Talk:Byzantine units of measurement

Inconsistent

The value for the gramma given is strikingly inconsistent with that given for the Uncia! Based on the coin hexagram, I would estimate it at 1,14g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.193.86 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Name

Per WP:TERSE. There's no need to keep naming pages "~ units of measurement" unless there are some other form of units that are necessary to distinguish. Similarly, no need to distinguish "obsolete ~ units" unless there are some replacements with which they might be confused. — LlywelynII 04:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, "Byzantine units" could also mean "military units", so the title was a bit ambiguous. Constantine ✍ 16:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. If this is the PRIMARYTOPIC (it is), then the correct way to disambiguate is to use a {{hatnote}}. See also English units. If there is no one using Byzantine units to mean that, then there's not even call for that. — LlywelynII 09:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I rather doubt that if you asked the proverbial man in the street about "Byzantine units", they would be able to make anything of it, let alone reply with the pous or the stadion, so I don't really see where the confident assertion about it being the primary topic derives from. As you possibly know, I am rather knowledgeable on the subject, and I certainly didn't immediately think of units of measurement; hence the move request. And the "bad placement" in your edit summary is pure nonsense: unless you wish to argue that units of measurement should perhaps be located at units, there is nothing "bad" or "inaccurate" in spelling out what units we are talking about. Constantine ✍ 11:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As above, it's bad placement per WP:TERSE & PRIMARYTOPIC. There's no benefit whatsoever to lengthening the page name needlessly when we have a redirect from the longer name, editors will prefer not to use it, and readers won't tend to accidentally come here looking for the Byzantine army. All the same, you're welcome to add a hatnote for those who might. Google Scholar and our formatting prefer discussion of Byzantine metrology here but Google Books shows plenty of people also use it in the sense of Byzantine military units.

I am fully unaware of your knowledgeability of the topic, but if that was an accurate self-description you're more than welcome to help improve on the page's content beyond fixing links to disambiguation pages. (And of course, thanks for that!) — LlywelynII 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Constantine is right. The current name is ambiguous and unclear. My first thought was "Units of measurement or military units?" Note that units goes to a dab page. Srnec (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

• Entwistle, Christopher (2002), "Byzantine Weights", The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, Washington: Dumbarton Oaks.

 — LlywelynII 09:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested Mike Cline (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Byzantine units → Byzantine units of measurement – See section above. The current title is unclear, since "unit of measurement" is not the primary meaning of unit nor the only one that can be modified by "Byzantine". Srnec (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support highly ambiguous, likely meaning would be "Byzantine military units" (covered at Byzantine army, Byzantine navy, Category:Military units and formations of the Byzantine Empire) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per my arguments above. The saving of a few extra characters in the title is more than counterbalanced by semantic precision... Constantine ✍ 13:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support A reasonably intelligent reader ought to be able to guess what the article is about, without too much hesitation, from the article title. With Byzantine units I'd probably guess right, but only after thinking a while, and I'd still be unsure. For all I know it might be about military units. EEng (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the above arguments. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. My first thought would also be that it referred to military units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of "abbr" template for Greek words

I notice that the "abbr" template is used for Greek words, so that the Latin script version (the version readable to the expected readers of this wiki) is hidden by default. This raises two issues:

1 - The template is intended for abbreviations. These are NOT abbreviations. They are transcriptions (aka transliterations) of the text. The usual convention is to show the native script (not bold or italic), followed by the Latin script transliteration in italics. Using this template defies the usual conventions. The template guidelines themselves note that "This template is intended for use with abbreviations; it is not intended to be a tool for generating tooltips."

2 - Hiding the Latin script creates an accessibility issue for disabled people. It is also non-intuitive even for the able-bodied.

3- WP:EN strongly suggests that the Latin script version be prioritised over the Greek script version, if only one be presented upgfront.

Given this, I would propose a removal of this template,and making both the Greek text and the Latin transliteration immediately visible. Rhialto (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)