Talk:List of obsolete units of measurement

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ergs don't belong on this list

The Erg is a central unit in the CGS system, which continues to be commonly used, particularly in astronomy. There's nothing obsolete about it. If you google "Astronomy Journal", open the first link (http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0004-637X) and then read the first journal article listed (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/27/pdf) you will find figures expressed in Ergs. Pulu (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping ton

The link on the unit "shipping ton" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_ton) claims that the unit is approximately 1.2 cubic metres. The unit "gross register tonnage" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_register_tonnage) is 2.8 cubic meters. 82.164.21.12 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Torbjørn[reply]

Demiard

I don't think that this one is completely obsolete.

I'm 45, and I've seen it used on items within my own memory.

Descriptions

Some words have short descriptions, but many do not. In my opinion, it would greatly improve things if each one had a brief description – an equivalent measurement in modern terms, and a sentence or two about when/where/why it was used. Maybe an extra line for any especially noteworthy or unusual factoids. Otherwise, it’s basically just a list of strange words with no way to tell which ones sound interesting enough to click on for more info.

So I’d like to start adding those. But to be safe, I figured I’d ask if there’s a policy or some such which says a list like this should be simple and unembellished. I’d hate to do a lot of work, only to create more work for whoever has to revert it! --96.234.17.196 (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]