Talk:Scottish units

message: Was a Scottish "stone" equal to 14 pounds like elsewhere? --McKay 02:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the Scottish stone has not been used for a long time, this is a historical question. E.g. in the 1426 Assize of weights the stone was defined as 15 troy pounds. But since these were Scottish troy pounds of 16 ounces, that's equivalent to 20 English troy pounds. Many other definitions existed at various times and for various purposes. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stone

message: I’ve altered this, as it made very little sense as it stood.
If the land area was based on the tax value, then it should be proportional to the value of the coins. If a groat equals four pennies, it is illogical for a pennyland to be twice as big as a groatland; and if two shillings is 24 pennies, ie 6 groats, a twoshilling land shouldn’t be smaller than a groatland.
This seems to have been extrapolated from the quarterland article, which is itself confused, and unreferenced;  I’ve edited that as well.Moonraker12 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not tax, so much as rent. Plus some of these land measurement are by productivity, not taxation.-MacRusgail (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Areas by taxation 

message: The article Joug has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
:A search for references failed to find any support for any of the content in this article, fails WP:N and WP:V
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist.  The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye via Google no doubt, that highly respected academic tool...--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Joug]]

message: There is no reason to keep such an unhelpful and overlong title, when  and  helpfully permit us to use shorter ones. The article should mention these units are obsolete, but that doesn't have to go in the title. No one is going to be looking for the metric system or imperial system by looking for "Scottish measurements"; people come here looking for the peculiarly Scottish system... which happens to be obsolete. See also English units.
People won't come here looking for the Scottish army but I'll go ahead and add a hatnote to it since "Scottish unit(s)" naturally appears frequently in reference to Scottish military units. — LlywelynII 02:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: I notice that the article states that the English/imperial and Scottish inches have the same value, yet the values of larger units do not agree with those of the corresponding English units (e.g. the foot of 305.3 mm is somewhat larger than the English foot of 304.8 mm, and would indicate a Scottish inch of around 25.442 mm) – this is presumably a discrepancy introduced by rounding. For this reason, I feel it would be most appropriate to indicate this in the body of the article. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential inconsistency in length/distance units