Jump to content

Talk:List of unusual units of measurement/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Jigger

The jigger doesn't vary, at least not in the US. It's defined as 1.5 US fluid ounces. I'll see if I can find a source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's also a standard measurement defined within the traditional English system of units and the US customary system of units, and as such is specifically excluded from this article. Traditional "English" and foreign units are specifically excluded because otherwise the article length would be excessively long Rhialto (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Metric ounce, food labelling ounce, shot glasss... all three are basically the same unit. Can we merge the two sections for these please? Rhialto (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll see what I can do, although as defined here the "shot glass" is not a set amount so maybe I'll leave that for now. What do you think? By the way thanks for sorting the entries. I made them alphabetical because they didn't appear to be in any particular order, but order by size is better I think. I put in a comment. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I took out jigger. But I think maybe we should just remove the "shot glass" section instead of merging it since there are no sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Shot glass can easily just be a sentence or three under the metric ounce header. It's historical origin is from the ounce anyway. fwiw, the Uk legally defines a shot of spirits as 25 ml, which is just another metric ounce. Rhialto (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
otoh, if there truly isn't any objective way to define it, then it is merely a figure of speech, and as such it shouldn't be here at all. Rhialto (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the US defines the shot glass but if it's defined as 25 ml in the UK then it should go in the metric ounce section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Stere

Does the stere really belong here? It doesn't seem to fit the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendall-K1 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no —Tamfang (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Finger

The "finger" as a unit of liquid measure is common in the US. Professional barmen here do not normally measure liquor with any kind of instrument, they just eyeball it. There's even an article on Finger (unit), with references. I guess I'd be inclined to add it back to this article, with the references. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

On second thought I'm going to leave it out. There are three references at Finger (unit). One is 150 years old, one is from a piece of fiction, and the last describes using fingers as a method for measuring a jigger of whiskey, not as a unit in itself. I would still support putting it back in but only with proper sources (which I'm too lazy to dig up myself). Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Banana for scale" or "Jose for scale"

Often when people post things on the image hosting site Imgur and a scale is needed, a banana is provided for size comparison. If a banana is not available, an adult male named "José" can suffice. This unit of scaling was developed through memes and popular culture, so I'm not sure if this is notable enough for inclusion. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

One human often used for size comparison is the smoot, which is included in the list of humorous units of measurement, and so it is not appropriate here (no need). I'm thinking the José is along the same lines. —GraemeMcRaetalk 17:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Tall building heights

Someone might want to check the numbers in the "Tall buildings" section. I checked a couple against their WP articles and they didn't match. For example we give 449 m for the Empire State Building, but the article gives 373, 381, or 443 for heights to various points. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not all that sure the section belongs here at all. Figures of speech and comparisons (such as "thinner than a human hair") have previously been removed. The essential cite to show that something is a unit of measurement is a line that says something is, for example, "three empire state buildings high". "Taller/shorter than the empire state building" is just a comparison, and doesn't show the building to be a unit of measurement. Rhialto (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I would go along with removing it. Here in the US, especially in newspapers, it's common to see, "three football fields long" but I can't remember ever seeing "three empire state buildings high". Google backs this up, no results on the first page for Empire State Building, but for football fields we have "New Maryland casino is 3 football fields long", "Police Discover 2 Football Fields Worth Of Pot", "Asteroid 3 football fields long going by Earth tonight", "Duluth Aerial Lift Bridge and shipping canal... more than three football fields long", "The Titanic was 882 feet long, which is almost three football fields", and "Nearly three football fields long, ...the Iowa is one of the biggest warships ever built" all on the first page of results. Interestingly enough, there are also several "ask.com" type queries from people wanting to know the conversion factor between football fields and standard units, which makes me wonder why we don't just use the standard units. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway it's pretty funny that the Empire State image has the tag. 'The Empire State Building is one Empire State Building tall[citation needed]' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.106.32 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 13:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


List of unusual units of measurement → List of comparative units of measurement – Most of the things on this list are places or things of a finite size, which other things are compared to. "Unusual" isn't the right wrong, particularly when the humorous has been stripped away pbp 00:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC) pbp 00:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Boatload?

We need a reference to show that boatload is means anything specific, and is more than just slang. See wiktionary:boatload and Merriam-Webster. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say "Boatload" belongs in the article titled:Indefinite and fictitious numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_and_fictitious_numbers#General_placeholder_namesMisterHOP (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Morning

In The Netherlands, the "morgen", literally "morning", was used in the past as a unit of area. It was the area of land which could be ploughed by a single farmer in half a day. Local variations existed, the size was a bit less than 10,000 square meters. Did a similar unit exist in English speaking countries? If yes, it may be a good candidate for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.80.244 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The acre is an equivalentanalogous unit of measure. --Belg4mit (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually morgen it is :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This article is specifically about unusual units of measure in English-speaking countries, not unusual units in non-anglophone countries, and not historical units of measure. A historical unit of measure from a non-anglophone country is well outside the scope of this article. Rhialto (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
"This article is specifically about unusual units of measure in English-speaking countries, not unusual units in non-anglophone countries, and not historical units of measure." I don't see anything in the title or Talk Page that would justify that statement. Heavenlyblue (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget that New Netherland (and especially New Amsterdam) was a foundational part of the future United States. Any farmers there would in all likelihood have used this unit. And, since the linguistic transition was gradual after the English conquest, there would probably have been farmers using the term during the period when the colony would have been officially described as 'English-speaking'. Heavenlyblue (talk)
This adds even more weight to the argument. [From Morgen]:
"Until the advent of metrication in the 1970s, the morgen was the legal unit of measure of land in three of the four pre-1995 South African provinces - the Cape Province, the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. In November 2007 the South African Law Society published a conversion factor of 1 Morgen = 0.856 532 Hectares to be used for the conversion of areas from imperial units to metric, particularly when preparing consolidated diagrams by compilation."
As you no doubt know, English is an official language of South Africa, and I don't think that the 1970s would be considered "historical" in this context. Heavenlyblue (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

schoenis

Under the title schoenis Wikipedia gives it as an Egyptian measure recorded by the Greeks. Herodotus 2.6 "schoine, which is an Egyptian measure, is equal to sixty furlongs" 2.149 "The measure of its circuit is three thousand six hundred furlongs (being sixty schoines), and this is the same number of furlongs as the extent of Egypt itself along the sea." (furlong = stadion)

Herodotus gives it as as equal to their own measure of the schoenus 60 stadia where a stadion was 600 pous or feet, 1/8 mia chillia or thousand orguia or paces of 6 pous.

Pliny as 40 stadia

Pliny the Elder 5.11 "Other writers say that it is forty schoeni in length, making the schoenum to be thirty stadia" Pliny the Elder 12.53 "schoenus patet Eratosthenis ratione stadia XL" (Eratosthenes says: schoenus = 40 stadia).

strabo as 30 schœnum (or half scoenis). and Strabo as Strabo 17.1.24 "according to Artemidorus, the voyage up the river is twenty-eight schoeni, that is, eight hundred and forty stadia, reckoning the schoenus as thirty stadia. When I made the voyage, however, they used different measures at different times when they gave the distances, so that even forty stadia, or still more, was the accepted measure of the schoenus, according to the place. That the measure of the schoenus among the Aegyptians in unstable is made clear by Artemidorus himself in his next statement; for from Memphis to Thebai each schoenus, he says, is one hundred and twenty stadia, and from Thebai to Syene sixty, and, as one sails up from Pelusium to the same vertex of the Delta, the distance, he says, is twenty-five schoeni, that is, seven hundred and fifty stadia, using the same measure" Pilot Pirx (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)142.0.102.157 (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Surveying

I'm surprised not to see "rods" and "chains" listed as distance measures. Jack Waugh (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because they are historical units that no longer see regular modern use; this page specifically excludes historical units (as well as units not used in anglophone countries) because otherwise the page would become impossibly long. Chains and furlongs (but not rods) used to see use in the UK rail industry until about a decade ago, but no longer. Rhialto 14:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Chains are still pretty commonly used. They belong here. We also have morgen and acre-foot, but no acre. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any cites that indicate modern usage (as opposed to conversion for curiosity's sake or encyclopaedic knowledge cites)? I should point out that just because one unit is listed here, does not imply that any other unit should be, no matter how similar. Sometimes, that may actually present a convincing case to remove the first one, not to add the second. Rhialto 13:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Cites?, no, because that involves the legwork research that we never have enough time for. However I can look out of my house windows and see two lots of building work going on. One is railway, where the conventional unit for curvature radius is still the chain (and is spray marked on platform edges etc) and the other is some minor domestic building where a jobbing builder has set out with chains as they presumably don't have the budget for a laser total station. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
No cites means it's inherently not appropriate for wikipedia. A physical chain can be used to measure things in metres, yards, or toktobolots. The physical nature of the measuring device has no bearing on the units it is actually measuring something out in. (When I use a ruler, I measure the paper in inches, not in rulers.) Now at least in the UK, chains do still exist as place markers on railway lines; they aren't used to measure things so much as identify locations from things that were measured decades (or even centuries) ago, and they certainly don't see use to measure any new place markers on new line construction. Rhialto 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
"No cites means it's inherently not appropriate for wikipedia." What nonsense. I don't think "inherently" means what you think it does.
Chains measure in chains. Their link length and the label tags are chosen on that basis. A continuous tape can be labelled in either metres or yards, a chain has to choose one set of mutually compatible graduations (i.e. links). No doubt metric chains with half metre links were made for Napoleon, but here in the UK, chains still have imperial links.
I don't know how one would measure a radius of curvature in degrees. Railways (UK) were generally constructed and laid out in chains, with signal positioning rules, minimum radius curves for particular long rolling stock measured likewise. That sort of division doesn't go away with metrication. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Rods and chains are outside the explicit scope of this article, "a unit of measurement that does not form part of a coherent system of measurement; especially in that its exact quantity may not be well known or that it may be an inconvenient multiple or fraction of base units in such systems.". The chain is an integer multiple of the yard and of the rod, while the furlong and mile are integer multiples of the chain; as imperial units go, such multiples are not at all inconvenient. As for the exact quantities, while they may not be taught in most schools, they are known and both fixed and easy to ascertain. NebY (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
So chains are "well known"?
Why is the (highly obscure) Furman here, when its whole raison d'etre is for being a binary round number fraction (i.e. simple integer multiples) of a circle?
Why do we list morgen here, but not acre? Why acre-foot, but not acre? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Did I say chains are well-known? Does the lead paragraph say the units should or should not be well-known? How would you rewrite the lead paragraph to admit chains and rods? Which other units listed in Imperial units would you include? Does the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS apply to your questions about morgen and acre-foot? Or to just directly address the issue, why in the light of your above claims that the chain remains in ordinary use and in the light of its place in the family of imperial units of length, do you think the chain and the rod should be listed alongside the horse and the block? NebY (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

wp:cite is the policy that says everything must be cited, or at least citeable. If something has no cite, the only valid reason should be that the editor is in the process of adding the cite.

Now, rods, chains, furlongs, and so on are standard members of the imperial system of units, hence their exclusion from this article. The same goes for the acre. Acre-foot get through because it combined two existing units to create a new third unit (of volume). Morgen is here because it is not a standard unit in a consistent codified scheme, but is (at least within living memory) a unit that has seen standardised albeit specialised usage in an anglophone land. Furman is here again because it sees usage in an anglophone land, and is not the usual unit of angular measure (which would be degrees, minutes, and seconds).

Regarding those measuring chains you saw, yes, traditionally they would have been built so that a single link in that chain was a standard imperial link (unit of length) long. But there's no reason to assume that any random chain on a building site, even if it is being used as a measuring device, was constructed to that standard. They might just as easily be 10 cm links instead. Unless you have a citeable source that can be independently verified, it's hearsay, and therefore not valid as a data source for wikipedia. Rhialto 18:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Quora.com

Please note that www.quora.com is entirely driven by user-generated content, and as such is not a valid source for any information content, except conceivably in an article about that site itself, and to identify the topic of such an article. Rhialto (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If it's bad as a ref, it's even worse as an EL.
Mind you, I still think there's scope for something on oxen-based measurement. Not exactly short on sources either. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Centipawn

"Centipawn" states: "Loss of a pawn will therefore typically lose that player 100 centipawns (which is usually enough to lose the game)." If that is so in chess software, the software barely resembles the physical game, where loss of a mere pawn is very unlikely to have a major effect on the outcome. Then, if "chess software will often rate the better of two moves within a few centipawns of each other", the first statement has to be wrong. Up to someone who uses chess software ... --Wikiain (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A loss of a pawn is indeed usually enough to lose a game when the game is played as a sufficiently high level of competence. Garamond Lethet
c 04:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The entry is not that well written to be honest. "Loss of a pawn" is not equivalent to a net score of minus 100 centipawns because 1. it depends on the position of the pawn and other pieces, as stated earlier in the entry; and 2. loss of a pawn does not happen in isolation - hence exchanging a pawn for any other piece would clearly often be an advantageous move and not "usually be enough to lose the game". Btljs (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Breadbox

Steve Allen's line, "Is it bigger than a breadbox?". It became a common unit of measure in guessing games. This could go in Humourous Units of Measure, but it has changed from comedy to a common phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.26.160 (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"bigger than an X" indicates that X is used to compare something, but not that it's a true unit of measure. For that, you should be able to find cites saying that something is "five Xs in size" Rhialto (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with 68.149.26.160. Breadbox should be on here. I don't believe that the five X test is a good test for stuff being on this list. pbp 20:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Back in 2006 there was a discussion of what should be in the article, and there was a consensus that comparative expressions such as "bigger than a breadbox" or "small than a bee's dick" or "faster than a speeding bullet"£ should be excluded, because they are never actually used to measure anything; they are figures of speech or poetic ways of comparing things, but not actual measures. I welcome a fresh discussion, but I expect the consensus is likely to remain the same unless sockpuppets are involved. Rhialto 21:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
We're having this discussion right now, and at the present time, you're outvoted, 2-1. Furthermore, "breadbox" isn't a figure of speech...it's literal, and based on a general idea of how big a breadbox is. pbp 23:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DEM Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not about votes, it's about reasoned debate. "Votes" don't come into it. Rhialto (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

fwiw, I'm not saying those these figures of speech don't deserve either their own article or being collected into an article that covers such figures of speech. However, they are qualitatively different from actual units of measurement. Rhialto (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the measure for sockpuppets? "Cubits of fluff"? Btljs (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of humorous units of measurement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Both of these articles are very similar and the have a great deal of overlap already. If there is no consensus for a complete merge, then the overlapped sections should be removed from the article of lesser relevance. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree with the merge - but agree that the overlap should be removed. These two articles have different objectives: this one lists real but rare units, the other lists fake units, so to speak. Combining them would be confusing. The main work that needs to be done is to remove the humorous units from this article, and more clearly direct the reader to the humorous units article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • As the person who originally separated the two, strong Disagree. Merged, the article would be excessively long, and splitting along that line is as logical a divide as any and better than most. I'm open to alternate ways of splitting them, but as David noted above, there is a logical divide at work here. Rhialto (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree. It makes a lot of sense to try to separate unusual, yet generally serious in intent, measurements, from measurements that have never or rarely been taken seriously. If they were intermingled then it would make for a poorer list, as it would reduce the clarity of reason and intent, which is as interesting as the unit in the first place. ----Mrjulesd (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Trying to decide which units go in which article can be tricky. Nanocentury and nano-acre I've moved to humorous ... but I've left "barn" in both articles because it was created as a joke but is regularly used as a serious unit. I have also killed one item entirely: Toyota Prius as a measure of weight, since it depended on a single flippant newspaper article reference. I'm of two minds about "Nines" which is in the unusual-units article ... is it really a unit at all? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
And most confusing of all: all those comparisons that are in the unusual-units article - so many swimming pools or Melbourne stadiums or whatever. Are those unusual or humorous? I would argue the latter, but it would involve a lot of moving. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose These are not the same thing - the distinction is so common that there's a phrase for it: "funny-ha-ha or funny-peculiar". It would be imprudent to merge the two concepts because such topics are commonly threatened with deletion on the grounds that they are imprecise. The proposal would tend to make matters worse. Andrew D. (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Breadbox

I oppose the removal of Breadbox from this list. It is a common comparative measurement of volume. pbp 20:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm old enough to remember Steve Allen's use of "bigger than a breadbox" on tv and I think there is something fundamental missing from all these discussions about measures.

Most units of measure are simply linear (in the sense of normal arithmetic multiplication). Measurements in linear units can be compared arithmetically. The 10 nm width of a chip etch can be compared with the width of the galaxy, typically expressed in light years or whatever. This is scientific measurement and the units of measure, in some sense, don't really matter. Of course, the purpose of this page is to collect odd measures in common use and appropriate for various purposes, and it is certainly worthwhile to encyclopediate [neologism?] them.

But the use of breadbox is somewhat different in an important sense. First an anecdote: 45 years ago I [B] was standing at sunset with a colleague [A] on the south rim of the Grand Canyon. 

[A] Wow!  That's big!
[B] Yeah!  But how big is it?
[A] How could we measure it?
[B] We could determine how many standard unit breadboxes it takes to fill it up.
[A] Yes, but mining the materials for that many breadboxes would probably require digging another hole that big or bigger.
[B] Indeed!

After more consideration we decided making the measurement was impractical for us poor students and abandoned making the measurement.

BTW, at the time we did have _the_ Standard Unit Breadbox in our apartment back on the East Coast.

While true, this anecdote is farcical, and that's the point! No one ever has or ever will use a breadbox as a linear unit of measure. The "bigger than a breadbox" measure is a different, but a genuine and useful kind of measure.

Consider the kinds of sizes and distances with which a primitive (non-scientist) human must deal. They range from a grain of salt, or perhaps smaller, to the distance one can walk (or ride) in a day. One can fit a grain of salt, or a baseball or apple, or a loaf of bread, into a breadbox. One cannot fit a baseball bat, or a refrigerator, or a horse, or a Boeing 787, or the island of Manhattan into a breadbox. I propose that the breadbox, whether considered as a proxy for linear dimension, for volume, or for bulk, is somewhere vaguely in the middle of the logarithmic range of size a human might have to deal with. Therefore as a first determinant question establishing the conceptual size of a thing, "is it bigger than a breadbox" is an appropriate question.

Nearly all the standard scientific and engineering systems of measure are linear. But intuitive human conceptions of measurement are closer to logarithmic. (Consider also musical pitch, sound loudness, intensity of light.) Whether or not the Standard Unit Breadbox belongs on tis Unusual Units of Measure page, it ought be recognized that it does not operate with the same linear dimensional scaling as smidges, chains, rods, cubits. It operates on a crude (probably) logarithmic human perception scale. While it is reasonable and understandable to ask if an object is "bigger than a breadbox", it would be questionable and probably meaningless to ask whether something is "bigger than 5.7 breadboxes."

I wonder if there are other human measurement systems that are informally logarithmic. If so, and if these measurement units are a named class, they would deserve their own page on Wikipedia. (If not, an encyclopedia is supposed to record accepted knowledge, not a place publish or even propose original research.) Anyone have any references to existing informal nonlinear measurement systems? Wolfamade (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Refrigeration ton

Does the Refrigeration Ton belong here? I had the impression it was a standard unit in the US, like the pint or the pound. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I suspect your impression is wrong. Pints and pounds are base units; Refrigeration tons are derived units. And considering its a unit of power, its certainly an unusual way to name it. On the face of it, it would appear to be a unit of weight or mass, not power. Rhialto (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

MCG needs updating

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-20/surveyors-find-exact-measurements-of-melbourne-cricket-ground/6709520 175.45.116.64 (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

done. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of unusual units of measurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of unusual units of measurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Conversions needed

We need conversions for Kan and Cow's grass. The text implies the Kan is 36-64 square feet but doesn't actually say that. If we don't know what these units are, they probably don't belong here.

Also I wonder if the Brass and the Square are the same thing. They are the same size, and the Brass comes from India so it seems reasonable it would have derived from the Square, which is Imperial. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

A bit of fun

The "conversions" section of User:Guy Macon/On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house could use a few more entries. I am sure that you all agree that User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house contains absolutely vital information that the Encyclopædia Britannica somehow overlooked... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sydharb

From my recollection of this unit, it is pre-metric, and a conversion factor of 493 GL was given for it. This equates to 400,000 acre-feet.

An article in the undated paper gave a 2004 remeasurement of the harbour as being 562,000 ML, and a 1960s measure as "about 500,000 ML". However, since Australia did not go metric until 1973, I suspect that "about 500,000 ML" is 400,000 acre-feet (ie 493 GL), and this measurement is given as a 'olympic pool is 2 acrefeet (1/200,000 Sydharbs)'.--Wendy.krieger (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We have three sources for 500 Gl and none for acre-feet. If you have another source we could give both units. Or we could convert from 500 Gl. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Tall buildings

I have removed all the examples from the "tall buildings" section that lacked a source because virtually any tall structure is used in this way; we could have an endless list. I left in the Empire State Building because it has an accompanying photo, but I wouldn't mind if it was lost, too. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I approve. I wouldn't leave in the Empire State Building just because it has a photo. I added a bunch of photos a while back just to brighten up an otherwise drab article. There is nothing special about that photo. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigma

I reverted the recent addition of "sigma." It doesn't seem to me that's a unit of measurement. Although we do include "nines" so maybe it is. But if it is, it doesn't seem "unusual" to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

10-foot pole

Would "ten-foot pole", as in "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole", qualify as an unusual unit of measurement (length)? I've also heard the variation "eleven-foot pole". — Loadmaster (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I would call it an idiom; not a unit of measurement. It's not like football fields or other things are described as "thirty ten-foot poles long," so it's not really a unit of measurement.
(On variations, there's also the thirty-nine-and-a-half-foot pole!) TJRC (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

In Russia, France (551,695 km2 or 213,011 sq mi) is often used as a comparison for regions of Siberia.

This is not true - I am from former USSR and old enough to live under communist rules and I NEVER heard such allegory. Reference 29 is to article in local newspaper and indeed it says that "we said as two Frances", but they refer to very specific region beyond polar circle that has nothing to do to whole Siberia. Second reference (30) does not work at all and it actually someone's blog - far away from being "trustable reference". Siberia is much bigger than two Frances.59.154.53.121 (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. The first source does give one example, but we can not conclude from that "France is often used as a comparison", only that it has been used at least once. The second source is dead but as you say it's a blog. I have removed the France entry. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Tatami mats as units of room area

See explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatami — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.161.1 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This was discussed at length a few years ago, and the consensus was that any unit from a non-anglophone country, simply because it is from a non-anglophone country, would be "unusual". However, including them all would make the list impossibly large in short order, so the decision was made that they should either have their own article or be part of an article dealing specifically with all units of that country. In order to keep this list to a manageable length, part of the criteria is that it must be a unit native to an anglophone community. Rhialto (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sydharb - when?

About when did the term 'Sydharb' come into use? One informal source I know says it was with the construction of the Ord River Scheme, in the early 1970s. Some PR genius came up with the word as a way of giving city-folks some conception of the extent of the project. Is this so? Or was it the coinage of some inspired engineer? I recall a pumping engineer, around the year 1969, describing the capacity of a pump he was using for some project: 'It could pump out Sydney Harbour in a day.' But he didn't use the word 'Sydharb'. Bluedawe 22:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

In the archives, there's a discussion where one editor says he found it in his "1981 edition of the Macquarie Dictionary". Perhaps someone with a copy of that dictionary (or access to its paid-subscription-only online site) can see if it gives a citation for earliest use.
The OED lists neither "sydharb" nor "sydarb". TJRC (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of unusual units of measurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Add AWG?

Its formula seems to make American wire gauge an excellent candidate --HeWhoMowedTheLawn (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Reading through the American wire gauge article, it doesn't appear to actually be a unit of measurement. Rather, it is a standard for saying exactly what size a specific class of tools or equipment should be built to. It's not like people say thing such as "It needs to be two hundred AWG 13 in diameter" (or something grammatically similar). Rhialto (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Football field as unit of area

I've never heard of the football field as a unit of length. However, media use it all the time as a unit of area. For example the rain forest loss is often expressed as football fields per day. It's also linguistically and mathematically more logical tu use it as a unit of area rather than length. A football field is a rectangle, not a line, which defies an area and has two sides with different lengths. Does anyone have a source that the usage for area is more common and perhaps more correct? PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

While I have heard of something being described as "covering an area equal to 'X' football fields", I much more commonly hear a football field used as a unit of length ("The shot was made from a distance of 1000 yards. Over three football fields away.").--Khajidha (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Poppyseed (unit)

Could someone start poppyseed (unit)[1] as a stub?

  1. ^ Poppyseed conversion


Peter Horn User talk 01:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Poppyseed and barleycorn do not belong in this article. From the lead: "An unusual unit of measurement is a unit of measurement that does not form part of a coherent system of measurement." We don't include any of the obsolete English or US units like fathom, chain, rood, tierce, firkin, tod, scruple, etc. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

References

This is the type of list especially vulnerable to the "stuff made up in school one day" syndrome. If it doesn't have a reference, it should not be here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You're quite correct. I've added a reference to the most recent addition, the Mars timekeeping item. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ignore this: Spat perhaps qualifies

I looked at the definition and realized I was wrong. — MaxEnt 00:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Neck and neck

We are asserting "Neck and neck" is an example of a linguistic Siamese twin which refers to the neck as a unit of measurement in horse racing. I've no problem with the first part of the sentence -- the article itself mentions the expression as a reduplicative Siamese twin. The second part is less clear; in the first of the two newly provided sources, among the nine definitions provided, only one suggests that it has something to do with the unit of measurement ("This phrase, together with win by a neck below, originally developed with reference to horse racing. A neck is the length of the head and neck of a horse as a measure of its lead in a race"); the others simply say it is literal (their necks are next to each other). The second source doesn't so much as mention the expression "neck and neck". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Smoot doesn't belong

The Smoot is a delightful unit of measurement, but IMHO it does not belong in this article because it has never been used seriously. It is part of the "list of humorous units of measurement" article, where it belongs. I would like to remove it, unless anybody objects. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think it needs to be in both places. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Remove it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Is it really? I've seen that claim made in passing by MIT and others, but have never seen it cited in a news story. The second-hand reports say that they are used as location markers rather than a units of measurement - something like "the accident happened at Smoot No. 17" rather than "the car traveled 3.2 Smoots after striking the guardrail." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think, in any case, that the move from one article to the other requires that it never be used - the distinction in the hatnote is "unusual units of measure invented primarily for amusement", which I think applies. Quite a few entries there describe times they have actually been used - the pirate-ninja, for example, was apparently genuinely used by the Curiosity Rover team, but is still basically a humorous rather than a serious unit of measurement. TSP (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Does Gas Mark Belong?

On the one hand, Gas Mark was conceived of as a simple scale, rather than a unit of measurement; it is only really useful, and only really used, between ≈100°C and ≈300°C.

On the other hand, it can be converted to and from SI units:

Above 408°K Gas Mark = (Kelvin-394)/14

Below 408°K Gas Mark = 0.5^(11-(((Kelvin-273)*1.8)+32)/25).

So, for example, it could be truthfully said that the surface of the Sun is about Gas Mark 350, and that room temperature is about Gas Mark 0.003 - should Gas Mark then be added as an unusual unit of measurement?

It "could be" said, but is it? Is gas mark used as a unit of measurement in the real world? Can you point to examples? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Certainly; it's used widely by the culinary industry in the UK. There are some examples in the Gas Mark article. But does use in such a narrowly-defined context qualify? Might it be considered similar to (for example) the Rack Unit or the TEU in this sense, which are also only used within their own industries? — 79.69.185.49 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This is neat - I had never heard of it. I really like the fact that in France it's based on Fahrenheit which they don't use!
That particular nugget wasn't lost on me, either! I've always found it curious how (for instance) mobile phone screen sizes are given in inches in France..
However, it seems to me that Gas Mark, as you said in your comment, is a scale rather than a unit of measurement. It doesn't seem like any chef would say "this is undercooked - you need to increase the temperature by 2 gas marks" but would say "don't set the oven at 2 gas marks, set it at 4." Does that make sense? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely, that makes perfect sense. One tends to pick values, but performing even simple operations on values doesn't come naturally. This seems like it could also be a convenient way to differentiate between a scale and a full-fledged unit, in future cases. — 79.69.185.49 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Shipping Containers

Twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) is surely NOT the volume of the smallest standard shipping container; it is its length, this being 20 feet. Wimbledon32 (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Railway rail

The weight of railway rail are measured in pounds per yard (lb/yd) or kilograms per metre (kg/m). Original rails were made in Great Britain in 3 foot (1 yard) lengths, or multiples thereof. Three feet make one yard. Conveniently, two kg/m is close to one lb/yd. See rail profile#Rail lengths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimbledon32 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Grace Hopper

The section on the one-foot approximation for a light-nanosecond gives an impression, unsupported by the cited source, that Grace Hopper originated this idea. I learned about it as an approximation used by radar engineers, in a context with no obvious relation to Hopper. At the very least, we ought to back off on this myth-generating misrepresentation of Grace Hopper originating the idea, and preferably we ought to find a solid source for the non-Hopper-dependent engineering use of the approximation. I'd propose an alternative phrasing myself, but having only the one source about Hopper makes it harder to know how to rephrase. --Pi zero (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It says she "popularized" it, not originated it, which is fair and accurate. A source of pre-Hopper usage would, of course, be great. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The source didn't say she popularized it, either. For that matter, the source doesn't even mention light-nanoseconds; it says she was talking about how fast electricity travels along a wire, which is not quite the same. Popularize is not only a potentially difficult subjective call but also depends on context: it's possible to popularize something in one community while having nothing to do with its spread in a different community. I chose my words carefully: the current text gives an impression that is unsupported by the cited source. I don't think the current wording is entirely fair, and I don't think we have any basis on which to judge whether it's accurate. Though I still, thus far, do not have an alternative phrasing to suggest. The sourcing should be improved. --Pi zero (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I've added a reference from the National Museum of American History, which has some of Hopper's wires. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Tall buildings

The "tall buildings" section was removed with the comment "Reference, not unit". IMHO the Empire State Building or the Eiffel tower are just as much "unusual units of measurement" when used to evaluate heights as "city blocks" are for distances in the Manhattan metric or "American football fields" when evaluating areas. I think this section should be reinstated. — Tonymec (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)are

It comes down to whether a specific building is commonly used for describing distances. City blocks and football fields are very commonly used casual measures of distance. Eiffel towers and Empire State Buildings are not.--Srleffler (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Area of a Polo Field

It's a little frustrating that the units of area section has a diagram comparing a football pitch with a polo field, without mentioning the area of a polo field anywhere... 82.19.105.209 (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, it does, sort of. The diagram shows a football field's size (which is given in detail in the text) in comparison with a polo field: the latter being around five-and-a-bit of the former by the look of it. I have linked polo field in the caption, though, for anyone who wants to read more on that specific article. Bazza (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

nanoWales

@Srleffler: I can't believe we're even having this discussion. The name of the unit is the Wales, not the Wale. A billionth of a Wales can be a nanoWales or a nanowales. It cannot be a nanowale because there ain't no such thing as a wale. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm waiting for someone to claim that the unit of conductivity is called siemen. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 10:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry about that. I wasn't thinking clearly. Of course "Wales" isn't plural.--Srleffler (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The BBU

(I thought I had raised this before but cannot find it in the archives.)

The Billingham Bastard Unit or BBU was used at Billingham Manufacturing Plant. Its original definition is I think lost, but it spawned many imitators some also called the BBU, and then BBU became a term for any nonstandard but convenient unit. If some or all of this can be sourced it would be encyclopedic. But finding online sources is proving difficult. Any help with it (or fossil fuel bridge which is equally problematic) appreciated. TIA Andrewa (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"Metric foot" ambiguity

In the description of the metric foot, I specified «Not to be confused with the so-called "Chinese foot", 3.33cm longer, defined so that three feet are exactly one meter». Such edit has been canceled with this comment: «why would it be confused? Is there a reference stating that this is a common cause of confusion?». They directly undid the edit, they didn't even discussed it here first...

By the way, my answer to that is that, even though no one technically wrote in the article that the two things are usually confused, those are still two easily confusable concepts: one is a foot defined as an exact multiple of a centimeter, the other is a foot defined so that one meter is an exact number of feet. They could both perfectly be called «metric», even though for different reasons. Do you really need a statistics on how usual it is for the two to be confused, when such a measure is already listed as unusual? You're asking for something that could hardly be found. I'd say that "30 centimeters" and "one third of a meter" are both equally legitimate interpretations for the words "metric foot" and, therefore, the distinction should be brought to the attention of the reader in order to avoid accidental misinterpretation of the text. That's why the expression "Not to be confused with" exists in the first place.

Parapleppo (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Parapleppo: I reverted the edit mentioned above. This is the normal way of working on the English Wikipedia (WP:BRD: you were bold in adding your text, I reverted with a reason, now we are discussing; all is good). You say they could perfectly be called "metric", but they aren't and have separate names "metric foot" and "Chinese foot" in English. I don't see where any potential confusion lies, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise if you provide reliable references to prove it exists. Bazza (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bazza 7: I am not, in fact, saying such confusion exists, if by "existing" you mean that a lot of people notoriously confuse the two things: I'm saying that "You need evidence of it happening otherwise it doesn't" only really applies to common arguments, while each case should be judged by its own for all those cases (like this one) where the argument simply isn't common enough. It is so rare for the general public (which is the target of the encyclopedia) to talk about the metric foot that, even if the ambiguity was extreme, there would still be very few known cases of people being confused by the existence of both units, therefore the fact that it isn't a "known" ambiguity isn't a proof of it not being ambiguous, simply because its opposite would have the same effect as well.
But I digress, that's beside our point. All I was pointing out by adding that little edit (the perceived simplicity and insignificance of which were what made me bypass a supposedly unneeded discussion) was that, if the common reader reads the words "metric foot", they might misinterpret the meaning of such name. Not because they are already aware of the existence of the Chinese foot, but rather because when they're going to recall such unit in the future, they might get confused by the ambiguous terminology. "Oh yes, I once read about some metric foot that exists, but I'm not sure about its value..."
Even if the Chinese foot didn't exist, I would have still taken into consideration the necessity of underlining such ambiguity. The "one third of a meter" unit just happens to have a name, but the reader doesn't need to know the Chinese foot in order to be confused about what "metric foot" is supposed to mean. If someone was given the assignment to define some "metric foot", they could have chose either one of the values (which is, in fact, what happened). All I wanted to do was teaching something to the reader (which I think to be the point of the whole encyclopedia in the first place), and sometimes "teaching" also means you make sure they learn for as long as possible.
I have seen ambiguity warnings for much less ambuiguous things, I only thought this one was needed (well, not quite «needed» in a strict sense, but way better with it than without), as I still do. I hope the actual value of the metric foot will be eventually restated in the clearest way possible for the best of everyone. Parapleppo (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that we don't know that there is any ambiguity. You have not asserted that anybody has ever used the term "metric foot" to refer to the Chinese foot. You've just used your imagination to come up with the idea that someone might be confused between the two. That's not how we work: we try to rely on facts, not assumptions. That said, the Chinese foot is as worthy of mention as the UK metric foot, so I added it back in without the assertion that there is any ambiguity between the two.--Srleffler (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the removal, both in substance and regarding the way it was done. There is no demonstrated confusion between the metric foot and the Chinese foot, so there's no need to indicate that they should not be confused. It's a distraction and reduces the quality of the article. TJRC (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Measures defined as a distance traveled over time

In texts from classical antiquity there are a number of measures defined as a distance traveled over time, a Days sail, a minute of March, a River's journey.

Days Sail

The days sail is the distance of one geographical degree covered in a day of 24 hours traveling at about 3 knots. Its sometimes split into a reach and a rest of 12 hours each and often In "The Periplus of the Erythrian Sea" used in the format "two or three days sail"

Rivers journey

Egypt has an itrw or river journey. Both Gardiner "Egyptian Grammar", and the article on Ancient Egyptian units of measurement give this as "the Greek schoenis 20,000 royal cubits, 10.5 km". The Greek schoenus has been given by Herodotus as 60 stadia or 1/10 degree, with the Egyptian value for the degree 11.025 km or 21,000 Royal cubits; 6.25 miles not quite as precise as the Roman 11.1 km, 6.89722 mi a person who can row 3m/sec can cover 10,800m in an hour or 35433.07 ft, 6.71 miles in an hour.

KLoC

“Given that estimates of 20 lines of functional code per day per programmer were often used,” Who were these programmers and what were they doing? Were they carving lines of code into stone? Btljs (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sort of. Punched cards rather than stone though. When I began as a programmer using Fortran 4 on an IBM mainframe in the early 1970s, we wrote our lines of code on coding sheets. These were then transferred to punched cards by key punch girls. (Yes, always girls.) You then got your card deck back, packaged it up with JCL (Job Control Language) cards, and sent it off to the computer room. In my case all those activities happened in different buildings in the city, so it took a while to happen. Some hours later you got a printout of the results of running your code. (No screens.) Almost always, you had compilation errors. Now note the word "functional" in your quoted text. That means working code, or no errors. It often took many days, even weeks, to get a more complex program to run. Ah, but those were the days, my friend. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
@HiLo48 Ditto. 370/Assembler in my case. Happy days, thanks for the memory jog. Bazza (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes, Assmebler. That came a year later in my case. Got into PL/1 too. Did you use that? HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Meter or metre?

I started to change "meter" to "metre" because it looked like the article was mostly in British English. I then realised "meter" is also used multiple times so I stopped. Which is preferred here? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: see MOS:ENGVAR; in particular MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN, which suggest the variant used when the article was first created should be retained. The first version of the article shows a preference for "meter".
It would be helpful if you self-reverted your recent spelling changes. Bazza (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, this IS a about unusual units of measurement. Given that only 1% of the world's countries use meter, I guess it fits. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I have self-reverted as requested, but that initial version is a stub, which does not qualify IMO. Instead we could consider this version of 3 March 2004 to be the first mature version. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dondervogel 2: Thanks for doing that. Regardless of which revision is picked, the spelling still looks to be "meter" (which, to my British English eyes, is usually a measuring instrument). Bazza (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but "humour" is spelled in British English, so where does that leave us? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
To me there is a kind of irony in the fact that the one country that universally spells the word as meter is the one that least often uses that unit. I'm not convinced that it's the right direction for Wikipedia to be taking. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This thread does not seem to be going anywhere, but the present mixture of UK and US English is unencyclopaedic. Consistent use of either language is better than the present mess. Engvar does not help us (because the first non-stub version is already a mixture), so if there is no further activity for another week I plan to toss a coin and implement US English if I get heads and UK if tails. (Or we could invite a non-involved editor to toss the coin) Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Tossing a coin isn't Wikipedia policy. If Engvar doesn't work, how about using quality of argument? Using the spelling used primarily in the country that uses the word the least is quite illogical. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
A mixture of UK and US English is also not WP policy. I have the impression you prefer UK English, and I would support that. I would also support a consensus for US English if there was one. I do not support the present mess. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I certainly don't endorse the current mess. And I consistently support American spelling for American topics. I have made many such corrections. But this isn't an American topic. It's a global one. And this is a global encyclopaedia. Americans rarely use "meters" (and never use "metres") in daily discourse. They use feet and yards and miles, etc. We should use the spelling commonly used by the people who more commonly use the word - "metres". And there actually is a sort of a policy for this suggestion. It's WP:COMMONSENSE. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
There is one problem with that argument: the question here is not whether to use "meter" or "metre". The question is which variant of English to use throughout this entire article. There isn't a clear reason to favour one variant over the other here; it's an arbitrary choice. --Srleffler (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind what variation is chosen but as we all know, it should be internally consistent. The earliest meter/metre I can see is 18 October 2004 with "3.085 centimeters". On 2 May 2005 there was still that one "meter" with nine occurrences of "metre". My vote would be to leave the arbitrary choice to Dondervogel 2 who started the work of cleaning up. Am I right in thinking that some Asian countries use "meter" so it may be more than 1% of countries in that camp? Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The version of 21 Dec 2004, after these two edits of 30 Nov and 21 Dec, shows a clear preference for UK English, with "humour" (not "humor") plus nearly uniform use of "metre". On these grounds I withdraw my suggestion to toss a coin and convert instead to UK English. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, please go for it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Done. Except I wasn't sure what do with Meter water equivalent, so I left it. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_unusual_units_of_measurement/Archive_3&oldid=1232578225"