Jump to content

Talk:Stone (unit): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Added British English flag in response to a "spelling correction" in the body of the artcile
m Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Talk:Stone (unit)/Archive 2) (bot
 
(30 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Measurement |class=C |importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Measurement |importance=Low }}
{{WikiProject England|importance=High}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 12: Line 15:
{{British-English}}
{{British-English}}


==Vs. Pound Sterling==
== errors in conversion table ==
Is it known whether the UK's continued common use of "stone" has anything to do with avoiding confusion over the fact "pound" is also the unit of currency? [[Special:Contributions/68.146.52.234|68.146.52.234]] ([[User talk:68.146.52.234|talk]]) 13:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

:Interesting idea but to be honest I doubt it. Please don't let that put you off researching it if you'd like to follow it up, but as a BrE speaker brought up pre-metric I can tell you that I don't "feel" the language point at all - context is all, and you can almost never get confused between the two. But feel free to [[WP:RS|prove]] me wrong! Cheers [[User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered|DBaK]] ([[User talk:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered|talk]]) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The table in the [[ Stone_(unit)#Conversion | Conversion ]] section
:No, I think it's just that we have continued with the traditional unit (stone) and see no need to express heavy weights in what to us are less appropriate units (in that pounds go into hundreds for human body weight). We still use pounds for smaller weights (cakes etc) without any confusion, and hundredweights (cwt = 112 lb) and tons (20 cwt = 2240 lb) for larger units, though 50kg has replaced the hundredweight, and the metric tonne has replaced the imperial ton for many applications. [[User:Dbfirs|''<span style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="color:blue;">D</span><span style="color:#00ccff;">b</span><span style="color:#44ffcc;">f</span><span style="color:#66ff66;">i</span><span style="color:#44ee44;">r</span><span style="color:#44aa44;">s</span></span>'']] 08:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
providing historical legal data ,
as clarified by the Weights and Measures Act 1837 :

Pounds Unit Stone kg
1 pound 1/14 0.453592
14 1 stone 1 6.35029
28 1 quarter 2 12.7006
112 1 hundredweight 4 50.8023
2240 1 long ton 80 1016.04

contains 2 arithmetic errors : in the Stone column : the 4 and 80 should be 8 and 160 .
I do now know if the errors are from the original source (doubtful) , or from
recent attempts to be more thorough than the original source (more likely) .

The metric- and pound-equivalents of the 'quarter', 'hundredweight', and 'long ton' in this table seem to agree with the extensive tables in this other article :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversions_of_units <br>
(allowing that the "long hundredweight" and "imperial quarter" applies there)

Any editor who agrees with this is welcome to make the change . <br>
Mark (mgt220 @t yahoo.com) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.161.60.51|71.161.60.51]] ([[User talk:71.161.60.51|talk]]) 17:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Thanks ... done [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 17:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

== Weights and Measures Act 1837 ? ==

I was unable to find the Weights and Measures Act, 1837 on
[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4F0iAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA46&lpg=RA1-PA46 page 46 ]
(ref. [19]) <br>
Report of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, Volumes 41-45 <br>
(the UK history article by T.G.Poppy covers pages 22 to 40 only ; another article , <br>
Weights and Measures in Canada by R.W.MacLean , begins on page 44)

Therefore , I do question the correctness of the current reference link .
Further reading in the google book pages has caused me to also question
the existence of the Weights and Measures Act of 1837 , which
T.G.Poppy had no occasion to mention in his text . Of course ,
I may have overlooked something relevant , in haste ...

I did find a Weights and Measures Act of 1835 ,
[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4F0iAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA25&lpg=RA1-PA22 page 25 ]
in the same article by T.G.Poppy , from which I quote ...

17. In addition to establishing a uniform system of verification and
inspection , the Act of 1835 dealt with several other matters which
are worthy of note , as follows : <br>
(a) additional units of weight, including the stone of 14 lb.,
the hundredweight of 112 lb. and the ton of 20 cwt. were legalized ;

[ in which I gather the author abbreviates cwt. for hundredweight ]

This text does seem to "clarify" the relationship among the weight
measures (pound , stone , hundredweight , and (long) ton) . As
author T.G.Poppy (on page 24) says : <br>
'''The Weights and Measures Act, 1835''' [8] ranks equally , in my view ,
with the Act of 1824 as '''a foundation stone of our present system''' .
[ '''emphasis''' added ] <br>
I am now inclined to believe that the 1835 Act is the
Legislative authority intended to be cited
in this wikipedia article .

Poppy's references , beginning on
[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4F0iAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA33&lpg=RA1-PA22 page 33 ]
include more complete titles of the Acts of Parliament , for instance :
[8] An Act to repeal an Act of the Fourth and Fifth Year of His
present Majesty relating to Weights and Measures , and to make
other Provisions instead thereof . 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 63.
[ see the cited page , if interested ]

It is up to the wikipedia editors to decide if the "the 1837 Act"
and current reference link are correct , or if the alternative
(The Weights and Measures Act of 1835) and (page 25) reference [19] I have proposed , are better choices ...

Mark (mgt220 @t yahoo.com) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.161.60.51|71.161.60.51]] ([[User talk:71.161.60.51|talk]]) 14:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:It should have been 1835, not 1837 - text has been corrected. [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 15:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

::Why should it not have been the Weights and Measures Act 1963 which which specifies the ''current'' definition of the pound to be 0.45359237 kg giving a stone of 6.35029318 kg (or both)? [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 07:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

::Also, are we to take it that they were incapable of mulitplication back in 1837? If the pound was defined as 0.453592 kg, we get the following

1 pound = 0.453592 kg
1 stone = 6.350288 kg
1 quarter = 12.700576 kg
1 hundredweight = 50.802304 kg
1 long ton = 1016.04608 kg

::... which is not what the table currently displays. Or is the error ours? [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 07:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

:::The table is not supported by the reference, in particular the metric conversion.
:::The metric system was illegal in the UK until the passage of the Weights and Measures Act of 1897 (60 & 61 Victoria. Cap. 46.) "An Act to legalize the Use of Weights and Measures of the Metric System." In the 1830s the metric system was still using the Kilogram of the Archives made in 1799. I forget what the avoirdupois pound standard was at the time. Possibly one did not exist, as several standards were destroyed in the burning of the Houses of Parliament in 1834. [[User:Zyxwv99|Zyxwv99]] ([[User talk:Zyxwv99|talk]]) 13:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
:::The conversion table should have a note indicating that the metric equivalents are based on the current definitions of the pound and kilogram. The table may be good, but probably has little connection to any events of the 19th century, as the relationships among the English/imperial units were already well established before 1800.
:::The article [[Weights and Measures Act]] has a long list of acts going back to the Anglo-Saxon period. Each item has a reference that, in most cases, leads to the appropriate volume and page of ''Statutes at Large'' containing the full text of the act.
:::The act of 1834 abolished the 8-pound stone and other stones but retained the 14-pound stone (see [http://books.google.com/books?id=50ovAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA221#v=onepage&q&f=false A collection of the public general statutes...]). I wasn't able to find the text of the act of 1835, so the reference (which I put in) has a brief summary mentioning the pound, stone, etc., but no details. Doing more Google searches might help. [[User:Zyxwv99|Zyxwv99]] ([[User talk:Zyxwv99|talk]]) 14:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

== Reorganisation ==

Here's the current organisation.

1 History
1.1 Great Britain and Ireland
1.2 Continental Europe
1.3 Metric stone
2 Current use
2.1 Conversion
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
The "Conversion" section contains two things.
*a table with incorrect/unreferenced/out-of-date data
*a note that there exist websites which can convert to and from the stone
That there exist unit conversion websites is no big news. It's useless to mention this here. Incorrect information is worse than useless. I suggest we delete this.

The rest of the "Current use" section deals with the current use in the UK & Ireland. So here's how the article currently flows: an intro, the UK & Ireland (from the middle ages to the eighties), continental Europe, the metric stone then back the the UK & Ireland (from the eighties on). I suggest merging the "Current use" section into the "Great Britain and Ireland" section. Once that's done I propose to ditch the "History" heading (not the text). So the article would look like this.

1 Great Britain and Ireland
2 Continental Europe
3 Metric stone
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

[[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 15:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks for the deletions. I'm reminded of all those "Waiter! waiter! There's a fly in my soup" jokes." Bad material in a Wikipedia article is like a fly in your soup. [[User:Zyxwv99|Zyxwv99]] ([[User talk:Zyxwv99|talk]]) 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

::I have reinstated the conversions as the stone was part of system of weights which should be noted. I have alosd double-checked the conversions. I have also instroduced a new section heading - "Antiquity" as the second paragraph of what was the lede is not a summary of material in the body of the article. [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 05:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


==Hundredweight==
:::The table looks fine to me, as it is only to four decimal places. Thus the differences between the current pound and kilogram and those of the early 19th century are not relevant. The text, however, could be improved, as "clarified" is ambiguous and slightly misleading, as it suggests that the relationships indicated in the table did not exist prior to the 1830s. [[User:Zyxwv99|Zyxwv99]] ([[User talk:Zyxwv99|talk]]) 14:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
in the [[imperial units|imperial system]] is utterly inexplicably 108 or 112 lbs, neither 100 nor 120 (the old Germanic [[long hundred]]). This unit is the reason why and per {{sc|[[wp:lead]]}} (''inter alia'', "explain why the subject is notable") it belongs in the lead. Against claims that the hundredweight is unnotable... [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=5+st%2C5+stone%2C5+hundredweight%2C5+cwt&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C5%20st%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C5%20stone%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C5%20hundredweight%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C5%20cwt%3B%2Cc0 at the very least it's much more notable than this unit itself is].&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User talk:LlywelynII|<span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;">Llywelyn<span style="color:gold;">II</span></span>]] 13:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


:You have presented no sources for your claim that the values of the hundredweight are "utterly inexplicable". You have presented no sources here for your contradictory claim that they are explained by differences in the value of the stone. You have presented a lesser claim at [[hundredweight]], using only [[WP:PRIMARY|primary sources]] that indicate nothing but variations in the values of the hundredweight with no indication of the historical reasons; it is surmise and [[WP:OR|original research]]. The claim is not required to confer notability on [[Stone (unit)]] and the notability of the stone is not dependent on the notability of the hundredweight; you will notice that no-one else has challenged the notability of this unit of measure or suggested that this article should not exist. Far from being required in the lead, this claim is not a summary of material presented in the body of the article per [[WP:LEDE]]. Please do not reinstate it until - per [[WP:BRD]] - you have achieved consensus for the claim, presenting [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]], integrated the material into the body of the article and established consensus that it is of sufficient value to the reader to include a summary of it in the lead. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 10:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
::::The word "clarified" was deliberate. Prior to 1824 the stone had many values, depending on commodity, location etc. The 1824 Act outlawed the stone, but traders continued to use it, so in the 1830's the value of the stone was clarified as being 14 lb. (The meat trade remained unconcinved until the eve of WWII). [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 15:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


== Disambiguation ==
:::::I suggest moving the table into the GB & I section rather than letting it dangle all by itself between the continental Europe section and the metric section. If the act didn't define these measures in terms of the kilogram, this should be stated. It also should be stated that the values are approximate; readers are looking for definitions and for non-SI units ''exact'' conversions to SI (where possible) are part of this. I also suggest adding a column for the (exact) current values. [[User:Jimp|J<small>IM</small>p]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Jimp|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Jimp|cont]]</sub> 18:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


Was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stone_%28unit%29&diff=prev&oldid=684287247 this] necessary? Who is it saving from what confusion? The article is already entitled ''"Stone (unit)". ''Best wishes to all [[User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered|DBaK]] ([[User talk:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered|talk]]) 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::I am happy to move the table into the UK & I section. [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 20:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:::::This is both an issue of semantics and politics. The various sorts of stones are as different from one another the troy ounce is from the ounce avoirdupois: they are different units with similar names. This has been universally recognized by metrologists. On the other hand, when abolishing units of measurement, it is not uncommmon for governments to resort to tactic similar to those used to abolish minority languages by classifying them as dialects. Irish was once classified as a dialect of English, for political reasons, by the same governments that were trying to abolish it, even when linguisists insisted that it was a separate language. The word "clarify" in this context is obviously political. I am not referring merely to the user, but to the text of the legislation itself. <small>[unsigned comment by Zyxwv99 19:37, 3 September 2012]</small>


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== Revocation of 4 October 2012 ==


I have just modified one external link on [[Stone (unit)]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/815501426|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
I revoked the changes of 4 October 2012. Even though the use of the kilogram mightg be increasing at the expense of the stone, we need a reliable source to make this statement - personal observations are often restricted to the socio-economic class of the observer. [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118111241/http://www.physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app8.pdf to http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app8.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== Feedback available ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Just stumbled across this.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Stone_%28unit%29#212106]


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Might be worth thinking about putting the conversion more prominently at the top.


== Wording of subsection heading ==
[[User:Garamond Lethe|<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond</span>]][[User_talk:Garamond Lethe|<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe</span>]] 01:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
{{moved from|User talk:DeFacto|2=-- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 08:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)}}


What do you mean by [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stone_(unit)&diff=prev&oldid=1150925734 this]? Virtually everything in the "Great Britain and Ireland" section is modern — the only exceptions are the statutes of 1300 and 1350 — so having a header that implies that "modern" excludes that content is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 23:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
:I checked both the version as it existed when feedback was made and the curent version. The issue has been resolved. [[User:Martinvl|Martinvl]] ([[User talk:Martinvl|talk]]) 04:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


:@[[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]], I reverted your change because "since metrication" didn't make sense because - it is so ambiguous and imprecise. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 08:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
::Ah, should have checked that myself. Thanks! [[User:Garamond Lethe|<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Garamond</span>]][[User_talk:Garamond Lethe|<span style="padding:3px;color:gray;font:400 0.9em 'Garamond', serif">Lethe</span>]] 04:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:25, 9 January 2024

Vs. Pound Sterling

[edit]

Is it known whether the UK's continued common use of "stone" has anything to do with avoiding confusion over the fact "pound" is also the unit of currency? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea but to be honest I doubt it. Please don't let that put you off researching it if you'd like to follow it up, but as a BrE speaker brought up pre-metric I can tell you that I don't "feel" the language point at all - context is all, and you can almost never get confused between the two. But feel free to prove me wrong! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it's just that we have continued with the traditional unit (stone) and see no need to express heavy weights in what to us are less appropriate units (in that pounds go into hundreds for human body weight). We still use pounds for smaller weights (cakes etc) without any confusion, and hundredweights (cwt = 112 lb) and tons (20 cwt = 2240 lb) for larger units, though 50kg has replaced the hundredweight, and the metric tonne has replaced the imperial ton for many applications. Dbfirs 08:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hundredweight

[edit]

in the imperial system is utterly inexplicably 108 or 112 lbs, neither 100 nor 120 (the old Germanic long hundred). This unit is the reason why and per WP:LEAD (inter alia, "explain why the subject is notable") it belongs in the lead. Against claims that the hundredweight is unnotable... at the very least it's much more notable than this unit itself is. — LlywelynII 13:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have presented no sources for your claim that the values of the hundredweight are "utterly inexplicable". You have presented no sources here for your contradictory claim that they are explained by differences in the value of the stone. You have presented a lesser claim at hundredweight, using only primary sources that indicate nothing but variations in the values of the hundredweight with no indication of the historical reasons; it is surmise and original research. The claim is not required to confer notability on Stone (unit) and the notability of the stone is not dependent on the notability of the hundredweight; you will notice that no-one else has challenged the notability of this unit of measure or suggested that this article should not exist. Far from being required in the lead, this claim is not a summary of material presented in the body of the article per WP:LEDE. Please do not reinstate it until - per WP:BRD - you have achieved consensus for the claim, presenting secondary sources, integrated the material into the body of the article and established consensus that it is of sufficient value to the reader to include a summary of it in the lead. NebY (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

Was this necessary? Who is it saving from what confusion? The article is already entitled "Stone (unit)". Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stone (unit). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of subsection heading

[edit]
Moved from User talk:DeFacto
 – -- DeFacto (talk). 08:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by this? Virtually everything in the "Great Britain and Ireland" section is modern — the only exceptions are the statutes of 1300 and 1350 — so having a header that implies that "modern" excludes that content is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend, I reverted your change because "since metrication" didn't make sense because - it is so ambiguous and imprecise. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stone_(unit)&oldid=1194542585"