Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:47, 20 January 2015

Aum (unit)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an obscure unit which is not sufficiently notable for an article, and as Wikipedia is not a dictionary there is no reason to even list obscure units at English units unless encyclopedic information is available. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they cover other non-notable units:

~~Truss (unit)~~ withdrawn per my comment at 05:23, 18 January 2015 below. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over 90 articles on units have recently been created based on the following source:

Other Systems of Units (a sample chapter from Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures) See Imaginatorium's notes on the book. Springer is a good publisher, but that is not a guarantee that everything they publish is suitable for transferral to Wikipedia—see Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers.
Author: François Cardarelli The author has an impressive career, but does not appear to be an acknowledged authority on history or units of measurement; he is currently Manager of Recycling at 5NPlus Inc in Saint-Laurent Quebéc.

The articles (with some discussion of their content) can most easily be seen at my sandbox (permalink). This AfD lists 34 of the unit articles. Related AfD discussions are:

Botella (measurement)

Calibre(unit)

Meou

Quarter yard

Ramsden's square chain

Ramsden's square link

Salt spoon (unit)

Solomon (unit)

UK and US counting units

UKline

Many websites contain large lists of units, often with little information other than a claim about the conversion factor (example: there are 130.461538462 sacks [UK, wook] in 1 keel [coal]). Similarly, the book used as the reference for the articles at AfD appears to have no other information—there is usually no indication of where and when a unit was used, nor how widely. For example, the book contains a table (p. 29 in the sample pdf) of "UK units of weight for coal" showing there are 47488 pounds in a keel, and 15680 pounds in a room—and there appears to be no further information available for those articles. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to a new article titled List of obsolete units of measurement ~~List of United Kingdom units of measurement~~ per WP:LISTN. While these may not be independently notable, these do appear to have been covered as a set/group. One source example is Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: please reconsider the recommended merge target since not all of these are exclusive to the UK. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note: you have cited the Cardarelli book, but this is part of the problem. Much of it (at least, the section on "former units") is an uncritical collection of anecdotes ("A large sack holds 2 cwt of coal" -- "Yes, perhaps it does"), which have been copied in bulk into these articles. It is simply not reliable: see my notes (comments welcome). Imaginatorium (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge this nomination itself could be used as the basis for a new article, List of obsolete units of measurement. Even if there is nothing more than a conversion factor for each line item, as a group obsolete units are notable. At a minimum, please redirect Circular inch and Circular millimetre to Circular mil since the former is a 1:1000000 conversion factor away and the latter is a plausible misunderstanding of a unit still used in North America. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A matter, though, is that some of the units of measurement may be uncommon, but are not necessarily obsolete. For example, see Butt (unit), Customary stone, Dutch cask, Lambda (unit), Seam (unit), Tub (unit) and Whey (unit). As such, how about a merge to the title I listed above, and then separating the entries into sections (e.g. presently in use, obsolete)? NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Do you have any information about the use of "customary stone", for example? The article tells us only that 1 customary stone = 1 clove. The SOED (a vastly more reliable source) says that a 'clove' is a former (in 1933) weight for wool and cheese equal to 7 or 8 lb avoirdupois. Isn't it somewhat fishy that something a reliable source says is variable gets assigned statements like "1 kilogram is equal to 0.314960629921 clove."[1]. Note that this correspondence makes a "customary stone" quite distinct from the customary "stone" in use (still!) for slimming magazines. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all the units you list above are units I would characterize as "obsolete." By contrast, as I noted above calling some of these units "United Kingdom units of measurement" is not only arbitrary, but explicitly wrong. A cord-foot and a house cord, for example, are obsolete units that were used in North America but not the UK. Though I am nearly sure we could find an exception or two, I would default to calling any unit not recognized by the SI, metric, or US customary systems "obsolete." VQuakr (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input VQuakr. Upon further consideration, I have modified my !vote above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all based on the decisions of the other AFD's and also previous discussions at ANI these are non-notable, even in a list most of them are so widely unused and irrelevant that even a list about them seems meaningless. Also, the source that these units come from is questionable at best (it has been pointed out that this book includes such comparisons as "1 pair = 2/3 hat trick" and other meaningless conversions. War wizard90 (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete all. If someone wants to create an article on e.g. obsolete UK units of measurement they can do so but these would be a poor basis for them, per the above concerns about sourcing. So not notable on their own and no need to create a target and redirect.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to new list article (as other editors describe above). Pax 07:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, other editors have suggested this above. But before you agreed with them, it was pointed out to them that there's no obvious destination. What are you suggesting: Random list of oddities collected by François Cardinelli, perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all or merge to a new list article. These units may no longer be in use, but there are enough references in older books to provide notability (e.g [2] for Aum). And, in fact, the bottle size "Belshazzar" is still sometimes used. -- 120.23.106.215 (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source for this ("Belshazzar") then please add it to the existing table of exotica under Wine bottle. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~ Procedural keep to de-couple entries: (I wrote: (delete all) is the simplest action), but it would be silly now to delete the Truss (unit), though I think it should be moved to Truss (bundle) or similar, because it is not fundamentally describing a unit. (previous comment not retracted, but not applicable)...because these are of unredeemingly low value. Occasional fragments might be used in a real page, but the work of picking them out is more than the work of starting again on an article like Measurement units in the wool industry, or adding to existing articles like Wine bottle. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re Customary stone: The only thing Google finds is an old book (example) 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 a thing as a "customary stone". Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re Wey, Load and Whey (unit): These are the same as Wey (unit). See my notes with information on different "weighs". Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The fact that a unit is antiquated is not a sensible reason to delete because, as a general encyclopedia, we are here to provide information about such obscure topics. We have no policy forbidding content on such grounds and an editing policy which indicates the opposite. It is quite easy to find further sources which document units such as the aum. For example, see here, "AUM, or Aume, a Dutch measure for Rhenish wine, (as an aum of hock) containing forty English gallons." while other authors such as Dibdin has more to say about it too. Note that there is even some need for disambiguation too as there's a second AUM unit - the animal unit month (AUM). There's a huge amount to consider here and, in some cases, we might choose to merge into an existing page. For example, the circular inch might be merged into the circular mil, as they are related units. This would not be done be deletion but by ordinary editing. Working through all this detail will take time but there is no pressing reason to do all this in seven days. This just seems to be a vexatious proposal contrary to our behavioural guidelines insofar as it is directed against the work of a particular editor rather than obscure units in general. Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to you to be this. It seems to me to be a reasonable proposal to deal with a bunch of dicdefs that happen to have been created by somebody who cribbed from one dodgy source. You seem to me to have the start of a decent Wiktionary entry for aum; you are of course very welcome to create this. Or of course aum could be part of some more general WP article, but one based on a better source than Cardarelli. (I've listed some promising sources see here.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Truss (unit), which keep (but probably rename, per Imaginatorium. Allow resurrection of any of the others if and when there's credible evidence that it can be turned into something of encyclopedic (and not mere dictionary) value. Unreliable. I've checked most of them against Koizumi 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 4th edition of a somewhat larger book by a metrologist and a small team of helpers. Some aren't there, some are described differently. (See my comments here.) Cardinelli's book clearly represents a lot of work, but I view it with considerable skepticism because I know that what it says about Japanese units is a terrible mess: Imaginatorium has looked into the units of weight, and I have checked these against Koizumi Kesakatsu, Zukan: Tan'i no rekishi-jiten (i.e. "An illustrated historical dictionary of units"), Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobō, 1989 = 小泉袈裟勝、『図解単位の歴史辞典』、東京：柏書房、1989年 (ISBN 4-7601-0512-3) (see here); I don't know what happened, and my best guess is that some joker simply fantasized the existence of what Cardarelli solemnly presents as large units. -- Hoary (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC) ...... Altered Hoary (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wrote my "delete" not-vote immediately above, Truss (unit) has had a considerable amount of work done to it by Andrew D.. All praise to him for creating something informative, interesting, and indeed encyclopedic. It's possible that other stubs in this long list can be worked on similarly, and even that Andrew D. would do much of the work himself. However, I doubt that this is possible for more than a small minority any time soon, and so I still believe that the rest should be deleted. All of them (I think) are conveniently concatenated within User:Johnuniq/sandbox3 (with some annotations, too), within which any could be examined. Copying from there and pasting into new articles would not be optimal, as it would obscure the earlier editing history; as an admin I'd be delighted to resurrect any of the deleted articles if shown that there was an immediate prospect of its significant improvement (and I'm just one of many admins). -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - There is no reason to delete. It's just making a lot of work for people, as these will be recreated eventually or a list created. Just merge them into a list now, or let this discussion drop and let other editors consider them individually. I agree with Andrew Davidson, going through these in a 7 day period is just silly. And because a unit is antiquated is not a reason to delete. JT_dale ^Talk~ 15:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Into what list? What makes you think that an "ocean-ton", for example, ever existed as a unit? Has anyone suggested that antiquation/antiquity/obsolescence is a reason to delete? -- Hoary (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ocean ton clearly existed as it is documented in numerous sources including Transactions of the Institute of Marine Engineers; Air Transportation; Automotive Handbook; Pulp & Paper Magazine of Canada, &c. The size and context indicate that this is another name for a unit which I have just been cleaning up — the shipping ton, known also as the freight ton or measurement ton. That one was new to me but I understand it well now. What we should obviously do with the ocean ton is merge it into the shipping ton. Deletion is neither necessary nor appropriate for this. Such cleanup is what's needed for most of these pages but AFD is not cleanup. See also WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cord-foot or merge to Cord (unit). I can't speak to the others but this one was a historical measure in North America for firewood equal to 1/8 of a cord. see, e.g., [3] and [4]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Truss (unit). An historical measure for straw. See, e.g., [5] and [6]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, read the reference you gave, and compare with the contribution culled from Cardarelli, which tells us a 'truss' is a unit of weight equal to 16.329324168 kg, at least to the nearest microgram. A truss is actually a bundle of straw (perhaps of a particular shape), which was sold with a particular weight, which varied at different times and places (the SOED tells us). The problem is not that the concept of a "truss" does not exist, it is that there is nothing in the current article of any value with regard to the topic. Anyway, I think this well-intentioned AfD is hopeless, so I'm going to try to avoid spending any more time on it. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sarpler. An historical measure for wool. See, e.g., [7] and [8]. Recommend Keep all per WP:BEFORE with no prejudice to renominating individual articles for deletion. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the arguments I made when I wrote WP:Articles for deletion/Salt spoon (unit) and arguments by people above, especially Hoary. Same group of articles created by a single user that has no encyclopedic value other than dicdefs and unit conversions. Wikipedia isn't a cookbook, unit conversion machine, or anything else like that. No prejudice against creation into a mass list of obsolete units of measurement or transwiki into wiktionary. The source used, as many editors have pointed out, is unreliable. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 21:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cord-foot and some other of these appear to be notable. Others of these appear to be dicdefs. I am in the process of moving some of these to Wiktionary. p b p 22:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep to de-couple entries Some of these should be kept. Some should be redirected to one page. Some should be redirected to another. Some should be deleted. While they all have something in common that they are measurement stubs, the outcomes of the articles are unique. p b p 23:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. If any aren't long enough to stand on their own, you can just put them in an list article for old measurement systems, or if that's too long, divide it into separate articles by nation. This is clearly encyclopedic. Dream Focus 01:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The real problem with keeping all of these is that their all based off of one source that is shown to be unreliable, and finding secondary sources on most of them is near impossible. Every article that has gone up for deletion by itself has reached a "Delete" consensus for this reason. Johnuniq has already put a tremendous amount of time (with the help of a few other editors) determining which of these articles created by Shevonsilva should be merged and which should be deleted, and I trust his judgement. Please take a look at the permalink he references in his nomination to see that this AfD was not created haphazardly, these terms wont be useful to anyone, if any secondary or tertiary sources can be found then maybe there is a small argument for merging them into a list. War wizard90 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source you mention has not been shown to be unreliable. The nay-sayers have cherry-picked some flaws in its presentation but the essential facts such as the existence of these units all seem valid. The aum, for example, is clearly a European size of barrel which was commonly used for for Rhenish wine such as hock. Its size was similar to that of the English tierce. This is perfectly reasonable encyclopedic content and the work required here is to cleanup and integrate this content with our other coverage of such units, which is extensive. Peremptorily deleting all this work because we don't like the editor or the source is not our policy, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. ... At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew D., For at least the second time in this AfD, you appear to suggest that this AfD is personal: that its nominator is, or supporters are, out to get an editor. I wonder if this is what you mean. I for one don't mind being called a dick (or merely a "nay-sayer"), or even being armchair-diagnosed as suffering neurological damage: I proudly recycle some of these accolades on my user page. I'm less happy about being accused of vindictiveness. May I ask you to "AGF" for all concerned (unless of course you present evidence to negate such an assumption). ¶ Yes, you're accurately quoting a policy page. But note that it's talking about incompleteness and poor writing, not about dubious content. We can certainly argue over the degree of dodginess here. You have one or two good sources; I have a couple myself (cited in the userspace pages linked to above); others should have one or other of the various other reference books on units; I'd say that WP:TNT is called for -- so far as this material (even if verified) is encyclopedic (most of it still looks more dictionary-like to me). NB: WP:TNT is a mere essay. -- Hoary (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Olive-colored addition 13:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited policy — WP:IMPERFECT — and Hoary counters with WP:TNT. But WP:TNT is not policy; it's not even a guideline. To blow everything up is quite contrary to our general way of working; it's disruptive, uncivil and damaging to the project's future. See Encyclopedia Frown. Andrew D. (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I was going to add that TNT is a mere essay. Sleepiness stopped me. I've now made amends, and in olive lettering. And you'll see that I clearly acknowledged from the outset that WP:IMPERFECT was policy. As I see it, WP:IMPERFECT covers what's highly unsatisfactory but assumes that the material is sound. Here, I doubt that it is. You disagree. ¶ At the end of Imaginatorium's "Cardarelli" page (mentioned below), I list seven promisingly titled books. Do you have access to any of these? In order to help hereabouts, the other day I bought Koizumi's Zukan: Tan'i no rekishi-jiten (i.e. "An illustrated historical dictionary of units"), Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobō, 1989 = 小泉袈裟勝、『図解単位の歴史辞典』、東京：柏書房、1989年 (ISBN 4-7601-0512-3); but the history here has (understandably) a heavy bias to Japanese (and earlier Chinese) units: for old western units, Koizumi's earlier dictionary (a copy of which I bought years ago when dissatisfied with Cardarelli's earlier book) is often more useful. -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew D.: I would be grateful if you could comment on my Cardarelli page, perhaps on the talk page. Could you justify your claim that Cardarelli has not been shown to be unreliable. Japanese weight units as a particular example. Chinese units as another. Just about anything to do with England for another. "Unreliable" does not mean 100% wrong, it means that there are enough errors and infelicities, that without a corroborating source, we have no idea whether it is true or not. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That page seems to be improper, contrary to WP:ATTACK, in that its purpose is "to disparage ... its subject". It seems quite weak to the point of being absurd as it starts by saying "I do not have a copy of the book itself...". If we look for independent commentary on Cardarelli and his works, we find that:

His work is recommended by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) — see their FAQ.
A review by Robert W. Cahn seems quite positive
His encyclopedia's ratings on Amazon are unanimous — 5 stars
A review in Ultramicroscopy by Peter W. Hawkes seems quite effusive.

You see, looking for such sources is the way we're supposed to work here. We're not in the business of doing original research or writing our own opinionated reviews. If Imaginatorium wants to do that sort of writing, he should please try Goodreads. Andrew D. (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. Do you think that Cardarelli's table of Japanese units of weight is something one could rely on? Either you do or you don't -- you appear to take the line that however jumbled up something is, as long as someone else somewhere else says it's OK, that's all you are interested in. There are plenty of effusive reviews of Cardarelli, but they all say the same sort of thing: here is a vast mass of obviously useful stuff to do with SI units, and so on, and look! there's "some delightful 'obsolete units'" which might be a "godsend for compilers of crosswords". They do not go on to look carefully at all of this "delightful godsend" and notice that it is largely recycled sub-anecdote. But you do not think it is even appropriate to check whether something makes sense, you just read the reviews: is that right?

My page is a "critique": I have found a combination of error and simplistic infelicity, and I am trying to make a reasoned summary of it. (I confess I do not fully understand the WP:OR thing, if it means one may copy factoids from here and there as long as one's brain is switched off.)

Is there any chance you can explain your bizarre response to my suggestion on your talk page? Imaginatorium (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I saw some Amazon ratings earlier, and they appeared very fishy. Unanimous ***** reviews, but all but about one reviewer had reviewed precisely one book. Hmm. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the five reviews on Amazon.com, only one is for Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures: Their SI Equivalences and Origins. The other four are for his earlier book, Scientific Unit Conversion: A Practical Guide to Metrication.[9] NebY (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of AfD is to determine whether evidence shows the general notability guideline is satisfied; and, if it is, whether a standalone page should be created. It is known, for example, that aum and cord are valid words, but do those topics satisfy WP:GNG and should they be covered in standalone pages? WP:NOTDICTIONARY leads to the conclusion that encyclopedic information about aum should be at English wine cask units or Barrel (unit), and cord should be covered at Cord (unit). Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC) ...[reply]

The purpose of AFD is explained at WP:AFD: "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. ... Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." As there is much need for improvement here, I have been bold and made a start at truss (unit). I have not finished yet but it's coming along nicely. Deletion would disrupt such work and so would be inefficient. Andrew D. (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Truss (unit) is indeed worthwhile. Well done, Andrew D. (and you'll see that I've changed my "!vote" accordingly). -- Hoary (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or REDIRECT/Merge to the appropriate and suggested destinations. Nominator provides sounds reasoning, and the original source for this information is suspect at best. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including truss. I don't see that any of these passes the GNG --Guerillero | My Talk 09:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I only looked at Belshazzar (unit) to get a take for what this AfD is about. That one and the related biblically-named wine bottle sizes should be redirected to Wine_bottle#Sizes. I would want the redirect to catch searches.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the wine bottle is "Balthazar" and Belshazzar was a king (example). Even one of the refs used in the article says the name is Balthazar, and it does not mention Belshazzar. The newly created Belshazzar (disambiguation) could mention that Belshazzar sometimes means Balthazar, with a link to Wine bottle#Sizes. All the articles can easily be seen here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Belshazzar and Balthazar are alternate English spellings, though I'm no master of Hebrew transliteration.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but I searched for sources before the AfD and it really does appear that the bottle is generally spelled "Balthazar". Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to their relevant lists of units. Of course there is nothing to be gained in having these obscure units of measurements covered as a multitude of almost contentless microstubs. But tables of conversions between units of measurement are exactly the kind of thing one would expect to see in an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 12:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, at least for the time being, and give them a bit more chance to grow. Why is there such a huge rush to delete them anyway? Truss (unit) clearly passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all (or merge to relavant target) and arguments per user:Andrew Davidson. Christian75 (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. No useful purpose is served by deleting these articles and the encyclopaedia would be poorer without them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Truss (unit) is almost the worst sort of article we have, a throwback to 2006 or something. It consists mainly of massive quotes from public domain sources that, because of their antiquity, tend to use stilted language. We long ago began to deprecate copy/pasting huge chunks of text from Britannica (1911) etc and I really don't see that we gain from adopting the lazy approach here. Quote-dumping to this extent also forces us to breach WP:MOSQUOTE because we have to deploy links all over the place, contrary to the guideline. If we cannot find a way meaningfully to discuss the unit without a lot of reliance on century-old texts etc, we're probably well into the realm of DICDEF because, seemingly, any notability lies in antiquity. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Though you do have a point. Actually, two or more. Still, I prefer Truss (unit) to the other (non) articles listed above. Any comments on those? -- Hoary (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MOS issues seem irrelevant to the question of deletion — just clutching at straws :) Andrew D. (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as redirects to a merged list.--00:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC) ....comment by KTo288

Er, KTo288, to what would you like them merged? (List of miscellaneous obscure units?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever people are happy with, how about List of obsolete units.--KTo288 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility, but hundreds if not thousands more could be added to a list so titled. That again is a possibility, but it would demand a lot of work. Is anyone likely to want to do this? And if they did, would the result be more helpful than individual articles in Wiktionary? -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statohm — about one of these unit articles that escaped the net — has just been closed as Keep. Andrew D. (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the units were considered carefully prior to this AfD, and this shows why statohm was not listed. For many of the pages listed here, the problem with keeping them is that the only information presented is bogus. Consider Belshazzar—all reasonable sources say the wine bottle is named "balthazar", and Wikipedia should not amplify dubious assertions. "Belshazzar" is a reasonable possibility, but it is not the word actually used. What about Ship load which defines the unit with five significant figures—per my note here, that is highly misleading. If a source were available, something useful might be written, but keeping the current text in a list of units would be misleading and give undue weight to a dubious factoid. Is there any evidence that Customary stone was a unit and not a misunderstanding?
I have just reviewed all the pages listed at this AfD. Each is dubious and has no encyclopedic information beyond a claimed dictionary definition, except for Truss (unit) (expanded by Andrew Davidson). While acknowledging Sitush's comment above, I will withdraw Truss from this AfD because the article as it is now should be considered separately. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for withdrawing truss (unit) but please note that I picked that one for improvement almost at random. I also improved the statohm page too and, while that was more scientific, there was a lot less to say about it. Many of the units we have here were used in traditional forms of commerce and trade and so have some interesting background to explain. I wasn't familiar with the ship load but, now I look at it, I find that it was part of a system of measures of coal. This was especially well established in the trade between Newcastle and London which was substantial and lasted for centuries. In this, the scale of measures was:

4 pecks = 1 bushel

3 bushels = 1 sack

12 sacks = 1 chaldron (a waggon load)

8 chaldrons = 1 keel (a barge)

20 keels = 1 ship load (a collier)

These measures weren't just arbitrary, depending on the size of the equipment, but were used as the basis for payment of prices, wages, taxes and charges and so were subject to regulation either by law or commercial practice. The details turn out to be quite fascinating and we have a substantial article about the keelmen which makes wonderful reading. I was born in the North East myself and so am now delighted to understand what the famous song, "The Keel Row", was about. We shouldn't be deleting this stuff — we should be knitting it into our coverage of these historically-significant traditions. Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment about ship load. I tried to find a source with encyclopedic information beyond the unit-converter websites that parrot each other. There are mentions such as your source, and there is no doubt that the sale of coal was regulated, and sack, room, keel and ship load were probably defined in an act of parliament. Seach Acts...1780–1800 for "coal" to see several possibilities (more here). I can't find it now, but when I examined the issue three weeks ago, I saw mention of units with the same names used in other places, notably the US where a keel (barge) and a ship load were a different size. The current articles give a precise definition but there is no hint of its basis, and no encyclopedic value. When someone finds a good source, a new article on all the sale-of-coal units can be created. The current articles violate WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in WP:NOTDICTIONARY which supports the proposal to delete; quite contrary. That policy goes to a lot of trouble to explain the difference between encyclopedic stubs and dictionary-style entries about words. It emphasises this because "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." The key difference is, in fact, that the dictionary entry is focussed upon linguistics aspects of the word - its grammar, spelling, etymology, &c. The encyclopedic entry is focussed upon the underlying concept and the associated history and facts; the form of words is not so important. The policy doesn't dwell on the issue of deletion because it's position is "If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted." It seems clear that, in most of these cases, we have good scope to merge and/or rewrite and so deletion would not be appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference is, in fact, that the dictionary entry is focussed upon linguistics aspects of the word - its grammar, spelling, etymology, &c. Well, kind of; but do note that the cetera here include what's most important in most dictionaries (Wiktionary included) and (I'd guess) to most of their users: the meanings. (Meanwhile, grammatical information is shown by example. What's explicitly presented as grammatical information is very often misinformation.) Incidentally, Wikipedia has a lot of articles about words and phrases: Ebonics, fuck, kuwabara kuwabara, feminazi, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The motivation for deleting these articles is not WP:ANYTHINGATALL, it is that the material contributed by the problem editor is of unredeemingly low quality, consisting of a few boilerplate, ungrammatical sentences, and indiscriminate (and sometimes inaccurate, see Argentine units of measurement) copying of recycled factoids/fictoids from kitchen sink sources, combined with the problem editor's inability to discuss or even understand any of the problems put forward. But anyway, the "Dictionary" point is surely that a (paper) dictionary gives immediate access to information by headword, whereas an encyclopedia gives articles about topics, so that sometimes in a (paper) encyclopedia you have to hunt for the information. What this does mean is that if "bale" and "truss" are two words with the same referent, there should be one article, not two, or that if there are two articles they should be distinguished semantically, not by seemingly unrelated "headwords". Incidentally I found Geoff Pullum's piece immensely unpersuasive, and I think he is simply wrong about at least some of it, so dictionaries are safe for now. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all or merge. Although the stubs may not be adequate to stand on their own, they clearly are of encyclopedic value. However, if they are are merged, redirects should be created to the relevant sections in new article to preserve existing wikilinks. --Alex Rosenberg (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (in numerical order)

1. About truss (unit): yes, this is certainly now an article, but it is no longer about the supposed "unit of weight" called a truss, but about what a truss is, which is a bundle of hay. Actually it's the same entity as a bale (at least in the cuboidal form in which I met it on a farm in the 1950s), and the relation between "trusses" and "bales" needs investigating. A quick look at the dictionaries suggests that "bale" replaced "truss" sometime in the middle of the 20C. 2. About statohm: this is of course a genuine unit, and as such a lot more needs to be said about it. But this needs someone who actually understands the esu and emu systems of units, and moreover, there is almost nothing to say about statohm which does not belong in a good article on electrostatic units, to which it should redirect. 3. About the AfD: It seems to me that with our resident member of the "Rescue Squad"[sic], and various drive-by "keep everything" brigade, there is no chance of a consensus to delete (and certainly not one to keep), so I urge Johnuniq to withdraw this AfD, and let us get on with discussing much smaller groups. For example, all derivative units of the Chain (unit) need to be sorted out together, and it needs to be worked out whether Ramsden's chain is really best served by a separate article. When there are two or three sorts of something, I think it is much more helpful for them to be discussed together in context. 52. About the wider world: Did you know that the Cornish metric[sic] gallon is 5 kg[sic]? So more work: Old Cornish units of measurement. What sort of "source" does one need to remove things like this...? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mm-hmm, that article on "old Cornish units" is fingerlicking good. (Volume and mass, it's all, like, relative, man.) See "Wikipedia celebrates 750 years of American independence" for commentary on material that is not dissimilar. (Oh, and were these reputed metric gallons, do you think?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All But Truss - none of these have adequate support or notability. PianoDan (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truss just happens to be the one out of this huge bundle which has received the most of my attention. I'm waiting on a book I've ordered for that topic so, in the meantime, I'm going to do a similar job for ship load as I have identified lots of good sources and just need some time to write around them now. This takes time, hours of time, but no-one is paying me to do this work and so, per WP:DEADLINE, it will get done when I can fit it in. All the zealous inspectors should please make themselves useful by doing some good article reviews instead of straining at these gnats. Per WP:IMPERFECT, this stuff is a work-in-progress and what's needed is some editors who are prepared to help in a constructive way. Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 ::::Please read [[User:Johnuniq/sandbox3#Ship load|my comment]] about ship load. I tried to find a source with encyclopedic information beyond the unit-converter websites that parrot each other. There are mentions such as your source, and there is no doubt that the sale of coal was regulated, and [[Large sack|''sack'']], [[Room (unit)|''room'']], [[Keel (unit)|''keel'']] and [[Ship load|''ship load'']] were probably defined in an act of parliament. Seach [[List of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1780–1800|Acts...1780–1800]] for "coal" to see several possibilities (more [[List of Acts of the Parliament of England, 1660–99|here]]). I can't find it now, but when I examined the issue three weeks ago, I saw mention of units with the same names used in other places, notably the US where a keel (barge) and a ship load were a different size. The current articles give a precise definition but there is no hint of its basis, and no encyclopedic value. When someone finds a good source, a new article on all the sale-of-coal units can be created. The current articles violate [[WP:NOTDICTIONARY]]. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 :::::* There's nothing in [[WP:NOTDICTIONARY]] which supports the proposal to delete; quite contrary.  That policy goes to a lot of trouble to explain the difference between encyclopedic stubs and dictionary-style entries about words.  It emphasises this because "''One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.''"  The key difference is, in fact, that the dictionary entry is focussed upon linguistics aspects of the word - its grammar, spelling, etymology, &c.  The encyclopedic entry is focussed upon the underlying concept and the associated history and facts; the form of words is not so important.  The policy doesn't dwell on the issue of deletion because it's position is "''If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted.''"  It seems clear that, in most of these cases, we have good scope to merge and/or rewrite and so deletion would not be appropriate.  [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew D.]] ([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 23:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 ::::::*''The key difference is, in fact, that the dictionary entry is focussed upon linguistics aspects of the word - its grammar, spelling, etymology, &c.'' Well, kind of; but do note that the ''cetera'' here include what's most important in most dictionaries (Wiktionary included) and (I'd guess) to most of their users: the ''meanings''. (Meanwhile, grammatical information is shown by example. What's explicitly presented as grammatical information is [http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/01/16/because_why_the_word_is_not_a_conjunction_as_dictionaries_have_it_but_instead.html very often misinformation].) Incidentally, Wikipedia has a lot of articles about words and phrases: [[Ebonics]], [[fuck]], [[kuwabara kuwabara]], [[feminazi]], etc. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 00:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
+:::::::*I agree. The motivation for deleting these articles is not WP:ANYTHINGATALL, it is that the material contributed by the problem editor is of unredeemingly low quality, consisting of a few boilerplate, ungrammatical sentences, and indiscriminate (and sometimes inaccurate, see [[Argentine units of measurement]]) copying of recycled factoids/fictoids from kitchen sink sources, combined with the problem editor's inability to discuss or even understand any of the problems put forward. But anyway, the "Dictionary" point is surely that a (paper) dictionary gives immediate access to information by head'''word''', whereas an encyclopedia gives articles about topics, so that sometimes in a (paper) encyclopedia you have to hunt for the information. What this does mean is that if "bale" and "truss" are two words with the same referent, there should be one article, not two, or that if there are two articles they should be distinguished semantically, not by seemingly unrelated "headwords". Incidentally I found Geoff Pullum's piece immensely unpersuasive, and I think he is simply wrong about at least some of it, so dictionaries are safe for now. [[User:Imaginatorium|Imaginatorium]] ([[User talk:Imaginatorium|talk]]) 03:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 *'''Keep all or merge.'''  Although the stubs may not be adequate to stand on their own, they clearly are of encyclopedic value.  However, ''if they are are merged, redirects should be created'' to the relevant sections in new article to preserve existing wikilinks. --''[[User:Alex_rosenberg35|Alex Rosenberg]]'' ([[User_talk:Alex_rosenberg35|talk]]) 17:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)