Talk:Furlong

message: I am not convinced that this trivia of furlong per fortnight is often misquoted, as I have, as far as I recall, never heard it quoted at all. It debases Wikipedia to have such a prominent bit of trivia - these silly examples may be accurate, but they are not useful or relevant. The point is made.
I suggest that it be severely trimmed down, leaving silly examples to the reader's imagination.
Spenny
*** Not everything needs to be useful or relevant, Spenny, lighten up!  I enjoyed it.
- CharlieTuna
My first exposure to this was around 25 years ago in a Unix fortune cookie (a small program that displays a pithy or witty saying often run as part of the login process on Unix systems). As I recall it stated: "Data will always be expressed in the least useful units. For instance, speed will be expressed in furlongs per fortnight". 
SurrealPenguin (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard F/F quoted. Never misquoted, though. Does the author have a reason why it is "misquoted"? Irrelevant or useless is fine. Simultaneously prescriptive, though?Still A Student 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to see two examples add to the F/F entry to add some relevancy to the unit, as the ones described there demonstrate why it's irrelevant now. The two examples I would include would be human march speed and speed of travel by horse, as I'm pretty sure that these speeds figured in F/F would've been handy to merchants, couriers, and military commanders back in the Middle Ages (in fact, I came here from fortnight following a link from the Battle of Stamford Bridge, where King Harold fought a full fortnight before racing to fight the Battle of Hastings.)--YoungFreud 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "F/F" is not a practical unit for expressing marching speeds, or travel speed for horses. It's too small a unit. Snails travel at approximately six furlongs per fortnight, which is basically one millimeter per second, so it's not a rate, it's a punchline. People march at a rate of approximately 24 furlongs (three miles) per hour, or about 8000 furlongs per fortnight. It's pointless to choose these units to express marching rates, because nobody would march continuously for a fortnight. That's why it's a joke. Silarius 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I particularly liked the reference to a furlong per fortnight, since that was actually the reason I was looking up the exact distance of a furlong. I've heard this phrase a number of times, being an engineer myself, and wanted to know how to post the speed limit on a highway  properly in the appropriately unintelligible units :-D...
Also - I noticed the following section:
"one furlong per fortnight is 0.166 millimetres per second, which would be barely noticeable to the naked eye (the tip of an hour hand on a clock, measuring 3.75 feet in length, travels at about 1 furlong per fortnight — as does the tip of a second hand 1/16 of an inch in length)."
Missed a much more reasonable reference of the tip of a minute hand, 3.75 inches in length! 
-KevinM
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.104.245.6 (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard F/F quoted. Never misquoted, though. Does the author have a reason why it is "misquoted"? Irrelevant or useless is fine. Simultaneously prescriptive, though?Still A Student 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furlongs per Fortnight - Minute hand speed 

message: My first, and only, exposure to Furlongs/Fortnight was in a humorous short essay about engineers. It stated that engineers would always provide data in a form conveying the least meaning. E.g. velocity measured in furlongs per fortnight.
I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with including the lighter side of a topic in an encyclopedia. In fact, the term "encyclopedia" almost demands that all aspects be considered.
Knowledge that brings a smile is still knowledge.
Phlogiston Warrior
:I would like to see two examples add to the F/F entry to add some relevancy to the unit, as the ones described there demonstrate why it's irrelevant now. The two examples I would include would be human march speed and speed of travel by horse, as I'm pretty sure that these speeds figured in F/F would've been handy to merchants, couriers, and military commanders back in the Middle Ages (in fact, I came here from fortnight following a link from the Battle of Stamford Bridge, where King Harold fought a full fortnight before racing to fight the Battle of Hastings.)--YoungFreud 20:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "F/F" is not a practical unit for expressing marching speeds, or travel speed for horses. It's too small a unit. Snails travel at approximately six furlongs per fortnight, which is basically one millimeter per second, so it's not a rate, it's a punchline. People march at a rate of approximately 24 furlongs (three miles) per hour, or about 8000 furlongs per fortnight. It's pointless to choose these units to express marching rates, because nobody would march continuously for a fortnight. That's why it's a joke. Silarius 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F/F silliness 

message: The image that goes with the article shows that one acre = one rod x one furlong, but that would be 1/4 acre.  Is the image wrong?
Autopilot (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the little mark above the word "rod" is supposed to indicate that the distance between the two little horizontal line in the mark, so it looks as though that edge of the acre might be four rods, which would be right. Also, the overall shape of the acre is about right. The long edge is about 10 times the short edge. But the little mark really is inadequate and the image should be improved. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that the little mark is showing the length of a rod (compared to a chain). When the full image is viewed, the small grid lines that show the four rods is visible. But when it is scaled down, as it is on the furlong page, the grid lines are blended out of view. Perhaps changing the label to read "4 rods" and underneath it "1 chain" would make it clearer.  --Autopilot (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe just "4 rods" because I don't think the chain is nearly as ancient as the other units shown in the diagram. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip.Unitfreak (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of an acre? 

message: I’ve put the material in a new section at the end because it’s probably far more than most readers will care about—see if this works. I used scare quotes for the “international” value because there really is no such thing, and every alternative definition I could think of was awkwardly verbose.
It appears that we have a similar issue with most of the units that NIST define in terms of the survey foot; although it would be a simple matter to copy and slightly revise the material I’ve added here, doing so would seem needless repetition with the possibility of inconsistencies resulting from subsequent edits. But I’m not sure the topic justifies a separate article. Thoughts, anyone? JeffConrad (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit of 2 May 2011

message: "Metricized" is the word, and "metricated" is a nonword that is not found in any dictionaties. The lengths of horse races in Australia were "metricized". It is astonishing that people want to make up and use nonwords in English.98.67.171.238 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Might want to check your facts before you make spurious assertions. Metrication   and it is worth noting there is a subtle difference in meaning between metricate and metricize. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. wise guy: Try www.dictionary.com, which draws its vocabulary from numerous dictionaries, and "metricated" is NOT in it. Dummy, accusing me of not checking my facts. You should be ashamed of yourself.98.67.171.238 (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Metricate" is most certainly in the Oxford English Dictionary, even in the concise version that I have here. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Metricate" is also in dictionary.com. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

text:  Speaking of dummies, www.dictionary.com does have an entry for 'metricate. older ≠ wiser 15:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It includes "metricate", but not "metricated". People who don't know how to use dictionaries may get confused. DOwenWilliams (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metricized 

message: Five furlongs IS approximately 1.0 kilometre, and not "are".
Multiples of units and numbers themselves are treated as singular in English.
For example: 5,280 feet is one mile. 13 is the number of original states in the United States. 440 yards is one quarter mile. Plural verbs are not used in these.98.67.171.238 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 13 is a (singular) number. Feet are plural. Singular/plural usage in this context, and in others, is variable. British usage tends to use plural verbs with collective nouns, e.g. "The government are planning to ban baseball". DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use the right verb 

message: Because of the exact conversion factor of one meter = 39.37 inches, the conversion between inches and millimeters works out to be one inch = 25.4000508, with more decimal places. Hence. 25.4 is not an exact conversion, but close enough for all practical purposes. Rather than one furlong = 202.168 meters exactly, one furlong = 201.1684 meters, approximately.98.67.171.238 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 39.37" is a convenient approximation, not internationally accepted as exact. DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact conversion factors 

message: I've seen square furlongs used as a unit of area when square miles are too large to measure in. On a trip to St Mary's in the Scilly Isles the tourist maps grid is in square furlongs (1/8 sq mi). Might be worth adding to usage. 151.227.229.35 (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A square furlong is 1/64 square mile, not 1/8 square mile. 75.84.89.121 (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, this is an unusual concept and I think we need a [{WP:RS]] for this before adding anything on it at all.  Montanabw(talk) 03:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Furlong. 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/20070709160457/http://www.empm.ca/reports/Title%20Searches.pdf to https://www.empm.ca/reports/Title%20Searches.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) 00:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Furlong. 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/20110629220021/http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/goodwood/course/ to http://www.sportinglife.com/racing/goodwood/course/
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) 14:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)