Talk:List of humorous units of measurement/Archive 1

Policy guidelines

A set of policy guidelines are being discussed at [[1]]. 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)

Cite Everything

This is intended to provide a home for the many units invented purely for humour value and which do not see any practical usage. wp:not

• This is not for uncited items. Cite everything. That is especially important for a page describing humour, to avoid it degenerating into random jokes.
• This page is not for things you thought up in a boring class at school.
• This is for units created and used primarily for humour value only. If the unit sees widespread usage, at least within its specialist field, it properly belongs in list of strange units of measurement, not here. It is conceivable that a unit originally created for humour value may eventiually see serious usage. The Big Mac Index is one such example.
• This is not for figures of speech. Any items in this page should be be objectively units of measurement. It should be possible and natural to say that "(this thing) is five (units of measurement)". Examples of such bad items from the archived talk for list of strange units of measurement include poofteenth (really small fraction), bee's dick (really small length), and shedload (really large cubic volume or mass).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhialto (talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 November 2006

Hangon

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)

OK, content added. If you still wish to complete the speedy deletion, please say so, and also please move the content here back to the original pages to preserve it. The intent of this page was in part to split off part of an article that was becoming too large to edit easily. Rhialto 03:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Beauty

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)

Spelling

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)

Sure. Go ahead. I'd have done it myself if I knew how to do it properly. Rhialto 08:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and moved it. Hope that's ok. --Guinnog 08:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cites!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hitler

Defining the unit "The Hitler" is absurd but not funny and has nothing to do with humor. -- Raubsaurier 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thaum

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)

Beauty - the Helen

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 {{Fact}} 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)

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)

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)

Chachi

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)

Article should be vetted for notability?

It's not obvious to me that every throwaway joke unit invented in every television show or book is particularly worth including in this article. If the goal of this article is to list all such jokes, then the list is incomplete and unmaintainable. Perhaps it should be cut down to items that are particularly notable (and, of course, referenced). -- SCZenz 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The absolute minimum standard I've been trying to maintain is that any source must be notable for something other than the specific unit being discussed. A minor webcomic that isn't notable in its own right doesn't get to create spurious entries in here. Rhialto 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC

er, with all due respect, the newest addition comes from a webcomic that is heavily covered on this site, so I'm not sure its appropriate to say that its not notable in it's own right.

And the usual standard is that multiple independent sites have used the unit. I'm holding off on any editing until the edit wars die down though. It's not enough for the source to be notable - the unit itself must also satisfy the demands for notability. Rhialto 06:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That standard isn't applied to the rest of the page. MegaFonzie is a single source one (Futurama). It's actually the only other one I had even heard of. Most of the others don't even qualify as humorous, which you would think would be the more important standard for this page. If you don't allow all at least somewhat notable humorous units of measurement in, then what exactly is the point of this page? Also, just because you haven't heard of a webcomic doesn't make it minor or not notable. By the same token, as I said above I haven't heard of most of the existing units on this page. Does that mean they should be deleted as well? No. Have a little consideration for others. Shirskin 11:30, 29 September 2007

Heard of it? It's in my firefox bookmarks and I read it religiously! But that doesn't change the fact that the unit itself isn't notable. I don't see how it could be, seeing as how it is less than a week old, and hasn't been mentioned on any other site at all. As for the other units, yes, you are right, a lot of them probably don't have any business being in here. As for humorous, humour is incredibly subjective. I don't judge it on whether I find it funny, but on whether the author intended for it to be funny. Rhialto 17:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you've still failed to adress the fact that the web comic is obviously "Notable" somethign you claimed the opposite of as your reason earlier (as opposed to the comment iself not being notable, which is what your now claiming is your claim). This also makes your comment about it being in your Bookmarks suspicious. Similarly, you have yet to adress the MegaFonzie incident similarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.146.58.148 (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

MegaFonzie

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)

Missy Elliott

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)

Self-Published Sources

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)

=====I do. I don't recall reading anything like that in the published Wiki rules. Besides , Piazo Publishing prints the Physical copies of Oots, and those factor in it's popularity. Similarly, Megatokyo is web-self published, but has repeatedly been shown to be extremely popular and notable, as well as achieving its own non-self physical publishing. Furthermore, someone has removed Kilonazi from the page without debate, and simultaniously left the similar megafonzie. As there was no debate about removing this entire piece. someone seems to have taken matters into their own hands, I am restoring until disscussion is made until an attempt at a consensus is made.Necrostrider 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Kilonazi

I agree that OOTS is pretty popular, with published books and everything, and I read it too, but the killonazi thing has only appeared so far in a single online comic strip last week, and it is not like it is a recurring joke or anything like that yet, so that is why I think it should be removed, or at the most explained in some form in The Order of the Stick article. Any other opinions?--Anselm 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I do disagree. and I am tired of these forced edits without honest effort at discussion. So far, we have had repeated removals of this item, despite asking for discussion here. Indeed, all of these removals ahve been from the same user, whom has refused to continue discussion in this page. Furthermore, the cases of similar units of measure have yet to be adressed, and nothign resembling a consensus has been reached. Indeed, both myself and Shirskin opposed the deletion, and gave reasons, however Rhailto has been unilatirally taking action without discussion repeatedly. As I have pointed out, similar cases exist on the website, and even in this article. Likewise, I have debunked the claim that the webcomic was not notable, which was Rhailto's origional claim. Now I have begun arguing with Rhailto on the varacity of self-published sources, and what qualifies as such, despite his failing to sign that particular comment. Indeed, since I have been arguing with him on the matter, he has done little but attempt to sidestep discussion and delete the item wholesale on his own. I have restored the article, and I hope it stays that way until meaningful discussion can be carried out.Necrostrider 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlike inside one-off jokes like Fonzie, you don't need to know anything about OOTS or even be aware of its existence. This alone ranks this unit above everything else on this list except for maybe Helen (known to anyone who's not a complete barbarian), Lenat (the Jargon File is widely quoted) and Thaum (included in many books of a very popular series). KiloByte 20:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to rank units on usability or how understandable they are--our opinions on these things are irrelevant. We're here to write a sensible article—although the subject doesn't make that easy. I'm in favor of removing all one time jokes, because we can't possibly include all the one-time unit jokes that have ever appeared in any work of fiction. We need a stricter standard or the list is unmaintainable. -- SCZenz 21:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've sure never heard of Order of the Stick or the kilonazi. True, judging by the article the webcomic is notable (though it really doesn't seem notable enough for such long article on individual charactors), but a unit of measure only used a few times on the comic and only the comic isn't notable enough to be on this list. Mention it briefly in the OOTS article. Reywas92^Talk 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, is oots noteworthy? yes. Is it a reliable source according to wp standards? depends. As a printed and published book, yes. As a webcomic, it is considered s self-published course, and isn't. So far, kilonazi does not appear to have made it to the print edition, seeing as it is only about a week or three old.

In either case, while either edition is certainly an authority on itself, they aren't really an authority on weights and measures. But that is an aside, since this is an article on humorous units. But there is still no citable example (let alone multiple independent citable examples, which is the usual criteria for noteworthiness) from a non-self-published source. The unit isn't noteworthy. Rhialto 17:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this is an article on humorous units of measure, it seems the humor content should be paramount over the source or frequency of appearance. If the humor of the unit can easily be understood outside the context of the original source (as KiloNazi can), I don't see why it matters where it comes from. If, on the other hand the unit takes more context to understand (as many of the 'conventional' humor units do), I agree there should be more stringent requirements on sources and/or number of references.

Bubba0077 03:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, it is an article on humorous units. But it is also subject to wikipedia's overall policies on what is acceptable content. The criteria for notability aren't my own invention - they are based on wp:not and wp:n. If you disagree with the policies there which I have been using, feel free to discuss them on the talk pages there. The wp policies say nothing about whether the humour could be understood without prior knowledge of the context; it primarily refers to notability and cites, which the unit lacks. Rhialto 07:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Necrostrider only has a few edis, all to here. User:Bubba0077's only edit is the one above. This is probably illegal WP:SOCKpuppetry. If the Kilonazi is going be be included, then it must me used multiple independent times. Reywas92^Talk 16:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"Independent" being subject to later argument, but certainly (a) not by the OOTS comic, and (b) not by direct references to the OOTS joke in other minor works. If it hits CNN or Letterman, it's probably notable, even if it's not independent. However, as is, it's limited to the OOTS and a few blog and forum references to the same. Alas, the kiloNazi (like the milliRubia) deserves the axe for now. Abb3w 21:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, many of the arguments here would apply to the MAD measurements for sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.43.156 (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sloppy axwork, Hedons, and milliRubbia

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) === <!-- This section is linked from [[Carlo Rubbia]] --> 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. {{Fact|date=February 2007}}

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)

Axed Units

I was unable to turn up any non-wikipedia references to the beard-second via Google Web, Groups, or Scholar search. I haven't encountered it anywhere but here.

===Length: Beard-second === One beard-second is the distance which a standard beard in a standard face grows in one second. By convention, a standard beard and face are such that 1 beard-second = 10^-8 m.

Abb3w 16:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You might then also want to propose beard-second for deletion. --Cybercobra 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

While South Park is more notable that OOTS, it's less humorous than offensive. A one-off, unrepeated, less-than-funny joke on South Park seems non-notable.

====Courics==== A [[Katie Couric|Couric]] is a unit of measurement for [[feces]], used in [[More Crap|an episode]] of [[South Park]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.southparkstudios.com/show/episodes/display_episode.php?episodeid=1109 | title=Episode guide | accessdate=2007-10-08}}</ref>

Abb3w 19:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the deletion of Couric. South Park is a notable show, as are Click & Clack and Futurama, yet the MegaFonzie and (probably) the Pinkwater were used only once, so if they're in here then the Couric should stay also. Judging how funny the joke was is very subjective and doesn't seem like a particularly good inclusion metric. So long as it was intended to be funny, this is the page where such content belongs, if anywhere on Wikipedia. --Cybercobra 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The megafonzie has been noted in other media as a unit of measurement, and has achieved some, albeit minor, notability on its own merit, as a result. The couric unit has no notability in its own right, and has no known usage outside that one show, is arguably a character attack on a living person (wp:bio), and has not had enough time since that first usage in a show to have developed any usage independant of that show.

You're right that this would probably be the only presently-existing place, if anywhere, on wikipedia that the unit could appear. That in itself doesn't mean it should be here.

Also, judging that one unit should be in here because another unit already is, isn't a good thing. sometimes, the best conclusion that can be drawn from such comparisons is that neither unit should remain. This page has suffered from some poorly-proofed editing in the past, so the current contents probably aren't the best guide to the standard of editing expected of wikipedia. I would love to clean it up thoroughly, but I generally lack the time. Rhialto 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputation retracted. Side Note: I wasn't the one who added the Couric back after my edit was reverted. Note the differing text on the later attempt. --Cybercobra 20:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohnosecond

Please consider adding the Ohnosecond[[2]] to this page. --146.171.16.7 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

A google for "ohnoseconds" [[3]] 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"... [[4]], "superseded a few ohnoseconds later..." [[5]], "the 0.000000001 ohnoseconds it would take to"... [[6]], "That's [...] more than 3000,000000000 Ohnoseconds!" [[7]]--146.171.16.9 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RCH

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)

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)

Kevin

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)

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)

Spelling and the "U"

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)

Ah, then apologies. Time for Shaw's quote about two societies separated by a common language! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of liff measurements

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)

I agree. Delete. And delete the newly added "Hancock" while you're at it. Unsourced. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I rolled them back, then saw this discussion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Name change

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)

Incorrect data?

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)

Obviously, Google is averaging the beard production rate in both men and women for their figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.106.209 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Doom removed?

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

tween turd

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)

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)

I just check the online version of the student handbook, and you are correct, it does not list the epilogue section containing this unit, But the hard copy does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg14701 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The word has actually been in large usage for 20+ years in the SUNY system, which includes almost a dozen colleges. Because it had been used for this length of time, it is also known among many alumni that reside around the world...i think it should be re-added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg14701 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the electronic version on the website you provided was downloaded in 2008...the version of the handbook which includes this term came out this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg14701 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Cut out the BS? I think this Wikipedia editing gig is going to your head a little bit. First of all, its in the hardcopy of the handbook. And has been used for over 20 years. Secondly, show me ANY reliable reference for the term "Beard-Second". There are only 2 reliable sources posted here for that term, one of which circles back to Wikipedia. The second references a 2008 book, which came out AFTER the term was added to this page! If you are going to delete my term, then delete that one. Otherwise i will re-add TweenTurd until you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg14701 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, EVERY word on this page is only known about or used by a limited group of people. You think you can argue that a few physicsts at MIT constitutes a larger population than 20 years of SUNY alumni?? NOw that's BS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg14701 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Computron

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)

Henway

I am surprised I have not seen a henway recommended. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

You've got to be kidding. Do you really think any of these measurements are real or for anything but comic relief? It fits exactly the same criteria used for the rest of this. You'd be hard pressed to find any of these that pass the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia given the stated protocols. If you went by notability they would be weighty on the order of micro-henways. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Utilitarianism - Bentham not the only contributor

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)

Lenat

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)

Sagan

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)

SLKSU Standardized Larry King Suspender Unit

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)

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)

That genocide unit

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)

Seconded. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Again, really. Perhaps you should look up duh in the dictionary. EEng (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Instagram?

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)

Got a cite? Rhialto (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)