Talk:Orders of magnitude (volume)

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 October 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

Mathematics Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Incorrect link

Incorrect link "Planck volume" takes you to a page about planck length... There doesnt seem to be any explanation of whether a planck volume is just a planck length cubed, or some other value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.114 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

So wait a second... There is both an Orders of magnitude (volume) and also articles like 1 E12 m³ and 1 E6 m³? Shouldn't there be one or the other?

For instance, 1 E11 W redirects to Orders of magnitude (power). That makes more sense to me. Should we move all the information from the individual volumes to this one article? - Omegatron 13:38, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

No, I like it how it is -- when I say that Lake Gatun contains 5 billion cubic metres, for example, I can link to a page that explains what 5 billion cubic metres equates to. - Johantheghost 19:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposed merge. I find it confusing to have articles for all those different orders of magnitude. I think all examples of volumes of different orders of magnitude should be listed in a single article. It makes it easier to go back and forth and compare volumes from the smallest to the largest. Besides, one list is easier to maintain and expand than many individual articles. --200.66.39.186 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The very last section refers to megaparsecs. Shouldn't that, instead of cubic meters, be reflected in the panel on the right? 70.138.217.107 (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

square foot vs cubic foot

Question. I'm looking for a comparison between square foot and cubic foot out of curiosity. I'm a 60+ yr old gardener and I want to know the depth difference between square foot and cubic foot. I know a square foot is a flat 1' x 1'. I know a cubic foot is 1'x 1'x 1'. But if I'm asked to dig a square foot space, how deep do I dig? k_hettich@juno.com

Boxes

The box illustration--I can't figure it out. Is the 1000 the biggest purple box, or is it the big purple box within the biggest purple box? Confusing. Chasrob (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge impending

In short, Orders of magnitude (length) provides an excellent model of how this page ought to be structured. The current structure is extremely confusing and difficult to maintain, and based on above comments, this was noticed long ago. I am planning to merge all of the volume articles, such as 10^-14 m³ and 10 dam³, into this article, create sections for microscopic, human scale, and astronomic scales, and add some new items and suitable images to the list. If anyone objects please let me know. Dcoetzee 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volume or capacity

The second column in the table has units of capacity in the higher rows and units of volume in the lower rows. This table is supposed to be about volume, not capacity. Any thoughts on what goes in an Orders of magnitude (capacity) table?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proton volume

Is there any source for the volume of a proton (listed as 1.5*10^-41 m^3)? The only measurements for protons that I've found are the radius, 0.87 femtometres (it can be found on the page for proton, and is cited there), and this would yield a volume of 2.76*10^-45 m^3, which is significantly different. Any explanation for the size given here? Yosho27 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

These:

...Should all be merged into this article. Any objections? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 23:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And then Template:Orders of magnitude (volume) should be deleted. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 23:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done as uncontroversial merge. Ajpolino (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extra digit in number

Why is there an extra digit on the tables last row's ~1×10113 part when I think it's supposed to be ~1×1113? That makes no sense! Not if they are in the right order! Unless there are some, like a lot of numbers skipped(Mohamed Naufan (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

highly dubious speedy redirect

The "deletion discussion" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orders_of_magnitude_(volume) is a joke, right? The gut feeling of a chosen few is chosen as normative and a few over-zealous editors overturn a completely good, and very copious article in the orders of magnitude list. People in general lack a good measure for comparison of sizes of units outside the everyday range. You, deletionists, redirectors, have taken a beautiful aiding guide and thrown it into the dustbin. What have you gained? Please try to widen your scope before blundering ahead like that. All in all, I strongly vote for a resurrection of the page in its earlier form -- Kku (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]