text:
Talk:International System of Units/Archive 1

=Besides USA who doesn't use SI=

Which countries besides US do not use SI units in everyday life? AxelBoldt
 * That depends in part on definitions. Britain has finally gone metric for most purposes, but have an indefinite exemption for a few things, such as selling beer by the pint, not the liter or half-liter. Hong Kong is SI, except when they're selling fruit by the catty at outdoor markets. I suspect there are other such. Vicki Rosenzweig

 * Ok, then: are there other countries where non-metric units are used as extensively as in the US? AxelBoldt

 * I'm pretty sure that no other coutry in the world uses non-metric units as extensively as in the US. However, in some english speaking countries, the size is measured in foot-inches (at least in Canada, and partially in the UK).

 * Interestingly enough, in some specific area, the measurements are non metric in metric countries. For instance screen diagonals (for TVs and computer screens) and floppy disks sizes are measured in inches, heights when flying in a plane are measured in feet, height of bicycles are in inches in Europe. The speed limits are in mph in Ireland.

 * Another interesting phenomenon is the adjustment of ancient measurement units to the metric system. For instance, the french pound ("livre") has been adjusted to 0.5 kg and the swedish mile ("mil") has been adjusted to 10 km. Chtito 09:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Additionally in Britain, miles are still used for distance and miles per hour for speed on roads. The height and weight of a person is still de facto a imperial measurment, depsite official attempt to mchange to metric.  All medical forms will give the option of imperial or metric as most Britons do not use metric in this specific area.  Addtionally the height and weight of boxers is still expressed in imperial terms.  The major difference to the US system is the use of Stones (units of 14 pounds) in personal weight.  For Example, a 175 pound person would say they are "12 stones, 7 pounds" or more likely in speach "twelve and a half stone" (using the singular noun).
 * Dainamo March 14,2004

 * To add to that, horse heights in the UK are officially given in "hands", which are units of 4 inches. --Delirium 06:33, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * And just to make things exciting, the company I worked for once had some Japanese engineers ask for test results in pounds per square millimeter. --Carnildo 19:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * That actually isn't so spectacular, for many scientific and technical applications, older units are still commonly in use. For example, in the vacuum industry, the use of Torr is as common if not more common than the use of bar, whilst some tubes are still commonly measured in terms of inches. And this happens all over the world, so I don't find it surprising it happening in Japan also. As far as I know, the USA still is pretty much the last country with widespread use of the non-metric system (and dosen't seem to want to change either...).--Vertigo200 06:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have a friend who was raised in France, speaks French and is a college-educated automobile mechanic who in 25 years went through the transition from Imperial to metric system with several lines of cars, including teaching it to other mechanics, and he has never heard the expression SI. Hence, I added the word "metric" to this article. Ortolan88

Wait a minute here. I thought that the cgs system is what is commonly called the metric system and SI is simply the International Standard used by scientists (based on m, kg, s)? I also thought that most nations use a hybrid system made up of SI and cgs units. If the opening paragraph is correct then temperatures in Europe are measured and displayed in Kelvin and not degrees Celsius. --mav

I was going by the metric article and the metric-fan additions to Manual of Style. It seems both these articles are wrong, from what you say. Every time I try to speak up for the 260 million non-metric Americans, I am treated to a condescending lecture on how superior the metric system is. I have never said it isn't superior (except for temperature), but that isn't the issue. The issue is ease of use of the wikipedia by the world's largest internet nation. It is too damn bad the US has been so slow and reluctant and whatever to adopt the metric system, and it is slowly coming in now, but we still don't use it in everyday life, so if we want to know how tall a hippopotamus is, someone is going to have to help us out. It is with some schadenfreude (delight at the discomfort of those you disagree with) at this indication that even metric enthusiasts are not sure what the difference between metric and SI is. Ortolan88

 * The SI system is a metric system. So are cgs and MKS (referenced in the article International System of Units). (I wouldn't call any temperature scale "metric", though.) See the Origin of the metric system section of the History_of_Weights_and_Measures page. --Zundark 08:31 Sep 16, 2002 (UTC)

 * indeed. SI is a choice of base units from the overall system. It also determines the sizes of all the derived units, such as Newton, Joule etc (instead of Dyne, etc), so it's fair to say that the SI system is what we use nowadays. In everyday use, whether one choose cm, mm or m to express a measurement doesn't really matter. -- Tarquin

Ortolan88, your point is taken, but I consider basic comprehension of metric units to be a matter of literacy. Any article must make some assumptions about what the reader already knows, and I personally hope that the articles in wikipedia will be written with somewhat more sophistication than newspaper articles (which I've heard are at a 9th grade level). If a person has no idea what it means that cheetahs weigh 150 to 300 g at birth, I think they should figure it out. -- Cos111 01:13 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ortolan88, also students in America are taught SI units in middle school and high school according to the National Science Education Standards. Unfortunately, since it is not reinforced in the greater society, most of us remember it just long enough to pass our standardized tests, then wipe it from our minds forever. Research scientists in the US typically use SI units, but engineers don't. --zandperl 17:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * All the engineers I know (here in the US) would be brutally executed for failing to use SI units. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:18, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Electrical engineers in the US use SI. But in studying rocketry about 15 years ago, I was shocked to find that rocketeers use English units. --cameronc 19:08, 15 July 2004 (UTC)

 * That's because the units are so much simpler to work with -- one pound of thrust applied to one pound of mass provides one gravity of acceleration. --Carnildo 07:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Let's not forget the US space craft (I forget the name) that was lost because one contractor used metric, the other English. As you can believe from the above comments. 64.168.30.87 06:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The question is more complicated than this. As mentioned above, in many countries people use here or there an imperial unit generally without knowing what it means. Best examples are pipe sizes and computer screen sizes. The true question is which governments have not yet adopted SI as their national system of units. To my knowledge there are only two: Liberia and Myanmar. More info here. Also, one may be surprised to find out that the US has adopted the SI since 1867 and is a full member of the Metre Convention. The reason SI is still not widely used has to do more with poor implementation. Sadly enough many Americans also relate their system of units to their patriotic duties. More detailed info on the history of US metrication may be found on the US Metric Association's website. Metricus 2005-06-01

=Metric Units are not SI Units=

Although SI units are (largely) based on the Metric system they should be considered distinct as there are notable differences: Temperature: SI= Kelvin; Metric =Celsius Volume: SI = dm3; Metric = liter/litre (these are not the same as would first appear as a liter of distilled water and kg of distilled water are the same thing and the volume in SI units will vary with temperature). Distance: SI = metres only, Metric versions such as Km, cm etc. are not permitted. similar to weight in SI where it is always measured in Kg. grams, Tonne atc. not used. Energy is always in Joules in SI units -never Kcal. Additionally some non-metric units are SI units such as s (seconds). Attempts for a metric time measurment were, for obvious reasons, abandoned shortly after the French first considered it. Dainamo March 14,2004

 * The SI most certainly does permit km, cm, etc. They are SI derived units, a standard part of the system and notated with SI prefixes.  They are not SI base units, but they are part of the system.  For the purpose of allowed units, SI is the same as all other metric systems; the only thing that differs is which are considered the base units and which are considered the derived units, which is unimportant in practice (it's only important for the definition and maintenance of reference values). --Delirium 02:13, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * You are indeed correct in the above observation, however that does not deflect from the fact that, although based largely on the metric system, SI units should not be considered as the same thing.  Liters/Litres, Celcius are two measures not permitted as SI units and the SI units of seconds is never metric.  Furthermore there are other fundemental differences such as Kg being a metric measure of weight but of mass in SI units.  The concept of weight relies both on mass and gravatational force which are different.  Hence a 60kg man may say he remains 60kg on the moon in SI units but he would not be incorrect to say he "weighs" appropriately less in Kg in using metric due to the reduced gravatational force.  I am not being pedantic but a distinction between the systems is needed to avoid potetnial inaccuracy

 * By the way, the litre and the dm3 are exactly the same, and have been since 1964. --Jeepien 17:22:20, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

I think "SI" is a better page name that "International_System_of_Units" -- a huge number of articles here refer to it as SI. Principle of least astonishment etc -- Tarquin 21:57 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

Just a little something about the transition from imperial to metric: I have on several locations/occations in Australia seen various 'metric' notations... Example: "75 sqklms land for sale!" Instead of much simpler 75 km2 -- Gorm
 * I think this is due to people not being able to type km2 (This is common in cases where the ad is produced from information stored in a database). - 211.28.160.221

 * That still is a rather redarded way to abbreviate km²; km*km would be much preferable. Of course, if one wanted to be funny, one could always write km² as GL/m. Mkweise 01:27, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

=Base units= I see that the SI base units have a separate page, however I'd also like to see them listed briefly here, perhaps in table form. Is there a reason I shouldn't do so? --zandperl 17:30, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[Comment deleted by its original poster, who evidently cannot read. Never mind.] --Suitov 15:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

=Disagreement over the way to write numbers=

The latest change suggests this usage:

 * The symbol (or prefix) can be used in place of the decimal seperator. 2.3k would be 2k3, 4.7A (Amps) would be 4A7, and 0.0047F would be 4m7F.

I cannot find any justification for this statement in the BIPM brochure "The International System of Units (SI)" at URL http://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/si-brochure.pdf nor in the NIST document http://physics.nist.gov/Document/checklist.pdf. Absent any justification, I think this statement should be deleted. Comments?

The word seperator has been spelled incorrectly, in any event. It should be separator.

cbc 09:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The xky convention is widely used in the electronic/electric area, so a 4k7 resistor is a 4,700 Ohm resistor, but have neve seen any reference to this being ruled by the SI. -- Poli 18:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Any use of the SI units is governed by the rules for use of the SI units. The fact that "ohm" should be lowercase in your example is governed by the rules of the English language. Gene Nygaard 21:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * All of the metric units are rendered uncapitalized when spelled out as the name of the unit, even the dead-white-guy names. The single exception to this is the "degree Celsius".   I agree the oddball infix use of prefixes should nipped in the bud.

=Radian / steradian as derived unit=

Radian and steradia are listed under "Dimensionless derived units": "The following SI units are derived from the base units and are dimensionless."

How can they be considered "derived from the base units" since those unit don't appear in their definition?

 * The radian is condsidered to be derived from m/m and the steradian from m²/m². The text says they "do not require the definition of a base unit".  But the [| Brochure] says, "The unit of such quantities is necessarily a derived unit coherent with the other units of the SI and, since it is formed as the ratio of two identical SI units, the unit also may be expressed by the number one."  It is not strictly necessary that the "base" units for a radian even be metric at all.  It could just as well be measured in feet.  But without any unit, you will have nothing to divide in order to calculate your ratio.  Any SI definition naturally would require that SI units be used in caclulating the "lengths" and "areas" needed to determine the angles.  But by nature of the definition, the result in radians then becomes independent of the system originally used to calculate it. --Jeepien

=Prefixes= How is it that there is no table or elaboration on the different standard prefixes deca, hecto, kilo, etc...??

=Derived units table=

The table of derived units is inconsistent about whether to use the solidus ("/") or negative indices, but I'm too lazy to fix it myself. Anyone? ,,, Trainspotter ,,, 22:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

=Invention of the SI / Metric System= Did Simon Stevin invent the idea of Metric systems in 1585 in his book 'De Theinde' - predating the current article's promotion of the French invention in 1640? Should the article be amended to reflect this historical point? Ian Cairns 22:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Simon Stevin advocated the idea of using decimals for monetary and measurement purposes, but he didn't invent the idea of Metric systems. --PieIsIrrational 07:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should the claim for 1640 be the idea of a decimal system of measurement, not the metric system? After all, Thomas Jefferson's decimal system isn't metric either? Septentrionalis 14:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

=Recent changes by Dainamo and JimWae=

Changes by Dainamo:

Dainamo's claims above that "grams" and "kilometres" are not SI are nonsense. Apparently he or she has seen the light now (see the dm³ comment below), but I'm just making that point here rather than addressing it again in the comment above

Changes by Danaimo on 16:04, 6 Jan 2005

replaced

Metric system is a broader term which includes SI; however, not all metric units of measurement are accepted as SI units.

with

Strictly speaking the International System of Units refers to a specific canon of measurements derived and extended from the Metric System. For example the SI unit of time, and all other units based on it is the second, which is not a metric unit. Additionally some metric measurements such as the liter or degrees Celsius are not SI units (dm3< and  degrees Kelvin would be used in place of each of these).

then on 16:26, 6 Jan 2005

replaced same part with

Strictly speaking the International System of Units refers to a specific canon of measurements derived and extended from the Metric System. For example the SI unit of time, and all other units based on it is the second, which is not a metric unit. Additionally some metric measurements such as the litre for volume or Celsius for temperature, while specified now as acceptable (see below) are not SI units (dm3 and Kelvin are the proper SI units for each of these respectively)

My comments, not terribly well organized, and with intentional overlap:

 * 1) The degree Celsius is SI. It is listed in the BIPM's SI brochure in Table 3:  SI derived units with special names and symbols.  The litre is in a different table of units acceptable for use with SI.
 * 2) That the SI extended previous versions of the metric system does not mean that those extensions are not part of the "metric system."
 * 3) SI is a subset of the "metric system", and the associated collection of rules for its use—nothing more and nothing less. Everything in SI, and every change to SI, supplements and changes the broader, inclusive term "metric system."
 * 4) "Metric system" and "SI" are by no means mutually exclusive terms.
 * 5) Even after the SI was introduced, the CGPM redefined the liter, a non-SI unit.
 * 6) When the CGPM told us to stop using the "micron" and the "degree Kelvin" that applies just as much to those dinosaurs in certain branches of physics and astronomy who cling to the cgs systems as dearly as Americans cling to their inches and pounds.
 * 7) Similarly, I have seen people claim that "gm" remains an acceptable symbol for grams when the cgs systems are used today; I don't buy that.
 * 8) The SI prefixes are very much a part of the SI (see Danaimo's months old and probably no-longer-maintained claims above that "grams" and "kilometres" are not SI).
 * 9) The other SI unit of temperature, the base unit, is the kelvin (plural kelvins), not "degrees Kelvin" and not just "Kelvin" with a capital K in English (however, these are rules of the English language, not rules of the SI; it, like the other units, is capitalized in German, for example).
 * 10) Seconds are a non-SI unit borrowed into SI. An ancient Babylonian unit, to be precise.  That borrowing by SI does not remove them from any other subset of the "metric system" nor from the "metric system" in its general, broad sense.  Nor does that borrowing for use with SI eliminate them from any "English system."  Furthermore, it does not mean that everybody using any of those other systems of units needs to maintain their own standards for the second.  It is quite proper and legitimate for them to borrow the SI standard.

Changes by JimWae:

Virtually all non-SI units have been redefined in terms of SI units. That isn't true. I'll buy "most."
 * 1) When my doctor measures my lung pressure in cmH2O, those units are not defined in terms of SI units.
 * 2) Some flavors of calories, and some flavors of British thermal units, are defined in terms of SI units, or at least in a way that can be expressed exactly in SI units. Others are not.
 * 3) Some of the various "tons of coal equivalent" and the like are defined in terms of SI units, others are defined in terms of those Btu or calories, just as "therms" (with various legal definitions for different applications and jurisdictions) and "quads" are.
 * 4) Solar masses are not defined in terms of SI units.
 * 5) Parsecs and astronomical units are not defined in terms of SI units; though there may be conventional values used which change over time, the astronomical unit is still essentially considered to be a measured quantity with error bars in the accuracy of its measurement.
 * 6) Pounds force are not officially defined in terms of SI units. Each of the various definitions in actual use can probably be converted exactly to SI units, but there is no general, official designation of one of those units, as there is with pounds as units of mass.  See, e.g., the conditional definition with a great big "if" in the appendix of conversion factors in NIST Special Publication 811, footnote 24 which links to separate page in html version,
 * 7) The day, week, month, etc., retains several definitions. However, JimWae himself took out a reference to a redefinition of the day in terms of SI units, viz.—

JimWae 14:05, 6 Jan 2005 from The metric unit of time remained the second. One definition of day is 86,400 seconds.

to

The metric unit of time became the second, originally defined as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day.

Different meaning entirely. The problem here is that this changes the the whole orientation of the original, removing any reference to any current definition of a day. The solar day fluctuates quite a bit. Using a day of 86,400 seconds has replaced older attempts to try to define a day by measuring a "mean solar day" over some specified period of time.

JimWae changes 14:05, 6 Jan 2005

From

The unit of mass is the kilogram, which was defined by a cube filled with distilled pure water at its densest (+4° Celsius) and having sides equal to 1/10th of a metre. This volume contains one kilogram of water. One kilogram is about 2.2 pounds. This cubic space was also known as one litre (since slightly revised) so volumes of different liquids could be compared. Later on, a platinum-iridium metal cylinder was manufactured to serve as the one kilogram weight standard and remained so ever since.

to

The original base unit of mass in the metric system was the gram, but was quickly changed to the kilogram, which was defined as the mass of distilled pure water at its densest (+4° Celsius) contained inside a cube having sides equal to 1/10th of a metre. One kilogram is about 2.2 pounds. This cubic space was also called one litre so volumes of different liquids could easily be compared. Later on, a platinum-iridium metal cylinder was manufactured to serve as the one kilogram weight standard and remained so ever since, replacing the water-based definition of the kilogram (which had some slight inaccuracies).

 * 1) That platinum-iridium cylinder was put into use way back in 1890, after the new international organizations (CGPM, CIPM, BIPM) were created by the Metre Convention of 1875.
 * 2) However, this particular Pt-Ir cylinder was not the replacement for the "water-based" definitions. That replacement had already taken place nearly a century earlier, when
 * 3) In 1799, a platinum cylinder known as the Kilogramme of the Archives, maintained by the French government, became the official standard defining the kilogram.
 * 4) When the CGPM had the new standards constructed, their target had nothing to do with water. The new kilograms (40-odd in all, with one picked at random for the International Prototype and most of the others becoming national standards) were constructed with the Kilogramme of the Archives as the target standard.
 * 5) In other words, no "water-based" standard ever held sway for purposes of defining the kilogram, except for maybe a couple of years when the metric system was being developed back in the 1790s.
 * 6) However, for the period from 1901-1964, the flip-flop of this idea did apply. Instead of defining the unit of mass based on the mass of a certain volume of water under certain conditions, we had a unit of volume defined as the volume occupied by a certain mass of water under certain conditions:  the litre.  Consequently, when the SI was first introduced in 1960, the litre was not only not a part of SI, but it was also not acceptable for use with SI.  That change only happened after the definition of the litre was restored to 1 dm³ exactly in 1964.

Gene Nygaard 00:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) I think the Origins section goes beyond origins quite a bit & so it becomes harder to be definitive in what is said there.
 * 2) Perhaps (or perhaps not) the second was part of the original metric system, but was it truly a base unit (defined independently of other time units)?
 * 3) The original scientific system to develop from the metric system was MKS, but the original metric system seems to have been MGS. CGS was a 2nd scientific system.
 * 4) SI is not a subset of original metric system -- many units have been added since (at least) the original. No body defines the metric system anymore, afaik. SI started development as a subset of the MKS system, extending it beyond its origins.--JimWae 17:56, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

 * No. SI is the modern version of the metric system.  Good grief!  Enter "Metric system" into the search box and hit "Go", Jim.

 * SI is a subset of the "metric system." Period.  End of story.  All the changes since SI was introduced have been changes in the metric system.

 * The second was a base unit of the cgs systems introduced back in the 1870s.

 * Nobody used mks systems until the 20th century.

 * The bodies which define the metric system are the ones set up under the "Metre Convention" or "Treaty of the Meter."

 * SI remains a mks system as well. It is a subsystem of mks, just as the electrostatic cgs systems and the Gaussian cgs system are subsystems of the broader category cgs.  We have several different levels of "systems" involved here.  System is like "set" in mathematics; subsets are sets, and subsystems are systems.  Gene Nygaard 19:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NIST Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), (1995), &section;1.1: (emphasis added)

 * Universally abbreviated SI ..., it is the modern metric system of measurement used throughout the world.

BIPM, 7th edition of the SI brochure, (PDF version, p. 3 pdf file and p. 83 on page numbers printed on page)

 * Delegates from all Member States of the Convention du Mètre attend the Conférence Générale which, at present, meets every four years. The function of these meetings is to :
 * · discuss and initiate the arrangements required to ensure the propagation and improvement of the International System of Units (SI), which is the modern form of the metric system;

Gene Nygaard 19:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * for X to be a subset of Y, X cannot contain any elements that are not also elements of Y. Metric System is vague & you are stipulating a definition that is not obvious to all -- particularly when the ORIGINS section wanders.

 * Yes, metric system is vague and inclusive--and it includes EVERYTHING that is included in the SI. SI is a subset of the metric system; the "modern form of the metric system" as the BIPM calls it, and the "modern metric system" as NIST calls it. It really is that simple. Gene Nygaard 20:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * You are arguing for a specific wording that might be clear to you, but could be misleading to many.
 * There is no need to use the word subset, there are reasons not to.
 * Good grief yourself -- I do not take search engine results as definitive. Do you? --JimWae 20:04, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

--JimWae 20:58, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC) --JimWae 20:58, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
 * 1) Look here { http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561345/Metric_System.html } and tell me how calling SI a subset of metric system will not be counter-productive. "Developed from" & "extended from" gets across the idea without the risk of over-identification of the two.
 * 2) Look at Half-life and tell me who would find such a technically correct article or any like it of any use to anyone.
 * 3) You obviously are very learned in this field, but this has become a pissing contest, and neither of us is perfect. You seem to feel you own this article & anyone who edits must justify to you every single change, while you have ultimate authority. I do not have time for that.

=Is the candela really a base unit?=

I think it is not, and that it is a derived unit, based on the Watt. -- Egil 12:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)¨
 * Yes, it is as defined by SI (and common sense). Yes, technically, at some metaphysical level, there is probably only one base fundamental unit, a single space-time constant; but, at a certain level, we do not know or cannot easily practically measure the relationships between the units, so we stop deriving them from each other and call them base units.
 * You don't have to believe me. Read the canonical resolution 6 of the SI-defining 10th CGPM on the BIPM's WWW site (or their official translation into English of that resolution).
 * --Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 13:07, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
 * At a philosophical level, you need seven base units for a complete measurement system, but nothing specifies what those units have to be. You could use the Newton, the meter per second, and the Joule as base units just as easily as you could use the kilogram, the meter, and the second. --Carnildo 18:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why 7? Do you have a reference for that?
 * --Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 17:00, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * That's what I came up with in high school when I was putting together a particularly crazy system of measurement (base units included speed, power, and magnetic flux, and the derived unit for length included a fifth root). --Carnildo 02:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It depends entirely on how you define 'base unit'. We can go by what is 'most natural', which is essentially making constants 1. If you use E = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m d^2/t^2, and 'imperial' units (for some value of imperial) you get foot*poundforce = poundmass foot^2/timeunit^2, or timeunit^2 = foot poundmass/poundforce, and trivially poundforce/poundmass is just g. Then you get the derived time unit of around 0.176 seconds (or, from rest, an acceleration due to gravity causes velocity to be one foot per timeunit after a timeunit). Obviously, we're setting g=1. If we set enough constants to 1, we get Natural units. I'm not sure if there's another way to set universal constants to 1 (e is pretty important), but the only thing really stopping us is that we don't know G very accurately. --Elektron 00:47, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

 * You simply misunderstand what "base unit" means in the jargon of metrology. It doesn't, for example, imply any fundamental, independent standard exists for that unit.  After all, the definition of the meter depends on the definition of the second.  The definition of the ampere depends on the definition of the newton, a derived unit which depends on the meter, the second, and the kilogram.  Note that unlke contrary to Carnildo's explanation, we don't "need" seven base units, either.  There is redundancy in the current definitions; we don't really need a mole at all, for example.  People have actually used three-base unit cgs systems with the units of charge equal to erg0.5 cm0.5, for another example.  Gene Nygaard 19:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * which raises what I think is an interesting question: What is the least number of base units we presently need to do all the measuring we can now do?--JimWae 17:32, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

 * So my question should really have been Is the candela really a fundamental unit?. -- Egil 19:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * And the answer is: It doesn't matter in the least.  The whole notion of a "fundamental unit" is vague in the first place, and dependent upon the choice of "dimensions", for which there is no unique choice.  You couldn't distinguish an MKSC (meter-kilogram-second-coulomb) system from an MKSA system such as SI.  Gene Nygaard 00:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The cd must be defined as a base unit, rather than as a derived unit, because in order to satisfy the definition of "coherent", none of the derived units may use any numerical coefficient other than 1. Since the candela has coefficients in its definition that are other than 1, it has to be defined as a base unit.  Not sure what you mean by "fundamental". --Jeepien 03:29:36, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

According to NIST special publication 330, the choice, "to a certain extent arbitrary, because it is not essential to the physics of the subject." and,"by convention are regarded as dimensionally independent." Which is to say that they just are and you are not to ask questions. You are poking here at the rather tender underbelly of the SI. The units are not, as you point out, in fact "dimensionally independent," however, we wish they were and keep them seperate to allow for accruate measurements, and convention. Another sore topic is temperature. Why are there two systems? What sense does that make? It's just like the tradiational system of fahrenheit, except that the afine transformation is simpler and people liked it, so they held on to it b/c it wasn't that bad.--Pdbailey 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

=Kelvin=

This prompted the establishment of a new temperature scale, called the absolute scale or Kelvin scale, which relocates the zero place but still uses 100 kelvins between the freezing point and boiling point of water.

The Kelvin scale is but one absolute scale. Then there's the Rankine scale. Also this sentence seems to imply that the Kelvin scale is in part based on the difference in temperature between the freezing and boiling points of water at atmospheric pressure. This is not the case as the article goes on to point out. This needs a rewrite. - Jim 16Mar05

 * It is most certainly "in part based on the difference between the freezing and boiling points of water"; pretty much totally based on that, in fact. How would you propose rewording it to make your point, that that's not what we look to to determine the size of kelvins now?  Gene Nygaard 08:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's based on the difference between the freezing and boiling points of water to the extent that the metre is based on "1/10,000,000th of the distance from the pole to the equator along the meridian through Paris." In other words consistancy with the original centigrade scale was the aim but isn't the basis of the system. I guess I'd rewrite it along these lines.

''This prompted the establishment of a new temperature scale, an absolute scale which relocates the zero point at absolute zero. It was named the Kelvin scale and was scaled with the aim of maintaining 100 kelvins between the freezing point and boiling point of water.''

This is, perhaps, better. Maybe not perfect though. - Jim 18Mar05

=Link to mediocre external calculator= I'm reverting the addition to a link to a conversion calculator recently added for several reasons. It's probably somebody's self-promotion, but it isn't significant even to worry about that.
 * 1) One isn't really necessary here. If anywhere, maybe conversion of units.
 * 2) Even the Google calculator offers more and is easier to use
 * 3) This one has nothing to recommend it over hundreds of similar mediocre calculators available.
 * 4) This calculator only includes simple quantities. Not even units of force are included, let alone more complicated things such as energy or pressure.  All it includes is length, volume, and mass.,
 * 5) It is U.S.-centric even there, with unidentified "gallons" and the like the only option.
 * 6) It is sloppily constructed. If you click on the link to convert those unidentified gallons to liters, it prompts you for "Grams"!!!

I thinks that's reason enough to throw it out. If the proponent wants to discuss it here, fine. Gene Nygaard 18:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

= SI in the United States and other countries =

Local vs international measurement systems
"[SI] is used for everyday commerce in virtually every country of the world except the United States, Liberia and Myanmar"

This statement is wrong in several ways. First of all, SI is used in everyday commerce in the United States. It is just not the primary method of measurement in most cases.

For those who haven't been to America, virtually all rulers have inches and centimeters on them, And virtually all commercial products have the amounts listed in both metric and imperial units. It is widely recognized that the metric system is the "global language", or lingua franca, of measurement systems, while British imperial is the local language. All children are taught both systems in school.

The US, Liberia, and Myanmar aren't alone in maintaining a local measurement system. For example, the UK maintains a strong local tradition despite an official metric conversion effort that started in 1965. Furthermore, all former colonies of the UK have been influenced by the British imperial system, and despite converting over, all retain influences of the British system.

And what about China? "In measurement, Chinese units (Pinyin: Shìzhì, "market standard") are the units used in Imperial China, and are still used." (See: Chinese units) And how about other countries that have their own local measurement systems? Do you have evidence that every isolated island nation has completely changed over to SI units? And what about countries that have officially converted to the metric system, are you sure that the people of that country don't use local systems expensively? (The situation is comparable to the "official" language of a country vis-a-vis the languages that are actually spoken in a country.)

No accurate, encyclopedic statement can be made about the use of SI in every country until definitive information on the measuring systems of every country is obtained. If someone is willing to do the research, I say "go for it". We could use an article on Measuring systems by country.

In any case, we must avoid misleading statements and state only facts and claims that can be verifiably proven. I have heard statements before that paint America as the "only" country that isn't 100% on the metric system, but, the more these statements are objectively researched, the more obvious it is how misleading they are. The metric system is a very good system for many purposes, and makes an excellent "global measurement language", but it is not perfect for everything--local systems can and will exist. The United States may have a stronger local measurement tradition then other countries, but saying that it "doesn't use the metric system" is like saying that no Canadians speak French.

- Pioneer-12 10:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I can tell you about the use in Australia. The country has gone metric almost entirely.  The only noteable exceptions are beer measures in the pub.  Glasses have their volumes printed on the bottom in millilitres but the sizes are based on Imperial fliud ounces (rounded off to the nearest 5 ml).  A similar situation exists in Canada with their beer bottle sizes: 12 Imperial fliud ounces however the rounding this time is to the nearest ml.  In Japan the only traditional measure I'm aware of is for area (the tsubo of land/floor sizes) however I think that some of the larger alcohol bottles are based on traditional sizes (though labelled only in metric).  Jimp 15Jun05


text:
Talk:Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)

Who said it ?
Who coined this phrase ? None of the commentators appear to have said that and the article makes no mention of it. Tintin 01:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Russ Hodges did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.231.130 (talk • contribs).
 * He didn't use that phrase during the broadcast. He might have done so at a later time, or it might have been a sportswriter's inspiration. Wahkeenah 03:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Thomson's home run, it was particularly apt Would've thought it was particularly inapt, as no-one outside the US would have known or cared.
 * Not so, IP address. Read what it says. It was played on Armed Forces Radio, and many Americans overseas, such as those fighting in the Korean War, would have heard it. Baseball Bugs 07:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With the greatest of respect Bugs, the term a shot heard around the world, in sports terms, is to signify an event of such magnituted that sports fans from Buenos Aires to Sydney huddle around their radios or read it on the front page of the national press the next day. In my experience only one event has ever achieved that. That was when the USA defeated England at the 1950 World cup. The only nation that didn't sit up and take notice of that event was the United States themselves. It made the front pages of national newspapers in over forty nations. That's a true shot heard around the world. A few soldiers a long way from home, listening on their own armed forces station because the broadcasters in the countries they were stationed in didn't care about the event is hardly a shot heard around the world.

The commenter immediately above is, with all respect, being too literal. Americans have a way of assuming that everything that happens here is of significance and concern to the entire world. For many years, it was "the World Series" when there were no baseball teams South of the Ohio River or, except for St. Louis, West of the Mississippi River.

130.13.1.200 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)John Paul Parks130.13.1.200 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, as the comic strip B.C. once said, the world does not revolve around the sun, it revolves around the United States. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Ernest Hemingway's old fisherman and his pals down in Cuba probably would have heard it on the radio! Not exactly around the world, but far-reaching. WHPratt (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "The Shot Heard Round The World" the euphemism to describe the start of the U.S. Revolutionary War? (Or so says old School House Rock clip. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhdmDDBjco0  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.125.219 (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent revert
I reverted that IP address' comments due to the unsubstantiated editorial shot against baseball. If someone wants to add in the presumably factual details about the term being used in the 1950 World Cup, they could do that. I'll try to refrain from taking an equally unsubstantiated editorial shot about how boring soccer is. Oops, too late. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

explanation required
I'm having some trouble understanding what this article says, for example:
 * "Brooklyn finished the season on a 26–22 clip". I have looked in a number of dictionaries and encyclopedias at various types of clips; the bulldog clip, paper clip, hair clip and others but I can find no mention of a 26-22 clip. I'm thinking this is possibly some reference to the size of the clip but I'm also having difficulty imagining how the whole Brooklyn Dodgers baseball team can get onto one clip or how that would affect the result of the game. Please explain.
 * "a complete-game shutout by rookie hurler Clem Labine." I am familiar with athletics in which a discus thrower is a person who throws the discus and a shot putter is a person who putts the shot, so I imagine a rookie hurler is a person who hurls rookies but I'm having trouble working out what part of a game of baseball would require him to do this. Please explain.  Cottonshirt  τ   14:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By "clip", the writer implies "pace" or "run" or "streak." He means that thee team won 26 and lost 22 over a 48-game span. I suppose that "clip" refers to a piece clipped out of a whole season.  U.S. sportswriters use it frequently.  I don't agree with the choise, as 26-22 is hardly clipping.  It's more like plodding. WHPratt (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I now believe that the term comes from Clipper, referring to a fast sailing ship. As I said, 26-22 is hardly clipping! WHPratt (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hurler" is just used as a synonym for "pitcher." What he hurls is the baseball.  If he's a rookie, he's in his first season of hurling. WHPratt (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Background
Section starts: "The 1951 Major League Baseball season was projected to be a contest between the New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, and Philadelphia Phillies."

Uhhh, this would be referring to the National League only, not the Major League Baseball season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.143.35.139 (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What it should actually read is "The race for the 1951 National League Pennant was projected to be a battle between the New York Giants, Brooklyn Dodgers, and Philadelphia Phillies." ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junior390 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
Just curious, as it seems there has been some disagreement about including the reference to the Shot Heard 'Round the World found in the Season 6 M*A*S*H episode. Since the edit has been proposed by many, and backed out just as many times, it would seem there is a disagreement that has supporters on both sides. Under WP:CONS, it would seem that simply reverting an edit that, in the opinion of another editor, doesn't belong on a page is not seeking consensus. It is suppressing the contribution of more than one person who think that this edit should be included on the page.

To seek a consensus, there needs to be discussion and possible compromise. So, to foster that discussion I ask the following question:

"Is there a reason, other than personal opinion, why the reference to the M*A*S*H episode should not be included on this page?"

Mgg4 (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 * The edit has not been "proposed by many"; a perusal of the article's edit history reveals that all of the edits in question (before yours) were made by two IPs, both of whom geolocate to the same city in South Australia, and are therefore likely the same person. The edits were reverted because the IP did not cite a source, nor attempt to explain why (s)he thought the addition was notable, despite numerous requests to do so.  Edits of this type -- where the editor simply adds the material back repeatedly without explanation, refusing all invitations to discuss it -- tend to be reverted on general principle; the community dislikes that sort of arrogance, even if the material is notable and sources are available.  So, thank you for initiating a discussion of the point, and for trying to cite a source; unfortunately, IMdB is specifically rejected as a reliable source in WP guidelines.  There are notability issues as well: the Shot game was, in fact, mentioned during a M*A*S*H episode, but so what?  If the game influenced the episode's plot, you could probably make a case for including it; but lots of "current events" were mentioned in passing during that series, and almost all such mentions fall into the category of trivia, from WP's standpoint.

 * A nagging problem with "in popular culture" sections is that they often degenerate into lists of unsourced trivia, and I'm sure that the numerous editors who have reverted this particular addition would tell you that they are trying to avoid seeing that happen here. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 * I essentially agree with what Joe said above. Most in IPC sections are unreferenced. What some editors are trying to add here has been unreferenced also or they have been using Wikipedia for the source. For the latter case, per WP:CIRCULAR, wikipedia can't be used as a source....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

How could the article possibly NOT mention Don Delillo's major novel Underworld, which is entirely structured around this game? A gaping omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.90.230 (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Oddly, even when I included a proper citation to DeLillo's book in my contribution, the addition was rejected. I am puzzled by this. Purslane (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Bold
There is a wealth of precedent across Wikimedia for bolding the most notable portion of a block quote, or the most notable quote from a volume. Examples are as follows: Italics can easily be confused with parenthetical descriptions, which is why bold is usually preferred for highlighting specifically noteworthy phrases. It should therefore be considered de rigueur to bold the four (or one) famous sentences from Russ Hodges' call. Rowsdower45 (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Play (Stanford vs. California)
 * Herm Edwards
 * Jesus wept
 * Music City Miracle
 * Julius Caesar (play)
 * Dante Alighieri

 * I finally found time to research the above assertions, and I could find nothing to support this alleged "wealth of precedent". Quite the contrary, actually: The Manual of Style specifically says, "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text." (See WP:BOLD}. It goes on: "Whereas italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences, boldface is normally not used for this purpose." (See WP:ITAL}.  So I'm changing it back. Sorry it took so long.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  04:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

TV Firsts
The article says it was the first game broadcast nationwide. Reading about the three-game series, they were the first MLB games broadcast nationwide, so this game would be the *third* game broadcast nationwide 2601:647:4E01:8F9E:34A7:FA69:A272:BC64 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 * The first two games were not televised nationally, according to cited sources, so content is correct as it stands. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  05:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

 * There are no sources citing this. Take a look, for instance, at the Wikipedia page for "Major League Baseball Television in the 1950s": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_on_television_in_the_1950s#1951Loadedonloaded (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

'sign stealing' clarification
I added a clarify tag to the phrase 'sign stealing', but it was repeatedly reverted by who thinks the meaning is clear. As requested, I'm explaining the problem on the talk page. I cannot simply fix the issue myself, as I do not understand the meaning.

There's no explanation whatsoever, not even a link, as to what 'sign stealing' is. To me that phrase means the theft of road signs, which clearly isn't the case here. The surrounding text suggest it's some kind of spying on the opposing team, though what for, how it might be useful, or why it is controversial is left unsaid. There are unexplained references to 'finger signs' and 'unprotected signs' without any explanation. These terms all appear to be jargon only understandable to experts in baseball. There should be some kind of explanation for the general reader; I've therefore restored the tag. Modest Genius talk 13:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Well, the "what for, how it might be useful, or why it is controversial" aspects are not left unsaid; but those unfamiliar with baseball do deserve a more detailed explanation, which I have added. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  14:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Further clarifications added. Please let me know if it is now adequately explained, and if not, what remains unclear. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 * That's much clearer, thanks. Modest Genius talk 15:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 * A pleasure. Thanks for the suggestion. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

"Epithet"
Epithet is not a good term. As per the Wikipedia entry on epithet, "In contemporary use, epithet often refers to an abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrase, such as a racial[2] or animal epithet." Alternate terms might be "labeled" or "nicknamed". Pollira (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Look up the term in a real dictionary. It's appropriate.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Margin
The biggest margin was 13.5 games, 12.5 games was brought here into the article, Jan. 1, 2013!!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even after all games of August 11 Brooklyn led by 13 games, after the first game of the doubleheader that day it were 13.5 games. --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

start recording when again?
The way the tape-recording by Goldberg's mother is described doesn't make sense. "…asked his mother to tape-record the last half-inning of the radio broadcast…" assumes his mother would know when the game was going to end before it happened. The game could have ended after the top half of the ninth inning, the bottom half of the ninth inning, or after any half-inning during extra-innings.

In the 2001 article used as a source, Richard Sandomir says Goldberg "told his mother to hit the record button [when the game] reached the bottom of the ninth inning." But the game could have never reached the bottom of the ninth inning if the Giants had won after the top of the ninth. What exactly was it Goldberg, a life-long Giants fan, wanted to hear? Sandomir quotes him as saying: ''I knew something was going to happen. It was the third game of the playoffs. That kind of game had to be climactic, even if it was a blowout.''

In other words, he wanted to hear how the game ended as it happened, whether the Giants won or lost, whether it was a blowout or not, whether "something happened" or whether it didn't. But in that case, he would have told his mother to start recording with the top of the ninth, not the bottom. I know the story's been retold that way thousands of times, but it just doesn't ring true. It's the way somebody who doesn't understand baseball would tell it. 108.20.114.62 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Can you add a line at the top pointing to other pages with the phrase "Shot Heard Round the World"? I had never known this phrase related to baseball and was looking for it's original meaning regarding the battle of Lexington & Concord. Not having a way to get to that from here doesn't make any sense, as the latter meaning would have far more relevance than this meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedimmel (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It was not the first nationally televised game
The first nationally televised game was game 1 of this series, not the final game. See Jules Tygiel, "The Shot Heard Round the World," in his book Past Time: Baseball as History. My edit has been reverted, and yet there is no citation here to support this claim. Loadedonloaded (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 * In the future, please explain your edits in the edit summary the first time. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Sorry Loadedonloaded (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:François Furet

Circumstances of death

 * Could someone confirm the tennis ball story. Seems odd to me. Hektor 01:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)\
 * it's true. he died playing tennis.--ponyboy 04:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to come back to that, but the circumstances of his death are described in different ways in the French and English wikipedias. This version talks about a heart attack, the French version describes a fall and shock at the head. Which one is right ? Hektor 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Overview of his analysis

 * the overview of his analysis also seems a little lacking. i've read furet, and i'll try to look into the french article and flesh this one out more, but i'm certainly not an expert. anyone studied furet more closely? also, need to add more on his break from Les Annales (for which there is apparently no page on the english wikipedia) --ponyboy 05:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * actually there is a page on Les Annales, it's under Annales School--ponyboy 14:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

 * Is there a photo of M. Francois Furet that could be inserted into the article? Also is there a photo of his wife, Debroah? for it was she who made the English translation of his book "The passing of an illusion" (1999). Tonyob 11:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:François Furet


text: User talk:69.175.240.107

title: User talk:69.175.240.107


text:
Team nursing

Team nursing is a system of integrated care that was developed in 1950s (under grant from W.K. Kellogg Foundation) directed by Eleanor Lambertson at Teachers College, Columbia University in New York, NY. Because the functional method received criticism, a new system of nursing was devised to improve patient satisfaction. “Care through others” became the hallmark of team nursing. It was developed in an effort to decrease the problems associated with the functional model of nursing care. Many people felt that, despite a continued shortage of professional nursing staff, a patient care delivery model had to be developed that reduced the fragmented care that accompanies functional nursing.

Team nursing was developed because of social and technological changes in World War II drew many nurses away from hospitals, learning haps, services, procedures and equipment became more expensive and complicated, requiring specialisation at every turn. It is an attempt to meet increased demands of nursing services and better use of knowledge and skills of professional nurses.

Definitions

 * Team nursing is a system that distributes the care of a patient amongst a team that is all working together to provide for this person. This team consists of up to 4 to 6 members that has a team leader who gives jobs and instructions to the group.
 * Team nursing is based on philosophy in which groups of professional and non-professional personnel work together to identify, plan, implement and evaluate comprehensive client-centered care. The key concept is a group that works together toward a common goal, providing qualitative, comprehensive nursing care. Team nursing was designed to accommodate several categories of personnel in meeting the comprehensive nursing needs of a group of clients

The objective of team nursing is to give the best possible quality of patient care by utilising the abilities of every member of the staff to the fullest extent and by providing close supervision both of patient care and of the individual who give it.
 * Objective

Line of organization
A clear line of organization and structure is needed for team nursing to provide a mechanism for horizontal and vertical communication, and an organized pattern is employed.

Functions
The two important points of functioning are:
 * 1) The head nurse must know at all times the condition of the patients and the plan for their care and must be assured that assignments and workmanship contribute to quality nursing
 * 2) The team leader must have freedom to use their initiative and the opportunity to nurse, supervise, and teach unencumbered by the responsibility for administrative detail

Functions of a registered nurse

 * In team nursing the registered nurse (RN) functions as a team leader, and coordinates the small group (no more than four or five) of ancillary personnel to provide care to a small group of patients.
 * As coordinator of the team, the RN must know the many conditions and needs of all patients assigned to the team and plan for the individualised care for each patient.
 * The team leader is also responsible for encouraging a cooperative environment and maintaining clear communication among all team members.
 * The team leader’s duties include planning care, assigning duties, directing and assisting team members, giving direct patient care, teaching and coordinating patient activities.
 * The team leader assigns each member specific responsibilities dependent on the role.
 * The members of the team report directly to the team leader, who then reports to the charge nurse or unit manager.
 * Communication is enhanced through the use of written patient assignments, the development of nursing care plans, and the use of regularly scheduled team conferences to discuss the patient status and formulate revisions to the plan of care.
 * However, for team nursing to succeed, the team leader must have strong clinical skills, good communication skills, delegation ability, decision-making ability, and the ability to create a cooperative working environment.^

Channels of communication

 * 1) Reports
 * 2) Work or assignment conference
 * 3) Patient care conference
 * 4) Written nursing care plan

The greatest single distinguishing feature of team nursing is the team conference. In general, there are three parts to the conference;
 * Report by each team member on his or her patients.
 * Planning for new patients and changing plans as needed for others.
 * Planning the next day’s assessment.

It is essential that the conference be well planned, brief but comprehensive and interesting. The team leader is the chair person for the conference. They offer opportunity for all personnel to evaluate patient care and solve the problems through team discussion.

Advantages

 * High quality comprehensive care can be provided despite a relatively high proportion of ancillary staff.
 * Each member of the team is able to participate in decision making and problem solving.
 * Each team member is able to contribute his or her own special expertise or skills in caring for the patient.
 * Improved patient satisfaction.
 * Organisational decision making occurring at the lower level.
 * Cost-effective system because it works with expected ratio of unlicensed to licensed personnel.
 * Team nursing is an effective method of patient care delivery and has been used in most inpatient and outpatient health care settings.
 * Feeling of participation and belonging are facilitated with team members.
 * Work load can be balanced and shared.
 * Division of labour allows members the opportunity to develop leadership skills.
 * Every team member has the opportunity to learn from and teach colleagues
 * There is a variety in the daily assignment.
 * Interest in client’s wellbeing and care is shared by several people, reliability of decisions is increased.
 * Nursing care hours are usually cost effective.
 * The client is able to identify personnel who are responsible for his care.
 * Continuity of care is facilitated, especially if teams are constant.
 * Barriers between professional and non-professional workers can be minimised, the group efforts prevail.
 * Everyone has the opportunity to contribute to the care plan.

Disadvantages

 * Establishing a team concept takes time, effort and constancy of personnel. Merely assigning people to a group does not make them a ‘group’ or ‘team’.
 * Unstable staffing pattern make team nursing difficult.
 * All personnel must be client centred.
 * There is less individual responsibility and independence regarding nursing functions.
 * Continuity of care may suffer if the daily team assignments vary and the patient is confronted with many different caregivers.
 * The team leader may not have the leadership skills required to effectively direct the team and create a “team spirit”.
 * Insufficient time for care planning and communication may lead to unclear goals. Therefore, responsibilities and care may become fragmented.

Modifications
In an attempt to overcome some of its disadvantages, the team nursing design has been modified many times since its original inception, and variations of the model are evident in other methods of nursing care delivery such, as modular nursing.

Modular nursing
Modular nursing is a modification of team nursing and focuses on the patient’s geographic location for staff assignments.
 * The patient unit is divided into modules or districts, and the same team of caregivers is assigned consistently to the same geographic location.
 * Each location, or module, has an RN assigned as the team leader, and the other team members may include LVN/LPN or UAP.
 * Just as in the team nursing, the team leader in the modular nursing is accountable for all patient care and is responsible for providing leadership for team members and creating a cooperative work environment.
 * The concept of modular nursing calls for a smaller group of staff providing care for a smaller group of patients.
 * The goal is to increase the involvement of the RN in planning and coordinating care.
 * Communication is more efficient among a smaller group of team members.
 * The success of the modular nursing depends greatly on the leadership abilities of the team leader.

Advantages:
 * 1) Continuity of care is improved when staff members are consistently assigned to the same module
 * 2) The RN as team leader is able to be more involved in planning and coordinating care.
 * 3) Geographic closeness and more efficient communication save staff time.

Disadvantages:
 * 1) Costs may be increased to stock each module with the necessary patient care supplies (medication cart, linens and dressings).
 * 2)  Long corridors, common in many hospitals, are not conducive to modular nursing.

title: Team nursing


text:
Talk:Mange

Cats mange
do cats get mange?

 * Apparently so. I just went to askjeeves.com and typed "do cats get mange?" and a bunch of pages popped up talking about mange in cats. Elf | Talk 04:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. I added some cat material under Demodex. --  Carold e  rmoid  ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

http://mangecure.info/Mange/mansym_MangeSymptoms.html Detailed information on using oral Ivermectin in adult cats here: http://mangecure.info/Mange/manovr_DoingItOverAgain.html Full disclosure - mangecure.info is my site, completely free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.169.194 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cats do indeed get mange, and sometimes cause themselves fatal damage/infection from scratching. Some very sad cat pictures here:

 * 1.87% horse ivermectin paste (the stuff described above) can also be used topically (directly on the skin) of cats, if you dilute it 1:187 in mineral oil (which dissolves the paste and the ivermectin). Even better is 1:100 dilution of the 1% ivermectin (IVOMEC) sold in feed stores to ranchers as an injectable for cattle and swine. Either of these products diluted with mineral oil produces 0.01% ivermectin (1 part in 10,000) in mineral oil, basically a generic for the otic product for ear mites in cats (Acarexx). Then apply the stuff to the skin of the cat everywhere there are scabs/crusts on the ears, head, inside the ears, and the back of the neck. Usually it's not necessary to apply anywhere else, but you can if you stay below a 4 mL dose on skin/coat that the cat can lick. I have yet to see toxicity. This stuff can be used on any cat with ear-problems (just squirt into the ear and massage the liquid down into the ear canal) and on any cat with crusted lesions that are suspected of being mange or even ringworm (a lot of "ringworm" in cats is actually mange, which is much easier to treat). The oily stuff makes the hair of the animal look pretty matted for a few days but doesn't hurt it, and it eventually is washed/licked off. You can reapply in a couple of weeks after existing crusts/scabs have had a chance to come off and heal. It might take 2 or 3 applications for a bad case, but it beats anything else for cat mange and mites, and is almost without expense. WARNING: I am not a vet. Such suggestions for cheap do-it yourself topical animal care won't cause your pet have seizures, but may cause your vet to have seizures. S  B Harris 01:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

does mange kill?
Will Mange cause a dog to bleed out of it's backside and kill it?
 * Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. ask your vet.  Skiendog (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * true but maybe these questions should be answered in the article? Killemall22 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. --Joelmills 02:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Kill? yes, but not from bleeding. The animal sometimes can scratch until a open sores occur.  Infection is what really kills.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.3.177 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mange can kill. If the local shelter picks up a mangy animal, they'll kill it even faster. S  B Harris 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Addition of a treatment section
It seems like it would be appropriate to add a treatment section including how mange can be treated. Such a section should include any dips that are appropriate, and also the common use of ivermectin. Any veterinarians willing to do this? -EvanGrim
 * Agreed. I added treatment sections. --  Carold e  rmoid  ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If a human were to contract this itchy mite from a cat or dog how would it be treated?
 * See scabies. Demodex is not contagious to humans.  --Joelmills 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What about including some info on methods of prevention, such as diet, etc.? 24.19.61.116 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC) just a dog guy

Hi Is there a permanent cure for mange, amd what are the chances of another adult dog contracting it from a younger dog? Visninvrse 17:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which type of mange are you asking about, demodectic or sarcoptic? --Joelmills 03:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * i think we hould include an answer for both Killemall22 (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Also i feel like the treatment section is too short. they don't really speak on what happens to the skin after treatment.  with the fur grow back, how long does it generally take etc.  is any one able to speak to these subjects? Killemall22 (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Both types of mange are caused by mites, and the treatments for both are the same, and vary only due to the toxicity of a few things on some host animals, but not others. There is no permanent cure (see scabies) since animals (and people) can always be reinfected. Anything topically that kills mites will work. Sulfur cremes are available on the internet, and can be used on any pet. Lime sulfur solution/dip must be used diluted from the concentrate 1:16 or it harms the skin (even then it stinks) but also can be used on any pet. Most things must be used every week for a while until all mites are dead (pets that have been in direct contact with yours must sometimes be treated also, since mite infections can be asymptomatic). The lesions take much longer to heal than it takes to kill the mites, since you're seeing an allergic reaction plus local bacterial infection (use Neosporin ointment after the first week). Ivermectin paste from horse and agricultural (farmer's) stores can be diluted 200 to 1 in mineral oil and used freely on the skin in cats, and probably most dogs (collies and other herding dogs are theoretically more sensitive to ivermectin if they have the wrong genetics-- you can read about that under ivermectin). Oral forms of ivermectin work, but should be left to your vet. Nix and Lyclear permethrin creams intended for human head-lice use, can also be used on mite-mange in dogs (but do NOT ever use them on cats, as they are toxic to cats). S B Harris 00:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Animals with mange in current news
This looks to me like a coyote with severe sarcoptic mange: Sort of like the one I uploaded today. Does anyone want to tackle the so-called chupacabra silliness? It may have a place in this article.Bugguyak 18:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Link added to the wikipedia pages with relevant info. 68.186.246.165 (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it would be a public service to mention that coyotes and racoons are getting mange and being called chupacabra. Also, is there any particular reason that this is happening more now? Why are there more animals with such severe mange in North America?86.129.175.167 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Mange-affected species
The article says that several different "species" can get mange, but doesn't say which ones. How many kinds of mammals get mange; does it affect only a few families, or are the majority of mammals susceptible to it? Can other kinds of animals get mange, or is it restricted to mammals? 75.210.190.247 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't see any citation about turtles getting mange or losing their shells.

Mange-affected species
The article says that several different "species" can get mange, but doesn't say which ones. How many kinds of mammals get mange; does it affect only a few families, or are the majority of mammals susceptible to it? Can other kinds of animals get mange, or is it restricted to mammals? 75.210.190.247 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't see any citation about turtles getting mange or losing their shells.

 * Turtles do get mange (mite infection) and it causes hemorrhages and blisters on shells Other reptiles can also get mite infections, as can insects and birds. Not all these are referred to as "mange" but they are the same infection. Even plants can be infected with mites. Mites are everywhere (of course, many different specialized species), and they also live freely as non-parasites in the wild. Don't confuse spiderlike mites (which are not insects) with lice, which are insects (six legs) with a much more limited range, needing birds or mammals with hair (except bats) and not able to live anywhere else. S  B Harris 18:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sulfurated lime
I just added linking brackets in the Treatment paragraph to the phrase, Sulfurated lime. The page for that does not mention use of this preparation for mange. Perhaps somebody with veterinary credentials can make the appropriate edit to that page. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 14:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A neighborhood stray has mange and is hanging around. I have a bottle of sulferated lime, but do not know what ratio to dilute it. I'm not paying for a Vet, so it's either this or nothing. A short statement of a typical dosage/dilution and application method would be useful.Jonny Quick (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 * The page does mention the dilution now: Lime sulfur diluted 1:16 or 1:32. Perhaps err on the high side. More than one application is probably needed. Typically scabies need weeks to months for the lesions to clear up, mostly because it takes that long for the allergy and secondary infections to subside. After a few treatments, topical application of Neosporin to help kill the secondary infections may help a lot. S  B Harris 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Commonly known as a Chupacapbra???
The picture of the coyote with mange has a caption saying, "...Commonly known as a chupacabra". That must be a joke. im removing it. Skiendog (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mange


text:
Kurskaya (Koltsevaya line)

Kurskaya (Ку́рская) is a Moscow Metro station in the Basmanny District, Central Administrative Okrug, Moscow. It is on the Koltsevaya line, between Komsomolskaya and Taganskaya stations, and opened on 1 January 1950.

Design
The station was designed by architects G. Zakharkov and Z. Chernysheva under the supervision of Ivan Zholtovsky who were awarded the Stalin Prize in 1950 for the design. Kurskaya is a rare deep column station built in the 1950s style of Stalinist Architecture.

The design features four rows of columns which support the vaults, though the columns are "doubled" hence their wide appearance. In the centre of the station is a large open space with a large vault topping it that rests on four pylons forming an arbour, from which a staircase leads off as a transfer to Kurskaya–Radialnaya of the Arbatsko–Pokrovskaya line. Another interesting detail of the station is the lack of sculptures and artwork, instead, however, this compensated by small details such as Torchiere (now removed) in the arbour which light the granite stairwell and hidden lamps in the niches of the vault, which is covered by a bronze frieze symbolising the dawn and blossoming of Mother Russia. Additional lighting is provided by eight elegant conical chandeliers with fluorescent tubes. The floor is laid with red and grey granite and the walls and columns with white koyelga marble.

The station's large vestibule is located right next to the north, and adjacent to Kursky railway station, hence the name of the station, and serves both the ring and radial stations, this contains a large circular underground lobby in the centre of which is a bronze sculpture of wheat (inclining Kursk as the centre of the Chernozem region), this is also linked to the 1938 vestibule of the Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya station, allowing for a transfer there. The interior of the surface structure, adorned with citations from the Anthem of the Soviet Union once contained a large statue of Joseph Stalin (by sculptor Nikolai Tomsky), this was removed in 1961. On 3 July 2008, the vestibule was closed for a year to replace escalators, upgrade and renovation. The station's second entrance to Zemlyanoy Val opened in December 1995, is a shared underground vestibule, which also doubles as a transfer to Chkalovskaya of the Lyublinskaya line.

Possibly the most interesting detail of the station is a large metallic plaque on the station wall, adorned with artwork has an inscription: Kurskaya, large ring, 1945–1949. This implies the original plan to have the Koltsevaya line follow the Garden Ring, and then a smaller ring line to follow the Boulevard Ring (the small ring).

title: Kurskaya (Koltsevaya line)


text:
Talk:Thornton, New Hampshire

History
someone needs to write a history forum about thornton. I personally do not know enough about the town to do so. "But" if you do and decide to write about it I will defiently read it. 69.173.168.27 17:50, 29 September 2005

title: Talk:Thornton, New Hampshire


text:
Independent Liberal-Progressive candidates in the 1953 Manitoba provincial election

There were seven Independent Liberal-Progressive candidates in the 1953 Manitoba provincial election. Two of these candidates were endorsed by the official party. The other five were not, and competed against official Liberal-Progressive candidates.

Fred Klym registered as an Independent Liberal-Progressive candidate in St. Clements after losing the party nomination to Stanley Copp by six votes, but he withdrew before election day. Joseph H. Kachor also entered the contest in Fairford, but also withdrew.

John Solomon (Emerson)
John Solomon (Emerson) was an incumbent Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). He lost the Emerson Liberal-Progressive nomination to Frank Casper on April 18, 1953, by a vote of 76 to 57, but later alleged that the nomination meeting was improperly convened and entered the contest against Casper. Solomon's candidacy split the local party association. The provincial party declared that the nomination meeting was properly convened, and affirmed Casper's candidacy.

Solomon finished in first place on the first count, and defeated Casper on the second count. Solomon seems to have rejoined the Liberal-Progressive caucus after the election, while Casper later joined the Progressive Conservative Party. See Solomon's biography page for more information.

Robert Bend (Rockwood)
Robert Bend (Rockwood) was first elected in the 1949 Manitoba election, as an Independent Progressive Conservative and a supporter of the province's coalition government. When the Progressive Conservatives left the coalition in 1950, Bend remained a government supporter. Though he was not an official Liberal-Progressive candidate in 1953, party leader Douglas Campbell spoke at his nomination meeting and the local party organization was solidly behind him. He was elected on the first count with 1,952 votes. See his biography page for more information.

Harry Boulette (Rupertsland)
Harry Boulette (Rupertsland) declared himself a candidate for this vast northern constituency after Roy Brown won the official Liberal-Progressive nomination. He finished second on the first count with 982 votes (42.62%), and formally lost to Brown on the second count.

Boulette campaigned as an official Liberal-Progressive candidate in the 1959 provincial election, and finished a distant second against Progressive Conservative candidate Joseph Jeannotte.

Rodney S. Clement (Russell)
Rodney S. Clement (Russell) was elected in 1949 as an independent government supporter. He continued to support the coalition after 1950, and campaigned in 1953 with support from the official Liberal-Progressive organization. He finished in first place on the first count, and was subsequently declared elected. See his biography page for more information.

Joseph G. Van Belleghem (St. Boniface)
Joseph G. Van Belleghem (St. Boniface) served in the legislative assembly as a Liberal-Progressive from 1949 to 1953, and originally sought renomination with the party in the buildup to the 1953 election. He was dissatisfied with the nomination process, however, and complained that he was not notified of when meetings were scheduled to occur(Winnipeg Free Press, 24 April 1953). Van Belleghem withdrew from the nomination race and contested the election as an Independent Liberal-Progressive, against official party candidates Roger Teillet and L. Raymond Fennell. He finished third on the first ballot with 3,189 votes (16.31%), fell behind on transfers, and was eliminated after the fifth count with 3,932 votes (20.11%). (St. Boniface was a two-member constituency, with a 33% quota for election.)

James Albert Fletcher (Ste. Rose)
James Albert Fletcher (Ste. Rose) was a farmer in McCreary, Manitoba. He finished second on the first count in the 1953 election, receiving 1,083 votes (32.40%). Official Liberal-Progressive candidate Gildas Molgat was declared elected over Fletcher on the second count.

Fletcher later joined the Progressive Conservative Party, and lost to Molgat under this party's banner in the provincial elections of 1959 and 1962.

E.A. Brotman (Winnipeg North)
E.A. Brotman (Winnipeg North) was previously an alderman in Winnipeg, representing Ward 3 for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. He later left the CCF to join the Liberal-Progressives, and ran for an LP nomination in the buildup to the 1953 election. Winnipeg North was a four-member constituency, and the Liberal-Progressives decided to nominate three candidates. Brotman lost to Alexander Turk, John M. Kozoriz and John J. Kelsch at a delegated meeting on April 15, 1953.

He subsequently entered the contest as an Independent Liberal-Progressive candidate, claiming "The Campbell government has made an excellent record for itself in many ways and one need only mention its acceptance of the provincial-municipal report which gave large financial aid to Winnipeg". (WFP, 24 April 1953). He finished sixth on the first count with 1,672 votes (7.50%), and was eliminated after the fifth count with 2,042 votes (9.45%). The quota for election was 20%.


text:
KOA

KOA (short for Kampgrounds [sic] of America) is an American franchise of privately owned campgrounds. Having more than 500 locations across the United States and Canada, it is the world's largest system of privately owned campgrounds. It was founded in 1962 and is based in Billings, Montana, United States. The current president and CEO of KOA is Toby O’Rourke.

History
KOA was founded in 1962 in Billings, Montana, by businessmen Dave Drum, John Wallace and two other partners. Drum got the idea to start the campgrounds while walking his property along the Yellowstone River and seeing travelers heading to the Seattle World's Fair. The first campsites, known as Billings Campground, were located on Drum's property north of the Yellowstone River. For $1.75 per night, campers could pitch their tent on a campsite that included a picnic table and fire ring. This first campground also provided hot showers, restrooms, and a small store. The campground was quickly successful and by the summer of 1963, Drum, Wallace and their partners decided to create a system of campgrounds throughout North America. They named the company Kampgrounds of America and began selling franchises.

In 1969, KOA became a public company. By the end of the 1969 camping season, KOA had 262 campgrounds in operation across the U.S. By 1972, 10 years after KOA's creation, KOA had 600 franchise campgrounds.

The 1970s energy crisis caused the collapse of many travel-oriented businesses, and KOA's stock price became a casualty. New York City financier Oscar Tang, a major stockholder at the time, purchased the company in its entirety after the 1979 oil crisis. However, by 1982 KOA franchises had increased to nearly 900. By 2002, after stricter quality standards weeded out many campgrounds, KOA campgrounds numbered almost 500, with most being in the United States.

KOA annually inspects each campground with a 600-point inspection, which it claims is the most stringent in the business.

In 2015, Jim Rogers stepped down as CEO after 15 years and was replaced by the president of the company, Pat Hittmeier. In April 2019, Hittmeier retired, and was replaced by new CEO Toby O'Rourke, the first woman to hold that position in the company's 57-year history.

title: KOA