Talk:Stone (unit)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

errors in conversion table

The table in the Conversion section 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
(allowing that the "long hundredweight" and "imperial quarter" applies there)

Any editor who agrees with this is welcome to make the change .
Mark (mgt220 @t yahoo.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.60.51 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weights and Measures Act 1837 ?

I was unable to find the Weights and Measures Act, 1837 on page 46 (ref. [19])
Report of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, Volumes 41-45
(the UK history article by T.G.Poppy covers pages 22 to 40 only ; another article ,
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 , 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 : 

(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 :
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 ]
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 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.60.51 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)? JIMp_talk·cont 07:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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? JIMp_talk·cont 07:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

JIMp_talk·cont 15:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Martinvl (talk) 05:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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). Martinvl (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. JIMp_talk·cont 18:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to move the table into the UK & I section. Martinvl (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. [unsigned comment by Zyxwv99 19:37, 3 September 2012]

Revocation of 4 October 2012

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. Martinvl (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback available

Just stumbled across this.[1]

Might be worth thinking about putting the conversion more prominently at the top.

Garamond Lethe 01:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked both the version as it existed when feedback was made and the curent version. The issue has been resolved. Martinvl (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, should have checked that myself. Thanks! Garamond Lethe 04:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Many thanks to all of you for this wonderful article. When weighing myself on a hotel scale a few days ago I got the value 9st:13 3/4 and had no idea what that could mean. Now I know, and learned quite a bit of fascinating cultural history as well. --Remotelysensed (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass or Force?

The article does not make it clear whether the stone is considered a mass or a force. It is compared to both pounds (force) and kilograms (mass). The historical use of an actual stone on a balance would suggest it is mass, but then it is used in measuring human body weight. Is there any official or legal definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.195.171 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In common with other units such as pound and kilogram, the stone is a unit of mass, but it is also used as a unit of weight. If you want to make the distinction then use "stones weight" for the force, just as you would for "pounds weight". Where did you get the idea that the pound is a unit of force? Dbfirs 16:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I had always assumed that pounds were force, because they are used in measuring rocket thrust, torque, pressure, etc. Once again, Wikipedia has educated me. Pound (mass) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.195.171 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was misleading, so I've made a slight adjustment. You are correct that pounds-force are used in measuring forces, but the pound itself was always mass, and was traditionally measured by comparing it with a standard mass.

Just to make matters more confusing, we also have the Poundal as a unit of force.poundal Dbfirs 17:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]