Talk:Shaku (unit)

message: On a different note.  Would it be wise to merge this and Koku to Japanese unit?
Jimp 25Oct05
Discussion of both is combined at Talk:Japanese unit which is also the link in the mergeinto tag.  Gene Nygaard 13:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to ''[[Japanese unit]]''

message: The English article currently states that the chi/shaku comes from "the average length between nodes on bamboo."  But both the Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia entries say that the chi/shaku comes from the measure of a human forearm, with the former citing the Shuowen Jiezi.  Is there a reference that supports the theory that the measure comes from bamboo?  --ian (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of measure

message: Another possibility is "Asian foot". While an imperfect search, a number of references describe shaku as a Japanese foot. As China and Hong Kong also use this unit, though with slightly different semantics and pronunciations, this could possibly be extended to "Asian foot". While this is neutral, my only concern is that it is a neologism at best, which should be avoided, especially in contrast to established English usage of shaku. So this suggestion would need much more input and consensus before acceptance. Of course the actual article could use shaku, chi, chek etc. as appropriate, which would lessen the impact of the neologism as a title. Comments? Bendono (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely is a neologism at best (definitely NSFW!) --antilivedT | C | G 05:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I will note that the corresponding "Asian inch" article is called Cun (length), and is based on a Mandarin romanization. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

text: If the article is split, a dab page should be built at 尺 or East Asian foot / Asian foot ; at the very least, there would be three articles... shaku, chi (length)/chi (unit) and chek (length)/chek (unit) — 76.66.196.139 (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But we also need to follow the convention of other unit articles - articles like foot (length) or pound (mass) consolidate all the different national variants of essentially the same unit into 1 article. --antilivedT | C | G 10:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Have to disagree with having an article named "chek".  The convention with using Chinese romanisation in article names is to use Mandarin pinyin.  An article named "chi" is good enough.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "chek" is an English word, established through writ of an English language law. It is legally defined in English, and thus not a Chinese romanization (even if it originates as one). It also quantifies a different value. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it's defined in a writ doesn't mean it's an English word. And even if it's an English word it must see wide spread usage to qualify. --antilivedT | C | G 11:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To qualify? It's a legally defined unit of measure in Hong Kong. If the article is split, why wouldn't it qualify for an article?? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --antilivedT | C | G 08:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Another possibility

message: So is there an equivalent template for Japanese? Or can we still use this one?
76.66.196.139 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the value of the template? Why add lots of non-English scripts and romanizations? We have an English word here that is in dictionaries. The article already contains links to Wiktionary for chi and chek. More than being just redundant, it is overkill. Put another way, here in Japan the inch and foot is also used. They are each written in another script, have a different romanization, and a different pronunication. However, there is no reason to add those details to the English language articles on inch and foot. Bendono (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template? 

message: I find "used throughout Asia" in the opening sentence a bit of an exaggeration.  References are made in the article only to China and Japan.  Asia stretches from Japan to Israel.  I believe more preciseness is in order. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  used throughout Asia ?? 

message: In Hong Kong, 尺 refers to the 14⅝ inch Hong Kong 'foot' (chek), 呎 refers to the (British) Imperial foot. The mouth radical is only used for Imperial units (哩 for mile, 呎 for foot, 吋 for inch etc.), whereas the H.K. units have no mouth radical (里 for li, 尺 for chek, 寸 for cun etc.)
So "is written as "呎" in Hong Kong" is wrong and should be removed.
120.145.7.10 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...written as "呎" in Hong Kong" 

message: Since Chi (unit) already exists as a separate article and already includes all the information from this article on the Chinese unit, I've removed the redundant information and added a link to that article. --Cckerberos (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Chinese Information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Shaku (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/19990221223050/http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm
*Added  tag to http://shosoin.kunaicho.go.jp/publictreasure/0000010045001.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101018175019/http://shosoin.kunaicho.go.jp/publictreasure/0000010046002.html to http://shosoin.kunaicho.go.jp/publictreasure/0000010046002.html
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) 06:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Mention if there was any debate at the time 10/33 m. was chosen. E.g., did some minister suggest 10/30 (1/3) might be smarter, "just use US foot," etc.? Jidanni (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any debate when 10/33 was chosen?