  ::Army1987: I started the subject here because 1) the Kilogram article was seriously deficient when I first started on it (here’s what it looked like), 2) there has long been the common misperception that the kilogram is uniquely a unit of mass and the pound is a unit of weight, so people would logically first begin their research into the issue at Kilogram, and 3) the nuances of the effect of buoyancy on mass standards and precision metrology seem to be appropriately addressed in a Kilogram article too. It has previously been suggested that a new article be created called “Mass versus weight”. Indeed, we can create such an article but it’s not the sort of article title that one would think of typing directly to look up. So you end up just briefly touching upon the subject in “Kilogram” and providing a link to the “Mass versus weight” article. I like Wikipedia’s ability to link to other articles for further reading. When done judiciously, you really exploit the strength of hyperlinks; when done to excess (like linking dates to see what the hell other totally unreleated events occurred on July 17, 1763), it burdens the article IMO. When linked properly, we write for instance, “While the weight of objects are often expressed in kilograms…” and the Weight article is one that one would type all by itself and linking to it provides a logical, handy, easy-to-remember article for further reading. But an article titled “Mass versus weight” strikes me as simply fragmenting a subject for the sake of fragmenting a subject. Few would remember two weeks later that the topic is titled “Mass versus weight” but would remember that you first go to “Kilogram” to find the link. That’s the clue that an article shouldn’t be fragmented into a separate topic: how obvious is the title of the article? Wikipedia is getting out of hand in this regard IMO. That’s my 2¢ anyway.  ('''' 