Talk:Pinch (unit)

Question

Did the term "smidgen", as mentioned in this article, originate with Winnie the Pooh? I know he used the term, but I'm not sure if he originated it or not. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No. The OED has a quotation from 20+ years before A.A. Milne was born. --Macrakis (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviation for pinch

@Imaginatorium: I'm looking for sources for the abbreviation "pn" for pinch. I've found http://www.cookingconversions.org/abbreviations.htm and http://www.platinumrecipescollection.com/understanding-abbreviations/, but neither is quite an appropriate reference for wikipedia. However, their existence and agreement indicates to me a reliable source might be found. Might you be interested in helping me look?PetesGuide, K6WEB (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Annual Report, Volume 1 By New York (State). Dept. of Social Welfare, published 1904, page 322 Gzuufy (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

(@Gzuufy): All I see at your link is "1 page matching abbreviation "pn" for pinch in this book", and a fragment of a New York State report of 1904, which does not obviously include mention of the abbreviation "pn". Can you give us a proper quotation, or is that all you have?

More generally, yes, this is exactly the sort of thing you can find on these copycat websites, who are in the business of amplifying noise. I do not think that in any helpful sense "pn" is a standard, widely-used, or even generally comprehensible abbreviation for "pinch". (As a guide to the reliability of such sites, I am currently collecting various microgram-precision conversions of the supposed unit called a "sack" on my user page.) Imaginatorium (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In a short paragraph titled "abbreviations," and among a list of 8, it says, "pn.=pinch." I had no problems downloading the entire PDF, which I believe is normal for that old of a work. The chapter begins on page 315 and is titled, "Recipes for Institution Use, by Katharine Bement Davis, Ph. D., Superintendent, New York State Reformatory for Women, Bedford, N.Y. April, 1904." Gzuufy (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. So in at least one document from 100+ years ago, someone wrote that "pinch" could be abbreviated "pn.". But anyone can abbreviate anything in any way they like, provided they put a note at the beginning saying this is the convention they are using. This does not make "pn." a standard or normal (I suppose "notable", in WIKISPEAK) abbreviation, and I think it is misleading to put it in the lead as though it were. Is this helpful to the reader? I think absolutely not. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The entire document appears to be authored by the State of New York and its State Board of Charities, and was printed by the State Legislative Printer. Gzuufy (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is a WP:reliable source, and almost certainly reliable as well. But that makes no difference: it does not say, "As is universal, we abbreviate pinch to 'pn'", it simply states (unless I have seriously misunderstood) that in this list of recipes, the abbreviation 'pn.' will be used for "pinch". This is called a "convention" within the scope of the book; it is not a general statement about the world which WP is supposed to describe. If "pn" were a generally agreed and widely used abbreviation, it would be in ordinary dictionaries, as "Oz." for example appears in the SOED. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviations.com lists PN for pinch. Gzuufy (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course it does. This is one of the noise-amplification websites, which is not a "reliable source" in WP terms. The first thing I saw on that website was a user comment: "Thank you, I was looking for an abbreviation of rescheduled and I chose RESC as shown. Great site. I will use you again." So does the WP article on rescheduling give "RESC" as the abbreviation? Do you understand my point? Imaginatorium (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Rescheduling" is not currently a Wikipedia topic. Assuming it did exist, just because another article in a non-cooking topic doesn't include an abbreviation seems an apples and oranges comparison. The abbreviation is used in some recipes, and that is highly relevant.

"Agnolotti Di Ricotta E Spinachi

from 220 Culinary Masterpieces

https://books.google.com/books?id=38iSw8CEJI0C&pg=PA9

"1 lb flour

6 oz sweet cream butter

8 eggs

3 pn salt,to taste

15 oz ricotta cheese,dry as possible

2 oz spinach,trimmed,washed

13 oz Parmesan cheese,grated

1 pn black pepper,to taste

2 pn nutmeg,to taste

1 qt heavy cream

4 oz mascarpone cheese

2 pn white pepper,to taste

Gzuufy (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The abbreviation "pn" for "pinch" does not seem to be widely accepted.

Most abbreviations are defined somewhere within the same work, so if you search for the phrase ["lb pound"] or ["tbsp tablespoon"] in Google Books, you'll find thousands of instances. But ["pn pinch"] only finds a couple of dozen, most of them having nothing to do with the unit of volume. In fact, the only instance seems to be multiple versions of the document mentioned above (the Annual Report of the State Board of Charities of the State of New York). Similarly, if you look for [pn pinch recipe abbreviation], you will find almost no instances of the abbreviation. So I see no evidence that this is a noteworthy abbreviation. --Macrakis (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As for the 220+ Culinary Masterpieces source, this is clearly not an RS. It appears to be an anonymous, undated, self-published collection. It isn't on Amazon or Worldcat, and gets a total of 7 Google hits. --Macrakis (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)