Talk:List of humorous units of measurement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 25, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

A set of policy guidelines are being discussed at [[1]]. The guidelines being drawn up there will affect the content of this page. Interested editors are invited to read the discussions going on there and contribute. Rhialto 06:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Cite Everything

This is intended to provide a home for the many units invented purely for humour value and which do not see any practical usage. wp:not

  • This is not for uncited items. Cite everything. That is especially important for a page describing humour, to avoid it degenerating into random jokes.
  • This page is not for things you thought up in a boring class at school.
  • This is for units created and used primarily for humour value only. If the unit sees widespread usage, at least within its specialist field, it properly belongs in list of strange units of measurement, not here. It is conceivable that a unit originally created for humour value may eventiually see serious usage. The Big Mac Index is one such example.
  • This is not for figures of speech. Any items in this page should be be objectively units of measurement. It should be possible and natural to say that "(this thing) is five (units of measurement)". Examples of such bad items from the archived talk for list of strange units of measurement include poofteenth (really small fraction), bee's dick (really small length), and shedload (really large cubic volume or mass).

[edit] Hangon

I'm in the process of creating this page. It will involve moving stuff from various other pages, which is why I hadn't filled it yet. Rhialto 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, content added. If you still wish to complete the speedy deletion, please say so, and also please move the content here back to the original pages to preserve it. The intent of this page was in part to split off part of an article that was becoming too large to edit easily. Rhialto 03:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Any objection if I move this to the correct spelling (worldwide), which is "humorous"? If I don't hear in 24 hours or so I'll go ahead and move it. --Guinnog 08:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead. I'd have done it myself if I knew how to do it properly. Rhialto 08:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I just went ahead and moved it. Hope that's ok. --Guinnog 08:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cites!

Just because this page is for humorous units, that is not a reason for not citing anything. Without cites, sooner of later a lot of entries here will probably get removed. Rhialto 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But do I have to cite the source of a joke? This militar joke was done during a dictatorship, so it was passed orally from rebel to rebel, with risk to each person's integrity.Albmont 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sources DO need cites. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of hearsays. It's not my rule, it's official wikipedia policy. Rhialto 23:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In any case, there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that this tar unit is actually a unit of measurement. Even used humorously, an entry here must be routinely used in conjunction with a number to be counted as a unit of measurement. Rhialto 05:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are there so many uncited units of measurement? Please find citations for the Missy Elliot, the Happy, the Puppy, the Pikotuki, the Pinkwater, and Hobo Power. They also seem to be non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.234.91 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The Hobo Power is awesome, just because you havent heard of it (like me, before I read this) doesnt mean its not good Lovefist233 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

Defining the unit "The Hitler" is absurd but not funny and has nothing to do with humor. -- Raubsaurier 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thaum

As found at http://www.lspace.org/books/pqf/the-light-fantastic.html "A Thaum is the basic unit of magical strength. It has been universally established as the amount of magic needed to create one small white pigeon or three normal sized billiard balls." -- (Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic) See also http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Thaum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.126.50 (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beauty - the Helen

The section suggests that this was invented by the Cambridge mathematician W.A.H. Rushton. According to that WP article Rushton was not a mathematician. This has a {{Fact}} tag against it. I have suggested that Asimov invented it and have given a reference. If the Rushton claim can not be sourced, I suggest it be removed. --Bduke 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thios was previously moved to the sub-article humourous units (linked n article header). Unless someone can provide a convincing explanation as for how it isn't primarily used as part of a (sometimes elaborate) joke, I suggest the unit be left in its present location. Rhialto 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chachi

This item needs cites. Additionally, the following points need to be addressed:

  • Articles should not note anything as being "currently", as that term has a constantly changing reference point. "As of xyz date" is a better way to not that.
  • Evidence needs to be shown that the unit has seen some widespread usage. Wikipedia is not here to help promote a meme invented by a webcomic. This requires at least one (preferably several) sources that independantly demonstrate the unit's usage.

Rhialto 15:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article should be vetted for notability?

It's not obvious to me that every throwaway joke unit invented in every television show or book is particularly worth including in this article. If the goal of this article is to list all such jokes, then the list is incomplete and unmaintainable. Perhaps it should be cut down to items that are particularly notable (and, of course, referenced). -- SCZenz 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The absolute minimum standard I've been trying to maintain is that any source must be notable for something other than the specific unit being discussed. A minor webcomic that isn't notable in its own right doesn't get to create spurious entries in here. Rhialto 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC
er, with all due respect, the newest addition comes from a webcomic that is heavily covered on this site, so I'm not sure its appropriate to say that its not notable in it's own right.
And the usual standard is that multiple independent sites have used the unit. I'm holding off on any editing until the edit wars die down though. It's not enough for the source to be notable - the unit itself must also satisfy the demands for notability. Rhialto 06:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
That standard isn't applied to the rest of the page. MegaFonzie is a single source one (Futurama). It's actually the only other one I had even heard of. Most of the others don't even qualify as humorous, which you would think would be the more important standard for this page. If you don't allow all at least somewhat notable humorous units of measurement in, then what exactly is the point of this page? Also, just because you haven't heard of a webcomic doesn't make it minor or not notable. By the same token, as I said above I haven't heard of most of the existing units on this page. Does that mean they should be deleted as well? No. Have a little consideration for others. Shirskin 11:30, 29 September 2007
Heard of it? It's in my firefox bookmarks and I read it religiously! But that doesn't change the fact that the unit itself isn't notable. I don't see how it could be, seeing as how it is less than a week old, and hasn't been mentioned on any other site at all. As for the other units, yes, you are right, a lot of them probably don't have any business being in here. As for humorous, humour is incredibly subjective. I don't judge it on whether I find it funny, but on whether the author intended for it to be funny. Rhialto 17:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but you've still failed to adress the fact that the web comic is obviously "Notable" somethign you claimed the opposite of as your reason earlier (as opposed to the comment iself not being notable, which is what your now claiming is your claim). This also makes your comment about it being in your Bookmarks suspicious. Similarly, you have yet to adress the MegaFonzie incident similarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.58.148 (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MegaFonzie

Let me clarify, given the above argument, that I don't think a one-time joke from Futurama is particularly notable either. -- SCZenz 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missy Elliott

Strongly suggest this entry be axed:

Writer James Docherty non-notable - nothing immediately apparent on Wikipedia or Google (except James Hadley Chase, who had a James L. Docherty pseudonym, but died in 1985). Could be self-published.
No citation of supposed articles - title, publication or year.
Supposed articles probably non-notable.
Unit of measurement itself non-notable - not humorous, inaccurate in supposed use, and unoriginal (c.f. "Smoot").
Evidently the least valid entry in this article, with multiple breaches of WP guidelines and no indication why it should remain. (If it does remain then any other supposed, uncited example of celebrity height as a unit of measurement would have to be permitted.) 220.240.130.249 05:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Published Sources

Podcasts and web comics, because they are essentially self-published, and they lack the usual reviewing that books, newspapers, movies, and other media require before publishing, should only really be considered as valid sources about themselves. While they certainly count as an example of a unit's usage, a second, reliable and properly reviewed 9pre-publishing) source should also generally be required, before a unit can be regarded as notable. Does anyone disagree with this assessment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhialto (talk • contribs) 08:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

=====I do. I don't recall reading anything like that in the published Wiki rules. Besides , Piazo Publishing prints the Physical copies of Oots, and those factor in it's popularity. Similarly, Megatokyo is web-self published, but has repeatedly been shown to be extremely popular and notable, as well as achieving its own non-self physical publishing. Furthermore, someone has removed Kilonazi from the page without debate, and simultaniously left the similar megafonzie. As there was no debate about removing this entire piece. someone seems to have taken matters into their own hands, I am restoring until disscussion is made until an attempt at a consensus is made.Necrostrider 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kilonazi

I agree that OOTS is pretty popular, with published books and everything, and I read it too, but the killonazi thing has only appeared so far in a single online comic strip last week, and it is not like it is a recurring joke or anything like that yet, so that is why I think it should be removed, or at the most explained in some form in The Order of the Stick article. Any other opinions?--Anselm 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


I do disagree. and I am tired of these forced edits without honest effort at discussion. So far, we have had repeated removals of this item, despite asking for discussion here. Indeed, all of these removals ahve been from the same user, whom has refused to continue discussion in this page. Furthermore, the cases of similar units of measure have yet to be adressed, and nothign resembling a consensus has been reached. Indeed, both myself and Shirskin opposed the deletion, and gave reasons, however Rhailto has been unilatirally taking action without discussion repeatedly. As I have pointed out, similar cases exist on the website, and even in this article. Likewise, I have debunked the claim that the webcomic was not notable, which was Rhailto's origional claim. Now I have begun arguing with Rhailto on the varacity of self-published sources, and what qualifies as such, despite his failing to sign that particular comment. Indeed, since I have been arguing with him on the matter, he has done little but attempt to sidestep discussion and delete the item wholesale on his own. I have restored the article, and I hope it stays that way until meaningful discussion can be carried out.Necrostrider 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike inside one-off jokes like Fonzie, you don't need to know anything about OOTS or even be aware of its existence. This alone ranks this unit above everything else on this list except for maybe Helen (known to anyone who's not a complete barbarian), Lenat (the Jargon File is widely quoted) and Thaum (included in many books of a very popular series). KiloByte 20:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to rank units on usability or how understandable they are--our opinions on these things are irrelevant. We're here to write a sensible article—although the subject doesn't make that easy. I'm in favor of removing all one time jokes, because we can't possibly include all the one-time unit jokes that have ever appeared in any work of fiction. We need a stricter standard or the list is unmaintainable. -- SCZenz 21:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've sure never heard of Order of the Stick or the kilonazi. True, judging by the article the webcomic is notable (though it really doesn't seem notable enough for such long article on individual charactors), but a unit of measure only used a few times on the comic and only the comic isn't notable enough to be on this list. Mention it briefly in the OOTS article. Reywas92Talk 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, is oots noteworthy? yes. Is it a reliable source according to wp standards? depends. As a printed and published book, yes. As a webcomic, it is considered s self-published course, and isn't. So far, kilonazi does not appear to have made it to the print edition, seeing as it is only about a week or three old.
In either case, while either edition is certainly an authority on itself, they aren't really an authority on weights and measures. But that is an aside, since this is an article on humorous units. But there is still no citable example (let alone multiple independent citable examples, which is the usual criteria for noteworthiness) from a non-self-published source. The unit isn't noteworthy. Rhialto 17:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this is an article on humorous units of measure, it seems the humor content should be paramount over the source or frequency of appearance. If the humor of the unit can easily be understood outside the context of the original source (as KiloNazi can), I don't see why it matters where it comes from. If, on the other hand the unit takes more context to understand (as many of the 'conventional' humor units do), I agree there should be more stringent requirements on sources and/or number of references.

Bubba0077 03:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, it is an article on humorous units. But it is also subject to wikipedia's overall policies on what is acceptable content. The criteria for notability aren't my own invention - they are based on wp:not and wp:n. If you disagree with the policies there which I have been using, feel free to discuss them on the talk pages there. The wp policies say nothing about whether the humour could be understood without prior knowledge of the context; it primarily refers to notability and cites, which the unit lacks. Rhialto 07:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Necrostrider only has a few edis, all to here. User:Bubba0077's only edit is the one above. This is probably illegal WP:SOCKpuppetry. If the Kilonazi is going be be included, then it must me used multiple independent times. Reywas92Talk 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Independent" being subject to later argument, but certainly (a) not by the OOTS comic, and (b) not by direct references to the OOTS joke in other minor works. If it hits CNN or Letterman, it's probably notable, even if it's not independent. However, as is, it's limited to the OOTS and a few blog and forum references to the same. Alas, the kiloNazi (like the milliRubia) deserves the axe for now. Abb3w 21:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sloppy axwork, Hedons, and milliRubbia

Folks, If you're going to axe things lacking references, you should at least look for references first. "Hedon" was easy to find several scholarly cites for, dating back at least into the '70s; I picked an example I thought better than most.

On the other hand, I tracked the milliRubbia back to this anonymous edit to Wikipedia. I wasn't as thorough at checking the Carlo Rubbia history, but didn't turn anything up. Unless someone can turn up a citation from prior to that (April 2006), it ought to be axed. (The reference in "A computational approach to the psychotherapeutic process" post-dates it, and cites Wikipedia.)

I'd suggest any entry that gets axed should be moved into the talk page, to facilitate screaming about the (lack of) notability in an organized fashion. EG:

=== Speech Rate: Millirubbia (mR) === <!-- This section is linked from [[Carlo Rubbia]] --> A millirubbia is a unit of speaking rate, usually applied during a technical talk, derived from [[Carlo Rubbia]], Nobel laureate in physics 1984, who always spoke at 1 R. A normal person spewing forth data at break-neck speed may do perhaps 100 mR. {{Fact|date=February 2007}}

You should also take the time to check for crosslinks within Wikipedia before flailing at the delete key... as in this case.

It's a pity, BTW; that one was pretty funny. Abb3w 16:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Axed Units

I was unable to turn up any non-wikipedia references to the beard-second via Google Web, Groups, or Scholar search. I haven't encountered it anywhere but here.

===Length: Beard-second === One beard-second is the distance which a standard beard in a standard face grows in one second. By convention, a standard beard and face are such that 1 beard-second = 10<sup>-8</sup> m.

Abb3w 16:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You might then also want to propose beard-second for deletion. --Cybercobra 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


While South Park is more notable that OOTS, it's less humorous than offensive. A one-off, unrepeated, less-than-funny joke on South Park seems non-notable.

====Courics==== A [[Katie Couric|Couric]] is a unit of measurement for [[feces]], used in [[More Crap|an episode]] of [[South Park]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.southparkstudios.com/show/episodes/display_episode.php?episodeid=1109 | title=Episode guide | accessdate=2007-10-08}}</ref>

Abb3w 19:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the deletion of Couric. South Park is a notable show, as are Click & Clack and Futurama, yet the MegaFonzie and (probably) the Pinkwater were used only once, so if they're in here then the Couric should stay also. Judging how funny the joke was is very subjective and doesn't seem like a particularly good inclusion metric. So long as it was intended to be funny, this is the page where such content belongs, if anywhere on Wikipedia. --Cybercobra 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The megafonzie has been noted in other media as a unit of measurement, and has achieved some, albeit minor, notability on its own merit, as a result. The couric unit has no notability in its own right, and has no known usage outside that one show, is arguably a character attack on a living person (wp:bio), and has not had enough time since that first usage in a show to have developed any usage independant of that show.
You're right that this would probably be the only presently-existing place, if anywhere, on wikipedia that the unit could appear. That in itself doesn't mean it should be here.
Also, judging that one unit should be in here because another unit already is, isn't a good thing. sometimes, the best conclusion that can be drawn from such comparisons is that neither unit should remain. This page has suffered from some poorly-proofed editing in the past, so the current contents probably aren't the best guide to the standard of editing expected of wikipedia. I would love to clean it up thoroughly, but I generally lack the time. Rhialto 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputation retracted. Side Note: I wasn't the one who added the Couric back after my edit was reverted. Note the differing text on the later attempt. --Cybercobra 20:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ohnosecond

Please consider adding the Ohnosecond[[2]] to this page. --146.171.16.7 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We'd need a cite where someone can say something took to five ohnoseconds (or whatever) to do. Otherwise, it's a figure of speech, not a unit of measurement. Rhialto (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A google for "ohnoseconds" [[3]] reveals some instances of such usage, but I'm in no position to say if they count as 'notable', or there are enough of them to be 'notable', or not. Some examples: "One and a half ohnoseconds later"... [[4]], "superseded a few ohnoseconds later..." [[5]], "the 0.000000001 ohnoseconds it would take to"... [[6]], "That's [...] more than 3000,000000000 Ohnoseconds!" [[7]]--146.171.16.9 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)