Talk:Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures

Copy of material

This article is the result of my own contributions in other articles. I contributed in the article Carlos Ibáñez e Ibáñez de Ibero and then in the article History of the metre.

When I was urged by other editors to cut and paste my contributions to the article History of the metre into other articles, I copied material from History of the metre into the articles Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain, International Association of Geodesy and International Bureau of Weights and Measures.

Recently, I decided to replace the last sections of the article Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain adding informations on the remeasurement and extension of the survey in the 19th century. I tried to copy the material deleted in the article Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain into the article History of the metre, where it was immediatly deleted.

I created the article Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures copying my own contributions in the articles mentionned above. Charles Inigo (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• "I created the article Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures copying my own contributions in the articles mentionned above."

This succinctly summarizes the problem with the article. The article should be a summary of secondary sources, not a collection of your contributions. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal

There are many different issues here. Here is my opinion.

• Is the "Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures" notable?
  • Our criterion is A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notice that explicitly excludes sources by the BIPM. Based on the sources in the current article its a close call and we could decide either way. Some of the sources in the current article are about the topic but the vast majority are not. (Even Quinn's books, since he worked there for 25 years).
• Does the current content of Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures suitable for Wikipedia?
  • This is a clear No. The article does not summarize WP:PSTS secondary sources on the article topic. The table of contents of the Terry Quinn book "From Artifacts to Atoms" is a suitable outline for an extensive article on the history of the BIPM: the current article seems to have little overlap. The article directly contradicts the concept of Wikipedia by expanding on details of sub-sub-sub-topics in text form rather than linking those sub-topics and placing the content in the appropriate places.
• Is the title suitable?
  • No. I assume the "Foundation" here means "Founding" or "Origin" rather than say a building platform. The conventional Wikipedia title would be "History of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures".
• Should the article be merged with International Bureau of Weights and Measures#History?
  • In theory, Yes: that is the appropriate place for a good history of BIPM. In practice No. The core problem here is that this material is unsuitable, so moving it is not an improvement.
• Should the article be deleted?
  • That would be short-sighted because I think this kind of content will just reappear elsewhere.
• Proposal:
  • Rename to "History of International Bureau of Weights and Measures"
  • Set the outline of the article by consensus based on secondary sources.
  • Delete content that does not match the outline.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I am interested with your proposal.

• I agree with the name change.
• What secondary source would you propose? Charles Édouard Guillaume wrote a book on the subject (in French). I think the title corresponds better to the topic of the article than that of Quinn's book.

Charles Inigo (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Neither author is independent of the subject. But there may no source which is independent. The BIPM's centennial volume is The International Bureau of Weights and Measures 1875-1975 available in English and probably in French. It has a history section of 20 pages. Its content is heavy on dull organizational issues but the outline is simple: prehistory, foundation, 1st 50, 2nd 50.

You are welcome to propose an outline. The key in my opinion is to limit the content to the article topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

There is an outline in the following page: https://thebipm150.org/history/

By the way, I added a short description of the article inspired of the section's title Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures#Emerging geodetic standard and Quinn's book: From geodetic standard to international prototype metre. I then did a Google search and found an interesting Working paper not for citation without author's permission. Charles Inigo (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The https://thebipm150.org/history/ is a timeline, that is a itemized, chronologically ordered history summary. It's not an outline in the sense of a table of contents.

Unpublished papers are not suitable references independent of author permission. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Outline

I reorganized the text. Please refer to Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures to see the outline. Charles Inigo (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that is significant improvement! I'm not keen on the "expository" section titles that include analysis (eg empowerment of metrology). Analysis needs sources; analysis belongs in the content. I added dates to make all top level TOC entries have dates. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Two more suggestions:

1. Add a short section to the end, with links to modern topics and 2019 revision of the SI. Much of this is covered in Metre Convention, maybe some of that content needs to be here.
2. Cut the first section back. It is disproportionate to the rest of the article and its detail will drive readers away.

Johnjbarton (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices and corrections.

1. I changed name of section according to your opinion.

2. I copyied pasted material from Carlos Ibáñez e Ibáñez de Ibero in order to create a short section to the end: Coordinate Universal Time and 2019 revision of the SI.

3. I splited the first section and added a new section: The metre and Struve Geodetic Arc (1816/1855).

Maybe, it's time to change the name of the article? Charles Inigo (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion

FYI, this article is listed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures Johnjbarton (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Coordinate Universal Time and 2019 revision of the SI/From Greenwich Mean Time to the 2019 revision of the SI

This section is not appropriate. It has almost nothing related to the article topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I modified the title of the section: From Greenwich Mean Time to the 2019 revision of the SI.

The section explains how the International Bureau of Weights and Measures became responsible for determining International Atomic Time which is now used for Coordinated Universal Time besides its role in coordinating International System of Units diffusion. Charles Inigo (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, you did not succeed. Just read the first paragraph. It says nothing about the article topic. In four paragraphs the article topic barely mentioned. This is a fundamental problem with the content of the article and why the propose to delete it was made. An encyclopedia article should be entirely and solely about the topic. Background material belongs in other articles and summarize briefly with close connection to the topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

From Greenwich Mean Time to the 2019 revision of the SI

What are we talking about? I just told you that I changed the title of the last section of the article: Coordinate Universal Time and 2019 revision of the SI into From Greenwich Mean Time to the 2019 revision of the SI conforming to your advice to add a short section to the end, with links to modern topics and 2019 revision of the SI (see Outline). Charles Inigo (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I am talking about the content of that section. One single reference in that section discusses the history of International Bureau of Weights and Measures. It merits two sentences, not four paragraphs. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

That all came long after the BIPM was created. It's off-topic for this article. NebY (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@NebY I am presuming that we rename this to "History of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures". Would you agree to such a renaming? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)