|Length has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Mathematics. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team|
Old comments about deleting/transwiki as dictionary definition
no LirQ —The preceding comment was added on 22:06, 27 September 2003.
- Delete Length - Dictionary entry. WINAD. User:188.8.131.52
- Keep. wshun 04:13, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep, article convinced me even though at first I thought it an obvious delete. Fuzheado 07:28, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep, it has more info than a dictionary entry. Evil saltine 08:07, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. - Patrick 16:18, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep - interesting article. Tiles 00:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Del - I like the article but it is nothing but usage. Move it to wiktionary obviously. -- Taku
- Keep. It's somewhat interesting as it is and could esily grow a bit. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. Hard to see exactly how it would get linked to, but it is an interesting article - Marshman 19:01, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Jake 08:53, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Keep ~~
- Del - It's a terrible article, which only serves to confuse the term length. It contains no information that isn't in the term curve. Cederal. —The preceding comment was added on 15:06, 5 May 2004.
- Keep. It definitely needs work, but Cederal is horribly wrong. Cederal seems ignorant of physics. In that field, length is one of the fundamental "dimensions" (that term being understood as in dimensional analysis). Michael Hardy 16:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Meaning of length in physics
I consider myself a physicist, and as such, I must claim that the term length in physics is the same as in mathematics. If you want to discuss use of language, physicists do use the term length in dimensional analysis, but this isololit's obviously an intrinsic property of curves in metric spaces. Just because relativity says our world is not metric (and has only a pseudo-metrics) doesn't mean anything... -User:Cederal 18:24, 5 May 2004 (GMT) (sorry, I don't know the transformation to UTC)
The article states "an object's width is less than its length". Is this considered to be correct? —The lol• [[Special::15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)ang ganda ko.;)
Length / Lenght
I'm a little confused about the spelling of this word, Length is probably correct, but I have also seen Lenght out there on lollanguage" version or is it just a lot 28 January 2007 (UTC) lolof the discussion pages D.S.
- Yes, those are typos/:Centrx|Centrx]]→talk • 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Wikipedia, and are even regarded as Vital articles. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Measurement to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The article defines length like this: "Length is the long dimension of any object." This is not clear, infact:
- if by "long dimension of an object" it is meant "the longest dimension of an object", the definition is not true, as there are objects whose width is longer than their length (for example the prism in the picture of the article)
- otherwise, what is meant by "long dimension of an object"? If it is defined as "length's dimension" then we have a circular definition, which is no good
I propose: "Length is the measure of the sideways dimension of an object". Now clearly "sideways" is still ambigous, but nonetheless I find it a better (more intuitive) definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
What about the direction of travel? In cases where an object is simply much larger in one dimension than it is in the other two we tend to call this dimension length. But we also tend to use 'length' as the measure of the dimension of travel - wire, road, channel etc. We travel along the path.
Also, the first diagram demonstrates why the definition given is wrong - one wouldn't refer to the prisms depth as its width - in this case length is interchangeable with height, but not width (or breadth, as one may say) as it is in the diagram. And in the diagram depth is given as width, which is just wrong. Width is on the x-axis - from side to side. Depth is the z-axis. Height is the y-axis. If a prism is nearly a cube and someone asked you 'how long is it?' you might think them a little strange. One might ask the length of a side - as if you were travelling in one dimension from one point to another. It really is to do with direction of travel.
I just deleted two sentences.
As early as the middle of the tenth century it is believed that the Saxon king Edgar kept a "yardstick" at Winchester as the official standard of measurement. A traditional tale tells the story of Henry I (1100–1135) who decreed that the yard should be "the distance from the tip of the King's nose to the end of his outstretched thumb".
Searching on Google while working on the yard article, I kept running into these sentences, which means many other people are seeing them too. One's person's "traditional tale" is another person's misinformation. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)