"10 miles 28 chains"

[AndyTheGrump]

From the lede to the East Croydon station (T-H-L) article:

East Croydon is a railway station and tram stop in the town of Croydon, Greater London, England, and is in Travelcard Zone 5. It is 10 miles 28 chains (16.66 km) measured from London Bridge.

So how many of those amongst us who customarily use Her Britannic Majesty's Imperial Units can remember how long a chain is? From memory I know it has something to do with cricket pitches and furlongs, but I'm not sure I'd get it right without looking it up. Apparently though the Wikipedia railway enthusiasts (or at least the British ones) think that giving distances in miles and chains is right and proper, since the 'sources' (e.g. whoever it is that is in charge of the railways today, I've rather um, lost track...) use this venerable unit of length. And because obviously an encyclopaedia isn't written to be understood by just anyone. Or something like that. There is currently a discussion on Talk:East Croydon station (T-H-L) where a few heretics have dared to suggest that measuring things in units people are familiar with might be helpful, but I'm sure the trainspotters will prevail.

"Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Just don't expect to be able to understand it..."

[Poetlister]

Presumably that's what the source says, so to quote the distance in other units would be original research. Does the source quote the distance in km or was that computed by the editor?

And since neither the station nor London Bridge is a single point, between which points was the distance measured? I guess the southern end of the bridge and the ticket office, but enquiring minds want to know!

[Dysklyver]

Presumably that's what the source says, so to quote the distance in other units would be original research. Does the source quote the distance in km or was that computed by the editor?

And since neither the station nor London Bridge is a single point, between which points was the distance measured? I guess the southern end of the bridge and the ticket office, but enquiring minds want to know!

The km distance is automatically generated from the {{convert}} tag.

'''East Croydon''' is a railway station and tram stop in the town of [[Croydon]], [[Greater London]], England, and is in Travelcard Zone 5. It is {{convert|10|mi|28|chain|km|2|lk=in}} measured from {{rws|London Bridge}}.<ref>{{cite book |last=Yonge |first=John |editor-last=Jacobs |editor-first=Gerald |title=Railway Track Diagrams 5: Southern & TfL |edition=3rd |date=November 2008 |origyear=1994 |publisher=Trackmaps |location=Bradford on Avon |isbn=978-0-9549866-4-3 |at=map 14C |ref=harv }}</ref>

And as far as the points is concerned, they got that covered:

The normal convention is that terminal stations are measured at the buffer stops, through stations are measured at the ticket office. The number of entrances is immaterial. In the case of London Bridge, the zero point is two chains to the south-east of the former platform 8-13 buffer stops; or four chains to the north-west of the former platform 14-16 buffer stops. I urge you to seek consensus before removing; and also refer you to Talk:Darlington railway station#Distance from London. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

[Johnny Au]

Toronto's arterial roads are generally 100 chains apart (approximately 2km): Concession road (T-H-L)

[Dysklyver]

And in a related fun AfD...

Large sack (T-H-L)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Large sack (T-H-L)

Large sack was a UK unit of weight for coal.

Definition
224 pounds

Conversion
1 large sack ≡ 2 sack

1 large sack ≡ 224 lb

1 large sack ≡ 101.60469088 kg

References
^ Cardarelli, François Cradarelli (2003). Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures. London: Springer. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-4471-1122-1.

[Poetlister]

The conversion to kg has absurdly too many decimal places. There ought to be a policy or guideline about pointless attempts at excessive precision.

[Dysklyver]

The conversion to kg has absurdly too many decimal places. There ought to be a policy or guideline about pointless attempts at excessive precision.

Well someone might want to measure a "large sack" of coal to the nearest nanogram.

[Poetlister]

The conversion to kg has absurdly too many decimal places. There ought to be a policy or guideline about pointless attempts at excessive precision.

Well someone might want to measure a "large sack" of coal to the nearest nanogram.

My point exactly. You can't and if you could, its weight would change by more than that quite rapidly as it absorbed or lost water.

[Dysklyver]

MoS is silent on the subject, but I found Template:Undue precision (T-H-L)

[Ming]

MoS is silent on the subject, but I found Template:Undue precision (T-H-L)

Actually, as Mangoe pointed out, there is an MOS clause, a special Brit rail nerd clause, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Unit choice and order (T-H-L):

In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that:

UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in (but road distances are given in imperial units, with a metric conversion – see next bullet);

So since British railways still apparently do their measuring in chains, we're stuck with chains.

[Poetlister]

MoS is silent on the subject, but I found Template:Undue precision (T-H-L)

That puts articles in Category:Data with undue precision,which is currently empty. Evidently, either that is the sole example of undue precision, somehow overlooked, or people aren't worried about this problem.

[Dysklyver]

MoS is silent on the subject, but I found Template:Undue precision (T-H-L)

That puts articles in Category:Data with undue precision,which is currently empty. Evidently, either that is the sole example of undue precision, somehow overlooked, or people aren't worried about this problem.

Most likely not worried about it, patrolling unit measurements is not a common hobby. Also only an expert in statistics or a reasonably intelligent layman would notice a case of overprecision anyway.

[Randy from Boise]

Presumably that's what the source says, so to quote the distance in other units would be original research.

Bull puckey.

Original research in Wikipedia terms is the insertion of novel theories of history or science into a Wikipedia article.

RfB

[Poetlister]

Presumably that's what the source says, so to quote the distance in other units would be original research.

Bull puckey.

Original research in Wikipedia terms is the insertion of novel theories of history or science into a Wikipedia article.

RfB

Original research in Wikipedia terms is whatever a hostile editor thinks he can get away with branding as original research. For example, to describe Lord Levy as Jewish because he is President of Jewish Care and has a kosher home is original research; Jayjg (T-C-L) said so!

[Dysklyver]

Presumably that's what the source says, so to quote the distance in other units would be original research.

Bull puckey.

Original research in Wikipedia terms is the insertion of novel theories of history or science into a Wikipedia article.

RfB

Original research in Wikipedia terms is whatever a hostile editor thinks he can get away with branding as original research. For example, to describe Lord Levy as Jewish because he is President of Jewish Care and has a kosher home is original research; Jayjg (T-C-L) said so!

Hmm, well technically my home is kosher and I am not Jewish, but President of Jewish Care? Thats a giveaway...

[Johnny Au]

What's next?

Measuring someone's weight in stones?

[Ming]

What's next?

Measuring someone's weight in stones?

Um, yes? That's what the MOS says for UK measurements.

[AndyTheGrump]

What's next?

Measuring someone's weight in stones?

Um, yes? That's what the MOS says for UK measurements.

I think the average UK citizen is more likely to familiar with the use of stones for weight than chains for length.

[Randy from Boise]

What's next?

Measuring someone's weight in stones?

Um, yes? That's what the MOS says for UK measurements.

The MOS is the playground of pedantic pipsqueaks.

RfB

P.S. I should know better than to try and edit a transportation article, playground of pedantic, obsessive, autistic pipsqueaks.

[Poetlister]

I think the average UK citizen is more likely to familiar with the use of stones for weight than chains for length.

It's always a pleasure to agree with Andy. I think that the average UK citizen is unlikely to be used to weighing adults in just pounds.

Of course, cricketers will know that there should be exactly one chain between the wickets.

[AndyTheGrump]

I checked a couple of websites, and if you buy bathroom scales online in the UK, the non-digital ones all seem to have a dual-reading dial marked in Kg and stones.

I can't recall ever seeing anything measured in chains.

[Poetlister]

My scales are digital and with instructions badly translated from Korean. There's a switch inside which can be put to the left hand, middle hand or right hand (so it's designed for people with three arms) depending on whether you want stones and pounds, just pounds or kg.

[Dysklyver]

[...] it's designed for people with three arms [...]

hmm.

This would be part of the "Designed in China" revolution. Their products often seem to assume the most peculiar things are possible. I personally think it happens whenever there is a cultural clash or a massive foul up in communication.

[dogbiscuit]

"Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Just don't expect to be able to understand it..."

When I was at school they introduced the decimal system so I learned a bit of both systems but I could not guess how long a chain was. I doubt many of the target audience (assuming that the target audience is not Wikipedia admins or some other bizarre interpretation of the purpose of Wikipedia) would have any understanding.

If they are so intent on preserving the integrity of the source, then it would be appropriate to have a further conversion into miles and yards, though I suspect that would just highlight the pointless nature of the chain measurement (and the lack of common sense so often displayed by Wikipedia editors when points of principles surface).

[AndyTheGrump]

The East Croydon Station article now says "10 miles 28 chains (10.35 mi; 16.66 km) ". Which would look like a sensible compromise. Probably too sensible for some, since they are now holding an RfC on the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Chains_RFC

[Poetlister]

The East Croydon Station article now says "10 miles 28 chains (10.35 mi; 16.66 km) ". Which would look like a sensible compromise. Probably too sensible for some, since they are now holding an RfC on the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Chains_RFC

Fish and karate (T-C-L) has stuck his oar in all over the place. This is helpful, since you know immediately that you ought to vote the opposite way.

[Dysklyver]

The East Croydon Station article now says "10 miles 28 chains (10.35 mi; 16.66 km) ". Which would look like a sensible compromise. Probably too sensible for some, since they are now holding an RfC on the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Chains_RFC

Fish and karate (T-C-L) has stuck his oar in all over the place. This is helpful, since you know immediately that you ought to vote the opposite way.

After presenting a whole raft of options to confuse everyone, the issue of fractional and decimals miles will no doubt get some debate. Then they can decide if a rod is an acceptable measurement (1/4 a chain), and whether conversions to leagues are desirable.

Someone has mentioned furlongs now. No doubt if left long enough they will barge into the nautical arena and start arguing about fathoms and nautical miles too. Maybe they will realise aircraft measure their altitude in feet and propose to convert it to metric.

Maybe they could bring back Roman measurements and start using cubits, palms and paces.

PS. Cana (unit) (T-H-L) looks like it's overprecise, a rare medieval measurement of indeterminate length is being defined to the nanometre.

[AndyTheGrump]

Simple solution. Convert everything to Smoots (T-H-L).

[Dysklyver]

Simple solution. Convert everything to Smoots (T-H-L).

Perfect!

[Poetlister]

PS. Cana (unit) (T-H-L) looks like it's overprecise, a rare medieval measurement of indeterminate length is being defined to the nanometre.

It says "the use in Barcelona was a distance of 1.5708 metres" so it's defined to 0.0001 metres, clearly over-precise but only to the nearest 100,000 nanometres.

[Ming]

...and in one of the most block-headed closes since Fred Bauder left arbcom, Steelpillow (T-C-L) comes along and ignores the discussion, saying, "well, MOS says this, so nah," ignoring that the MOS says what it does precisely for the kind of article in question. Even chain-lovers are not happy.