Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Septimalisation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE (original research). Nabla 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septimalisation

Article is either a hoax or speculation. Gerry Ashton 19:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Septenary system really existed and was used not only for weeks. This is not a hoax. Proof here: http://www.angelfire.com/nm/YAHUAHSHUA Please rather consider improving this article than deleting, because septimalization is a very interesting approach to units from religious point of view, and should be provided for reading by Wikipedia readers. I regularly add new references for proving my article. This is not speculation, because antique units roughly matches with table of conversion of geometrized septenary unit to SI base units. Proof here:

approximate <-|-> exact from geometrization constants and multiples/submultiples of day

fingerbreadth 1.85E-2m ~ 1,59063203626137E-02m
handbreadth 7.4E-2m ~ 1,11344242538296E-01m
long cubit 5.18E-1m ~ 7,79409697768071E-01m
long reed 3.11E0m ~ 5,4558678843765E+00m
furlong 2.0117E+2m ~ 2,67337526334448E+02m

gerah 5.7E-4kg ~ 3,9579777481142E-04kg
shekel 1.14E-2kg ~ 1,93940909657596E-02kg
talent 3.42E+1kg ~ 4,65652124087887E+01kg

This proves that Biblical units are remnants of God's consistent septenary system reconstructed in article. Please rather recategorize this article to religious ones, than delete it. 83.5.48.151 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above references are not reliable sources and the above proof is at best original research. The Septimalisation page itself is full of non-sense such as one SI second is multipled by 86400, then 86400 SI seconds that has dimension of distance are converted to SI meter, SI grave (kilogram), and SI kelvin, which have dimension of distance, while ampere, mole and candela are omitted due to their lack of dimension in geometrized units. Lklundin 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, and do major cleanup~~. Only problem I have here is that it is EXTREMELY POV and doesn't seem to be laid out well. What is this for, anyway? Are we doing something with eschatology here? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Switch to Delete. Caknuck is right, it's a mess of OR. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - ...and back to keep and clean up. Since Wikinger is committing to a cleanup of the article, I am going to assume good faith and let him do the cleanup. Hopefully, the anon user at 83.5.48.151 can work with him and this will go well. Review in a few months, and see what happens. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Waffle vote. Just going back to Delete. Many of the POV issues remain in the article, and at this point, with the length of time the AfD has run thus far, there has been plenty of time to sit down and rework it. Noting, too, that this is WP:OR - something I didn't pick up on before casting my first !vote. Wikinger, might I suggest putting this somewhere in your user space and working on it there? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A mess of POV OR. The Angelfire link posted above goes to a series of Apocalyptic essays. None of the links above actually directly refer to the septimal system. Add to this the bizarro conversions of unit of time to length, mass and heat, and there isn't much to save here. Show me a source (aside from the Ten Commandments... where'd that come from?) that indicates the Israelites used a septimal system, and I'll re-examine it. Until then, this mess needs to go. Caknuck 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...good point, esp. after taking a second look. --`Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced non-sense. Unless some real sources can be produced showing this actually exists, and providing a cogent defense of it, it's gibberish. --Haemo 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsense. J i m p 03:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expert attention needed The bulk of this is obviously trivial, and much of the rest is POV nonsense, but the basic idea of such a system is there.Those who know about number systems should see it. DGG 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the idea is to propose a new measurement system based on the number 7, a reliable source should be provided that proves that such a proposal exists and is notable enough to include in Wikipedia. If the idea is to describe some measurement system based on the number 7 that existed in the past, a reliable source should be provided to prove that the system existed and was notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the only apparent source we have is the Judeo-Christian Bible. I get the feeling, though, that we're grasping at straws here. You also have the keep argument below, pointing at Geometrized unit system, which I haven't reviewed. Perhaps the basis of it exists therein, and we're looking at some Genius From Mars derivation, but beyond that...well, I'm sticking with my keep above and recommendation for a review after a period, but I should emphasize my conditions. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and restore NPOV - septenary system is based on geometrized unit system, where all quantities are expressed in distance units - even in Wikipedia exists relevant article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrized_unit_system

---<QUOTE>---

In geometric units, every time interval is interpreted as the distance travelled by light during that given time interval. That is, one second is interpreted as one light-second, so time has the geometric units of length. This is dimensionally consistent with the notion that, according to the kinematical laws of special relativity, time and distance are on an equal footing.

Energy and momentum are interpreted as components of the four-momentum vector, and mass is the magnitude of this vector, so in geometric units these must all have the dimension of length. We can convert a mass expressed in kilograms to the equivalent mass expressed in meters by multiplying by the conversion factor G/c^2. For example, the Sun's mass of 2.0×10^30 kg in SI units is equivalent to 1.5 km. This is half the Schwarzschild radius of a one solar mass black hole. All other conversion factors can be worked out by combining these two.

---<QUOTE>---

Converting between various quantities is not a nonsense, because tables placed there: Geometrized unit system and discussion of Pervect about these units placed there: Talk:Geometrized unit system#LUFE Matrix and unit conversion confirms dimension of distance for meter, grave (kilogram), second, kelvin, while defining dimension of ampere, mole and candela as dimension of zero, or no dimension, because they are dimensionless ratios. If you don't believe, try calculate dimensions of these relativistic conversion factors in Google. Grave is historic prefixless name of kilogram as base unit, - even there is relevant article: Grave (mass) I now added to article some Biblical archeology related sources, and even more secular ones that are thought by you as more reliable than Biblical ones:

Wald, Robert M. (1984). General Relativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-87033-2. See Appendix F

Wikinger 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ this is not only WP:OR & WP:CB but (and yes I know this isn't a reason for deletion) is probably the worst Wikipedia article I've ever seen. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me some tips how to cleanup article? I need some advises before I begin. Which parts are in contradiction to NPOV and how to change them to be in accord with NPOV? Wikinger 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first issue is, who's idea was it to create a measurement system based on geometrized units and the number 7, which seems to be what the article is about. If it was User:Wikinger's idea to create this system, then Wikinger should publish it in a reputable scientific journal, and come back after the article has been published. I happen to think there is no chance whatsoever that any scientific journal would ever publish such an article, but I'm no expert on geometrized units. If it was someone else's idea to create this system, Wikinger should provide the bibliograpic citation to the article in a reputable scientific journal where the system was proposed. --Gerry Ashton 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (since my above comment did not specify that). Additionally I fully agree with the previous post (by Gerry Ashton) and in continuation of that I would caution the submitter of a paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal to drop the above used combination of references to general relativity and the pyramids, since a new scientific theory that seeks to combine those two would likely be regarded with a great deal of scepticism. --Lklundin 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea of this septenary system came to me as inspiration from both Bible and geometrized unit system, and due to this original compilation I see that my article will be rather deleted. Thus do you accept at least reusing table of multiples and description of algoritm of derivation of septenary units for example in new section about Tau septenary units that could be placed for example in article Tau (Warhammer 40,000)? These fictional species used identical septenary system, and in this case scientific references are rather not needed. Even this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septenary article states this: 'The Tau of Sci-fi Table-top battle game Warhammer 40,000 use a base-7 counting system'.Wikinger 06:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only describes fiction that has been published by other publishers, and reports reviews of fiction that have been published by other publishers. Wikipedia does not create new fiction, nor does it embelish existing fiction (this process is often called fan fiction; we don't do that here). --Gerry Ashton 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you accept placing table of septenary multiples and unit derivation algorithm in this Septenary article? Wikinger 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tables and unit "derivations" in the article to be deleted have never been published in a reliable source. They do not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer true. I posted this Wikinger's article to Wikinfo and Anarchopedia to save it from destruction, where it was accepted. Do you treat Wikinfo as reliable source?83.19.52.107 10:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A posting of this article at the unreliable sources Wikinfo and Anarchopedia changes nothing regarding the articles deletion from wikipedia. Lklundin 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a bunch on nonsence. Shouldn't be presented as a real subject at face value unless it has some creds with respected people. Just madness, really.

Folks, I've studied general relativity, I've made my living as an engineer, I know my math, I know my units of measure, I know about dimensionless units, converting between units, you name it. This "subject" is all just a load of crap. Lets not give the impression of respectability by argueing this point or that, lets not be give these guys any more attension than they desive, which is NONE. This is a made up subject. This is post-modern liturature meets the decimal system. The people that created it are worse than vandals. Notice, not one peer reviewed ref. Not one credible source. I know, everyone whats to be reasonable and open minded, but lets not be suckers. Steve kap 10:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, with all due respect, perhaps we can be just a wee bit more WP:CIVIL here? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete badly-sourced OR crankery. And that huge conversion table for powers of 7 between -100 and +100? Please, no. —David Eppstein 00:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very small part of the content (the historical part) is probably encyclopedic (and is reflected in the few seemingly reliable sources on the source list), but there doesn't seem to anything to actually justify the process of septimalisation, as defined in the first sentence, as an encyclopedic topic. In particular, I haven't found the term "septimalisation" in the sources (or anywhere but Wikipedia on Google, for that matter).--ragesoss 00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As justification for septimalisation serves obtaining full consistency without breaking Ten Commandments and without making week and Sunday obsolete, as is in case of the SI. Septimalisation is the same for base seven as decimalisation for base ten.83.5.11.79 08:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point about 10 users are in favour of deletion while 4 oppose deletion. Of those four users one is the article's author, Wikinger (which means Viking in Polish) and the three others are IP-users (in the 83 A-class used by Poland). Of the three IP-users one writes only a very short comment, while the two others write enough to make the same grammatical errors as does Wikinger (and this kind of error is common among native speakers of Polish). With this linguistic fingerprint I believe it is justified to point out that Wikipedia:Sock puppetry in a show of support is forbidden, and can ultimately lead to suspension of all involved accounts. If Wikinger has indeed engaged in sock puppetry (possibly due to ignorance rather than malice), I think his/her best option is to come clear and state exactly which of the IP-users are indeed sock puppets. Lklundin 09:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be engaged in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, because in Poland various Internet users doesn't have static IP, but have dynamic one. Really I emailed to my internet friends to stop supporting my point of view, and due to this, all Wikipedia:Sock puppetry-like behavior ceased now already on demand. Thus suspending account is not needed. In the 83 A-class are at least some hundred thousands of users with dynamic IP. Not only I make such grammatical errors as you see. This is very common in Poland.Wikinger 13:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're counting me in the list of four that oppose deletion, but you might note that I am in Seattle - which is quite far from Poland. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my allegation concerns Wikinger and the three anonymous IP-users posting on this page. (I erroneously counted Dennisthe2 as pro-deletion, due to the changing opinions of that user). Lklundin 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennisthe2, apart from the author, you are the only user with an established edit history (see 100-edit rule at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry) in favour of keeping this article. Would you care to elaborate on your opinion taking into account that the author freely admits (above) that the article is OR (and thus can cite no reliable source)? Thank you. Lklundin 15:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In review, I can only say "at the time, it seemed like a good idea". =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

change to Merge any usable content (not those tables!) to Septenary. Much to my amazement, on digging around I've managed to find hard sources showing a septenary calendar was in partial use in Jacobean England & the 19th century US (including a mention in The Long Winter, a very lengthy discussion in the Pseudodoxia Epidemica and an entry in my favourite-title-ever book, The First English Dictionary for Ladies and other Unskilled Persons), but keeping both articles up is a pointless content fork. And strip out all the OR and religious gobbledegook. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.