![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
what is width of an acre in feet?
One Acre is equal to 1 chain by 1 furlong. Noting that 4 rods is a chain, and 10 chain is a furlong, then one acre is also equal to 4 rods by 40 rods (160 squar rods).
As one chain is 22 yards, so one acre is also equal to 22 yards by 220 yards (4,840 square yards). You see, these all make sense !!! (Comments added by Dr. Eric Wu 20/03/2005)
Think of one acre being slightly larger than 60m by 60m.
I have no quarrel with the fact that the acre was sometimes defined as a chain by a furlong, or the equivalent in perches or yards or whatever. Nor with the fact that the terminology "acre's breadth" and "acre's length" were sometimes used in connection with defining an acre.
What I object to is presenting "acre's breadth" and "acre's length" as if they are used as units of measure. That certainly isn't true today, and I doubt that it ever was true. Nobody ever gives a measurement as "three acre's breadths" or "seven acre's lengths".
BTW, the acre's breadth I learned before I even started school is the rod. In an area where homesteads were normally 160 acres, often in a square, the half-mile length of the fields in these tracts for a width of one rod is an acre. Gene Nygaard 11:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
"Acre's breadth" and "acre's lengths", as I stated, are obsolete terms, but formerly used. They were used as lineal measurements and date to the 13th Century. The Oxford English Dictionary contains quotes with these usages. Rt66lt 01:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The first usage of "chain" (as an official unit of length) dates to 1624 according to the OED. Chains were used to measure acres, however they were not standardized as a length until that date by someone named "Gunter" (no first name given). Rt66lt 02:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
kalamos measuring rod from reed or wood. For area measurements the aroura was used which is one schoinion square."
It's interesting how the English and other Europeans seem to think they invented all measures from scratch but at the same time allow that by some coincidence the people who invented surveying were apparently able to lay out the metes and bounds of plots of land in essentially the same units several millenia earlier. How did the Greeks lay out their fields? Federal Street 16:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Where is this claim in the article? Oh, that's right: it doesn't exist. C'mon, mon, get happy or plant yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 ( talk) 20:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
When buying land listed for purchase in the U.S, what is the definition of an acre?
For instance, if I search on realtor.com, and it says that a plot of land is 10.21 Acres, can I convert this to square meters?
Generally speaking Realtors use 43,560 sq. ft. (4,046.856 square meters) to represent an acre.
When in doubt, take your ox and see how long it takes you to plow the lot. Do the math and use it as a bargaining chip with your realtor. ;-) Kbh3rd talk 21:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The line
appeared in two paragraphs. I removed it from the first, thinking it more relevant in its place in the second.-- King Hildebrand 17:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There is some confusion in this section, which starts by saying that the US and the Commonwealth agreed on the length of a yard, in meters. It then says there is some difference between the US and International acres, which makes no sense. The next section talks about a US survey acre. If this is the acre being referred to under International Acre, perhaps "survey acre" could be appended to "US" or the two sections could be combined to be more coherent. Cellmaker ( talk) 14:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
there is a comparison to an acre to a soccer. An acre is 66ft x 220 yards or 660 ft. A football field is 75 to 100 feet, by 100 yards or 300 feet. The diagram shows that the foot ball field is larger than an acre, If the football field is 100 ft by 300 feet the sq foot would be 30,000 sq ft and an acre is 66 ft by 660 feet or 43,560 feet. I think the designer mistaken the 220 yards for 220 feet, being there is 300 feet in a football field.
George Smith —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
192.76.86.83 (
talk)
16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
The statement that an area of 1 inch by 99 miles was incorrect so I replaced 99 with an exact calculated value.
$ units 2438 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units You have: 1 acre You want: in2 * 6272665.1 / 1.5942187e-07 You have: 6272665.1 in You want: mi * 99.000396 / 0.01010097
A further comment regarding the image comparing an acre to a football field: if anyone is able, please replace the image with one that does not use red and green as the comparison colors. I am red-green colorblind (along with an estimated 7-10% of males). I am incapable of seeing the difference in color between the red area and the darker green in the image, which means that I can't see if the red area includes or does not include the left-hand endzone. Here and elsewhere, all illustrators should please use other color combinations, such as red and blue or green and yellow, that avoid this problem. Even better would be use of dark and light shades of gray, as these will be visible by anyone with eyesight, regardless of any form of color blindness they may experience. --jtellerelsberg 13 October 2009.
Has anyone noticed that an acre is one-tenth of a square furlong? Or is that just another wacky measurement? ZtObOr 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
User:ArthurDuhurst added the following sentence: "Curiously, both distances, 660 ft. & 66 ft., are multiples of eleven." with the edit summary "(I added the sentence on multiples of eleven in hopes that someone will explain this oddity)". I removed the change because it belongs on the talk page, not in the article.
I added Template:globalize/USA because examples involving American football are really not optimal for expressing meaning to readers outside the United States. A US-centric example may be better than no example, but an internationally understandable example is better still. Obviously an acre is primarily a US/UK unit of measurement but I still anticipate that many readers will be coming from other cultures because they encounter this unfamiliar unit in sources originating in the US or UK, or historical sources. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for more. - PhilipR ( talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
the article actually says: "An acre which? is approximately 40% of a hectare.
One acre which? is 90.75 percent of a 53.33-yard-wide American football field." while the information is correct, the acusation of weasel words is not. it's not like 'some say' it is a numerical value of 1.
sort it out.
Did I mention? BLEH ( talk) 20:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The article states
"The United States survey acre is approximately 4,046.872 609 874 252 square metres".
In my opinion that goes well beyond what an approximation should be. The measurement is being quoted to 16 significant figures (in this case 12 decimal places) and is more akin to an exact measurement. After all, the 12th decimal place represents a square micron, which is less than the area of a pinhead, right?
An approximation ought to be no more than 3 significant figures, if that. After all, if you asked someone "Approximately how many miles can you drive this car on a full tank of petrol?" and they said "322.6345924", you'd think them rather odd. You'd expect an answer such as 300-350.
I therefore think it would be far better to state the approximation as perhaps 4,050 square metres, or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.184.82 ( talk) 14:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
96.255.159.197 ( talk) 00:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)mjd
I am very curious about the firm emphasis on 'one' man and 'one' ox. Worldwide the technology for harnessing the power of oxen is almost universally based on a team of two oxen. Indeed, the correct term for a team of oxen is a 'span' -- because the yoke spans the two animals. In 45 years of studying animal-powered agriculture, the only example I have ever seen of one bovine being used to till land was in rice paddies in Asia. My understanding, shared by other researchers, is that acre was defined as the amount of land that could be plowed in one day by whatever combination was in common practice in an area. Usually this was two animals--as the illustrations in the article show. 197.221.243.188 ( talk) 17:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, one man alone can manage a span of oxen only if they are both docile and well-trained. Otherwise, common practice is for a second person to walk ahead of the oxen with a lead.
So where did this very odd standardization of one man and one ox come from?
I'd like to see this go into the lede. If it requires explanation, then lets figure out how it could be said. Every unit of customary measurement has a definition within the same system. It is not encyclopedic to fail to make such a definition the primary definition. Equivalents in other system are secondary. Although a unit can usually be defined in any of several ways, even within the same system, there are usually preferred customary definitions. For example, the mile could be defined in terms of inches or rods, but is commonly defined as 5280 feet, less commonly as 1370 yards or 8 furlongs.
An acre is traditionally defined either as 4 x 40 rods or (in more recent years) 1/640 of a square miles. Both definitions are 100% accurate provided that the acre, the rod, and the square mile are all based on the same inch (i.e., survey or international). In the western United States, sections of approximately 1 square mile are commonly divided by binary division either into equal-sized squares or equal-sized rectangles twice as long as they are wide. Thus, a section yields 4 parcels of 160 acres, etc., all the way down to 1 1/4 acre. Everyone involved in the real-estate transactions knows that the acre measurements are not 100% accurate, but for rural property the margin of error is considered acceptable. For urban and suburban real-estate the metes-and-bounds method is used. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The
(detailed view) link under the first image, provided by
this template doesn't work for me – HTTP 404.
--
CiaPan (
talk)
05:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
[[File:comparison_area_units.svg|thumb|none|1000px|Comparison of...]]
Isaac Asimov in his book Realm of Measure said an acre was how much could be ploughed in one morning, although stating that it was a rough estimate that varied with rockiness of soil and strength of ox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.6.11 ( talk) 17:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
QuentinUK ( talk) 03:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
In the "Historical Origin" section, it states:"The acre was roughly the amount of land tillable by a yoke of oxen in one day." Is this in the 1300s, like the "Act on the Composition of Yards and Perches" quote above, but it is still unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.64.115 ( talk) 18:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are values given to .001 yard? Whoever wrote code instead of just doing the math manually has made my point as to why automating can be bad.
I remember reading this article months or years ago and the equivalent in yards, 220 was just typed in. So if you want to replace typing with code, this is about the worst example I've ever seen of it and I think it needs changed back. 40ac&amule ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Acre. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/1804/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Acre. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Acre. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.penguin-news.com/index.php/columns/28-farm-yarns-with-elaine/462-farm-yarns-with-elaine-turner-part-13{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.guampdn.com/article/20130824/NEWS01/308240022/Manamko-could-see-new-homesWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Acre. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a section in chain (unit) called Modern use and historic cultural references which is a great repository for traditional usages. Has anyone got suitable material to start a similar section here? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Since the so-called International Acre is not based on any international agreement, but merely derived by some editor from the international yard, it seems to be to fall foul of WP:OR. The only references to it that I can find are in Wikimedia and forks. Does anyone object to my deleting it? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
We are in danger of getting into an edit war in the article itself, which I don't think any of us intend. I suggest that we need to agree a wording here and then upload it.
First, is everyone content with the detail of UK usage coming out of the lead (bearing in mind that by far the most extensive use of the unit nowadays is in the USA)?
Second, if that is ok, then having a UK-specific section gives us room to explain the issues in some detail (rather than trying to squeeze it into a couple of terse succinct sentences appropriate to the lead. I'd start with clearing up the sequence of Acts, SIs, implementation dates, exemptions. "Clarification needed".
Comments? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
"a large portion of the public" is not supported by the citations and is not really credible. Certainly in my experience, practically no-one outside rural communities has the slightest idea of the size of an acre [nor of a hectare either, but that is beside the point]. According to WP policy, significant statements like that need to be supported by citation, otherwise it is WP:OR. Might I suggest changing to "many in rural communities"? I can't see anyone arguing with that. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry about the date in the UK section, I read the wrong part of the 1994 act (for loose goods). The acre was taken off on 1 October 1995. I have amended this. Voello ( talk) 11:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Just a note to save anyone else going through the same time-wasting edit as I've just made and abandoned ...
The metric equivalent of an acre is given in this article to about ten significant figures yet the measurement it is based on only has four. Physics 101 teaches that precision cannot increase by multiplication. However, since the yard was defined, not measured, as "exactly" 0.9144 metres, than it is equally exactly 0.914 400 000 000 or as many decimal places as desired. Thus the precision given is valid. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
See Special:Diff/908424105 if this question happens to come up again ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
da m
". However, replacing it by a longer text would likely require more space than is available. As the image seems to be meant to illustrate several unusual units, we can't remove the text either.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
21:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
(First time using talk; hope it's correct). In the article on "Acre" the short line of text above the image at right erroneously says "1 are = 1 da m2". This should be "1 are = 1 dm2".
Rtmirand ( talk) 07:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
da m
". I'll do so per
Jc3s5h's comment.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
18:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed the following (obviously POV/bogus) claim from the lead: "An internationally recognised symbol for the acre is ac." The reference given [url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1980L0181:20090527:EN:PDF|type=Directive|index=80/181/EEC|date=20 December 1979|page=11| legislature = The Council Of The European Communities| article-type = Annex| article = III|title=The approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement and on the repeal of Directive 71/354/EEC] says at the very top: "This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents." In other words, for their convenience they are using "ac" as an abbreviation (not "symbol") for "acre", as they are perfectly entitled to do, but no more. Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
QUANTITIES, | NAMES OF UNITS, | SYMBOLS | APPROXIMATE VALUES |
---|---|---|---|
1 | acre | ac | 4 047 m2 |
Fiction writers have license to refer to Fict characters without use ot a proper name, and our editors can reasonably do so, after revealing,inside quotes, ThaT the work in question does so. Even if the author does not, our editors may Reasonably do so, after explaining the work’s unusual presentation of one or more characters in the work. I ameliorated our colleague’s breach by adding a definite or indefinite article at first mention, but the article should be more thoroughly fixed, by a colleague, or colleagues, better situated situated than I.p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:c201:fd70:5417:3b9f:947e:1922 ( talk) 01:35, 2020 August 29 (UTC)
@ Goddess Helvetica: Acre has moved to Acre (unit). This does have advantages: editors regularly add links to Acre which lead to the unit but were intended for another meaning such as Acre, Israel or Acre (state). ( Here is one I fixed yesterday.) However, Acre still redirects to Acre (unit), so all links will lead to the same place as before, but the unit no longer has the most concise title. One option is to move Acre (disambiguation) to Acre, perhaps after a requested move discussion. This could even be done boldly if we are sure there is no primary topic, as long as someone is happy to fix the 5,082 articles which link to the unit and would need to be edited to link to its new title. Certes ( talk) 09:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The redirect
Ekar has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 14 § Ekar until a consensus is reached. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
22:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I’ve tweaked the Historical origins section a bit:
The section on the Norman acre needs clarifying: how did it differ from land measurement in the rest of France? Was it a measure of ploughland, like the acre, or was it a square measure, like the arpent carre? Also, giving a value in square meters is unhelpful; what was it in traditional units?
I’ve also added a brief description of the morgen, and removed the table, as it is off-topic (It’s superfluous in a page on a different unit of measurement altogether, and is the same as the one on the morgen page if anyone wants to see it). I also notice there’s a discussion
above about the "one man one ox" definition being suspect; I’ve added a qualifier form the other page, but there wasn’t a ref to back it up (I've requested one
there). I trust everyone is OK with that.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
10:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
These two phrases are contradictory
As detailed in the box on the right, an acre was roughly the amount of land tillable by a yoke of oxen in one day.
An acre was the amount of land tillable by one man behind one ox in one day. (in the box)
Considering that the carucate specifies "8-oxen team", I suggest to specify everywhere for the acre "2-oxen team" rather than "oxen team".
I feel interesting to know how many furrows were contained in the width (this is equivalent to their distance and to the fraction of the working day needed for a furlong, i.e. the time before the oxen's rest).
thanks for your attention. 151.29.137.229 ( talk) 05:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
what is width of an acre in feet?
One Acre is equal to 1 chain by 1 furlong. Noting that 4 rods is a chain, and 10 chain is a furlong, then one acre is also equal to 4 rods by 40 rods (160 squar rods).
As one chain is 22 yards, so one acre is also equal to 22 yards by 220 yards (4,840 square yards). You see, these all make sense !!! (Comments added by Dr. Eric Wu 20/03/2005)
Think of one acre being slightly larger than 60m by 60m.
I have no quarrel with the fact that the acre was sometimes defined as a chain by a furlong, or the equivalent in perches or yards or whatever. Nor with the fact that the terminology "acre's breadth" and "acre's length" were sometimes used in connection with defining an acre.
What I object to is presenting "acre's breadth" and "acre's length" as if they are used as units of measure. That certainly isn't true today, and I doubt that it ever was true. Nobody ever gives a measurement as "three acre's breadths" or "seven acre's lengths".
BTW, the acre's breadth I learned before I even started school is the rod. In an area where homesteads were normally 160 acres, often in a square, the half-mile length of the fields in these tracts for a width of one rod is an acre. Gene Nygaard 11:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
"Acre's breadth" and "acre's lengths", as I stated, are obsolete terms, but formerly used. They were used as lineal measurements and date to the 13th Century. The Oxford English Dictionary contains quotes with these usages. Rt66lt 01:47, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The first usage of "chain" (as an official unit of length) dates to 1624 according to the OED. Chains were used to measure acres, however they were not standardized as a length until that date by someone named "Gunter" (no first name given). Rt66lt 02:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
kalamos measuring rod from reed or wood. For area measurements the aroura was used which is one schoinion square."
It's interesting how the English and other Europeans seem to think they invented all measures from scratch but at the same time allow that by some coincidence the people who invented surveying were apparently able to lay out the metes and bounds of plots of land in essentially the same units several millenia earlier. How did the Greeks lay out their fields? Federal Street 16:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Where is this claim in the article? Oh, that's right: it doesn't exist. C'mon, mon, get happy or plant yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 ( talk) 20:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
When buying land listed for purchase in the U.S, what is the definition of an acre?
For instance, if I search on realtor.com, and it says that a plot of land is 10.21 Acres, can I convert this to square meters?
Generally speaking Realtors use 43,560 sq. ft. (4,046.856 square meters) to represent an acre.
When in doubt, take your ox and see how long it takes you to plow the lot. Do the math and use it as a bargaining chip with your realtor. ;-) Kbh3rd talk 21:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The line
appeared in two paragraphs. I removed it from the first, thinking it more relevant in its place in the second.-- King Hildebrand 17:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There is some confusion in this section, which starts by saying that the US and the Commonwealth agreed on the length of a yard, in meters. It then says there is some difference between the US and International acres, which makes no sense. The next section talks about a US survey acre. If this is the acre being referred to under International Acre, perhaps "survey acre" could be appended to "US" or the two sections could be combined to be more coherent. Cellmaker ( talk) 14:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
there is a comparison to an acre to a soccer. An acre is 66ft x 220 yards or 660 ft. A football field is 75 to 100 feet, by 100 yards or 300 feet. The diagram shows that the foot ball field is larger than an acre, If the football field is 100 ft by 300 feet the sq foot would be 30,000 sq ft and an acre is 66 ft by 660 feet or 43,560 feet. I think the designer mistaken the 220 yards for 220 feet, being there is 300 feet in a football field.
George Smith —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
192.76.86.83 (
talk)
16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
The statement that an area of 1 inch by 99 miles was incorrect so I replaced 99 with an exact calculated value.
$ units 2438 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units You have: 1 acre You want: in2 * 6272665.1 / 1.5942187e-07 You have: 6272665.1 in You want: mi * 99.000396 / 0.01010097
A further comment regarding the image comparing an acre to a football field: if anyone is able, please replace the image with one that does not use red and green as the comparison colors. I am red-green colorblind (along with an estimated 7-10% of males). I am incapable of seeing the difference in color between the red area and the darker green in the image, which means that I can't see if the red area includes or does not include the left-hand endzone. Here and elsewhere, all illustrators should please use other color combinations, such as red and blue or green and yellow, that avoid this problem. Even better would be use of dark and light shades of gray, as these will be visible by anyone with eyesight, regardless of any form of color blindness they may experience. --jtellerelsberg 13 October 2009.
Has anyone noticed that an acre is one-tenth of a square furlong? Or is that just another wacky measurement? ZtObOr 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
User:ArthurDuhurst added the following sentence: "Curiously, both distances, 660 ft. & 66 ft., are multiples of eleven." with the edit summary "(I added the sentence on multiples of eleven in hopes that someone will explain this oddity)". I removed the change because it belongs on the talk page, not in the article.
I added Template:globalize/USA because examples involving American football are really not optimal for expressing meaning to readers outside the United States. A US-centric example may be better than no example, but an internationally understandable example is better still. Obviously an acre is primarily a US/UK unit of measurement but I still anticipate that many readers will be coming from other cultures because they encounter this unfamiliar unit in sources originating in the US or UK, or historical sources. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for more. - PhilipR ( talk) 18:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
the article actually says: "An acre which? is approximately 40% of a hectare.
One acre which? is 90.75 percent of a 53.33-yard-wide American football field." while the information is correct, the acusation of weasel words is not. it's not like 'some say' it is a numerical value of 1.
sort it out.
Did I mention? BLEH ( talk) 20:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The article states
"The United States survey acre is approximately 4,046.872 609 874 252 square metres".
In my opinion that goes well beyond what an approximation should be. The measurement is being quoted to 16 significant figures (in this case 12 decimal places) and is more akin to an exact measurement. After all, the 12th decimal place represents a square micron, which is less than the area of a pinhead, right?
An approximation ought to be no more than 3 significant figures, if that. After all, if you asked someone "Approximately how many miles can you drive this car on a full tank of petrol?" and they said "322.6345924", you'd think them rather odd. You'd expect an answer such as 300-350.
I therefore think it would be far better to state the approximation as perhaps 4,050 square metres, or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.184.82 ( talk) 14:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
96.255.159.197 ( talk) 00:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)mjd
I am very curious about the firm emphasis on 'one' man and 'one' ox. Worldwide the technology for harnessing the power of oxen is almost universally based on a team of two oxen. Indeed, the correct term for a team of oxen is a 'span' -- because the yoke spans the two animals. In 45 years of studying animal-powered agriculture, the only example I have ever seen of one bovine being used to till land was in rice paddies in Asia. My understanding, shared by other researchers, is that acre was defined as the amount of land that could be plowed in one day by whatever combination was in common practice in an area. Usually this was two animals--as the illustrations in the article show. 197.221.243.188 ( talk) 17:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, one man alone can manage a span of oxen only if they are both docile and well-trained. Otherwise, common practice is for a second person to walk ahead of the oxen with a lead.
So where did this very odd standardization of one man and one ox come from?
I'd like to see this go into the lede. If it requires explanation, then lets figure out how it could be said. Every unit of customary measurement has a definition within the same system. It is not encyclopedic to fail to make such a definition the primary definition. Equivalents in other system are secondary. Although a unit can usually be defined in any of several ways, even within the same system, there are usually preferred customary definitions. For example, the mile could be defined in terms of inches or rods, but is commonly defined as 5280 feet, less commonly as 1370 yards or 8 furlongs.
An acre is traditionally defined either as 4 x 40 rods or (in more recent years) 1/640 of a square miles. Both definitions are 100% accurate provided that the acre, the rod, and the square mile are all based on the same inch (i.e., survey or international). In the western United States, sections of approximately 1 square mile are commonly divided by binary division either into equal-sized squares or equal-sized rectangles twice as long as they are wide. Thus, a section yields 4 parcels of 160 acres, etc., all the way down to 1 1/4 acre. Everyone involved in the real-estate transactions knows that the acre measurements are not 100% accurate, but for rural property the margin of error is considered acceptable. For urban and suburban real-estate the metes-and-bounds method is used. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The
(detailed view) link under the first image, provided by
this template doesn't work for me – HTTP 404.
--
CiaPan (
talk)
05:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
[[File:comparison_area_units.svg|thumb|none|1000px|Comparison of...]]
Isaac Asimov in his book Realm of Measure said an acre was how much could be ploughed in one morning, although stating that it was a rough estimate that varied with rockiness of soil and strength of ox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.6.11 ( talk) 17:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
QuentinUK ( talk) 03:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
In the "Historical Origin" section, it states:"The acre was roughly the amount of land tillable by a yoke of oxen in one day." Is this in the 1300s, like the "Act on the Composition of Yards and Perches" quote above, but it is still unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.64.115 ( talk) 18:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Why are values given to .001 yard? Whoever wrote code instead of just doing the math manually has made my point as to why automating can be bad.
I remember reading this article months or years ago and the equivalent in yards, 220 was just typed in. So if you want to replace typing with code, this is about the worst example I've ever seen of it and I think it needs changed back. 40ac&amule ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Acre. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/1804/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Acre. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Acre. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.penguin-news.com/index.php/columns/28-farm-yarns-with-elaine/462-farm-yarns-with-elaine-turner-part-13{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.guampdn.com/article/20130824/NEWS01/308240022/Manamko-could-see-new-homesWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Acre. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a section in chain (unit) called Modern use and historic cultural references which is a great repository for traditional usages. Has anyone got suitable material to start a similar section here? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Since the so-called International Acre is not based on any international agreement, but merely derived by some editor from the international yard, it seems to be to fall foul of WP:OR. The only references to it that I can find are in Wikimedia and forks. Does anyone object to my deleting it? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
We are in danger of getting into an edit war in the article itself, which I don't think any of us intend. I suggest that we need to agree a wording here and then upload it.
First, is everyone content with the detail of UK usage coming out of the lead (bearing in mind that by far the most extensive use of the unit nowadays is in the USA)?
Second, if that is ok, then having a UK-specific section gives us room to explain the issues in some detail (rather than trying to squeeze it into a couple of terse succinct sentences appropriate to the lead. I'd start with clearing up the sequence of Acts, SIs, implementation dates, exemptions. "Clarification needed".
Comments? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
"a large portion of the public" is not supported by the citations and is not really credible. Certainly in my experience, practically no-one outside rural communities has the slightest idea of the size of an acre [nor of a hectare either, but that is beside the point]. According to WP policy, significant statements like that need to be supported by citation, otherwise it is WP:OR. Might I suggest changing to "many in rural communities"? I can't see anyone arguing with that. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 10:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry about the date in the UK section, I read the wrong part of the 1994 act (for loose goods). The acre was taken off on 1 October 1995. I have amended this. Voello ( talk) 11:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Just a note to save anyone else going through the same time-wasting edit as I've just made and abandoned ...
The metric equivalent of an acre is given in this article to about ten significant figures yet the measurement it is based on only has four. Physics 101 teaches that precision cannot increase by multiplication. However, since the yard was defined, not measured, as "exactly" 0.9144 metres, than it is equally exactly 0.914 400 000 000 or as many decimal places as desired. Thus the precision given is valid. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 11:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
See Special:Diff/908424105 if this question happens to come up again ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
da m
". However, replacing it by a longer text would likely require more space than is available. As the image seems to be meant to illustrate several unusual units, we can't remove the text either.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
21:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
(First time using talk; hope it's correct). In the article on "Acre" the short line of text above the image at right erroneously says "1 are = 1 da m2". This should be "1 are = 1 dm2".
Rtmirand ( talk) 07:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
da m
". I'll do so per
Jc3s5h's comment.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
18:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed the following (obviously POV/bogus) claim from the lead: "An internationally recognised symbol for the acre is ac." The reference given [url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1980L0181:20090527:EN:PDF|type=Directive|index=80/181/EEC|date=20 December 1979|page=11| legislature = The Council Of The European Communities| article-type = Annex| article = III|title=The approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement and on the repeal of Directive 71/354/EEC] says at the very top: "This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents." In other words, for their convenience they are using "ac" as an abbreviation (not "symbol") for "acre", as they are perfectly entitled to do, but no more. Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
QUANTITIES, | NAMES OF UNITS, | SYMBOLS | APPROXIMATE VALUES |
---|---|---|---|
1 | acre | ac | 4 047 m2 |
Fiction writers have license to refer to Fict characters without use ot a proper name, and our editors can reasonably do so, after revealing,inside quotes, ThaT the work in question does so. Even if the author does not, our editors may Reasonably do so, after explaining the work’s unusual presentation of one or more characters in the work. I ameliorated our colleague’s breach by adding a definite or indefinite article at first mention, but the article should be more thoroughly fixed, by a colleague, or colleagues, better situated situated than I.p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:c201:fd70:5417:3b9f:947e:1922 ( talk) 01:35, 2020 August 29 (UTC)
@ Goddess Helvetica: Acre has moved to Acre (unit). This does have advantages: editors regularly add links to Acre which lead to the unit but were intended for another meaning such as Acre, Israel or Acre (state). ( Here is one I fixed yesterday.) However, Acre still redirects to Acre (unit), so all links will lead to the same place as before, but the unit no longer has the most concise title. One option is to move Acre (disambiguation) to Acre, perhaps after a requested move discussion. This could even be done boldly if we are sure there is no primary topic, as long as someone is happy to fix the 5,082 articles which link to the unit and would need to be edited to link to its new title. Certes ( talk) 09:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The redirect
Ekar has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 14 § Ekar until a consensus is reached. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe)
22:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I’ve tweaked the Historical origins section a bit:
The section on the Norman acre needs clarifying: how did it differ from land measurement in the rest of France? Was it a measure of ploughland, like the acre, or was it a square measure, like the arpent carre? Also, giving a value in square meters is unhelpful; what was it in traditional units?
I’ve also added a brief description of the morgen, and removed the table, as it is off-topic (It’s superfluous in a page on a different unit of measurement altogether, and is the same as the one on the morgen page if anyone wants to see it). I also notice there’s a discussion
above about the "one man one ox" definition being suspect; I’ve added a qualifier form the other page, but there wasn’t a ref to back it up (I've requested one
there). I trust everyone is OK with that.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
10:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
These two phrases are contradictory
As detailed in the box on the right, an acre was roughly the amount of land tillable by a yoke of oxen in one day.
An acre was the amount of land tillable by one man behind one ox in one day. (in the box)
Considering that the carucate specifies "8-oxen team", I suggest to specify everywhere for the acre "2-oxen team" rather than "oxen team".
I feel interesting to know how many furrows were contained in the width (this is equivalent to their distance and to the fraction of the working day needed for a furlong, i.e. the time before the oxen's rest).
thanks for your attention. 151.29.137.229 ( talk) 05:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)