Talk:List of unusual units of measurement

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

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Meter or metre?[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Yes, but "humour" is spelled in British English, so where does that leave us? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, please go for it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Banana for scale"[edit]

Would it be worth adding "banana" as an unusual unit of measurement for length/distance? The concept of "banana for scale" is something that has become quite common in popular culture as a jokey, "desperate" measure of length and thus is possibly worth mentioning, at least briefly, as it is a much smaller-scale version of the "American football field" as a relative sense of measurement.

Sources: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/banana-for-scale-meme-history/ https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/banana-for-scale 83.146.12.0 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the jokeyness counts against including it. More importantly, though, this list is for units of measurement, not objects for scale. The difference is this: it's common to include a banana in an image for scale. It is not so common to say that an object is 5 bananas wide. The latter is a unit of measurement, the former is not. In contrast, you do see someone describe something as the length of 5 football fields.--Srleffler (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. This has come up before.--Srleffler (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smoot[edit]

I was surprised to see the smoot added, as I had assumed it was always here! It was moved 7 November 2006 to List of humorous units of measurement#Smoot, where it remains – with more detail. —Tamfang (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other measurements[edit]

Is there a criteria for what should go into this article? The potential for this category is near endless, but I'm thinking of older measurements no longer commonly used, like furlong, league, fathom, surveyors chain (66 feet), rod, rood, perch, barley corns, etc. Supposedly there's a definition of "jiffy". Nerfer (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are more limited than you might think. Obsolete units belong at List of obsolete units of measurement. Humorous units belong at List of humorous units of measurement. This list is for serious units that are actually still used to measure things, but which are in one way or another unusual. Jiffy is on the list. None of the others you mention fit the criteria.--Srleffler (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under Fathom#Water depth I read : Most modern nautical charts indicate depth in metres. However, the U.S. Hydrographic Office uses feet and fathoms (with a reference over there). Doesn't that make the fathom a "serious unit actually still used to measure things but in one way or another unusual" ? (Unusual, in this case, in that it is now obsolete everywhere except on U.S. nautical charts, where it is still used to measure depths, as it used to be on the Admiralty charts I used, oh, maybe 50 years ago, when sailing a Glénans cutter between North Brittany and the Channel Islands ["Heights in feet, depths in fathoms and feet"]). (Of course the French charts were in metres, but we also had British large-scale charts for the islands.) — Tonymec (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page defines an unusual unit of measurement as a "unit of measurement that does not form part of a coherent system of measurement". The fathom is part of the imperial and the U.S. customary systems, and therefore is not unusual, as that term is defined here.--Srleffler (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Well, a "hand" is defined here as 4 inches, or one-third of a foot. Doesn't that make it part of the same coherent measurement system ? — Tonymec (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hand (unit) doesn't say that the hand is part of the imperial or US customary system of units. Fathom does.--Srleffler (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]