Talk:List of non-coherent units of measurement

Railway engineers in the USA measure distances (even long ones) in metric feet. By which they mean imperial feet with decimal places, not 300mm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.174.121 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Writing 0.25 foot rather than 3 inches, if that's what you mean, does not make it "metric". —Tamfang (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I suspect some railway engineers in USA [or perhaps user 86.146.174.121] might be poets :-).
On the other hand, this does sound unusual and it might be be worth some research in order to determine whether it fits the criteria for inclusion here! [I am not qualified to judge this question] jw (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like simply measuring in feet and recording the numbers using decimal notation, not a specific unit. Bazza 7 (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not a distinct unit of measure from ordinary feet.--Srleffler (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but I still think it's worth mentioning that there are two distinct meanings of the term "metric foot", even if one of them is not a unit in its own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.54.230 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The redirect KerMetric time has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 16 § KerMetric time until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Johm has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 16 § Johm until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

This article appears to have various arbitrary entries without any source suggesting they are "unusual". Even the descriptor "unusual" itself reeks of arbitrariness. We need to ensure proper sourcing. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph of the article, which defines the scope of what is to be included in the list. "Unusual" has a specific meaning here; it is not synonymous with "strange", and whether a unit qualifies is not arbitrary or unclear. Also note that by consensus (from previous discussions here) the units have to be in actual use. In particular humorous/fake units have their own separate list.--Srleffler (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and I find that scope as largely an arbitrary determination by WP editors, which is original research. We need to do better. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

We could have called the page "List of units of measurement that do not form part of a coherent measurement system", but that would have been a mouthful. Nothing is arbitrary or OR except the title. Any given entry in the list can be definitively established, based on reliable sources, to not be part of a coherent system of measurements. --Srleffler (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

What needs to be "definiteively established" is not that the unit of measure exists, but that it somehow belongs on a list like this. "Unusual" is a ridiculously subjective (and likely often culturally-biased) way to go about it. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, the scope of the list is defined in the lede as "a unit of measurement that does not form part of a coherent system of measurement, especially because its exact quantity may not be well known or because it may be an inconvenient multiple or fraction of a base unit." What needs to be established to determine that a unit of measure belongs on this list is whether it meets that definition, which is not at all subjective. Perhaps you are missing this: Coherence (units of measurement)? --Srleffler (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Then this should be titled List of non-coherent measurements. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Or, perhaps List of incoherent measurements?--Srleffler (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the adjective ought to be specialized. —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Unsystematic, perhaps.--Srleffler (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Usystematic is certainly more of an empirical disignation, not just what someone finds unusual. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

That works too. —Tamfang (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking back at the history of this list I see that it has evolved over time. The entries that were included in early versions of the list would not qualify for inclusion now, but would rather be found at List of humorous units of measurement. I think retitling this list is appropriate, to better distinguish the two lists. We do frequently get people adding humorous units (that is, units created for humor value that are not actually used by anyone) here. A title that better captures what this list is would help with curating it.--Srleffler (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. A title with "unusual" is just asking for trouble. If these are non-coherent (which is think is actually better than incoherent) then we should go with that. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Binary Degree should follow immediately after Furman. 50.245.123.233 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.--Srleffler (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)