Talk:Inch

message: Do I see this wrong, or are the French and Italian words for thumb also the same as the word for inch, like in Dutch?
Another thing, that one can read between the lines but isn't stated, is that probably the inch and the foot (the one a thumb the other a foot) were originally not related but adapted so that one is exactly 12 times the other (a dozen; a number that used to play the role of the number 10 these days). DirkvdM 07:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As we know, the Metric System defined its length by defining the distance from the North Pole, through Paris to the Equator to be 10,000km. Not surprisingly, its lengths do not correlate at all well to the human body (so many people find it more natural to express a person's height in feet and inches. Although Australia has been 'metric' for about 40 years now, the police always give the height of a wanted suspect in feet and inches).
Whatever the origins of inch, foot, yard (and the precise corresponding lengths seem to have varied in different cultures at different times), they seem to be definitely related to proportions within the human body. I'm male of average build, and 5feet 11 inches tall (1.78m). Starting from the palm of my hand, the distance between the 2nd and 3rd joints of my middle finger is surprisingly close to one inch.
The distance from the crease of my elbow to the joint at the base of my thumb is also surprisingly close to one foot.
When I'm walking quite naturally (not striding out or hurrying), the distance between where my left foot touches the ground each time is quite close to one yard (or the right foot, of course).
These measurements would have to be standardised within a society. However, a person can measure something reasonably accurately without a tape measure, just using their own body. (DaveNed88 (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inch, Foot, Yard and the Body 

message: DirkvdM
Yes your are correct and these are now included in the main page.
The French for inch and thumb is 'pouce'.
The Italian for inch and thumb is pollice.
In fact the Latin word for thumb is pollex.
Now the section of the main page on the Historical origin does mention this coincidence but then goes on to say that the inch probably did not derive from the width of the thumb, despite the fact that it also says that in about 1150 King David I of Scotland defined the inch "as the width of an average man's thumb at the base of the nail, even including the requirement to calculate the average of a small, a medium, and a large man's measures". Now since the subdivision of the foot into 12 inches is very heavily supported as deriving from the Roman division of the 'Pes' into 12 unciae, that the Latin for thumb is pollex and the majority of European languages had the same or very similar word for thumb and inch, it would difficult to claim there was no connection with the Romans. As to the actual size of the inch, in the reference to King David's edict, the text goes on to "account for the much larger length later called an inch". Why should King David's inch be that much different to today's? If I place my thumb on a foot ruler, it measures exactly 1 inch at the base of the nail as close as I can see, and I don't consider my thumb to be either overlay large or unusually small. So who is suggesting the inch as defined by King David was smaller than the modern version?
Is it more likely that the Roman format of the Pes and the uncia continued in use through medieval times down to modern eras with only minor alteration in their sizes, and that the overwhelming occurrence of the use of the same word for thumb and inch was also a descendent of the Roman practice. Where else would so many languages get the same basic word for the same measure if not from the original word pollex? In the same way that the introduction of the duodecimal/vigesimal [system of money] promulgated by first Pippin and then his son Charlemagne was adopted throughout Europe, is it not possible that this also included the same format, (if not the same sizes) of measures that were also distributed throughout the same area.
It would appear to me that more investigation needs to be done into the history of these measures before rejecting out of hand one specific origin for the inch. What is more likely is that the inch was in use for many centuries as a defined fraction of the foot, but that both the inch and the foot were redefined in terms of their length at different stages, and that they incorporated or were included into other pre-existing systems. That the modern foot so closely matches the Roman foot is a very clear pointer to its and the inches robustness and usefulness over the last 2000 years. If they had died out or had changed more dramatically, this would have illustrated their lack of functionality. The opposite is the only conclusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthe (talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put an OR? tag on the part about the thumb and inch. Etymology is a tricky subject. That's why they have experts who study that stuff. At the very least, someone should provide some references to back up the claim, preferably accompanied by criticism from the opposite point of view. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inch or Thumb 

message: Shouldn't there be a tie-in with the use of caliber (.22, .38, etc)?
What is the correct abbreviation? in?
How do I say square inch? in²? --Abdull 12:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Yes.  Gene Nygaard 13:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: in. is an older form of jbvi;abbreviation that can be found. It follows the Enlgish practice that the full stop replaces the missing part of the word eg "Capt." "Maj."GraemeLeggett 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation 

message: I made an infobox; see its talk page for discussion. -Branddobbe 07:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: ok so the modern international inch (and it seems from the text the old canadian inch) is exactly 2.54 cm but what about the other inches? how different were they?Plugwash 20:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Systems_of_measurement#Medieval_European_measurements and compare the links. 惑乱 分からん 01:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia we should, at the least, have the precise lengths (and names) of inches used in English-speaking countries, going back at least as far as living memory. For example, there are people alive today who still remember the Enfield inch, the pre-1963 imperial inch, the pre-1959 US inch, etc. And don't just tell people to look under Medieval Measurements: we're that that old. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  actual sizes of other inches. 

message: What is the unit for sub-dividing an inch into 16 equal parts ?
:Sixteenths of an inch, i.e. 1/16th [of an inch], 1/8th [which is really 2/16th], 3/16, etc.  I don't think there is a formal name. It is not uncommon in tooling to see the inch fractionized into 64ths. MJCdetroit 15:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some very obsolete units like the barleycorn - which is a third of an inch - but I don't think there is a 1/16th inch unit. SteveBaker 15:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct in that there is not a formal unit name.  I should have been a little clearer by saying it is commonly fractionalized into smaller amounts.  MJCdetroit 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-unit of an inch 

message: In Canada, the trend has been shifting towards metres, as shown on a person's driver's license. [In referring to personal height]
Is there any truth to this?  In my own personal experience, I have never heard an English speaking Canadian refer to their height in terms of metres.  On Hockey Night in Canada, I have never heard a hockey player's height described in anything but feet and inches. In fairness, most of the Canadians I know are in Southwest Ontario.  I don't know if it is different in other parts of English speaking Canada.  —MJCdetroit 15:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Official documents tend to be in metric, since the country is officially metric.  However, many people are still familiar with the imperial system so the old units are commonly used.  In Quebec, there is a slight tendency to prefer metric to imperial, as it has less to do with any British history. Michael Daly 20:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal height in Canada 

message: Maybe the table should be corrected so that 1 inch = 0.0254 m, so that it shows all the significant figures (except for the infinite zeros trailing behind) Knights who say ni 17:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalence table 

message: The article states that "The United States and Canada each had their own, different, definition of the inch, defined in terms of metric units. The Canadian inch was defined to be equal to 25.4 millimetres." Therefore, is the old Canadian inch the current international inch? SteveSims 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually. Apparently scholars were working on the proposed international inch long before the official treaty was signed in July 1959. By then, Canada had long since switched over. California sometimes does this sort of thing on various issues, e.g., pollution controls for cars, etc. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The inch in metric units 

message: I'm English and we learnt the metric system in school; centimetres and metres. 
It was oddd learnig feet and inches after moving to the U.S. 
And like Canada it seems, we brits measure height in feet and inches 
and often use 'miles' too.
prince 07:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inch vs. Metric 

message: The caption below the image of the measuring tape says that the tape is capable of measuring down to "1/32th of an inch", but shouldn't this be "1/32nd of an inch"?  A small detail i know, but 32th doesn't read very well at all.  I've held off changing it though, just in case all inch subdivision fractions should use "th" JieBie 08:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.--agr 14:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measuring tape image caption 

message: I don't like that the infobox shows decimal units for the number of inches in a foot/yard/mile.  Those are approximations only - the true definitions (ie 1/12th ft, 1/32nd yd, etc) should be given.  That is both clearer and more accurate (indeed infinitely accurate) - and would be far less confusing to someone coming from the metric world who truly wants to know how many inches there are in a yard or whatever.
You could put the decimal expansions afterwards or something - but the way it is now sucks. SteveBaker 15:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I noticed that older version of the text are way much longer. What was the reason of massive deletions? Laudak 22:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism or what? 

message: I assume that wikipedia articles aren't supposed to grow increasingly inaccurate with time by definition, so the phrase in the opening paragraph that people over the age of 40 in Australia probably should be changed to people born before a certain year/decade. I would change it myself, but have no source for the statistic except the article itself, and I don't want to try to figure out when that was added. 65.4.121.187 (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of 40 

message: I don't see how knowing where in Canada they express hieght in feet and inches or metric adds any meaning to this article.  I am removing it.Cpyder 14:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: There is an article on the american V8 vehicle engines. Is anybody interested in a rough translation - to smoothen it afterwards? --80.145.233.235 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cubic Inches]] - Article in the WP DE (german)

message: Apart from measuring your penis and the dimensions of a TV or computer screen when are inches used in the UK?  Anybody under the age of 40 years old uses metric measurements for length except for the above exceptions just as imperial measurements of weight are only used for drug dealing by those under 40 years old, the fahrenheit system only used on really hot days to emphasise how hot it is and miles used for speed limits [yet shorter distances expressed in cm and metres as in "motorway service 100 metres"].  It is not the dominant system in the UK so shouldn't be described as 'widely used' in the opening paragraph.  Thankfully the UK is using imperial measurements less and less leaving only the USA and Myanmar as the sole countries to use such a shitty system in day-to-day life instead of other systems.--217.203.136.221 (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I completely disagree (and I'm under 40). I've only rarely heard anyone measure long distances in the UK in anything other than miles, signs for shorter distances on the roads are always in yards, and virtually everyone I've ever heard measures their height in feet and inches. I've never heard fuel efficiency quoted in anything other than miles per gallon (despite fuel being sold by the litre). Thankfully there are still a very large number of people in the UK using the system that's worked perfectly well for a long time and aren't changing for the sake of change. Imperial units aren't used in technical work in the UK any more (apart from possibly in a few minor areas), but they usually seem to dominate in day to day speech, the only exception seems to be temperature and possibly short distances. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any study done one way or the other. Riedquat (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Communicating with customers is a different matter from designing and building. I believe what metricmike was claiming was that if one were to go into the design offices or the factory floor everything would be in metric. Customary units would be introduced by the people who write the owners manual, advertisements, website, etc. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

text: If so, then why can I find so many articles that use the inch at the Times of London website? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The inch is included in the National Curriculum of the UK  and is widely used here despite metrication.  All tyre radiuses here are measured in inches, for example.  Dbfirs 18:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not 'widely used' in the UK 

message: It escapes me why the mention of a double prime used to denote inches requires a citation. It's such a ridiculously accepted standard that the notation is published on the first page of the Machinery's Handbook by Industrial Press Inc.  Is the citation requirement there due to a distinction between the double prime and a double quote and which should be used to denote inches?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.38.220 (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Prime 

message: I think this entry should have more coverage of the historical varieties of the inch, like the various German inches (e.g. the "Bavarian inch").  Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge and necessary languages to expand it myself.  See Russian and German entries for more coverage. Ijon (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion needed 

message: I distinctly remember earlier versions of this article mentioning that the inch is still widely used in Canada. It appears some still cannot come to terms with the fact that Canada OFFICIALLY allows BOTH the metric and Canadian imperial systems to be used (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/W-6/page-14.html). Virtually all construction in Canada is done using imperial measurements (inches), virtually all cooking in Canada is done using imperial measurements (pan size, thickness of butter, space between cookies, for example, are given in inches), height is ALWAYS given in feet and inches, and railways have escaped metrication entirely, etc. It is important to note that even IF--and this is a big IF--the metric centimetre is given preference over the imperial inch, the fact of the matter is; inches are still LEGALLY used in Canada. I am amending the article to make note of this. 173.180.210.51 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stepho  talk  23:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage in Canada  

message: I removed this article from the Anthropic units category and Cybercobra reverted it with a comment "please explain." It's basically just a difference of opinion and a question of degree. I think there is strong evidence for the inch having an anthropic basis, but only to the same extent that the meter has been measured by means of an outstretched arm, i.e., occasionally, but not often. However, I've already had this discussion elsewhere, and get the impression that there is community support for a broad definition of anthropic, so I'm not going to challenge the revert. Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You had me puzzled for a minute; it was the see–also, right? It's my opinion that that article needs radical attention. I've made various attempts in the past, but was always blocked by User:Montanabw. But a concerted effort by several editors might achieve something. The main problem is that "anthropic units" just doesn't have the meaning attributed to it there. I believe the best first step would be to add the meanings that are actually attributed to the phrase, and then try to decide if they merit an article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant see-also. If it were up to me, the Anthropic units article would be rolled into Customary units, which has already been rolled into Systems of measurement. There it would be subject to more rigorous scrutiny, causing most of it to evaporate. Similarly, the Anthropic units category should be rolled into the Customary units category. As it stands now, it feels as if the Scientology people have taken over, categorizing the metric system as "clear," Imperial units as "preclear," and Greco-Roman units as "reactive mind units." Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll support that. Do you want to propose the merge, or shall I? No, wait, there's a problem: Customary units is a redirect to United States customary units. Why is that? Where is our article on customary units? And yes, there is a worrying aura of magical numerology hanging over some parts of this project. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Customary measurement systems and it redirects to Systems of measurement. I don't think this is the right time to propose the merger. For one thing, it's already been tried. I think at this point we should just keep working on improving articles on individual units and systems. The better the articles are, the more serious participants the measurement project will attract. At the same time, it would be helpful to start defining the problems and proposing solutions, without necessarily expecting immediate results. My concern is that if we take this on now, we'll just have a dispute that we will lose because we're outnumbered. Can you suggest a forum for discussing this further? Does the WikiProject Measurement have fora where there kinds of issues are discussed? Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropic unit category 

message: Pulled a few bits together. It would be nice to know when the Canadians set their inch to 25.4mm. Snori (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is further down in the article, along with a reference. I put it there a few months ago. Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardisation

message: * Lede
Traditional standards for the exact length of an inch varied, but it is now defined to be exactly 25.4 mm.
The length of an inch had nothing to do with tradition. Since ancient times, standards of linear measurement have been regulated as they are today, by standards committees. Sometimes a committee's recommendations are enshrined in law or executive orders, but it is still committees of experts that figure these things out.
There has been more than one inch. They did not all become 2.54 centimeters. For example, the Roman inch, various French and German inches, etc. 
* History section
After 1066...
Nothing happened to British metrology in 1066 other than the Normans making the preservation of existing English weights and measures one of their top priorities.
None of the Welsh definitions of the inch predate the English. This information is based on 14th century manuscripts purporting to be faithful copies of earlier documents but shown by scholars to have been heavily ammended with back-dated material.
Charles Butler, a mathematics teacher at Cheam School...
This whole paragraph is a mess. Apparently this business of going on about barelycorns was a reponse to an enthusiast for the thumb theory, whose unreferenced material once dominated this article. Much of the material here is relevant, just needs improving.
* Modern standardization
The part about 1866 is confusing, as it suggests that something happened to inch in that year, and that the inch was not approximately 2.54 centimeters prior to 1866.
Just to give a little background on this, during the 19th century standards of precision increased by two to three orders of magnitude. As the result, even high-precision standards tended to become obsolete quickly. That was the situation with the 1799-vintage international prototype meter in the 1860s: it was old and not very accurate. The 1866 law legalized the metric system, but also gave the US meter a reliable definition in terms of the yard. By the 1890s the situation had reversed, as the new platinum-iridium international prototype meter was so reliable that both the US and Imperial yards were defined in terms of it. All these issues became moot in the first decade of the 20th century when wavelengths of the red spectral emission of cadmium became the de facto standard for precision linear measurements.
The easiest way to fix this paragraph (the one mentioning 1866) is to just say what happened in both 1866 and 1893. (See Mendenhall Order.)
Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of minor issues 

message: The Oxford Student's Dictionaty, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 1988, , states that 1 inch is 25.3995 mm on page 747. I suppose that that's an obsolete definition but where does it stem from? Is it worth mentioning in the article? --Лъчезар☭共产主义万岁★ 20:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried the US and UK definitions of the inch that preceded the modern definition (1 inch is exactly 25.4 mm). None of the old values came out to 25.3995 mm. It's clearly an error, and I see no merit in trying to figure out the source of the error in an old student dictionary. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I remembered that my teacher told me that one inch is exactly 25.399998 mm. 333-blue 13:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't believe everything that your teacher told you.  Ask why, and check the facts. Dbfirs 13:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 inch = 25.3995 mm in the Oxford Student's Dictionary 

message: The above was added to the article. I found it difficult to understand and it had no references. Thought it would be better here.  Stepho  talk  11:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it's better here and not in the article.  In the UK also (and probably elsewhere), tape measures are marked in inches and eighths, and sometimes sixteenths and thirty-second parts of an inch.  There is no special name for these divisions in English, other than eighths, sixteenths etc.  If the original editor wishes to add "soots" to the Hindi or Urdu Wikipedias, then that would be in order (with references).  Dbfirs 11:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This text was also added to Soot, where it was even more inappropriate; I've reverted its addition to that article as well. Graham87 14:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian

message: is completely standard and per WP:NOTADICTIONARY has no business cluttering up our WP:LEADSENTENCE. That's what Wiktionary entries are for. — LlywelynII 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Plural

message: given the traffic around this page, kindly restore them. It's simply wrong to say that the inch became 25.4mm in July 1959. It became 2.54cm or (if we're only using formal units) 0.0254m on exactly 1 July 1959 but only in the United States. Other countries using English units adopted the standard at various dates from 1951 into the mid-1960s and we shouldn't be misinforming readers about that point. — LlywelynII 07:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Assuming my edits are reversed,

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Inch. 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/20120930180925/http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app3.pdf to http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app3.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) 19:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From the "Name" section of the article:
:"The English word "inch" (Old English: ynce) was an early borrowing from Latin uncia ("one-twelfth; Roman inch; Roman ounce") not present in other Germanic languages.[1] The vowel change from Latin /u/ to English /i/ is known as umlaut."
OK, reasonable enough.  But:
:"The consonant change from the Latin /k/ to English /ts/ or /s/ is palatalisation."
Say what?  There is no "k" in the Latin source given, "uncia".  Nor is there any "t", "s", or "ts" in "inch".
Shouldn't that be, "the consonant change from the Latin "c" to English "ch"...", etc.?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation?

message: Tire sizes are one of the great exceptions to metrification
Almost all wheel diameters are in inches.
and of course the coresponding tire inner diameters
almost all wheel widths are in inches.
Large tires for trucks and aircraft are still made to inch specifications for width and height (and of course wheel diameter).
As an example, the Airbus A380-800 lists the following tire for the main landing gear
1270✕455R22
50✕20.0R22 
clearly, they are inch items with metric equivlents listed
also note that the sequence is different from cars & Light trucks, 50 is tire diameter, 20 is the tire width, 22 is the wheel diameter, this calculates to 75% aspect ratio (50-22=28 /2 =14 height of tire /20 =.75.
A-320 and earlier Airbus ONLY list inch dimensions for tires & Wheels
Boeing uses only inches in tire and wheel specifications 
The (2017-2021) generation of Formula One tyres sizes are 305/670-R13 (front) and 405/670-R13 (rear)
Note: these are specified Height(mm)/Width(mm)-R(adial)Wheel Diameter(inches)
Please add any vehicles with metric wheels here:
1) Buatti Veyron - tires and wheels are bespoke, therfore there is no need to have any interchange capbility.
2)
Trivia: automotive spark plugs have been specified, manufactuered, and labeled in mm for at least 100 years even in countries where every other part of the vehicle was inch based.
All information is readily available on Wikipedia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.41.149 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite accurate.  Spark plugs have metric threads but may have imperial thread reaches.  On my desk I have an NGK plug labelled D6HS: "D" => 12M1.25 with an 18mm hex, 6 => medium temperature, "H" => ½" (12.7mm) reach and S => "super copper core". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In Australia, Europe and probably many other countries, automobile rims are are almost always measured in inches for diameter and width. Tyre inner diameters are correspondingly measured in inches. But other tyre measurements are almost always in mm. Hence an 205/50R15 tyre has 15 inches for the inner diameter and 205 mm for the width portion. Since it is not a simple cut-and-dry thing for inches vs metric, I suggest that we just leave it out. A reader interested in tyre measurements will be looking at the tyre article anyway.  Stepho  talk  20:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: For the record, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Overlining a problem. Any discussion should be taken there. Graham87 (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion relating to notation of recurring decimals in this article 

message: The Inch#US survey inches section currently says  This is of course a breach of WP:OR, which I suppose seemed necessary because no WP:RS on the matter could be found. On examination, that's not surprising; the only sources for this section don't mention a survey inch either, only units of a foot or more. It may seem obvious that if there is (or was) a survey foot there must be a survey inch, but that doesn't mean there's any substance here or any point in having this section. I'm inclined to remove it. NebY (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Esri's ArcGIS Pro 3.1 supports the survey inch, and defines it as 1.0/39.37 meters. Our article about Esri claims "Esri is the world's leading supplier of GIS software, web GIS and geodatabase management applications." My experience, which includes search and rescue for the Civil Air Patrol, tends to agree with this. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  US survey inches - no direct sources, OR conclusion