Talk:Imperial unit

Archive I

English Units & Imperial vs. US

I've created a new page English units. I've moved a bunch of content from the Mediæval units page. Check it out, fix it up, expand it if you please. I reckon the section on "Comparison between Imperial and US units" belongs there. They don't have such a section on the US units page (it would be redundant if they did) why here if not there though. I'm moving it. Jimp 13Jul05

I've moved most of the comparisons to US customary units to English unit. I've left links. Jimp 17 July 2005

This all now has its own page. Jimp 19 December 2005

... sorry, if anyone saw what was here before I edited it out - ignore it. For some reason I assumed that English unit would mean exactly what was used in England, not the Imperial scale used in the US. LupusCanis 18:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1963 gallon

The text reads in part:

In 1963, this definition was refined as the space occupied by 10 lb of distilled water of density 0.998 859 g/mL weighed in air of density 0.001 217 g/mL against weights of density 8.136 g/mL. This works out at approximately 4.5460902 litres (277.419 45 in³).

And then the comment:

"The 1963 Weights and Measures Act defined the imperial gallon as exactly 4.545 964 591 liters." This contradicts the previous statement. Which is correct?

Where the 1963 quote comes from later in the text. I can't reconcile the former figure. If I have 10 lbs of weights (4535.9237 g) of density 8.136, their volume is ~557.5127458 mL, and the air (density 0.001217) buoys them down to 4535.245207 g. To obtain the buoyed weights weight, I need 4545.96459 mL of density 0.998859 water (this matches the figure quoted from the 1963 Act). To obtain the unbuoyed weights weight (assuming the weights are labelled in order to correct for the air buoyancy), I need 4546.64469 mL of water. Whence the 4546.0902 mL figure?? Urhixidur 14:24, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Have you confused cubic centimeters and milliliters, which were not the same thing in 1963? Which, exactly, does the 1963 Weights and Measures Act use?

Or, has someone else converted 1901–1964 litres to the current definition of a litre?

What gravity value have you used in the buoyancy compensation, and which should it be? London gravity? Or 1 gram-force corresponding exactly to 1 gram?

The "weights" and their density are, as usual, density in a vacuum. Not in air. Gene Nygaard 13:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The definiton of the gallon as 10lbs of water originated in the 1824 Weights and Measures Act which attempted to rationalise English units in terms of physical constants and coined the term 'Imperial' gallon. This revision was in part due to the perception that the metric system was superior to the previously chaotic system in the UK, with dozens of local variations permitted.Esthameian 19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Minim

I was looking at a website with many (odd) volumes, weights, and measures one of which is a Minim = to 1/480th of a fl.oz. ...so I wonder what would that be compaired to the metric? Chooserr

So, did you look at this article, rather than its talk page, to see if you could find that out? Even if you didn't find the minim listed here (it is, of course), you could look at the fluid ounce article to see what it is that you'd have to divide by 480, and then you'd also find out that the U.S. fluid ounce is different from the imperial fluid ounce. Or, if you'd entered "minim" in the "Go" box, you could have followed the link on that disambiguation page to minim (unit).Gene Nygaard 09:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but Thank you. I did a quick check, but was unable to find it. I guess I was too busy wanting the answer right then. Anyway thank you for your help and sorry if I caused you any trouble. Chooserr

Lagrobeast?

I've never seen a "lagrobeast" (40 tons) defined anywhere but this article. Google turns up only this article. Suggest we remove it.

Am I possibly being too gullible about this? --*Satis 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of it either. It was added by anon 70.109.119.179. I invite this anon to cite a source. In the mean time I'll comment it out. Jimp 19Dec05

Lagrobeast Revisited

To my knowledge, the lagrobeast was in fact a unit of measure that was used by the Celts. It should be considered part of Isle Units of Measure and under the Imperial System. I ask that someone with more knowledge on the lagrobeast populate the Celtic lagrobeast article.

A look through references on Imperial measurements doesn't turn it up. There's only one google search return on it at http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Imperial_unit ("the Wiki for TV, celebrities, and movies"). Does this mean it was created by a fiction writer? Certainly it's very rare to only have a single reference to anything on google, let alone a unit of measurement. Can you provide a reference? Otherwise I'd suggest we treat it as not authentic. Can you provide possible timescales and locations for usage by "Celts" (e.g. pre-Roman, Middle Ages,Scotland, Ireland...)--mgaved 18:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a pre-Imperial English unit ... or should I say "Celtic unit"? Anyhow it probably belongs somewhere else. Jimp 16:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt but this really does sound like the invention of a fantasy comic book writer. Can you explain why it "sounds like a pre-Imperial English unit" (and well pointed out that the Angles were a different bunch of people from the Celts) - is it based on the etymology of the word? --mgaved 14:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

given that the Celts were a mixed bag of tribes that invaded Britain from various areas of the continent I doubt that they would have had any standardised measures. (the concept of people being Celtic in origin with a Celtic civilization is a 16th century romantic invention) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esthameian (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Sure, I can explain why it sounds like a pre-Imperial English unit. I simply assumed that "the lagrobeast was in fact a unit of measure that was used by the Celts." was true. Given that that is true, this is what it sounds like. Of course, it might not be true and its giving only one Google-hit is pretty telling. My main point was that it doesn't belong here. Jɪmp 14:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

which other

Which other nations other than the US use the Imperial system?207.81.122.3 07:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I second this question. bob rulz 06:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The US doesn't use them. The UK does a bit and you'll find some use of them persisting in other Commonwealth nations but not much. Jimp 16:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

what about latin america, asia, africa?? --Astrokey44 13:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

former colonial areas and those recently occupied may use them to some extent but most would have had their own separate unrelated systems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esthameian (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Metric Association

Does anyone else see the irony of having external links to various metric associations on this page? - Greatgavini 11:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed the bit on usage of imperial units in the UK

I think it's important to stress that finding out what imperial units are used here is quite tricky. For instance, miles is used totally to the exclusion of kilometers. Yet among the young, metres are sometimes preferred over yards. Similarly, most young people I have met are familiar with both kilograms and stones and pounds as weight. I've altered it to more accurately reflect what is actually used over here. Probably needs a bit more work though. LupusCanis 18:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Young people's usage of SI units: in the UK children have been taught SI units in school since the early 1970s, so this means anybody under the age of 40 has been exposed to a formal knowledge of SI units and asked to practice them. --mgaved 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The metric system was taught alongside the older units until surprisingly recently. The old units were still commonly taught well into the 1980s and in some schools possibly until the early 1990s. Anyone older than their early 20's, while being primarilly taught the metric system would have at least a basic understanding of the more common imperial units.81.178.254.17 22:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

some schools were teaching metric in the late 50's and 60's although with more on Imperial. Miles for road traffic purposes and pints for beer and milk are still permitted for use for trade (note legislative compulsion is on 'use for trade' where the price is calcualted from the measurement)

Source of Canadian info?

Some of the Canadian info seems a bit dubious to me. I have never heard a Canadian radio station use fahrenheit. Although some fruit scales may have both metric and imperial measurements, the final sale price is still metric. And I have not seen a resurgance of imperial measurement in general. Anyone born during or after the 1980s is likely to have difficulty interperting most imperial measurements (other than for the height and weight of a person).

It may be that the author is reporting a regional phenomenon, in which case, a source and some clarification of location may be needed. --70.82.50.67 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the infos a bit. --128.100.109.52 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact that CIMX and CIDR only use imperial units to report the weather. I hear it about 20 times a day. CKLW issues its forecasts in metric values, but when they report current conditions they always state both °C and °F. This could be because of the proximity to the border and the fact that that they are exempt from Can-Con rules. In any case, it does demonstrate that weather is still broadcast in degrees fahrenheit near the border. Also, not stated in the article is that Enviroment Canada still has reports with an Imperial units option (Unités impériales in French) [1].—MJCdetroit 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, you should NOT revert the whole edits. First, the metric systems and SI units were introduced in Canada in the 1970s, NOT on January 1, 1983 (see Metrication in Canada). Further, "Temperature is typically measured and reported in degrees Celsius" is definitely a true statement, which accurately reflects the current usages in Canada as a whole, although you may also add infos such as "some radio stations, especially these near the border (such as CIMX and CIDR), however only use imperial units to report the weather. In addition, Enviroment Canada still has reports with an Imperial units option besides the metric ones.". --128.100.31.164 20:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; I was a little quick, but I was planning on doing some fact finding on this Jan. 1st, 1983 date first. I think that was the date when only metric values could be used. Also, I was also going to see if there was any citable proof to the claim that imperial units "may be experiencing a resurgence due...". In anycase, I like your rewrite and you should consider creating an account. —MJCdetroit 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am from saskatchewan and their is no mention of height on my drivers license in metric, it states my height in feet and inches. Also on my passport which was issued last month the height is also in height and inches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.241.146 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You can see it in the example at the SGI's website here [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.84.45 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Measures of Volumes in Tables:

I have started the process of putting the very helpful information on the measures of volume into tables that I think can be read a little more easily. I don't mean to tread on anyone's toes I just think it clarifies things a bit. If anyone would continue the conversion I would be very pleased.

A point moved from the article the talk page

Back to the "Metric Martyrs", the ruling by Lord Justice Laws upholding their conviction on appeal has not been tested on appeal in court yet (stopped for no good reason), and is highly questionable as unconstitutional: the appellate judge didn't allow later Acts to define the law against earlier Acts, while there is no such thing as constitutional Acts. The 1995 W&M Regulations have thus not been proved in court - authorised by the 1972 European Communities Act as it is, but clashing with the later 1985 Weights & Measures Act, which allows free choice between pounds and kilogrammes. As for use of dual scales, retailers need them not if never requested to measure in grams!...The delegated legislation of the 90's is impractical, to say the least. I'll add here that 1/1/2010 is the date for removal of imperial units from food packaging save for beer, despite nationwide opposition to that removal (see www.bwmaonline.com).

All roadsigns giving distances have to be in feet, yards and miles, for cars and pedestrians, but metres are allowed only with or alongside (i.e. separate signs) height restrictions in foot, and only with foot in width limits signs. Otherwise, imperial is gladly more in use now by the population than the media, and that's the majority of the country, actually, not just regarding MPG (miles/gallon).

It needs reiteration that dual labelling and pricing is to be abolished after 31/12/2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatgavini (talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 July 2006

it should also be noted that the recent expansion of the EU has resulted in a wave of migration to the UK from middle European countries where the Imperial system is unknown. This means that the metric system is in much more widespread use. The BWMA position is generally regarded in Government and legal circles as spurious, based largely on (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of the law and constitutional procedure as well as good old fashioned prejudice against anything considered foreign.

Mite

Does anyone have a cite for mite as a unit of mass? I've never come across it anywhere else. Rhialto 06:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Feet as height

I believe we need to add to this that imperial units are still used internationally to measure aircraft height. That this must annoy the French greatly is of no concern, but it is one area where imperial is used very well, largely due to the US's presence and use of feet, rather than the UK's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkus (talk • contribs) at 14:38, 15 November 2006

Volume units

I've moved the following tables out of the article. While they may be relevant elsewhere, they were not part of the official Imperial system of units, and so should not be in this article. Rhialto 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dry

1 peck			= 2 gal.	= 9.092 18 l
1 kenning or bucket		= 2 pecks	= 4 gal.	= 18.184 36 l
1 bushel	= 2 kennings	= 4 pecks	= 8 gal.	= 36.368 72 l
1 strike		= 2 bushels	= 16 gal.	= 72.737 44 l
1 quarter or pail		= 8 bushels	= 64 gal.	= 290.949 76 l
1 chaldron	= 4 quarters	= 32 bushels	= 256 gal.	= 1163.799 04 l
1 last	= 10 quarters	= 80 bushels	= 640 gal.	= 2909.497 6 l

Brewery

1 firkin			= 9 gal.	= 40.914 81 l
1 kilderkin		= 2 firkin	= 18 gal.	= 81.829 62 l
1 barrel	= 2 kilderkin	= 4 firkin	= 36 gal.	= 163.659 24 l
1 hogshead	= 3 kilderkin	= 6 firkin	= 54 gal.	= 245.488 86 l

The full table of British apothecaries’ measure is:

Apothecaries’ measure

1 minim			= 0.059 193 880 208¯3 ml
1 (fluid) scruple		= 20 minims	= 1.183 877 604 1¯6 ml
1 (fluid) dram or fluidram	= 3 scruples	= 60 minims	= 3.551 632 812 5 ml
1 fluid ounce	= 8 drachms	= 480 minims	= 28.413 062 5 ml
1 pint		= 20 ounces	= 568.261 25 ml
1 gallon	= 8 pints	= 160 ounces	= 4.546 09 l

Peck Bushel etc were part of the original system upto 1963 Esthameian 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not as specifically "dry" units, they weren't. Rhialto 19:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to come back to you on that - Iseem to have thrown out my copy of the 1936 Act and related legislation and, unfortunately I no longer have access to 'O'Keefe on Weights and Measures'.

Pound is not a measurement of mass.

This is a somewhat accurate and well written article in my opinion except for one glaring mistake. The Imperial unit known as the "pound" is a measurement of force and not a measurement of mass. The Imperial unit for the measurement of mass is the somewhat curiously named "slug". In other words, strictly speaking the "kilogram" cannot be accurately converted to an equivalent "pound" quantity due to the fact that the "kilogram" is a unit of mass while the "pound" is a unit of force, which results from the mass of said object in a 1g environment i.e. the amount of gravitational force on Earth.

I guess a suitable scenario would be if one would be able to travel and land on Jupiter. The amount of gravitational force on Jupiter is many times (how many I am not sure...sorry) that of our beloved Earth. A "kilogram" on Jupiter would be the same as a "kilogram" on Earth since the mass of an object does not change if the force of gravity changes. A "pound" on Jupiter however would be radically different due to the much increased gravitational force of Jupiter acting on the mass of the object in question.

I am a newby to Wikipedia as far as participating in the process. I have although used this site for referential purposes for the last 3 or 4 years and I think it is one of the finest projects on the web despite some of the pea-brained comments of it's few detractors. I did not want to just wade in and edit the article without becoming familiar with the entire editing process, which by the way I think is fabulous. Any input as far as what one should do when wanting to correct a minor error as I have found would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Blakley 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The pound is currently defined purely relative to the kilogram, which is, without any doubt, a measurement of mass. If you want to call it a unit of force, that is fine, but that isn't how the unit is defined in British, U.S., or international law.

As for the unit called slug, it isn't actually an "Imperial" unit, as it wasn't mentioned in the relevant law of 1824. I'd call it a customary U.S. unit, but only because I'm not aware of any other country which has used it in a significant fashion in recent years. Rhialto 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rhialto,

Thank you for the quick response. It's very obvious looking at your profile that you have done a great deal of work on this site. Thank you for that. In response to your response...I am just going by the empirical and decidedly apolitical world of physics. It seems very plausible that someone in a political position of strength would at some point say "we cannot be bothered with thinking about stuff...I have people to control and money to make", thus avoiding scientific fact and dummying down all those bothersome and cumbersome facts. Sorry if I seem a bit overly passionate but lately I seem to be surrounded by people that do not want to be bothered with scientific methodology. For instance my neighbor is a hard core creationist who spent about 30 minutes yesterday trying to convince me that dinosaurs are only about 7000 years old and the universe is just a bit older than that!!! Sorry..I digress..if you pop open a college physics text you will find what I have been saying..which is where I learned about all of this. If at some point someone in a position to warp standards said "well, heck let's just change a pound to being a measurement of mass because all of that other stuff is just too darned confusing". I can totally believe that scientific fact is being ignored out of some sort of political expediency. Do you remember when some boob in congress or the senate proposed that the value of PI be rounded down to 3 instead of what it really is...3.1459....Oh my gosh..the pesky irrational numbers!! lol Sorry I'll hop on down from my milk box. :-) I may disagree with you on this one small point, however I very much appreciate and respect all of the work that you and many others have done on this fabulous site to bring information to those seeking it.

Cheers!!

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here anyway. The value of pi, and whether dinosaurs were real, those are objectively verifiable facts. The definition of a pound has always been defined by politicians, whether the modern mass unit or the older force unit. To complain that the unit has 'recently' been redefined by politicians is to ignore the fact that it was originally defined by politicians anyway. The value of a pound is not something that exists in an absolute objective sense. It depends on a human, usually a politician, defining it. Rhialto 20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the comparison with the alleged attempt to redefine PI is not relevant. PI is a dimensionless natural constant which cannot be changed by the whim of man. 'Pound' is simply a word that may defined as meaning anything and the International Convention in, I think, 1960 decided (in consultaion with the science, business and engineering communities) to define it in terms of the kilogram. Therefore, whatever the kilogram is, so also ids the pound, and texts suggesting otherwise are out of date and must be revised Esthameian 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rhialto,

You've made some very interesting and relevant points. I agree..PI is an objective value, not subjective as the other material we have been discussing. I guess the point I was somewhat feebly trying to make, and what pisses me off the most about the current collective mindset (once again, somewhat subjective) of America is the turning away from all or most things scientific. I'm not sure if you reside in the US so I'm not sure if you have experienced what I am talking about. The very wonderful scientist/writer/personality Carl Sagan wrote a book a few years ago entitled "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" which was basically an essay (mind you once again subjective) of how current society (mainly American) is turning away from science and wrapping itself in aliens, astrology, cryptozoology etc..etc... My gosh how did I get here? ..oh yeah units of measurement. Just call me "The Digression Kid". LOL

It's very refreshing to communicate with someone who is obviously well read, intelligent and thoughtful. This has been the most intelligent conversation I have had with anyone in quite some time. At this point I'm going to wimp out a bit and throw out a URL to back up my point. I'm sure you will promptly let me know what you think of this information which is what I have enjoyed about this exchange.

http://www.racquetresearch.com/units.htm

This is why pound-mass and pound-force along with slugs are used in engineering. Thank the ignorant law writers for messing things up.. -Fnlayson 04:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No Rebuttal Rhialto?

Strangely enough I get a bit of a perverse satisfaction in being proved wrong, or wrong in certain points of contention. I guess it's because at the moment of doubt of previously held beliefs and/or general confusion, I believe that I am learning in the purest sense and this for me is the sweet epiphany that I believe what life is all about. This is all of course a bit subjective, unlike the value of PI. :-) I am the skeptic that would love to be proved wrong. For instance I do not believe that the Earth has been visited by any alien species. If someone had undisputable, irrefutable proof that indeed there is substance to the whole "Roswell Syndrome" I would literally be dancing in the streets to the beat of my erred thinking. Hope you are having a great evening Bro.

Jim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blakley (talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi again. You might find a more detailed discussion of the units you are thinking of over at Pound (mass) and Pound-force. I guess the reason the pound is conventionally regarded as a mass unit is that (except for NASA, which is notorious for inventing new units) it never once saw use in any context where teh difference between mass and force would be relevant, and people (scientists included) are vastly more familiar with kilograms than newtons, the kg being one of the base SI units. Rhialto 08:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Wikipedia, and are even regarded as Vital articles. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Measurement to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Using lbs vs. lb

I wouldn't have changed lb to lbs had it originally appeared that way, but have reverted because I don't believe it was proper to change the lbs I had written into lb. lbs is a specifically plural abbreviation of lb and is quite commonly used. As such there is no need to arbitrarily change it to lb. There is no inconsistency with the lb already in the article because lb should always be used in a singular sense but may be used in a plural sense (although less common in many circumstances), whereas lbs is exclusively plural. Just by browsing a few websites, I've seen lbs used quite frequently: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I really could go on forever, but I'll spare you. The point is I think your reversion of lbs to lb is much along the same lines as it would be for me to change colour to color or centre to center. These are all very acceptable forms and should not be changed without a good reason (although I personally believe lbs is preferred to lb when plural, but this may be regional or dependent upon context). Talmage 06:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy, where two styles (such as US vs UK English, or lb vs lbs in this specific case) are generally considered equally valid or are valid depending on the non-wikipedia manual of style in use, wikipedia policy is to go with the first author to set a precedent in the article. browsing the history of teh article, it would appear that lb is that precedent for usage, so I am reverting. Rhialto 09:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style section on units of measurements clearly states that an 'S' should not be amended to the end of abbreviations/symbols for measurements, i.e. kg not kgs, lb not lbs, yd not yds. In my experience, lbs and yds are the most commonly seen abbreviations. Actually, I see the pound symbol (#) more than lb, but it's not appropriate for use in this setting. My suggestion would be to discuss making an exception for imperial measurements' abbreviations at WP:MOSNUM, as that talk page would supersede the imperial unit talk page . Otherwise, the MOS would rule that 'lb' is the only correct way to do this (no matter what is agreed to on this talk page). —MJCdetroit 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good, I was going by that rule from elsewhere. Using s on these abbreviations must be a older thing that is still used in places. -Fnlayson 14:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I typed in lbs in a plural sense when I created the text for the comment. lb was previously used and is still used appropriately as the abbreviation of pound, and is not inconsistent or incorrect, since it is always to be used in a singular sense. I am changing lbs back however since it is what I originally wrote. Furthermore this isn't a UK vs USA situation per se because the imperial system is only predominately used in the USA, Liberia, and Myanmar. In America, lbs is almost always used in a plural usage. Once again, lb is correct as the abbreviation for pound but lbs is also correct and more prominent as the abbreviation of pounds. The issue is the pluralization. There is no inconsistency whatsoever. The article reads now as it was when I originally edited it: pound (lb) which is correct and 2000 lbs. which is not inconsistent (since it's plural) and is absolutely preferred in most contexts and correct. Talmage 20:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• You ignored the part where that's against the Wikipedia policy (WP:MOSNUM). That doesn't count, huh? Abbreviated units do not include the S. -Fnlayson 20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM - Official wikipedia policy on number formats says use lb, not lbs, in all contexts, to indicate this imperial unit of measurement. That supercedes the other wikipedia policy I noted earlier (which would still back my original edit on this, since there is still an earlier precedent within this article for using lb to indicate more than one pound, specificaly within the discussion on the definition of the gallon). Rhialto 23:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Talmage, take your cause to WP:MOSNUM's talk page if you really hope to make a change, as it is pointless for you to continue here. Be careful to state that you would like an exception to the adding an 's' to abbreviations for imperial units only like yds and lbs. Because if you make a blanket statement like "adding an 's' at the end", then many editors will think that you maybe including metric unit symbols and they will shoot you down very quickly. The main editors of the MOSNUM part of the MOS are very defensive of it and do not allow any changes without in depth discussion first, but this is a good thing. So be prepared to defend your stance and if it is not supported then you'll have to live with that decision. By the way, the UK and Canada still very much use the pound in everyday life. —MJCdetroit 04:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

nautical mile

Please bear in mind that this article is about the British admiralty/imperial units, not the modern metricised units. A full discussion of the modern importance of the metricised/international mile is very appropriate in the article nautical mile, but highlighting the prominence of metricised units is inappropriate in an article about imperial units. Rhialto 12:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Milk in pints or litres?

User:Rhialto removed milk from the list of items sold in pint units, commenting that half-litre is the usual unit. I'm not so sure about this and have reverted the edit. 75% of milk bought in the UK is from supermarkets [8], who continue to sell milk in multiples of pints [9]. Doorstep deliveries are also mainly in pints. But I am, of course, happy to be shown evidence to the contrary. Bazza 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there some distinction in the law, based on how it is packaged (e.g., bottles or not) or who is doing the selling or something like that? Gene Nygaard 14:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my edit. A quick visit to my local supermarket shows that they actually sell the milk in multiples of 568 ml. It might be worth changing the page to note that pint is the usual retail multiple, not the usual serving size. Rhialto 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, most supermarkets sell in multiples of 500ml (almost a pint), 1l, 2l, 3l, 4l, etc. Only people that still think its a "pint" of milk is yer granny. Same with beer - its 500ml. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.72.35 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The carton of Tesco's milk in my fridge is marked as 1.136 litres, or 2 pints. Tesco is not my granny, nor do I think it ever will be. And pubs are in fact legally required to sell beer in multiples of pints or half-pints. Strange, but true. Rhialto (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Imperial or imperial? U.S. or US?

The article at present is a mix of "Imperial" and "imperial" and attempt to rationalise that to the latter was reverted by User:Ckatz. Oxford Dictionaries give lowercase [10], as do various others [11]. There appears to be no consensus, though, but the article should be consistent. As it seems to concentrate mostly on the British imperial system, and a lowercase "i" seems to be preferred by British English dictionaries, I have edited the article to use "imperial" where appropriate. Bazza 12:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no grammatical reason to capitalise imperial just as we don't capitalise metric. This is why dictionaries (and here's another) spell the word with a lower case i. There is only one imperial system: the system formerly used in Commonwealth countries, the one which originated in Britian, the British system—the US customary system is a different system (albeit identical with respect to the definitions of most units). This brings me to the second change of mine which was reverted. It is clear that national ties of this article are to Commonwealth countries and to the UK in particular and strongly so. Therefore, it is British English which we should be using. US and UK as opposed to U.S. and U.K. being the norm in modern British English, this is the punctuation we should prefer here. I therefore stick by both of my edits and move that they be fully reinstated. Jɪmp 04:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your view on "Imperial" vs "imperial", which is why I went ahead and changed (most) to lowercase. On UK, U.K, US and U.S., there is a Wikipedia-preferred style which we should stick to, namely "U.S." and "UK". Bazza 13:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The page you mention does allow both U.S. and US. Take a look at the main MoS, though, and we find ...

In American English, both US and, decreasingly, U.S. are common abbreviations for United States; US is yet more common in other varieties. ... When the United States is mentioned by acronym in the same article as other abbreviated country names, for consistency do not use periods (the US, the UK and the PRC); and especially do not add periods to the other acronyms, as in the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.).

This article does abbreviate United Kingdom to UK this would entail that US be used. Jɪmp 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The word demands capitalisation. The lowercase 'i' makes it look "impish". A de-capitalised "imperial" is nearly oxymoronic, and hence why we find ourselves naturally wanting to capitalise it, in spite of the lack of "grammatical reason." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.29.116 (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What? "impish"? "oxymorinic"? What's this all about. The word "imperial" is just the adjectival form of "empire", neither of which deserve capitalising here. Bazza 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Unit Conversion Control

For infoboxes. Suggesting an "English/Metric" conversion control be provided as an option in Infoboxes, so that users can have stats displayed to their preference. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#English.2FMetric_Conversion_Feature.3F Rep07 (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

UK passports

Do UK (EU) passports have a height and weight section? Mine doesn't seem to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.46.66 (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I got my UK/EU passport during March of 2008, and it doesnt include my heigh/weight. Silica-gel (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)