Talk:ISO 216

message: The definition, or rationale, given for the B series, is bizarre: geometric means between the A series format with a particular number and the A series format with one lower number. Perhaps that's true, but is this really the reason the B series was invented, or useful? Isn't a more useful explanation is that while the A0 was defined to have an area of 1m^2, the B0 was defined to have a (short) side of 1m?
192.114.107.4 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the article to reflect this Woscafrench (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: This is not the rationale that the standard itself (section 4.4) gives. Changing it back. Paul Murray (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

text: For those able to read German, the rationale is explained in the PDF with articles from the Discussion in the German standardization movement. This is linked to in the article ("external links"). --L.Willms (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: B rationale

message: I made a change to the rationale for using 1:sqrt(2) rationale for A paper as well as the inclusion of a few equations for proof.  If someone can take a look at the changes and see whether or not they agree, I'd appreciate.  I found the previous explanation to be badly written and confusing.Kakomu (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Root 2 rationale

message: I propose the merger for two reasons:
#There is little that can be said about silver rectangles. Unlike golden rectangles, which are alleged to crop up everywhere and have a distinguished history, silver rectangles are of limited interest. The folding property should be described at ISO 216 anyway.
#The name "silver rectangle" is both ambiguous and unfortunate. It is unfortunate because it is not a rectangle with the proportions of the silver ratio, as is suggested by the golden ratio/golden rectangle analogy. It is ambiguous because it is sometimes defined by root2 and sometimes by 1+root2 (the silver ratio), and there are not enough references to determine which is more common. I think the solution is to endorse neither, but to acknowledge in both ISO 216 and Silver ratio that they both have some claim to the name "silver rectangle".
Okay, I'm done. Melchoir 03:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Rather than redirect Silver rectangle to either usage, I've made a somewhat unorthodox disambiguation page out of it. Melchoir 04:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Silver rectangle]] into [[ISO 216]]?

message: The table on the left should be deleted. The lower table is really very nice, but the drawings should be scaled consistently. jcp 05:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why two duplicate tables 

message: I'm pretty sure that the side parallel to the shorter side is another one of the shorter sides.  I think probably perpendicular is what is meant.
:Well, there's two ways to give the direction of a fold - give the direction of the crease, or of the folding motion. This, of course, makes both ways pretty useless. It should probably be phrased "by halving the preceding paper size's longer dimension," or such. Darekun 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes?? 

message: Note that a Second Edition has been published as of 2007. I can't find information about what the revisions are, but someone should find out and update the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.127.11 (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 Revision

message: For example, in the table with the various paper sizes "A4= 210 x 297".  This is "x" by "y", or let's call it "length x height."  Then we see "A3 = 297 x 420" or "y" by "x" or "height" by "length."  This information is formatted the same way on almost any page on the Internet I could find, many of which had "pre-Wikipedia" feel to them, so I'm not questioning the accuracy at all.  Is there a standard (ISO, ANSI, DIN, etc.) for the order for giving length and height measurements?  (use "height" as a replaceable term for "width" if necessary).  I notice that A3 has a horizontal orientation while A4 has a vertical orientation, and they give their "x" and "y" dimensions oppositely.  Any significance to that?  I know that putting an A4 sheet in front of a drafter in vertical orientation would earn you a weird look from him, so the orientation's aren't arbitrary.
On a side note, is there a standardization for whether "width" or "height" is the correct term for the "y" dimension?
Also, is there a standard order for quoting length and height/width in general?  It seems like the natural order would be length (x) by width/height (y), being that human field of vision is significantly more horizontally oriented than vertically, so I was surprised to see A3 (and the other "fat" sizes) given with "y" dimension first.    Being that drawing/drafting standards are as ambitious as they are, I can't imagine that no one has thought of this aspect B4.  (my apologies for both of those awful, awful paper standardization puns).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.154.77 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "orientation" of A3 isn't in any way different from A4. It's just displayed horizontally in the image to fit all the sizes neatly in to same rectangle. Ossi 14:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds sensible, given that the ISO sizes don't truly HAVE a "width" or "height" to them - you can orient the paper in landscape or portrait to suit your own needs. It just defines that one of the dimensions is "so much", and the other is a second figure. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  X vs. Y or Y vs. X (column major x row major or row major by column major) 

message: there is a link to the main page on the sub-section on A4, but it's not a link.
can someone who isn't a code-noob (thats me) make this work properly!
thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.111 (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Main Page.... 

message: Why not mention of A00 paper?  It is in common use in draughting offices.
:Sooo... how big is that? Presumably 2x the A0 size, so 1682 x 1189?
Also, the C sizes are not covered by ISO 216 and should only be referenced from these page.  No detailed description necessary. 79.77.113.193 (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A00 paper? 

message: This page and the Paper size page appear to have the same purpose / function and contain much of the same information. I suggest they be merged.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.221.168 (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest merge of Duplicate pages 

message: ...or is this explained on its own page somewhere (to which we should link)?
I know what it is - wide and high enough that a piece of A4 folded into 3 along its long edge will fit neatly inside, typically for short missives with a max of about five pages... e.g. restaurant menus or other landscape type promo material, or a portrait letter / invoice / etc, typically with part of the letterhead (containing the recipient's name, mailing address and any other immediately relevant info) then being visible through a clear plastic window on the front, and the main content safely folded away on the other 2/3rds and not able to be shaken into view. But there's not even a short expo like that, and I'm not sure immediately where to or whether to include it 193.63.174.10 (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  add brief explanation of DL envelope? 

message: Isn't the B-sizes generally used for envelopes? I vaguely remember using a B4-envelope to mail forms that shouldn't be folded, and B5-envelopes for "normal" folded letters written on A4-sheets. Should this be mentioned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.150.23 (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Envelope sizes 

message: The article mentions the publication of DIN 216 in Germany in 1922, but can anyone address the history of the adoption of these standard sizes of papers in the various countries of Europe.  It would be particularly interesting to discuss when the UK went over to this metric standard. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, does anybody know which countries DON'T use it? The only country where I noticed that the paper is weird is the USA. 203.214.115.85 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I second this request. I have heard older people in the UK talking about foolscap and so on, but I'm not sure when they stopped using it. Someone reading this will know and be able to remember if there was a prolonged changeover period when you might get a stack of different-sized papers or something. A4 is ubiquitous now except for special purposes. Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a gradual changeover in the UK in the mid and late 60s. This was an era before computer printers so the transition was easy. If the US had transitioned at that time then we would have a global standard now. When I was 16 and starting my A levels in 1971, all the writing pads were A4 or A5 and the old foolscap standards had almost disappeared. --Ef80 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

text: In 1974 I had to re-type my dissertation at university when they changed the format for final submission from quarto to A4 after I'd already typed 20,000 of my 25,000 words.  A lot of extra work in the days before word processing!!  Even more annoying was that I (and the other students doing the same work) had experienced problems actually finding quarto as we all were using A4 by then! DickyP (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Adoption? 

message: This is a pretty good article, but like a lot of articles it forgets to give the quintessential piece of info, in this case, WHY did everyone except the US move to this system? I did a kind of O & M course a few years back, and the tutor said that the wonderful thing about this system is that you can cut a single piece of paper 1 square metre into any combination of A sizes and not waste a single square centimetre! This is kind of evident in the diagrams shown but it is not explicitly referred to. The other - even more fantastic thing - is that you can magnify (say) an A5 sheet on a Xerox, and the resulting A4 printout has EXACTLY the same proportions as the original A5 sheet! And draftsmen can purchase special sets of pens to use on these pages. The thickness of the lines the pens draw are calibrated to the different sizes of these sheets. So you can draw lines on an A4 sheet using the pen intended for that sheet size, then put that sheet on a Xerox and print a smaller version of your draft work on an A5 sheet. The picture will have exactly the same proportions as the bigger one. Then you can take a different pen (the one having a finer line and designed to work on A5 sheets ) and continue with your work. And so on for all sizes, magnifying up or reducing down. Try that with magnifying or reducing between quarto and foolscap! 
I was around when Austalia converted from foolscap to A4 as the standard office size. I remember that at the beginning we all thought that the A4 sheet was absurdly short. Now, when I find some old document amongst my trivia and nostalgia items, I think, this looks like some medieval scroll.  Actually, the article really needs some reference to the old imperial standards to round it out. 
Btw, I am not a mathematician, but I gather that these A4 etc ratios are NOT the same thing as the golden mean, but that they are somehow connected. Is that true?  Myles325a (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't true. A rectangle with the golden mean has the property that the ratio between the sum of the two sides and the long side is the same as the ratio between the long side and the short side. For A4 paper etc, the ratio between twice the short side and the long side is the same as the ratio between the long side and the short side. Woscafrench (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wha4 the A4?  

message: What rational was there ever for developing the C series? Surely there must have been a more pressing reason than that it is "the geometric ratio between the B series and the A series"? Woscafrench (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: C Series?

message: The page content should be substantially reduced. No reason to have size tables twice, the nice size char for all three series is also presented twice. The specific property of "magic" aspect ratio is explained four times including the formal verification of ∀a≠0,b≠0: a/b = 2b/a ⇒ a/b = √2. Although I like formal verifications of statements, although Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, in my humble opinion, it is inappropriate present formal mathematic verifications of statements on pages like this one. If it is appropriate here, then someone should add formal explanation why weight of 1/16m2 80g/m2 paper is 5g also ...
And page should be renamed to reflect the ISO 269 formats are discussed here as well. Especially when you can ask Wikipedia for page related to ISO 269 and you will got one (different from this one). It's confusing.
To be short - to many duplications, too many unrelated information, too long, too hard to read. 
* seconded. Paul Murray (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many duplicates

message: The article doesn't explain the idea behind A0+, A1+, A2+ and A3+.--Oneiros (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to the article looking for this info. Really should be added by someone who knows. Kvaks (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  An+ 

message: This Lichtenberg ratio article's content is pretty much already represented here, but in case there's any more, let's merge it before deleting; OK?  Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, be bold.--Oneiros (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: More than a year later, I finally did this.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Lichtenberg ratio]] 

message: In the current Brother adverts on TV certainly in the UK but almost certainly airing in other markets.
Brother claim that A3 is 143% bigger than A4 in a sales pitch for their A3 format copiers.
Surely as A3 is twice as big as A4 then the claim should be 100%, can anyone help with this query?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.128.97 (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (143%)² = 204% (So someone rounded up when he should have rounded down, but otherwise the number is approximately correct.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.97.66 (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A3 is about 30cm wide, A4 is 21cm wide. 30/21=1.43. So the width of A3 is about 143% of the width of A4 (actually 141% if you count millimeters). The area of an A3 is 200% of the area of an A4. So lengthwise the A3 is 41% bigger, and areawise 100% bigger. Boivie (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query - Brother advert 

message: I understand why the C series is useful, and indeed many of the envelopes available in stationery shops are labelled in C sizes, but I can't understand what B is for and I don't believe I've ever seen it in use. Can anyone enlighten me? Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppose that you are a bureaucrat in some public office and you should send an A4 document to someone and also include an envelope for reply. So, you will fold the A4 once and then it is A5. Then you put it into a B5 envelope and also include a C5 envelope so that the recipient can use that C5 envelope when sending back the filled document. That is how I have seen them used. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  B series 

message: Aspect ratio is commonly given by the longer side first, 5:3, 3:2, 4:3, 16:9 ... Anyone a reason why not doing so in this article? NuclearEnergy (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it be that the horizontal number usually is given first, and that papers primarily are considered in the portrait orientation? Boivie (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1:√2 vs √2:1 

message: Why does almost everything in the article appear twice? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication (again) 

message: The opening says that "ISO 216 specifies international standard (ISO) paper sizes used in most countries in the world today, with the United States and Canada the only two exceptions." but the history section says that "Although they have also officially adopted the ISO 216 paper format, Colombia, Mexico, The Philippines and Chile also use mostly U.S. paper sizes in ordinary usage."
In my experience, while it might be true that Chile has adopted the standard, in practice the most commonly used format is carta (letter). The Wikipedia article on Chile concurs: []. So either the opening should say ISO 216 specifies the official paper size of most countries in the world today, or if it wishes to continue specifying the paper size used, it should also mention that Colombia, Mexico, The Philippines and Chile are exceptions.
--Siker (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory on where the standard is used 

message: I think diagonal sizes of the standarts (A4, A5, etc.) should be given in the tables.--194.27.186.205 (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagonal Sizes 

message: Crediting Portmann for developing the German standard in the 20th century ignores the statement that France already had the current and ISO A2, A3, B3, B4, and B5 in 1798. What did Portmann actually develop? Since this material is unsourced, I am deleting it until someone comes forward with well-sourced information about what Portmann or the DIN standard contributed.—Finell 01:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of German DIN standard 

message: A good-faith editor reworded an apparent recitation of the specification (using "shall"); I tried to rewrite the paragraph using encyclopedic language ("The pen widths are specified to be..."), but hit a problem. There are three (3!) references, and all are defective. We have the absurdity of a commercial organisation charging 50 Swiss francs or so to read the wording of the specification, and are left relying on various manglings. The fact that using pen nib sizes in the root(2) sequence would match the corresponding drawing scaling is an obvious, ineluctable mathematical fact that (in a rational world at least) needs no "source". But perhaps the standard actually gives specific thicknesses for lines at different drawing sizes? If so, the wording should reflect this; but no reference tells us. The metrication.com site appears to give specified line widths for A0 and A1, then claims "just use the same for A2, A3, and A4, which is nonsense. The designingbuildings.co.uk site (can't spell "its") shows ISO pens mixed in with other pens, and just mumbles about the general principle. Markus Kuhn (can spell "its") again just gives the general principle. Does anyone have access to the standard itself? Or a statement of all the facts of the stardard written in prose that is not a copyright violation? Imaginatorium (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pen widths 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect C-size. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "C-size" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]