Talk:Imperial

THe last edit, by 69.251.248.178, was me, y'all. I just forgot to log in, is all. HubHikari 15:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Past Imperial Countries

If "imperial countries" are meant to be countries that have an Emperor as a head of state, then I suggest to include the following countries in the list of Past Imperial Countries. done done

• the Byzantine Empire
• the Holy Roman Empire
• the Austro-Hungarian Empire
• the First and Second French Empire

What about Paul's Imperial Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.34.169 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC) As well as perhaps some smaller, shorter-lived Empires:

• the Mexican Empire
• the Brazilian Empire
• the Haitian Empire
• the Ethiopian Empire

I would also suggest to replace "Germany" "German Empire" and "Russia" with "Russian Empire" Chevalier de la charrette 10:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree --Bukhrin 11:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I also added Imperial Japan, since they were Imperial during World War II...What do you think? -TacticsCommand

Why is Great Britain on the list of past Imperial countries? They've never had an emperor. Only kings and queens (granted some British monarchs were also called Emperor/Empress of India, but that's a seperate country). Emperor001 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Parliament of England was the legislature of the Kingdom of England and passed the Ecclesiastical Appeals Act 1532 in 1533. The act states, "...this realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreme Head and King having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial Crown..." The act was in effect until it was repealed between 1950 and 1969. The Kingdom of Great Britain, officially known as Great Britain, was the successor state to Kingdom of England and was in existence from 1707 to 1801; therefore, the act was in effect during the entire existence of Great Britain. Squideshi (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

kate ovando

she was born in 19997 she is a beutiful girl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.230.174 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Cerveza

Imperial Cerveza is under both "Things" and "Imported Beer." It's rather redundant, not sure which one should stay. I would vote the one under "Things." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatix27 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Imperial" and "United States customary"

A clarification that Imperial units are distinct from United States customary units was reverted by Bkonrad. The edit summary for the reversion was "extra link and detail not needed for disambiguation". This post represents an attempt to reach consensus using a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please consider the following:

1. The English Wikipedia Disambiguation editing guideline states, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous..." I suggest the title is ambiguous, as evidenced by common misuse of "Imperial" to refer to "United States customary", despite differences between the two systems.
   1. Regarding disambiguation pages, WP:DPAGES states, "The purpose of disambiguation pages is allowing navigation to the article on the topic being sought. The information on a disambiguation page should be focused on getting the reader to their desired article." I suggest the clarification is focused on getting the reader to the article they desire in the common case where they are likely to mistakenly use the term "Imperial" while they are actually seeking information about "United States customary". In addition, the "navigation" link leads to WP:BUILDTHEWEB, which asks, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?" I suggest the answer is "very likely".
   2. Regarding what not to include, WP:DABNOT states, "The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct a reader seeking information on a topic to the right page. It is common to add a little additional information (which may make reference to the full article unnecessary)." I suggest the clarification constitutes a little additional information that makes reference to the full article unnecessary.
   3. Regarding related subjects, WP:DABRELATED indicates it is legitimate to include articles if the term being disambiguated is described in the target article. I suggest "United States customary units" is indeed a term described in the target article.
2. The Disambiguation pages guideline in the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style states, "Disambiguation pages...are...designed to help a reader find the right Wikipedia article when different topics could be referred to by the same search term...In other words, disambiguation pages help readers find the specific article they want when there is topic ambiguity." I suggest the topic "United States customary" could be referred to by the search term "Imperial"; therefore, there is topic ambiguity, the clarification helps readers find the specific article they want, and the clarification is consistent with the design of disambiguation pages.
   1. The "When to ignore the guidelines" section states, "Usefulness to the reader is their principal goal. However, for every style recommendation above, there may be pages in which a good reason exists to use another way; so ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them." I suggest the clarification is useful to the reader, and there are good reasons for it to remain; and therefore, the clarification should remain despite the above style recommendations and guidelines.
3. The hatnotes at the top both guidelines state that each is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The "common sense" link leads to WP:COMMONSENSE, which states, "Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers." I suggest the clarification helps better inform readers. In addition, the "occasional exceptions" link leads to WP:IGNORE, which states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I'm not aware of a rule that prohibits the clarification; but I suggest that if any such rule does exist, it should be ignored, as it prevents Wikipedia from being improved in this case.

Squideshi (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

What precisely is the ambiguity? The SYSTEM of US customary measures is never called "imperial" so far as I'm aware. Individual measures in the two systems might be confused but the relationship between the systems is a matter for the articles, not the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 20:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "United States customary" is never correctly called "imperial", but it is extremely common for people both within and outside the United States to incorrectly refer to "United States customary" as "imperial". In fact, I suggest "imperial" is more often incorrectly used than "United States customary" is correctly used; and that goes for both the system of measurement and the units. This makes it likely to result in readers being directed to the Imperial units article, rather than the United States customary units they actually desire. While it certainly is possible to discover there is a difference by reading the former article, as WP:DPAGES states, "The purpose of disambiguation pages is allowing navigation to the article on the topic being sought. The information on a disambiguation page should be focused on getting the reader to their desired article." Squideshi (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. If someone is looking specifically for the imperial system, they are not looking for US customary measures. The confusion regarding the mostly insignificant differences between the systems really isn't a matter for a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It's an English Wikipedia policy to achieve and primarily make decisions by consensus. This policy states that consensus "is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals", "does not mean unanimity", "nor is it the result of a vote." The policy further states, "reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". As an editor, I've stated what I believe are legitimate concerns with removal of the clarification; so if you still seek to remove the clarification, I respectfully suggest the burden is upon you to ensure my concerns are addressed, rather than the burden being upon me to convince you. Nonetheless:

I agree that if someone is looking specifically for Imperial, they aren't looking for US Customary; however, I suggest that's begging the question. While some readers are indeed specifically looking for Imperial, I suggest it's very often the case other readers are not looking specifically for Imperial and have merely used the term because they don't yet know there is a difference. For clarification, are you suggesting this can't happen, it doesn't happen, or it doesn't happen very often?

I also agree the differences between the systems isn't a matter for a disambiguation page; however, I suggest that's a straw man argument. The clarification doesn't use the disambiguation page to address the differences. It merely acknowledges that Imperial and United States customary are distinct, in an effort to "help a reader find the right Wikipedia article" as the Disambiguation pages guideline in the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style states disambiguation pages are designed to do. It doesn't seem necessary to address if the differences are "mostly insignificant" or not. I suggest the significance of the differences is irrelevant, because that's a matter of opinion and has little bearing upon if the clarification serves as an aid to navigation, helping readers to "find the right Wikipedia article" or not. For clarification, are you suggesting that your evaluation of the significance of differences between the systems somehow negates that they are nonetheless different systems, each with their own Wikipedia articles?

As evidenced by the recommendations and guidelines cited above, I suggest the following are all matters for a disambiguation page:

• Allowing navigation to the article on the topic being sought (See 1.1 above.)
• Getting readers to their desired article (See 1.1 above.)
• Building the web (See the navigation link in 1.1 above.)
• Directing readers seeking information on a topic to the right page (See 1.2 above.)
• Making reference to the full article unnecessary (See 1.2 above.)
• Including articles if the term being disambiguated is described in the target article (See 1.3 above.)
• Helping readers find the right Wikipedia article and the specific article they want (See 2 above.)
• Being useful and/or helpful to readers (See 2.1 above.)
• Better informing readers (See 3 above.)

I've explained how I believe the clarification fulfills each of these purposes. I believe any one of these purposes alone is a valid reason to maintain the clarification. In order to fully address the arguments being made, if you disagree, please indicate which of these purposes you believe the clarification does not fulfill and why; or in the alternative, if you believe any of these purposes are a misinterpretation of the cited recommendations and guidelines, please indicate which ones and how you believe they have been misinterpreted.

WP:BRDDISCUSS advises we be ready to compromise. The linked Wikipedia compromise article states, "To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand." In that spirit, as a demonstration of good faith, and in an effort to achieve the required consensus, I propose the following as an immediate compromise and a faster alternative to individually addressing each of the points in the arguments made above:

• Retain the text of the clarification, but don't wikilink the words "United States customary units"; AND
• Add a wikilink to "United States customary units" in the existing "See also" section at the bottom of the disambiguation page.

Squideshi (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Without having thoroughly read that entire wall of text (I'm on a phone), I note that the US customary units article has a section "Other names" which says that they are sometimes erroneously known as "imperial units". While it's unsourced, it's been there since at least 2017 (ie not just added for the purpose of current discussion - it happens!), and seems enough to justify an entry on the lines of: "Imperial units, erroneous term used for United States customary units". PamD 05:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm also amenable to this suggestion as an alternative to the compromise proposed above. Bkonrad, what do you think? Squideshi (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. older ≠ wiser 23:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)