Talk:List of unusual units of measurement/Archive 1

message: I moved this page from AttoParsec. Units of measurement are not capitalized. - Montréalais 22:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early discussions 

message: Page listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Feb 21 to Feb 26 2004.  Discussion:
* attoparsec - Mainly listed to prevent bad precedence from being created, I don't think this particular prefix/unit combination warrants its own article. The brief mention in parsec is enough IMO. -- Dissident 22:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Hubble-Barn redirected here, but doesn't seem to be mentioned on the page? [Anon, not signed in]
:There's information about it in the article's source text, but it was commented out:
 (cur) (last)  02:22, 5 Mar 2004 Palapala (last entry awaiting confirmation)
:To see it, click "edit this page" and scroll down near the bottom. Bryan 07:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  hubble barn? 

message: I decided to revert Icairns's change combining of all the references in the article since they are not free standing references, but instead are specific sources for quotations within the article.  Having them down at the bottom all together just makes it harder to associate them with what they are a source for.  I actually added one reference back in without realizing that it was already there, at the bottom. JesseW 08:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Wiki articles have their external links at the end of the article. Inserting them into the body will make this article look out of place. What's wrong with footnotes pointing at a later external link? You will also need to change the appearance of the See also section heading - since your reversion, this is now out of sorts with other Wiki articles. Ian Cairns 08:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  How do I make footnotes?  Regarding the See also part, someone already fixed it.  Thanks for responding. JesseW 03:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Here's a page on Wikipedia:Footnotes.  Consensus seems to be that there are a variety of partial solutions.  Sigh.  I'll look for a way to make anchors, if I remember, there is no good way to do that either.  JesseW 05:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The basic unit of this system was the potrzebie, which equals the thickness of Mad issue 26, or 2.263348517438173216473 mm.
So that issue has been measured to a sub-atomic level? Christoph Päper 17:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly unrealistic amount of significant figures there ... round it off to 2.263 mm? Proto t c 12:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The measuring was done in a 1950's high-school lab by a very young Donald Knuth -- the number of significant figures is of course a joke... AnonMoos 02:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Potrzebie

message: This article needs to be organized.  I can try to alphabetize it, but if anyone wants to help, please do.  Rt66lt 04:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Dismas! Rt66lt 16:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Also: "metric butt-load". :) porges 04:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: The "Lawyer" was added back in August 2004 by Ortolan88 , and it seems slightly too good to be true to me. Does anyone know of any references to back it up? I've tried Googling but I'm only finding Wikipedia mirrors. Bryan 04:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm calling B.S. -- THEBlunderbuss 20:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough for me. Out it goes, if it's real then someone else will eventually re-add it and hopefully cite sources this time. Bryan 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawyer 

message: Do these really belong here? It seems to me they're just humorous ways of saying "fuck all", and aren't related to any real-world phenomenon, whereas most of the others have a defineable size, albeit only used humorously. Even "realtor's throw", while not tightly defined, is a common meme. If we list "bee's dick", I think we have to list every possible phrase in the English language for "not very much", which is not really what this list seems to be for. sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 'It seems to me they're just humorous ways of saying "fuck all"' Well, that's where you are quite wrong. It's a humorous way of saying 'just a little bit'. So we say "it's a bee's dick too big" or "move it left a poofteenth". I don't think it's any less valid than "realtors throw", which might be common in the US but is unheard of here (Australia) - and as far as I can tell is only a humorous way of saying "further than you might be led to believe". So, my vote is that if "realtor's throw", stays then so do bee's dick and poofteenth. ;) SilentC 22:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's get rid of all three then. (My point about "realtor's throw" was that the concept of dodgy estate agents is universal - I hadn't heard of the actual phrase before either, as I'm British, not USian). But the point about "bee's dick" is that it's just one of thousands of phrases used in Australia, Britain, the US and elsewhere meaning "just a little bit", none of which belong on a list alongside furlong/firkin/fortnight or the attoparsec. sjorford #£@%&$?! 10:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm not too bothered about it. I added them and others have embellished them. I'm not going to get upset if someone removes them. You're probably right that they don't fit the original intention of the article - I think there are a few others in the same category. SilentC 22:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote in favour of deleting such entries. If there's no precedent for someone talking about five (or any amount greater than one) of these at a time, it's just an expression, not actual (albeit obscure/humourous) unit of measurement. Rhialto 04:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bee's dick and poofteenth 

message: What on earth does "it comes in disguise" mean?  Chick Bowen 02:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in the early revisions of this page, it meant "Technically this should not be on this page, because it is a real SI unit.  However, it is a canonical example of a unit that is never used except to emphasize its deliberate oddness."  A rewrite of that sentence is certainly in order. Jonrock 07:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attoparsec 

message: These 'units' of measurement have NO Google hits whatsoever except Wikipedia and answers.com, which mirrors the Squick article. With no verifiable source beyond the person who contributed, PLUS the fact that the MilliWinger is up for an AfD and most likely will be removed from the site, I've removed the units from this article as well until and if someone can provide a verifiable source beyond "Well, my friends and I use the terms" or some such nonsense. Nezu Chiza 19:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winger, Shudder 

message: I don't think we should be so quick to remove the KKK system section. I understand that it has connotations to the Ku Klux Klan, but, being in another language, it would have no relation at all. Take a look at the Finnish wikipedia: Kyynärä, Kuukausi, Kannu. Altho, despite these being real units, it still my be a hoax. Zhatt 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: KKK system

message: Is the "Distance" a hoax? It is not listed at  and the closest thing that I could find in the OED was a length (in horse-racing) that varies depending on the track. Ardric47 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance 

message: Perhaps a better name for this article might be "List of unusual units of measurement"? "Strange" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Fragglet 14:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or alternatively, how about esoteric units? --Chrisd87 23:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... that brings to mind units used in mystical rituals. Grutness...wha? 09:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: The only source I can find for this supposed unit of measurement is a single weblog, http://www.jroller.com/page/rolsen/20051231. Can anyone provide a more reliable source, since otherwise I'll be deleting this entry as a neologism started by someone about their friend. Nezu Chiza 17:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiel 

message: The present alphabetical organisation of the article could be improved upon IMHO by splitting the article into four sections:
# Real units - unconventionally scaled (eg attoparsec - a perfectly legitimate unit - but scaled strangely).
# Units for things that are conventionally impossible to measure (Happy, Helen, Warhol, etc)
# Units of comparison (cigarette, Wales, hairsbreadth, sydharb).
# Obsolete units used in a modern context (hogsheads per fortnight, etc)
Comments? SteveBaker 14:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but your fourth item should probably come second. Christoph Päper 16:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better organisation of the article 

message: Should "Cut-lunch-and-a-water-bag" be on this list? It really isn't a unit of measurement but seems to be an expression. That is,  I don't think anyone would refer to n Cut-lunch-and-a-water-bags. JoshuaZ 07:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should go on this page.  

message: The comparison of the bandwidth of a carrier pidgeon (strictly a 'homing pidgeon') holding a flash memory cart - versus the bandwidth of 'the Internet' (whatever that means) is not valid - so I removed it.  You may be interested to know why.
::Would it be because there's no such thing as a "pidgeon", perhaps?  Try 'pigeon'. 194.72.81.2 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: If the unit of measurement specific the distance that the pigeon is traveling would that be better? So for example, if it were always presumed to be through a 10 mile wormhole with no wind or something like that. JoshuaZ 21:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, perhaps if "Homing pidgeon through a wormhole with a flashmemory in it's beak" were an unusual unit of measurement - then we could include it - but it isn't, and WP:NOR definitely applies here! SteveBaker 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously yes, the point was more to see under what circumstances you would consider it acceptable. JoshuaZ 00:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I guess if people said "When I access this web site that's 30 miles away, my connection's bandwidth is 0.1 FMHP's (flash-memory-homing-pidgeons)" - then one could count a homing pidgeon as a unit - but they don't - so it isn't.  However, that's not why I deleted that line from the article.  I deleted it because it's demonstrably not true except over very short distances - and because it doesn't say the size of the flash memory or what is meant by 'the bandwidth of the Internet' (Which piece of it?  All of it?  My connection to it? What?). SteveBaker 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carrier Pidgeon with Flash memory 

message: We seriously need to raise the bar for notability in this article. Might I suggest that all units that are not commonly known or are not supported by references be moved to Talk:List of strange units of measurement/Candidates, and that they only be moved back for the case that proper references for notability be included. Alternatively, they could be moved to the Uncyclopedia right away. -- Egil 07:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a good thing. JoshuaZ 07:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raise the bar 

message: As I see it, most entries on this page fall under one of the following categories (obviously not a unique decomposition, some overlap):
# Culturally-standard descriptions. Of course, varies place-to-place.
#* Standard comparisons: Things that people routinely compare to for a sense of magnitude.  Size of Wales, length of a football field, height of the Empire State Building, cost of a cup of coffee, etc.
#* Hyperbole: Common phrases that people use to express "very X".  Snail's pace, hairsbreadth, mile-a-minute, stone's throw etc.
#* Informal units with procedural definition: Things like measuring distance by the time it takes to smoke a cigarettes, or by the number of farsees.  Intended as an actual measurement, not just hyperbole.
# Joke and editorial units
#* Created units: Invented to be funny or make some editorial point, or both.  Some are well-defined and could actually be used, such as a smoot.  Others are not, such as hobo power, the warhol, etc. 
#* Unconventionally scaled common units: Some of these are attempting to get humor simply from obfuscation, such as in hertz per dioptre or attoparsec.  Others are simultaneously trying to make other points, as in light-nanosecond, nanocentury, and nanoacre.
#* Modern usage of obsolete units: These units aren't unusual in themselves, but modern usage is.  The FFF system, etc.
# "Actual" units (not culturally-standard descriptions or comical effect)
#* For measuring arcane subject matter: The morgan, the langley, the jansky, etc.
#* Obscure or obsolete units: Board feet, grave, etc.
#* Strange definitions: Assay ton.
I bring this up for two reasons:
# It seems it would be useful to separate these three types of measurements, as they are distinct ideas.  Could be done by reorganizing, of course.  But it seems to me that three separate articles is warranted (with better names, hopefully).  Unfortunately, the final category--actual unusual units--seems very uninteresting.  Especially since arcane, obscure, and obsolete aren't "unusual" in any sense except "uncommon".  And that hardly seems notable.  
# Even with no reorganization, perhaps we can decide which kinds of units, or sorts of each kind, we wish to include on this page, so as to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Ideas?  Comments?  Accusations? Jrohrs 08:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a stellar analysis.  I disagree that category 3 is uninteresting, as this category contains the items that have gone beyond social constructions to become artifacts of engineering practice. Jonrock 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's already here.--MARQUIS111 11:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion to Clarify/Organize Subject Matter

message: I personally remember my Dad telling me this joke way back when I was a kid, but that's hardly a citation.  After a bit of searching, I've tracked down a reference from 1985: it is defined in the glossary of a humorous book called "Science made stupid", by an author called Tom Weller, which won the 1986 Hugo Award for Best Non-Fiction Book.
The author's website is at http://www.tweller.com/.
It links to a partial (abridged) mirror of the book at http://www.besse.at/sms/smsintro.html.
The definition of a milliHelen is at http://www.besse.at/sms/glossary.html.
This does not imply that the author coined the phrase himself, it may have been extant at the time.  But how long does something have to have been in common usage before it's no longer considered a hoax?  The main page of this article has a boxout, but there's no discussion on the subject here.  It's certainly a joke unit, but it's a hoary old joke unit.  I believe it's as well qualified as many of the other entries.
:I've heard and used it jokingly as well. It's not a hoax. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard of it independently a few times before. I think if a few people who've commented here have heard about it, then it's not a hoax. I've removed the hoax box. --James Hales 10:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The milliHelen: not a hoax

message: I suspect this section to be a hoax. No verifiable source, and it seems highly unlikely that astrophysics should use units convenient for nuclear weapons - there ought to be too many orders of magnitude in between. --DrTorstenHenning 08:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, physicists usually don't like mixing up names of quantities and names of units. As for the quantity jerk, I must confess that I am highly suspicious of Wikipedia as a source, especially if the article on jerk has an external link to a page on which it says (about some quantities, including the Shake): "Needless to say, none of these are in any kind of standards, yet.  We just made them up on usenet." --DrTorstenHenning 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the link (a little further down the code), 1 jerk=1 GJ. I do not think that life becomes so much easier when one simply replaces the term "gigajoule" by "jerk", so I'd like to see if there is any indication of an established use of this unit outside a rather narrow community. Otherwise, I would consider the term "jerk" simply to be a neologism in this context, and not worthy of a Wikipedia entry. The use as an abbreviation in program source code is not enough of an indication for me. --DrTorstenHenning 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jerk section: suspected hoax

message: Section is unsourced. At best it is not encyclopedic or merciful. At worst it could be a clever lie by someone with a personal vendetta. Also, it could get Wikipedia in legal trouble.Rich 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.perldesignpatterns.com/?MilliGraham mentions one, but not that much. You'd have to find an IRC group and ask them. 68.39.174.238 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Graham and Barr

message: :a rather large, obsolete unit (fortnight)
This must be some strange meaning of the word "obsolete": most of the rest of the English-speaking world is happily still talking about fortnights, you know. The Wednesday Island 00:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortnights aren't obsolete