Talk:Ton

message: Gene, what's that supposed to link to? The page currently lists some statistics about the fleet, including tonnage. What's that got to do with the imperial ton (of mass) going out?  Please explain, as I'm confused.
Urhixidur 17:54, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
:Those are long tons (1016 kg), same as those used in the United States for the same purpose.  They are not metric tons, and those long tons are not just "formerly" used, but "currently" used.  Gene Nygaard 18:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Current but only in a small area (naval), eg the whole of agriculture and food production works in metric tons. Building works are in metric. GraemeLeggett 08:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gene Nygaard's [http://www.armedforces.co.uk/navy/listings/l0001.html]

message: The article states that a long ton is 2204 pounds.  I understand that the imperial ton is 2240, that is 20 hundred weight of 112 pounds.  I suspect that the definition of long ton is primarily an American usage.  
However, I have another difficulty.  The 18th century iron industry in England used two systems of weight, long weight, where the ton was 2400 pounds (the hundred weight being 120 pounds) and shortweight where it was the standard 2240 pounds.  
I do not want to alter the article without discussion and would thus appreciate comments.  Peterkingiron 12:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote refers to the difference between the short ton and the metric ton, not the short ton and the long ton.  Actually, the difference is only 1.6%. SpinningSpark 17:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy (2)

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 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed WikiProject

message: I have difficulty accepting this explanation of truck class names without a reference.  I was always told that the names referred to bare chassis weights of early (Ford?) trucks.  In some places, (OK, back woods West Virginia 30 years ago) they are still referred to as, e.g, "1 ton chassis".  So, if there is a reference to support the idea that this is related to net cargo weight, please include it.  Otherwise, I'd like to see this section removed, as i think it is conjecture. tim (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Truck classes

message: Does anyone have any idea what it is that 100 of makes a ton?  It seems to be a British thing, so it's something a little more than 20 pounds.  An explanation would help explain the link between 100 and ton. tim (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The British slang term "ton" is nothing to do with weight, it's just one hundred of whatever you are talking about at the time. It's like saying "K", which could be short for Kilo(gram), Kilometres, £1000 or whatever is the subject of the conversation. TiffaF (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have only heard this as referring to 100 mph.  I do not know, but suspect this is a corruption of hun, for hundred.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about that corruption. A net ton in terms of ship capacity is 100 cubic feet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_tonnage. A "ton" can refer to £100, or on a hot day 100 degrees Fahrenheit (heard that one from pre-metric Australians) and going "ton-up" is a modern usage, seeing as mankind only developed the ability to break 100mph about 100 years ago (a ton ago? ;-) ), so I suspect that is not the earliest usage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Another example is a score of 100 in cricket, which is commonly referred to as a "century" or a "ton" (while 50 is a half century or half ton). See also the "One Ton Cup" in yachting. A further example might be, "There are tons of problems with this article, which couldn't be remedied with a ton of money".203.96.196.227 (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Ton = 100

message: Prior to the 15th century in England, the ton was composed of 20 hundredweight, each of 108 lb, giving a ton of 2000 pounds.
20 * 108 = 2160.
Dunno which of these numbers is inaccurate or I'd fix it. -Anon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.70.149 (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I came here to comment on.  18 months later.  I think I will simply delete it, since there is no reference to use to verify what is meant. Huw Powell (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have re-instated it, but with a "Reference needed" flag. Martinvl (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, you can't place obviously incorrect information in the article.  Any challenged material can be deleted.  "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (WP:V).  It is down to you to find the source before reinserting. SpinningSpark 18:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Reinserting obvious mathematical errors makes no sense. Huw Powell (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math fail 

message: Let me assure those who have been "correcting" this article that a ton longweight in the 18th century British iron industry was 2400 lb.  That industry was the subject of my doctoral thesis and I have frequently come across this unit in accounts, though it is not obvious until you check the arithmetic or see 28 or 29 in the pounds column, as the 2400 lb ton still contained 20 cwt, each of 4 quarters.  Periodcally one finds conversions being done between long- and short-weight.  The use of the longweight ton is mentioned in the 19th century when south Staffordshire ironmasters complained of a canal company gauging boats by the standard 2240 lb ton and suppliers of ironstone from the Coventry coalfield expecting to be paid according to the Coventry Canal toll ticket.  Unfortunately the author of the book that I cite here has not been able to elucidate the size of the larger ton.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longweight 

message: I never realised how many Ton's there were - there's a ton of them! All I can say is thank-god that they are all reasonably similar. Otherwise it could cause some serious problems! 130.56.87.136 (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You might say there could be a ton of problems? :) --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: The article says that "Ton" should be capitalized.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary disagrees; and I have never noticed that it is commonly done.  Where does this notion come from?  The word is actually not capitalized in very many places in the article itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the Collins English Dictionary (British English) also uses lower case - for both the unit of measurement, and its informal uses.  78.32.143.113 (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ton or ton?

message: "The tonne is also known as the metric ton in areas which use the metric measurement system."  <- this is wrong. In areas that use metric system there is no need to put the word "metric" in any word. It is just known as "ton".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.22.74.106 (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's quite correct. Many metric areas formerly used the imperial system (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Ireland, South Africa, India etc etc). The "metric" in metric tonne is often redundant in colloquial speech. However, it is used when a) Ensuring no ambiguity (referring to historical values or talking to an older engineer), b) as a linguistic device for reinforcement ("Mr Brown has just sold 395 METRIC TONNES of the nation's gold reserves?!").  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In writing, the spelling "tonne" is clear that the reference is to the metric system, but in speech the pronounciation is commonly the same as "ton", so that the prefix "metric" may be useful.  In areas usimg the imperial system (or which have recently done so) the old usage for imperial ton (long ton) is not necessarily forgotten, so that the adjective "metric" may sometimes be useful, despite its redundancy.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, "tonne" should be pronounced quite differently to "ton". It does seem to be the case that in some places at least, it's pronounced as "ton", so the expressions "metric tonne" and "metric ton" can be useful, and are sometimes used. Perhaps this is only (or mainly) so in parts of the world which previously used the Imperial system. It also seems to be less common now than in the years following conversion to the metric system. (That's just personal experience, unfortunately). It would be interesting to hear from someone from a not-previously-Imperial part of the world. Anecdotally, my personal experience in New Zealand (previously Imperial), is that the pronunciation of "tonne" and the use of "metric ton" is very much associated with level of education. That's merely anecdotal, of course.203.96.196.227 (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

text: "metric ton" is virtually never used outside North America.  As Peter says, "metric tonne" may be used for clarity, and often is used.  I believe all references to "metric ton" should be removed, or at least replaced with "metric tonne".  If you disagree, please state whether you are in, or from, North America. David. 161.51.11.2 (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

text: In metric areas, especially in Europe, it is common to use the word ton in place of tonne.  The word tonne has become less used, most likely because ton is shorter and easier to write/type.  Use of the word ton in Europe refers to 1000Kg. 95.45.35.41 (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

text: 2204.623 pounds per tonne, to 3 decimal places. Based on factor given at http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/faqs/how-do-i-convert-between-kilograms-and-pounds-(faq-mass-and-density) David. 161.51.11.2 (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "metric" ton

message: Might it be practical to add the respective symbols (t etc.) in the table, perhaps along with  "Common name"? As a foreigner I would love to have clarity there. --Fritz Jörn (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not here because it is the SI abbreviation for tonne (see Tonne#Symbol and abbreviations), but it is nearly the same thing. I have added a line to T (disambiguation) so hopefully future visitors will find it more easily. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations? 

message: I support merging the Tons but not Tonne.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.23.53 (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seimergence 

message: I've taken the liberty of changing the header, and adding detail about the origin of the term, in line with the suggestions I made, (above). I trust that's OK with everyone. </br>
I'm still unsure about the original paragraph (which I've left): It still seems out of place in an introduction. </br>
What does anybody else think? Moonraker12 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: This articles section on units of volume has:</br> 
“The displacement ton is a unit of volume used for describing the displacement of a ship. It represents the volume of water displaced by the hull. It is usually abbreviated as DT.”</br> 
while the Tonnage article has :</br>
Displacement is the actual total weight of the vessel. It is often expressed in long tons or in metric tons, and is calculated simply by multiplying the volume of the hull below the waterline (ie. the volume of water it is displacing) by the density of the water” </br>
I believe the Tonnage article is correct on this; can anyone concur? (or deny?) Moonraker12 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, a displacement ton  (2,240 lb) is not the same as a ton, displacement (DT)  (35 cubic feet). SpinningSpark 17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah! Thanks! I’ve re-drafted the section accordingly. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Displacement 

message: I have just removed the following from the FT dab page,
* The Freight Ton represents the volume of a truck, train or other freight carrier. In the past it has been used for a cargo ship but the register ton is now preferred. It is today equal to 40 cubic feet of space (1.132 cubic metres), but historically it has had several informal definitions. It is correctly abbreviated as 'FT' but some users are now using freight ton to represent a weight of 1 tonne, thus the more common abbreviations are now M/T, MT, or MTON (for measurement ton), which still cause it to be confused with the metric ton  or even the megaton .
This does not belong on the dab page, explanations should be in the article here.  Probably already all incorporated in the article, but I am leaving it here just in case. SpinningSpark 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlong entry on dab page 

message: I don't believe that the 18th century short-weight ton is so precisely defined as 2240 lb.  It appears that the short weight ton was originally a means of deducting an allowance, from the produce of miners, metalworkers and the like, for wastage.  See here for instance, coal miners produced coal in long-weight tons of 25 cwt per ton, but were paid only for a short-weight ton of 20 cwt, the difference supposedly being to allow for dirt mixed in with the coal.  This is going to be variable from mine to mine and industry to industry so I don't think that the article should be giving a definite conversion.  Also the reference cited in the article does not support a definite conversion (it gives different wastages for different sizes of nail) and does not even mention short-weight tons, at least by name. 
Another ref for metalworkers
SpinningSpark 11:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ton shortweight 

message: I have heard that a "2-ton air handler" in HVAC terms can also refer to the volume of air moved in a certain period of time. If an expert could confirm & add this to the article, it would be appreciated. --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refrigeration tons vs. blower tons? 

message: Perhaps it should be  , which could weigh around  and occupy some  of space. But that still leaves a discrepencies. Peter Horn User talk 00:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Gallons and cubic feet are both measures of volume, so it seems odd to have both listed (unless the volume in gallons is the capacity of the barrel, while the cubic foot measurement is the total volume of the barrel, in which case that needs to be clarified). The page on the tun lists the capacity as 256 gallons (954 litres) and 256 gallons of wine/water is approximately 2,048lbs (929kg), and that is where the 'ton' comes from. The tun was later reduced to 210 gallons but I don't think that's relevant to this article. 87.112.238.55 (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 60 cubic feet is not the capacity of the barrel, but rather the space that must be reserved for storing the barrel.  First of all, barrels do not have a 100% packing density.  On top of which space is needed for making fast the load. SpinningSpark 20:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's misleading to say the tun ranges from 210 to 256 gallons. The lower figure is for bigger Imperial gallons. The actual range is . See English wine cask units. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it sounds like whoever wrote that misunderstood.  A reference would be good to be sure. SpinningSpark 19:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about the reference, that's why I haven't changed it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange arithmetic 

message: The article currently states that the UK pronounciation of tonne is /ˈtʌnɪ/ (tunnee) and references this to the OED.  First of all, the OED gives both /tʌn/ and /ˈtʌnɪ/ as acceptable pronounciations and does not indicate either of them to be specifically UK.  The /ˈtʌnɪ/ pronounciation appears to have originated in 1970s attempts by the British steel industry to impose its usage.  The OED cites Which magazine May 1972 "The British Steel Corporation, going metric but realising the possible confusion between a ton and a tonne (1,000 kilograms) has directed its staff to pronounce ‘tonne’ ‘tunnie’."  I also have "The metric ton or 'tonne' is accepted as a synonym for the megagramme, and this form Is to be preferred on the grounds of brevity and familiarity in the industry.  It may be as well to use the pronunciation 'tunnie' until the risk of confusion with the old ton has passed."  Transactions of the Royal Institute of Naval Archtects, page 215, volume 113, 1971.  I have no idea whether this is still used in the steel industry, or even ever got beyond official promulgation, but most sources that specifically address British pronounciation give /tʌn/, examples;
* David Else, British Language & Culture, page 27, Lonely Planet, 2007 .
* Martin Manser, Good Word Guide, page 304, A&C Black, 2009 .
So I would say we ought to give /tʌn/ as the normal pronounciation.  I have never heard /ˈtʌnɪ/ in actual usage, although I have occasionally heard /tɒn/ in an academic setting where it is needed to disambiguate in spoken language.  I even found a source giving this pronounciation;
* Richard Chapman, Physics for Geologists, page 138, CRC Press, 2002 .
SpinningSpark 11:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, so what do you think the article should say? I would favour saying the pronounciation of both words is the same but that alternatives have been proposed in the past.  It would be good to hear from someone currently working in the steel industry who could say whether /ˈtʌnɪ/ ever caught on. SpinningSpark 16:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard anyone pronounce tonne as "tunny",  ever.   But many people pronouce ton as "tun"  and tonne as "ton",  to rhyme with Tom. Tallewang (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation of "tonne" 

message: What is long ton force (LTf)? as in |locobrakeforce = , see British Rail Class 13 etc. Reverse  Peter Horn User talk 01:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Or long tons-force Peter Horn User talk 02:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's what it says on the tin - the force exerted by 1 ton under gravity.  1 tonf = 2240 lbf, or approximately 10,000 newtons.  "Long ton" is American nomenclature where a ton is more commonly 2000 lb, in the UK this would have been simply ton force. SpinningSpark 06:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then the "long ton-force" in  should be directed to long ton and not just to ton. Better yet, it should be treated as a unit of pressure. See also Template talk:Convert#For locomotives. Peter Horn User talk 15:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Ditto for short ton force or short ton-force. Peter Horn User talk 15:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Or reverse  or  also  or . Peter Horn User talk 16:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Long tons-force does redirect to long ton.  The problem is entirely an issue with the  template which is piping the links here, there is nothing this article can do to fix that. SpinningSpark 16:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

text: No problem, I'll post anther reminder on Template talk:Convert#For locomotives. Peter Horn User talk 14:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: "Standard AHRI conditions" are only applicable for comfort air conditioning; not refrigerators, freezers, cooling towers or process cooling, but this article neither makes the distinction nor elaborates.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcampbell (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Standard" Refrigeration Ton

message: It appears that in the middle of the 19th century, cargo loaded into British ships was measured at 50 cu ft to the ton, whilst American ships used a ton of 40 cu ft - reference is MacGregor, David R. (1983). The Tea Clippers, Their History and Development 1833-1875. Conway Maritime Press Limited. , page 13. The article refers to a ton of 40 cu ft, but I am not clear if the source is American. I note that the French ton is very close to the 50 cu ft ton, with perhaps just a modest rounding error to express it in metric units. I presume the logic to all this is lost in the mists of time....
To get to the point, should the 50 cu ft ton be added for measurement of the amount of cargo carried?
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a good reference for that please do add it to the article.  However, a quick gbooks search seems to show that the 40/50 cu ft issue is more complicated than a simple US/British split.  See  and  for instance. SpinningSpark 23:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't expect this to be simple. I only got into this "ton" business because the Cutty Sark website gives a ludicrous quantity of cargo for the ship's first return voyage - unless it is a freight ton of some sort. "1450 tons of tea" when every other tea cargo is cited as pounds of tea. (I'm waiting for an answer from the curator on this and I'll fix the Wikipedia article on Cutty Sark when/if I resolve things). Seems this article should state that two different freight tons were used - we now have three references that make this clear. I'd just like to be sure, if possible, that there were no more than these two and perhaps even understand the origin, before doing any editing (and its been a long day - I'd mess it up if I did it now).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The tea traders would have dealt in pounds of tea, the shipping owners would have dealt in register tons - or whatever the above mentioned volume was used at the time prior to the register ton. The tea was transported in wooden cuboid "tea chests" which could be easily stacked in the holds. The numerous differing measurements arose due to the ad-hoc way that trade in various different businesses was carried out over a period of several hundred years. At the time all ships cargoes would have been measured in registered tons, which is a unit or volume not of weight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.84 (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Further research reveals that the ship owners, agents, etc. meant the Freight Ton when talking about cargos of tea (and presumably other goods). This is the measure of quantity that appeared in the bill of lading. The rate of freight was "per ton" - and no-one is going to misunderstand the money they will earn from a successful voyage! This is clear from a re-read of MacGregor, David R. (1983). The Tea Clippers, Their History and Development 1833-1875. Conway Maritime Press Limited. . (There are some contemporary books of the era that are available on line that also support this, but I cannot lay my hands on the reference now.) This is a different volume than the Register Ton (which is usually stated as 100 cubic feet). Incidentally, the wooden tea chests were not that easy to stack in a sailing ship: the section of the hull is not rectangular, so ballast has to be packed around the bottom few layers, to fill the gaps between rectangular chests and curved hull. And the bottom layer has to start an exact distance below the deck above, so that all the chests will fit (with an allowance made for the space occupied by any dunnage). And that means that the chests have to be layered in a slightly curved manner, to follow the camber of the deck. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurement or Freight Ton 

message: This is ambivalent: The UK Weights and Measures Act 1985 explicitly excluded from use for trade many units and terms, including the ton and the term "metric ton" for "tonne".
First I think it should be: including the "ton" as being about the word itself.
Then, writing "excluding A including B" can go both ways. We should change the sentence to leave one of these two words out.  -DePiep (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusion included? 

message: In Man vs. Wild, Bear Grylls was in Zambia. He saw hippos and said they weigh 4 tons which was translated to 1800 kg, also elephants and said they weigh 8 tons which was translated to 3600 kg. That would mean he used a ton which is about 450 kg, which equals about 1000 lb. But, the smallest on the article is 2000 lb/907 kg, the short ton. 85.76.79.120 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  another, smaller ton? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ton. 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/20111210164956/http://ts.nist.gov/weightsandmeasures/publications/appxc.cfm to http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/appxc.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916113752/http://www.pancanal.com/eng/general/peajes-en-el-canal.html to http://www.pancanal.com/eng/general/peajes-en-el-canal.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051016232934/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull404/article1.pdf to http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull404/article1.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2014.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) 00:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Neither of the "long ton" or "short ton" pages mentions the net/gross terminology. Does anyone have a verifiable source to support that usage?
This is distinctly different from the usual meaning of the "net"/"gross" modifiers and I'm inclined to think would lead to confusion if actually used that way.
Gjxj (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I've taken this out. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: IF I recall when referenced to ships - that ton is a measure of Volume (not weight) - and different locations have different definations as to which spaces are included in each defination. Wfoj3 (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "net ton" / "gross ton" 

message: I would prefer to keep the infobox image. The main purpose of an infobox image is so the reader can easily see what the article is about, and verify that they are reading the right article. I believe the image accomplishes this purpose. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, it distracts from "not to be confused with 1000kg tonne".
* If it were light gray/"copperish" brown/Berlin Cerulean blue, it would be a-ok; it would not interfere with black letters if it were bright-colored. Uchyot (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image