This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Bavaria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bavaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi @Jojhnjoy:,

• Road performance: I am sorry for removing the performance figures. It was because I mistakenly thought they weren't official figures.
• Gear ratios: Their inclusion is not supported by WP:NOTSTATS, I think. This level of detail is excessive for an encyclopaedic summary IHMO.
• Rotational frequency: The info has not been removed, I would just like to re-word the power/torque columns to a more common terminology for English speakers.
  

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, the performance figures as well as the gearbox figures are taken from the original German manual. Initially, it was just titled "518 520i 525i 528i", that led to confusion in the German Wikipedia already. BMW later changed their manual names to "Betriebsanleitung" (manual). I don't think that the gear ratios are very important for a car, but in general they give some interesting information and especially for vehicles such as tractors, the gear ratios are even considered common information. In this case, leaving the information does not really hurt I suppose, the table is not a giant mess but clearly structured. I don't think that changing the frequency unit to something supplementary that applies only to native English speakers makes much sense in a universial encyclopedia, especially not for German topics because Germans would possibly not know what rpm is. The same principle has to be applied to other unit symbols, for instance, ccm, km/st, qm, etc. are things a majority of people would not understand. In general, the unit for frequency has to be any time, such as seconds or minutes; for combustion engines, minutes are more common and the given source uses min as well. You could display it either 1/min or 1 min^-1. While "min" is a common unit symbol for minute, rpm is not. English is a very easy to learn language, especially for native speakers of other Germanic languages, so keeping it simple is the best option considering that not only native English speakers will read this article. Regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background info on the performance figures. Regarding the gear ratios, if it were an article on the recent Porsche models which are being criticised for tall gearing, I would agree that the gear ratios are a valuable addition. However, what is the significance of the gear ratios for the E28? WP:NOTSTATS states that "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", so the WP:ROUTINE official data needs to have its significance supported by independent source, in my opinion. Regarding rpm, this is the terminology that is used in the majority of articles, from Chevrolets to Hondas to Volkswagens. This is because it is the commonplace term in English, and I see no reason why the article for a 35 year old sedan should be the place to try to change this trend. If you have qualms about the mathematical appropriateness of "rpm", it would be better to add explanation to its own article. I appreciate your concern about some people not being familiar with the term, so perhaps a link to the revolutions per minute article can be added to the table. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked my 1959 Porsche manual, it does not list the gear ratios, but the driving speed and the drawbar pull for each gear instead. Since we list the Getrag gearbox models, we could also list the gear ratios to display the differences between each gearbox. I agree that the gear ratios on their own wouldn't be useful information, but in this case they are supported by the gearbox models given in the "list" above. I would not mind if the gear ratios were removed, on the other hand, I don't see a reason for removing them either. The frequency article says that the units for frequency are either Hertz or Second, but it clearly has to be time; minute definitely is time. In mechanical applications usually minute is used. rpm is a supplementary unit for frequency in the American unit system and no abbreviation or unit symbol for "minute" as I thought earlier. Linking to the according article would definitely help, but avoiding additional units would be easier in my opinion. Since the other main units used in the table (Watt and Newtonmetre) are both SI-compliant, the frequency should be as well. I think, in cases we would rather use horsepower and pound-force foot, the frequency should be given in rpm though. In the German Wikipedia we have the concept of topic-related units: We usually use technical units for everything pre-1978, while later "things" will get SI units only. In cases where neither technical nor SI units are common, the "common" units will be used. Both technical and non-technical non-SI units will get an additional SI "translation". This concept of topic-related units would be the best option I guess, because we would preserve historical units and have SI too, which is a worldwide standard that applies to the majority of countries on earth. This article is an article on a German post-1978 vehicle, so SI units would be used in the article (and they are already in use and given in the sources). Adding a non SI-compliant frequency to SI-compliant units would be weird, it does not fit as, for instance, PS and Newtonmetre don't fit either. If it were a pre-1978 West-German vehicle, technical units (that also go by min for frequency) would be appropriate, but the template:convert does not support the PS-compliant kilopondmetre for torque yet... (That's a different story though). Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The gear ratios could be significant in an article for Getrag gearboxes, but there is so far no justification that they are significant for the E28. Also, there were various diff ratios used in the E28 (possibly varying across markets), so the information in the table is misleading. Regarding rpm (which is not just an "American unit", by the way), the suggestion that the unit must be SI would mean using Hz or radians per second, which clearly would just confuse readers. Revolutions per minute is the commonly accepted unit for engine speed in the English language. It seems like you are trying to apply German language precedent to the English wikipedia. The purpose of wikipedia is clear communication, and although English is a terribly inconsistent language, it isn't Wikipedia's role to try to fix this! Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The according article says: "rpm is a measure of frequency" but "According to the International System of Units (SI), rpm is not a unit. This is because the word revolution is a semantic annotation rather than a unit. The annotation is instead done as a subscript of the formula sign if needed. Because of the measured physical quantity, the formula sign has to be f for (rotational) frequency and ω or Ω for angular velocity. The corresponding basic SI derived unit is s⁻¹(...)." And since s^-1 is used, min^-1 works as well. This is not German language precedent, this is SI. If I was about to add "ccm" for volume or km/st for velocity, that would be German language precedent. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are insisting that SI units must be used, then merely changing the abbreviation of revolutions per minute from "rpm" to min⁻¹ has no benefit (not to mention is a completely unfamiliar term to most readers). Since minute is not an SI unit, the choice is either Hz (SI) or rpm (the common non-SI terminology). I assume you prefer the SI option? 1292simon (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The minute is not an SI-unit, indeed, but it is allowed to use minutes with SI. The minute is commonly used for rotational frequency, see DIN 1301-1. rpm is an American unit (like inches), and not SI compatible. This is not the American Wikipedia, this is the Wikipedia in English language. So I would recommend using American units with everything American and SI and SI-compliant units with everything you would use SI for (like German vehicles). Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I own an E28, and the original User Manual (in English) uses the term 'rpm' (and no other term) for engine rotational frequency. RPM (or rev/min) is by far the most common term, and possibly the only term in common use for engine rotational frequency in the English language. Discussion of SI units is irrelevant here, because those terms are never used when speaking about engine rotational frequency. Those terms (hertz, and min^-1) are used for other items of frequency, such as radio waves, electricity supply, and computer CPU speed. For engine speed, everyone uses rpm, RPM, or 'revs per minute'. Take a look at an English language BMW website, and you will find that BMW's own promotional material uses rpm, and not hertz, or min^-1. In English, BMW publications will very rarely use 1/min, but rpm is far more common. Try looking at their websites. I just did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlroddam (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, rpm is used probably, everywhere else, not. When I tell an American that I am 175 cm, they ask me what that is in feet and inches. And why? Because SI units are not common in the US. Of course 1/min, which is SI-compatible, is uncommon as well. But the manual (in German) uses "1/min" (PDF-page 183). Unfortunately, BMW does not offer manuals online in other languages than English and German. And when you own an E28, take a look at the gauge cluster. It says 1/min as well. Like in every BMW. Hertz is obviously used for other "frequencies", but engine rotational frequency is given in 1/min or 1 min^-1. At least everywhere but in the US. I have Austrian literature on engines by Hans List (Die Verbrennungskraftmaschine), published in the 1930s and 1940s, it uses 1/min for engine frequency. The Dutch BMW 700 article uses 1/min. The Swedish BMW E9 article uses 1/min, French: 1/min, Russian: 1/min, etc.. I have never seen anyone using rpm and rev/min in The Netherlands, Germany and Austria. In Russian, East-German, West-German, Austrian, Swiss and Dutch literature, 1/min is used. BMW uses 1/min, as said before. Take a look at their promotional material here (Search for anything). And why? Because rpm is an American unit. Everywhere else, 1/min is the standard unit for frequency. As said, I would recommend using rpm in articles on American engines / vehicles, while using standard frequency in articles on everything else. rpm is an uncommon term to a lot of non-American readers. And as said, this in not the American Wikipedia. Non-Americans read it as well, they would understand 1/min because it is the common unit for frequency. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that rpm is a US-only term is demonstrably wrong. I am in Australia. I have an Australian Owners Manual. Places where rpm is commonly used include Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK, Canada, and yes, the US too. These are countries where English is the first language. rpm is not SI, but it also is not imperial, not metric, not american, and not wrong. It is the most common term used in countries where English is the primary language. This is the English version of Wikipedia. I have just searched the BMW websites in those countries I listed above. I also searched for 1/min in all those countries. Every one of those country's websites returned more results for rpm than for 1/min, and furthermore, 1/min was almost exclusively found in the "Technical Data" sections, whereas rpm was found throughout the website; in prose, in general descriptions, in marketing, etc.. Wikipedia isn't about listing technical data, or using language that people don't understand; it is supposed to be accessible by all, including those without specialist knowledge of the technical terms. The link you gave is (as you admitted) to non-English BMW site, and is therefore not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about the English language version of Wikipedia. The languages and countries you listed (i.e. Russian, German, Austrian, Swiss, Netherlands, etc.) are not English, and therefore not relevant to this discussion. That German gauge clusters show 1/min is also not relevant, as mass production means that BMW are not going to make a separate component for English speakers when the purpose of the gauge is clearly engine speed. People know it is engine speed with our without the writing on it. This is the English Wikipedia. I am in Australia, and I've lived in New Zealand, and in England. RPM is very common in those countries. rpm is NOT an American unit. rpm is the most common way of expressing engine rotational frequency in the English language, and this is the English Wikipedia. Carlroddam (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As said, I would recommend using rpm with vehicles/engines etc. that are American or Australian etc. but especially not for German vehicles, since we use SI-compatible units in this case and since Germans neither use rpm nor know what rpm is. And the same is true for everyone who is not a native English speaker. The links I provided hopefully make this clear. Due to the popularity of the English language, we have to assume that many non-native English speakers will read the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, x/min is self explanatory. The / is common for "per" and "min" is common for minute worldwide. I don't think that anyone would not understand it. Where do you see technical terms here though? I see unit symbols. BMW uses x/min on their English sites in the technical data section only? This is about the technical data section. And of course BMW makes different gauge clusters for the US since the normal BMW gauge clusters don't show miles. In fact, BMW even made and makes more expensive changes (such as different gearboxes etc.) to the non-European market vehicles, as you can read in the E28 article for example. If rpm is not an American unit, rpm is definitely not a common unit for everyone. Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% with Carlroddam's points above. And the key point is "rpm is the most common way of expressing engine rotational frequency in the English language, and this is the English Wikipedia". 1292simon (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A google search with diesel engine -rpm "/min" results in approx. 5,8 million results. diesel engine "rpm" -min gives 3,5 million results. Therefore, I would disagree that rpm is the most common way of expressing frequency in the English language. In fact, rpm is used in the English language only, while "/min" is not only used in German and Dutch but in the majority of languages, including English. It is also easy to understand since it is self explanatory. My literature on engines uses /min and min^-1. BMW uses /min. People don't know that rpm is engine speed if they are not native English speakers and not used to engine technical data. I asked Polish, German, Austrian and Dutch people. The only one who knew what rpm is, is an engineer. But everyone I asked could say that 1600/min means 1600 per minute. So would you want to put an anglo-american unit for frequency in the article that only engineers and native English speakers would understand?

tl;dr:

• rpm is common for native English speakers and engineers only (A lot of non-native speakers read the English language Wikipedia)
• /min is used in many languages too often to be uncommon (including English)
• /min is self explanatory to everyone while rpm is not
• /min is used in the source the technical data section is based on
• /min is SI- and DIN-compatible while rpm is not

Best regards, --Jojhnjoy (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply in detail tomorrow, but in short, your Google search is badly flawed. you used the search wrong terms, and achieved very misleading results. You need to remove 'diesel' from the search terms, and then think about this: Google thinks '/min' = 'min' = 'mini' (the car) = 'minimum' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlroddam (talk • contribs) 07:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Google search is just to illustrate that /min is very common. I don't want to say that it is more used than rpm in the English language. But saying that "rpm" is the most common way of expressing rotational speed is definitely to be doubted. As I said, /min can be found in a lot of languages including English, while rpm is found in the English language only. Therefore, only native English speakers and possibly engineers will understand it. This is not a Wikipedia for native English speakers, but for everyone who knows English. Take a look at the other language versions of some articles. You will possibly find some content in the Spanish, German and Russian Wikipedia, but the majority of other language versions just includes a list of unreferenced information or simply nothing at all. Since English is one of the most common languages on earth, we have to assume that a lot of non-native speakers will read the English Wikipedia. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how far this matter merits the abundance of mental energy that several contributors have thrown at it. Be that as it may, you should please be careful about citing google search statistics as an authority for anything. Leaving aside the extent to which, like opinion polls, you can tweak the results shamelessly and for most purposes invisibly by inadvertently (or not) tweaking your questions/search terms, google search appears to give different answers to different people. He likes to look at your past search history and then use this to determine what answer you would like and whether you might be persuaded to buy stuff. It's a commercial operation - a perfectly legitimate, albeit gratuitously secretive, one - and not a service designed for objective research by the encyclopaedically minded. Success Charles01 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that point, but, as I tried to explain earlier, the Google search was neither meant to be a source nor an evident for anything, I would see it as an indicator. It is no proven method of determining anything. The purpose was simply demonstrating that one could get a significant amount of search results for "/min" in English. On the other hand, keep in mind that there was no evidence for the testimony "rpm is the most common way of expressing rotational frequency in the English language". Since I do not believe that one could prove it nor prove it wrong, take the Google search I provided as a piece of circumstantial evidence. The theory we could establish is that both rpm and /min are common ways of expressing frequency in the English language. I would not doubt that. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the vast majority of English wikipedia car/engine articles use rpm, it seems the burden of proof is with Jojhnjoy to provide evidence that min-1 is more common in English. Regardless, let's look at BMW's websites from the 5 largest English speaking countries: USA, UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa. Interestingly, the websites are all very different (which made digging around for a specs pages quite a task). But they all use rpm. 1292simon (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that rpm is a common term in the English language only and largely unknown in other languages. Since we do not write articles for native English speakers only but everyone who understands English, we should go with the far more common term /min. BMW uses /min in the manual, in the gauge cluster, in their catalogues and their archive. I doubt that anyone would not understand it. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether rpm is common or not in other languages is irrelevant in this case. In each language, Wikipedia should communicate as clearly as possible to readers, using the tools and conventions of that language. So this is not the place to try and iron out some of English's quirks.

Thankyou for providing some evidence to discuss:

• manual and catalogues: these sources are not written for a countries where English is the official language.
• gauge cluster: A similar situation exists for the fuel gauge: "gasoline" is sometimes shown on cars purchased in countries where "petrol" is the dominant terminology. This shows that it is more related to economies of scale for car parts, rather than being a reliable indicator of each country's terminology.
• archive: so now "U/min" is now being proposed?? This is even more confusing!

My overall conclusion about these sources is that the material on BMW's various English websites (above) carries more weight regarding which term is more commonly used in English and therefore more appropriate for this article. 1292simon (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on a German topic. Germans don't use rpm. BMW does not use rpm. Only native English speakers do. Everyone, including native English speakers would understand /min. /min is not an uncommon way to display rotational frequency in the English language. It is used a lot in the vast majority of languages, it is SI-compatible, used in offical documents as well and is therefore accebtable. rpm is complicated and misleading, only engineers and native English speakers would understand it. Since only 33 % of English speakers are native speakers, we must focus on keeping this as simple and understandable as possible by everyone. The English Wikipedia is one of the most read Wikipedias, and many articles, including vehicle articles are either lacking a lot of information in other language versions or are not even existent. Therefore we have to assume that a lot non-native speakers will read this. This means we should use the most common way of expressing rotational frequency. And this is /min or min^-1. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that Everyone, including native English speakers would understand /min. I'm sorry, but this is simply not correct. '/min' is NOT understood by the majority of English speakers. It is only understood by scientists, engineers, mathematicians, etc, a small minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlroddam (talk • contribs) 00:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say that 1.5 billion people don't know the unit symbol for minute? --Jojhnjoy (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I didn't say that '1.5 billion people don't know the unit symbol for minute' at all. I no longer believe that you are being genuine in this discussion. This will be my last post, as I will not participate in a discussion where the other party is not genuine. What I, and others, have said, which you repeatedly ignore, is that "1/min" and other similar notations, are not widely known or understood in the English speaking world to mean engine rotational frequency. If I was to speak aloud "1/min" it would be said "one per minute." But what does that mean? One WHAT per minute? It doesn't make sense to the average person in English. RPM is by far the most common way of expressing engine rotational frequency in the English language, and this is the English Wikipedia. You keep on saying that people who don't have English as their first language also read the English Wikipedia. From this, I can only conclude that you would rather make this English Wikipedia article difficult for native English speakers to understand, so that it is easier for people who speak English as a second language to understand.

In summary, "1/min" and other similar notations are NOT widely known or understood in the English speaking world to mean engine rotational frequency. RPM is the only common way of expressing engine rotational frequency in the English language, and this is the English Wikipedia. Carlroddam (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You hopefully know that the dimension of frequency is time? And that therefore a time unit is mandatory? And of course you would say "The EA 189 has a power output of 103 kW at 4200 per minute." Minute is the unit for the revolutions here. As far as I know, rpm is neither a unit of time nor a unit symbol for minute. Minute is what one would expect here, thats why BMW uses it in the manual. According to the article in the German Wikipedia, rpm is an auxiliary unit in the American unit system. Since it appears like there is a need for an explanation, here I go: For instance, the amount of people, the f-number of your camera lens or even % are auxiliary units. Since rpm adds the auxiliary "revolutions" to something where they are not needed, rpm is an auxiliary unit for something that well established units are usually being used for: Second, Minute, Hour. There is enough evidence to prove that 1/min is not uncommon in the native English speaking world, I would agree that among native English speakers rpm is common as well, but, more than two third of the English speakers worldwide are not native speakers and therefore we should use something everyone could understand. In the English Wikipedia, the authors determine the units used and therefore the Wikipedia does not reflect what the majority of non-Wiki-people would use. You simply claim that rpm is the only common unit for frequency in the English language, there is no evidence for that, you don't even try to prove it, in Wikipedia language I would call it original research. If you would say that poeple would not understand 1/min, I would be confused. Since I knew that "minute" was time even before I could read, I would doubt that anyone who can read does not know a minute. Since the dimension of frequency is time, we should most likely use a time unit like "minute", shouldn't we? We are not supposed to expect anyone to know certain things, but in this case, it is trivial: People know that a metre is length an that one kilogramme is mass. People also know that "minute" is time. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "there is no evidence for that", my comment from 31 May has sources suggesting that rpm is the common abbreviation for engine speed in English. Do you have any sources to support the claim that min^-1 is more common in English than rpm? 1292simon (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that min^-1 is more common in English than rpm. I said that /min is not uncommon. It is used in Literature on vehicles and engines a lot. I said that everybody would understand it. On the other hand, the claim that "For engine speed, everyone uses rpm" (Carlroddam) is just not true. I could also give some random examples that suggest certain things. For instance, a lot of Americans use the unit cc for displacement. I never heard of that one before. As it turned it out, it was supposed to be cubic centimetres (cm³). I looked up the SI-brochure, "cc" is not a valid unit symbol for cubic centimetre as volume units need the exponent 3 always. "rpm" has the same issue. It is just an arrangement of random letters that does not follow any unit symbol rule, you actually have to know what it is, you cannot figure out how this is derived and what it means without knowing it. As I mentioned before, I asked several people, the German engineer I asked knew that rpm was rotaional frequency, however, he did not know what it stands for. He said it was rounds per minute. In general I would say, that you actually have to know at least a bit about vehicles and/or engines to know what rpm is or means (ignoring that you also need to know English because this is the English Wikipedia) while /min is self-explanatory and used worldwide. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no dispute that rpm is more common, then the article should use that. That a unit is "not uncommon" and more common in other languages is not a strong reason to use it over the most common term.

(As previously discussed, min^-1 is not strictly SI either and there is no reason to use SI if it is not commonly understood. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, but for the record all the English-speaking non-car people I asked knew what RPM means but none knew min^-1) 1292simon (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is a strong reason. I explained that the majority of English speaking people are non-native speakers. Therefore you would have to expect that people don't know these letters that don't follow unit symbol rules. Something everybody would understand is more reasonable.

The minute is an SI-derived unit which makes it SI-compatible, SI-units are commonly understood. International System of Units. The name implies that it is international and that everybody understands it. Well, there are two possible options: 1. The people you asked don't know minutes. 2. You are kidding me. As I mentioned earlier, I would doubt that people that are capable of reading don't know minutes. Interestingly, rpm means revolutions per minute and this means that those people who know rpm have to know a minute to actually understand what revolutions per minute is. When you consider that knowing is somehow understanding, then the sentence "all the English-speaking non-car people I asked knew what RPM means but none knew min^-1" is a contradiction. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely possible for someone to know that rpm means engine speed without understanding that min^-1 means "per minute". SI is used by scientists, but that doesn't mean every SI unit is recognised by the general public. Which sources support your argument than min^-1 is more commonly understood in English? Wikipedia is about sources, not whoever gets the last word in. 1292simon (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Jojhnjoy: please stop using cm³, and definitely do not use min^-1 on English Wikipedia automotive articles. Someone reading BMW 5 Series (E28) is here to learn about the BMW 5 Series car, not get a lesson in obscure typographical conventions. Please read WP:UNITS: "cc Non-SI symbol used for certain engine displacements; link to Cubic centimetre on first use" and WP:MEASUREMENT in non-scientific articles not tied to the US or the UK, "the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)." The Manual of Style has specifically addressed how to write rpm and cubic centimeters in automotive articles. In an alternative universe it might make sense to have used some other conventions, but in this universe, this convention has been settled upon. One of the reasons there is such widespread consensus to follow the MOS is that we don't have to waste so much time debating this kind of trivia. It's settled. If you want to change it, you should go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and make a proposal. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1292simon: Yes, somebody can know that rpm refers to engine rotational frequency, however, if this person doesn't know minutes, this person cannot know the time the frequency depends on which makes it really useless and therefore this person does not understand it. The same is true for torque: People often know that N m refers to torque, but they often don't know what it is or does and how it depends on the power output and engine rotational frequency.

@Dennis Bratland: Please read the manual of style, WP:MEASUREMENT: In all other [non American, non British] articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI (...). In the table "Guidelines on specific units" underneath: cubic centimetre: cm³. It does NOT tell me I have to use non-SI units on all vehicle articles. Therefore I will not surrender to this absurd demand you made of me. You even gave me the rule we have to apply here: "In all German arcticles, the primary units chosen will be SI units (cm³, kW, N m, mm, kg) and non-SI units accpeted for use with the SI (min)." Both rpm and cc must not be used with SI. --Jojhnjoy (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues at WikiProject Automobiles discussion. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am an old school BMW enthusiast and have owned, seen, repaired and driven many for much of my life. As far as I know the "check control" light panel does not include any metric for brake pad wear in USDM or euro models. It is a warning light in the instrument cluster (separate from "check control"). I made an edit to reflect that, however if there does exist a check control warning light for brake pad wear lets talk about it and edit accordingly. I can see it being a thing for markets like Japan or South Africa but like I said, I have not driven or repaired any e28 models from those markets.

DaddyDevito (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The owners manual states that check control panel includes metrics for brake lights, headlamps, engine oil, tail lights, number plate illumination, windscreen washer fluid, and engine coolng water (page 133; 5—16). The brake pad wear indicator is indeed in the gauge cluster, under the tachometer (or clock) (owner's manual page 11; 1—10), as seen in this picture. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr.Choppers,

Regarding the edit summary stating "incorrect application of units", I believe that the edit is in accordance with WP:CARUNITS. All of the figures are supported by sources with kilowatt ratings, therefore the then-obsolete Pferdstarke (PS) ratings are not required to verify the stated figures. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metric horsepower is in no way obsolete, it is probably the most commonly used unit globally. All sources use metric hp and kW. I have also told you ten times by now to stop calling metric horsepower by the German name, you are wrong and this behavior is becoming offensive. Your pretend confusion is based on the WP conversion template using an incorrect abbreviation. We covered this extensively at Talk:BMW 6 Series (E24)#Engine specifications and you have so far not been able to provide a scrap of support for your stance beyond a partial and selective reading of CARUNITS. Even the British BMW importer used metric horsepower: look here.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Choppers, your decision to revert the edit while my Talk Page discussion in ongoing is quite disappointing and at odds with Wikipedia's fourth pillar.

Thank you for the link to the brochure, however I do not agree that a brochure (for a 6 Series) single-handedly proves that the then-obsolete Pferdstarke (sorry if you somehow find the German word offensive, but this is how the unit is abbreviated on Wikipedia) unit is closely associated with this generation of 5 Series.

WP:CARUNITS states "The power rating for cars from metric countries should be shown in kilowatts (kW), with horsepower (hp) in parentheses", so could you please explain why you this should not apply to the current article? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"PS" stands for metric horsepower, just as how K means Potassium and not Kalium. Period sources all use metric hp,even the english ones. The only reason that particular wording is there is because you added it in 2019, something I just noticed. I will revert to the original version.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how potassium is relevant to the question of horsepower units for this car?

Also, please see my previous request for an explanation about why unit conventions should not apply to this article? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not feign ignorance, it doesn't suit you. Calling metric horsepower "Pferdestärke" just because it is (incorrectly) abbreviated PS in WP is akin to saying id est instead of "that is." We abbreviate Tungsten "W", but this doesn't mean we call it wolfram. It is contentious editing, you are consciously doing it in order to make metric hp appear obscure. I have politely pointed this out to you several times already.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how much this echoes the discussion above, where you and Johannes Maximilian are arguing about rpms and ccs (albeit under different names, with you on the reasonable side). Dennis Bratland helpfully included the quote "the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for angular speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)."  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]