Jump to content

Talk:Imperial and US customary measurement systems

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

Article Rationale

[edit]

This article was written to fulfill two purposes:

and to write an overview of the use of Imperial and US Customary Units in engineering.

Martinvl (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get it. If this is meant to cover the imperial system, US customary units, fps engineering units and historical English units, shouldn't it have a more inclusive name? Like English units perhaps? That's what I'd been thinking the English units article was actually for. Perhaps that article has gravitated towards the historical, though (it kind of seems as such). How about we move English units to Historical English units and this into its place? I reckon that might better reflect what's going on. (I seem to recall suggesting something like this somewhere sometime.) Jimp 07:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC) ----In response to this comment, I am with the Americans for Customary Weight and Measure, and feel we can speak on behalf of our friends at British Weights and Measures Association here, in that the name together should be "inch-pound" or "foot-pound" to describe the common system from which both US and Imperial derived units originate. The Imperial volumetric system is derived from the pound of water, and the U.S. volumetric system is derived from the cubic inch. The INCH and the POUND define common units of volume, hence in.-lb. (also sometimes foot pound). Perhaps this would be the most appropriate name? While "ENGLISH" is often used in the United States, and somewhat aptly, as this is the system, prior to 1824 that we had in common units of volume with England, it denotes there many other pre-1824 English units that are no longer used. "English" in the UK context denotes units that go back to the 1600s. So a vote for INCH-POUND from the people fighting for the continued legal existence of these units, and the legal rights of those who use them in their day-to-day business. ACWMeas (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used the exact name that was used in Wikipedia:Vital articles and removed the piped redirect (which pointed to United States customary units). If we can get a better name, that's OK by me, but at the moment I can't think of one - "Anglo-Saxon units of measure" has connotations of Alfred the Great rather than UK & US. [Thinking aloud] How about "British and American units of measure"? Martinvl (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This webpage speaks of "British-American System of Units". Martinvl (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Anglo-Saxon" wouldn't do; these would be the really old units which partly formed the basis of what we're talking about. "British and American units of measure" or "British–American units of measure" seems an improvement on "Imperial and US customary measurement systems" but the thing is that these units are/were used in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, etc. and, on the other hand, are we including Scotish (or Welsh) units too? I was thinking "English" was a good name since that's where they come from. Nice job by the way. Jimp 06:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. All the countries that you mentioned used imperial units - the Wales and Ireland were subjugated from the late medieval time onwards - as far as I am aware, Wales never had an independent set of weights and measures, Irish were the same as English apart form having a 7-yard perch (14⁄11 times the size of the English perch), and a furlong and mile that were also 14⁄11 times the size of the English one and an acre that was (14⁄11)2 times the size of an English acre. Martinvl (talk) 07:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middot

[edit]

Those bullets you've got there should be middots according to MOSNUM.

When unit symbols are combined by multiplication, use a middle dot (·) or a non-breaking space ( ) to separate the symbols.

Jimp 06:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metric equivalents

[edit]

One sentence seems to have got a bit garbled. I'm not sure what it's intending to say, so I won't try to fix it myself.

In the United Kingdom, under the Weights and Measures Act of 1897, the yard was redefined as a fraction of metre, expressed in decimals rather than a vulgar fraction (as in the United States) and the pound as fraction of a kilogram kilograms and the pound.

Colonies Chris (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked that section. I hope that things are cleared now. Martinvl (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retail sale in the United Kingdom

[edit]

I have tidied up the section on Imperial Units in the United Kingdom by cuting the law as it stands. I have also removed the picture added by the unnamed IP editor - it does not illustrate the law as it stands, but rather a particular greengrocer at an unspecified location who is in breach of the law. The author of teh picture claims both that the location is somewhere in teh United Kingdom and soemwhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean (0 latitude, 0 longitude). Martinvl (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The recent page move

[edit]

See Talk:Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_U.S._customary_measurement_systems#What_convention for a discussion on the validity of the change of "US" to "U.S." Jimp 09:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please reinstate original title - this article is written in British, not US English. Martinvl (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something missing from the text

[edit]

There are two gaps in the text which apparently have been there from the beginning. The text reads as follows:

The units were however redefined many times – in Henry VIII had standard brass yards and ells manufactured and in 1742 ".[1]

I think it should read like this:

The units were however redefined many times – in 15??, Henry VIII had standard brass yards and ells manufactured and in 1742..... ".[1]

I have no idea what should be in the gaps, but obviously something dropped out of the text. Does anyone know what? Michael Glass (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the sentence. Martinvl (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Knight, Charles (1840). The Penny magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Vol. 9. London: Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. pp. 221–222.

Clarification required

[edit]

At the end of the section on imperial units, the following assertion is made: "Since 1 January 2000 it has been unlawful to use imperial units in retail trade in the United Kingdom except as supplementary units or for the sale of draught beer and cider by the pint or milk that is sold in returnable containers."

Is that really the case? I recently moved to the UK and have been tidying up my apartment here. On a stroll around any one of the DIY stores here you would see many items sold primarily by customary/imperial measure, some with no metric equivalents evident at all. Paint brushes are universally marked in inches. Wallpaper glue is sold in 8 pint packs. Paint rollers are by the inch, I bought a 16-inch hanging basket, and saw working clothes sized exclusively in inches. Are these stores all blatantly flouting the 2000 act, or has that act been misrepresented here? EzEdit (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Let me see what I can dig up. Garamond Lethet
c 21:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the article is correct. The weights and measures act applies to good that are sold by weight or by measure, which excludes your examples. I've added a few words to the sentence to clarify this. Garamond Lethet
c 21:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes I found that too. We aren't seeing the whole picture though, clearly. You say it excludes my examples, but I couldn't find where it does that, did you? Paint brushes are sold in inch widths which is a measure. EzEdit (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paintbrushes are bought by paintbrush; they may be classified in certain sizes, but that's not the unit by which they're sold. If you used to buy meat by the pound, it's now (I expect) by the kilogram. If you used to buy cloth by the yard, it's now by the meter. If you used to buy concrete by the cubic yard, it's now by the cubic meter. Garamond Lethet
c 13:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be clarified in the article. As it stands it might be misunderstood, or worse, dismissed as nonsense by anyone who as just purchased a 4lb club hammer. Do you want to have a go at doing that, you seem to have a massive problem with me editing anything around here. EzEdit (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Garamond sir, you seem very complacent, do you want to help me to make this clearer, or are you happy that they may be misled by this lazy writing? EzEdit (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Text: "The agricultural foot was reduced to 10⁄11 of its former size, causing the rod, pole or perch to become 16+1⁄2 (rather than the older 15) agricultural feet" Question: The foot was shortened and the rod was lengthened as a result? A little explanation is appreciated 2620:101:F000:780:0:0:0:20F (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section order

[edit]

I believe that it would be more logical to have the section on US customary before the section on UK imperial. The main reason being the chronology: UK imperial didn't come into existence until about 40 years after US customary became independent from English units. I therefore propose swapping those sections around. EzEdit (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be more logical, no. Garamond Lethet
c 01:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History is usually recounted in chronological order, so why do you say it's not logical to follow that convention here? EzEdit (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of reasoned argument against putting the history into chronological order, I have swapped the order of the sections "United States customary units" and "Imperial units". EzEdit (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History is usually related in geographical order, with an chronology given within a particular geographic region. That why you weren't taught Chinese, British, and American history simultaneously. Garamond Lethet
c 18:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the history of the evolution of two sets of units, so geography isn't relevant. What is relevant is jurisdiction. The US jurisdiction diverged from the Brit jurisdiction in 1776, taking a copy of English unit "genes" with it. So, in effect, the history of US customary units starts when that divergence occurred. Meanwhile, the Brits continued to use their English units until their government went for a big shake-up in 1825, at which date the UK imperial system diverged from English units. My reason for swapping the section order was simply that the US system started to evolve some 50 years before the UK imperial system did - simple as that. EzEdit (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly went and did it, with no couter-arguments in sight. EzEdit (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was reverted by another editor, but still without reason. I guess I'm outnumbered, despite there being no clear explanation for preferring to keep them the "wrong way" around. EzEdit (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Imperial and US customary measurement systems. 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) 19:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imperial and US customary measurement systems. 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) 22:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Imperial and US customary measurement systems. 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) 11:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of International System

[edit]

The article repeatedly gives this as 1960. The Wikipedia article "International yard and pound" gives the date of the agreement as July 1, 1959. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.85.76 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems&oldid=1195108798"