Talk:Orders of magnitude (volume)

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

The contents of the Orders of magnitude (less than one cubic millimetre) page were merged into Orders of magnitude (volume) on 5 January 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the Orders of magnitude (one cubic millimetre to one cubic metre) page were merged into Orders of magnitude (volume) on 5 January 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the Orders of magnitude (one cubic kilometre to one cubic megametre) page were merged into Orders of magnitude (volume) on 5 January 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the Orders of magnitude (one cubic gigametre and greater) page were merged into Orders of magnitude (volume) on 5 January 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

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]

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,

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]

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? [email protected]

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]

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]

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]

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]

These:

• Orders of magnitude (less than one cubic millimetre)
• Orders of magnitude (one cubic millimetre to one cubic metre)
• Orders of magnitude (one cubic metre to one cubic kilometre)
• Orders of magnitude (one cubic kilometre to one cubic megametre)
• Orders of magnitude (one cubic megametre to one cubic gigametre)
• Orders of magnitude (one cubic gigametre and greater)

...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

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]

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