Talk:Human scale

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Urban studies and planning High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Can we get some order-of-magnitude comparisons:

• lightest touch that can be sensed vs. heaviest weight that can be lifted?
• loudest sound that can be endured vs. softest sound that can be heard?
• pitch that can be heard
• wavelength of visible light

Does anyone have an idea for a "human scale" of energy? The energy in a meal? Energy of running a mile? Energy spectrum of fatal injuries, using the "energy dumping" theory?
The Anome —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 24 February 2003 & modified w/o sig by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 14:55, Feb 24 2003 (UTC)

added a couple to the list above -- Tarquin 14:55 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Since when are kilograms or Netwons considered more natural "human-scale" units? I don't think there are any "official" units for force or weight that are more natural, but the force of a punch or some other human activity and the average weight of a human come to mind as rough replacements. At any rate, I think we can do better than just plain Netwons and kg, which don't seem particularly human-scale IMHO. At least "tens of Newtons" or similar would be much better. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   This 'graph:

The term "human scale" is also used to refer to the Small Is Beautiful school of philospophy associated with Leopold Kohr, E. F. Schumacher, John Papworth and Kirkpatrick Sale, among others.^[1]

is about a topic distinct from that stated in the lead, and (w/ rare exceptions like Nigger and Fuck) a WP article is about the concept the title names, not the titling word as a term. If the article on Small Is Beautiful is enhanced, by adding a section with encyclopedic discussion of that sense of "human scale", a HatNote Dab along the lines of

This article is about the physical limits of human life and direct experiences of humans. For downscaling development, see Human scale (Small Is Beautiful).

can be added to the accompanying article, using Human scale (Small Is Beautiful) as a Rdr to Small Is Beautiful#Human scale.
    I am not going to do the research to determine whether any specific "human scales" for development projects or organizations have been enunciated by SiB advocates, but i note that even if there is diversity of opinion among the as to the numbers, info about the numbers or numerical ranges would IMO be appropriate to the accompanying article.
--Jerzy•t 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation clause at the top of the article would be better than the wholesale removal of this passage. "Human scale" is a well established term used in that context, and so requires disambiguation precisely for the reasons that Jerzy states. Will someone with the technical knowledge assist with this? User1756 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps distinct from Small is Beautiful, i recall that anthropologists believe there is an inherent human parameter, around 150, that represents the maximum size of a community in which "everybody knows everbody" is likely to be essentially true, rather than either hyperbole, a platitude, or an assumption that in practice doesn't get tested. If documented, it would IMO belong in the article.
--Jerzy•t 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to the Dunbar number I believe. User1756 (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits to this article were repeatedly reverted without justification by User:ProProbly. He asserted that my edits constituted "undiscussed metrification" and insisted that I should discuss the issue on the talk page. The article had previously used metric units, as WP:MOSNUM requires of articles which do not relate directly to USA or UK topics. I explained this clearly to him on my own talk page, in addition to suggesting a more constructive course of action than reverting my edits. I had added content to the article and corrected some errors, which he also removed without justification.

Diff of the relevant edits: [1]

Archon 2488 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ProProbly made a WP:BOLD edit, Archon 2488 reverted, and now we discuss. Further reverts without consensus are not appropriate. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been reverted by a third party to its status before the dubious edits by ProProbly. Unless the latter has something to say by way of justifying their behaviour, I will be content to consider this matter closed. I would ask ProProbly not to engage in such disruptive behaviour again, as it does not contribute to the functioning of the encyclopedia, and it deters others from contributing to articles.

By way of explaining my own position, I would just say that the MOS gives clear guidance on what units articles are expected to use when they are not directly related to the USA or UK – metric units. Since the position I was following was the default position, there was no reason for me to start a discussion about it. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect. It was Archon 2488 who first made the WP:BOLD edits and me who reverted to the original uncontested text. I also explained why. Archon continued to argue without an apology or excuse for failing to describe, justify or seek consensus for completely replacing customary measurements with metric ones. Then after I again restored the original text, Atlan came along and, again with no explanation, restored Archon's bold edit. And that is how the article currently exists with Archon's contested bold edit still in place. And that goes against Wikipedia principles, pillars and all. ProProbly (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again, for the sake of clarity. US customary units are the primary units in articles that relate directly to the USA, and not in any other articles. This is the consensus position of the entire community as clearly expressed at WP:MOSNUM and it is not controversial. Ensuring that articles generally follow the MOS is good editorial conduct, and editors are expected to respect the MOS. Adding content to an article that has received relatively little editorial attention is not really WP:BOLD; reverting someone else's contributions is bold, and you would be expected to provide a really good reason for doing so. Your personal vendetta against metric units is not such a good reason. I would assume this is why Atlan reverted.

I should warn you that if you continue to disregard MOS consensus and start revert-wars you are likely to face administrative sanctions. You are acting like a WP:SPA in single-minded pursuit of an agenda which is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Past experience shows that such conduct usually results in an indefinite ban because it is tedious, wasting the time of editors and admins and spoiling the experience of readers. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have three editors favoring the current version and one editor favoring ProProbly's version. We can let this run a while longer, but I expect we're done here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one contributor supplying a reasoned argument for keeping the WP:BOLD edit, and he is the editor who made it. I think the original version should be restored until we see a consensus based in policy, sources, and common sense for changing it develop. I also see you (Lesser Cartographies); first drawing mistaken conclusions about who was being bold and who was doing the reverting - thus showing that you have not followed the case, and then arrogantly declaring a consensus without a sound basis. And not having contributed materially to the discussion yourself I am not sure what your motive is. ProProbly (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose reverts by ProProbly. No valid reason for objecting to use of metric units. --Boson (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use Both with one in parenthesis. Here's why: the argument being advanced is that the metric should be used unless the article refers to America or Britain. But the article is about Human Scale. Last I checked the Americans and British were included in that. In addition, the article itself specifically refers to American cities and American architects. Note also, in reply to @Lesser Cartographies:, I just received the bot notice, which means others have just received theirs. So no, you're likely not done here yet. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Both, metric first. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both is fine, and as I said below in my apology, I had mistakenly thought the change was from customary to just metric when I changed the article back. I accept I was wrong, so can we drop it now please and move on. Thanks. ProProbly (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've wasted everyone's time here. I misread the "diffs" of Archon 2488's edits. I was exploring the diff functionality and misread the changes from "100-foot (30-meter)" to "30-metre (100 ft)" and from "30 mph (13 m/s or 44 ft/s)" to "50 km/h (14 m/s; 31 mph)" as total metrifications. I didn't realise then that the "{{convert..." command was an automatic converter. Apologies to all concerned. ProProbly (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]