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)