Talk:Imperial units

message: Shouldn't the nautical mile be 6,076.1155 feet, or 6080 with rounding.  In the article someone wrote 5080 which sounds wrong.  Last time I edited an article they reversed the change because someone said I was wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.185.33 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rounded or not, it should be 6080 feet. I made a dumb typo earlier, that's all. Rhialto (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nautical Mile 

message: burma/myanmar is not part of the Commonwealth its under military control burma was part of the commonwealth but myanmar is the name of burma since the military coupe    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.246.36 (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This situation is common to many other countries which formerly used Imperial units. Some people might feel that "British empire" (which I wrote per my previous message), is politically misleading. If that is indeed a concern, then I propose to move that whole sentence "As of 2008, all countries that used the Imperial system ... " to the Current use of imperial units section, where it is more needed than in the header section. The remark about Burma then could be moved to the "other countries" section. — Sebastian 20:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burma/Myanmar 

message: Should Imperial not be capitalised?  It does refer specifically to the British Empire.  I've looked through the first few hits from Google for "imperial units" (which ignores case) and while it is far from unanimous the balance seems to be in favour of capitalisation which also strikes me as grammatically correct. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No it should not be capitalised. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=39345&dict=CALD&topic=measurements-in-general JIMp talk·cont 23:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes it should be capitalised. It refers to the official units of the British Empire. Therefore it would be a (British) Imperial pint, a pint of the Empire, rather than an "imperial pint", a pint which has imperial qualities, or is used by various different empires. https://www.britannica.com/science/British-Imperial-System -- IamNotU (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That Britannica reference is inconsistent with both "Imperial" and "imperial" on the same page: in particular "imperial gallon", "imperial standard yard" and "imperial bushel". I'll trump it with . Bazza (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the ten cites for this sense in the big OED, only two have Imperial capitalised, and the OED itself does not use an initial capital.  Dbfirs 17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: Strangely this article doesn't list the countries that currently use imperial units by law.
I believe that it is only the U.S.A. and either Lybia or Liberia or both.
I came to this article to find out which.
One would think the section below would include the U.S.A. or it should be renamed to;
"Current mixed use of imperial units" or "Continuing use of Imperial in officially Metric countries"
3 Current use of imperial units 
3.1 United Kingdom 
3.2 Canada 
3.3 Australia 
3.4 Republic of Ireland 
3.5 Other countries 
198.103.184.76 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The US system is different, e.g. six US pints are roughly five imperial ones. I'm not sure about Liberia and Burma; I'd like to see some decent refs. JIMp talk·cont 08:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The US units are actually US customary units, but most are identical (except pints, gallons and tons).  The UK still uses Imperial units by law, but only in certain specific measurements (e.g pint of milk or beer; road mile etc.)  Dbfirs 19:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  current use 

message: ...other provinces like Saskatchewan use imperial units.Driver’s Licences: Photo ID. The sample on the curent website shows that in the case of Saskatchewan this is no longer true. Peter Horn User talk 00:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then Be Bold and take it out instead of leaving tracks.  I couldn't find NS or NB license pictures, but PEI use cm for height; if anyone still has lbs and inches on their license, list it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial units drivers license 

message: The newspaper articles referred to were very vague about "EU rules".  The newspapers were in fact reporting on posturing by politicians before the publication of consultation prior to the review of EU directive 80/181/EEC, but the reporting was wildly inaccurate.  It should be noted that Wikipedia advises newspaper stories should be treated with caution when cited as sources. The changes to the directive were published in early 2009 and came into effect on 1-Jan-2010.
:Thanks for clarifying the issue.  Dbfirs 07:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate reporting 

message: Are both of these assertions true?
:"However unlike in the rest of Canada, metrication in the Francophone province of Quebec has been more implemented and metric measures are more consistently used in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada both officially and among the population."
:"Still many English Canadians (unlike most French Canadians) use SI units to describe their weight and height..."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They can't be, can they?  I've changed the second claim to what I think was intended, but my only connection with Canada is a cousin there, so perhaps Canadians can check.  Dbfirs 07:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am French Canadian and I can tell you that most French Canadians use the imperial system for their weight (and all other kind of weight) and height. Probably because it's much easier to use... I don't know how to correct the article so please correct it. Most people use the metric system for almost everything else (the older generations 45 yo + still adhere to the imperial system). Max Thunder 19 October 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.74.36 (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the second distinction between English and French Canadians, pending some evidence of the confused claim.  Is the first claim broadly true, that metrication has had a wider acceptance in Quebec?  Dbfirs 08:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quebec metrication 

message: I was pleased to see the table going up in multiples of two because I remember it from 50 years ago, but I was puzzled by the metric equivalents.  A "teaspoon" of only 3.5516328125 ml sounds more like a coffee spoon, and all other sizes seem to be about 35% too small.  I can't find details of metric equivalents in the reference cited, though this might be because Google isn't showing it.  Do these unreasonably precise figures constitute original research by someone?  They seem to be based on the American idea of a tablespoon which has little connection with the old British spoon used for serving and formerly called a tablespoon (with a volume of at least 20 ml as preserved in Australian usage).  Dbfirs 19:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the guy who just put up the table of culinary measures. They would have little to do with the dimensions of any 20th century cutlery. They were, however, used in medicine, back in the days when when doctors prescribed, and people followed the recipe on the prescription order and made their own medicine. The table is from page 165 of Ronald Edward Zupko's British Weights and Measures, although I've checked other sources. The precision is due to the fact the imperial gallon is defined with a fairly high degree of precision. Of course nobody would use these units to measure that accurately, but it's like the definition of the US gallon as 231 cubic inches. That's an exact definition. 2.54 centimeters to an inch is also exact. A cubic inch is thus exactly 16.387064 cubic centimeters, a US gallon 3.785411784 liters, a half-pint 236.5882365 cubic centimeters. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for reformatting the table.  I like the improved version better.  I was thinking of Victorian teaspoons, tablespoons and cups, which were considerably bigger than modern ones, but I see where you are getting the conversion from.  May I adjust the note to remove the unreasonable claim to accuracy, since measurements at that time simply could not be made with anywhere near that precision, and the definition has been changed twice with slightly different values for the gallon.  On a separate topic, I am always suspicious of interpretations of one country's measurements by an author in another country, though Zupko seems well-qualified.  I'm slightly suspicious of the old tablespoon being only half a fluid ounce.  Can we find any British source?  Dbfirs 22:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken out the metric equivalent for now. I need to do more research. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I just looked in the 1842 Encyclopedia Britannica and can't find it, even though they have (apparently) the whole imperial system. So for now I've taken out the whole culinary measures section. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For I have known them all already, known them all—Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,I have measured out my life with coffee spoons... — The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot (an American expatriate in England), 1917 —— Shakescene (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I wonder if there are different interpretations of culinary units by different authors.  I suspect that the writers of recipes never expected their approximate measurements to be interpreted with such precision.  The size of a teacup has certainly varied considerably with the changing culture of tea drinking.  Dbfirs 08:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since then I've done more research on these measures. They were actually apothecary measures, mostly unofficial, but widely used by apothecaries. They also turned up in cookbooks. In the first half of the 19th century there was fad for measuring cooking ingredients with laboratory glassware to high precision. The teacupful, etc., was intended to be measured accurately to the nearest minim. If you were off by more than one minim, then you weren't a good housewife. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee spoon? 

message: Canadian units appear to duplicate Imperial except for the addition of: 
#French equivalent language
#US equivalent measures. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably could be merged, with a redirect from Canadian units to Weights and Measures Act (R.S. 1985)]. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the French translations tables should be moved to the Weights and Measures Act (R.S. 1985)] article. There are also the acre-foot, board foot and cord (unit) as well as the short ton and the short hundred weight which are peculiar to both Canada and the U.S. So, let us keep well enough alone and keep the two seperate. Peter Horn User talk 01:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there are also all those references to the different provincial ministries of education. What would become of those? Leave well enough alone. Peter Horn User talk 01:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What do they have to do with the subject of the article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Oh that. Could be handled with a 1-liner saying "Imperial units are still taught in Canadian elementary school education." and as many of those redundant references as are required to meet the needs of the citation bigots. Hardly needs a whole article.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Generally Agree. The English language portion of that article is essentially duplication of material. The French portion of that article is new material, but on the other hand, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a phrasebook. Since the sole reason for that article to exist as it stands is to provide French translations, it has no proper reason to exist as currently written. Rhialto (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian units 

message: The article says, Since 1959, the US and the British yard have been defined identically to be 0.9144 metres, to match the international yard. Until today, this had a CN tag attached. Today it was replaced with a reference to website that supports the text. The problem is, both the text and the website are incorrect.
In July of 1959 six countries signed a treaty agreeing to adopt the international inch. The countries were the UK, the four dominions (or former dominions) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, and finally, the USA. However, Canada had already adopted the international inch several years earlier. In the USA, the Bureau of Standards began the transition as soon as the ink on the treaty was dry, even though Congress didn't ratify it until January 1960. In the UK, the treaty was ratified by the Weights and Measures Act of 1963 (which didn't go into effect until 1964). I don't when Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa made the transition. 
The inch article has the same problem. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  International inch 

message: Anonymous user "2.217.61.185" changed the original text of the article that said "The metric system is in official use within the United Kingdom for most applications" to claim "[...]for some applications". I believe this is clearly wrong - the only official use of non-metric measures in the UK is the road signs. The only other uses of non-metric measures aren't "official use" in the normal sense of the phrase: they are for sales of draught beer and cider (must be in pints). Sales of precious metals *may* be in troy ounces, and sales of milk in glass bottles *may* be in pints, but again this isn't "official use" in my book.
Additionally, anonymous user "2.217.61.185" changed the original text further down to remove the claim "but the use of kilogrammes is increasing" in the comment about the way people discuss body weights. Again I consider that wrong: it is obvious that certainly people who are actively monitoring their weight (going to the gym etc) are likely to refer to weights in kg. People who take part in sports with weight categories (Judo etc) likewise. People who are in and out of hospital or their doctors' surgeries likewise. The BBC report rugby players' weights in kg. Some of the BBC's radio presenters (usually notorious for doing everything in imperial measures) discuss their own weights in kg - Chris Evans did so just a few weeks back on Radio 2 I noticed.
On both of these edits I say the article had it right before anonymous user "2.217.61.185" changed them. So I reverted him. He's just reverted it back and I'm going to leave it temporarily, hoping to get some feelings from here about what it *should* say. Comments please? Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia any claims must be supported by sources. The interpretation of "most" is not explicitly stated in the BBC citation, but it is consistent with the following paragraphs in the United Kingdom section. (It would be better if there were a direct source for the statement at the end of that sentence.) The statement "but the use of kilogrammes is increasing" is supported by the Guardian article. So both statements should be restored. I will revert the changes. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: The division of the population at 40 years of age is very artificial, and your WP:original research on percentages has no place in the article.  I agree with you that there is a tendency for the younger generation to use metric more often, but most of us are happy with both systems, and almost everyone here uses miles.  Dbfirs 14:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war breaking out over "Current Use"/"United Kingdom" section 

message: According to statista web site the population of the uk over 40 as of 2016 was 32.84 million : https://www.statista.com/statistics/281174/uk-population-by-age/
The ONS statistics for 2017 indicate the UK population as being 65.6 million: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/july2017
If the 2015 survey stated in the article (which has been accepted as a citation) stating the divide of the majority use of imperial and metric is 40 years of age then clearly from the two stats above it must be concluded that from the evidence available the split of use between imperial and metric is even as of 2016/2017 (over 40 UK 2017 population = 50.06%). It can only be concluded that from 2016/17 onwards this figure will tend towards the younger generations that predominately use metric.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.112.155 (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The division of the population at 40 years of age is very artificial, and your WP:original research on percentages has no place in the article.  I agree with you that there is a tendency for the younger generation to use metric more often, but most of us are happy with both systems, and almost everyone here uses miles.  Dbfirs 14:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK section - Saying most people use imperial is wrong 

message: As of now the most recent edit is that of Jim Wae's reversion to "orignl ymd" for access dates after eight months of the article's happily getting along with dmy for all dates.  Jim cites WP:DATERET to justify the edit.  He also cites MOS:DATEUNIFY, which, although permitting ymd for access dates, has the main aim of promoting consistency of date format. It's interesting that Jim comments "consistent date format for accessdate=s & archivedates=s ..."  Prior to the edit, though, the access date were consistently of dmy format (consistent also with every other date in the article).  So is this edit really giving us any consistency? I can't see how it could be said that it is.  So really it's just retaining of the original format which is in question here.  Well we have to dig a little to find this original format.  To find ymd we have to go back to May last year before Ohconfucius' edit.  Before this the article had a mess of dmy, mdy and ymd dates (for access dates and others).  It seems to me that Ohconfucius did the right thing in cleaning that mess up.  Should he, though, have made an exception for access dates?  We have to dig deeper still.  The first ever access date that article had was put there by MJCdetroit five years ago.  The format was ymd.  Thus Jim wins, right?  Note, though, that the  template at the time required this format (anything else would have given a red link).  So we're therefore retaining something that was forced in the first place.  I don't see how we can fairly apply WP:DATERET under such circumstances.  I propose a reversion to the consistent dmy we've had since May. JIMp talk·cont 09:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: dmy makes sense for the body text of this article (including footnotes), as it is explicitly about a UK topic. the MoS allows for ymd to be used in addition, but only for the purpose of sortable tables. Even then, non-displaying "sorting date text" preceding the displaying text would be better. It makes no sense and has no justification for ymd to be used in any existing part of this article. Rhialto (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should have commented: "Consistent accessdate=s & archivedate=s formats PER WP:DATERET & MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT".  WP:STRONGNAT says "YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references or in tables, even in articles with national ties, if otherwise acceptable." As the original format, YMD would seem to be entirely acceptable.--JimWae (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, MOSNUM accepts ymd in refs but my point is that the dates were already consistent before your edit (and had been for months). I'm also questioning the validity of calling ymd the "original" format when it had been forced. Jimp 03:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: I mean English/Scottish units: I am looking at ell, which the SOED says has English and Scottish (different) definitions. Can I assume that the table of imperial units is complete? I.e. that because ell does not appear in it, I can assume it was not an imperial unit? This is a question about the subject, but would be resolved by an edit which marked the tables as complete (if they are, of course), and perhaps a note about the most common units excluded from the imperial system. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units outside the Imperial system 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Imperial units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061126120208/http://ts.nist.gov:80/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/upload/h4402_appenc.pdf to http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/upload/h4402_appenc.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is an error in this table:  
There are two paths from foot to nautical mile, producing different results. The error is the conversation from yard to fathom, having a factor of 2.0something instead of 2. --Feudiable (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not where the error lies.  An Imperial cable is not 100 fathoms but 608 feet (about 101 fathoms).  Can someone correct the diagram?  Dbfirs 22:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't the problem due to there being two different definitions of the fathom (6 ft vs  of an Admiralty nautical mile)? Perhaps we should have two fathoms in the diagram.  Jimp 02:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, this is how the problem arose, but the old Admiralty fathom has not been used for a long time and is best forgotten except in a footnote.  Dbfirs 08:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should delete the nautical mile altogether then. Jimp 04:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me jumping in, having made no contribution, but surely the best way to remove the inconsistency in the diagram is not to delete nautic[al](misspelling in figure) mile, but to replace the line from fathom to cable by a dashed line marked "~100" with a footnote. I just edited the table wording, and I suggest the conversion factor in the table should be similarly changed. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That seems to be the best compromise.  Anyone good at editing diagrams, or should we contact the originator?  Dbfirs 08:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in table 

message: A couple of edits today have disputed the plural of "stone". In different ways, both are correct. When giving a weight, the plural is stone, e.g. 2 stone 3 pounds. But when discussing the unit of measurement, the plural is stones, e.g. "14(1) Weighing equipment (including weights) which weighs wholly or partly in grains, stones, quarters, hundredweights or tons may continue to be used for trade if...." or "The letter may show the height and weight in both metric (i.e. centimetres and kilograms) and imperial (feet and inches and stones and pounds) units." NebY (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what wikt:stone (4) says. Your second reference doesn't mention "stone(s)" at all. Bazza (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief dictionary entry doesn't cover every nuance of the English language - just try figuring out from online dictionaries alone whether to use "licence" or "license" as a verb when writing British English! I do notice that if I expand item 4 in that entry in Wiktionary (itself not a WP:RS, of course), I see two supporting quotations, the second of which ends "and the sack of thirteen stones." I don't understand why you say my second reference doesn't mention stone(s) at all; check the the third sentence of the first paragraph under the subheading "The National Child Measurement Programme". NebY (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Your edit to Wiktionary has been reverted (not by me).  How could you live in England and not give your weight in stones?  If you never mentioned stones, then I'm sure that other people will have mentioned your weight in stones.  The OED states that the collective plural is usually stone. Dbfirs 19:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite, and I like the specificity of "collective". Unfortunately, all this talk of dictionaries has reminded me of WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOTSTYLEGUIDE. I think it's time to spoil everyone's fun - including mine - and remove the statement Bazza 7 inserted and I extended, "The plural is stone when providing a weight (e.g. "a hundredweight weighs 8 stone").[30]". NebY (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly shouldn't be prescriptive over the plural, and  is correct that stones is the usual plural except in specific contexts.  I've edited the article to give less prominence to the disputed plural.  Dbfirs 20:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. This is how Wikipedia is meant to work. We've identified that a basic statement was more nuanced than it first appeared, and have added some agreed information to help other readers. Bazza (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural of stone 

message: In the section on "Current use of some imperial units" there is a sentence: "Non-metric nuts and bolts etc., are available, but usually only from specialist suppliers."  I think this is a misunderstanding: screw threads are variously defined using different units, but the screw or nut you buy has to fit the mating part for which you are buying it. Various standard threads, like the screw on a camera tripod and the threaded socket on the camera (at least last time I looked; I live in Japan) are an (American) UNC thread, and these are likely to be around for a very long time, and not just from "specialist suppliers". I suggest deleting this sentence, but if anyone has any conflicting evidence, well, go ahead... Imaginatorium (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screw threads 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Imperial units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110605042528/http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/W-6/sc:2//en to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/W-6/sc:2//en#anchorsc:2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is the standard abbreviation for the "imperial" (i.e. in the UK) mile? When I went to school in England (1950s and 60s) we had to do all sorts of mixed-based calculations, like dividing 6 miles 4 furlongs 6 chains by 7. But we had plenty of practice at writing the abbreviations, and I only ever knew one for "mile", which is "ml" (and "mls" when plural). At the time, road signs were either old signposts, or modern signs, but in all cases distances in miles were shown only by numbers. "Minchinhampton 3" and so on. Then two things happened: new-fangled motorway signs suddenly appeared with the symbol for "metre", just "m", to mean "miles", and at some point I discovered that the Americans abbreviate everything by the first two letters, when I saw a sign saying "Traverse City 12 mi". It is incredibly hard to find any evidence of anything other than the US abbreviation, particularly because of the "millilitre" confusion (someone tried to persuade me that "Services 15 mls" would be misunderstood as the volume of something), but here at last is a BBC document: units of measurement (sorry, it's actually a jumbled up quiz, but there is no "mi" anyway.
Actually I haven't lived in the UK for a long time, so can someone tell me: has the "mi" abbreviation started appearing everywhere? Is this (surely not!) a regional thing -- I grew up in Gloucestershire.
There are some other oddities. The metric system defines symbols (not "abbreviations") which are universally used; e.g. "kg" is the same, whether it's 'chilogrammo' or 「キログラム」. But the Imperial system does not, as far as I know. Some abbreviations are absolutely fixed, like "ft", "in", "cwt" etc, but what about things like "rod"; was this really universally agreed to be "rd" in the days when it was used? And is "slug" really the ?abbreviation for "slug"?? Feedback appreciated. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that every imperial unit had an abbreviation. Certainly, some did. But evidence that one did is not evidence that all did. Rhialto (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

text: template:convert uses "mi" but I tend to use abbr=off on first use, on the theory that these units are fairly obscure these days. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree that many abbreviations are after-the-fact opinions of little encyclopedic importance. Someone somewhere will have written "rd" for "rod", while others have probably written "r" or nothing at all (in a table of values). I think the abbreviations for imperial units should be wound back unless reliable sources can be found. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

text: To answer one of the questions: I haven't seen "mi" anywhere in the UK. Bazza (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  In some areas of the UK one still sees just "m" for miles ( and no-one confuses it with these new-fangled metre things), but the unit is usually implicit and I can't recall seeing "mi" anywhere.  Dbfirs 14:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as I said above, all old-fashioned signs and signposts were just numbers, then motorways use "m". Have you seen "m" anywhere off a motorway? And did you have to do arithmetic with distances involving miles, furlongs, etc, and how did you write (abbreviate) "mile"? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Still predominantly just numbers round here.  I'll look out for anything else.  I did do arithmetic with miles, furlongs etc but I don't remember using any abbreviations.  The Yorkshire Dales National Park uses the abbreviation "ml" on their footpath signs.  The Lake District and North Yorkshire Moors parks seem to prefer the full "miles" or occasionally just "m". Dbfirs 18:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations for imperial units 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Imperial units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080124081159/https://www.inspection.gc.ca:80/english/fssa/labeti/guide/ch11e.shtml to http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/ch11e.shtml#11.2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209034410/http://www.psychology.org.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=785 to http://www.psychology.org.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=785
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article doesn't clearly explain that units of measure used in aviation are not determined in most cases by each country.  The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation was signed by most western countries in 1947, and has broadened to include nearly all countries to date. Annex 5 of the agreement defines a common system of measure based on the American system of measures, which includes the foot (for vertical distance = altitude), the knot (for speed), and the nautical mile (for long distance). Landroo (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why the article should include such information. This article is about a historical unit of measurement, in particular about one that was never in official use in the USA, and was enacted before powered aviation was even a thing. Expecting this article to include details of units used in present-day aviation is akin to expecting, say, Maltese units of measurement to include them Rhialto (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that we now say that Canada and New Zealand use feet and knots, and say nothing about other countries. This leaves the incorrect impression that all countries except these two might be using SI units. I think we should remove the information for these two countries, and make a blanket statement about aviation, with a cite. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, the Canada and NZ sections need to be edited to note that the units they use in this context are the international foot and knot, not the Imperial foot and knot. I'm not sure in the case of the foot offhand, but the knot is definitely a different quantity. Rhialto (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying you don't consider the International foot to be an Imperial unit? That seems like an odd interpretation, and might require re-writing parts of this article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The international foot, Imperial foot, US foot, are all different standards, and each has (or should have) an entry in the respective article for that set of units. I am aware that parts of this article don't make a clear distinction. I lack the energy to correct it. Rhialto (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation 

message: The standard unit symbol for the pound when used as a unit of mass is lb.  What is the benefit in introducing a non-standard symbol? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care, but you broke the text because Template:lb is not correct here. Also you tagged the edit "minor", which it was not (see WP:Minor edit). That and the uninformative edit summary made it look like vandalism. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for explaining.  I will have another go to see if I can get it right next time.  One more question: in what sense is correcting an error in a unit symbol not a minor correction? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go read the WP Help text I pointed you to. If you have more questions after you read that, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did read it.Twice now. Correcting an obvious error in a unit symbol is no different IMO to correcting a spelling error. Definitely minor.  You obviously see things differently but what am I missing? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the definition I see on that page: "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Do you see something else on that page that makes you think this is a minor edit? Can you provide a quote? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for explaining.  That's not how I was interpreting it but I admit it's there in black and white. I guess what I see as a clear error might be acceptable to others, which can lead potentially to a dispute. I shall think twice before marking my future edits as minor. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  lb or lbm 

message: The provided citation for the dimensions of a rood doesn't actually mention roods at all, as best I can tell. It looks like it was added to justify the change from "pole" to "rod". From what I can tell, the article for Rood doesn't have a source for the dimensions either, so I don't have a good source to replace the existing one. -- General Wesc (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added a source at Rood. Some of the history is in . Kendall-K1 (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  As an aside, why is a US-specific source being used as a cite about UK-specific set of historical units of measurement? Just because a unit has the same name, it doesn't mean it is the same thing. Rhialto (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the source I added? No good reason, feel free to change it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of a Rood 

message: The natural equivalent of a pound cannot be "and, for the pound, the mass of a cubic inch of distilled water."  (Control-F to find that in the article). The ounce perhaps?
:Yes, it's correct.  That sentence defines the grain, then a pound is defined as seven thousand grains.  You have placed a full stop where the article has only a comma.  Read on!  In effect, the pound was defined as the mass of 27.7274 cubic inches of water at a temperature 62 degrees and a pressure of 30 inches.  I've quoted six-figure accuracy to match the definition, but the problem was that it is very difficult to measure that volume of water to six-figure accuracy, even today. Dbfirs 23:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dbfirs , thanks.  What if that relationship was made even more obvious, perhaps: for the pound (consisting of 7,000 grains), the mass of a cubic inch of distilled water at an atmospheric pressure of 30 inches of mercury and a temperature of 62° Fahrenheit was defined as 252.458 grains.  Grains is only mentioned three times in the article and elsewhere it says pounds is the base unit, so the relationship between pounds and grains can be refreshed for the reader. --Lucas559 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds a good idea, or split the explanation into two sentences for clarity.  Would you like to make the alteration?  Dbfirs 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Lucas559 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't seem correct 

message: Just a little history, until after ww2 (according to Swedish Wikipedia " skulle uppgå till exakt 25,400 mm = 1 tum. Detta fastställdes som internationell standard 1933 av ASA") English  inch was a smidgeon different from US inch, but C E Johansson used the industry standard in=25.4 mm and that was (according to Swedish Wikipedia) in the end accepted as standard since everyone who needed exact messaurement used C E Johansson measurement "bricks". I do not know how to get that into thew article in a proper way.
 PS: English article I quite to short for the impact of that invention, Swedish I a bit over the top.Seniorsag (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History, inches to metric 

message: What's with using spaces as a 'thousands' separator instead of a comma? This isn't usual Wikipedia practice, an d though some bodies recommend it, we should be consistent and also not change unless it becomes the dominant convention among English speaking readers. []. Stub Mandrel (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DIGITS says it is standard wikipedia usage. Rhialto (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commas? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Imperial units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/W-6/sc%3A2//en
*Added  tag to http://mof.gov.bz/faqresults.asp?category=SUPPLIES+CONTROL&question=39
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131213551/http://www.antigua-barbuda.com/business_politics/budget_speeches/budget_speech_2001.asp to http://www.antigua-barbuda.com/business_politics/budget_speeches/budget_speech_2001.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020040638/http://www.caribarena.com/antigua/news/economy/98673-minister-lovell-addresses-metric-conversions.html to http://www.caribarena.com/antigua/news/economy/98673-minister-lovell-addresses-metric-conversions.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403211923/http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/h442003.htm to http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/h442003.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061126120208/http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/upload/h4402_appenc.pdf to http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/upload/h4402_appenc.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was reading the table and I realized that the unit of area 'ground' has not been included. 1 ground is 2400 sq. feet or 1/18th of an acre.
i.e., 1 acre = 18 grounds and 1 ground = 2400 sq. feet
Although rare, the unit is used in real estate in some parts of India, which still uses imperial units as a remnant of its British tradition.
Gvbdxz (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a remnant of British tradition, otherwise the big Oxford English Dictionary would have heard of it.  Possibly it is a regional usage.  If you can point us to a WP:Reliable source then we can decide whether it should be included in this article.  Dbfirs 11:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rowlett's Dictionary of Units defines ground as 'an informal unit of land area in India, especially southern India, equal to roughly 200-220 square meters or 2150-2400 square feet'. Sounds very regional to me. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds like it may (or may not) be worthy of inclusion somewhere in wikipedia. But it doesn't sound like its actually a part of the British Imperial system, and so doesn't belong in this specific article. Rhialto (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Perhaps in Indian units of measurement? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi everyone, indeed I don't have it written anywhere that a 'ground' is an imperial unit. It's easy to assume it is because the word sounds like it has origins in the English language and not from Tamil or Sanskrit like most other Indian units of measurement. There might be another explanation for that, I rest my case here. Thank you for the replies. Gvbdxz (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another unit of area 

message: This article is VERY BAD. It doesn't mention at all the countries which still use full imperial system which are Belize,Palau,the Marshall Islands and Micronesia.
: If you can provide citations to confirm that these units are in active use there, then it would be appropriate to add such information. However, what we have here is a case of potentially missing information, NOT wrong information. Rhialto (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong information 

message: I added a reference to Jerrard and McNeill for "mil"; they cite an appearance in a journal in 1872. Of course it's all a bit theoretical whether such informal(?) usages are part of the "Imperial" system. There are other problems here too: seems highly unlikely that Micronesia, which is practically an American colony uses Imperial. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I also find on investigation, to my surprise, that the unit was introduced in Liverpool in 1858. I've never come across it in UK engineering usage, but I have in US usage. Of course, since introduction of the S.I. system non-metric units aren't used in Britain, but I am familiar with rods, poles, and perches, fathoms, lots of silly inch fractions like 3/64", etc. I have seen both "thou" and "mil" in relation to gramophone styluses, with "mil" probably adopted from US usage. Anyway, you've provided a verifiable source for UK usage of "mil"—nuff said! Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for "mil" 

message: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Metric_and_imperial_systems_%282019%29.svg
The map of which countries use the metric, imperial, and US customary systems is mostly correct, however there are some errors. First of all, Liberia uses the US Customary system, not the imperial system. Secondly, Myanmar has seen increasing use of the metric system. For instance, petrol is primarily sold litres and road signs may be signed in kilometres, with miles, and metrology data is collected and given in metric units. Third of all, the British overseas territories, such as the Falklands or Cayman Islands to name a couple, use imperial units. 
Changes that need to be made for sake of accuracy:
Liberia should be pink, not red as it uses US customary, not imperial
Myanmar should be yellow, as it uses both imperial and metic 
British territories should also be yellow
Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric and imperial systems (2019) Map 

message: In the Hong Kong section, the names of Chinese units have superscript numbers next to them that don't appear to be exponents and they aren't footnotes. Example:
:"The Chinese system's most commonly used units for length are  (lei5),  (zoeng6),  (cek3),  (cyun3),  (fan1)"
I am wondering what they are for and/or if they should be removed, because it's a bit distracting. Pythagimedes (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those numbers aren't footnotes or exponents. They are pronunciation guides, to indicate which tone should be used. Tone_number Rhialto (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong/Chinese units? 

message: On this page, it states that the Winchester Standards ran from 1588, the changes implemented by Liz I. If you follow the link to the Winchester Standards page, it states that they were introduced by Hal VII in 1495. Both statements, obviously, cannot be true. I do not have the expertise to be be able to say which is; anyone? ;-)
~~ Rædwulf 2A00:23C4:1132:7B01:B84D:6E6:EA3A:B845 (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winchester Standards 

message: In their Measurements API, Apple defines the units:
*Imperial Tablespoon = 0.0177582 L
*Imperial Teaspoon = 0.00591939 L
Note that the conversions differ slightly from those currently listed at tablespoon and teaspoon: Tablespoon (imperial) = 17.758 mL and Teaspoon (imperial) = 5.919 mL.
Does anyone know how these units were originally derived? Are they 1/2 or 1/3 of an X unit, like the US spoons are?
Have they now been given standardized SI-based definitions? Is there an official source that we can cite for the definition?
PK-WIKI (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there are official sources but I see that at Cooking weights and measures we say "In the UK, teaspoons and tablespoons are formally  and  of an imperial pint (5.92 mL and 17.76 mL), respectively" and the values you mention do accord with that, variously rounded. NebY (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial Tablespoon (17.7582 mL) and Imperial Teaspoon (5.91939 mL)