142:
getting of the opinion that the units are getting more emphasis than the values. It's certainly nothing you have done, but I've gotten the sense that when I write something in a nautical knowlege domain, where, for example, knots and nautical miles are customary in UN documents, an editor will quickly swoop in to supply a conversion. There are many knowledge domains where customary notation is not easily accessible to a nonspecialist, such as the use of Greek letters in much of physics. When I write software involving such variables, I give them mnemonic names, but I don't see a widespread controversy over special symbols. The controversy seems to overemphasize units, ironically since metric usage still often can't decide on mass vs. moles (chemistry), CGS vs. MKS (physics), etc.
157:
hot links) and minimising the number of key strokes required to access definitions (many hot links). For me one more link doesn't detract from readability, but this is subjective, and I don't feel strongly about it either way. Please feel free to change it back the way it was. You will notice from the discussion above your comment that I *do* feel strongly about avoiding the use of "nm" as an abbreviation for the nautical mile. If you are interested in contributing to that debate you may wish to take a look on the
732:, a section in the Knowledge Manual of Style which describes how "see also" sections are generally used. Since the purpose of these sections is to provide a place for relevant wikilinks that aren't yet included in the article, with the eventual intent being to integrate those links into the article and remove the "see also" section entirely once that's done, I've removed a number of redundant links from the articles
53:, but didn't get much of a response. I'd like to ask if you'd be willing to stop making this change, because nm is by far the most common abbreviation for nautical miles. It is essentially impossible to read a range in nautical miles and confuse it for nanometers, because they differ by a dozen orders of magnitude. In addition, I always link my first use of nm to the article for
866:
background to understanding the topic at hand, then the article should be revised to make that context clearer. In other words, repeating the links at the end of the article isn't particularly useful, because someone unfamiliar with the concepts of a topic don't skip to the appendix material first - they read the article from the beginning. --
789:
difficult for users to pick out the terms that are both (a) related to the topic at hand and (b) didn't already appear elsewhere in the article. If "see also" were intended to be a handy summary of all the wikilinks in an article, it would have been made an automatic function of MediaWiki long ago. Hope this makes sense. --
196:
then it makes sense for the aviation articles to follow that. Given the apparent dearth of clear *international* guidelines on maritime matters, I see no good reason for not adopting NM for SHIPS also. My main objective from the beginning was to avoid the clash with the nanometre. Lightmouse said he was going to move the
320:
I just checked SP811. On p12 it says "Symbols for units formed from other units by multiplication are indicated by means of either ... dot or a space" and then "m·s^(-1) is the symbol for the meter per second while ms^(-1) is the symbol for the reciprocal millisecond". I have to say I am surprised to
195:
Consistency is an important consideration, which is why I've been happy to accept NM (as opposed to nm) as a compromise all along. If the ICAO guidelines do indeed recommend use of NM (remember all that we have so far is an
Australian memo referring to the guidelines - not the guidelines themselves),
936:
Thanks for your comment, Thunderbird, which hit the nail on the head so squarely. I think
Alvulus, and possibly another of the antagonists, had a hand in pushing for the system to be developed back years ago. It really hasn't turned out well, with several major disadvantages that make the compulsion
865:
Not really. If a reader begins reading the article and comes across a concept or word he or she doesn't understand, then that word will already be wikilinked within the article, and they can click on it then. If it's unclear from the context of the article that a particular concept is important as
85:
So, where does that leave us? My suggestion is that we both temporarily refrain from changes in either direction and try to find a rational solution to our difference. I know WP is keen on consensus, and you have tried that path already, with little success. Personally I prefer to find a solution
962:
Thanks for the link Tony. You and I don't always agree (and why should we?), but your proposal is carefully considered and well written. I can understand that some may suggest minor changes (though none spring to mind), but the outright opposition it has encountered is puzzling. I wish you luck.
593:
The objective of the change I made was to move the debate about the prefixes away from the disambiguation pages and on to the articles themselves. For that reason the wording was carefully chosen to be innocuous. I agree that "a unit of information or computer storage" is more concise and I can’t
181:
Thanks for the note on my talk page, I changed the references from nmi to nm as in all the reference books in aviation then NM (or nm) is the accepted term. I have official RAF and UK CAA documents that use NM sometimes nm so the compromise of using NM is probably supportable. Didnt mean to disrupt
156:
I agree it would be inappropriate to convert to a metric unit in an article like this one. If a reader wishes to learn about matters nautical, they will need to understand the nautical mile. So, why not make it easy for them? I suppose it is a balance between improving the flow of the article (few
536:
That's a huge improvement on what was there before you started. I've made some minor edits, and may return for some more, but it looks good. One thing I did notice that needs attention is your use of the term "underwater microphone". This term is never used in underwater acoustics - instead it's
263:
Hello
Lightmouse. My reasoning for these changes is that Nm is not permitted by SI, so when I see it I change it to N m. I have no objection to N·m as this is also accepted by SI, except that I don't know how to make the dot (except using copy-paste). Perhaps the style guide should be changed to
75:
2. While it may be difficult to confuse a nautical mile with a nanometre, that does not make it impossible. Just the very fact of using the same symbol for two different units is by its nature confusing. I once witnessed a demonstration of radar software that showed detection ranges in units of
788:
Thanks for your response. A person reading no more than the introduction to the article would have already come across the wikilinked term "bit" and could have clicked on it if they were interested. Including a wikilink in the "see also" section merely clutters that section up, making it more
332:
I found an earlier version (7th edition, 1998) of that BIPM document that uses the Newton metre as an example to illustrate the SI multiplication rules. It gives N m and N·m as allowed options, but not Nm. That explains the inconsistency I guess, because NIST are still following the old rules.
141:
I'd rather not, because I think it draws visual attention away from the number. When, for example, I need to look up the relationship of the
Becquerel, Gray, and rem, I look them up with a few keystrokes. Perhaps I am getting oversensitive ahout the metric versus customary unit matter, but I am
79:
3. I'm sure you're aware that the nautical mile is accepted for use alongside the SI system, and also that there is no internationally accepted abbreviation for the nautical mile. I believe that one day a symbol will be chosen, and when this day comes, I am certain that symbol will not be nm,
170:
Thunderbird, I see that the aviation discussion seems to indicate that "NM" is the best abbreviation for nautical miles with aviation. I have no problem with using this abbreviation for ships as well; should we start using it across the board or do you think that'll need further discussion?
582:
and so on. The ", for example," looks unnecessarily eloquent for a disambiguation page and "to quantify" unnecessarily strays from the common wording. On the other hand, if you think "to quantify" is a worthful addition, it would probably be best to add this to the other pages as well. Then
76:"nm" and asked (tongue firmly in cheek!) why it was the ranges were so short :-) The response came back straight away "Oh, that's a typo. The nm should read km". To this day I am unsure whether his screen was actually in miles or kilometres. And perhaps the demonstrator is as well.
1078:). I opposed it though, and my views were respected - I think the others got tired of arguing with me and moved on to other things. In a nutshell that's why there's no explicit advice now. Anyway, now the proposal is the opposite one and I expect it to get a tough (but fair) ride.
506:
By the way, I was surprised at the relative lack of interest after
Lightmouse moved the nm vs NM vs nmi discussion to MOSNUM. It seems to have reached the same impasse as before at SHIPS. It's a pity because it would help if we could adopt a convention that we can all agree on.
493:, you linked some extra occurrences of "ft" and "in" in the infobox, even though the first use of each unit was already linked. I'm pointing it out because if you're doing this with a script or regular expression, it may have a couple of bugs in it. Have a good day!
359:) which says "Multiplication must be indicated by a space or a half-high (centred)dot (⋅),since otherwise some prefixes could be misinterpreted as a unit symbol." That means that N m and N·m are both permitted but Nm is not. The confusion arises because the letters
583:
concerning "other uses", I disagree, because "information or computer storage" should cover all cases. If you transfer some data in "communications" what you transfer is "information". Or could you explicitly give some example not covered by this definition? --
1069:
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll read through all the new stuff and make my views known. By the way, in case you're interested in the history, there was almost unanimous agreement a couple of months ago to include a "no spaces to the right" rule. (See
664:
I knew there was not an intent to offend. Interestingly, unlike the SI scheme where the plural is not present, "knots" does really seem to be the unit, with the singular only being used for the unlikey single knot, or perhaps the "unitary knot".
126:
No, not for emphasis. My intention was to make it easy for someone reading the article to look up the definition if they want to know how the nautical mile compares with a statute mile or whatever. Do you prefer not to have such links?
594:
think of any example not covered buy it. In fact, the bare “a unit of information” also covers everything, but I am not sure if it will be considered uncontroversial by others. If you make a suggestion along these lines on
767:. Though I have not read it thoroughly, the presence in it of a "See also" section suggests to me that its authors have not thought through the implications of their own guideline. In what sense does the removal of (eg)
1107:
1049:
420:
How did you get 218dB from 80kPa in the Pistol Shrimp article? The ratio 80kPa/1uPa is 180.6 dB on my calculator. Even adding 6dB to turn it into a peak value (which itself also baffles me) still does not get it over
67:
Hi Tom. Thanks for your interest, and for pointing out the brief project discussion in the Ship
Project. I was wondering when someone would notice. There are a number of reasons why I disagree with you on this.
616:
The sentence was grammatical, intelligible, and informative. It was just not to your taste. It's ok that it isn't to your taste and it's fine that you've simplified it. I just was not keen on the edit summary.
71:
1. I don't accept that nm is the most common abbreviation. If you tell me it is common in the USA I believe you. But I live and work in Europe and it is not common here, or at least not in my field of work
572:
288:
In any debates about SI, it is always worth going to the official website. The 'N m' option is also permitted but I was just curious as to the changes from one valid option to another. Regards.
384:
Very interesting and excellent research. For SI, I always go direct to BIPM. I use NIST only for
American units and their proposal to amend the FPLA for "Permissible Metric-Only Labeling" at
467:
I haven't read the article recently, so I'm not sure which 6 dB you're referring to, but it may be a conversion between zero to peak and peak to peak levels. Does that answer your question?
253:
I see that you are making the symbolic form 'N m'. The
Knowledge style guide says "It is abbreviated Nm or N·m". Is there a particular reason for the format that you are using? Regards
112:
I noticed that you wikilinked the unit "nautical miles" in the article on
Fisheries Management? Not implying any criticism, what was your reason for doing so? Some sort of emphasis?
399:
200:
discussion to the MOS page though. If he does that we will undoubtably get some new opinions. In the meantime I will start using NM for ships and aircraft. Happy editing :)
1098:
Thunderbird2, Jimp and I went off on our own in an effort to resolve our differences and try to actually accomplish something productive. Please read my initial post to Jimp
646:
is not. Could I have phrased the edit summary more carefully? Undoubtably, but my words were directed at the sentence, not at its author. No offence was intended :-)
35:
article has far too much on acoustics - aside from mentioning why a decibel is a useful unit in acoustics, all the discussion there should be in some other article. --
1093:
584:
575:
you wrote "Good point, but the bit especially has other uses too (eg communications). How about "a unit of information used, for example, to quantify ..."
1008:
301:
I see what you mean. But now I'm confused. If I use those rules, how am I supposed to know whether ms means metre·second or millisecond? I usually use
937:
to use it rather inappropriate. Yes, I'm proposing that it merely be optional, supported by rules in the manner of our guidelines for ENGVAR at MOS.
602:
1071:
471:
49:
Hi! I noticed that you're changing the nm abbreviation for nautical miles to nmi whenever you see it. I asked WP:SHIPS what they thought about it
938:
158:
100:
50:
587:
457:
No worries. I had typed this reply anyway, so I include it here for the benefit of anyone else who happens to come along with the same question :)
204:
146:
917:
883:
848:
806:
779:
511:
406:
391:
I was not aware of the ambiguity in 'ms' but you are right. I think you have persuaded me. Thank you for pointing it out and explaining it to me.
375:
348:
337:
325:
313:
292:
268:
107:
90:
402:, clear your cache (press ctrl-shift-R in Firefox). Whenever you are editing a page, you will only need to press the 'combined' tab at the top.
344:
I've been reading through the 2006 BIPM document again. I think we are both been misinterpreting it. Got to go now. More to follow later ...
186:
116:
1131:
717:
674:
655:
497:
218:
628:
333:
Frankly, I think BIPM have scored an own goal; I cannot see their new rules lasting very long, because of all the ambiguities they introduce.
239:
1087:
972:
558:
545:
1075:
608:
477:
566:
1120:
I’ve chalked up the latest goings-on there as just another bug-splat on your windshield of life. I hope you join us on my talk page.
451:
441:
708:
Thanks for the suggestion. I agree it would make it easier to understand the justification for the change. I'll try to follow it.
503:
Hi Tom, Thanks for the note. Actually that was a manual change. I just didn't notice the first links :) I'll go back and fix it.
956:
1099:
1037:
1023:
165:
131:
1011:
175:
61:
437:
578:
Why not stick to the common wording "is a unit of information or computer storage"? It is used on almost all pages like
257:
447:
Whoops! Sorry! just realised which wrong button I pressed my calculator which is clearly far more intelligent than me!
1063:
996:
757:
39:
875:
798:
749:
530:
229:
931:
635:
702:
414:
1103:
819:
If "See also" were used as a "handy summary of all the wikilinks in an article", I would agree with you. In
695:" in the edit summary, that gives other editors a direct link to where the correct style is documented. --
217:
Sorry, thought I read somewhere that they weren't needed. my bad. I won't object to them being put back in.
395:
86:
that you and I are both comfortable with, as no one else seems to even care. Can we agree on that?
1083:
968:
913:
844:
554:
Ah, of course. I'm not that familiar with this use of bioacoustics, as I already said. Will fix. --
280:
433:
1117:
978:
713:
651:
44:
17:
1033:
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WONTFIX |
823:
it is not used in that way, but as a summary of most directly related to the gigabit article (
1043:
371:
in Sec 5.3.6 do not represent units (eg N or m) but physical quantities (force or distance).
321:
see this inconsistency between BIPM and NIST, but the NIST advice seems more sensible to me.
385:
517:
425:
245:
356:
8:
691:. Good work! May I make a suggestion, however? If you put something like "tidy up per
699:
670:
634:
The terse style of edit summaries can sometimes lead to misunderstandings. Looking at
624:
448:
429:
281:"5.3.6 Multiplying or dividing quantity symbols, the values of quantities, or numbers"
306:
1079:
964:
909:
840:
776:
709:
647:
599:
542:
508:
468:
372:
345:
334:
322:
310:
265:
236:
212:
201:
162:
128:
87:
277:
The SI authority (the BIPM) states that 'Nm' is permitted. The relevant section is:
1126:
1110:. At a certain point, in discussion forums, reaching any sort of consensus becomes
1058:
837:
Reading these particular articles will help you understand the concept of a megabit
723:
595:
355:
Back again. This is how I see it: The relevant part to our discussion is on p130 (
183:
143:
113:
36:
991:
951:
867:
790:
741:
692:
494:
479:
403:
289:
254:
172:
104:
96:
95:
I hope you don't mind, I'd like to continue to discuss this on the talk page for
58:
26:
1040:
2007-12-18 02:27:25 UTC --- Let's keep it open for now and see what happens...
764:
729:
235:
OK, thanks. I try not to add too much clutter by linking only on first use :-)
696:
688:
682:
666:
620:
54:
613:
Please remember that it is possible to take offence at edit summaries, too.
489:
Hey
Thunderbird! Just wanted to make you aware that in your recent edit to
523:
1048:
I hope I have a solution to formatting numbers you approve of. Please see
835:). Collecting the important ones in one place helps the reader by saying
1121:
1053:
638:
again, I think my main objection to your choice of words is that while a
1016:
984:
944:
555:
538:
527:
1106:. It’s a lot less frustrating of a forum than what’s going on over on
57:
and I provide metric conversions following all nautical mile figures.
394:
Incidentally, have you considered using my unit formatting script at
197:
522:
Finally I found the time to do a complete rewrite of the article on
828:
740:. If you wish to discuss these changes, I'd be happy to do so. --
737:
579:
983:
Aha! I wonder whether he's responding to the activity at MOSNUM.
905:
832:
820:
772:
733:
32:
1108:
Grouping of digits: New specific proposal using {{formatnum}}
943:
that shouldn't really be causing so much useless discussion.
526:. Please check it and let me know what you think. Thanks, --
904:
It seems we disagree then. I have moved the discussion to
302:
824:
768:
386:
http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/mpo_home.cfm
1052:, as well as the post immediately preceding that one.
1013:
Subject: Use date format preference on unlinked dates
1102:, and then read what’s going on over on my talk page
1017:http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582
728:Hello! I'd like to invite you to take a look at
398:. All you have to do is copy the source text to
264:state a preference for N·m though (over Nm).
182:your good work but nmi just didnt look right.
99:so we can seek a wider consensus. Please see
1029:What |Removed |Added
763:I have followed your suggestion to look at
80:because that would never be accepted by SI.
307:NIST Special Publication 811, Taylor 1995
1094:An alternative forum to accomplish this
309:). I will check to see what they say.
14:
1036:--- Comment #73 from Brion Vibber <
1010:Date: 18 December 2007 1:27:27 PM To:
609:Mangled? No. Just not to your taste.
460:The calculation goes like this: 10 log
1118:my proposal will not fare well there.
23:
567:Neutrality of disambiguation pages
24:
1142:
687:Hi. I saw your recent edit to
775:improve the megabit article?
376:13:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
349:12:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
338:11:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
326:11:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
314:10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
293:10:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
269:20:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
258:20:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
240:21:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
230:21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
205:17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
187:17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
176:17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
166:06:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
147:23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
132:22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
117:22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
13:
1:
1132:18:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
1088:08:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
1064:01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
997:00:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
973:19:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
957:15:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
718:19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
703:19:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
675:22:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
656:20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
629:20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
541:. Thanks for your efforts.
400:User:Thunderbird2/monobook.js
918:14:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
884:14:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
849:10:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
807:17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
780:13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
758:11:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
603:07:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
588:07:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
559:06:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
546:18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
531:10:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
512:20:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
498:20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
7:
472:16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
452:16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
442:16:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
407:09:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
396:User:Lightmouse/monobook.js
10:
1147:
108:18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
91:15:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
62:14:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
40:22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
1004:Begin forwarded message:
908:to seek consensus there.
932:autoformatting proposal
771:from the "See also" of
415:Pistol shrimp Decibels
18:User talk:Thunderbird2
1116:unlikely and believe
1076:subsequent discussion
357:Sec 5.1, Unit Symbols
642:is a unit of speed,
940:Here's the proposal
598:I will not object.
144:Howard C. Berkowitz
114:Howard C. Berkowitz
1022:Brion Vibber <
444:
428:comment added by
1138:
994:
989:
954:
949:
880:
871:
803:
794:
754:
745:
423:
227:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1096:
1046:
1034:
1030:
992:
985:
981:
952:
945:
934:
882:
876:
869:
805:
799:
792:
756:
750:
743:
726:
685:
611:
569:
520:
487:
463:
417:
248:
219:
215:
159:SHIPS talk page
47:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1144:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1045:
1042:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1021:
980:
979:autoformatting
977:
976:
975:
933:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
874:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
812:
811:
810:
809:
797:
783:
782:
748:
725:
722:
721:
720:
684:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
659:
658:
610:
607:
606:
605:
585:217.237.151.53
568:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
549:
548:
519:
516:
515:
514:
504:
486:
476:
475:
474:
465:
461:
458:
416:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
392:
389:
379:
378:
352:
351:
341:
340:
329:
328:
317:
316:
298:
297:
296:
295:
286:
285:
284:
272:
271:
247:
244:
243:
242:
214:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
190:
189:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
124:
123:
122:
121:
120:
119:
83:
82:
81:
77:
73:
46:
45:nautical miles
43:
28:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1143:
1134:
1133:
1130:
1128:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:original edit
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1055:
1051:
1044:Format number
1041:
1038:
1027:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1002:
999:
998:
995:
990:
988:
974:
970:
966:
961:
960:
959:
958:
955:
950:
948:
942:
941:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
885:
881:
879:
873:
872:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
808:
804:
802:
796:
795:
787:
786:
785:
784:
781:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
760:
759:
755:
753:
747:
746:
739:
735:
731:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:
705:
704:
701:
698:
694:
690:
689:Fujitsu Eagle
676:
672:
668:
667:Fiddle Faddle
663:
662:
661:
660:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
632:
631:
630:
626:
622:
621:Fiddle Faddle
618:
614:
604:
601:
597:
592:
591:
590:
589:
586:
581:
576:
574:
560:
557:
553:
552:
551:
550:
547:
544:
540:
535:
534:
533:
532:
529:
525:
513:
510:
505:
502:
501:
500:
499:
496:
492:
485:
483:
473:
470:
466:
459:
456:
455:
454:
453:
450:
449:Spinningspark
445:
443:
439:
435:
431:
430:Spinningspark
427:
422:
408:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
387:
383:
382:
381:
380:
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:
350:
347:
343:
342:
339:
336:
331:
330:
327:
324:
319:
318:
315:
312:
308:
304:
300:
299:
294:
291:
287:
282:
279:
278:
276:
275:
274:
273:
270:
267:
262:
261:
260:
259:
256:
251:
241:
238:
234:
233:
232:
231:
228:
226:
224:
206:
203:
199:
194:
193:
192:
191:
188:
185:
180:
179:
178:
177:
174:
168:
167:
164:
160:
148:
145:
140:
139:
138:
137:
136:
135:
134:
133:
130:
118:
115:
111:
110:
109:
106:
102:
98:
94:
93:
92:
89:
84:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
65:
64:
63:
60:
56:
55:nautical mile
52:
42:
41:
38:
34:
19:
1125:
1112:
1111:
1097:
1080:Thunderbird2
1057:
1047:
1035:
1020:
1015:
1006:
1003:
1000:
986:
982:
965:Thunderbird2
946:
939:
935:
910:Thunderbird2
877:
868:
841:Thunderbird2
836:
800:
791:
777:Thunderbird2
751:
742:
727:
710:Thunderbird2
686:
648:Thunderbird2
643:
639:
619:
615:
612:
600:Thunderbird2
577:
570:
543:Thunderbird2
524:bioacoustics
521:
518:Bioacoustics
509:Thunderbird2
490:
488:
481:
469:Thunderbird2
446:
419:
418:
373:Thunderbird2
368:
364:
360:
346:Thunderbird2
335:Thunderbird2
323:Thunderbird2
311:Thunderbird2
305:guidelines (
266:Thunderbird2
252:
249:
246:Newton metre
237:Thunderbird2
222:
220:
216:
202:Thunderbird2
169:
163:Thunderbird2
155:
129:Thunderbird2
125:
88:Thunderbird2
48:
30:
1050:this update
491:Trumpetfish
482:Trumpetfish
478:Cleanup of
424:—Preceding
184:MilborneOne
37:Wtshymanski
870:Dachannien
793:Dachannien
744:Dachannien
539:hydrophone
495:TomTheHand
404:Lightmouse
290:Lightmouse
255:Lightmouse
173:TomTheHand
105:TomTheHand
59:TomTheHand
1026:changed:
596:wp:mosnum
537:called a
213:wikilinks
198:B2 Spirit
829:megabyte
738:gigabyte
724:See also
697:RoySmith
693:WP:UNITS
580:Megabyte
484:(SS-425)
438:contribs
426:unsigned
97:WP:SHIPS
72:(sonar).
1127:my talk
1059:my talk
906:megabit
878:Contrib
833:mebibit
821:megabit
801:Contrib
773:megabit
765:WP:ALSO
752:Contrib
734:megabit
730:WP:ALSO
636:my edit
571:Hello,
464:=~ 218.
223:BQZip01
33:Decibel
27:Decibel
1122:Greg L
1113:highly
1054:Greg L
1007:From:
993:(talk)
953:(talk)
700:(talk)
421:200dB.
1039:: -->
1025:: -->
683:units
644:knots
556:Yerpo
528:Yerpo
16:<
1104:here
1100:here
1084:talk
1074:and
987:Tony
969:talk
947:Tony
914:talk
845:talk
736:and
714:talk
671:talk
652:talk
640:knot
625:talk
573:here
480:USS
434:talk
367:and
303:NIST
250:Hi,
101:here
51:here
31:The
839:.
825:bit
769:bit
161:.
1086:)
1001:T
971:)
916:)
847:)
831:,
827:,
716:)
673:)
654:)
627:)
462:10
440:)
436:•
363:,
283:].
221:—
103:.
1129:)
1124:(
1082:(
1061:)
1056:(
967:(
912:(
843:(
712:(
669:(
650:(
623:(
432:(
388:.
369:c
365:b
361:a
225:—
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.