Text of pages created in November/December 2014 that are based on "Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures", plus Pau (unit) created in 2008.
This exists (sizes.com at #4) and is mentioned at Alcohol measurements. However, it is not clear what should be done because "anker" appears better described where it is at Dutch units of measurement. I suppose we could redirect this to the Dutch article.Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I changed the Anker DAB to point to the Dutch article. (A DAB expert might tidy the syntax at the beginning - there's a colon before the TOC). So no redirect from "Anker (Unit)" is needed.Imaginatorium (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Koizumi says the anker is/was half an ohm in Germany, and a quarter of an aam in the Netherlands, and that its size varied with the locality but was from 34 to 40 litres.[2] -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC) [reference last fiddled with 02:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)]
Koizumi says[2] that the chopin (no "e") was a Scots measure for half a ピント (pinto), or 1.5 English pints (painto), or 1.08 litres (p.196). He says that a chopine (with "e") was a French measure that varied with area but whose value in Paris was 0.4657 litres, later adjusted to 0.5 litres (p.154). Pay close attention, peeps: he also says that a choppin (no "e", two "p"s) was a Scots measure for half a pint (painto), or 0.8537 litres (elsewhere on p.154). Urgh. And no, I don't know what a pinto (in contradistinction to a painto) might be. I suggest tossing this out as hopelessly confused, but noting that there is evidence of some measure of liquid of this or similar spelling having been used in both France and Scotland. -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
But rightly or wrongly, Cardarelli does say it's a measure of weight for butter and cheese. If this is verifiable and noteworthy, then a redirect to English brewery cask units#Firkin would have to lead to a note about this alternative meaning. Meanwhile, Koizumi agrees that it's a British measure (56 lb) for butter,[2] but doesn't mention a liquid measure. -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Mercury. Deletion might be the more encyclopedic approach because it appears that calling "flask" a unit is a misunderstanding—here is an example of a mercury supplier where they talk about "Our 76 lb. liquid mercury flask and 2204 lb. (metric ton) container...". In other words, it is merely a convention in the mercury industry that 76 pound containers are used. However, Flask mentions "Flask, a unit of mass used to measure liquid mercury".Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is right to redirect to mercury. "Flask" is not a distinctive term, it just means a sort of container, and the ones used for mercury have a (semi-)standardised size. Otherwise 'box' could has a dab entry for "Container used for tricks." The dab entry is surely just the same confusion, and no-one who wants to learn about mercury will look up "flask". Imaginatorium (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
76 lb sounds an odd amount. Koizumi says that it is/was a US unit for mercury, equivalent to 75 pounds (yes, one pound less) or 34.02 kg.[2] -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Magnetic circuit#Magnetomotive force (MMF) which correctly states that the gilbert is the CGS unit of magnetomotive force with value 10/(4×π) ampere-turns. Interestingly, only the first 15 digits of the 51-digit value in the article under discussion are correct.Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Homestead Acts where we learn that "the homestead was an area of public land in the West (usually 160 acres...)" (apparently a convention, not a unit).Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
1 iron = 0.020833333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 inch [1]
1 iron = 0.0005291666666666667 m
This is/was a valid unit for measuring the thickness of leather (sizes.com and other sources from Google). The unit is not sufficiently notable to justify an article. I cannot find a mention of measuring leather thickness at enwiki, but perhaps it could be redirected to Leather with the hope that a small section could be added, with a proper source (not the source in Iron (unit) which has no useful information beyond the conversion factor).Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Koizumi says that it is/was an American measure for leather, equivalent to 1/48 inch.[2] -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Found an interesting conversion chart [1] from someone actually selling leather (in the US). Somehow they manage to measure thickness in ounces, which they can convert to inches and irons. (The iron 1/48" meme is everywhere: I just found a new list in my Japanese maths dictionary...) Another source: ASTM [2]Imaginatorium (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
A last was a medieval measure of gunpowder used mainly in England. It was defined by the English Ordnance Board as 24 barrels of gunpowder, each of 100 lbs net weight. The word 'last' (in the guise of łaszt) stands also for a medieval measure of friable goods, mainly dry goods (cereals and such), in Polish Baltic ports in 16th-19th century. The łaszt - 3000-3840 litres - was subdivided to 30 units known as 'korzec' (pl. korce; Engl. scheffel.
In some sources, it is mentioned as a last equals to 640 gallons.[1]
Keep, but remove the simplistic statement from the Cardarelli source which states that a last was a UK dry measure of 640 UK gallons. Sizes.com has more details, with sources, including World weights and measures which states that, in the Netherlands, 1 last is 30 hL or 660 imperial gallons (for some reason sizes.com translates that to 3,000 liters (correct) but 600 imperial gallons which is wrong). Sizes.com includes "80 bushels" in England which is 640 imperial gallons in agreement with Cardarelli, but there are several other significant meanings. The article can later be expanded from reliable sources.Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
TO DO Decide whether there is anything to this. See sizes.com.Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Koizumi doesn't mention it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Spot that firewood is not "hewn", for goodness sake. All of this firewood stuff is confusion between sizes of timber (see Deal for example) and amounts of firewood. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Pau was a customary unit of capacity used In Brunei, Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak. 1 Pau= 2 imperial gills (approximately 0.28413 liters or 0.600 U.S. liquid pint).
The pau was equal to only 1 imperial gill in the Straits Settlements (reported by Ilyin, 1934).
Since its start, the article has told us that one factoid is as reported by "Ilyin, 1934". And what, pray, is "Ilyin, 1934"? ¶ Koizumi says that the term was used in the Malacca area for 2.40 US gills or 2.00 British ones.[2] -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the sentence mentioning Ilyin as it was unhelpful (and I could not find anything in Google), but mainly because it was a copyvio from http://www.sizes.com/units/pau.htm as can be seen in the revision at 06:52, 9 September 2008.Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
In a word, "AAARGHHH!" ¶ No, don't redirect to Point (typography). Unless we know the context, the notion of a unit called "point" is ambiguous: units called "points" have very different meanings away from typography. Therefore just delete. ¶ Even if we put aside the uses of "point" that are quite aside from typography, it's well known that typographic "points" have historically varied a lot. Koizumi reiterates this,[2] and the article "Point (typography)" goes into much greater detail. ¶ I appreciate the figure of "0.006944444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 inch feet" (even though I'm not sure what an inch foot is). I mean, we're told the value to the nearest 10−102 "inch foot". Now, if an "inch foot" is what I normally call an "inch", then the precision is to about 25.4 × 10−90 picometre, amirite? (Unaccustomed as I am to dealing with such units, I hope I'm not counting my decimal places wrongly.) However, according to this, the covalent radius of a single atom of gold is 135 picometres. The implications are, like, totally far out. Cardarelli, the contributor of this factoid to en:WP, me: has one of us been smoking something? -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. I have been familiar with "point" as in typography from before the days of personal computers, so a redirect seemed natural to me (although there are 72 points per inch—144 is half-points). If "point" is more generic, but too vague and non-notable for an article, then this should be deleted.Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with "Aaaaargh": one of the daftest yet. Have redirected to the dab page at Point#Measurement_units, and left a polite enquiry at SS's talk page to ask why they thought the reader would find their page useful. PamD 08:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Redirect to English wine cask units#Units. A non-notable unit which is better treated in an article with related items.Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete because the topic of "quarter" as a mass and a volume is not notable, or replace with something, not sure what. Existing articles are Quart (imperial and US unit of volume); Imperial units (imperial quart as a volume and quarter as a mass); Avoirdupois (imperial and US quarter as a mass; this is what ((convert)) links to when asked); and I think more.Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, no! My generation had to learn this: 16 oz -> lb; 14 lb -> stone; 2 stones -> quarter; 4 quarters -> cwt (112 lb); 20 cwt -> ton. Although not so commonly used, it was on the back of every English exercise book. But as always much of the fluffier stuff is made up I think, like the ludicrous "symbols". Imaginatorium (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
FWIW "quarter" is omnipresent -- viertel in Argentina(!), and one of the Russian tables has two different forms (четвери́к and че́тверть) with completely different values. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I've no particular opinion on what should be done with this, but point out that Koizumi says "quarter" can be used for a quarter of a mile, for a quarter of a yard; for a quarter of a hundredweight (in Britain), for a quarter of either a short or a long ton (in the US); and, primarily for dry goods, for 8 British bushels or 8.26 US bushels.[2] -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Chain (unit)#Ramsden's chain. A chain consists of 100 links (each link is a length of metal; they are linked together)—see Gunter's chain. Links were different sizes at different places/times. A "square chain" is the area of a square where the length of each side is one chain. Ramsden's chain is at Chain (unit)#Ramsden's chain, and if it were felt necessary, that section could spell out that a Ramsden's link is one hundredth of a Ramsden's chain. There is a Link (unit) article, but I don't think that should be padded out because a link is simply part of a chain, and the encyclopedic information should be at the chain article.Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I think these should all redirect (if not deleted) to Chain (unit), which is a proper article, with a tiny paragraph on the Ramsden's version. Perhaps this can/might be expanded, but I suspect there is no actual extra information in these Shevonsilva articles. Also, if square chains are used for area, this should be noted, but in a coherent way: presumably English chains would have been used the same way. Anyway, there's an AfD now... Imaginatorium (talk)
Redirect to English units#Others where it claims a sack is 364 pounds (same as here), and where any additional encyclopedic information can be added. I gather that units like chaldron and sack were originally a volume, usually of different sizes in different locations. People purchased a sack of flour in one kind of sack, and a sack of coal in a differently sized sack. Later, attempts were made to regulate quantities with a decree that a particular name meant a certain weight. Some support is available for the idea that a sack of coal was one hundredweight, but I have not found a sufficiently reliable source for an article on this topic.Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Typical spurious precision. And where does he get these "symbols"??? He just makes 'em up: remove vowel (symbol:vwl) from monosyllabic word (symbol:wrd) and there you are (symbol:tyr). And yes, I remember my grandfather asking me to count the sacks as the (slightly untrusted) coalman delivered them, and a sack of coal was 1 cwt because, well, a sack holds 1 cwt of coal. The unit coal was sold by was the cwt, or ton, or multiples thereof (symbol: trf). Imaginatorium (symbol: szk) (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Salmarazd (unit)
Salmarazd (French name: salmanazar)was a UK bottle size for wine and champagne.[1]
Redirect to Ship measurements where it mentions "Measurement Ton or Ship Ton Calculated as 40 cubic feet of cargo space". Any further reliably sourced information could be added there.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Cotton#British standard yarn measures where any reliably sourced information can be added. Skein is a disambiguation page with the claim "equal to 96 ells or 360 feet". Yarn#Measurement suggests a skein is based on weight. Sizes.com states (in full): "In the United States, a unit of length used for yarn or thread, = 360 feet; but a skein of thrown silk = 1000 yards."Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Square chain is an obsolete unit of UK Surveyors' Measure, which symbol is sq. ch.[1] In US surveyors' measure, it is equal to (200/33)2 square rods or 10000 square feet. [3]
Redirect to Gunter's chain#Description. As a unit, "square link" is non-notable, and the assertion that the symbol was "sq. lk." is dubious. The link unit should be described on the same page as the chain, as the the latter is just 100 of the former.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Firewood#Measurement of firewood where any reliably sourced information can be added. Sizes.com states, in full, "In England, 18th century, a quantity of fuelwood 3 feet long, 3 feet wide, and 12 feet high" and provides a reference. However, articles are not just dictionary definitions, and different places and times would have had different meanings.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
1 Standard (St.Petersburg, Pittsburgh)≡ 165/128 cord[1]
1 Standard (St.Petersburg, Pittsburgh)≡ 165 cubic foot[1]
1 Standard (St.Petersburg, Pittsburgh)≡ 4.67227968768 m3
Redirect to Firewood#Measurement of firewood where any reliably sourced information can be added. Sizes.com states, in full, "In Norway and Sweden, 19th – 20th centuries, a unit of capacity used for sawn wood = 165 cubic feet, about 4.672 cubic meters" and provides a reference. However, articles are not just dictionary definitions.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
More battiness. Is "St. Petersburg" (with a space?) a suburb of Pittsburg, perhaps? Or did just two cities in different continents happen to measure timber the same way? Not very plausible, is it? Imaginatorium (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Undecided It was a valid electrostatic unit, and there seems to be a tradition of creating an article for each, regardless of the fact that many of the units would be better described together, in an encyclopedic fashion. However, a statmho is just the reciprocal of a statohm, so they should be described (if at all) in one article. The statement "to measure electric charge" in the article is not correct.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Undecided It was a valid electrostatic unit, and there seems to be a tradition of creating an article for each, regardless of the fact that many of the units would be better described together, in an encyclopedic fashion.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
A wey is a unit of mass used in England since before 900 CE. The value of a wey has varied over time though was originally used to denote 2 hundredweight or 224 pounds. It has also been used as a unit of volume for dry commodities, denoting roughly 40 bushels (or 320 gallons[1]
). The word is derived from the Old English wæge, meaning weight.[4]
Wey(Suffolk) was used as a unit of weight for butter and cheese and is exactly equals to 356 pounds(avdp.) (exactly 161.478883719 kg). [3]
Wey used as weight for wool was exactly equals to 252 pounds (≡ 114.30527724 kg).[5]
Same unit as Wey, Load.Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Keep, but remove the simplistic statements from the Cardarelli source which states that for butter and cheese, "Wey (Suffolk)...356 pounds, Whey (Essex)...236 pounds", and for wool "Wey...252 pounds". There are four pages of different values for wey at Dictionary of Weights and Measures. It appears every significant area of commerce had its own idea about what a standard weight for the sale of a commodity was, and that standard varied with product, place, and time. It includes "1 Wey of Cheese 224 lb...in Essex 256 lb...in Suffolk 336 lb...in Essex, sometimes 416 lb". Another 1841 book states "Wey of Cheese, in Suffolk...256 pounds, in Essex...336 pounds, Wey of wool...182 pounds". Mozley's Ready Reckoner 1824 states "A wey of cheese in Essex is 52 cloves, or 416 pounds. In Suffolk, 42 cloves, or 336 pounds." It also states that a wey of wool is 7×2×2×6½ which is 182 pounds. Sizes.com has an interesting analysis where it comments on conflicting reports concerning values in different sources (some swap the Essex and Suffolk values); it concludes that one of the sources it normally uses is questionable for wey. At any rate, the values from Cardarelli are not supported.Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Undecided Probably better to describe the historic unit elsewhere such as Henry (unit) ("yrneh" = "henry" inverted) or Magnetic reluctance.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Other articles
The following articles (as at 01:15, 9 February 2015 and created since 27 December 2014) are general and can be considered later.
Redirect to Chain (unit)#Ramsden's chain per my comments about "Ramsden's link" above. If necessary add a little more information about what "square" means.Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Chain (unit)#Ramsden's chain per my comments about "Ramsden's link" above. If necessary add a little more information about what "square" means.Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. A quick search finds only sizes.com with almost no content; not notable.Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
There is an entry in SOED for Aum, points to Aam, dutch unit. How reliable is sizes.com BTW? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Imaginatorium: A website like sizes.com is not regarded as a reliable source unless it has an editorial policy and reputation as a good source, and is written by acknowledged experts. I cannot see anything that would qualify sizes.com for RS, but its content is carefully written, often with sources and an explanation. It also has pages like major sources which gives a good indication of reliability, although a more scholarly published book would be a better source. I am referring to sizes.com a lot because it appears to have all possible details on units, while omitting the garbage that the unit-converter websites copy from each other. In other words, it is likely that all useful information on a unit is at sizes.com.Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am impressed with their general level of care. Ironically, I would trust them before the Proper Printed Book in this case. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Not in Koizumi (which does have an entry for aam). -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. A quick search finds only sizes.com. As a unit, it is very vague and variable; not encyclopedic.Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
From personal experience, a bag of cement was 1 cwt. (112 lbs.) Incidentally, another gripe is these "symbols": Cardarelli just made this up: there are only symbols for SI units; English units have abbreviations, such as "lb.", with a dot. I do not believe 'bg' was ever used to abbreviate 'bag' in any formal way.Imaginatorium (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
In Koizumi, though this doesn't mention cement or any other use for it. Koizumi says that it's British, also called sack, and equivalent to three (British) bushels or 109.103 litres.[2] -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I cannot find any useful indication this word is a volume. An alternative would be to redirect to Wine bottle#Sizes for "Balthazar".Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Not in Koizumi. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Even sizes.com cannot bring itself to claim that "bucket" is a valid unit of measurement. The information at Bucket will suffice, and no redirect is needed.Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
In Koizumi, which says it's a British measure for four (British) gallons, and 18.176 litres.[2] -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Koizumi gives two kinds of butt. One is the British measure: 140 (British) gallons (636.15 litres) for wine but 108 (British) gallons (490.75 litres) for beer. The other is a US measure of weight for wool: 196 pounds (87.904 kg) for original wool, 112 pounds (50.802 kg) for other uses.[2] -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
1 button = 0.083333333333333333333333333333333 inch [1]
1 button = 0.002116666666666666666666666666667 m
Delete. Some junk websites mention a button as a unit, but cannot find any good source. Not notable as a unit.Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
It's also curious that this is defined as a 1/12" line; there is some odd claim that the other "line" (US?) is used in either botany or buttonry, but at this level of confusion it's not clear if these are even different.Imaginatorium (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Not in Koizumi. -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Not in OED, but I've upgraded the article slightly and added it to the dab page at Button (disambiguation), though it's hardly worthwhile. Hmm, how many editor-hours have the combination of C..i and SS cost us, I wonder? PamD 15:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Looked at it again after my efforts ... and have sent it to AfD. It's still rubbish. PamD 15:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to Circular mil. There are cases where this used (and junk websites offering to convert it), but it is not notable as a unit. Sizes.com has only circular mil.Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Koizumi lists it,[2] but abbreviates it as "circ. in". -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be confirmation that authors of collections of units feel free to add arbitrary abbreviations. Possibly there is a convention in metrology that one can attach a "symbol" to something, and use this symbol for unambiguous reference within the current work; but in this case it does not belong in WP. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
A circular millimetre is a unit of area, equal to the area of a circle with a diameter of one millimetre. It has been used mainly for wire sizes. Symbol of the unit is cmm.[1]
As for Circular inch: Delete or redirect to Circular mil. There are cases where this used (and junk websites offering to convert it), but it is not notable as a unit. Sizes.com has only circular mil.Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Not in Koizumi. -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be deleted. The only thing Google finds is an old book (in several places) which includes "the customary stone weight of wool being 18 pounds"—in context, that is saying that it was customary for a "stone weight" to mean 18 pounds when measuring wool for sale, at that time and place. There is no evidence that there is such thing as a "customary stone".Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
This stub is referenced to p.37 of the book, and the conversion table (3-15) says 1 "Stone (st av.)" is equal to 7/4 "Clove (cv av.). There is a footnote at the bottom of the table that says "1 clove is equal to 1 customary stone". The conversion of customary stone to kg appears to be of his own calculations, as kg is not mentioned on table.Isaidnoway(talk) 18:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Koizumi doesn't mention any of this. -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Cannot find any information; non-notable.Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a word 'deal' which means a size of timber. See Andrew D's source and the SOED. This is a corruption of that, I think.Imaginatorium (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Koizumi doesn't mention any of this. -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Non-SI discontinued metric prefix for 10-4. Symbol is dm.
Bibliography
François Cardarelli(2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. Springer-Verlag London Ltd. ISBN 879-1-4471-1122-1
Delete. Cannot find any information; non-notable. "Demi" is mentioned at Metric prefix but it's very archaic.Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Not mentioned by Koizumi. -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Reliable sources (including the OED) report that a keel was a kind of boat used in loading coal, and the quantity of coal carried became known as a keel. However, I cannot find an article where a mention would be suitable, and the topic is not sufficiently notable for an articleJohnuniq (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think it merits an article; but Koizumi also says its was a UK unit of weight for coal, and says it was equivalent to 21.2 long tons.[2] -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Should this redirect to Keelmen ? This discusses the unit in a sensible way...Imaginatorium (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete as unlikely mispelling, but it could be redirected to Lakh where we learn that "A lakh or lac is a unit in the South Asian numbering system equal to one hundred thousand".Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Not mentioned in Koizumi. -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Now an article on someting else entirely.Imaginatorium (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
François Cardarelli(2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. Springer-Verlag London Ltd. ISBN 879-1-4471-1122-1
Delete as non-notable. Anyone searching for lambda will find Lambda#Lower-case letter λ which includes "Lambda is a symbol for one microliter (1 μL), that is, one cubic millimetre (1 mm3). This use is currently deprecated."Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. It looks like there is some validity to the term (example—it's hard to know how valid the aggregator websites are), but it is not sufficiently notable for an article.Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Incidentally, there's no mention of this in Koizumi. -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The prefix is apparently genuine but I can't find any encyclopedic information, and "micri" is not sufficiently notable for an article.Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Not in Koizumi and doesn't seem worth retention. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe redirect to Volume and make a section there for it. If someone wants to remove it there, fine.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be deleted. Google finds only junk except for this. That is saying that (for that time and place), when exporting goods by ship, the ship owner can choose to charge freight based on weight or on volume. An "ocean ton" was "2240 pounds...considered the equal of 40 cubic feet". So, something weighing a long ton would be charged the same as something occupying 40 cubic feet of volume. That is not anything like a unit of measurement.Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Not in Koizumi. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The unit is apparently genuine: this blog says a "whisky octave" is 10 imperial gallons, and this whisky supplier says "an octave cask is one eighth the size of a butt". However, there are apparently lots of other terms for various cask sizes, none of which are sufficiently notable to warrant an article on the unit. Any reliably sourced and WP:DUE information should be at Barrel#Sizes or Barrel (unit).Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
No mention of this in Koizumi. Yes, it's worth mentioning, but not in its own article. -- Hoary (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. A long entry here includes "1956 Economist 53: Butter...1 roll = 24 ounces", and sizes.com says the same. No further information found.Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Cannot find any verification of the value given, nor the time and place where the unit may have been used.Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Historical information is available, but the unit is extremely variable and the current text that implies a sarpler is a precise weight is simplistic and misleading. A different article based on suitable sources might be written, but it would be better to add historical material to Wool bale. See sizes.com and a book on a 15th century merchant family.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. The current text is simplistic and misleading as it appears that a seam has been various things including "a good horseload" (used up to the 19th century for horse loads of wood and dung), or two sacks of black tin, or a weight of glass—sizes.com. Ideally an article on historical units would mention seam, but the current text would not be useful.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Shackle (unit)
Shackle is a unit of length which has been used in the UK.[1]
Delete as non-notable. There is not enough encyclopedic information to justify an article, and the current text is misleading as it has no context. Apparently a shackle was a section of anchor chain of a certain length; these lengths were joined with shackles or swivels. Before 1949, the UK length was 12+1⁄2 fathoms, and since 1949 it is 15 fathoms (90 feet). [3] + [4]. The unit is mentioned at Shackle (disambiguation), and the unit could be a redirect to Fathoms#Line length where it is mentioned.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. There is not enough encyclopedic information to justify an article, and the current text is misleading as it has no context. Google shows junk websites which parrot the claim that 1 ship load was so many keels (barges), which could be subdivided to rooms, tons, large sacks, sacks, and more. Apparently various English Acts of Parliament attempted to regulate these units ("Newcastle (Sale of Coal by Measured Keels) Act 1678" is mentioned here), but other parts of the world used different barges and ships, so claiming that a "ship load" is or was a certain weight of coal is misleading. Probably one of the UK Weights and Measures Acts has the definitions copied by the unit-converter websites, but I have not found the details.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Sizes.com describes Stück with "In Germany (mainly Rhinehessen), a unit of capacity for white wine, = 1,200 liters. Some 19th century values: Frankfurt-am-Main: 1147.34 liters".Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Stupping ton
Stupping ton is a volumetric unit which was used in the UK.[1]
Delete as non-notable. Sizes.com says there are many local variants, and lists 28 or 29, 28+1⁄2, 32, 29+1⁄2, and 32 pounds. See wikt:tod.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and too vague. Sizes.com says "In Batavia, 19th century, a unit of capacity, = 104 catties, about 63.98 kilograms."Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Just found another list (in my Japanese maths dictionary), which says a tub in the US is "0.5 to 3.0 bushels" for measuring oysters. Just wondering how to rewrite Wiktionary [5]... Imaginatorium (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Wey, Load
Wey, Load is a unit used in UK avoirdupois weight. Its symbol is wy av. [1]
Delete as non-notable. The current text suggests more precision than is reasonable without context. Apparently several meanings have applied, and if encyclopedic information is located a new article might be created. See wikt:wey.Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable and too vague. Some mentions are available, but the values described vary significantly, and no encyclopedic information could be located. See my comments at #Wey (unit) (same unit as this) where several sources show values that are different from Cardarelli.Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
A dash is a small quantity, traditionlly unspecified, used in recipes. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a dash as "A small quantity (of something) thrown into or mingled as a qualifying admixture with something else".[8]
Some modern commercially available measuring spoons include a "dash" measure of one eighth of a teaspoonful;[9] as a teaspoonful is 5 millitres or one sixth of a fluid ounce, this would give a value for one dash of 0.625 millitre (or 0.625 cm3) or one 48th of a fluid ounce. This value differs substantially from that given by Cardarelli.[1]
Dash was a US unit of capacity used in food recipes.[1]
^ abcdefghijklmnoKoizumi Kesakatsu, Tan'i no jiten (i.e. "A dictionary of units"), 4th ed, Tokyo: Rateisu, 1981 = 小泉袈裟勝、『単位の辞典』 第4版、東京：ラテイス、1981年. (No ISBN.) The first three hundred pages plus of this book consists of a dictionary of units as they are called in Japanese, in the normal Japanese order. In the back of the book is an index of units in roman letters. Thus for example we see on p.588 that "anker" (between "angular velocity" and "anna") is found on p.12; on p.12 is the entry for アンケル (ankeru), an entry that starts by saying that in roman letters it's "anker". I (Hoary) will skip page numbers and other detail for items that can be looked up within the book in this way. Koizumi writes in clipped, dictionary style (similar to "Dutch unit for weight, equivalent to...") and thus very often gives no indication as to whether or not a unit is still in use; even when he makes it clear that it's no longer in use, he seldom elaborates with talk of centuries, etc. Furthermore, Koizumi almost never specifies his source(s) for any assertion. (Unless I [Hoary] point out that a particular assertion of his comes with a source, you can infer that it doesn't.) ¶ Incidentally, Koizumi also produced 『図解 単位の歴史辞典』 (Zukan: Tan'i no rekishi-jiten, i.e. an illustrated historical dictionary of units), but most of this is devoted to east Asian units.
^ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzaaCardarelli, F. (2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. Their SI Equivalences and Origins. London: Springer. p. 46. ISBN978-1-4471-1122-1. Cite error: The named reference ":1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^Cardarelli, F. (2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. Their SI Equivalences and Origins. London: Springer. p. 49. ISBN978-1-4471-1122-1.
^Cardarelli, F. (2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. Their SI Equivalences and Origins. London: Springer. ISBN978-1-4471-1122-1.