This proposal has been accepted and is currently (as of March 2016) in use. Jimp 03:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At AFD I argued: Rename and redirect, and let's argue instead about what their base names should be, which is the whole problem. I propose "1 yoctometre", "100 zeptometres", etc., through "100 yottametres". For purposes of people finding them, redirect from many other potential versions such as "1 centimeter" = "1 centimetre", "ten nanometres" = "10 nanometres" (these first two also combine), "1hm" = "1 hm" = "1 hectometre", "one thousandth metre" = "1 millimetre", "one milliard metres" = "1 gigametre" (use of >100 and <.01 is limited only to text, and only with meter and metre), "one billion metres" = "1 gigametre" (not "1 terametre"), and occasional exceptions like "1 myriameter" = "10 kilometres". Also add to disambiguation pages like "10K". That should be enough to define a system, y'all can take it from there. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in the absence of comment I'm prepared to proceed. Many of the links to the shorter names "1 E0 m" will become redirects to the longer names "1 metre", but this is not a problem per WP:R2D and double redirects will be addressed. JJB 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I also will be adding a few entries to the subarticles taken from: Wallechinsky, David; Wallace, Irving; Wallace, Amy (1977 (1st Bantam ed., February 1978)). The Book of Lists. Bantam Books. pp. 268–271. ISBN 0553111507. ((cite book)): Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) JJB 05:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the new proposal and is discussed in the RfC below.

"1 metre", "10 metres", ... etc. is certainly an improvement on the cryptic "1 E0 m", "1 E1 m", ... etc. that we used to have but it could still be improved on further. The article now called 1 metre is not about 1 metre but distances between 1 and 10 metres; it would be better to have a name reflecting this. It's also worth noting that these are a subset of orders of magnitude how about standardising the naming system as Order of magnitude ( ... )? Furthermore, these articles are generally very short and haven't much hope of being extended much; I propose merging (most if not all of) them by threes. Thus, for example, 1 mircometre, 10 mircometres and 100 mircometres will be merged to Order of magnitude (1 to 1000 mircometres). Jimp 09:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply call it 'Metre'? The subdivisions and multiples are then just subsections. Calling it any variant of 'order of magnitude' is just obscurantism as the expression is virtually unknown outside the scientific community.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the metre. We have an article called Metre which is about the metre. This article is a list of thing between 1 and 10 metres long. This is just one of several such articles. If calling these Order of magnitude ( ... ) is obscure, then it's equally obscure in the case of the several dozen similarly named articles in the category (linked above). What would be (and currently is) more obscure is not being consistent in the naming of these articles. If you can come up with something easier, please make the suggestion. Jimp 00:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised too late that we already have a metre article, that it is significantly different in scope from this one, and that they should remain distinct.

IMO, this article already has an appropriate title and does not need to be changed. I strongly oppose 'order of magnitude'. I realise that the article is about 1 to 9 metres and the 10-metre one is 10 to 99 but this is a case where a fixation about accuracy in the title will get in the way of understanding. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a difference of opinion. This illogical title is getting in the way of understanding if you ask me. What I'm suggesting it to bring these in line with the other articles in the Orders of magnitude category. A consistent naming system would help understanding. I understand your point that order of magnitude is a bit technical but it is appropriate and I would argue that the consistency should outweigh the obscurity in the understanding stakes. After all, these are all elaborations on what Orders of magnitude (length) is saying. Jimp 13:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which means you have to invoke the wp:RFC procedure (or at least wp:3O) to see if there is a consensus either way. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. Jimp 23:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion relates to the renaming of these articles. Initially they were named "1 E0 m", "1 E1 m", "1 E2 m", etc. These were very unhelpful names so the articles were moved to "1 metre", "10 metres", "100 metres", etc. (see #Proposal one above). This was an improvement; however, it was not completely satisfactory because it left a couple of issues unresolved.

1. This article is not about 1 metre. Rather it's about things ranging in length from 1 to 10 metres. The same goes for other articles in the series.
2. These articles are generally quite short. They'll get even shorter once some of the trivial stuff is removed (e.g. one metre is the length of a side of a one-cubic-metre cube). It would make more sense to merge them but threes (e.g. "1 metre", "10 metres" and "100 metres" to something like "Order of magnitude (1 to 1000 metres)").

Above I have proposed a system consistent with other order of magnitude articles whereby these articles are merged in threes to "Order of magnitude (1 to 1000 metres)", "Order of magnitude (1 to 1000 kilometres)", "Order of magnitude (1 to 1000 millimetres)", etc. The intent behind this RfC is to examine these questions and to come to some resolution. To make the discussion clearer, let's split it into three parts. Jimp 03:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, this article is not about 1 metre but things of length 1 to 10 metres. The articles should be named accordingly. Jimp 03:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are generally short and contain a lot of trivial info. Cut the trivia and merge them by threes. Note, that threes are consistent with metric prefixes. Jimp 03:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is to use names "Order of magnitude (1 to 1000 metres)", "Order of magnitude (1 to 1000 kilometres)", "Order of magnitude (1 to 1000 millimetres)", etc. which are consistent with other order of magnitude articles. Jimp 03:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In general I agree with all the proposals above, these articles are about "Sense of scale" of "Orders of magnitude". For the sake of clarity I might prefer "1-1000 metres (Order of magnitude)" rather than the other way around as I think people are more likely to be looking for the length than orders of magnitude when looking for this article. There will need to be a whole host of redirects. We could always do away with these satelite articles and just increase the detail in the order of magnitude article. SPACKlick (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to be redundant with Orders of magnitude (length). I see little value in this range of articles, and they should be merged or simply deleted (though if not, I essentially agree with the proposal). —Quondum 18:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, I agree with the proposals that are listed above. However, I agree with SPACKlick that the article should be named "1-1000 metres (Order of magnitude)", for clarity's sake. Ethanlu121 (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't disagree with renaming or consolidating. However, 1 to 1000 is a range across 3 orders of magnitude, so the article name as proposed would be a misnomer. Each order of magnitude is a change of 1 in the exponent (by convention power-of-10 notation). Seems like a single article across all orders of magnitude would be better. And as pointed out above, it exists. Couldn't we redirect and work on contributing to that article? Klaun (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For my part I would consolidate all the articles on illustrations of orders of magnitude into one article for each dimension (one for lengths, one for volumes, one for masses etc) and remove all the worst examples of triviality or idiocy. I would NOT group by threes, but by topic. If all of the topics could fit comfortably into a single article, that would be fine, but only if the resultant combination were not uncomfortably large (which I suspect it would be, hence the thought of splitting it by dimension). Then ensure that all the obscure but possibly not unreasonable titles ("1 E0 m", "1 E1 m", "1 E2 m", etc -- take your pick) were reinstated as #redirects. In implementing this, we should ask how easily a reader might fail to find something that just appears nowhere. I often have been frustrated by such a search, and redirs are a cheap and effective measure. JonRichfield (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to agree that the page is a trivia magnet of little use ("the average height of an Andamese person"? Why?) However, it has survived two previous Requests for Deletion, and that isn't the question here. I think something like "1-1000 metres (orders of magnitude)" would be a significant improvement over what we have now, which is rather misleading, and therefore unhelpful, to my mind. Anaxial (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe wholeheartedly with JonRichfield and think we should work towards that. However, Anaxial makes a good point that we are not here to bring about the demise of these articles (are we?), so I would have to vote for Klaun's solution. If we're allowed to recommend deletion, then let's start work on JonRichfield's plan. I would gladly contribute. StarHOG (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding this specific RFC about the name of this particular article: 1-10 metres (Order of magnitude) is what I'd favour for this particular article, as it is concise, consistent and descriptive. However, I'd say that in general all the articles in Orders of magnitude apart from the main article seem to be not much more useful than a trivia page. Consider someone actually wishing to use the information in these articles: is anything more than the three or so examples in Orders of magnitude (length) likely to aid understanding or otherwise be useful? The information is currently fragmented between many articles, additionally making it useless for comparison between magnitudes. I'd recommend merging the lot into Orders of magnitude (length), and having around three good examples for each order of magnitude in that article. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 21:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely selective merge of all the articles to Orders of magnitude (length), and redirect the plausible titles there. "Extremely selective" because it seems to me that the target article has already enough examples, so some of those articles with the highest triva-to-relevance ratio will likely just be deleted. Yes, there is WP:PRESERVE, but there is also WP:IINFO; the list of things with length between 10^n and 10^n+1 m is almost unlimited, and none of those is notable because it is of that length; hence, I see no reason to keep the most of them, just get a few relevant and varied examples for each length.

I did read both AfDs ([1], [2]), and I found that neither establishes consensus for separate articles in the order of magnitude series, nor do they contain any compelling argument to that effect. The strongest argument I found is that Orders of magnitude (length) does not have html anchors to jump for instance to Orders of magnitude (length)#10 nanometre, so that 10 nanometre is useful, but that can be fixed by editing the target article. (The suggestion of grouping by threes could apply to subsections there?)

In any case, 1 metre should be redirected to Metre, 10 metres to Decametre, and so on (falling back on Metre if the specified multiple does not exist), and not to any "order of magnitude" article. Same for 1 E0 m, etc. Tigraan (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Tiagraan. They explain the situation about as good as I could. We're mostly dealing with trivial information here that goes against WP:ISNOT. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This RfC has been stale for almost a month, so I will go and ask it to be closed at WP:ANRFC. There is reasonable consensus to do some kind of merge/redirection but I do not see that a particular action has been agreed upon (unsurprisingly, I think my suggestion is the best). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [3] Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]