Benutzer Diskussion:Bobblewik~dewiki

ha -> km²

Hello, hectare is an acceptable unit of area in Germany and other countries and is used quite frequently. Please do not change it to square km indiscriminately. Thanks. --213.54.217.27 16:28, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

Hello,

Thanks for writing in English to me. My German is not so good. The hektar and the square kilometer are both used in Germany. If the square kilometer is unacceptable, perhaps this should be discussed and mentioned somewhere. I would be interested in such a discussion. Have you got a suggestion for where it should be?

Incidentally, your 'Benutzer' 213.54.217.27 is anonymous. Have you got an account?

Thanks for your feedback. Danke sehr. Bobblewik 16:37, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

Incidentally, if you could translate my summary for me I would be grateful:

• units, possibly using Google converter

Google translates it into:

• Maßeinheiten, Konverter Google vielleicht verwendend

Can you correct or confirm that for me please? Bobblewik 16:39, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

• Einheiten-Konvertierung mittels Google? --Qualle 16:50, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

Perhaps a look at Hektar will shed some light on its usage - it is mainly used in farming and forrests, but also in other contexts if the value in km² would be very small. As it is perfectly compatible with SI units (1 km² = 100 ha) there is no reason to change it.--Qualle 16:47, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

(parallel edit) Hectare is often used for giving the sizes of agricultural areas, also in forestry and similar. I suggest keeping "Hektar" for areas smaller than hundreds of thousands or millions of hectares as a rule of thumb. If you are planning to convert more units (by bot?), discussion should be started at Diskussion:Internationales Einheitensystem. If you use a script for conversion, you should create a bot account for this purpose and enter it at Wikipedia:Bots. (I have no account, sorry.) --213.54.217.27 17:00, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

I note all your points. The official SI website says the hectare is currently accepted and adds the caveat use is not encouraged. It also says These units should be defined in relation to the SI in every document in which they are used.

I do not use a bot or script. I do not know how. All my edits are manual.

I do see advantages in using the quadratkilometer. For example numbers are smaller so 500 ha is simply 5 km². So I decided to be bold (Sei mutig beim Ändern der Seiten?). I understand that you see no reason to change it. But even if you see 'no reason to change' it is not the same as saying 'the quadratkilometer is forbidden'.

That depends entirely on the context the unit is used in. The sizes of a forrest or a farmer's fields or a national park are officially give in ha, so the use of km² would be strange at best. The size of administrative units like a city or Landkreis as well as waterbodies are given in km². This is one of the cases where "currently accepted for use with the SI to satisfy the needs of [...] legal [...] interests" applies.--Qualle 18:29, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

The suggestion of a compromise using a numerical guideline is interesting. But I see that our starting positions are far apart. My starting position would be 1 or 10 km² (100 or 1 000 ha). The suggestion of 1 000 or 10 000 km² (100 000 or 1 000 000 ha) is so large that it means effectively no limit. Bobblewik 17:38, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

There isn't. For the German-speaking people think of ha as a SI unit in much the same way Liter is. While not officially SI, it is perfectly compatible with the system and is considered standard in some cases. You wouldn't want to buy a 0.0005 m³ bottle, would you? The only reason to use km² in context where historically ha would be used, are cases where the figures become quite large, so 1000 km²/100,000 ha would be a reasonable limit.--Qualle 18:29, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

It says "not encouraged" as opposed to "discouraged". This means we can per default entrust it to editors to use the appropriate word in the specific context. --213.54.205.21 18:35, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

Another advantage of the use of ha is the easy conversion to the inofficial unit "football fields". (2 ha = 3 football fields) While "0.5 km²" is an abstract number, "50 ha, or 33 football fields" is much easier to imagine. --Qualle 18:40, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

Responding in turn:

• You wouldn't want to buy a 0.0005 m³ bottle
  • Quite. Small units for small amounts. Large units for large amounts. I agree with you.

• where historically ha would be used ... 1000 km² would be a reasonable limit.
  • Have you created this figure out of nothing or do you think that it is in line with what Wikipedia editors do? From what I have seen, I don't believe that Wikipedia editors are rational in this respect. The split between ha and km² is not clear at all. It all seems fairly random. Are you suggesting that km² is forbidden below 1000 km² (even in certain contexts) and any current examples are required to be converted to ha?

• It says "not encouraged" as opposed to "discouraged".
  • Indeed. If you look further up that web page, it explains that it used to say to be avoided. Perhaps it shows that the SI authorities have internal debates just like this one.

• "50 ha, or 33 football fields" is much easier to imagine
  • I actually find it easier to imagine 0.5 km² than 33 football fields. I have a good idea of how long 500 m and 1 km are.
  • Here are two thought experiments:
    • 1. Go up a hill with an ordinary person. Point down at an area of land. Ask how large it is. I think their estimate would be better in m or km rather than ha.
    • 2. Go up a hill with an ordinary person. Give them a piece of paper with an area written on it. Tell them to point out an area of land of that size. I think that the choice they make would be more accurate if the paper has m or km on it rather than ha.
  • In any case, I have already suggested that I am willing to compromise for areas less than 1 km².

Thank you for discussing this with me in English. I appreciate that. Bobblewik 23:22, 20. Aug 2005 (CEST)

Dein Konto wird umbenannt

Hallo!

Das Entwicklungsteam der Wikimedia Foundation führt einige Änderungen durch, die die Funktionsweise von Benutzerkonten betreffen. Dies geschieht als Teil unserer kontinuierlichen Bemühungen, neue und bessere Werkzeuge (wie Wiki-übergreifende Benachrichtigungen) für unsere Benutzer anbieten zu können. Diese Änderungen bedingen, dass du überall denselben Benutzernamen hast. Dadurch können wir dir neue Funktionen zur Verfügung stellen, die das Bearbeiten und Diskutieren erleichtern und flexiblere Benutzerrechte für Tools ermöglichen. Eine Bedingung dafür ist, dass Benutzerkonten nun über alle 900 Wikimedia-Wikis hinweg eindeutig sein müssen. Weitere Informationen findest du in dieser Ankündigung.

Leider benutzt auch eine andere Person denselben Benutzernamen Bobblewik wie du. Um sicherzustellen, dass ihr beide weiterhin auf allen Wikimedia-Projekten arbeiten könnt, haben wir für dich das global eindeutige Benutzerkonto Bobblewik~dewiki reserviert, das nur dir gehört. Sollte dir dieser Name gefallen, musst du keine weitere Änderung durchführen. Wenn du jedoch einen anderen Benutzernamen wünschst, kannst du auf dieser Seite einen neuen Namen wählen.

Dein Konto wird weiterhin wie gewohnt funktionieren und du wirst als Urheber all deiner bisherigen Bearbeitungen genannt werden, jedoch wirst du beim Login den neuen Benutzernamen verwenden müssen.

Bitte entschuldige die Unannehmlichkeiten. Bei Fragen oder Problemen kannst du dich gern auch an die beiden Stewards DerHexer und Hoo man wenden.

Viele Grüße,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

21:19, 19. Mär. 2015 (CET)

Umbenannt

w

Dieses Benutzerkonto wurde im Rahmen der Single-User Login Finalisation umbenannt. Wenn du im Besitz dieses Kontos bist, kannst du dich mit deinem alten Benutzernamen und Passwort anmelden, um mehr Informationen zu erhalten. Solltest du mit deinem neuen Benutzernamen nicht einverstanden sein, kannst du dir nach dem Anmelden einen neuen aussuchen, hier: Spezial:Globale Umbenennungsanfrage. -- Keegan (WMF) (Diskussion)

09:43, 22. Apr. 2015 (CEST)