This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Sections describing units that are believed not to fulfill Wikipedia criteria for
notability can be found in
Talk:List of unusual units of measurement/Candidates. Only if sufficient documentation and references can be found of actual usage and notability, can they be moved into the main article.
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
"Banana for scale"
Would it be worth adding "banana" as an unusual unit of measurement for length/distance? The concept of "banana for scale" is something that has become quite common in popular culture as a jokey, "desperate" measure of length and thus is possibly worth mentioning, at least briefly, as it is a much smaller-scale version of the "American football field" as a relative sense of measurement.
I think the jokeyness counts against including it. More importantly, though, this list is for units of measurement, not objects for scale. The difference is this: it's common to include a banana in an image for scale. It is not so common to say that an object is 5 bananas wide. The latter is a unit of measurement, the former is not. In contrast, you do see someone describe something as the length of 5 football fields.--
Srleffler (
talk)
17:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Is there a criteria for what should go into this article? The potential for this category is near endless, but I'm thinking of older measurements no longer commonly used, like furlong, league, fathom, surveyors chain (66 feet), rod, rood, perch, barley corns, etc. Supposedly there's a definition of "jiffy".
Nerfer (
talk)
19:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Under
Fathom#Water depth I read : Most modern nautical charts indicate depth in metres. However, the U.S. Hydrographic Office uses feet and fathoms (with a reference over there). Doesn't that make the fathom a "serious unit actually still used to measure things but in one way or another unusual" ? (Unusual, in this case, in that it is now obsolete everywhere except on U.S. nautical charts, where it is still used to measure depths, as it used to be on the Admiralty charts I used, oh, maybe 50 years ago, when sailing a Glénans cutter between North Brittany and the Channel Islands ["Heights in feet, depths in fathoms and feet"]). (Of course the French charts were in metres, but we also had British large-scale charts for the islands.) —
Tonymec (
talk)
03:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This page defines an unusual unit of measurement as a "unit of measurement that does not form part of a coherent system of measurement". The fathom is part of the imperial and the U.S. customary systems, and therefore is not unusual, as that term is defined here.--
Srleffler (
talk)
05:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hm. Well, a "hand" is defined here as 4 inches, or one-third of a foot. Doesn't that make it part of the same coherent measurement system ? —
Tonymec (
talk)
05:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply