Talk:Imperial unit

message: 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)
thread_title:  English Units & Imperial vs. US 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1963 gallon 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lagrobeast Revisited 

message: Which other nations other than the US use the Imperial system?207.81.122.3 07:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this question. bob rulz 06:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: what about latin america, asia, africa?? --Astrokey44 13:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: which other

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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) .—MJCdetroit 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Source of Canadian info? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mite 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No Rebuttal Rhialto? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed WikiProject

message: 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:     
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Using ''lbs'' vs. ''lb'' 

message: 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)
thread_title: nautical mile

message: 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 , who continue to sell milk in multiples of pints . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Milk in pints or litres? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Unit Conversion Control 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: UK passports