Talk:English units

message: Why was a score listed in the units list I've just moved?  There was no mention of a dozen and well there should not have been for these are not units of measurements but words for numbers. Jimp 13Jul05
:A Score of 20 lb has been used in much of the Baltic region, being a left over of the Hansiatic pound.  We see also that the tower pound, 12 oz of 450 grains troy, is the same ounce that 16 make the pounds of Prussia and Scandinavia (~ 466g or 7200 grains troy)
Wendy.krieger 10:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Score 

message: : The Diamond is useful to thrifty carpenters who want to save one stud, joist or rafter in seven by going to a slightly thicker plywood and adding the labor of cutting insulation, and its becoming a more common division with engineered lumber. The real reason for its existence is architectural and goes back through the Romans and Greeks and Persians to the Egyptians and Babylonians all of whom maintained this ratio of foot, remen and cubit which we know as...
: The Golden Ratio: 1 x 0.7937 x 1.2599
: Example: Desired net volume is 2.00 cf.
: Take the cube root: 1.26 ft = 15.12 inch = Side A. 
: Now multiply side A x 0.7937 to get side B, or 12.00 in. Side C = side A x 1.2599 = 19.05 in. So 
: we have:
: Side A = 15.12 inch = 1 Remen 
: Side B = 12.00 inch = 1 Foot
: Side C = 19.05 inch = 1 Cubit
: [diamond]
: "19-2.In Persia some buildings at Persepolis and other places (25) are constructed on a foot of 9-6, or cubit of 19-2; while the modern Persian arish is 38.27 or 2X1913. The same is found very clearly in Asia Minor (25), averaging 193; and it is known in literature as the Pythic foot (18, 33) of 9.75, or 1/2 of I95, if Censorinus is rightly understood. It may be shown by a mark (33) on the 26th digit of Sharpes Egyptian cubit = 19.2 in."
: [19.2" cubit]
: In the time of Herodotus the Persian Empire included the territory of the Punics. The Punics were the people who brought the tin of the Chanel islands to the Mediterranean world to combine with copper to make bronze so this measure would have preceeded the use of Roman standards in Britain by several centuries. [unsigned by Rktect 13:06 UTC 14 October 2005]
::What's your point, 3rkt3ct?
::#You have at most some disjointed, unconnected lengths that happen to be, very roughly, the same size.
::#How much of the above is direct quotes?
::#Who are you quoting?
::#What is each quote supposed to show?
::#Why are you indenting your comments, 3rky, when yours are the first ones in this section?  Don't you ever have any respect whatsoever for any formatting rules?  
::If we have a standard size for plywood and similar construction materials, and we want to support them on studs or rafters, then we want the ends of the sheets to meet on a stud.  But we also need to have some support in between.  So if you have an 8 ft sheet, splitting that 96 inches into six parts gives you the 16 inch spacing commonly used for wall studs in construction in English units.  But in some applications, that much support isn't necessary.  But you still want to divide the sheet into a number of parts that is a whole number, so that the ends of the sheet still end up on a support.  The next integer less than six is five. There aren't any legitimate options in between. Splitting an 8 ft sheet into five parts means you need to space them at 8/5 ft = 1.6 ft, the spacing of those diamonds.  Thus you save one stud in six on a long run, though not that much overall (how in the world did you come up with one in seven—must have forgotten that the ones on the end are shared by two sheets?).  It really is as simple as that.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with cubits, nor with the golden number.  Gene Nygaard 16:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamond on Stanley tape

message: Under the volume section, a mouthful is listed as equal to 1/2 ounce - this makes no sense unless the material which this applies to for is listed. e.g. a mouthful of lead will weigh a lot more than a mouthful of water...
:Half a fluid ounce, i.e. about 15 ml.  It makes perfect sense. Jimp 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume/mass conversion 

message: The final paragraph of the intro reads:
: Usage of the term "English System" or "English Unit" is common in the US, but it is problematical. It can be ambiguous. It usually refers to either the Imperial System or the US Customary System, and in cases where these two systems differ, it is not clear which system is being described. Some people also call 'it' the "British system" in the US. It is interesting to note that referring to 'this system' as the British or English system almost only occurs in the United States, mainly causing confusion in the United Kingdom when reading from American sources.
Now, I appreciate the rhetorical power of making this paragraph illustrate the very problem it describes, but it is perhaps less than useful. What do "it" and "this system" in the above paragraph refer to? The measurements used in England? The measurements used in the US? Or could we rephrase the last two sentences so that they doesn't imply that the term applies to one specific system? VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: This article documents a number of historical units which are no longer of practical use. It is best these be kept in their own article, so they don't clutter up the "United States customary units" article; people reading that article are probably interested in units still in use (at least occasionally). However, the introduction of this article is very unfocused and needs an overhaul. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion on Talk:United States customary units. Jdpipe (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No merge

message: The page English units is blocking this rename, and I'm afraid I've made a mess of it. This page needs to become English units, and English unit needs to redirect to English units. Previously this page was called English unit but it referred to a system of units, so it had the wrong name for what it was. Jdpipe (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: The Volume section contradicts itself. It says a jigger is 1.5 ounces, and a jack is "Jigger × 2 = 2 oz." So how big is a jack, 2 or 3 ounces?
Here in the US a pony is .75 ounce, a jigger is 1.5 ounce, and a jack is half a gill, or 2 ounce. Rees11 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ponies and jiggers 

message: This article is supposed to be about English units, not US or Imperial. So I find it confusing that it says things like this:
 Gill: Jack × 2 = 4 oz (U.S.) or 5 oz (imperial)
Shouldn't it just say "Gill: Jack × 2 = 4 oz"? Rees11 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes (well, 5 ounces). — Christoph Päper 07:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Simple, because English units are predecessor of both UK and US units. Erkin Alp Güney 10:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this article even mention US and Imperial? 

message: IMO This article is extremely confused and confusing as to which system of measure is being referred to, as has been alluded to above. It desperately needs clarification. As a well-educated British person, I believe that the proper term for the measure we use if it is not metric is "Imperial", not "English". It could be that some people in this PC-obsessed world are starting to use the term "English" because they don't want to be "Imperialistic", but that doesn't change the fact that the measures themselves are different. Please can we have a clear statement as to what is meant, avoiding terms like English as (a) it excludes the Welsh, Irish and Scots and (b) is apparently very confusing for citizens of the USA who believe their system is "English" - although why I can't imagine :-)
In particular, the comment in the para above "Jack × 2 = 4 oz (U.S.) or 5 oz (imperial)" should IMO read just "Jack × 2 = 5 oz" as it should be understood that we're talking Imperial units from the start. For the US equivalent, there is already a separate Wiki page.
I could see some benefit in having a clear comparison page that compares the units, as is done in some other fields; this should be a table including the common names and their conversions. However, pages like the current one are not the place, as the result is the confusion vividly seen above.
BTW I have re-rendered the graph provided by Crissov using the filename English_mass_units_graph_Ai.svg, which might be clearer. Feel free to use!
Ruth RIvimey 13:23, 2 Dec 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well educated?  That must be wonderful for you. The first sentence says something like "English units refers to the historical units of measurement in medieval England,..." which were replaced by Imperial units in 1824. Doubtless the Welsh, Irish, and Scots had their own systems of units, too; this craze for standardization didn't really catch on till well into the 1700's. At Sears or Canadian Tire you may see a 13/16 inch wrench called "English" units, but for some reason a 15 mm wrench is only ever "Metric" and never "French". --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm completely uninterested in Canadian Tire; the heading on the page states quite clearly that this page relates to England (UK), not USA or Canada, and I don't ever remember someone referring to feet/yards etc as "English Units" here.
Ruth RIvimey 23:53, 2 Dec 2010 (UTC)

text: "English units" is a term of art in historical metrology. In other words, a technical term used by historians who specialize in studying the history of weights and measures. It means the units of measure used in England before 1824. For example, the Queen Anne gallon is an English unit. It also happens to be a unit in US customary system of units. Imperial units generally refers to the period 1824 - 1971, with some units phased out after 1971 (pennyweight, for example, in 1985) and a very few (troy ounce) retained to the present. English units are important to those of who live "in the colonies" (USA for example) because it's relevant to our history. As a citizen of the USA, I like to know where my gallons come from. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please decide what system this page describes! 

message: It is written here that a dram/drachm (dr) is 27.34375 gr. How can this be a sixteenth of an ounce when 1 
ounce (oz) ≈ 28 g? Sae1962 (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An ounce is 437.5 grains. A dram is 1/16 ounce. 437.5/16 = 27.34375. Indefatigable (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The conversion is exactly 875⁄32 = 27.34375.   No approximations are needed.  Dbfirs 07:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dram & ounce

message: Please don't stick metric conversion templates all over this article at random.  The modern SI system is irrelevant to the purpose of this article, which is to describe a no-longer-extant system of units.  Any conversion factors you find in a template will be wrong, and many of the units have no fixed conversion to modern units any way.  You will be misleading readers badly if you insist that a "firkin" is mumblety-mumble cubic centimeters or whatever half-baked conversions someone had put into the last revision of a table. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right. I won't insist. Xionbox₪ 06:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What might be useful instead of the usual template conversion is to give an appropriate, referenced, order of magnitude comparision between the ancient units and modern SI equivalents - as is done here, for example, for barrel. But since the definitions of units varied wildly, it's going to take some pretty sound sources to give equivalents in modern measures. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Metric irrelevant

message: :The Troy and Tower pounds and their subdivisions were used for coins and precious metals. The Tower pound, which is based upon an earlier Anglo-Saxon pound, was abolished in 1527.
:In terms of (silver) currency a pound was 20 shillings of 12 pennies each (i.e. 240) from the late 8th century (Charlemagne/Offa of Mercia) to 1971 in the United Kingdom, but lighter than a troy one. Most old European currencies, like mark, shilling/solidus/groschen/øre, penny/pfennig/denar, taler/dollar/krone, florin/gulden/guilder/pound/złoty also belong into this monetary system.
The second paragraph has problems.
:"...to 1971 in the United Kingdom" They stopped making silver pennies in the 19th century. The pennies stopped being 1/240 of a Troy pound long before that. Unfortunately, I can't supply the exact date at this time, so I can't fix it.
:"...but lighter than a troy one." I'm going to erase that phrase right now.
:"Most old European currencies, like mark, shilling/solidus/groschen/øre, penny/pfennig/denar, taler/dollar/krone, florin/gulden/guilder/pound/złoty also belong into this monetary system."
No they don't. Pre-1824 British silver pennies and post-1824 British silver pennies don't even belong to the same monetary system. What all those systems have in common is the use of gold, silver, and other metals in the same column of the periodic table of elements, measured in weight systems strongly influenced by the Roman Empire and Charlemagne's Empire. If you don't mind, I'm going to delete that sentence too.
Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower and Troy 

message: "After the Norman conquest, Roman units were reintroduced. The resultant system of English units was a combination of the Anglo-Saxon and Roman systems."
:The Normans introduced the bushel to England, but otherwise had little effect on English weights and measures. William the Conqueror, in one of his first legislative acts, merely confirmed the decrees of the Wessex Kings and existing usages. He also had the physical standards moved from Winchester to London. The changeover to something more nearly resembling the Roman system occurred between 1266 and 1304 as a result of the Compositio Ulnarum et Perticarum (Composition of Yards and Perches)
"Later development of the English system continued by defining the units by law in the Magna Carta of 1215,..."
:The Magna Carta of 1215 had little effect on British metrology. Chapter 35 (the relevant chapter) only mentions one unit of measure (the London Quarter) but doesn't define it.
Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Errors in Introductory Section 

message: Chart showing the relationships of weight measures (in the Weight section) has several problems: 1) WP:OR, 2) "Source: made from scratch with Graphviz based on data from en:English unit" WP:CIRCULAR, and 3) it historically inaccurate.
The pennyweight is derived from the dirhem, not the grain. The Tower weight system used a different sort of grain (wheat grain) not related to the grain used today (barleycorn). Although the Troy and Apothecary systems seem to be related, it is not clear which came first. And finally, the avoirdupois pound came into general use in the early 1300s, but didn't acquire a grain unit until 1588.
For these reasons, I feel the diagram should be removed. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, the main problem with that chart is it looks messy. It's also inconsistent with other weights and measures pages, which use a series of tables to show the relationships between units. Rhialto (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with chart 

message: The whole article needs a restructuring and reformatting!
To clarify the purpose of the article, English units refer to the measurement systems legally defined in the U.K. up until 1963, when Imperial units were defined.
Many of the measurements listed here are actually from the English apothecaries' system, which were not (always? ever?) defined by English or U.K. laws, so those need to be figured out and separated, while others are from the English avoirdupois system.
Also, instead of lists of measurements, all of these should be presented as tables, with appropriate columns for conversion to Imperial and Metric measurements, at least.
I am going to start revising the Volume section along the lines proposed here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetesGuide (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no: why start by redefining the topic of the article? At the very top it says: "This article is about the historical development of measurement in England up to 1826 [not 1963!!]. For the non-metric measurement system used in the UK, see Imperial units." In other words, the usage of "English" here is the normal usage by English people (that is, people from England, like me), meaning "pertaining to England". So it has nothing to do with whether units were defined by law, English or otherwise. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a scruple against Mr Guide's proposal to clarify things by moving this content to Traditional English units of measurement: it's how we treat most of these articles. He obviously didn't think through his suggestion, though, or he would have realized official English units stopped existing in 1707 and there's no need to split an official British units page at 1963. — LlywelynII 04:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with structure and with Volume section Comment 

message: The text shows the Roman Mile to be 1000 paces yet the chart calculates as 2000 paces. Perhaps paces and steps are transposed in the chart. 2A01:4B00:D307:ED00:C05B:2D80:5570:EF4F (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See Pace (unit), Mile#Name and Mile#Roman. The word "mile" ultimately derives from the Latin "mīlle passus", literally "a thousand paces", a Roman pace being the total distance from one foot striking the ground to the same foot striking the ground again. I'll link "pace" in the chart. NebY (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart error 

message: The article starts: "English units are the units of measurement used in England up to 1826 (when they were replaced by Imperial units),..." I think this is basically false. In 1826, nothing was replaced by anything; what happened was that the existing, continuing units were codified, clarified, standardised. I think this sort of claim is symptomatic of a very general WP problem. It is very good at dividing things up: you simply find two slightly different statements about something, but very poor at unifying things, and showing a grasp of the wider picture. (There is a very similar problem with claims that all the different varieties of Chinese character - things like 木 田 綺 原 - are somehow completely different objects, labelled with there name in the language of the place they are being used. Completely irrelevant to this particular instance, yet illustrative of a general problem.) Imaginatorium (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: well no, not really. If you compare "English units" as used in the US with imperial vunita used until this century in the UK, there are quite a few differences. A factor is that there were multiple definitions of the same name in England (and Scotland and Ireland) so the version that became codified in the UK ended up being different to that codified in the US. The best way to resolve this is to find one more RSs that cover the evolution of both systems. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, my mistake, at least in part. The scope of this article is the state of play as at 1826. As the article hatnote explains, common usage in the USA differs. They tend to use the term English Units (as opposed to Metric units) as an alias for US customary measures. See also English Engineering Units. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro