Talk:Ellenborough Park, Weston-super-Mare

Somerset Low‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset 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.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biota of Great Britain and Ireland (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Biota of Great Britain and IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and IrelandBiota of Great Britain and Ireland articles

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

Explanation of revert of 18,000 metres squared to 1.8 hectares - I think an average Wikipedia reader would find it much easier to visualise 1.8 of something than to visualise 18,000 of something. I wholeheartedly support Bobblewik's crusade to bring standardisation to units, but the standards need to be well thought-through. SP-KP 18:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with you. 1.8 is easier to visualise than 18,000. However, the unit hectare is more obscure than metre based units.

We could test visualisation of each unit. We could take Wikipedia readers to the top of a hill looking down on the countryside and:

tell them to guess the areas of pieces of land that we point out. Doing it 10 times for each unit.
give them numeric area values and get them to point out at pieces of land equivalent to those areas. Doing it 10 times for each unit.

I am sure that overall accuracy for all units would be bad. But I am convinced that accuracy would be worst for hectares.

But having stated my reasoning, I accept yours and defer to your edit. Thanks for the feedback and for your support for work towards unit improvements in general. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 13:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]