Talk:International Organization of Legal Metrology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Oiml.jpg[edit]

Image:Oiml.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

The so-called NMO definition of legal metrology is not a definition, but rather an extract from "The regulator’s statutory remit or objectives" can be found on pg 11 here. The accompoanying paragraph reads "To provide the legal metrology infrastructure necessary to facilitate fair competition, support innovation, promote international trade and protect consumers, health and the environment." I have therefore removed it. Martinvl (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article development[edit]

I have reverted a series of changes which, I believe, needed more thought and more discussion before being implemented.

The additions, in my view, were largely the unstructured addition of a large bulleted and numbered lists of unexplained factoids, veiled in impenetrable language, and mostly gleaned from the organization's own website.

What we need are short paragraphs of concise prose giving explanations, in layman's language, and a commentary to add meaning to the organization and for the facts that are significant and notable to be put into context and supported by third-party sources.

Let's first decide what the section heading should be, and then take it from there.

Bill le Conquérant (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential section headings include:
  • Mission and principles
  • History: background, perceived raison d'être, beginnings, enlargement...
  • Structure: roles: work, departments, involvement, influence, ...
  • Participation: countries, their involvement, ...
  • Relationships: with other bodies, ...

Bill le Conquérant (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the text. I am happy to rework this article, but first lets find alternative or additional citations - since you brought the subject up, will you please find some alternative citations and we can work from there. Until and unless you can do so, the current text should stay.
In order to put things into perspective for the non-technical reader, please look at the case study that is still under development.
Martinvl (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to discuss such huge changes here first. I have restored the previous content. What do you think about my suggested section titles? Bill le Conquérant (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to discuss the so called "huge changes". If you can find citations that will be appropriate, I will discuss, but until you can find suitable material, discussion is senseless. Martinvl (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is already a structure in place, how do you suggest the structure be changed?

  1. For a start, I see no point in making major changes to the last two sections - "Senior postholders" or "membership".
  2. I feel that the list in "Technical Committees" should stay - it gives the reader an idea of what subject matters the OIML actually covers.
  3. The section "Activities" could do with a little more meat. Again, I have listed actual documents produced to give the casual reader an idea of what the organisation is about.

This leaves the section that I have called "Establishment". I agree that this too could be expanded, and maybe the difference between the OIML and the BIML on the one hand (staffed by paid employees) and the technical committees (staffed by people acting on behalf of and employed by national laboratories).

I also feel that there is scope to re-introduce the opening section "What is legal metrology?". Some of the text is already in place and only needs moving.

I look forward to your comments.

Martinvl (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there's a way forward here; a way to include the work of both of you, such that we don't have to make a decision between "one version" or "the other". My feeling is that you both have valid points:
    • On the one hand, the new additions are a little too light on the prose narrative and a little too heavy on the bullet lists. The tone, while not terrible, coupled with the bullet lists, makes it feel more like something one would find in a company prospectus or on the company website used to describe itself. In general, if this is to be a properly styled encyclopedia article much of this should be reworked into a prose narrative instead of a choppy set of itemized lists.
    • On the other hand, the information itself seems relevant and suitable to an article like this, even if the presentation is off.
    • The third problem I see is that the article places WAY too much weight on internal organization sources. Certainly, using such primary sources are unavoidable in certain contexts, for example when citing the membership of the organization, or its own internal policies. However, Wikipedia articles should be built on independent sources primarily: that is the bulk of the text of an article should be referenced to sources which have nothing to do with the subject. So, if we're going to develop this into a good Wikipedia article, we need to bring forth much more in the way of independent sources of information, and not rely solely on the organizations own internal documents. Using those in a limited capacity is fine; building an entire Wikipedia article solely out of them is not, as it makes it look more like a company-produced document(also see my first point) about itself and not a comprehensive overview of the scholarship on the organization itself.
  • So, if we're going to move forward here, we need to validate both sides on this: the information itself isn't wrong, but the presentation is quite bad, and we need a LOT more information which can be gotten from independent sources in order to bring this article into a decent state. Does that help here? --Jayron32 21:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that appraisal. I agree with you 100%. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Due to lack of responses to my requests for discussion, I propose to revert the recent additions to the article as described above, and rebuild the article using short paragraphs of concise prose giving explanations, in layman's language, and a commentary to add meaning to the organization and to include just the facts that are significant and notable, and to put them into context and support them with third-party sources.
We can't leave the article in the current appalling state, so please speak up now, so we can move forward in a cooperative fashion. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I woudl like to move the OIML's four point outline outline into the "Mission" section and then tie that in with the MoM" section - I notice that in the OIML website, the MoM section has four sections. If thre is a one-to-one correlation, then this woudl be appropriate. Meanwhile, in real life I do have other things to do. As regards restructuring, we need to find the information needed before any restructuring can take place. Has User:Bill le Conquérant found any references that back up, for example, his proposed section on "History"? Martinvl (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Members section[edit]

The tables of countries and flags occupied a disproportionate amount of article space, and with all the flags was particularly dominant, so I have reduced it to prose. Bill le Conquérant (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like ~20% of the vertical space of the article and makes an otherwise list a bit easier to look at and navigate. Sorry, I don't see any advantage to removing this. GaramondLethe 05:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Columns such as I used are the norm in Wikipedia - for example Metre Convention and Member state of the European Union. Prose such as you used are not easy to navigate. Martinvl (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with your edit, Bill. The columns are much easier on the eyes. Storkk (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought that would be the least controversial of the changes I wanted to make to the article! So we now know that tabulated is preferred over comma-separated lists.

Those particular tables though take up so much space for so little value. I can't imagine anyone wanting to "navigate" those lists - they are just padding. Are the wide white-space gaps between the columns necessary? Are the flags necessary? Do we actually need to list every country of each type of membership? How about using 5 or 6 columns, rather than 3, and removing the flags? Bill le Conquérant (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this perhaps?

Bill le Conquérant (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bullet points don't add any information and adds clutter. Removing them leaves a naked columns of text. I really do think the flags should stay. GaramondLethe 14:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No bullets, no flags:

No bullets, yes flags:

Bill le Conquérant (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Organization of Legal Metrology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on International Organization of Legal Metrology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Organization_of_Legal_Metrology&oldid=1207726770"