Ghyll talk:Chesix System Of Measures

Don't forget - there's also a sugro-nanit, and Sbp did some calculations over in the Cranee Historical Society. We do have two phantoms, nanit and sugro-nanit, and I'm wondering if this entry supersedes them - it seems silly to actually define an "inch" in a lexicon, especially when we've got a global entry like the following. How do players feel about removing those terms as definable phantoms? --Morbus Iff 09:44, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Also, your comment about "being able to survive without writing" is broken. The Nitenmangrey are from -900 EC, which is far too soon for writing to have developed. Similarly, the originating Nitenmangrey entry, Aquentravalkeration, says that "since documents from that period remain undeciphered". A document presumes writing. --Morbus Iff 09:59, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Based on his Talk discussion over on Cranee, Sbp is suggesting that a nanit is 20 cm, which would be the size of a Bindlet Ball (as per the Bindlett Ball entry, making it roughly half a foot). That would make your Rod 340 cm, or 11 feet, which seems like more of a hUuUUGe staff (larger than most normal staffs), as opposed to a single-handed rod. --Morbus Iff 10:05, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I'd like to the Cranee Historical Society nanit/sugro-nanit entries on measurement, and this entry, combined into a single measurement page. After that, I'd suggest the existing phantoms for nanit and sugro-nanit be redirected to that common page. Conceptually, a single page of weights and measures, seems to make more sense in an encyclopedia than individual entries. --Qwentyth Pyre 18:54, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Morbus, I had started with the proposition that a Bindelt Ball would be 10cm and worked from there. On the whole, I am happy to make adjustments to the measurment system to fit in with what we know. The existing differences have occured because we didn't have anything before. I was hoping after this entry was complete to start a discussion about the nanit/sugro nanit phantoms as I think they should either point to this page or be removed. As for my sentence about surviving without writing - you are correct - it is broken. I shall fix as many of the inconsistencies as I can find. Happy to take suggestions from anyone. Dok 19:16, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I agree with Qwentyth on this one. A single point of reference is best. Also, it's nice to have something to relate it all to! Knowing that the system is, more or less, based on a 10cm Bindelt Ball makes it all more sensible. Thank you --Doctor Phineas Crank 21:48, 21 Sep 2004 (EDT)

For whatever it's worth, I was thinking that a Bindlet Ball was around the same size as a soccerball (football for you yurpeens) or a basketball. That would make it in the range of 20cm, rather than 10cm. However, if this makes the entire universe slightly off-kilter, then I can adjust my world view. After all, one of the necessary consequences of this form of fiction is that things can get defined after I've already written about them, right? --DrBacchus 20:44, 22 Sep 2004 (EDT)

I have fixed up the inconsistencies (I think). All the "nanit" measurements retain consistency with the entry in Cranee Historical Society. The nanit is now roughly 20cm in size. The Rod is now roughly 50cm. I thought about tiding up the difference between the sugro-nanit as defined by SBP, and then thought better of it. The unexplained complexity adds colour to the world and leaves room for the future. If such inconsistencies already exist, then it may be that they exist elsewhere. Enjoy. --Dok 01:44, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Hrm - I think leaving the inconsistency in is "against the rules". Since Sbp has already established, as fact, that a sugro-nanit is X amount of nanits, your entry has to accept that as fact and follow it (though you can argue vociferously with the interpretation and introduce new facts that shade the interpretation). I'd end up correcting this during a copyediting phase (later tonight). --Morbus Iff 07:15, 23 Sep 2004 (EDT)