Talk:Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems

message: This section needs a rewrite.
 
Through an accident of history, there is a reason that U.S. definition of the units of gallon and bushel are different from the U.K. "Imperial" definitions. Note that author picks up 1824 definitions of Imperial gallon and bushel. U.S. declared its independence in 1776. Units in use in U.S. were the ones in use in U.K. at that time. 
The metric system (now S.I. units) were originally introduced during the Napoleonic era. The English liked the base 10 concept, but not enough to adopt the metric system, so they redefined their gallon from approx 8.6 pounds of water to define the volume of a gallon to 10 pounds of water defining the "Imperial" gallon. This occured after the American Revolution, so the U.S. did not adopt this change. Thus, it is better to call the U.S. system as "U.S. Customary". There are a lot of references at www.nist.gov under "weights and measures" to help here. 
--69.140.130.29 20:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Today's US units are not the ones used in pre-1824 UK, but a selection of them. There were also efforts after 1776 in the US to harmonize and drop some measures or even create a whole new system of units (based upon the second pendulum), lead by Thomas Jefferson, but with the mere result that there are only two gallons (one wet, one dry) left. After all, they had already decimalised their currency, unlike the Britains. But yes, maybe there's need for a rewrite. Perhaps this article and U.S. customary units should be merged and grouped chronologically. Christoph Päper 21:50, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Imperial" Compared with "U.S. Customary" 

message: I'd written that the terms "long" and "short" were used in the U.S.  This is what the long ton & short ton pages seem to suggest.  Before reading those pages I'd thought that these were just general names not U.S.-only ones but being a metric lad I wasn't 100% sure (not even 50%) so I edited the page to reflect this.  If this is not the case, we've got to chang those pages as well. Jimp 15Jul05
:They aren't U.S.-only names, though some editors hold that mistaken belief.  They are common names used by anyone when they need to distinguish between them.  Gene Nygaard 00:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Long hundreds go back as far as old english, long count is count in 120, short count in decimals.  Gwilt (1867), distinguishes between a "long hundred weight" (ie weight of a long hundred = 120 lbs), vs long hundredweight (112 lbs).--Wendy.krieger (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long & short hundredweights & tons 

message: The following statement cannot be exactly correct:
: From this we see that, in the Imperial system, an avoirdupois ounce of water at 62 °F has a volume of one fluid ounce, because 10 pounds is equivalent to 160 avoirdupois ounces, and 1 Imperial gallon is equivalent to 4 Imperial quarts, or 160 fluid ounces. This convenient relation does not exist in the U.S. system because a U.S. gallon of water at 62 °F weighs about 8 1/3 pounds, or 133 1/3 avoirdupois ounces, and the U.S. gallon is equivalent to 4 × 32, or 128 fluid ounces.
The Imperial gallon is defined to have a volume of exactly 4.54609 dm³, and the international pound is exactly 0.45359237 kg. So for an Imperial gallon of water to weigh exactly ten pounds, the density of water would need to be exactly
: \rho = \frac{10 \times 0.45359237}{\left(\frac{1}{10}\right)^3\times 4.54609} \approx 997.76~\mathrm{kg}/\mathrm{m}^3.
This relation can only be true at one temperature for a given pressure (about 22 °C or 72 °F at 1 atm pressure), and this temperature/pressure would need to be specified with infinite precision to make the density exact, since the temperature scales already have their own independent definition!
Assuming that the number of fluid ounces in the Imperial gallon is fixed at exactly 160, this implies that the relation between Imperial fluid ounces and avoirdupois ounces of water should be regarded as an approximation, even though it is close enough for most practical purposes.
Mtford 06:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, all that is needed to make it exact is to declare it so, replacing less precise earlier definitions.  The original 1824 definition was 10 pounds of water, weighed in air with brass weights at 62 °F.  Your calculations are based on true mass (as if weighed in a vacuum, rather than in air).   Gene Nygaard 20:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalence of Imperial fluid ounces and avoirdupois ounces of water 

message: The article introduction notes: "These English systems had developed in England over several centuries since the Battle of Hastings in 1066". I question that the English systems started exactly on 14 October 1066. Does the article need to be modified to something like "These English systems were introduced after the Norman Invasion" ?
--mgaved (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial units started exactly on 14 October 1066 ? 

message: The United States is one of 3 countries that has not officialy adopted the metric system. I removed the error which said it had.
75.118.187.114 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The US ain't 'officially metric'. We passed some legislation (now nearly a half-century ago) declaring it to be so, but allowed that all transitions would be done voluntarily - thus would be encouraged, but not forced. Those statutes were heavily gutted in the 1990s, and since then (at least) all metrication efforts have more or less halted (i.e., those applications which had already converted to metric use metric, but everything else uses standard and is unlikely to change). Some states have even reversed some of their metrication implementations in the last couple decades. Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S.A. 

message: There's no need for capitilisation of imperial.  I've reverted the recent page move. JIMp talk·cont 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitilisation 

message: I notice that the article and the tables use the centilitre. When Australia introduced the metric system in the 1970s it was not mentioned. We have millilitres and litres but not decilitres or centilitres. I cannot speak for other countries, but as far as I can see, the centilitre is hardly used and can be dispensed with in this article. This would certainly simplify the material in the table as can be seen below:
 Comparison of current imperial, US and metric volume measures
Unit name                                   	Imperial measures	US fluid measures	US dry measures	metric measures
Imperial fluid ounce(fl oz)                 	
≡               	
≈  
≈   (food)  	               	
≡    
≡
US fluid ounce(customary)(fl oz)            	
≈               	
≡ 
≡     (food) 	               	
≡    
≡
US fluid ounce(food packaging)(fl oz) (food)	
≈               	
≈  
≡  (food)   	               	
≡ 
≡
US liquid quart(qt)                         	
≈  
≈  
≈       	
≡ 
≡     (food)
≡ 
≡	
≡    
≡       	
≡    
≡
litre(l or L or dm3)                        	
≈  
≈  
≈       	
≈  
≈   (food)
≈  
≈	
≈  
≈         	
≡  ml
≡
US dry quart(qt)                            	
≈  
≈  
≈       	
≈  
≈   (food)
≈  
≈	
≡ 
≡          	
≡     ml
≡
Imperial quart(qt)                          	
≡ 
≡ 
≡         	
≈  
≈   (food)
≈  
≈	
≈  
≈         	
≡     ml
≡
US (wet) gallon(gal)                        	
≈  
≈  
≈       	
≡    
≡     (food)
≡ 
≡	
≡    
≡       	
≡     ml
≡
US dry gallon(gal)                          	
≈  
≈  
≈       	
≈  
≈   (food)
≈  
≈	
≡ 
≡          	
≡     ml
≡
Imperial gallon(gal)                        	
≡    
≡ 
≡      	
≈  
≈   (food)
≈	
≈  
≈         	
≡     ml
≡
This would be clearer and simpler and more in line with the way that the metric system is applied. I would be interested to see what other editors think of this proposal.Michael Glass (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more. JIMp talk·cont 10:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centilitre: an unnecessary complication that could be dropped. 

message: Now that we've taken out centiliters, I think it'll be helpful to add pints.
 Comparison of current imperial, US and metric volume measures
Unit name                                   	Imperial measures	US fluid measures	US dry measures	metric measures
Imperial fluid ounce(fl oz)                 	
=               	
˜  
˜   (food)  	               	
=    
=
US fluid ounce(customary)(fl oz)            	
˜               	
= 
=     (food) 	               	
=    
=
US fluid ounce(food packaging)(fl oz) (food)	
˜               	
˜  
=  (food)   	               	
= 
=
US liquid pint(pt)                          	
˜  
˜  
˜       	
= 
= 
=         	
˜    
˜       	
=    
=
US dry pint(pt)                             	
˜  
˜  
˜       	
˜  
˜  
˜       	
= 
=          	
=    
=
Imperial pint (pt)                          	
= 
= 
=         	
˜  
˜  
˜       	
˜  
˜         	
=    
=
US liquid quart(qt)                         	
˜  
˜  
˜       	
= 
=     (food)
= 
=	
˜    
˜       	
=    
=
litre(l or L or dm3)                        	
˜  
˜  
˜       	
˜  
˜   (food)
˜  
˜	
˜  
˜         	
=  mL
=
US dry quart(qt)                            	
˜  
˜  
˜       	
˜  
˜   (food)
˜  
˜	
= 
=          	
=     mL
=
Imperial quart(qt)                          	
= 
= 
=         	
˜  
˜   (food)
˜  
˜	
˜  
˜         	
=     mL
=
US liquid gallon(gal)                       	
˜  
˜  
˜       	
=    
=     (food)
= 
=	
=    
=       	
=     mL
=
US dry gallon(gal)                          	
˜  
˜  
˜       	
˜  
˜   (food)
˜  
˜	
= 
=          	
=     mL
=
Imperial gallon(gal)                        	
=    
= 
=      	
˜  
˜   (food)
˜	
˜  
˜         	
=     mL
=
While calculating the pint conversions, I noticed some inconsistencies in the quart equivalents, so I've gone back and re-figured them based on these definitions (exact numbers): 1 US liquid gal. = 231 cu. in.; 1 US dry gal. = 268.8025 cu. in.; and 1 Imperial gal. = 4.54609 L. I haven't checked if there may be errors in the gallon and fluid ounce sections, however. BW95 (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. JIMp talk·cont 07:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked over the entire table and have made more corrections. Will wait another day for other comments and then update the main article. BW95 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes are made. BW95 (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add pints 

message: In the table, why are some numbers in italic, some in bold, and some in regular font? From what I can figure, italic means approximation, bold means definition, and regular means exact. Can someone confirm this? I think it'll be a good idea to make this explicit in the article so that people aren't left wondering. BW95 (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the italics and added a legend. BW95 (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typographic note 

message: I propose that a newly created article, Imperial and US customary measurement systems, be merged into this article. I think that as there is huge overlap and duplication between the two, that the content in the new article can easily be accommodated in the context of this article, and the new article is of a reasonable size that the merging of it here will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 212.183.140.15 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The section Talk:Imperial and US customary measurement systems#Article Rationale clearly identifies the scope of that article which is to provide an overview for four articles, one of which is Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems. Given that the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems is about 75 kbytes in length (as per WP:LENGTH articles should try not to go much above that value) it would not be appropriate to merge it into any article, let alone one that has a "Citations needed" banner across it and text that is riddled with "Convert errors".  Martinvl (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: The new article is far superior in every respect, including coverage and sourcing. The 75kb guideline would not trouble me if a few additions were needed to make it complete. I would favor including in the new article any accurate information from the old article that is needed for complete coverage. It should be verifiable from sources already cited or new ones - because the old article is unsourced. I doubt the additions would be very large because of the noted considerable overlap of the two articles. Then the old article could be deleted. Perhaps the old article complete overlaps the new one and could be deleted without any carryover, but I have not checked the articles closely enough to endorse that. The suggested action technically would be a merger, I suppose, but it seems somewhat less than that because I think little would be carried over to the new article. In view of the overlap that is apparent even from a cursory look at the two articles, I think that only one article on this topic should exist. Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The "new" article is an overview for four existing articles, one of which is the "old" article.  The other three articles are  English units (pre 1824), Imperial units (post 1824 - UK), United States customary units (post 1776 - US).  There is scope for the "old" article to be improved, starting with Thomas Jefferson's report in 1790. (Jefferson noted that there were already differences between the US and the UK, notably that not all UK units had been adopted in the US). Martinvl (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I believe the proposer of this merger is a malicious move by the banned User:DeFacto. I have posted a request on the ANI noticeboard that this merge request be swiftly closed on those grounds. Until I have a positive second opinion that this is the case, I will treat this as a genuine, but misguided proposal. Martinvl (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Now that User:Martinv has explained this in a manner that has finally sunk in with me, I see that this is supposed to be an overview article and the other article is to have additional details. The other article does not need to be merged or deleted but certainly needs to be improved and better sourced. Martinv explained this at the outset but I did not completely follow the explanation; I think it was because I lost the progression in switching back and forth between the talk pages. In any event, your article is quite good and the topic is quite important. Nothing should be lost in the process here and if retention of both articles is needed for the full explanation and details to be presented, I would favor that - with the eventual cleanup and sourcing as needed. It would by no means be anomalous for this to be the way to go, even though the topic of the two articles seems (superficially, as it now appears) to suggest one article would be enough. Donner60 (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The "US" in the title has been changed to "U.S." without any fuller explanation than "per convention".  Imperial and U.S. customary measurement systems has been hit too.  Who's convention?  The MOS convention is to allow either.  Jimp 09:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jimp.  WP:MOS states quite clearly that "U.S." is the norm in United States and Canadian English, but that "US" is the norm in other varieties of English.  A cursory glance at the article identified British English as the variety of English used - consistent use of "US" rather than "U.S.", consistent use of "metre" rather than "meter" and the absence of a comma between the words "quarts" and "or" in the phrase "the bushel into 4 pecks, 8 gallons, 32 quarts or 64 pints".  In view of this, please change the title back to it UK English form. BTW, I am about to mark this article as using UK English. Martinvl (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What convention?