Talk:Kilogram

‹See TfM›

Some suggestions

1. Organization. I think the section "proposed future definitions" should directly follow "Stability of the International Prototype Kilogram." Why is "SI multiples" the second section? It seems like essentially a reference guide that readers will go directly to or something that someone might be interested in if they are so interested in the kilogram that they've read the entire article. It doesn't seem like something that most readers are likely to want to read. Everyone already knows that I don’t agree with the inclusion of extensive discussion of “mass v. weight” in this article, but even if it should be here, why are there separate sections entitled “The nature of mass” and “Mass vs. weight”? For the record, I’m mostly happy with the contents of “The nature of mass” although I would incorporate that subject into a larger section. I also think that the information in “Importance of the kilogram” section should go into the stability section. Enuja (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Lead section The use of the phrase "deprecated unit" might be confusing to many readers, and I do not understand why whether or not the pound is a measure of mass (and that there is a pound-force) should be in the lead of an article about the kilogram. Also, lead sections should summarize the entire article, and the current lead section leaves much out. I suggest

The kilogram or kilogramme (symbol: kg) is the SI base unit of mass. The kilogram was originally defined as being the mass of one liter of water, but has been defined as the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram since 1889. It is the only SI base unit with an SI prefix as part of its name and also the only SI unit that is still defined in relation to an artifact rather than to a fundamental physical property that can be reproduced in different laboratories.

The avoirdupois pound, the unit of mass in both the Imperial system and U.S. customary units, is defined as exactly 0.453 592 37 kg, which is to say, one kilogram is approximately equal to 2.205 avoirdupois pounds.

Many units in the SI system are defined relative to the kilogram, so a stable definition is important. The ‘’International Prototype Kilogram’’ has been found to vary in mass over time, so the International Committee for Weights and Measures recommended in 2005 that the kilogram be redefined in terms of fundamental constants. There are several different possible approaches for a new definition of the kilogram.

While the weight of objects are often given in kilograms, the kilogram is a unit of mass. Because weight is a force, the SI unit for weight is the Newton, but there is also a non-SI unit of weight called the kilogram-force.

I’m not sure where the paragraph about the conversion between pounds and kilograms should go. There isn’t any of that in the text of the article, so if we follow Wikipedia:Lead section, it shouldn’t be in the lead. Of course, it needs to be in the article, and I think it probably needs to be in the lead, but as I go through and summarize the article, there isn’t a neat place for it. Any ideas? I’m also not sure if the CIPM’s recommendation in 2005 had anything to do with the instability in the IPK, so I don’t want to put that sentence in the lead until I confirm that. Enuja (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Citations This article has a lot of new (correct! yeah!) information in it, but much of that information is lacking inline citations. The “Importance of the Kilogram” and lead sections, for example, currently have no inline citations. This should really be high on all of our to-do lists for this article. Unfortunately, I do not possess any good references for physics at all, but hopefully I'll be able to use any online-accessible references that Greg L has provided and put them in additional places that they need to be. Enuja (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a 37,000-foot view of the issue of citations. Here's what the citations looked like before I started on it recently. And one of them, #4, is one I added much earlier. Here’s what it looks like now. The citations in “Stability of the kilogram” are en-mass at the end of the sections. They would be the same reference, cited too many times to go in-line. Regarding “Importance of the kilogram”, everything there comes straight out of current Wikipedia articles. Just study the SI units. Greg L (my talk) 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to take any energy away from improving the article; I want to work on improving the article here. I'm gunning for good article status and even featured article status eventually, so I'm trying to follow the good article criteria, which suggests using inline citations. Of course, the manual of style gives the option of using general references throughout and then putting them in a references section, but there isn't currently a general references section in the article, and that doesn't appear to be the most appreciated style in good and featured article review. I can't find specific policies on it, but I'm pretty sure one can use a single inline citation for an entire paragraph. That's all I'm suggesting. Enuja (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Notes: I am suggesting changes here instead of simply editing the article because I am aware that there is not currently a unanimous consensus about the scope of this article. Until we come to a consensus, I will make any suggestions on the talk page before editing the article. I do not mean to make other people do the actual editing for me; I am more than willing to edit once there is agreement on this talk page about phrasing or organization. I am very willing to do collaborative copy editing on the live article page, but I’d at least like to know that other editors agree with my general direction of editing before I change the article. Also, I have split my comments into numbered sections, so I would appreciate that any response to my comments goes between the sections or after this response as a whole, so I can follow the conversation more clearly. Enuja (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Enuja, I appreciate your being up-front. I don’t particularly like the word “deprecated” (didn't even look it up), but I see that it’s used elsewhere on Wikipedia articles on SI units and thought it would be an uphill battle to fight it. As a matter of fact, I believe JimWae added that one. Rule #1 is choose your battles carefully. As you can see, I'm still moving things around and making substantial changes and additions. I have noted over the years, after having worked on other articles just as intensively as this one, that most edits by unregistered authors occur 1) early in the article because of attention-span issues, and 2) after school starts and college students start researching things. The most common such edits are ones where A) they understand the point but didn't think it clear enough and revise it, or B) they didn't understand the point and completely blow it with an edit. In either case, the confusing text gets improved, one way or another. As for commenting on your other thoughts, I've been at this for a while today (this week actually) and am burnt. I will comment on your other points later. I did note that some of your comments pertained to the opening definition. I guarantee you that a high-profile article like this one (just look at the number of “other languages” links) would receive lots of edits—especially in its early parts—if it was truly wanting in some regard. I encourage you in the mean time, to be patient and allow other editors to weigh in and have a crack at it. Sit back and watch. If someone adds or revises something, fix it if it needs correcting or improving. If you have a particularly timely issue you want addressed, please leave a note on my talk page; I get an alert banner up top when one does so. Greg L (my talk) 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Enuja, After more back & forth with you-know-who from the NIST, I obtained more Metrologia articles and have revised the ‘Stability’ section accordingly. Per your suggestion, I also got rid of the early use of “deprecated” as too obscure a word too early in the article. I’ve also added your suggested paragraph giving early mention of the need for a new definition of the kilogram. I've left the discussion regarding the pound being also a unit of mass. While researching for this article, I ran across some Web site where NASA scientists try to help out with simple questions from ‘civilian folk.’ This scientist parroted the old saw about how the pound is a unit force but the kilogram®™© is uniquely a unit of mass. This is a damn common misconception. I've known for decades that there is a precise conversion from the kilogram to the pound but I never quite noticed the logical dissonance between that fact and the misconception that the pound is a unit of force. This is one of the few contributions of JimWae’s that I thought was truly damn good and I want to honor his contributions (now rather diluted) and leave it right where it is. I think it serves a valuable purpose and his instinct was spot-on. Greg L (my talk) 21:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• So, I went and edited the lead section. I preserved both the "pound is a unit of mass" stuff and the definition of the pound, but I put them together so they look more like they belong. I tried not to cut out any information, but I failed. I simply couldn't find a good place to put the "since the 1893 redefinition" bit, so I took it out. If anyone thinks it belongs and can find a place to put it, I will be very grateful for your edits. Also, I re-ordered the sentence about the definition of the pound. Since this is an article on the kilogram, I think it makes sense to put 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds first (thinking in terms of the kilogram on its own article) and the definition second. Greg L, I know you flipped the order on those clauses before; is there a reason you think it makes sense to have it as the definition first, or was that just an edit for flow? Enuja (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I like your new organization Enuja. Thanks. The “1893” thing was something I added after JimWae wrote “Since the redefinition of…” I thought that some would interpret the “redefinition” as some sort of recent event. Now that it no longer speaks of a redefinition, I didn’t even notice the absence of ‘1893’ until I read your above statement. It's probably better to leave ‘1893’ out since it’s just added specificity to an already tangential issue. I edited the last sentence for three reasons, none of which are matters of right or wrong: 1) Flow, so the sentences don't start with ‘kilogram’ then ‘pound’, then ‘kilogram’; 2) To put the definition first and the consequence afterwards; and 3) the ‘because’ style is frequently used by Wikipedia authors as a semi-defensive buttress to a point (“[this] is the case because of this [fact]”). In other words, the ‘because’ form has been tarnished as a weak declaration of fact on Wikipedia and seems a less-than-encyclopedic construct to me. That’s my opinion. Greg L (my talk) 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I know of at least eight other foreign-language Wikipedia sites where the authors must have visited this English-language version: here, Danish, here, Italian, Hungarian, Japanese, Russian, and Serbian. I know of no other way for them to have learned of the illustration’s existence than to have visited here. Greg L (my talk) 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing really wrong with replacing the link to a redirect (SI), but I used the redirect in hopes of keeping the page source simpler and easier to read. See WP:REDIRECT#Do_not_change_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken for future reference. Enuja (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood. What you did was no mistake. I personally hate seeing “Redirected from….” Never trusted that they would work in the future. And they seem like an abandoned orphan to me because deleted articles redirect to replacement articles (like Heat capacity, which used to be a its own article). Old links still say “heat capacity” because no one updated them. Accordingly, purposefully not aliasing a link, like you did, gets tarnished with the ‘excuse our dust, we’re still under construction’ paintbrush. I read the above link. “[M]akes the article more difficult to read in page source form”? Good heavens! My code for this number… 1.602 176 487(40) × 10^–19
…is as follows:
1.602<font size="-1">&nbsp;</font>176<font size="-1">&nbsp;</font>487(40)&nbsp;×&nbsp;10^–19

It doesn’t look all spaced-out and do end-of-line breaks, e.g. 1.602 176 487(40)
× 10^-19
Of course, I also take time to do small things that don’t make the code more cumbersome, like…
• “typographers’ quotes”, rather than "barbarian's (straight) quotes".
• Hyphens in the world’s tallest free-standing building.
• En-dashes in the range of years it was constructed (2002–2009)
• Em-dashes in semi-parenthetical clauses and asides—you know, like this—rather than endless chains of commas.

Take a look at the space between the ‘General section’ footnote and the ‘Report to the CGPM’ footnote here. The line with the superscripted “10⁸” adds as much leading to its last line as an entire note break following it. Your eye has to scan back to the num^ to see where a note ends and a new one starts. So I add more space with code between notes like these. Coding these little touches requires extra effort to lay out the page. All to make things look better. Like in high-quality printed textbooks. More work. Almost makes a simple aliased link like “[[International Committee for Weights and Measures|CIPM]]” look outright pretty. Greg L (my talk) 02:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: While corresponding with my contact at the NIST, I offered a detailed conjecture as to why the IPK might be drifting 30 µg. He thought there might be something to it and forwarded it to the BIPM. Good old-fashioned, engineering background-based guess. We’ll see. Even if they think there’s something to it, it could take a long time to find out if it’s correct. Greg L (my talk) 03:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Improper use of the word “deprecated”

• P.S.: I know you didn’t place the word (far from it; you advocated its deletion), but I deleted the second (and last) instance of deprecated from Kilogram after researching its definition. All official definitions and common usages for its meaning are entirely unlike the one implied by its use here. I think the most likely reason it was used here on Wikipedia is that a single author initially used it and others simply copied the term without looking up its true meaning. It actually means “to have been belittled or diminished” or in computer or technology fields, “To be invalidated or obsoleted by removing or flagging the item.” Greg L (my talk) 22:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Weight vs. mass

The sentence "While the weight of objects are often given in kilograms, the kilogram is, in the strict scientific sense, a unit of mass" should be changed to reflect that the intention is to determine the mass, but the only scale available measures the weight instead. In other words, if I am on the space station and I request a kilogram of flour be sent up, I certainly do not want a kilogram-force in my microgravity, which would be many tonnes. So it isn't the weight that is being given in kilograms, it is that weighing is used to measure the mass, with an appropriate conversion for gravity. I have no suggestion for a better wording. 199.125.109.105 00:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See scale (weighing) or the subsection of this article Kilogram#Types of scales and what they measure for a description of the act of massing an object. Suffice it to say that with a balance one is indeed measuring the mass of an object, not its weight. Whether the mass of a particular item was obtained with a spring scale, a balance, or whatever, the physical quantity of interest, however it was obtained, is mass.

But, looking at the language, I can see the problem you are probably having with the language. It is the mass that is given in kilograms, and it's simply incorrectly labeled "weight". I'm also not sure how to clarify the language for you. Enuja (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• And my 2¢: When the astronauts “weigh” themselves on the space stations, they get into a little sled, hold on tight, and it accelerates them back and forth to directly measure their mass in the total absence of gravity. Also, if an astronaut requests a kilogram of flour, they get a kilogram of flour; there is never any ambiguity since the meaning of a kilogram of something either has a conventional association with weight (good enough on Earth) or has a precise, scientific meaning that would ensure zero confusion with NASA. Also the U.S. Dept. of Commerce even has formal rules on the subject of “weight” being given in kilograms and pounds (see Pound (mass): Use in Commerce. Greg L (my talk) 04:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey let's not get silly. The wording is confusing. Two people have said so, neither of whom have a better suggestion. 199.125.109.35 04:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the wording is confusing. After re-reading both what you'd said and the wording a few times, I was able to figure out how one could misinterpret the sentence, and I haven't been able to think of a way to avoid that particular misinterpretation. However, I think the wording is clear and straightforward at the moment, and don't consider it confusing. This doesn't mean it can't be improved, but since no-one has a suggestion of how to improve it, the current wording does not bother me at all. Enuja (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Size

Please do not use comments to have a discussion between editors. I removed the following comments from the image on the article page. Please continue your discussion here. Enuja (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that this picture, when displayed at 359 pixels, displays satisfactorily on monitors with a screen resolution of 800 × 600 pixels. This is the screen resolution assumed for modern Web development work and, as of late 2007, over 80% of Web usage is on screens that support at least this resolution. Although the minimum screen size for Web development is increasingly transitioning to 1024 × 768 pixels, picture sizes larger than 359 pixels crowd the adjacent text too much when displayed on 800 × 600 monitors. Conversely, picture sizes smaller than 359 pixels unnecessarily reduces image quality for the vast majority of today’s users. Note too that the precise size of 359 pixels reduces aliasing artifacts (jaggies) in the translation from the native file and results in a smoother appearance. Editors are asked to be mindful of these intricacies and the needs of the greater majority of users. Comment left by User:Greg L

• However, making the image 280px provides for an exact scaling of the original image to 1/5 in the width and a close approximation in the height which would be corrected if the original image was redone at 1400x1000 allowing it to scale exactly. The needs of 640x480 and 800x600 screens can not be overcome if the image is over 300px because the TOC is covered by the image. However when using a 1280x1024 screen you can always click on the image to see it larger if you wish. Why are we using comments instead of discussing this on the talk page? Comment left by Special:Contributions/199.125.109.35

• Thanks Enuja. To “199.125.109.35”: if you are going to continue to do meaningful contributions on Wikipedia, you should register so other editors can communicate better with you. Up until this ‘picture-size issue’, I have appreciated all the edits you’ve made so far. You've caught spelling errors and made valuable additions, like to the ‘ton of lead vs. ton of feathers’ paragraph. (Sorry, I confused you with another non-registered author.) You With regard to this picture-size issue, there seem to be two issues you’ve raised: 1) covering up of the TOC, and 2) even integer divisors (“magic numbers"). Please see Experiments in picture size on my talk page. I did this some time ago for quick reference when I work with other pictures. Sometimes, pictures work best with even divisors (like you seem to intuit ought to be the case for this picture). However, that isn’t always the case. As you can see on my user page, the IPK picture is a bit unusual: it has that bright groove down the ruler and the high-contrast graduations in the ruler. All this prominent detail in the ruler gets the jaggies when one uses even divisors. I was quite surprised myself by this. I had intended to use a 4X divisor and a finish size of 350 pixels. That’s why I made the original at a native resolution of 1400 pixels (I actually did the very original, anti-aliased ray tracing at 2800 and used a 2X divisor in Photoshop to reduce the jaggies even more). I tweaked for a while once I was in Wikipedia and found that 359 pixels really smoothes the picture out. As regards “covering up the TOC,”, what I stated in the Editors Note pretty much covered it. When first aiming for 350 pixels (later 359 to avoid jaggies), I adjusted my screen resolution from its native 1440 × 900 down to 800 × 600 and used three different browsers to confirm that all is well. I've also checked its appearance on three other computers that family members own. Going to such a small size may indeed work better on your system but the 359 size displays adequately on the vast majority of screens used for Web browsing in the U.S. Finally, 359 pixels isn’t an unusually large size for a Wikipedia picture: a process that is no-doubt the product of evolution (the test of time). And still, some pictures, like the one in Sunspot, go much bigger. Greg L (my talk) 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to thank Enuja for stopping us from being silly. The sunspot has a particular issue it tries to address, how to show a tiny dot the size of the earth. In that article the image is above the text and so it does not cover up anything, other than the Wiki nav's. The kilogram "photo" is not even a photo, but a computer generated image. Reducing it does not change anything that needs to be learned from seeing it. Enlarging it does cover up the TOC, though, which to me is not necessary. It's not like there is any sort of detail in the photo that you need to make the image that big to see - the smoothness of the cylinder? As to not using 280, there could be a prime number close to that which works better for you if that helps. Have you tried 293px or 277px? Normally I find that images get rendered better if you get to use integral divisors, however, when you have uniform lines, like a photo of a house with clapboards for example, you get horrible moire patterns. 199.125.109.35 04:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Given that I do most of my browsing at 1440 x 900, I didn't even understand what you were saying about the Sunspot picture. So I adjusted my monitor and had a look. Indeed, that 575-pixel-wide picture doesn't cover any text on an 800 x 600 monitor. All the text just re-flows under it. On larger monitors, the picture is placed to the right of the page and there is a large column of text flowing down the left-hand side of the page. For instance, I usually have my browser window in about a 1070-pixel-wide window. At that width, I see the following text to the left of the Sunspot picture:

A sunspot is a region on the Sun's surface
(photosphere) that is marked by a lower
temperature than its surroundings and has
intense magnetic activity, which inhibits…

That observation hinted at a potential solution here: move the picture up. Given that the technique works for a 575-pixel picture, it sure ought to work for a 359-pixel picture. Is that indeed the case? I just checked it at 800 × 600 and even at 640 × 480; it seems to. Here’s the column of text I see at 800 × 600:

The kilogram or kilogramme
(symbol: kg) is the SI base unit of
mass. The kilogram is defined as
being equal to the mass of the
International Prototype Kilogram
(IPK), which is almost exactly equal…

I am mindful however, that I originally had the picture up high like this and Enuja later moved it down. As I recall, that was to address more subtle, aesthetic issues. Enuja: what do you think of its current placement? I suspect the reason you moved it is because of the huge white space to the right of the TOC, right? Would it be better to get used to this (or just [hide] the TOC) or would it be better to shrink the picture? When 199.125.109.35 had it set to 280 pixels, it had only 61% the area that it does now. Why not hide the TOC when the white space gets tiring.? Greg L (my talk) 05:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the attraction of such a huge image. Most images on Wikipedia are small thumb's which can be clicked on if better resolution is desired. Since I am on dialup having to wait for a 359px image to render is like forever. I would much rather have it 180px and if I wanted to see it I could click on it, although 280px is more pleasing for this image. It is interesting that you are talking about the bright groove down the ruler - I didn't even know there was a ruler in the image. Now that I see that there is one I would suggest putting it in front of the cylinder instead of at the side. Frankly I read "computer generated" and went straight to the link that shows the real photo of the IPK in the bell jars.

Oddly enough the photo at sunspot is covered up by the top section of nav's (navigation) and covers up the second section (interaction). Normally as I click through random articles if I see images larger than 250px or 300px I resize them. The web needs to work for the lowest common denominator, not the biggest population group. The other problem with large images is that you get skinny columns of text with one or two words in each line and it makes the text difficult to read. 199.125.109.35 05:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• To 199.125.109.35: Your above argument is totally rejected. The Web does work for dial-up modems on 800 × 600 monitors. Unfortunately, the world has moved on to broadband modems and the rest of the Web has changed accordingly with increased content. Surfing the Web must be a supremely frustrating experience for you. I see that you are doing your part too make the Web better suited for people with equipment like yours since you just wrote above that you re-size pictures pictures larger than 300 (or even 250 pixels) as you run across them in Wikipedia. Swell. In other words, you not only make the web work for the lowest common denominator (something it already does) you’re busy optimizing this little part of the Web to make it more suitable for equipment like yours. That's certainly not something you can do with any old Web site, is it? This particular article has one single picture on it. I’ve moved it up so it doesn’t collide with the TOC on (rather common) 800 × 600 monitors. Do you think you can live with it now, or do you feel that Wikipedia and the internet needs more optimzing for you and others with dial-up connections? As for your statement “I didn't even know there was a ruler in the image.”: uhmm… right. Greg L (my talk) 05:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To quote Rhett Butler from Gone with the Wind, I think you should make the article look any way you want it to look and should not pay attention to what I say. Isn't that what he said? There are close to a billion people in the world that have web access and a scant few of them are on broadband. I design things for the school kid in Nairobi who uses a ten year old computer and a 1200 baud modem. The sunspot article looks best when the image is resized to 200px, even with the paragraph of text for the caption, and you can still see the words, "relative size of earth", but I can only read them because I know what they are. One of the biggest problem with "web development" and software development in general is that the developers test and develop things on the latest greatest fastest computers and then the rest of us have to struggle with trying to use it on ancient hardware. The text I see to the left of the photo of the kilogram now is the sum total of the following: "“Kg” redirects here. For other uses, see Kg." And there is a huge whitespace beside the TOC, but it is much smaller than in most articles because the topics are so long.

By the way you can ditch the "to so and so" because it is better to address the issue than the author. 199.125.109.35 06:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, the issues: Wikipedia has versions in many other languages: Nairobi has theirs I'm sure. As for broadband penetration in the U.S. according to Computer World, it's 50% and growing fast, particularly “among minorities and the poor.” This is why the rest of the Web, like CNN’s new site, which has videos, has so much content on its pages now. The Kilogram article with its lousy single picture pales in comparison to the rest of the Web. Greg L (my talk) 06:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (Goodnight, I'm taking the dogs for their walk.)

• My reaction about the image placement is "Opps!" Live and learn, I guess. Sorry about that, 199.125.109.various. Personally, I don't think the images in wikipedia need to be huge, and I do think we should make sure the article is readable for people on dialup or using small monitors, so that means we really must avoid covering up the table of contents. As long as the article is still readable for essentially all readers, though, I do think it makes sense to have this particular image fairly large, as it is the only image in the article, and it does look very nice. In other words; maximize readability for lowest capability setups, maximize beauty for those with "normal" setups. Putting the large image up top seems like a good compromise to me, although if 199.125.109.various gets essentially no text beside the image, it might very well be too large. Enuja (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Enuja, the contributor at 199.125.109.35 has two issues going here. I learned something too about small monitors and the TOC. However, I've only checked the resolution down to 800 × 600. There was no crowding of the TOC unless you had a 640 × 480 monitor. And that’s been fixed now; no crowding or scroll bars will appear even with a 640 × 480 monitor. Note that virtually all Web development assumes a minimum screen nowadays of 800 × 600. Many sites—particularly those dealing with computer-related topics—assume 1024 × 768. No one is designing for 640 × 480. On “800 × 600” Web pages, the contents will re-flow and compact all the way down to a window size of 800 × 600; below that, the horizontal scroll bar appears. The Kilogram article goes one-better than other Web sites: no scroll bar appears; it’s just that no text appears to the left of the image. That’s pretty good.
  
  The second issue is bandwidth. “199.125.109.35” has a phone modem. Note that half of the U.S. has broadband. Note too that the rest of the Western World is far ahead of the U.S. in this regard. I don’t accept the “speed” argument from 199.125.109.35 one iota. The Kilogram article has only one single picture; it doesn’t take that long to load. Also, there are numerous GIF animations on Wikipedia. If we are to accept for one second the proposition that photographs should be resized down to 180 pixels to make them load faster for non-broadband visitors, then we must logically conclude that animations have no place on Wikipedia in order to accommodate the “lowest common denominator.” Either that, or there is a double-standard: 199.125.109.35 won’t allow photographs to take more than a second or two to load with a phone modem but articles with animations can’t even be visited since that would take so darn long.
  
  No, the real issue with 199.125.109.35 is the extremely small 640 × 480 monitor; that’s why he's re-sizing pictures so small: so they look better to him (or her) on that monitor. The near-universal rule of thumb for the Web that 800 × 600 is the minimum screen size before the scroll bar appears is good enough for Wikipedia. The Kilogram article currently does better than that so there is no reason for us to hang our heads on this one. The argument from 199.125.109.35 that there are people in Nairobi using poo-powered computers with 1200-baud modems just isn’t compelling to me; not for the English-language version of Wikipedia. Greg L (my talk) 17:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The manual of style says that we should avoid specifying image size (and let a user's preferences, usually 180 pixels) determine the size of the images in the article. Instead of worrying about monitor size, the manual of style mentions users that need large text size for readability. Now, the manual of style does specifically mention reasons to use larger images, including "a lead image that captures the essence of the article," but 199.125.109.various is most definitely bringing up a relevant and important format issue. We should discuss the formatting on its own merits instead of discussing the technical specifications of english language reading web user's computers. As I read this discussion, we are going to leave the image up on top of the article; the only issue left is its size. Personally, I'm happy with the image anywhere from no specification (180) to 359 pixels. Greg L, is there an intermediate size that would work with the image? When I preview it, it all looks fine to me, and I like being able to click on the image and see more, but I also like having a nice big anchor image at the top of the page. Enuja (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I see no reason to start jumping through hoops on this. We've been dragged into the issues of comptuter specs because that has been central to that user’s complaint. As a practical matter, there’s no possible way to address “formatting on its own mertis” because its intertwined with small monitors and slow modems in this particular case. That’s why he's running about changing long-standing articles on Wikipedia to suit his taste. You can't make everyone happy in life. We're dealing with someone who makes it his habit of resizing images on Wikipedia whenever he happens upon those he finds too big and that occurs a lot because he shrinks them even if they're 250 pixels. We've moved the picture up to make it stop colliding with the TOC. That's all that's warranted here. It now looks its best for the vast majority of users. The picture sizes used throughout Wikipedia have served the vast majority of its users well for years. Just because someone comes along and tries to make the world conform to his particular needs doesn't mean that you can I have to get dragged into his drama. On with life. Greg L (my talk) 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If your normal screen size is 1440x900, what is your preferred thumb size set to, still 180px? I would think that in your case you could set your preferences to 400px or so and take out the size and everyone would be happy. Note that I don't change sizes unless they are over 300px, usually only if they are over 350 or even 400px, and I don't normally reduce them to below 250px. So I don't know where you got the idea that I shrink them even if they are 250px. What I said, was that the sunspot article looks best on my monitor at 200px, not that I had changed it to that. If I would have changed it, it would have been to 300px, like I did on Thermodynamic temperature where someone who obviously doesn't want me to read the TOC, which is now obscured, put it back to the absurd size of 440px. 199.125.109.105 01:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• To anonymous user from Manchester NH: “So I don't know where you got the idea that I shrink them even if they are 250px.” Well, I quote your own writings (from above):

…if I see images larger than 250px or 300px I resize them.

and this one:

I would much rather have it 180px

If you are going to debate this issue, your position might be strengthened if you could take a consistent position. What you wrote earlier is simply not consistent with what you just wrote above. The picture, even on 640 × 480-pixel screens no longer crowds the TOC as it has been laid out differently to accommodate you. Yet you seem to be strongly advocating that pictures should still be smaller and have previously cited the lengthy download times associated with them.

Since I am on dialup having to wait for a 359px image to render is like forever.

I totally disagree with your position. If you think one, medium-size picture on Wikipedia is a problem, then you couldn’t possibly have any satisfaction with any of the multitude of Wikipedia pages featuring animations—like

• Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences
• Lorentz transformation
• Special relativity
• Time in physics
• Villarceau circles
• Pi
• Temperature
• Equipartition theorem
• Phonon

In other words, it seems to me that you protest too much about an issue of an extra second or two of download time, which is truly a trivial issue given that there are large sections of Wikipedia you can’t practically even visit unless you take a coffee break while the page loads. You’ve previously stated that Wikipedia should “work” for the lowest common denominator of computer equipment. Of course, Wikipedia already does work with pretty much anyone’s computer equipment, so it seems entirely logical that what you are really striving for is to get Wikipedia pages to work better on equipment such as yours. I personally find your position to be without foundation because it’s a double-standard: you desire pages with a single picture to load a few second faster but do nothing (at least I hope so) about those pages containing animations with dozens of times greater download requirements. I submit that Wikipedia pages should be attractive and best serve the needs of the largest possible segment of users. Have you considered the implications of your running about shrinking pictures…

Normally as I click through random articles if I see images larger than 250px or 300px I resize them.

…that have served well for years without any adjustment or user complaint during that time? Further, it is virtually impossible to debate someone whose positions and statements shift from one day to the next. Greg L (my talk) 23:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, you can obviously do whatever you want, which is why I quoted Gone with the Wind. However, it is helpful to follow guidelines and style manuals. Take a look at some of the featured articles, for example the physics ones at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Physics and astronomy. Since I am on dialup I did not check all of them but 10 of the 10 I did check did not use a lead off image greater than 300px. Hopefully I can get in to the library soon and check more of them. Earth has a great photo, with lots of detail, but even that is only at 240px. I don't think any of them actually used just a thumb, however. By the way I finally did have to reduce one image to just a thumb - it was next to a large table and even making it a thumb covered up part of the table, but not any of the data. Based on the manual of style quoted I see that I should not be afraid to make them all thumbs if they look better that way. 199.125.109.47 04:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• To anonymous user from Manchester NH: “[B]ut [all ten of the pictures] I did check did not use a lead off image greater than 300p” OK, you make a good point; given the relatively small trade-off in quality when going smaller, the size of the IPK picture should fall in the normal distrubution of sizes. I created a test page with twenty-one pictures in one-pixel increments from 290 to 310 pixels and looked for the size that did the best job with the graduations in the ruler. To my eye—at least in that range of sizes—307 pixels looked best. I checked the new layout at 640 × 480 pixels and don’t see that the new size has any advantages layout-wise since all text still goes under the picture rather than along side of it at that resolution. Still, it’s smaller (as you are advocating for download speed). Close enough? Peace? Greg L (my talk) 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've forgotten all about it. However, if you were going to make 20 images I would have preferred it if you had made them from 280 to 300 px. 21 images, I mean. I moved the image back where it was below the redirect notice where it belongs. 199.125.109.47 04:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Links: Principle of least astonishment

Vinyanov: Regarding these edits, according to the general principals outlined in WP: What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects? and WP: Principle of least astonishment, the reader should be able to best anticipate what will happen when they click on a link. Examine the below examples; the last link in both skips the page forward to the same section in the Kilogram article:

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 off the cabin floor since such objects 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 at the same rate as for a 1-kilogram object. See also Mass vs. weight below.

Note that by using the above method, the reader properly knows precisely what will happen if they click on the Mass vs. weight link; they will skip forward to a section of that same article where they can read a passage that expands on that particular subject. Contrast this with the following technique for accomplishing this simple task:

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 off the cabin floor since such objects 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 at the same rate as for a 1-kilogram object.

Note that in both examples, the reader could reasonably and correctly anticipate what will happen if they click on the “weight” and “relativistic” links: they will be taken to the relevant Wikipedia article. These two links are properly made and carry no surprises. The third link (“one hundred times”) in the latter method does not provide the reader with sufficient information in to properly anticipate what they will be taken to if they click on it. This latter style of linking has an “Easter egg hunt” quality and almost begs to be clicked on just to find out what a “one hundred times”-link could possibly take the reader to: (elsewhere in the current article(?), at article about “one hundred”(?) who knows?). Sometimes very obscurely aliased links may be suitable for special purposes, like humor. As a general rule, the Principal of Least Astonishment makes articles more enjoyable to read and encourages interaction and exploration (learning) because the reader knows they won’t be wasting their time by clicking on mysterious links of no interest to them, which is not a good way to make links.  :-)

Greg L (my talk) 21:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for a thorough answer. Still, you reverted all my edits and justified your action using just one of them, perhaps most controversial, which was made for consistency with the rest of the article.

1. Content of the links of the previous version were mainly out of context. For example: "Links to photographs". Photographs of what? Photograps in general? Would it not be easier for search engine crawlers to deduce it from the link content? Or say "Proposed future definitions". Again, it says nothing about the actual content. I hyperlinked "new definition of the kilogram" and "practical realization of the kilogram", which I believe are both more meaningful and would be nicely positioned for interested Google users.
   
   In the expression “For other kilogram-related images, see Links to photographs, below”, italicizing “Links to photographs” denotes that it is a title of something. Adding the word “below” indicates that the title refers to a section within the Kilogram article. By adding the specificity of “For other kilogram-related images…”, it communicates ‘photographs of what’. Greg L (my talk) 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Actual links are based on current article layout. Say a user downloads just one part of the article, or an editor moves one section up. The link captions no longer are correct in directing the user "below".
   
   Good point. As you can see in this example (old editing change here), I routinely advise other editors of the ramifications of renaming a section since doing so will break referring links from outside articles. It's virtually impossible that the Links to photographs section will move above the picture of the IPK. Though unlikely, the body section could be rearranged with sections moved way up (so a referred section is no longer “below”) or deleted. So I added an editors’ note to the Proposed future definitions section (new change here) to properly alert editors of the links. Thanks. Greg L (my talk) 00:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Links interjected in parentheses enlarge the article and disrupt my reading flow, but that could be just me.

So, I cannot agree, but I accept. Except for the reverted wikitable-caption markup! :) viny.tell // 07:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate your understanding. Regarding another reversion I did on your edits: your deletion of the footnote on the SI table explaining the basis for bolding certain entries (>250,000 instances of the word on a Google search), I first had it that way on another SI table a few years ago (a simple statement of “most common” in the Kelvin article, and I left it at that). Within a week or so, someone deleted the statement with the complaint that there was no substantiation or basis for making such a claim and de-bolded the entries. So I buttressed the assertion with the basis via a footnote and re-bolded the common ones. That technique has worked well for years without complaint. Yes it expands the article a bit, but at least it's in the form of a footnote, which someone may choose to read or not. You can't make everybody happy all the time. However, having extra information at least available to read if one takes issue with a statement seems to be the way to best address the issue and makes the most people happy in the long-term. Greg L (my talk) 21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Line spacing control

Ruakh: The superscripted and subscripted non-breaking spaces serve an important function. Take a look at the space between the ‘General section’ footnote and the ‘Report to the CGPM’ footnote here. The line with the superscripted “10⁸” adds as much leading to its last line as an entire note break following it. Your eye has to scan back to the num^ to see where a note ends and a new one starts. So I add more space with code between notes like these. Anywhere where footnotes or superscripted exponents give the first or last lines in paragraphs extra leading, I separate that paragraph to the next one with a bit more leading with this technique. It makes it much more readable. That way. Greg L (my talk) 04:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)