4 ms·
I know this may have been a long time ago, and you decided it wasn't worth the effort making and defending the edit, but making a mention of your references on
by hcs 7y ago
I know this may have been a long time ago, and you decided it wasn't worth the effort making and defending the edit, but making a mention of your references on the talk page for the article could bring the error to the attention of other editors.
- acqq 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAngstrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAngstrom "1907 IAU definition of the Angstrom: Was it 6438.4696, or was it 6438.46963 (???) I was wondering why I was coming up with 1553164.117 wavelengths of the cadmium red-line per 10^10 angstroms (the so-called "Cadmium meter", per the 1907 IAU definition given as 6438.46963), while virtually all internet searches were coming up with "1553164.13". Later, I managed to trace a change in the article from 6438.4696 to 6438.46963 in an unsourced one-character edit by 146.115.127.198, all the way back to 2008. I suspect that 6438.4696 (which yields 1553164.12459 per 10^10 (1907) angstroms) is correct (based on the printed publications which I have come across), and the error has since propagated to several other websites that have used Wikipedia as a reference. Should this ten-year-old edit be reverted, or not? DWIII (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)" After reading that, to find some who have since 2008 wrongly used that bogus constant (even in some books), search for: "6438.46963"