Jump to content

Talk:Yard/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Revised lead paragraph(s)

I've removed this from the lead paragraph:

A yard is roughly 36 inches. The yard is often used to express distances.

A yard is always exactly 36 inches (this is stated in the next section). And you can't use it to measure anything other than distance -- we've already said it's a unit of length. I've reordered the rest into a more logical progression. Finally, should it be 0.9144 metre or metres?--Dr Greg 11:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

yard for billion

I question the folk etymology of this coming from "milliard". While it seems to be repeated quite a bit on the internet, none of the entries offer any evidence of this derivation. And we all know how easy a "likely-sounding" answer replicates, without necessarily being true, especially with regards to etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulc206 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling and metrication

See a discussion under the same heading at WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have taken your argument to this new forum, including the statement: "when units fall out of use everywhere except the US." To return to the specific instance of "yard", a quick glance at this article will show that it doesn't apply here: It's commonly used in the UK for road signs, sports and by far as the general usage everyday speech. Cricket is an international sport and "yard" continues in use wherever it is played. Your recent reversion of this page (at least) was wrong.--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
All of the listed measurements are still used outside of the US, often in sport or in non-scientific situations. The yard does not originate in the US, and it seems pointless to have different spellings of meter/metre especially when nearly the whole world uses the original spelling of metre. Bevo74 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I accept Old Moonraker's choice to discuss this here because the Cricket argument applies specifically to the yard. I don't accept Bevo74's choice to discuss this here because his/her arguments, if true, would apply equally to other customary units and ought to be discussed in a more centralized location. I therefor will copy the argument to WT:MOSNUM if he/she has not already done so, and reply there. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

At the top of this talk page we have both {{American English}} and {{British English}}. These are mutually contradictory; one of them has to go. Which one? -- Dr Greg  talk  20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOSNUM in June 2010 seemed inconclusive as to whether yard had strong ties to the US, since it is no longer a legal sole general-purpose unit of measure elsewhere (even though it is legal in specific contexts such as road signs, and might be allowed as a supplementary indication on a label alongside the metric quantitiy). That being the case, I believe the article should follow the usage in the earliest version which uses American spelling. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man

I removed the picture of Vitruvian Man as the assertions it make are inaccurate. The average height of white American males aged 20-39 is 1.789 m. The average size of a foot of a Caucasian American male is 26.3±1.3 cm. Dividing these two out gives a ratio of 6.79±0.35 - a value that is sufficiently larger than 6 as to make it inaccurate for measurement purposes. I of course do not deny that is is a good first try.

If anybody cares to comment, would they please quote their own height and foot length. For the record I am about 181 cm tall and my foot is 27.0 cm, giving a height to foot ratio of 6.70. Martinvl (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the picture of Vitruvian Man a second time. The original Vitruvian Man did not have the units of measure as shown in the picture that was deleted. The picutre that was deleted shows a yard as being from the tip of the middle finger to the middle of the chest, however the text in the article states "end of the thumb", but Watson, writing 100 years ago, goes on to dismiss this notion as being "childish". Today he might have used the word "Urban myth". Martinvl (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this really needed?

"3 feet (1 foot is a third of a yard)" Generally if 3x = y, then yes, y/3 = x. I don't see why the bit in brackets is needed at all, anyone could figure that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.22.163 (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I have removed it, but kept the yard to metre and metre to yard conversion, the latter not being quite a kindergarten calculation. Martinvl (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Standard lengths for traders

Imperial standards of length 1876 in Trafalgar Square, London.

Apart from the Greenwich ones shown in the main article, there is also a set in NE corner of Trafalgar Square. Anyone know of anymore in the UK ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen one at Greenwich Observatory. Martinvl (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Binary?

I've removed this unreferenced sentence from the article: "The early yard was divided by the binary method into two, four, eight and sixteen parts called the half-yard, span (unit), finger (unit) and nail (unit) respectively". There's no reference. There's no mention of where or when this "early yard" is supposed to have been in use. And the arithmetic seems faulty too: if a "finger" was ever, anywhere, 7/8", as the totally unreferenced stub on it suggests, then it would have been 7/288 yd, not 1/8; and if the "nail" was 3/4", as its totally unreferenced stub suggests, it would have been 6/7 of a "finger", not 1/2. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

National prototype yard-rods and ell-rods were sometimes divided up that way in England. Or sometimes only a quarter of it was divided like that. I'll have to do some digging, but I think the prototypes commissioned by Henry VII and Queen Elizabeth had that feature. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, once its fully referenced, with a place and date where it was in use, I'll be delighted to see it go back in the article. Both finger (unit) and nail (unit) probably need either attention or deletion, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this article

Right now I'm busy on Avoirdupois and Weights and Measures Act but when I have time I'd like to make the following changes (with references).

  • etymology - from the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) girda
  • part about Edward I is incorrect - what is referred to here is a document called the Composition of Yards and Perches or Compositio Ulnarum et Perticarum (or Compositio for short). It is one of several "Ancient Statutes of Uncertain Date" thought to be from 1266 to 1303, retroactively attributed to Edward I. The document redefines the yard, foot, inch, and barleycorn to 10/11 of their previous values, but leaves the rod, furlong and acre unchanged. This is how the rod became 5 1/2 yards. It had previously been 5 yards.
  • Prior to the Norman Invasion, the national prototype yard, maintained by the Wessex Kings, was kept at Winchester. William the Conqueror, after confirming that all existing English weights and measures shall remain unchanged, had the prototypes moved to London.
  • The yard was originally used for measuring cloth.
  • It was originally 1/5 of a rod. According to archaeologists, the rod was the fundamental unit of measure for early Anglo-Saxon churches. Their widths were a whole number of rods (of 15.03 meters), their lengths a whole number of units equal to the diagonal of a square rod (a proportion commonly found in Greek and Roman temples).

Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The rod appears to have been widely used in Continental Europe, but I have seen little reference to the yard, only to the ell. Martinvl (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The article could certainly do with improvement, better sources in particular. I would hope to be able to assist with that at some point. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
When the Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived in Britain, they didn't have a yard. They had a foot of 13.2 inches, a cubit, an ell, and a rod. I'm still researching this, but it looks as though the yard (girda) appeared in the late Anglo-Saxon period as a type of ell. That's why the yard is referred to in Latin texts as the ulna. The national standard prototype yard was "the iron ulna." However, other types of ells continued to be used. I just special-ordered a book through inter-library loan: R D Connor's The Weights and Measures of England. It should be arriving any day. [1]. Oh, and any assistance would be welcome. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool! Yes, I did want to say to Martin that looking for correlations or differences between rods, ells and yards (and indeed perches, aunes, pertiche, ellen, cannes etc.) in various places and languages in Europe was probably doomed to failure, as all of them mean approximately "measuring stick". The trick would be to find out which measuring stick was in use in a given place at a given time, what it was then (and there) called, and what it was used for. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Without doing any further research, the word girda has the connotations of "girth" or "gürtel" (German for "belt"). I am however open to correction on this score. Martinvl (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I have had an opportunity to consult the Oxford English Dictionary. It defines the yard as:
A measure of length (traditionally the standard unit of English long measure) equal to three feet or thirty-six inches. (See quot. 1867.) Also the corresponding measure of area ( square yard = 9 square feet) or of solidity ( cubic yard = 27 cubic feet).
The earlier standard was the ell = 45 inches (ulna in Stat. de Pistoribus, 13th cent.); this was succeeded by the verge (1353) Act 27 Edw. III, stat. 2, c. 10), of which yard is the English equivalent.
This suggests to me that the yard and ell should really be discussed as one. Martinvl (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Then we should delete the India, Singapore, and Malaysia articles and roll them into British Empire. Also, Russian, Hindi and English are just dialects of Proto-Indo-European. Humans and bats can get rolled in to Mammals. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, people, let's keep it friendly if we can? It doesn't end there, Martin - the ulna is the forearm, so both yard and ell are really just cubits. And so on. I think, as I tried to say before, that it's best to concentrate on a certain measure in a certain place and in a certain time. I believe that this article should stick to the yard, in Britain and later elsewhere in the English-speaking world, from about the Middle Ages to the present. There's obviously far more to be said about ells, but it is probably of less urgent importance to the encyclopaedia. Make sense? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously merging the artciles yard and ell on what was wirtten above would be WP:OR, so I do not propse doing anythign of the sort at the moment. I was merely making the observation that when I was researching the use of the foot and also the stone on the Continent, I saw nothing about the yard, only about the ell. Meanwhile, lets see if we can get a decent article about the yard in place and at the same time see what can be written about the ell, but leave our options open about merging the two articles into a single article, depending on what is dug up from the writings of the real experts. Martinvl (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's a web page with some good information. Even though we shouldn't use it as a source, it can inform further research [2] By the way, thanks for the OED info. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It is intersting that the original definition of the yard was made with reference to the sale of cloth, but the Magna Carta (a hundred years after William of Malmsbury) made no reference to the yard, only to the ell. Martinvl (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The Magna Carta is an important document in many respects, but in the history of British Weights and Measures it's not that significant. There were plenty of early statutes that said something like, "Weights and measures shall be fair and just. There shall be no false weights." The Magna Carta falls into that category. If they happen to mention an actual unit of measure, it's just pure dumb luck. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I checked the Magna Carta text - the 1215 version states "Let there be one measure of wine throughout our whole realm ... and one width of cloth (whether dyed, or russet, or "halberget"), to wit, two ells (the Latin text used the words "due ulne") within the selvages;. The 1297 version in which Edward I confirmed the 1215 version used the word "yards", not "ells". We obviously need some expert advice on this. Martinvl (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if you are referring to the Compositio Ulnarum et Perticarum (Composition of Yards and Perches) or some other document. There are a number of memoranda on weights and measures generally listed under the heading "Ancient Statutes of Uncertain Date" but all from the same period (late 13th to very early 14 century). Many were, at one time, listed under 31 Edward I, but without statute or chapter numbers. These texts reflect a major evolution in weights and measures that took place during that time, among them, the abolition of old North German foot (also known as the Saxon foot), which was competing with a much smaller foot derived from a (very short) Roman foot. The Compositio compromised by giving England a whole new yard, foot, inch, and barleycorn that were, by definition, exactly equal to 10/11 of their previous values. The rod, furlong, and acre remained the same, but the number of feet and yards they contained increased to 11/10 of the previous value. Thus, the rod became 5 {frac|2} yards instead of the previous 5. Incidentally, scholars all agree that the ulnas referred to in Magna Carta are obviously cloth-ells and not yards. Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I found the confirmation of 1297. [3] However, I don't see any yards in it. Am I looking at the wrong version? Zyxwv99 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
My reference to the 1297 confirmation was here. I don't have the Latin version of it. The 1215 version (in English and Latin) is here. The little that I have read suggests to me that the yard was merely a specific version of the ell that was used in England - in Tudor times standard ells and yards were manufactured. As regards the development of the article, I think is appropriate that the yard and ell articles be developed in parallel (I have been drawing up tables of Continental uses of both the foot and the stone and I propose doing the same with the ell. Somebody else might like to work on the yard. Inb the course of our joint researches, we might well find a good reference suggesting that the yard is merely a specific variant of the ell or aune; if no such reference is found, then the two artciles are kept apart. Martinvl (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Now you've gotten me more interested in the Magna Carta and cloth measures, as in "two ells within the lists." I found a resource (here), the Assize of Cloth by Richard I in 1196 (or possibly 1197) and the associated Assize of Measures. Then, when researching medieval cloth widths, I came across this. Apparently some of these hobbyists from the Renaissance Faire and SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) have done some serious homework. I always assumed the 2 ells within the lists were just cubit length, but apparently broadcloth looms could be 90 inches wide, or 2 or Queen Elizabeth's 1588 ells. As for the word "yard" appearing in modern translations, that doesn't mean much. The original Latin would have been ulna, or in Anglo-Norman auln. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Declining use

Does anybody notice that the foot is preferred over the yard? It seems to be going the way of the rod and the furlong. This might have to be noted.--SirChan (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends where you live and in what context. In Britain we use feet, yards and metres in different contexts and I haven't noticed much of a decline in "yards". --Dr Greg (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In the U.S., the foot is used to measure long distances even if the yard is more efficient. It's just the inch, foot, and the mile now. The yard and the meter are too similar; it is preferable to use meters over the yard.--SirChan (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The yard retains use in some sports. American Football fields are invariably measured in yards. Golf courses in the US are usually measured in yards. baseball's always feet, though. Sometimes land measurements are given in yards. It's still understood by everyone, even if it's not the first measurement we think of using. Schoop (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
... and in the UK, the yard is still used much more than the foot (and much more than the metre in some contexts). Dbfirs 09:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The yard is very important still when cutting fabric. It is not declining at all. http://www.etsy.com/search?includes%5B%5D=tags&q=yardage Elaur (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Fabric is sold by the metre in the UK. Martinvl (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Current use

The first paragraph of this section doesn't seem to make sense. The yard is used as the standard unit of field-length measurement in American,[47] Canadian[48] and Association football,[49] cricket pitch dimensions[50], swimming pools[51][Note 1], and in some countries, golf fairway measurements. Maybe the "and" is in the wrong place. Also, the reference for swimming pools doesn't support the claim that swimming pools are measured in yards.

This section should probably be broken down first by country, starting with the USA. Even though the yard is legal here, it isn't used for everything. Cloth is still sold by the yard. Then we could move on to Canada, the UK, etc. However, I think we need to be careful about things such as swimming pools or cricket pitches that may have been built before metrication, since vestiges of older systems can be found in any country and may be in themselves be notable. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Laws of Cricket are written in imperial units with metric units in brackets. The length of the cricket pitch has remained unchanged at one chain for over two centuries. Swimming pool lengths are a different matter, they can be of any lenngth but world records can only be set in "standard" pools that are built to metric dimensions (an Olympic pool is 50 m). I have looked for rules regarding golf, but cannot find any - some countries appear to use yards and others metres - it would be WP:OR to write more than what is written at the moment (unless the wording is deliberately vague and a few examples are quoted). The solution is to remove the bit about swimming pools and leave the rest as it is - what is written about sport applies world-wide. Martinvl (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but I doubt that golf has official rules involving the size of various golf course features, including fairways. Various golf courses no doubt provide information on the nominal length of holes, but the actual length will vary from day to day depending on where the cup is placed within the green. I'm sure US golf courses would give these nominal lengths in yards. Players are free to keep their own notes in whatever units they please. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
My own WP:OR suggests that US and UK courses use yards, Australian and Spanish course metres. Each course is unique, but all follow a typically patter of being 9 or 18 holes (plus the mandatory 19th :-) ).
As the references did not support the claim regarding swimming pools and instead the "standard" pools are 50 m I have removed the bit about swimming pools. --Wilhelm-Conrad (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Gauge Blocks

Interesting article (here) with notes on metrology and the history of the yard and metre. I added a reference for the measured instability in the British standard yard, since this gives dates and measurements. Adaviel (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

As discussed above, this edit established the use of this page as American English. I'm not sure who took it upon themselves to nationalise the page since then but it was in error. There is certainly no stronger tie to the old system in Britain which has largely replaced it with meters, and the current consensus has been to use American English. Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus. — LlywelynII 22:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Formatting

For the curious, I got almost through the entire page when my computer froze but I will be getting the rest of the refs appropriately standardized. Sorry for the week or so of mixed formatting.

For the kid who manually removed < small > tags from < sup > & < sub >, a) don't (the current sup and sub standards are much too large and mess with line spacing) and b), if you think it's too small, I won't argue with that but it has to do with the rest of the settings on your end. Something is turned up too much or too little, which doesn't really justify mucking with the page for those of us viewing at the standard 100% in a standard font.

Similarly, do not place anchors within the section headings. I'm sure you mean well but it's ugly, ruins the default heading, makes the anchored link fail to display the section heading (it goes to the next line instead), and creates no benefit whatsoever. It's a loss and lousy idea all the way around. — LlywelynII 11:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Tavix (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yard → Yard (length) – This unit is rarely used today; whereas yard in the sense at Yard (land) is very common. In everyday English we refer to this unit as "3 feet long". "Yard" should re-direct to either Yard (disambiguation) or to Yard (land). Georgia guy (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: I completely disagree that the "unit is rarely used today." However, even so, I could certainly be persuaded that "Yard" should re-direct to a disambiguation. As far I know, both meanings are very common. Wolfdog (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
In the USA, movements on American football fields are always talked about in yards, whether watching the NFL or participating at the neighborhood park. And of course, everybody in the suburbs has a yard. So I agree that both meanings are common. I go along with Wolfdog, redirecting to a disambiguation page would be OK. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Not only in the USA, but here in the UK also, the yard is in common use. I would have thought that, worldwide, fewer people seek Yard (land) than "Yard (length)", so I would be inclined to retain the current heading (i.e. oppose), but I've no strong view either way. Dbfirs 13:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The yard is in common use in Britain, and also in America. In Britain, for example, road signs uses a combination of miles and yards to express distance. I believe that American road signs use feet for this purpose, but they also still refer to 'square yards' of cloth and paper. In any case, I strongly oppose this proposal as misguided. If one wants a discussion on the primary topic here, one should provide evidence, and then I'd respond. As of now, none has been given. RGloucester — ☎ 13:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
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.

Weights and Measures Acts of 1963 and 1985

I can't get access to the full text of the Weights and Measures Act of 1963, but the 1985 Act seems to define two different yards, one based on the meter, and a national prototype physical standard made in 1845 (along with several copies). From what I gather, the 1963 act does the same thing. Zupko's book Revolution in Measurement devotes a chapter to the Weights and Measures Act of 1963 and says, "These were the only units by which measurements of length or weight could be expressed in the United Kingdom" (referring to the yard 0.9144 metre and the pound of 0.4539237 kilogram).

So my question is: does the UK have 2 yards, an international yard of 0.9144 metre and an imperial yard based on the physical standard of 1845? It looks as if the first is the only one legally allowed, and that the physical standards were included in the acts for cultural, political, and historical reasons. This might be analogous to the current US gold bullion coins being declared "legal tender," then having absurdly low dollar values assigned to them. For example, the Double Eagle, containing 0.9675 troy oz of gold, has a face value of $20.00.

If someone knows more about this, any help would be greatly appreciated. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The only offical use of the yard these days (post 1-Jan-2000) is on road signs, and then the road engineers usually use an unofficial conversion of 1 yard = 1 metre. Low bridges have tgheir height defined in feet and inches (as well as increasingly in metres), and in this case, the foot is still defined as being a third of a yard, but rounding is done to the nearest 3 inches. The physical standard of 1845 was found to be shrinking in the late ninteenth centruy, so it can hardly be called a standard. Martinvl (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but it doesn't really answer the question, which pertains to the Weights and Measures Acts of 1963 and 1985. Obviously the standard of 1845 is useless as a standard. The point is, the Weights and Measures Act of 1985 specifically says the 1845 standard is the official prototype yard. What I want to know is why? I'm guessing it's for cultural and historical reasons, but that's just a guess. We need evidence. Something scholarly, or at least authoritative, that can go in a footnote and reference. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In the (probably unlikely) event that anyone reads this expecting to find the answer, here it is: No, the UK does not have two standard yards. There is only one statute measure definition of a yard. The International yard and pound convention defined a yard as exactly 0.9144 meters. The original reference bars for the yard (and the meter) have long since been consigned to museums as nowhere near precise or physically stable enough for the modern era, but they were certainly used to arrive at the figure of 0.9144 so must have been deemed accurate to the nearest 0.1mm (or perhaps more likely, the UK, US, AU and NZ bars had diverged by no more than that?). In the UK, the W&MA 1985, Schedule 1, Part VI transposed this into law. (The same Act made it illegal to sell 'by the yard', though it remains perfectly legal to sell by the "0.9144m (1 yard)". It is illegal for a trader to have a measuring instrument graduated only in yards (or feet and inches) [Part 2, Section 8] but one with both is fine.) --Red King (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Role of pendulum definition not given due weight

The "19th century Britain" section begins

"Following Royal Society investigations...in 1814 a committee of parliament proposed defining the standard yard based upon the length of a seconds pendulum. This idea was examined but not approved."

This is incomplete, and does not mention that the pendulum definition of the yard was included in the official Act as backup. The Weights and Measures Act of 1824 says

"...Whereas it has been ascertained...that the said Yard...when compared with a pendulum vibrating seconds...is in the proportion of thirty six inches to thirty nine inches and one thousand three hundred ninety three ten thousandth parts of an inch; be it therefore enacted...that if the said Imperial Standard Yard be lost, or in any way destroyed, defaced, or otherwise injured, it shall and may be restored by making...a new Standard Yard, bearing the same proportion to such pendulum as aforesaid..."

Since the Imperial Yard was not invulnerable, this made the pendulum definition above the de facto primary definition of the yard for 14 years. Yes, when the Imperial Yard was actually destroyed in the Burning of Parliament in 1838, the pendulum definition was found to be inadequate and the Imperial Yard was recreated from secondary standards. Nevertheless, many sources from those years confirm that it was the legal definition of the yard [5] [6] for both Britain and America (since it used British measures). Regardless of whether it is considered a primary standard, it is notable in the history of metrology as the first official definition of length not based on prototypes but on physical constants. It was the culmination of a long campaign [7] by scientists since the Renaissance to use the length of a pendulum of a defined period as a universal length standard. This article should include more about it. --ChetvornoTALK 23:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It certainly sounds interesting enough to me to merit inclusion. You just volunteered to write it! You would really need additional sources rather than just your interpretation of the Act. --00:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I'll write it. It's not my own interpretation, there are a number of scientific texts, both from that time and today, that state that the 1824 Weights and Measures Act defined Britain's yard by the seconds pendulum: [8] [9] [10] [11]. This was a big deal for the scientific community, there had been an international lobbying campaign for a century to get a pendulum standard adopted, led by people like Thomas Jefferson, Charles Marie de la Condamine, Talleyrand, and Marquis de Condorcet. In Britain the campaign was led by John Riggs Miller, with James Steuart and George Skene Keith. --ChetvornoTALK 01:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't intend to imply that it is just your own interpretation, but rather that it would need more citations than just a reading of the Act. Which clearly you already have handy. My apologies if I have been trying to teach Granny to suck eggs. --Red King (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Lol, no problem! Actually, you're right, I do need to look up more sources. --ChetvornoTALK 18:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yard (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Symbol

I've just been reverted for adding the abbreviation for a yard. I'll go hunting for sources, but since it was something that I learnt at school over half a century ago I don't have my school books to hand! What symbols do other editors use for yards? How else would you express 3ˣ2'6"? It's a bit like being challenged to prove that temperature is measured in °F. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

In the US weights and measures in commerce are enforced by the state, even though the federal government has control over the standards. All the states have adopted Handbook 44 as part of their weights and measures law. Page 500 of the PDF gives "yd" as the abbreviation for yard, and nothing else.
Personally, if I needed to express your measurement to the nearest inch, I'd express it as 11 ft 6 in. I'd only consider using yards if I was rounding to the nearest yard, such as a 325 yd golf hole. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah! That explains matters. US and UK practice differs somewhat in weights and measures. You don't use stones and I believe rarely cwt. Famously the ton differs, and do the pint and gallon. I assume that 10 year-olds in the US are expected to learn US measures, not UK ones so perhaps that's why you were never shown the normal script abbreviations. Most of the reference books I have tend to be quite formal and spell out measurements in full, or at least abbreviated: inch (in.), feet (ft.), yards (yds.) and fathoms (fath.). More recent books of course eschew imperial measure and only give metric. I came across the prime and double prime being explicitly recommended in BS 308:1953. Most engineering books are of course as a sub-yard scale, and my surveying books use chains. I've been through the Royal Commission reports on about a dozen colliery disasters from 1813 to 1953 and of course they use chains for horizontal distance and fathoms for depths! I shall continue looking for an example, but since it was used for hand written notes I fear I may not turn one up quickly - after all I've spent 3 hours trying to satisfy you so far. Bed beckons. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I've done some middle school and high school math teaching this century. The emphasis is on International System of Units, with US customary measures mentioned in passing. In the 1960s I was taught US customary units, including the yard, in the early grades, but I don't recall exactly what was taught. By 7th grade metric units were introduced, and in high school science, metric was used almost exclusively. The record for the establishment of the road I live on was written in 1811. They used rods and feet, not chains.
Land surveyors shy away from prime and double-prime for feet and inches, because those symbols are used for arcminutes and arcseconds. Also, modern US land surveyors don't use inches; they use decimal feet (and occasionally meters). Jc3s5h (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I remember 5+1⁄2 yards is a rod, pole or perch, 4 rods (pole or perch) make a chain. Such a silly value that it sticks in your mind forever, like 1⁄3 of a £ (pre-decimal) was 6/8. We had weekly tests on these aged 10, whatever that is in your grade system. My brother, who is two years younger than me, was spared all this, he was taught decimal currency and the metric system. Obviously I do science in metric, but I live my life in imperial and do my model engineering in that. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Not authoritative, but proof that I'm not making this up: What is the symbol for yards and inches? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
If we find a reliable source, we would then have to decide where to put it in the article. Considering the amount of difficulty we're having finding a source, I don't think it belongs in the info box, as if it's a common, present-day usage. Depending on what the sources say, we may want to mention it in the body of the article as a minor or historical usage. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I've spent too long on this. I originally came here just to copy the symbol into a configuration file one of my programs needed. Since it is apparently only used in script, and not used in the US, I doubt acceptable evidence will be forthcoming. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@NebY: Does the British Standards Institution have an abbreviation for "yard" like the one you have provided for "foot"? If so, please edit the yard article accordingly. Peter Brown (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done I also looked for any mention of three apostrophes as a symbol for yard but even books that had ' for feet and " for inches didn't have that and I find it rather surprising and illogical. I see Martin of Sheffield remembers something more like a superscript-x x which makes more sense and rings a faint bell. NebY (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It turns out the three-apostrophes symbol was edit-warred into the article without explanation by an IP from which the few contributions over 4 years have not been constructive and have usually been obviously childish. AGF doesn't apply; I don't trust it and I've removed it. NebY (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yard/Archive_1&oldid=1158904958"