Colonel William A. Phillips

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

Civil engineering This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Maps This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography 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.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

There does not seem to be any info here on what sort of accuracy can be achieved. 92.40.60.108 (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The effect may be significant for some work at distances under 100 meters." Probably meant : "The effect may be insignificant for some work at distances under 100 meters." Tc02 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is correct as it stands. It certainly can be significant, although often ignored for less critical work. Perhaps the statement could be "The effect is often ignored for short distances but may be significant for critical work at distances well under 100 meters." BillHart93 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

significant overlap fgnievinski (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that something has to be done about all of the overlap. Maybe leave the methodology and details in the levelling article and remove the identical text in the level page, and just leave a brief history and description for the instrument on it's page, since it is a significant historical instrument.--JLavigne508 (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed duplicate images and duplicate description for levelling details that were in both articles. In my opinion the description and history (and pictures) of modern and historic level instruments should have it's own article like the way it is now (think of how important levels have been since Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia right up to the present). Levelling is a process unto itself so I think they should stay separate articles (with separate content), will wait to see if anyone else has any other ideas before removing this discussion tag.--JLavigne508 (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the consensus to distinguish the content between the two pages rather than to merge. Klbrain (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]