Jump to content

Talk:Imperial units

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rhialto (talk | contribs) at 11:54, 24 February 2022 (→Hong Kong/Chinese units?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconPhysics B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mass vs. Weight

The difference between weight and mass is significant: In SI units, mass is kg, but weight is mass times acceleration (kg*m*s^-2), e.g., (3kg)*(9.81m*s^2) I was trying to figure out which is which for imperial units, but the heading says "Measures of weight and mass", and I am arguing that this should not be stated unless some disambiguation is made on the matter. Most people say "I weigh 180 pounds", but what they mean is "My mass can be approximated as 180 pounds." For example, suppose someone went to the moon: Their mass would not change, but their weight would. A pound is a measure of mass, even though it is commonly called weight. Imperial units of weight are: lb*ft*s^2 I am not sure how to edit the appropriate section, so I will leave it to someone else more wiki-talented. (Source: Sophomore Mechanical Engineer student)

If you can find a way to write "measures that are commonly referred to as weight, but are officially defined as units of mass" in such a way as to fit in the space that a normal amount of title text would occupy, I would be keenly interested. Most sensible solution would just be to remove the word "weight" from the title there. "lb*ft*s^2" isn't really a unit; it's a formula which contains several different units. The imperial system doesn't, strictly speaking, have a unit of weight (unless you count poundals, pounds-force, slugs, or whatever (not sure of the definitions of those), but none of those are, strictly speaking, imperial units). Rhialto (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The pound is a force. This is the reason the pressure in your tires is measured in pounds per square inch (think about it). The only reason people are often confused by this is because we intuitively think of mass in terms of the force that is felt as a result of the Earth's gravitational field pulling on the object. Just because something is confusing, or would require some explanation, is not an excuse to present false information as though it were correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.195.191 (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the pound is a unit of mass. There is a unit "pound force" (and also poundal etc as mentioned above). You seem to be confusing the definition with the usual ways of measuring the unit. Dbfirs 08:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Force = Mass • Gravitational Accelleration. In Imperial units this is Pounds = Slugs[1] • g (32 ft./s^2). In SI it is Newtons = kilograms • g (9.8 m/s^2). So why isn't the page corrected for this? Jpellant (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What correction did you have in mind? Slugs were a joke unit of mass when I was at school (perfectly valid, just not used in practice). Dbfirs 19:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since 1959 the avoirdupois pound has legally been defined as 0.45359237 kilograms in various countries around the World (the UK, Canada, NZ, Australia, the US, etc.).[1] It's a unit of mass.
Jpellant, thanks for the link you've given us.[2] Do read it though. It actually contradicts what you're saying. This page says (correctly) that the slug, a unit of mass, is equal to 32.17 pounds.
Also look at the definition of the pound from the same site where it's clearly defined as a unit of mass.[3] Jimp 13:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Slug&a=*C.Slug-_*Unit-

Redirect

shouldn't the redirect go the other way round, to the singular term, so articles can write "The Inch is an Imperial Unit..." ? -- Tarquin 06:30 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

Yes, it should. Jeronimo 06:39 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)


ok, I'll do the move by hand in a while -- give admins time to spot it in case they want to use their magic powers. -- Tarquin 06:57 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

Nautical Mile

Shouldn't the nautical mile be 6,076.1155 feet, or 6080 with rounding. In the article someone wrote 5080 which sounds wrong. Last time I edited an article they reversed the change because someone said I was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.185.33 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rounded or not, it should be 6080 feet. I made a dumb typo earlier, that's all. Rhialto (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nautical mile is legally defined everywhere as 1852 m. 6080 feet equals 1853.184 m, a difference of 1.184 m, which is a significant amount. If two ships were to start at the same point and travel 1000 nautical miles parallel to each other and one had instruments based on 1852 m and the other based on 1853.184 m, they would end up 1.184 km apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.128.54 (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


During the era of the British Empire, the Nautical Mile was defined as 6080 feet. This was the length used until metrification spread more widely. Then, in 1970, the international definition of the Nautical mile was changed to 1852 metres. Therefore, all ships would now be using the latter measurement for the nautical mile. (DaveNed88 (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The English and US nautical miles are based on a sphere equal in area to the Clarke Ellipsoid, which gives 6080.256 (US), or rounded to 6080 feet (UK). The metric nautical mile is based on the 45deg lattitude, rounded to 1852 metres. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true Wendy. See the Wikipedia article on nautical mile; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile.

″The Imperial and U.S. definitions of the nautical mile were based on the Clarke (1866) Spheroid: they were different approximations to the length of one minute of arc along a great circle of a sphere having the same surface area as the Clarke Spheroid.[3] The United States nautical mile was defined as 1,853.248 metres[4] (6,080.20 U.S. feet, based on the definition of the foot in the Mendenhall Order of 1893): it was abandoned in favour of the international nautical mile in 1954.[5] The Imperial (UK) nautical mile, also known as the Admiralty mile, was defined in terms of the knot, such that one nautical mile was exactly 6,080 international feet (1,853.184 m):[6] it was abandoned in 1970[6] and, for legal purposes, old references to the obsolete unit are now converted to 1,853 metres exactly.[7]″

Note the key fact you omitted. The US adopted the International nautical mile of 1852 m in 1954, some 60 years ago. The UK changed in 1970, some 44 years ago. The old definitions were abandoned and are legally obsolete. So, no Wendy, the US and English nautical miles are not based on but were based on the old definitions. Just because it once was doesn't mean it still is. Ametrica (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The worst part is that on the graph "English units of Length" there're both 6000 and 6080 feet per nautical mile. Could somebody fix that, please? 2.92.6.89 (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which Empire?

Which empire does the Imperial system refer to? The Roman Empire or the British Empire? -- Ricardo 14:03 19 October 2008 UTC

The British Empire. This is sufficiently common knowledge that no particular disambiguation is required. Rhialto (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The fact that someone has asked means that it is not common knowledge, and as Wikipedia's reason for being is to impart knowledge then a mention would be good. I'm not sure where to put it, though: many articles like this have an "Name" or "Etymology" section, but this one doesn't. Bazza (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions says:
"Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle:
The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."
The phrase "imperial units" in 99% of English language reference materials, refers to the set of units described in the article as written, not to Roman, Chinese, Russian, or any other empire's units. The current article name conforms perfectly to WP's manual of style for article names.
I replaced the awkward wording "the [[United Kingdom]] and its colonies, including [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] countries" by "the [[British Empire]]", which hopefully solves this issue. As I'm not a historian, and since I know that the British are peculiar with their historic national terminology, I am aware that this may not be the same thing, but I really hope it's close enough for the context of this article. — Sebastian 20:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In scholarly writing, imperial units are frequently referred to as BI or British Imperial. However, this is mainly for the benefit of scholars from non-English-speaking countries. In the English-speaking world, imperial is presently understood to refer to the British Empire. However, since the British Empire was (as far as I can recall) officially dissolved in 1971 (although unofficially it's still there), there may soon come a time when the younger generation will ask, "Empire? What empire?" Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burma/Myanmar

burma/myanmar is not part of the Commonwealth its under military control burma was part of the commonwealth but myanmar is the name of burma since the military coupe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.246.36 (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is common to many other countries which formerly used Imperial units. Some people might feel that "British empire" (which I wrote per my previous message), is politically misleading. If that is indeed a concern, then I propose to move that whole sentence "As of 2008, all countries that used the Imperial system ... " to the Current use of imperial units section, where it is more needed than in the header section. The remark about Burma then could be moved to the "other countries" section. — Sebastian 20:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

Should Imperial not be capitalised? It does refer specifically to the British Empire. I've looked through the first few hits from Google for "imperial units" (which ignores case) and while it is far from unanimous the balance seems to be in favour of capitalisation which also strikes me as grammatically correct. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it should not be capitalised. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=39345&dict=CALD&topic=measurements-in-general JIMp talk·cont 23:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should be capitalised. It refers to the official units of the British Empire. Therefore it would be a (British) Imperial pint, a pint of the Empire, rather than an "imperial pint", a pint which has imperial qualities, or is used by various different empires. https://www.britannica.com/science/British-Imperial-System -- IamNotU (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That Britannica reference is inconsistent with both "Imperial" and "imperial" on the same page: in particular "imperial gallon", "imperial standard yard" and "imperial bushel". I'll trump it with [4]. Bazza (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of the ten cites for this sense in the big OED, only two have Imperial capitalised, and the OED itself does not use an initial capital. Dbfirs 17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre/post 1959 Imperial and US customary units

I am slightly confused whether current units are Imperial or not/US customary or not, in 1959 it appears Imperial units and US customary units were standardised and assigned a metric equivalent. This means that an Inch, for example, before 1959 (both Imperial and US customary) is different to an 'international' Inch post 1959. The way I understand it is that there is two different lengths of an Imperial inch, one pre 1959 and one post 1959 and the same in US customary units, but no way to identify between pre 1959 and post 1959 inches. A pre 1959 Imperial inch was not of equal length to a pre 1959 US customary inch, yet they are now the same length. I understand we are only talking tiny changes here, but I am more interested in whether there is any linguistic/notational difference between pre/post 1959 units or whether the change was considered so small that it would just be ignored. (BigTurnip (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This kind of thing happens all the time in metrology; the metre has changed definition twice since 1959. Generally these changes are not changes in the value of a unit in any meaningful sense; rather they are more precise definitions - i.e. any change that occurs is generally (by design) less than the uncertainty in the best measurements of the day so there generally is no real reason to distinguish. 82.44.232.174 (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly the case with the Imperial inch, but the US survey inch retained a very slightly different definition which makes a marginal difference for long-range distances. (I think the same thing happened with a survey of India, but this has possibly all been converted to metric by now?) The metre is still essentially that defined by the seconds pendulum and the fraction of a (miscalculated) meridian. Each re-definition retains the previous length but enables it to be reproduced with greater accuracy. Dbfirs 23:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Imperial System was established by the "Imperial Weights and Measures Act, 1824", and applies to all countries that have their legal weights and measures so affected: ie the British Empire. The comparison of the standard compared with the metre gives lesser inches to the metre as time goes by (Kater 39.37079, Clarke 39.370432, Benoit 39.3701132, Sears 39.3701472). The US foot was defined in terms of the metre as 1 metre = 39.370000. The implementation of the international inch (25.4 mm, giving 39.370078), by agreement in 1959, implemented in Australia by the Weights and Measures regulations of 1961.
Regarding the 'servey foot', one finds that the process of transferring the base ellipsoid onto the national grid, and then extending the grid to cadastral measures, would cause most of the cadastral maps to be wrong on every instance, since more than six figures are significant. We have then the australian, southafrica using the clarke foot, 39.370432, India uses a foot of 39.370142, gold coast (africa), 39.370116, USA 39.370000. It's just that the USA define theirs in an act that everyone talks of it. Digging around geodesy sites or geodesic ellipsoids will unearth all of these. The 1984 ellipsoid, on which the GPS is based, is a metric ellipsoid. Bessel's toise (72/36.94133332989, which ultimately defined the first metre), and the German legal metre (1.000 013 597) are still in use.
Likewise, one should note that cadastral units are displaced units that continue to exist on cadastral maps, for much the same reason as servey units. These are typically rounded rather sharply, since they are at the very end of the digits only. eg South Africa: rhenish foot = 1.033 BI ft, 12 ft = rood, 600 sq roods = morgan; Canada, (old french), foot = 12.789 BI inches, toise = 6 ft, chain = 18 ft, arpent = 180 ft, or square of that size; USA, vara 33 in TX, 33 1/3 CA, 5000 = league, 10,000 sq = labor; Channel Islands, perch = 21 ft (Gernsey), 22 (Jersey), verge = 40 perches.

Wendy.krieger (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

current use

Strangely this article doesn't list the countries that currently use imperial units by law.
I believe that it is only the U.S.A. and either Lybia or Liberia or both.
I came to this article to find out which.

One would think the section below would include the U.S.A. or it should be renamed to;
"Current mixed use of imperial units" or "Continuing use of Imperial in officially Metric countries"

3 Current use of imperial units 
3.1 United Kingdom 
3.2 Canada 
3.3 Australia 
3.4 Republic of Ireland 
3.5 Other countries

198.103.184.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The US system is different, e.g. six US pints are roughly five imperial ones. I'm not sure about Liberia and Burma; I'd like to see some decent refs. JIMp talk·cont 08:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The US units are actually US customary units, but most are identical (except pints, gallons and tons). The UK still uses Imperial units by law, but only in certain specific measurements (e.g pint of milk or beer; road mile etc.) Dbfirs 19:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial units drivers license

...other provinces like Saskatchewan use imperial units.Driver’s Licences: Photo ID. The sample on the curent website shows that in the case of Saskatchewan this is no longer true. Peter Horn User talk 00:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then Be Bold and take it out instead of leaving tracks. I couldn't find NS or NB license pictures, but PEI use cm for height; if anyone still has lbs and inches on their license, list it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate reporting

The newspaper articles referred to were very vague about "EU rules". The newspapers were in fact reporting on posturing by politicians before the publication of consultation prior to the review of EU directive 80/181/EEC, but the reporting was wildly inaccurate. It should be noted that Wikipedia advises newspaper stories should be treated with caution when cited as sources. The changes to the directive were published in early 2009 and came into effect on 1-Jan-2010.

Thanks for clarifying the issue. Dbfirs 07:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec metrication

Are both of these assertions true?

"However unlike in the rest of Canada, metrication in the Francophone province of Quebec has been more implemented and metric measures are more consistently used in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada both officially and among the population."
"Still many English Canadians (unlike most French Canadians) use SI units to describe their weight and height..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They can't be, can they? I've changed the second claim to what I think was intended, but my only connection with Canada is a cousin there, so perhaps Canadians can check. Dbfirs 07:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am French Canadian and I can tell you that most French Canadians use the imperial system for their weight (and all other kind of weight) and height. Probably because it's much easier to use... I don't know how to correct the article so please correct it. Most people use the metric system for almost everything else (the older generations 45 yo + still adhere to the imperial system). Max Thunder 19 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.74.36 (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]
I've removed the second distinction between English and French Canadians, pending some evidence of the confused claim. Is the first claim broadly true, that metrication has had a wider acceptance in Quebec? Dbfirs 08:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee spoon?

I was pleased to see the table going up in multiples of two because I remember it from 50 years ago, but I was puzzled by the metric equivalents. A "teaspoon" of only 3.5516328125 ml sounds more like a coffee spoon, and all other sizes seem to be about 35% too small. I can't find details of metric equivalents in the reference cited, though this might be because Google isn't showing it. Do these unreasonably precise figures constitute original research by someone? They seem to be based on the American idea of a tablespoon which has little connection with the old British spoon used for serving and formerly called a tablespoon (with a volume of at least 20 ml as preserved in Australian usage). Dbfirs 19:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the guy who just put up the table of culinary measures. They would have little to do with the dimensions of any 20th century cutlery. They were, however, used in medicine, back in the days when when doctors prescribed, and people followed the recipe on the prescription order and made their own medicine. The table is from page 165 of Ronald Edward Zupko's British Weights and Measures, although I've checked other sources. The precision is due to the fact the imperial gallon is defined with a fairly high degree of precision. Of course nobody would use these units to measure that accurately, but it's like the definition of the US gallon as 231 cubic inches. That's an exact definition. 2.54 centimeters to an inch is also exact. A cubic inch is thus exactly 16.387064 cubic centimeters, a US gallon 3.785411784 liters, a half-pint 236.5882365 cubic centimeters. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reformatting the table. I like the improved version better. I was thinking of Victorian teaspoons, tablespoons and cups, which were considerably bigger than modern ones, but I see where you are getting the conversion from. May I adjust the note to remove the unreasonable claim to accuracy, since measurements at that time simply could not be made with anywhere near that precision, and the definition has been changed twice with slightly different values for the gallon. On a separate topic, I am always suspicious of interpretations of one country's measurements by an author in another country, though Zupko seems well-qualified. I'm slightly suspicious of the old tablespoon being only half a fluid ounce. Can we find any British source? Dbfirs 22:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out the metric equivalent for now. I need to do more research. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked in the 1842 Encyclopedia Britannica and can't find it, even though they have (apparently) the whole imperial system. So for now I've taken out the whole culinary measures section. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For I have known them all already, known them all—
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons...
 — The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot (an American expatriate in England), 1917
—— Shakescene (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there are different interpretations of culinary units by different authors. I suspect that the writers of recipes never expected their approximate measurements to be interpreted with such precision. The size of a teacup has certainly varied considerably with the changing culture of tea drinking. Dbfirs 08:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since then I've done more research on these measures. They were actually apothecary measures, mostly unofficial, but widely used by apothecaries. They also turned up in cookbooks. In the first half of the 19th century there was fad for measuring cooking ingredients with laboratory glassware to high precision. The teacupful, etc., was intended to be measured accurately to the nearest minim. If you were off by more than one minim, then you weren't a good housewife. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian units

Canadian units appear to duplicate Imperial except for the addition of:

  1. French equivalent language
  2. US equivalent measures. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably could be merged, with a redirect from Canadian units to Weights and Measures Act (R.S. 1985)]. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the French translations tables should be moved to the Weights and Measures Act (R.S. 1985)] article. There are also the acre-foot, board foot and cord (unit) as well as the short ton and the short hundred weight which are peculiar to both Canada and the U.S. So, let us keep well enough alone and keep the two seperate. Peter Horn User talk 01:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then there are also all those references to the different provincial ministries of education. What would become of those? Leave well enough alone. Peter Horn User talk 01:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do they have to do with the subject of the article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that. Could be handled with a 1-liner saying "Imperial units are still taught in Canadian elementary school education." and as many of those redundant references as are required to meet the needs of the citation bigots. Hardly needs a whole article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally Agree. The English language portion of that article is essentially duplication of material. The French portion of that article is new material, but on the other hand, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a phrasebook. Since the sole reason for that article to exist as it stands is to provide French translations, it has no proper reason to exist as currently written. Rhialto (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International inch

The article says, Since 1959, the US and the British yard have been defined identically to be 0.9144 metres, to match the international yard. Until today, this had a CN tag attached. Today it was replaced with a reference to website that supports the text. The problem is, both the text and the website are incorrect.

In July of 1959 six countries signed a treaty agreeing to adopt the international inch. The countries were the UK, the four dominions (or former dominions) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, and finally, the USA. However, Canada had already adopted the international inch several years earlier. In the USA, the Bureau of Standards began the transition as soon as the ink on the treaty was dry, even though Congress didn't ratify it until January 1960. In the UK, the treaty was ratified by the Weights and Measures Act of 1963 (which didn't go into effect until 1964). I don't when Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa made the transition.

The inch article has the same problem. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war breaking out over "Current Use"/"United Kingdom" section

Anonymous user "2.217.61.185" changed the original text of the article that said "The metric system is in official use within the United Kingdom for most applications" to claim "[...]for some applications". I believe this is clearly wrong - the only official use of non-metric measures in the UK is the road signs. The only other uses of non-metric measures aren't "official use" in the normal sense of the phrase: they are for sales of draught beer and cider (must be in pints). Sales of precious metals *may* be in troy ounces, and sales of milk in glass bottles *may* be in pints, but again this isn't "official use" in my book.

Additionally, anonymous user "2.217.61.185" changed the original text further down to remove the claim "but the use of kilogrammes is increasing" in the comment about the way people discuss body weights. Again I consider that wrong: it is obvious that certainly people who are actively monitoring their weight (going to the gym etc) are likely to refer to weights in kg. People who take part in sports with weight categories (Judo etc) likewise. People who are in and out of hospital or their doctors' surgeries likewise. The BBC report rugby players' weights in kg. Some of the BBC's radio presenters (usually notorious for doing everything in imperial measures) discuss their own weights in kg - Chris Evans did so just a few weeks back on Radio 2 I noticed.

On both of these edits I say the article had it right before anonymous user "2.217.61.185" changed them. So I reverted him. He's just reverted it back and I'm going to leave it temporarily, hoping to get some feelings from here about what it *should* say. Comments please? Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia any claims must be supported by sources. The interpretation of "most" is not explicitly stated in the BBC citation, but it is consistent with the following paragraphs in the United Kingdom section. (It would be better if there were a direct source for the statement at the end of that sentence.) The statement "but the use of kilogrammes is increasing" is supported by the Guardian article. So both statements should be restored. I will revert the changes. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


UK section - Saying most people use imperial is wrong

According to statista web site the population of the uk over 40 as of 2016 was 32.84 million : https://www.statista.com/statistics/281174/uk-population-by-age/

The ONS statistics for 2017 indicate the UK population as being 65.6 million: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/july2017

If the 2015 survey stated in the article (which has been accepted as a citation) stating the divide of the majority use of imperial and metric is 40 years of age then clearly from the two stats above it must be concluded that from the evidence available the split of use between imperial and metric is even as of 2016/2017 (over 40 UK 2017 population = 50.06%). It can only be concluded that from 2016/17 onwards this figure will tend towards the younger generations that predominately use metric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.112.155 (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The division of the population at 40 years of age is very artificial, and your WP:original research on percentages has no place in the article. I agree with you that there is a tendency for the younger generation to use metric more often, but most of us are happy with both systems, and almost everyone here uses miles. Dbfirs 14:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

As of now the most recent edit is that of Jim Wae's reversion to "orignl ymd" for access dates after eight months of the article's happily getting along with dmy for all dates. Jim cites WP:DATERET to justify the edit. He also cites MOS:DATEUNIFY, which, although permitting ymd for access dates, has the main aim of promoting consistency of date format. It's interesting that Jim comments "consistent date format for accessdate=s & archivedates=s ..." Prior to the edit, though, the access date were consistently of dmy format (consistent also with every other date in the article). So is this edit really giving us any consistency? I can't see how it could be said that it is. So really it's just retaining of the original format which is in question here. Well we have to dig a little to find this original format. To find ymd we have to go back to May last year before Ohconfucius' edit. Before this the article had a mess of dmy, mdy and ymd dates (for access dates and others). It seems to me that Ohconfucius did the right thing in cleaning that mess up. Should he, though, have made an exception for access dates? We have to dig deeper still. The first ever access date that article had was put there by MJCdetroit five years ago. The format was ymd. Thus Jim wins, right? Note, though, that the {{cite web}} template at the time required this format (anything else would have given a red link). So we're therefore retaining something that was forced in the first place. I don't see how we can fairly apply WP:DATERET under such circumstances. I propose a reversion to the consistent dmy we've had since May. JIMp talk·cont 09:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dmy makes sense for the body text of this article (including footnotes), as it is explicitly about a UK topic. the MoS allows for ymd to be used in addition, but only for the purpose of sortable tables. Even then, non-displaying "sorting date text" preceding the displaying text would be better. It makes no sense and has no justification for ymd to be used in any existing part of this article. Rhialto (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should have commented: "Consistent accessdate=s & archivedate=s formats PER WP:DATERET & MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT". WP:STRONGNAT says "YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references or in tables, even in articles with national ties, if otherwise acceptable." As the original format, YMD would seem to be entirely acceptable.--JimWae (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MOSNUM accepts ymd in refs but my point is that the dates were already consistent before your edit (and had been for months). I'm also questioning the validity of calling ymd the "original" format when it had been forced. Jimp 03:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter

The Oxford English Dictionary defines quarter as all of the following -- eight bushels of grain, nine bushels of coal, one fourth of a peck, one fourth of a pound, one fourth of a hundredweight, one fourth of a dram, one fourth of an ell, one fourth of a yard, and one fourth of a fathom. The symbol is qr not qtr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:CFC0:1:4592:2E8:DF3D:6D46 (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and quarter (unit)#mass gives it as a quarter of a long ton (=> 512lb), of a short ton ( => 500 lb) and then a quarter of a hundredweight (=> 28lb), according to the date you ask! --Red King (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
but the legal source ("The Units of Measurement Regulations 1994". legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 2019-03-13. ) gives only the 28lb definition. --Red King (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red King: according to the article, imperial units were first defined in the Weights and Measures Act 1824. In that Act, as far as I can see, there is only one quarter defined, and it is defined as a measure of capacity thus: "Gallons shall be a Peck, and Eight such Gallons shall be a Bushel, and Eight such Bushels a Quarter of Corn or other dry Goods, not measured by Heaped Measure." However, the Weights and Measures Act 1985 also has just one quarter defined, and it is defined as a measurement of mass or weight thus: "Quarter = 28 pounds." So, I guess, it evolved somehow in-between. Whether there are ever two concurrent definitions I haven't yet discovered. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: Oh great.... But that just raises a more interesting question: is the canonical definition of Imperial Unit system exclusively as stated in statute? given that this is not the purpose for which the schedule exists (and in an alternative universe might be heavily pruned as it has in Australia and Ireland). National Physical Laboratory? Something arising from the International Pound and Yard Agreement? --Red King (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red King: as I understand it, the imperial system was created to rationalise and standardise the British system of weights and measures. Whereas before it, for example, there were three different gallons (one for wine, one for corn and one for oil), after it, there was just one defined in law, for everything - the imperial gallon. So yes, I guess you could the imperial system comprises only of statute measures, and maybe even that it is, collectively, all the pre-metric British statute measures. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: But given that successive Acts have delegitimised measures declared by earlier Acts (indeed the 1824 Act scrubbed many of them), does that mean that the latest iteration is ipso facto the complete definition? If so, then that answers the question at #Units outside the Imperial system posed below. Did the 1985 Act (as amended) delete any units that were in the 1924 Act? It certainly redefined the quarter!
[For the purposes of this discussion, let's ignore increasing precision of mensuration including by reference to SI, remarking in passing how impressed I was by the 1824 Act defining a yard in terms of n swings of a pendulum, very modern!] --Red King (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red King: the imperial system didn't exist until the 1824 Act was enacted (1 May 1825?) and defined it. And, I guess, as w&m legislation has evolved, so has the imperial system. And no, I don't think the "ell" was ever part of the imperial system. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Units outside the Imperial system

I mean English/Scottish units: I am looking at ell, which the SOED says has English and Scottish (different) definitions. Can I assume that the table of imperial units is complete? I.e. that because ell does not appear in it, I can assume it was not an imperial unit? This is a question about the subject, but would be resolved by an edit which marked the tables as complete (if they are, of course), and perhaps a note about the most common units excluded from the imperial system. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Imperial units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in table

There is an error in this table:

There are two paths from foot to nautical mile, producing different results. The error is the conversation from yard to fathom, having a factor of 2.0something instead of 2. --Feudiable (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not where the error lies. An Imperial cable is not 100 fathoms but 608 feet (about 101 fathoms). Can someone correct the diagram? Dbfirs 22:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the problem due to there being two different definitions of the fathom (6 ft vs 1⁄1000 of an Admiralty nautical mile)? Perhaps we should have two fathoms in the diagram. Jimp 02:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, this is how the problem arose, but the old Admiralty fathom has not been used for a long time and is best forgotten except in a footnote. Dbfirs 08:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should delete the nautical mile altogether then. Jimp 04:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me jumping in, having made no contribution, but surely the best way to remove the inconsistency in the diagram is not to delete nautic[al](misspelling in figure) mile, but to replace the line from fathom to cable by a dashed line marked "~100" with a footnote. I just edited the table wording, and I suggest the conversion factor in the table should be similarly changed. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC) ... sorry, didn't mean to be that bold Imaginatorium (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That seems to be the best compromise. Anyone good at editing diagrams, or should we contact the originator? Dbfirs 08:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'step' and the 'pace should be swapped place in the diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:1D2D:5500:216A:9968:D761:C71A (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plural of stone

A couple of edits today have disputed the plural of "stone". In different ways, both are correct. When giving a weight, the plural is stone, e.g. 2 stone 3 pounds. But when discussing the unit of measurement, the plural is stones, e.g. "14(1) Weighing equipment (including weights) which weighs wholly or partly in grains, stones, quarters, hundredweights or tons may continue to be used for trade if...."[5] or "The letter may show the height and weight in both metric (i.e. centimetres and kilograms) and imperial (feet and inches and stones and pounds) units."[6] NebY (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what wikt:stone (4) says. Your second reference doesn't mention "stone(s)" at all. Bazza (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A brief dictionary entry doesn't cover every nuance of the English language - just try figuring out from online dictionaries alone whether to use "licence" or "license" as a verb when writing British English! I do notice that if I expand item 4 in that entry in Wiktionary (itself not a WP:RS, of course), I see two supporting quotations, the second of which ends "and the sack of thirteen stones." I don't understand why you say my second reference doesn't mention stone(s) at all; check the the third sentence of the first paragraph under the subheading "The National Child Measurement Programme". NebY (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The plural of "stone" is "stones" (obviously), just as the plural of "foot" is "feet". But when you give your height in feet and inches, you say "I'm five foot ten", using the singular "foot". (Just as a ruler three feet long is called a "three-foot ruler".) And a weight in stones and pounds is given (well, actually, this is hearsay: I was born in England in 1948 and do not believe I have ever given my weight in stones) as "14 stone 10" or whatever. So my edit was correct: "stone" is not the plural of "stone". I just corrected the wiktionary entry, which was contradicted by the very quote cited. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Wiktionary has been reverted (not by me). How could you live in England and not give your weight in stones? If you never mentioned stones, then I'm sure that other people will have mentioned your weight in stones. The OED states that the collective plural is usually stone. Dbfirs 19:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, and I like the specificity of "collective". Unfortunately, all this talk of dictionaries has reminded me of WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOTSTYLEGUIDE. I think it's time to spoil everyone's fun - including mine - and remove the statement Bazza 7 inserted and I extended, "The plural is stone when providing a weight (e.g. "a hundredweight weighs 8 stone").[30]". NebY (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly shouldn't be prescriptive over the plural, and @Imaginatorium: is correct that stones is the usual plural except in specific contexts. I've edited the article to give less prominence to the disputed plural. Dbfirs 20:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good. This is how Wikipedia is meant to work. We've identified that a basic statement was more nuanced than it first appeared, and have added some agreed information to help other readers. Bazza (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Screw threads

In the section on "Current use of some imperial units" there is a sentence: "Non-metric nuts and bolts etc., are available, but usually only from specialist suppliers." I think this is a misunderstanding: screw threads are variously defined using different units, but the screw or nut you buy has to fit the mating part for which you are buying it. Various standard threads, like the screw on a camera tripod and the threaded socket on the camera (at least last time I looked; I live in Japan) are an (American) UNC thread, and these are likely to be around for a very long time, and not just from "specialist suppliers". I suggest deleting this sentence, but if anyone has any conflicting evidence, well, go ahead... Imaginatorium (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Imperial units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations for imperial units

What is the standard abbreviation for the "imperial" (i.e. in the UK) mile? When I went to school in England (1950s and 60s) we had to do all sorts of mixed-based calculations, like dividing 6 miles 4 furlongs 6 chains by 7. But we had plenty of practice at writing the abbreviations, and I only ever knew one for "mile", which is "ml" (and "mls" when plural). At the time, road signs were either old signposts, or modern signs, but in all cases distances in miles were shown only by numbers. "Minchinhampton 3" and so on. Then two things happened: new-fangled motorway signs suddenly appeared with the symbol for "metre", just "m", to mean "miles", and at some point I discovered that the Americans abbreviate everything by the first two letters, when I saw a sign saying "Traverse City 12 mi". It is incredibly hard to find any evidence of anything other than the US abbreviation, particularly because of the "millilitre" confusion (someone tried to persuade me that "Services 15 mls" would be misunderstood as the volume of something), but here at last is a BBC document: units of measurement (sorry, it's actually a jumbled up quiz, but there is no "mi" anyway.

Actually I haven't lived in the UK for a long time, so can someone tell me: has the "mi" abbreviation started appearing everywhere? Is this (surely not!) a regional thing -- I grew up in Gloucestershire.

There are some other oddities. The metric system defines symbols (not "abbreviations") which are universally used; e.g. "kg" is the same, whether it's 'chilogrammo' or 「キログラム」. But the Imperial system does not, as far as I know. Some abbreviations are absolutely fixed, like "ft", "in", "cwt" etc, but what about things like "rod"; was this really universally agreed to be "rd" in the days when it was used? And is "slug" really the ?abbreviation for "slug"?? Feedback appreciated. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that every imperial unit had an abbreviation. Certainly, some did. But evidence that one did is not evidence that all did. Rhialto (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
template:convert uses "mi" but I tend to use abbr=off on first use, on the theory that these units are fairly obscure these days. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many abbreviations are after-the-fact opinions of little encyclopedic importance. Someone somewhere will have written "rd" for "rod", while others have probably written "r" or nothing at all (in a table of values). I think the abbreviations for imperial units should be wound back unless reliable sources can be found. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only abbreviations I personally can confirm are in modern (i.e., post-1950) usage are:

Length: in., ft., yd., nm. (nautical mile) Square/Cubic: sq., cu. Weight/Mass: oz., lb., st., cwt. Volume: fl. oz., pt.

I've seen lists with others listed, but in lists of abbreviations; I haven't seen other abbreviations for these units used "in the wild". Rhialto (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer one of the questions: I haven't seen "mi" anywhere in the UK. Bazza (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In some areas of the UK one still sees just "m" for miles ( and no-one confuses it with these new-fangled metre things), but the unit is usually implicit and I can't recall seeing "mi" anywhere. Dbfirs 14:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said above, all old-fashioned signs and signposts were just numbers, then motorways use "m". Have you seen "m" anywhere off a motorway? And did you have to do arithmetic with distances involving miles, furlongs, etc, and how did you write (abbreviate) "mile"? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still predominantly just numbers round here. I'll look out for anything else. I did do arithmetic with miles, furlongs etc but I don't remember using any abbreviations. The Yorkshire Dales National Park uses the abbreviation "ml" on their footpath signs. The Lake District and North Yorkshire Moors parks seem to prefer the full "miles" or occasionally just "m". Dbfirs 18:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Imperial units. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation

The article doesn't clearly explain that units of measure used in aviation are not determined in most cases by each country. The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation was signed by most western countries in 1947, and has broadened to include nearly all countries to date. Annex 5 of the agreement defines a common system of measure based on the American system of measures, which includes the foot (for vertical distance = altitude), the knot (for speed), and the nautical mile (for long distance). Landroo (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the article should include such information. This article is about a historical unit of measurement, in particular about one that was never in official use in the USA, and was enacted before powered aviation was even a thing. Expecting this article to include details of units used in present-day aviation is akin to expecting, say, Maltese units of measurement to include them Rhialto (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we now say that Canada and New Zealand use feet and knots, and say nothing about other countries. This leaves the incorrect impression that all countries except these two might be using SI units. I think we should remove the information for these two countries, and make a blanket statement about aviation, with a cite. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the Canada and NZ sections need to be edited to note that the units they use in this context are the international foot and knot, not the Imperial foot and knot. I'm not sure in the case of the foot offhand, but the knot is definitely a different quantity. Rhialto (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you don't consider the International foot to be an Imperial unit? That seems like an odd interpretation, and might require re-writing parts of this article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The international foot, Imperial foot, US foot, are all different standards, and each has (or should have) an entry in the respective article for that set of units. I am aware that parts of this article don't make a clear distinction. I lack the energy to correct it. Rhialto (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lb or lbm

The standard unit symbol for the pound when used as a unit of mass is lb. What is the benefit in introducing a non-standard symbol? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care, but you broke the text because Template:lb is not correct here. Also you tagged the edit "minor", which it was not (see WP:Minor edit). That and the uninformative edit summary made it look like vandalism. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. I will have another go to see if I can get it right next time. One more question: in what sense is correcting an error in a unit symbol not a minor correction? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please go read the WP Help text I pointed you to. If you have more questions after you read that, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it.Twice now. Correcting an obvious error in a unit symbol is no different IMO to correcting a spelling error. Definitely minor. You obviously see things differently but what am I missing? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the definition I see on that page: "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Do you see something else on that page that makes you think this is a minor edit? Can you provide a quote? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. That's not how I was interpreting it but I admit it's there in black and white. I guess what I see as a clear error might be acceptable to others, which can lead potentially to a dispute. I shall think twice before marking my future edits as minor. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Size of a Rood

The provided citation for the dimensions of a rood doesn't actually mention roods at all, as best I can tell. It looks like it was added to justify the change from "pole" to "rod". From what I can tell, the article for Rood doesn't have a source for the dimensions either, so I don't have a good source to replace the existing one. -- General Wesc (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a source at Rood. Some of the history is in Notes and Queries, p. 172, at Google Books. Kendall-K1 (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, why is a US-specific source being used as a cite about UK-specific set of historical units of measurement? Just because a unit has the same name, it doesn't mean it is the same thing. Rhialto (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the source I added? No good reason, feel free to change it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem correct

The natural equivalent of a pound cannot be "and, for the pound, the mass of a cubic inch of distilled water." (Control-F to find that in the article). The ounce perhaps?

Yes, it's correct. That sentence defines the grain, then a pound is defined as seven thousand grains. You have placed a full stop where the article has only a comma. Read on! In effect, the pound was defined as the mass of 27.7274 cubic inches of water at a temperature 62 degrees and a pressure of 30 inches. I've quoted six-figure accuracy to match the definition, but the problem was that it is very difficult to measure that volume of water to six-figure accuracy, even today. Dbfirs 23:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dbfirs , thanks. What if that relationship was made even more obvious, perhaps: for the pound (consisting of 7,000 grains), the mass of a cubic inch of distilled water at an atmospheric pressure of 30 inches of mercury and a temperature of 62° Fahrenheit was defined as 252.458 grains. Grains is only mentioned three times in the article and elsewhere it says pounds is the base unit, so the relationship between pounds and grains can be refreshed for the reader. --Lucas559 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a good idea, or split the explanation into two sentences for clarity. Would you like to make the alteration? Dbfirs 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Lucas559 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History, inches to metric

Just a little history, until after ww2 (according to Swedish Wikipedia " skulle uppgå till exakt 25,400 mm = 1 tum. Detta fastställdes som internationell standard 1933 av ASA") English inch was a smidgeon different from US inch, but C E Johansson used the industry standard in=25.4 mm and that was (according to Swedish Wikipedia) in the end accepted as standard since everyone who needed exact messaurement used C E Johansson measurement "bricks". I do not know how to get that into thew article in a proper way. 

PS: English article I quite to short for the impact of that invention, Swedish I a bit over the top.Seniorsag (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commas?

What's with using spaces as a 'thousands' separator instead of a comma? This isn't usual Wikipedia practice, an d though some bodies recommend it, we should be consistent and also not change unless it becomes the dominant convention among English speaking readers. [[7]]. Stub Mandrel (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIGITS says it is standard wikipedia usage. Rhialto (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Imperial units. 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) 19:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Another unit of area

I was reading the table and I realized that the unit of area 'ground' has not been included. 1 ground is 2400 sq. feet or 1/18th of an acre. i.e., 1 acre = 18 grounds and 1 ground = 2400 sq. feet

Although rare, the unit is used in real estate in some parts of India, which still uses imperial units as a remnant of its British tradition.

Gvbdxz (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a remnant of British tradition, otherwise the big Oxford English Dictionary would have heard of it. Possibly it is a regional usage. If you can point us to a WP:Reliable source then we can decide whether it should be included in this article. Dbfirs 11:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rowlett's Dictionary of Units defines ground as 'an informal unit of land area in India, especially southern India, equal to roughly 200-220 square meters or 2150-2400 square feet'. Sounds very regional to me. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it may (or may not) be worthy of inclusion somewhere in wikipedia. But it doesn't sound like its actually a part of the British Imperial system, and so doesn't belong in this specific article. Rhialto (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Perhaps in Indian units of measurement? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, indeed I don't have it written anywhere that a 'ground' is an imperial unit. It's easy to assume it is because the word sounds like it has origins in the English language and not from Tamil or Sanskrit like most other Indian units of measurement. There might be another explanation for that, I rest my case here. Thank you for the replies. Gvbdxz (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feet in the timber industry

I would like to know, please, how to convert "feet" (probably cubic feet) or "super feet" in the timber industry into metric dimenions (de:Festmeter). The original quote reads as follows: "We make three trips for logs every day," continues the foreman casually. "That gives us, say, 30 logs to slice and stack daily- 30,000 super feet of timber."' I guess 30000 (cubic) feet are 849,5054 Festmeter.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Board foot which mentions super foot (plural super feet). Units like that often had vague definitions that depended on the period and the place. Also see de:Festmeter and sizes.com. It appears that a super foot in your context is 1⁄12 of a cubic foot and a festmeter is 1 m3 according to size.com.
{{convert|{{#expr:30000/12}}|cuft|m3}} → 2,500 cubic feet (71 m3)
and that suggests that 30,000 super feet is about 70 festmeters. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


wrong information

This article is VERY BAD. It doesn't mention at all the countries which still use full imperial system which are Belize,Palau,the Marshall Islands and Micronesia.

If you can provide citations to confirm that these units are in active use there, then it would be appropriate to add such information. However, what we have here is a case of potentially missing information, NOT wrong information. Rhialto (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting historical anecdote about gallon/liter conversion

There is an anecdote I suggest we could add to this article. Ever wondered why even nowadays the French bottles for wine have the wierd volume of 75cL? Simply because at the time these bottles were designed, Great Britain still used the imperial system, and 75cL bottles allowed easier conversion between metric and imperial volumes! Indeed, a 50-gallon barrel also has roughly 225L... which represents 300 bottles (6 bottles roughly represent one gallon). The interesting point is that even if countries use different system, compromises were found for trade to be achieved (at least trade of alcohol!). We could also tell in this article about the infamous crash of the Mars Orbiter probe in 1999 due to part of the software using imperial units while the rest used metric units (however, that could also restart the various debates about which unit system is the better, and this devate shouldn't take place in this article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.14.184.100 (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs reliable sources for articles, not anecdotes. If you have some for your wine anecdote, please add them to the article. (The Mars Climate Orbiter used United States customary units, not imperial units which, while equal for some measurements, are different for others.) Bazza (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is a bit more mundane. Traditionally, the standard bottle of wine in the USA was 1/5 US gallon (apparently this dodged certain tax laws), or 0.757 litres. In 1979, a US law was passed defining 750 ml (basically, a metric fifth of a gallon) as the standard wine bottle, and this convention seems to have gone international since. Rhialto (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP's (rather unsatisfactory) Wine bottle article suggests, albeit unreferenced, that that only applies to the US's adoption of 750ml, a size already in use in Europe; although why that region settled on (and later enforced) a standard size of 750ml is hard to determine [8]

Reference for "mil"

@Pol098: I added a reference to Jerrard and McNeill for "mil"; they cite an appearance in a journal in 1872. Of course it's all a bit theoretical whether such informal(?) usages are part of the "Imperial" system. There are other problems here too: seems highly unlikely that Micronesia, which is practically an American colony uses Imperial. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium:Thanks. I also find on investigation, to my surprise, that the unit was introduced in Liverpool in 1858. I've never come across it in UK engineering usage, but I have in US usage. Of course, since introduction of the S.I. system non-metric units aren't used in Britain, but I am familiar with rods, poles, and perches, fathoms, lots of silly inch fractions like 3/64", etc. I have seen both "thou" and "mil" in relation to gramophone styluses, with "mil" probably adopted from US usage. Anyway, you've provided a verifiable source for UK usage of "mil"—nuff said! Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 September 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Imperial units → Imperial system – Per WP:TITLE, the plural number on the article title is usually avoided, unless it is a part of the title. For example, SI base unit, SI derived unit, etc. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Revert reason

Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there [DeFacto]. Can you help me understand why you have reverted my edit on Imperial units? Best, Darren-M talk 17:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darren-M: I thought my edit summary was quite clear, you didn't explain why you changed it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, ah, I understand now, but 'unexplained' was vague - it wasn't clear if you were saying the edit wasn't explained, or that the shorter description failed to explain the article correctly. Clearly with your response there you have now expanded on that. Thank you.
I've gone ahead and re-done the edit with a clear summary, but would encourage you to use a more helpful reason for reverting in future. I would also note that an edit being unexplained is not in and of itself grounds for it to be reverted. Best, Darren-M talk 19:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darren-M: fair enough. But I think even a vague summary is better than no summary. ;) -- DeFacto (talk). 20:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metric and imperial systems (2019) Map

https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Metric_and_imperial_systems_%282019%29.svg

The map of which countries use the metric, imperial, and US customary systems is mostly correct, however there are some errors. First of all, Liberia uses the US Customary system, not the imperial system. Secondly, Myanmar has seen increasing use of the metric system. For instance, petrol is primarily sold litres and road signs may be signed in kilometres, with miles, and metrology data is collected and given in metric units. Third of all, the British overseas territories, such as the Falklands or Cayman Islands to name a couple, use imperial units.

Changes that need to be made for sake of accuracy:

Liberia should be pink, not red as it uses US customary, not imperial

Myanmar should be yellow, as it uses both imperial and metic

British territories should also be yellow

Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metric -v- Imperial pipe in former imperial countries

Imperial pipe (or indeed any circular feature) was usually specified by internal diameter and wall thickness. By contrast metric pipe (or indeed any circular feature) is usually specified by external diameter and wall thickness. This has caused its own problems in other areas.

The specified wall thickness of 15mm pipe is 1.15 mm. This gives an internal diameter of 12.7mm which is exactly half an inch.

The wall thickness of half inch pipe was specified as 0.05 inches. This gives an external diameter of 0.6 inches which is less than ten thou smaller than 15mm. Ten thou is also smaller than the specified tolerances of both imperial and metric pipe. The upshot is that fittings for half inch pipe (intended to fit on 0.6 inch external diameter) will fit on 15 mm external diameter pipe without any problems whatsoever.

And indeed plumbers have no difficulty extending imperial plumbing with metric pipes and fittings. Plumbers merchants still sell pipe and fittings which are marked as "15mm (half inch)", and similarly for other sizes. Tap washers are also sold as 15mm or half inch (actually the same size) because the size of the washer was, at least in theory, determined by the size of the tap which was, in turn, determined by the size of the pipe to which it was fitted, though there is the strange complication that such washers come in 'large half inch' and 'small half inch' (or 'large 15mm' and 'small 15 mm') sizes. 86.129.19.88 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources for articles and the inadmissibilty of one's own researches; in particular, challenged material should not be reinstated without a reliable source. Also, editors are well advised to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and not simply reinstate edits, with or without a talk-page explanation or assertion; if you're reverted, discuss.
Your statement above and the material you seek to add is also a mistaken extrapolation from a case that is not as simple as you seem to think. Copper tube and pipe has many standard wall thicknesses in every size, as do plastics and steel tubes and pipes; only some come out to an internal size that is an exact round number. 1/2" and 15mm copper tube have similar outside diameters but they are not close enough for all fittings, so capillary (solder/brazing) and push-fit joints are supplied specifically for joining 1/2" and 15mm tubing. Even when using compression joints, the appropriate imperial or metric olive should be used.
But in focusing on copper 1/2" and 15mm tube, we focus on one small coincidence that is not representative of the entire range. To take the next smaller and larger sizes, 3/8" and 10mm tubing is not at all compatible and 3/4" and 22mm even less so. Your statement that "Though imperial copper pipe is actually the same size as imperial pipe" (presumably you meant one of those to be "metric") is false in both cases and many others, and the lucky similarity of 1/2" and 15mm tube is too trivial to warrant a digression from the subject of this paragraph - that some things are sold in imperial and some in metric sizes. NebY (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's patently obvious that you have no knowledge of the subject at all. The 'coincidence' is not a coincidence - it is entirely deliberate. And it is not a coincidence that the other sizes that you mention are also imperial sized pipe given a nominal metric designation. When pipe came to be sold in metric sizes, the actual pipe size did not change. All that happened was that the metric size was just the external diameter of the imperial pipe rounded up to the nearest millimetre. This was intentional to allow older installations to be expanded without having to replumb the entire system.
If you go to the web site of any reputable plumbers merchant, and perform a search for "3/8 inch coupler", you will be presented with a range of 10mm couplers. Try the same thing with "3/4 inch couplers" and you are magically transported to 22mm couplers. In both cases they give the 'A size' and 'B size'. In the plumbing world: the 'A size' is the external diameter (usually given in metric only) and the 'B size' is the internal diameter (always given in imperial and often a close metric conversion). The imperial size of the, so called, metric pipe is the exact imperial size. The metric sizes are not always and in the case of the 'A size' is always smaller than the quoted size by up to a hundredth of an inch.
More than one plumbing supplier, I discovered, describes the parts as "10mm x 9.5mm", "15mm x 12.7mm" and "22mm x 19mm". Though unconventional, in each case this is the external x internal diameters. 9.5, 12.7 and 19 mm is respectively designations of 3/8, 1/2 and 3/4 inches (rounded to 2 sig figs by 2.5, 0 and 5 thou respectively).
I had taken a few pictures of the shelve edge tickets in my local store, but unfortunately, it turns out that I cannot upload pictures. 86.129.19.88 (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Please stop trying to force your text into the article, particularly when you're not providing any source for disputed claims and discussion is ongoing. You need to build WP:CONSENSUS here first.
Your description of events is incorrect. The process of switching to metric sizes was not one of mere renaming (I speak as someone who had to be familiar with the long process for many years). The old imperial copper tubes did not happen to have outside diameters that were round numbers of millimetres. 1/2" and 3/4" tube, for example, had outside diameters of 0.596 inches (15.14 mm) and 0.846 inches (21.49 mm) respectively.[9] Nor was metric copper tube sized to give imperial bores; back in 1971, BS2871:Part1 tables X, Y and Z each had different thicknesses, 15mm having 0.7, 1.0 and 0.5mm thicknesses, 22mm 0.9, 1.2 and 0.6mm.[10] In consequence, adapters are needed to reliably join imperial and metric tubes, such as these push-fit and solder and brazing ones. Compression fittings for imperial pipes are now comparatively unusual so (as you found) you'll often be directed to the nearest metric sizes instead, but some do still offer an imperial range alongside their metric range.[11]
Advice varies on joining metric and imperial pipes. You may read that If your plumbing system was installed before the mid-1970s, the pipework will almost certainly be of imperial dimensions (1/2, 3/4 and 1 inch inner diameters). You can join modern 15mm pipe to 1/2 inch imperial and 28mm to 1 inch using standard metric compression fittings, but to connect 22mm pipe to 3/4 inch you'll need a 22mm compression fitting with a special oversize olive. For soldered joints, there are metric/imperial connectors in the relevant sizes.[12], that In fact these two sizes (1/2 inch and 15mm) can generally be joined using a 15 mm to 15mm connector. The other imperial sizes do not have 'workable' equivalents metric sizes - joining these imperial to metric sized pipes require the use of adaptors specifically designed for the job (3/4 inch to 22mm, 1 inch to 28mm) - these adaptors are no more expensive than metric to metric connectors, they are just designed for the job. It does seem, however, that these adaptors are becoming less available; it's hard to find them on-line or at the major DIY stores, going to a 'proper' plumbers merchant probably gives the best chance for locating one.[13] or that When using soldered fittings to join imperial and metric pipework an adaptor must be used as an exact fit is necessary. The use of compression fittings is a bit more tolerable and an adaptor is not necessary, even though it is wise to buy imperial size olives for the imperial pipe..[14]
As for your latest edit, as shown above it's categorically wrong to say that "metric size pipe is actually imperial sized pipe given a nominal metric size" and the encyclopedia must not mislead its readers or propagate that error. NebY (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So now you betray your lack of competence in the subject. Whereas you now claim that 15mm fittings will work with 1/2 inch pipe ("You can join modern 15mm pipe to 1/2 inch imperial …") but previously you stated "... seriously wrong, as anyone who tries to use 1/2" fittings on a 15mm pipe will discover". You are just trotting out contradictory claims to suit your edit war. You can't have it both ways. There is another editor around here who does exactly the same thing in order to deliberately inflate talk page discussions unnecessarily - and frequently involving imperial -v- metric measurements. Are you quite sure that you don't edit under another account? 86.129.19.88 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide reliable references for your original research and unvalidated claims. If you can do that, then your interesting additions can stay. Until then, they will be removed, as stated at WP:RS, which I recommend you read. You might also read WP:CIVIL, WP:PERSONAL and, amusingly, WP:CIR, which state how you should behave when discussing articles on Wikipedia, and what competences are required to do so. Bazza (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong/Chinese units?

In the Hong Kong section, the names of Chinese units have superscript numbers next to them that don't appear to be exponents and they aren't footnotes. Example:

"The Chinese system's most commonly used units for length are 里 (lei5), 丈 (zoeng6), 尺 (cek3), 寸 (cyun3), 分 (fan1)"

I am wondering what they are for and/or if they should be removed, because it's a bit distracting. Pythagimedes (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers aren't footnotes or exponents. They are pronunciation guides, to indicate which tone should be used. Tone_number Rhialto (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imperial_units&oldid=1073757049"