Talk:Rood (unit)

CorenSearchBot highlighted possible copyvio, but the page it cites is actually itself copying the Wikipedia page from which this material has been moved. SiGarb | (Talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to change the reference saying it is the same as "a rod". A Rod is an unit of measurement equal to 16 1/2 feet, the same as a Pole or a Perch. A rod is used to measure distance, a Rood is used to measure area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.127.189 (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement being questioned here is "When referring to areas, rod is often found in old documents and has exactly the same meaning as rood.[3]"

This statement seems good, because it is backed up by a citation listing documents that use rod instead of rood, but as an identical unit of area, and it makes it clear that it only has this meaning when referring to areas. However, although it is precise, it is not entirely correct. Better would be:

"When referring to areas, rod is often found in old documents where it has exactly the same meaning as rood.[3a] However, in some old documents where rod is used as a unit of area, it means a square rod, or a perch, which is 1/40 of a rood.[3b] Similarly, although a perch is primarily a unit of area, when used as a unit of length, it means the same as a rod.[3c]"

For the citation [3b], I have a deed myself where this is the case, but I don't know how to cite it. I recall that I have also read this in a guide for local history researchers, which I shall try to find as a better citation.

For the citation [3c], see Rod_(unit) BobBriscoe (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As of 2011

Regarding this edit, a document dated 2011 does not mean that something occurs "as of 2011". Saying "as of 2011" suggests that (1) the information is still accurate from 2011 onwards and that (2), the information was not accurate until 2011. Whether that's the case or not, the source given comes nowhere close to suggesting either scenario. That is why "The rood is also used as of 2011" has a citation needed template, because a citation is needed to verify whether that is accurate or not. - Aoidh (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

How about deleting the paragraph referring to Sri Lanka? The ref (a primary source) does not seem useful, and other assertions in the para appear unverified. Come to think of it, the Jamaica para should probably be deleted because it again relies on a primary source to verify that rood is used (whereas the source actually refers to "surveys conducted in 1941", and that's different from being used now). Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Apart from the inappropriate sources, the measurements in Sri Lanka date from 1975 and those in Jamaica from 1941, as noted above. Neither sheds any light on current usage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The judgement and arguments were made in 2011. They are accurate in 2011, not certain as to their status today. If you took the time to read the whole document, they are discussing and disputing these units in 2011, not merely looking at the old surveys.Surveyor792 (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The two refs are [1] and [2]. The first appears to be a short comment that refers to a 1941 survey, and the second is a primary source (not suitable as a reference, see WP:PRIMARY), which appears to concern a dispute in 2011 over the exact meaning of a 1941 survey. Neither of those references support the idea that roods are actually used as a unit of measurement now or in 2011. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)