Talk:List of humorous units of measurement/Archive 1

message: A set of policy guidelines are being discussed at []. The guidelines being drawn up there will affect the content of this page. Interested editors are invited to read the discussions going on there and contribute. Rhialto 06:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy guidelines

message: I'm in the process of creating this page. It will involve moving stuff from various other pages, which is why I hadn't filled it yet. Rhialto 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hangon

message: The article currently says "One Helen (H) is the quantity of beauty to be more beautiful than 50 million women". This would mean that an entity that possesses exactly 1 H will be uglier tomorrow (if it continues to possess 1 H of beauty). Is this really how it is defined, or should it read "to be the most beautiful of 50 million women picked at random"? 46.162.89.19 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Beauty

message: Any objection if I move this to the correct spelling (worldwide), which is "humorous"? If I don't hear in 24 hours or so I'll go ahead and move it. --Guinnog 08:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Go ahead. I'd have done it myself if I knew how to do it properly. Rhialto 08:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went ahead and moved it. Hope that's ok. --Guinnog 08:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: Just because this page is for humorous units, that is not a reason for not citing anything. Without cites, sooner of later a lot of entries here will probably get removed. Rhialto 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But do I have to cite the source of a joke? This militar joke was done during a dictatorship, so it was passed orally from rebel to rebel, with risk to each person's integrity.Albmont 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sources DO need cites. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of hearsays. It's not my rule, it's official wikipedia policy. Rhialto 23:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In any case, there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that this tar unit is actually a unit of measurement. Even used humorously, an entry here must be routinely used in conjunction with a number to be counted as a unit of measurement. Rhialto 05:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are there so many uncited units of measurement? Please find citations for the Missy Elliot, the Happy, the Puppy, the Pikotuki, the Pinkwater, and Hobo Power. They also seem to be non-notable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.234.91 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The Hobo Power is awesome, just because you havent heard of it (like me, before I read this) doesnt mean its not good Lovefist233 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cites!

message: Defining the unit "The Hitler" is absurd but not funny and has nothing to do with humor. -- Raubsaurier 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the unit of Hitlers amusing, as i'm sure many others do. In fact, I actually laughed quite hard when I first read it. 134.220.84.61 (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler

message: As found at http://www.lspace.org/books/pqf/the-light-fantastic.html
"A Thaum is the basic unit of magical strength. It has been universally established as the amount of magic needed to create one small white pigeon or three normal sized billiard balls." -- (Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic)
See also http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Thaum  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.126.50 (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thaum

message: The section suggests that this was invented by the Cambridge mathematician W.A.H. Rushton. According to that WP article Rushton was not a mathematician. This has a  tag against it. I have suggested that Asimov invented it and have given a reference. If the Rushton claim can not be sourced, I suggest it be removed. --Bduke 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Asimov mentions inventing the millihelen as a grad student, in a conversation with a friend "in the early forties". This is item #365 in his book "Asimov Laughs Again", published around 1992. But he does not refer to the invention of the helen in this item.Daqu (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Thios was previously moved to the sub-article humourous units (linked n article header). Unless someone can provide a convincing explanation as for how it isn't primarily used as part of a (sometimes elaborate) joke, I suggest the unit be left in its present location. Rhialto 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beauty - the Helen

message: This item needs cites. Additionally, the following points need to be addressed:
* Articles should not note anything as being "currently", as that term has a constantly changing reference point. "As of xyz date" is a better way to not that.
* Evidence needs to be shown that the unit has seen some widespread usage. Wikipedia is not here to help promote a meme invented by a webcomic. This requires at least one (preferably several) sources that independantly demonstrate the unit's usage.
Rhialto 15:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chachi

message: Let me clarify, given the above argument, that I don't think a one-time joke from Futurama is particularly notable either. -- SCZenz 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MegaFonzie

message: Strongly suggest this entry be axed:
:Writer James Docherty non-notable - nothing immediately apparent on Wikipedia or Google (except James Hadley Chase, who had a James L. Docherty pseudonym, but died in 1985). Could be self-published.
:No citation of supposed articles - title, publication or year.
:Supposed articles probably non-notable.
:Unit of measurement itself non-notable - not humorous, inaccurate in supposed use, and unoriginal (c.f. "Smoot").
::Evidently the least valid entry in this article, with multiple breaches of WP guidelines and no indication why it should remain. (If it does remain then any other supposed, uncited example of celebrity height as a unit of measurement would have to be permitted.) 220.240.130.249 05:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missy Elliott

message: Podcasts and web comics, because they are essentially self-published, and they lack the usual reviewing that books, newspapers, movies, and other media require before publishing, should only really be considered as valid sources about themselves. While they certainly count as an example of a unit's usage, a second, reliable and properly reviewed 9pre-publishing) source should also generally be required, before a unit can be regarded as notable. Does anyone disagree with this assessment?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhialto (talk • contribs) 08:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-Published Sources

message: Folks, If you're going to axe things lacking references, you should at least look for references first. "Hedon" was easy to find several scholarly cites for, dating back at least into the '70s; I picked an example I thought better than most.
On the other hand, I tracked the milliRubbia back to this anonymous edit to Wikipedia. I wasn't as thorough at checking the Carlo Rubbia history, but didn't turn anything up. Unless someone can turn up a citation from prior to that (April 2006), it ought to be axed. (The reference in "A computational approach to the psychotherapeutic process" post-dates it, and cites Wikipedia.)
I'd suggest any entry that gets axed should be moved into the talk page, to facilitate screaming about the (lack of) notability in an organized fashion. EG:
=== Speech Rate: Millirubbia (mR) ===

A millirubbia is a unit of speaking rate, usually applied during a technical talk, derived from Carlo Rubbia, Nobel laureate in physics 1984, who always spoke at 1 R. A normal person spewing forth data at break-neck speed may do perhaps 100 mR. 
You should also take the time to check for crosslinks within Wikipedia before flailing at the delete key... as in this case.
It's a pity, BTW; that one was pretty funny. Abb3w 16:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy axwork, Hedons, and milliRubbia 

message: Please consider adding the Ohnosecond[] to this page. --146.171.16.7 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd need a cite where someone can say something took to five ohnoseconds (or whatever) to do. Otherwise, it's a figure of speech, not a unit of measurement. Rhialto (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A google for "ohnoseconds" [] reveals some instances of such usage, but I'm in no position to say if they count as 'notable', or there are enough of them to be 'notable', or not. Some examples: "One and a half ohnoseconds later"... [], "superseded a few ohnoseconds later..." [], "the 0.000000001 ohnoseconds it would take to"... [], "That's [...] more than 3000,000000000 Ohnoseconds!" []--146.171.16.9 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohnosecond 

message: The Red cunt hair seems to belong here as well.
:Added. (Not my most productive edit to Wikipedia, but what the hell, it belongs here...) Robofish (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was discussed at length a few months ago, and the conclusion was that it is a figure of speech rather than a true unit, since no one, even in a specialised field, routinely refers to something as being "seven (or any other number) RCHs". Since there has been no new reason to change teh previous consensus, I am removing the entry. Rhialto (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCH 

message: Over the past 24 hours there have been several insertions, from a couple of Colorado IPs, of the "Kevin" as a unit of mass. All have been reverted, by several different editors. This is clearly nonsense and/or a joke, probably at someone's expense. Various fake "sources" have been offered in response to the request for a citation. Both of the IPs concerned have been warned about vandalism. One received a 12-hour ban. Please delete the "Kevin" on sight! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. The fact that the entry was changed to "kevns" when challenged on potentially being a personal attack on a named individual shows that it isn't genuine. Rhialto (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin 

message: American English: humor and humorous are correct.
UK English: humour and humorous are correct.
This article was originally written in UK English, and as per WP guidelines, that means UK English should be followed throughout the article. The article title uses the spelling "humorous" (not "humourous") because that is the correct spelling of the word in UK English. Rhialto (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, then apologies. Time for Shaw's quote about two societies separated by a common language! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling and the "U"

message: A whole bunch of measurements used in the Meaning of Liff have just been included here.  I don't really think most of them belong here.  Those books include a number of such units and if we cover them all here this article becomes more about that book than the nominal subject. Instead I believe it appropriate to limit it to the most notable units used.  Anyone have any thoughts ? CrispMuncher (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Delete. And delete the newly added "Hancock" while you're at it. Unsourced. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I rolled them back, then saw this discussion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed. It doesn't make much sense to include any of them. The source is notable, and meets that basic criterion. But it is also simply a book of lists, and there isn't any meaningful way to include those entries without quoting the book wholesale, which gets into dubious legal ground. None of those "Liff" units have any quotable sources outside that book. Rhialto (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of liff measurements 

message: IMO this article's name should be changed to "List of humorous and/or fictional units of measurement" --TiagoTiago (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Kemp Bennet Kolb defines the distance as exactly 100 Ångströms[2] while the Physics Handbook has it half the size at 5 nanometers.[3]
the first source said 100, second source I don't know about but Google Calculator says 5 nanometers = 1 beard-second. 100/2 is not 5...  Hintswen  Talk | Contribs  06:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect data? 

message: Why remove the unit doom? It's only in Futurama, but still I thought it's quite funny, even tough it is kinda trivial. 77.56.101.94 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "I thought it's funny" is no reason to keep it, "kinda trivial" is good reason not to.  - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it's a trivial name, but it's a unit and it measures something unusual. 77.56.101.94 (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern from the person who removed it, I believe, is  that it hasn't really been developed as a humerous unit of measure, or been picked up by other people/places, but was more of a one-off joke. Obviously these are all judgment calls, of course; it's hard to have objective criteria for inclusion in an article like this. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Yup, that was why I removed it (and I attempted to explain as much in my edit summary). Also, if we allow a one-off incidence of "doom" as a measure of "doomedness", then we open the door to "yellow" as a measure of "yellowness", etc. In essence, I just didn't think it had any established existence as a unit of measurement. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom removed? 

message: I just reverted an addition of a term that seems to have some popularity among some kids in a few colleges (part of the SUNY system). That strikes me as far too limited; lots of colleges have fake units based no some in-joke - I know at least one has been removed before - so even if it's been put in some school booklet, it still shouldn't (IMHO) remain. Others may disagree, of course! (oops - just noticed that I didn't actually remove the joke; I didn't revert enough; but somebody else has removed it)- DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: and furthermore, the "source", which was finally provided, is available here, and it doesn't mention this unit.  Favonian (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

text: It's the February 2010 edition, but let's cut out the BS. You have failed to provide a reliable source for your claim.  Besides, as Rodhullandemu pointed out, even if it had been in your student handbook, it would only have been an in-house joke at SUNY and not sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.  Favonian (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Please stop being POINTy. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 01:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  tween turd 

message: Why not the computron ? It's an established word actively used and of known origin and it's for humorous intent! 108.86.128.248 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computron 

message: I am surprised I have not seen a henway recommended. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like the joke punchline? ("how much does a henway?") Doesn't really belong here, if that's what you mean. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it relies on bogus grammar for a laugh, it sounds more like an awkward pun than a unit of measurement. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your opinion of the validity of the article, "henway" isn't used as a unit of measurement in the joke, and units of measurement are being discussed here. Nobody says "it was a six-henway thingamajig" even as a joke. We might as well include "orange" because it's used in the joke "Orange you glad I didn't say banana!" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henway 

message: John Stuart Mill was at least as influential. I don't think Utilitarianism can be described as Jeremy Bentham's alone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.198 (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utilitarianism - Bentham not the only contributor 

message: The entry in the Jargon File / Hacker's Dictionary originated as a somewhat condensed inside joke -- apparently the term as a unit of measurement of bogosity was invented by someone who was less respected/liked than Doug Lenat, and it was taken up by others more to mock that other person than to mock Lenat... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lenat

message: Does the sagan qualify for inclusion? It's not really a unit of measurement, strictly speaking, since it is a dimensionless number ...
: More to the point, it's not used to measure anything. It's a phrase or expression of speech, nothing more. No one ever says "there were seven billions and billions of them." As to the sagan unit, it's of questionable sourcing; does it actually exist beyond compilations? Indeed, teh NYT article cited defines it as being simply a "large quantity", and not an actual measure. Rhialto (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sagan 

message: Original Calculation done by IAmNoodles from reddit. Premalink http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/x15yt/iama_larry_king_ive_done_radio_and_tv_and_now_im/c5iadmb
I'll do the math! According to Google, Larry King is 5'9", and according to this website the correct suspender size for someone who is 5'9" is 48". Knowing that Larry King has ~150 pairs of suspenders, or ~300 individual suspenders, he must then have ~14,400" of suspenders. 14,400" of suspenders is 0.2273 miles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.87.140 (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reddit is a discussion site, or so I'm told. As such, it cannot be considered a reliable source by WP standards. --Rhialto (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  SLKSU Standardized Larry King Suspender Unit 

message: It's not really easy to judge objectively whether something is funny or not.But given that jokes about death do exist, and that "bad taste" is an established genre of humour, we can't really delete an item on the grounds of "it's not funny". On the other hand, the only source for this "unit" is a post on an Internet discussion forum. That is not considered a notable source by WP standards, and so the item can justifiably be deleted on notability grounds. Rhialto (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh. But material in exceedingly bad taste deserves an extra kick in the butt on the way out. EEng (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, not really. If we delete things just because we don't like it, that's not a neutral point of view. We should only delete things that have a policy-based reason for deletion. And then, where appropriate, take joy in that deletion. Rhialto (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, really. Perhaps you should look up duh in the dictionary. EEng (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

text: A unit involving truly odious, vile, offensive content can be a "humorous" unit of measurement, then, and we lack the discretion to exclude it?  Are you sure the rules require us to go that far? Hertz1888 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even dark humor is humor; if there were the usual requisite sources etc. then -- tasteless or not -- it would merit inclusion just as much as, say, Springtime for Hitler. Okay, maybe not just as much, but you get my point.  Fortunately, tasteless concepts such as the one we're discussing rarely gain traction in sources, so no holding-of-nose-while-defending-non-censorship is required this time. EEng (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your point. A good place to leave this.  I think it's had enough bandwidth (printer's ink, as they used to say). Hertz1888 (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  That genocide unit 

message: I've seen Instagram being used as a measurement of expensive purchases valued at one billion US Dollars. It's a parody of how much the company was purchased for by Facebook.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.45.126.230 (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a cite? Rhialto (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instagram?