. If you want some references for what I say here, see my note last May on that talk [Used the default signature 'fabartus' back then])
• If we in the USA haven't been able to settle this among ourselves in 100+ years and a hellacious Gawd awful number of man-years, how can you ask the commonwealth folks to accept your fiat? You have no ground to stand on save your sociological predjudices. That makes it POV (s.a. your arguement that Wikipedia is located in Florida), an opinion you are entitled to, but which as an editor you cannot use to subborn Wikipedia guidelines like W:MOS. I do and will back such an arguement when it involves a non-English term, I've butted heads with plenty of Japanese and Koreans and Chinese on such naming disputes in the seas around Japan. (East Sea to Koreans, something else to Chinese, a real mess any way you cut it). (This is trivial in comparison.)
• Lastly, this is hardly a new problem on Wiki either; it's just now occuring in this particular fishpond populated by technical types. See:Wikipedia:Standardize_spellings/Archive and it's non-archieved descendent. It's all nearly as useless as attempting to prevent new terms from coming into existance in the first place. (That's 'Wicked-impossible'... to cite an adjective where the meaning turned 180 degrees in a big widely used way!)
• If and when there is a convention and a consensus and guideline other than the MOS, then and only then should one bias triumph over the other. In the meantime, realise (realize) that we must let the MOS be the guide: First writer, gets the honor (honour) of spelling the term. Terms useage (usage) must be consistent (consistant) within the article... though NOT Necessarily ACROSS different articles. (i.e. Wiki offers the reader a chance to get cultured as well! <G>) So if you want meter in your title, write an article that has meter in the title that hasn't been covered. Otherwise, move on. We're all pioneers here and there are tons of stuff to work on! An international effort of this scope is bound to run into these little pebbles... only if we allow ourselves to allow someone to blow them up into boulders can they stop our progress. Drive around. Jump Over. In short, Don't let it bother you. And most of all, Take a walk in the other guys shoes. There are a lot of editors here native to commonwealth countries, and I haven't yet found one meeting that criteria that isn't harder working than at least a quarter of our-fellow-americans-I'd-rather-do-without involved herein. (not least, as they are a friendly and co-operative bunch on the whole and not given to loose trashy talk like many of us here in the states!)
• One other thing— no one has called you on it, so I will — using terms like 'dumb' to disparage the efforts or the intellect of other editors is a strict crash and burn offense. See: W:NPA That sort of thing can definitely lead to disciplinary action including getting banned from Wiki as it should. IMHO, there should be a zero tolerance of such, and the only person that uses such terms shows themselves to be the 'dumb' party. You owe some public apologies.

Best wishes to all! FrankB 05:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

## References

There is currently a request for references in this article. I don't think it's justified. The facts are as given, and are so widely known that references would add nothing. Any one of millions of sources could be quoted as a reference. Arcturus 17:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

## Intro Needs Math

The assertion in the intro that with each subsequent prefix the resultant square is double the magnitude of the squared areas (babbble babble Yuck! Time for bed)... or however that was worded, 'it' is not intuitive to those who do not have a solid foundation in math exponents, so IMHO, it needs justified with some math equations (Metas) demonstrating same. (hey, might open the eyes for someone in elementary or secondary school!) I've been away saving parts of Mississippi and Louisianna since July and forget all the math meta's, msot of which I've not bothered to learn, so if someone else could field this grounder??? (Hey! I just wondered by (and tried to help) when I saw the note complaining about the move in some debate about article names about temperature!) Thanks. FrankB 05:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

## Photo

What is the point of the accompanying photo? It is meaningless without anything to show scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.147.51.229 (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia where such things are the norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.193.142 (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)