Talk:Rod (unit)

message: What does that picture have to do with the rod? Anyone know? Anyone feel like they are confident enough to take it down? JesseRafe 03:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I think the bar on the sign might measure one rod.  It doesn't seem immediately relevant, though. Vashti 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure even, it's plausible that "Ruthe" could mean "Rod," but then that sign would only mean "One Prussian Half Rod"... and who cares what a Prussian Rod is, wouldn't all countries have different local measures back in the day? I think it should be deleted. JesseRafe 04:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, imperial measurements were all different wherever you went, but this article ought to be (and is, IIRC) about everywhere's rod.  If we could establish the significance of the sign it might be a nice illustration of the concept.  Any fluent German speakers out there who could ask the German Wikipedia for help (or even help, but that might be a bit optimistic for something this obscure) Vashti 07:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only word there I don't know is "Ruthe", which granted regular sound changes is very likely to be "Rod". In anycase, if it is a rod, "halbe" definitely means "half," so I'm going to amend the caption, but I still don't think that the picture is the best. JesseRafe 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Münster is not in Bavaria, it's in North Rhine-Westphalia. In 1816, the date shown on the plaque, Münster was in the Prussian province of Westphalia. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

text: The Prussian rod (preußische Rute) since 1816 was 3.766242 m. The half-rod should be 1.883121 m. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: Seems the value of a perch varied from 18-24' in the 1300's, and even in 1820, was between 16.5 and 25'. See the talk page at perch (area). I feel it would serve better to move the perch length info to a unified perch page that encompasses both length and area definitions, reflecting at least 600 years of use, and perhaps even explaining how one got to include the other, with a link here to what the length aspect became settled as recently. Any thoughts from on high? If none, I'll go ahead and attempt to do so (stretching my noob Wiki-skills). Andy N. (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A perch was not necessarily a rod 

message: *German units of measurement - which has half a dozen print sources cited
*http://www.kartenmeister.com/preview/html/measurements__coinage.html
*http://www.heimatverein-heven.de/alte-masse/hevener-und-herdeder-masse.htm
*http://freenet-homepage.de/helmut.ramm/hopa13f.htm
*http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/deutsches_mass_und_gewicht.htm
all agree with the value of 3.766m for the prussian rod / 1.883m for half of same. --Random832 (contribs) 16:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussian rod length 

message: In Dorset when I was young a LUG was a square POLE.  I know useage varies in different parts of the country.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.201.184 (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lugs 

message: Why is a rod between 15 and 24 feet?  Why this length?  It seems to me that it may have come, not from the length of an ox goad, but from the length of a PIKE, which falls in the same range.  In Medieval Europe, the peasants were the foot warriors a lord brought to battle, and they carried pikes as the only effective weapon against armored, mounted knights.  Only knights could own horses and swords, so the peasants were pikers.  To be effective, pikes had to be the same length, hence, I speculate, the local pike/rod was standardized for each 'county' that is, the domain of a count or earl.  I spent some time researching this speculation with the OED, and the closest definitional association is with the 'perch', which referred to poles as weapons.  The spindly nature of the 'rod' as compared to the 'pole' or 'perch' suggests to me that a rod may have been a specific standard measure used by the bailiff to make standard pikes (one OED citation is for an order of 3000 pikes) and to lay out standard allods for the peasants (which is where we get house 'lots').  I have exhausted what I can do with the OED and have no intention of becoming a Medieval scholar.  Matt Persson (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rod Length Speculation 

message: See a discussion under the same heading at WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling and metrication

message: Someone blasted this entry with 's all over the place.   I removed one entirely superfluous criticism - the request to cite a source for the sentence, "The rod was still in use as a common ... when Henry David Thoreau used it frequently" in Walden".  I mean, c'mon people, did you even read the freakin' sentence?  And if you don't understand what I'm saying, you're probably not qualified to add "citation needed" tags all over the place.
:As a professional nitpicker, I take issue with what I perceive as anti-overzealous-niggler bias. I'm not sure how relevant the Thoreaux anecdote is, but I have supplied a reference for it. Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Overzealous nigglers

message: I just deleted this:
:The length is equal to the standardized length of the ox goad used for teams of eight oxen by medieval English ploughmen;
The source cited says "may have." Also, it is an online source that does not cite its own sources. I did some additional research a(searching Google Books on rod measure ox-goad and found that this story goes back at least to the 1890s, but not from any reliable source. More recent works qualify it with "may have."
Another concern is that the rod as a unit of measure appears to be of such great antiquity (Bronze Age? Neolithic?) that any story regarding its origin is suspect. Something like "fire was discovered in the 15th century by a Greek shepherd who accidentally rubbed two sticks together." Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Hmm, I've just added a table here with many kinds of perch, pole and rod from around Europe, and now realise that there is also an article at Perch (unit). I'm wondering whether there is any good reason to treat the perch separately from the rod, or if they should not be merged? And if so, under what title? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Rod and perch have been generally synonymous for about the last 700 - 750 years, which is about as far back as the history of English weights and measures can be traced with any degree of certainty. Etymologically, rod is Anglo-Saxon/Germanic while perch is Anglo-Norman French. At some point they may have been different, but at a time for which we have no historical evidence. English-language encyclopedias usually merge them into rod (perch, pole). There are, however, local and specialized variants where perch is used exclusively, mainly the woodland perch. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

text: A rod was also a unit of area. I've suggesting merging that short article, Rood (unit), and its even shorter Scots equivalent, Rood (Scots), here also, so that one topic can be dealt with in one place. Back in the late Paleolithic, when I was at school, we learnt that 5 1/2 yards equalled one "Perch, pole or rod". I tentatively suggest that as a suitable title for this article if the merger goes ahead. And yes, I agree with Zyx that on the face of it perch and rod appear to be two differently derived names for the same thing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Good question. From my reading of Zupko (British Weights and Measures) and Connor (English Weights and Measures) I vaguely remember rod and perch being synonyms from the beginning. Rod was an Anglo-Saxon word, pertica the Latin equivalent, perch a later Latin form. However, my own vague memory is not enough to withstand a challenge, so I concede defeat until such time as I can produce reliable evidence to the contrary. Until then, feel free to make whatever edits you feel are warranted. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have recently acquired a copy of Ther Basis of Measurement McGreevy - 1995.  McGreevy states quite unequivovably that teh pole, perch and rood are one and the same thing. Martinvl (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Perch = Rod?

message: Special:Contributions/91.85.61.106 recently changed "meter" to "metre" in this article. Even though someone changed it back and left a tag on the user page, this seems to be an ongoing problem. This users entire edit history consists in changing American English to British English. This user also appears to be a sock-puppet of Special:Contributions/82.153.125.210, suggesting the possibility that this may go back even further. I hesitate to use the term cyber-terrorism, but this could be part of a coordinated attack on the Wikipedia. Then again, maybe I'm just overreacting Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not over-reacting.  When I see somebody changing "metre" to "meter" or vice-versa, I usually revert (unless the change is justified).  I don't see the point in having UK/US English battles and I certainly do not object to people changing my UK English to US English if I inadvertently use UK English in an artcile that is already designated as using US English.  Martinvl (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Ragebe's suggestion agrees with the guideline MOS:ENGVAR. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  metre v meter issue 

message: Chanvar bhiga = 3025 square yards or 100 square rods. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chanvar bhiga  

message: "A rod is the same length as a perch also sometimes called a pole which measure using cordage[3] or wood, slightly antedated the use of both rods and surveyors chains, made of more dimensionally regular materials" - Does this sentence make sense?  I can't make head nor tails of it.  Mazz0 (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing.  And that characterization is absolutely correct, not a misstatement of fact in this article. Gene Nygaard 21:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence questioned 

message: A recent edit asserts that as a volume, . I doubt the reliability of the source. Please see WT:WikiProject Measurement#Rod as a volume where I'm asking for comments. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rod as a volume 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rod (unit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814005118/http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/environment-and-planning/parks-and-open-spaces/allotments/ to http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/environment-and-planning/parks-and-open-spaces/allotments/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625230147/http://www.metric.org.uk/Docs/DTI/met1968.pdf to http://www.metric.org.uk/Docs/DTI/met1968.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed this sentence:
* As a unit of volume, a Rod equals to 1000 cubic feet.
This seems highly unlikely; the brickwork measure is clearly genuine (I cross-checked, and it's in SOED for example). This claim, apparently unrelated to the standard rod/pole/perch length of 5-1/2 yards, is supported only by the Cardarelli book, which is dubious (there is at least one other misprint in the table from which this is drawn, the notorious "stupping ton" (misprint for "shipping"). I cannot put "citation needed", because Cardarelli is a citation, but he does not give any sources, so this is unlikely to be more reliable than "stupping ton". Imaginatorium (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I mentioned the problematic edit in December 2014 here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious volume claim 

message: In the list of Rods and comparable units in Europe, why are Sweden and Denmark represented by German units ?
Flight714 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Dubious above. Many of the claims are similarly dodgy. Hairy Dude (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  German units in Sweden and Denmark ?

message: This edit to the lead:   The edit was reverted by  with the comment 
The article and particularly the lead is highly US centric.  The primary definition of an acre is one furlong by one chain. Of course, this can be expressed in yards or feet but it is these latter measures which are redundant, noting that the article is about the "rod", which is a fraction of a chain.  Furthermore, a perch (not a square perch) is a common measure of land area, where it is one square rod.
Incidentally, a perch is also a volumetric measure for stone, being 1 rod x 1 ft x 1.5 ft (24.75 sqft).  In this respect, it is similar to a cord.  The lead should relfect these things.  It doesn't. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cinderella. The ancient English system of units is based on sequences of units, each a simple, but entertainingly different, multiple of the previous. The basic fact of an acre is that it is one chain by one furlong, i.e. 10 sq. chains, not some silly number of square feet. Similarly, I think metric conversions should be kept to a minimum, because now no-one in the world actually uses these crazy units in real life, do they? (Oh, but Cinders, if it's measuring volume it'd better be "cu. ft.") Imaginatorium (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, of course it is cu ft. In reference to land area, acres and perches (the common measure of house blocks) have a long legacy in Australia, despite having been metricated for 50 odd years.  In practical terms, any new survey (to confirm boundaries, realign, divide or amalgamate an existing block) will refer to the surveyors notes of earlier surveys.  Consequently, they will very often be working from surveys made pre-metric.  A lot of smaller scale farming equipment (planters particularly) will be calibrated in lb/Ac.  Some will be old (having a long life) or produced in the North America or the UK (pre metrication).  Checking the planting rate then involves calculations in the imperial system.  For myself, a chain by a furlong is an easy way to conceptualise and estimate an area in acres.  It is dying but hasn't taken its last gasp. As for inches, they are very much alive and well in mechanical engineering because of equipment from or intended for the US market. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

text: This article is about the rod, not the acre. There are already three sentences about the acre in an article that isn't even about the acre. Also, the acre and the rod are old measurements that are related to each other. The 66-foot chain wasn't developed until 1620. So the acre came long before the 66-foot chain, so I see no reason make additional mention of the chain in the lead of the article about the rod. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , the chain has an enduring practical purpose in defining the survey of roads and allotments.  The significance of the rod is that it is a quarter of a chain and that it is the basis of a perch as a measure of area for small blocks. These are the two most pertinent points to be made about the rod, yet the lead does not make either apparent.   makes the point that the imperial system   This system of measure is best conceptualised by the relation to other units immediately in the sequence and to important cross relations such as between length and area. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I maintain that your edit introduced redundancy to the lead. I'll leave it to someone else to revert you if you reintroduce it. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit 

message: Both references for "lug" are dodgy. The list by Bonten, JHM is an unreferenced list, "on the internet", written in non-native English. The link to Rowlett's dictionary seems to come up blank. But "lug" is in the SOED, which would be a better source, or perhaps it can be referenced to the latest OED edition. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I tracked down Rowlett's page/source but agree that the OED would be a better source. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of the "lug" 

message: The Introduction claimed that the rod varied "often between approximately 3 and 8 meters (9ft 10in and 26ft 2in)". I’ve removed this as it doesn’t seem to relate to anything in the text (which states the rod in medieval times was between 18 to 24 feet, and in 1824 16 to 25 ft) and is confusing to have it right at the top of the page. It is also confusing to express a traditional measure primarily in meters. Does anyone know where this came from? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The comment starting “ The rod is useful as a unit…” seems to ignore the fact that the acre is defined by its relation to the pole or chain. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  How useful?