Talk:List of unusual units of measurement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 25, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Sections describing units that are believed not to fullfil Wikipedia criteria for notability can be found in Talk:List of strange units of measurement/Candidates. Only if sufficient documentation and referrences can be found of actual usage and notability, can they be moved into the main article.

Archives:

Contents

[edit] Snail's Pace

Anyone have a cite for people using this as a unit of measurement? "A snail's pace is 5 furlong per fortnight" is not the same thing as "A healthy adult wildebeest can run at five billion snail paces". I suggest that this entry be removed. Rhialto 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I removed teh section. It properly belonged in an article about snails, not units of measurement. Rhialto 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hubble

I have found a reference to the hubble as 10^9 light years, in the Rowlett's site. Does anyone have an alternate cite for this unit? Rhialto 14:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of 'pint' for money in UK

I once estimated the repair cost of the microphone cable in a pub (the sound was a bit of a problem one quiz night), to the landlord, at 'a gallon'. Worthy of note in the 'pint' paragraph?

EmleyMoor 10:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

probably not, unless you got quoted in a magazine or newspaper saying that. Rhialto 11:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nanocentury

I corrected the obvious error of 10^7 being really 10^9, and corrected the fraction to be rounded rather than truncated. That may not be in the quote, but the link is dead, and now what is on the page is more correct. First time I've done this, glad to find out what is not fully up to expected norms. Went and got a login after making this edit. (anonymous post)

Actually, I just did the maths, and the correct exponent is 10^7. Rhialto 11:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

There seems to be a misconception that this page is a list of every fictional unit that has ever appeared in a novel, short story, or web comic. It isn't. This page is for units that have seen general usage in the real world. usage within the pages of a single web comic fail that criteria, although it might be worth noting in an article on teh fictional world of that specific webcomic.

According to WP:V, "As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." and "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Also, in Wikipedia:Notability, "a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources."

A weblog is a source of dubious reliability as noted in that policy page, and as such that blog should only be used as a source for articles about the blog itself.

In any case, the source still does not claim the unit sees any usage outside the fictional universe of that webcomic, and the wording in fact implies that the unit does not exist outside said fictional universe. Rhialto 05:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Millirubbia

The article does not say exactly how a Rubbia is calculated. Even the "Helen" gives a method of calcution. This is especially troublesome, since speaking rate can easily measured (i.e. words per minute, syllables per minute, etc.). I feel the definition should be update or removed

Agreed. I moved it to Talk:List_of_strange_units_of_measurement/Candidates. Maybe someone can provide a usable cite for it. Rhialto 04:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cunt hair

I inserted this, and intend to copy some of the discussion over here from Talk:Cunt. I won't reinsert it again unless there is some kind of consensus here, but I have some lingering worries that its removal may be influenced by prudery. As I said in an edit summary, it is as real a unit as any on the page, very common in the military, and wikipedia is not censored. I really don't want to seem like I'm making a WP:POINT here, but if the cunt hair fails to qualify for the article, so would an awful lot of the material presently here. --Guinnog 08:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unit of Measure (copied from Talk:Cunt)

There seems to be some disagreement on this topic in the editing, so I thought I'd bring it to the Talkpage. I've heard variations on "thin as a cunt hair" and "move it over just a cunt hair" in almost every region of the U.S. While it certainly enjoys popular usage, you can't reasonably expect to find it in a technical dictionary. A ref from a dictionary of slang would seem to be appropriate under the circumstances; that's what the usage is. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This debate seems to have moved here from [strange units of measurement]. One issue is that without a valid cite, it looks like gratuituous profanity. Nothing wrong with including swear words where appropriate to an article, but equally where there is no valid cite, it gives the appearance of profanity for the sake of profanity, not to mention original research.
The cite that is in there now a dictionary of playground slang, and as such has extremely dubious validity (I'd say none) for any attempt to show usage by aircraft mechanics, enginners, or cooks.
Urbandictionary.com was also given as a cite. I removed that as it is not a reliable source according to wikipedia standards.
I realise this is an informal phrase and as such cites are hard to obtain. However, lack of cites is by wikiepdia standards, a reason for removing the item entirely, not a reason for leaving the item in uncited. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Finally, (relevant to strange units of measurement, but not this article) I have serious issues about including the hair's breadth section at all. As popularly used, it is an expression used to denote a very small distance, and not a true unit. The litmus test for this distinction is whether or not it would be natural to refer to "five hairs' breadth". It should be possible to add a number to the unit and still make sense as natural speech for it to be a unit of measurement. Shedload, bee's dick and others have already been removed from that article for failing this criterion. Items that fail this are more properly figures of speech to denote small or large (depending on expression) quantities, and not true units of measurement.
Rhialto 05:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As much as I found the original reference amusing, your eminently well-reasoned discourse compels me to agree with you on every point. In truth, I've never heard it used as an actual technical term, just a colloquialism. Further, there's no question that unsourced (or improperly sourced) material needs to be weeded out. I wasn't involved in the actual editing, I just didn't want to see this article turn up in WP:LAME :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 08:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(text copied from talk:cunt ends here)

Most of my reasons for removing it are outlined on the talk page of the cunt article. I wasn't motivated specifically by prudery. It was perfectly valid to remove it as an unsourced statement anyway. To be honest, I feel that not only the specific line about cunt hair, but the entire hair's breadth section, should be removed form this article, as a hair's breadth is not used as a unit of measurement. The litmus test for this is whether people commonly (in as much as the unit in question is commnly used anyway) say "five (unit)s". I have not come across any source which suggests that people do this for hair's breadth.

As for the "awful lot of other material presented here" which supposedly fails to qualify for this article, I agree with you totally. I am slowly working through this article in an attempt to clean it up. It might be worth creating a page under this talk to archive items that are definitively rejected from this page, unless a page is made for expressions such as these. Rhialto 08:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we seem to be in some sort of agreement then. Should we though, first establish a consensus that a "unit" does not qualify for inclusion here unless it is capable of being used in the way you describe, a principle I think I could live with, but which would decimate the article somewhat from its present state? --Guinnog 08:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As one of the people who deleted it, I can tell you my motivation was not through prudery. I use the word often and have been the subject of it more than once :) I added Poofteenth and Bee's Dick to this article some time ago but they were removed because they were considered to be just examples of slang and not really measurements at all. It's just something humorous we say when we mean a "little bit" and is not a finite measurement. I reluctantly accepted the argument and didn't pursue it. I think that cunt hair falls into the same category and is not really an example of what this article is about. I also agree that many of the items added to this page in the last year or so don't really belong here. Maybe there needs to be an article for humorous and fictional units of measurement. SilentC 21:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC - Criteria for inclusion

The criteria I have been using so far is as follows:

  • Units created for their humour value go in humorous units, unless they have since become significantly mainstream. So far, the only example of that is the Big mac index.
  • Units must naturally be usable in conjunction with any number to qualify as a unit of measurement. Only such measurement units should be included on this page. I have so far held off from serious editing on this point because I wasn't sure about consensus.
  • In considering the above point, it should be bourne in mind that the usual correct usage of the unit doesn't always imply "(number) (unit)". The "nines" unit is one such example. however, it should be possible to include a number somewhere in the usual expression.
  • It should also be bourne in mind that some set phrases for non-measures do include a number, but can be seen as set phrases and not true measures by the fact that they do not get used with numbers other that the limited samples of their set phrase.

Currently, we have a talk subpage for candidates; units which are identified as needing cites. I suggest we also add a subpage noting units that are definitely considered not suitable, to save ourselves arguing the same topic every time a new editor discovers this page. Thoughts? Rhialto 09:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My original understanding of this page (once the poofteenth debate was over) is that units included here are sourced from some technical publication, not just amusing things that people say. For example, the Sydharb was originally used as a joke at some presentation in Sydney regarding water, but later it actually appeared in a scientific journal and is now in legitimate use in that field. I'd have thought that this is more in line with the intent of the article, than just satisfying the criteria that it can feasibly be used as a unit of measurement. So I would suggest that in addition to your criteria, there be some formal recognition of the term by the community that uses it. That might be hard to establish, but without this test, anyone can add any amusing unit that they come up with at work. SilentC 21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the general wikipedia requirement for citations would prevent that from happening. Wikipedia is not for thinsg you made up, and wikipedia requires citations. These two criteria should prevent random cool ideas from creeeping in, if we enforce them properly. Essentially, it should be usable as a measurement, and there must be cites from a reliable source. That cite doesn't necessarily have to be directly from a community that uses it (any reliable source will do), but where a cite mentions a specific community, the article must obviously agree with the cite. Intentionally amusing units people say, but which are cited, belong in humorous units, not here. Uncited items don't belong in wikipedia at all. Rhialto 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, well let's look at an example: The Happy. I have watched an episode or two of this show. Dave Gorman is a comedian and his concept of 'The Happy' is a piece of comedy. It's totally inappropiate as a measurement because it's definition is subjective. If I give you a pound coin, how happy it makes you is dependent upon how many pounds you already have. A pound coin is of no use to me whatsoever, because it is not legal tender in Australia and I would probably lose most of it's value in exchange fees. Obviously it's not intended to stand up to scientific scrutiny any more than the entire concept of his show is. He would argue that is does, but that's part of the joke. Yet, it's possible to say (as he does on the show) that my happiness has increased by 2 happies. It is cited, as it appears in his show, which you can get on DVD. So does it meet the criteria for inclusion on this page? SilentC 22:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it is clearly intended to be a humorous unit, and so belongs to in the list of humorous units, not here. I'm going to hold off any major edits until we have some kind of consensus on this rfc though. In comparison, NASA's garn is probably equally as subjective in measurement, but no suggestion (none citeable that I've come across anyway) that it is intended as a piece of humour, so it gets to stay. Rhialto 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say that if a unit first appears in an entertainment programme or web comic, and has not reached mainstream usage within its specialised fucntion (no known examples), that unit should go in humorous. Rhialto 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice to meet you two. I think we can do business, improve this article and at least two others. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Glad my unworthy suspicions of prudery have proved to be unfounded. More tomorrow when I've had some rest. Best wishes to you from Scotland. --Guinnog 00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to add, I don't think there should be any requirement that a unit should be objectively measurable by mechanical means. If this page gets sufficiently large, it may be worth splitting them off into another page, or into their own section within this article (may do that as part of the general cleanup). But just because the definition and measurement is subjective, that doesn't mean it isn't a unit of measurement. Its certainly true that such a unit isn't particularly scientific, but this article isn't specifically about scientific units of measurement, I think. Rhialto 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
How does that sit with the opening paragraph: "Strange and whimsical units are sometimes used by scientists, especially physicists and mathematicians, and other technically-minded people such as engineers and programmers, as bits of dry humor combined with putative practical convenience." That says to me that the units listed here should be practical as well as strange and/or whimsical. Maybe it's this paragraph that needs to change? SilentC 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem there is that if we specifically exclude units that cannot be objectively measured, then we muct exclude the scoville heat unit, used to measure intensity of flavour (specifically pepper) concentration. As defined, it cannot be measured objectively, but is used purely in scientific and non-humorous contexts. Besides, I would argue that a unit can be practical without necessarily being measurable by objective means. Rhialto 02:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, you realise I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm open to anything really. That said, although it is somewhat subjective, the use of a panel of 5 tasters does lend the scoville heat unit a bit of scientific credibility: it's a statistical sample of the population, albeit a small one. The practicality of a unit would largely depend upon it's scope. If I said that, for all intents and purposes, one metre is roughly half my height, then I would be within a 10% margin of error, which is OK for some situations. However, if my friend who is only 5'4" tall based her 'metre' on the same premise, she would come up short, so to speak. But if she was to adopt her own version of a metre and use it exclusively within her own context, then it is repeatable, measurable and reasonably reliable (as long as she doesn't start wearing high heel shoes) for most purposes. I guess the question I am asking is, does a unit of measurement imply a standard that is understood outside the immediate situation in which it is taken? Is it practical to have a unit that is unreliable or meaningless out of context? It depends on your reason for taking the measurement, but if I asked my friend to build her doorway 2 metres tall, I would have to stoop to walk through it. SilentC 03:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Historical weights and measures have a long tradition of being subjective and varying from city to city. That is to say, a "pound" in one city was often heacvier or lighter in a neighbouring city, which historically did cause issues. It wasn't even too rare for human-scale units to be literally measured off against an appropriate body part. I don't hold objectivity in measurement to be a criterion for inclusion. Doing so would shred the corresponding articles on historical units. My criteria are: 1) It must be primarily a unit in an English-speaking country (non-Anglophone based units have their own articles), 2) It must see meaningful use in the present day (i.e. not a primarily historical unit, those have separate articles), 3) It should not have been coined as a humorous unit (these have their own article); an exception is made for humorous units which have since entered use in serious contexts, 4) It must be a unit of measure which is used in conjunction with arbitrary numerical values of a scale appropriate to the items measured (without a number it is more properly a superlative expression or figure of speech). Rhialto 06:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


One thought I was going to keep until tomorrow, but what the hell: I read New Scientist magazine and it regularly carries semi-humorous pieces on what the popular news media of various countries use to explain things like areas to their readers. Here in the UK, for example, areas are often expressed as multiples of the area of Wales. Would the "Wales" therefore qualify, do you think? There are many, many others, some more commonly used than others, but all (no doubt) verifiable in a reputable source... --Guinnog 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with including "size of wales" style units; indeed, they already are. That style is also used by the CIA factbook, which gets quoted by just about every atlas around. Rhialto 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
For clarity: CIA factbook normally states an area as (e.g.) "2.5 times the size of Washington, DC". This meets the criterion for using a number in conjunction with the unit. Rhialto 22:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article refactoring?

As part of teh general clean-up, I'd like to refactor the article. I'd suggest sorting units first according to whether it uses a SI or non-conventional scale, then, within the SI section, which scale is used. The headers would be organised as follows:

    • Systematic Sets of units
      • FFF system
      • other systems(none others known for this section)
    • Conventional units
      • Length: unit name
      • Length: unit name
      • Area: unit name
      • Area: unit name
      • Volume: unit name
      • Volume: unit name
      • Mass: unit name
      • Mass: unit name
      • Time: unit name
      • Time: unit name
    • Unconventional units
      • Scale: unit name
      • Scale: unit name
      • Scale: unit name

This would follow the same general organisation seen in other weights and measures themed articles. In addition, it makes it easier for new authors to determine which section a unit should go in, as some of the categories are subjective, and depended on regional usage. This also removes teh special emphasis/ghetto that has been created for only some metric units (metric inch vs obscure metric units, for example). If no one has any objections, I'll begin refactoring some time next week. Rhialto 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Units

As a general policy, I'd like to suggest that any units that are mostly or only used in a foreign country, regardless of the strangeness of that unit, should be moved to an appropriate article that deals with the weights and measures of that country. This is because, by virtue of their being foreign, all of them would by definition be strange to the usual readership of the English language version of this wiki, and there are far too many to include all of them, and no good reason for only including some of them. If no one has any objections, I will begin moving them out to talk/candidates or the relevant article (if known) some time next week. Rhialto 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When you say 'foreign country', does that mean if a unit is only used in the US, by virtue of the fact that the US is a 'foreign country' to me, it should be moved to a US weights and measures page? ;) Perhaps you'd better define what you mean by foreign. SilentC 21:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, when I said foreign, I meant any country that does not have English as the dominant language. I guess "foreign" is a poor word for this. "Anglophone", perhaps? Rhialto 01:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerk

[1], teh authority on this matter, says, "It is requested that the results of calorimetric experiments be as far as possible expressed in joules". they have a few other cites as well which use "joules". That should firmly establish that English convention is to use -s as a suffix to mark plurals, and that the unit name is in lower case. Please stop reverting this. Rhialto 10:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring Complete

A few items still need cite tags added, and there are still a few items that need moving or removing from this article. Any item with a cite tag is a candidate for removal if cites are not found. But I now consider this refactoring essentially complete. My only concern is the non-standard units section. It is rather long, but I can't think offhand of a simple, objective, and instantly understandable for new editors, way to split that section. Rhialto 22:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction with another wiki entry for the Firkin unit

It seems that this entry : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firkin defines the Firkin as a volume unit. Which one is right ? I can't tell. Maybe some of you can fix this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.175.65.238 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Traditionally, the firkin was indeed a unit of volume. And within the FFF system, a firkin is a unit of mass. No contradiction here, simply a case of the same word being used for different units. You probably don't want to know how many definitions of the "foot" there are floating around Rhialto 06:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of unusual units of measurement

I would propose renaming this page to "List of unusual units of measurement". Yes, some of these are indeed strange, but most of them are clearly defined units based on other well-known units, and are hardly "strange". They're just unfamiliar to most people. "Strange" also has some flavor of POV. I'll give this a week or so, and if no one complains, I'll move it. Denni talk 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any reason not to make the move. Rhialto 04:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Seeing no opposition to my proposal, I shall make it so. Thanks for your feedback, Rhialto. You've put a lot of good work into this article! Denni talk 21:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cubic Volume: Olympic-sized swimming pool

There is a contradiction here with estimations on other areas of Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_size_swimming_pool states that the volume of an olympic swimming pool is 2.5 million litres —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimDavies4 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I noticed the same thing. It's easy to calculate with the dimensions given. I updated the article to reflect this. Chroz 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] afd proposal

See [afd]. We passed it this time, but as the comments show, this article does need more cleaning up. Feel free to discuss here. Rhialto 22:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tokyo Dome

I have removed this entry from the page. As per an earlier discussion regarding the contents of this page, any unit which is essentially used only in non-anglophone contexts is inherently unusual, and to allow one of them would justify allowing all of them in, and there are just too many to include that way. Units sourced from non-anglophone communities should be placed in a page that discusses the units from that country. Rhialto 09:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_unusual_units_of_measurement_1f7b.html"