I've created a new page English units. I've moved a bunch of content from the Mediæval units page. Check it out, fix it up, expand it if you please. I reckon the section on "Comparison between Imperial and US units" belongs there. They don't have such a section on the US units page (it would be redundant if they did) why here if not there though. I'm moving it. Jimp 13Jul05
I've moved most of the comparisons to US customary units to English unit. I've left links. Jimp 17 July 2005
This all now has its own page. Jimp 19 December 2005
... sorry, if anyone saw what was here before I edited it out - ignore it. For some reason I assumed that English unit would mean exactly what was used in England, not the Imperial scale used in the US. LupusCanis 18:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The text reads in part:
Where the 1963 quote comes from later in the text. I can't reconcile the former figure. If I have 10 lbs of weights (4535.9237 g) of density 8.136, their volume is ~557.5127458 mL, and the air (density 0.001217) buoys them down to 4535.245207 g. To obtain the buoyed weights weight, I need 4545.96459 mL of density 0.998859 water (this matches the figure quoted from the 1963 Act). To obtain the unbuoyed weights weight (assuming the weights are labelled in order to correct for the air buoyancy), I need 4546.64469 mL of water. Whence the 4546.0902 mL figure?? Urhixidur 14:24, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
I was looking at a website with many (odd) volumes, weights, and measures one of which is a Minim = to 1/480th of a fl.oz. ...so I wonder what would that be compaired to the metric? Chooserr
I've never seen a "lagrobeast" (40 tons) defined anywhere but this article. Google turns up only this article. Suggest we remove it.
Am I possibly being too gullible about this? -- *Satis 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the lagrobeast was in fact a unit of measure that was used by the Celts. It should be considered part of Isle Units of Measure and under the Imperial System. I ask that someone with more knowledge on the lagrobeast populate the Celtic lagrobeast article.
Which other nations other than the US use the Imperial system? 207.81.122.3 07:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else see the irony of having external links to various metric associations on this page? - Greatgavini 11:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to stress that finding out what imperial units are used here is quite tricky. For instance, miles is used totally to the exclusion of kilometers. Yet among the young, metres are sometimes preferred over yards. Similarly, most young people I have met are familiar with both kilograms and stones and pounds as weight. I've altered it to more accurately reflect what is actually used over here. Probably needs a bit more work though. LupusCanis 18:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of the Canadian info seems a bit dubious to me. I have never heard a Canadian radio station use fahrenheit. Although some fruit scales may have both metric and imperial measurements, the final sale price is still metric. And I have not seen a resurgance of imperial measurement in general. Anyone born during or after the 1980s is likely to have difficulty interperting most imperial measurements (other than for the height and weight of a person).
It may be that the author is reporting a regional phenomenon, in which case, a source and some clarification of location may be needed. -- 70.82.50.67 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the infos a bit. -- 128.100.109.52 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I am from saskatchewan and their is no mention of height on my drivers license in metric, it states my height in feet and inches. Also on my passport which was issued last month the height is also in height and inches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.241.146 ( talk) 00:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You can see it in the example at the SGI's website here [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.84.45 ( talk) 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have started the process of putting the very helpful information on the measures of volume into tables that I think can be read a little more easily. I don't mean to tread on anyone's toes I just think it clarifies things a bit. If anyone would continue the conversion I would be very pleased.
Back to the "Metric Martyrs", the ruling by Lord Justice Laws upholding their conviction on appeal has not been tested on appeal in court yet (stopped for no good reason), and is highly questionable as unconstitutional: the appellate judge didn't allow later Acts to define the law against earlier Acts, while there is no such thing as constitutional Acts. The 1995 W&M Regulations have thus not been proved in court - authorised by the 1972 European Communities Act as it is, but clashing with the later 1985 Weights & Measures Act, which allows free choice between pounds and kilogrammes. As for use of dual scales, retailers need them not if never requested to measure in grams!...The delegated legislation of the 90's is impractical, to say the least. I'll add here that 1/1/2010 is the date for removal of imperial units from food packaging save for beer, despite nationwide opposition to that removal (see www.bwmaonline.com).
All roadsigns giving distances have to be in feet, yards and miles, for cars and pedestrians, but metres are allowed only with or alongside (i.e. separate signs) height restrictions in foot, and only with foot in width limits signs. Otherwise, imperial is gladly more in use now by the population than the media, and that's the majority of the country, actually, not just regarding MPG (miles/gallon).
It needs reiteration that dual labelling and pricing is to be abolished after 31/12/2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatgavini ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 July 2006
Does anyone have a cite for mite as a unit of mass? I've never come across it anywhere else. Rhialto 06:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe we need to add to this that imperial units are still used internationally to measure aircraft height. That this must annoy the French greatly is of no concern, but it is one area where imperial is used very well, largely due to the US's presence and use of feet, rather than the UK's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkus ( talk • contribs) at 14:38, 15 November 2006
I've moved the following tables out of the article. While they may be relevant elsewhere, they were not part of the official Imperial system of units, and so should not be in this article. Rhialto 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
1 peck | = 2 gal. | = 9.092 18 l | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 kenning or bucket | = 2 pecks | = 4 gal. | = 18.184 36 l | |
1 bushel | = 2 kennings | = 4 pecks | = 8 gal. | = 36.368 72 l |
1 strike | = 2 bushels | = 16 gal. | = 72.737 44 l | |
1 quarter or pail | = 8 bushels | = 64 gal. | = 290.949 76 l | |
1 chaldron | = 4 quarters | = 32 bushels | = 256 gal. | = 1163.799 04 l |
1 last | = 10 quarters | = 80 bushels | = 640 gal. | = 2909.497 6 l |
1 firkin | = 9 gal. | = 40.914 81 l | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 kilderkin | = 2 firkin | = 18 gal. | = 81.829 62 l | |
1 barrel | = 2 kilderkin | = 4 firkin | = 36 gal. | = 163.659 24 l |
1 hogshead | = 3 kilderkin | = 6 firkin | = 54 gal. | = 245.488 86 l |
The full table of British apothecaries’ measure is:
1 minim | = 0.059 193 880 208¯3 ml | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 (fluid) scruple | = 20 minims | = 1.183 877 604 1¯6 ml | |
1 (fluid) dram or fluidram | = 3 scruples | = 60 minims | = 3.551 632 812 5 ml |
1 fluid ounce | = 8 drachms | = 480 minims | = 28.413 062 5 ml |
1 pint | = 20 ounces | = 568.261 25 ml | |
1 gallon | = 8 pints | = 160 ounces | = 4.546 09 l |
Peck Bushel etc were part of the original system upto 1963
Esthameian
19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a somewhat accurate and well written article in my opinion except for one glaring mistake. The Imperial unit known as the "pound" is a measurement of force and not a measurement of mass. The Imperial unit for the measurement of mass is the somewhat curiously named "slug". In other words, strictly speaking the "kilogram" cannot be accurately converted to an equivalent "pound" quantity due to the fact that the "kilogram" is a unit of mass while the "pound" is a unit of force, which results from the mass of said object in a 1g environment i.e. the amount of gravitational force on Earth.
I guess a suitable scenario would be if one would be able to travel and land on Jupiter. The amount of gravitational force on Jupiter is many times (how many I am not sure...sorry) that of our beloved Earth. A "kilogram" on Jupiter would be the same as a "kilogram" on Earth since the mass of an object does not change if the force of gravity changes. A "pound" on Jupiter however would be radically different due to the much increased gravitational force of Jupiter acting on the mass of the object in question.
I am a newby to Wikipedia as far as participating in the process. I have although used this site for referential purposes for the last 3 or 4 years and I think it is one of the finest projects on the web despite some of the pea-brained comments of it's few detractors. I did not want to just wade in and edit the article without becoming familiar with the entire editing process, which by the way I think is fabulous. Any input as far as what one should do when wanting to correct a minor error as I have found would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Blakley 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Rhialto,
Thank you for the quick response. It's very obvious looking at your profile that you have done a great deal of work on this site. Thank you for that. In response to your response...I am just going by the empirical and decidedly apolitical world of physics. It seems very plausible that someone in a political position of strength would at some point say "we cannot be bothered with thinking about stuff...I have people to control and money to make", thus avoiding scientific fact and dummying down all those bothersome and cumbersome facts. Sorry if I seem a bit overly passionate but lately I seem to be surrounded by people that do not want to be bothered with scientific methodology. For instance my neighbor is a hard core creationist who spent about 30 minutes yesterday trying to convince me that dinosaurs are only about 7000 years old and the universe is just a bit older than that!!! Sorry..I digress..if you pop open a college physics text you will find what I have been saying..which is where I learned about all of this. If at some point someone in a position to warp standards said "well, heck let's just change a pound to being a measurement of mass because all of that other stuff is just too darned confusing". I can totally believe that scientific fact is being ignored out of some sort of political expediency. Do you remember when some boob in congress or the senate proposed that the value of PI be rounded down to 3 instead of what it really is...3.1459....Oh my gosh..the pesky irrational numbers!! lol Sorry I'll hop on down from my milk box. :-) I may disagree with you on this one small point, however I very much appreciate and respect all of the work that you and many others have done on this fabulous site to bring information to those seeking it.
Cheers!!
I think the comparison with the alleged attempt to redefine PI is not relevant. PI is a dimensionless natural constant which cannot be changed by the whim of man. 'Pound' is simply a word that may defined as meaning anything and the International Convention in, I think, 1960 decided (in consultaion with the science, business and engineering communities) to define it in terms of the kilogram. Therefore, whatever the kilogram is, so also ids the pound, and texts suggesting otherwise are out of date and must be revised Esthameian 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Rhialto,
You've made some very interesting and relevant points. I agree..PI is an objective value, not subjective as the other material we have been discussing. I guess the point I was somewhat feebly trying to make, and what pisses me off the most about the current collective mindset (once again, somewhat subjective) of America is the turning away from all or most things scientific. I'm not sure if you reside in the US so I'm not sure if you have experienced what I am talking about. The very wonderful scientist/writer/personality Carl Sagan wrote a book a few years ago entitled "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" which was basically an essay (mind you once again subjective) of how current society (mainly American) is turning away from science and wrapping itself in aliens, astrology, cryptozoology etc..etc... My gosh how did I get here? ..oh yeah units of measurement. Just call me "The Digression Kid". LOL
It's very refreshing to communicate with someone who is obviously well read, intelligent and thoughtful. This has been the most intelligent conversation I have had with anyone in quite some time. At this point I'm going to wimp out a bit and throw out a URL to back up my point. I'm sure you will promptly let me know what you think of this information which is what I have enjoyed about this exchange.
http://www.racquetresearch.com/units.htm
Strangely enough I get a bit of a perverse satisfaction in being proved wrong, or wrong in certain points of contention. I guess it's because at the moment of doubt of previously held beliefs and/or general confusion, I believe that I am learning in the purest sense and this for me is the sweet epiphany that I believe what life is all about. This is all of course a bit subjective, unlike the value of PI. :-) I am the skeptic that would love to be proved wrong. For instance I do not believe that the Earth has been visited by any alien species. If someone had undisputable, irrefutable proof that indeed there is substance to the whole "Roswell Syndrome" I would literally be dancing in the streets to the beat of my erred thinking. Hope you are having a great evening Bro.
Jim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blakley ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
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 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have changed lb to lbs had it originally appeared that way, but have reverted because I don't believe it was proper to change the lbs I had written into lb. lbs is a specifically plural abbreviation of lb and is quite commonly used. As such there is no need to arbitrarily change it to lb. There is no inconsistency with the lb already in the article because lb should always be used in a singular sense but may be used in a plural sense (although less common in many circumstances), whereas lbs is exclusively plural. Just by browsing a few websites, I've seen lbs used quite frequently: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I really could go on forever, but I'll spare you. The point is I think your reversion of lbs to lb is much along the same lines as it would be for me to change colour to color or centre to center. These are all very acceptable forms and should not be changed without a good reason (although I personally believe lbs is preferred to lb when plural, but this may be regional or dependent upon context). Talmage 06:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that this article is about the British admiralty/imperial units, not the modern metricised units. A full discussion of the modern importance of the metricised/international mile is very appropriate in the article nautical mile, but highlighting the prominence of metricised units is inappropriate in an article about imperial units. Rhialto 12:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Rhialto removed milk from the list of items sold in pint units, commenting that half-litre is the usual unit. I'm not so sure about this and have reverted the edit. 75% of milk bought in the UK is from supermarkets [8], who continue to sell milk in multiples of pints [9]. Doorstep deliveries are also mainly in pints. But I am, of course, happy to be shown evidence to the contrary. Bazza 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, most supermarkets sell in multiples of 500ml (almost a pint), 1l, 2l, 3l, 4l, etc. Only people that still think its a "pint" of milk is yer granny. Same with beer - its 500ml. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.72.35 ( talk) 11:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The article at present is a mix of "Imperial" and "imperial" and attempt to rationalise that to the latter was reverted by User:Ckatz. Oxford Dictionaries give lowercase [10], as do various others [11]. There appears to be no consensus, though, but the article should be consistent. As it seems to concentrate mostly on the British imperial system, and a lowercase "i" seems to be preferred by British English dictionaries, I have edited the article to use "imperial" where appropriate. Bazza 12:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
In American English, both US and, decreasingly, U.S. are common abbreviations for United States; US is yet more common in other varieties. ... When the United States is mentioned by acronym in the same article as other abbreviated country names, for consistency do not use periods (the US, the UK and the PRC); and especially do not add periods to the other acronyms, as in the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.).
For infoboxes. Suggesting an "English/Metric" conversion control be provided as an option in Infoboxes, so that users can have stats displayed to their preference. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#English.2FMetric_Conversion_Feature.3F Rep07 ( talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Do UK (EU) passports have a height and weight section? Mine doesn't seem to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.46.66 ( talk) 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I've created a new page English units. I've moved a bunch of content from the Mediæval units page. Check it out, fix it up, expand it if you please. I reckon the section on "Comparison between Imperial and US units" belongs there. They don't have such a section on the US units page (it would be redundant if they did) why here if not there though. I'm moving it. Jimp 13Jul05
I've moved most of the comparisons to US customary units to English unit. I've left links. Jimp 17 July 2005
This all now has its own page. Jimp 19 December 2005
... sorry, if anyone saw what was here before I edited it out - ignore it. For some reason I assumed that English unit would mean exactly what was used in England, not the Imperial scale used in the US. LupusCanis 18:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The text reads in part:
Where the 1963 quote comes from later in the text. I can't reconcile the former figure. If I have 10 lbs of weights (4535.9237 g) of density 8.136, their volume is ~557.5127458 mL, and the air (density 0.001217) buoys them down to 4535.245207 g. To obtain the buoyed weights weight, I need 4545.96459 mL of density 0.998859 water (this matches the figure quoted from the 1963 Act). To obtain the unbuoyed weights weight (assuming the weights are labelled in order to correct for the air buoyancy), I need 4546.64469 mL of water. Whence the 4546.0902 mL figure?? Urhixidur 14:24, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
I was looking at a website with many (odd) volumes, weights, and measures one of which is a Minim = to 1/480th of a fl.oz. ...so I wonder what would that be compaired to the metric? Chooserr
I've never seen a "lagrobeast" (40 tons) defined anywhere but this article. Google turns up only this article. Suggest we remove it.
Am I possibly being too gullible about this? -- *Satis 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the lagrobeast was in fact a unit of measure that was used by the Celts. It should be considered part of Isle Units of Measure and under the Imperial System. I ask that someone with more knowledge on the lagrobeast populate the Celtic lagrobeast article.
Which other nations other than the US use the Imperial system? 207.81.122.3 07:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else see the irony of having external links to various metric associations on this page? - Greatgavini 11:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's important to stress that finding out what imperial units are used here is quite tricky. For instance, miles is used totally to the exclusion of kilometers. Yet among the young, metres are sometimes preferred over yards. Similarly, most young people I have met are familiar with both kilograms and stones and pounds as weight. I've altered it to more accurately reflect what is actually used over here. Probably needs a bit more work though. LupusCanis 18:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of the Canadian info seems a bit dubious to me. I have never heard a Canadian radio station use fahrenheit. Although some fruit scales may have both metric and imperial measurements, the final sale price is still metric. And I have not seen a resurgance of imperial measurement in general. Anyone born during or after the 1980s is likely to have difficulty interperting most imperial measurements (other than for the height and weight of a person).
It may be that the author is reporting a regional phenomenon, in which case, a source and some clarification of location may be needed. -- 70.82.50.67 07:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the infos a bit. -- 128.100.109.52 19:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I am from saskatchewan and their is no mention of height on my drivers license in metric, it states my height in feet and inches. Also on my passport which was issued last month the height is also in height and inches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.241.146 ( talk) 00:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You can see it in the example at the SGI's website here [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.84.45 ( talk) 03:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have started the process of putting the very helpful information on the measures of volume into tables that I think can be read a little more easily. I don't mean to tread on anyone's toes I just think it clarifies things a bit. If anyone would continue the conversion I would be very pleased.
Back to the "Metric Martyrs", the ruling by Lord Justice Laws upholding their conviction on appeal has not been tested on appeal in court yet (stopped for no good reason), and is highly questionable as unconstitutional: the appellate judge didn't allow later Acts to define the law against earlier Acts, while there is no such thing as constitutional Acts. The 1995 W&M Regulations have thus not been proved in court - authorised by the 1972 European Communities Act as it is, but clashing with the later 1985 Weights & Measures Act, which allows free choice between pounds and kilogrammes. As for use of dual scales, retailers need them not if never requested to measure in grams!...The delegated legislation of the 90's is impractical, to say the least. I'll add here that 1/1/2010 is the date for removal of imperial units from food packaging save for beer, despite nationwide opposition to that removal (see www.bwmaonline.com).
All roadsigns giving distances have to be in feet, yards and miles, for cars and pedestrians, but metres are allowed only with or alongside (i.e. separate signs) height restrictions in foot, and only with foot in width limits signs. Otherwise, imperial is gladly more in use now by the population than the media, and that's the majority of the country, actually, not just regarding MPG (miles/gallon).
It needs reiteration that dual labelling and pricing is to be abolished after 31/12/2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatgavini ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 23 July 2006
Does anyone have a cite for mite as a unit of mass? I've never come across it anywhere else. Rhialto 06:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe we need to add to this that imperial units are still used internationally to measure aircraft height. That this must annoy the French greatly is of no concern, but it is one area where imperial is used very well, largely due to the US's presence and use of feet, rather than the UK's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkus ( talk • contribs) at 14:38, 15 November 2006
I've moved the following tables out of the article. While they may be relevant elsewhere, they were not part of the official Imperial system of units, and so should not be in this article. Rhialto 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
1 peck | = 2 gal. | = 9.092 18 l | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 kenning or bucket | = 2 pecks | = 4 gal. | = 18.184 36 l | |
1 bushel | = 2 kennings | = 4 pecks | = 8 gal. | = 36.368 72 l |
1 strike | = 2 bushels | = 16 gal. | = 72.737 44 l | |
1 quarter or pail | = 8 bushels | = 64 gal. | = 290.949 76 l | |
1 chaldron | = 4 quarters | = 32 bushels | = 256 gal. | = 1163.799 04 l |
1 last | = 10 quarters | = 80 bushels | = 640 gal. | = 2909.497 6 l |
1 firkin | = 9 gal. | = 40.914 81 l | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 kilderkin | = 2 firkin | = 18 gal. | = 81.829 62 l | |
1 barrel | = 2 kilderkin | = 4 firkin | = 36 gal. | = 163.659 24 l |
1 hogshead | = 3 kilderkin | = 6 firkin | = 54 gal. | = 245.488 86 l |
The full table of British apothecaries’ measure is:
1 minim | = 0.059 193 880 208¯3 ml | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 (fluid) scruple | = 20 minims | = 1.183 877 604 1¯6 ml | |
1 (fluid) dram or fluidram | = 3 scruples | = 60 minims | = 3.551 632 812 5 ml |
1 fluid ounce | = 8 drachms | = 480 minims | = 28.413 062 5 ml |
1 pint | = 20 ounces | = 568.261 25 ml | |
1 gallon | = 8 pints | = 160 ounces | = 4.546 09 l |
Peck Bushel etc were part of the original system upto 1963
Esthameian
19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a somewhat accurate and well written article in my opinion except for one glaring mistake. The Imperial unit known as the "pound" is a measurement of force and not a measurement of mass. The Imperial unit for the measurement of mass is the somewhat curiously named "slug". In other words, strictly speaking the "kilogram" cannot be accurately converted to an equivalent "pound" quantity due to the fact that the "kilogram" is a unit of mass while the "pound" is a unit of force, which results from the mass of said object in a 1g environment i.e. the amount of gravitational force on Earth.
I guess a suitable scenario would be if one would be able to travel and land on Jupiter. The amount of gravitational force on Jupiter is many times (how many I am not sure...sorry) that of our beloved Earth. A "kilogram" on Jupiter would be the same as a "kilogram" on Earth since the mass of an object does not change if the force of gravity changes. A "pound" on Jupiter however would be radically different due to the much increased gravitational force of Jupiter acting on the mass of the object in question.
I am a newby to Wikipedia as far as participating in the process. I have although used this site for referential purposes for the last 3 or 4 years and I think it is one of the finest projects on the web despite some of the pea-brained comments of it's few detractors. I did not want to just wade in and edit the article without becoming familiar with the entire editing process, which by the way I think is fabulous. Any input as far as what one should do when wanting to correct a minor error as I have found would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Blakley 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Rhialto,
Thank you for the quick response. It's very obvious looking at your profile that you have done a great deal of work on this site. Thank you for that. In response to your response...I am just going by the empirical and decidedly apolitical world of physics. It seems very plausible that someone in a political position of strength would at some point say "we cannot be bothered with thinking about stuff...I have people to control and money to make", thus avoiding scientific fact and dummying down all those bothersome and cumbersome facts. Sorry if I seem a bit overly passionate but lately I seem to be surrounded by people that do not want to be bothered with scientific methodology. For instance my neighbor is a hard core creationist who spent about 30 minutes yesterday trying to convince me that dinosaurs are only about 7000 years old and the universe is just a bit older than that!!! Sorry..I digress..if you pop open a college physics text you will find what I have been saying..which is where I learned about all of this. If at some point someone in a position to warp standards said "well, heck let's just change a pound to being a measurement of mass because all of that other stuff is just too darned confusing". I can totally believe that scientific fact is being ignored out of some sort of political expediency. Do you remember when some boob in congress or the senate proposed that the value of PI be rounded down to 3 instead of what it really is...3.1459....Oh my gosh..the pesky irrational numbers!! lol Sorry I'll hop on down from my milk box. :-) I may disagree with you on this one small point, however I very much appreciate and respect all of the work that you and many others have done on this fabulous site to bring information to those seeking it.
Cheers!!
I think the comparison with the alleged attempt to redefine PI is not relevant. PI is a dimensionless natural constant which cannot be changed by the whim of man. 'Pound' is simply a word that may defined as meaning anything and the International Convention in, I think, 1960 decided (in consultaion with the science, business and engineering communities) to define it in terms of the kilogram. Therefore, whatever the kilogram is, so also ids the pound, and texts suggesting otherwise are out of date and must be revised Esthameian 20:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Rhialto,
You've made some very interesting and relevant points. I agree..PI is an objective value, not subjective as the other material we have been discussing. I guess the point I was somewhat feebly trying to make, and what pisses me off the most about the current collective mindset (once again, somewhat subjective) of America is the turning away from all or most things scientific. I'm not sure if you reside in the US so I'm not sure if you have experienced what I am talking about. The very wonderful scientist/writer/personality Carl Sagan wrote a book a few years ago entitled "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" which was basically an essay (mind you once again subjective) of how current society (mainly American) is turning away from science and wrapping itself in aliens, astrology, cryptozoology etc..etc... My gosh how did I get here? ..oh yeah units of measurement. Just call me "The Digression Kid". LOL
It's very refreshing to communicate with someone who is obviously well read, intelligent and thoughtful. This has been the most intelligent conversation I have had with anyone in quite some time. At this point I'm going to wimp out a bit and throw out a URL to back up my point. I'm sure you will promptly let me know what you think of this information which is what I have enjoyed about this exchange.
http://www.racquetresearch.com/units.htm
Strangely enough I get a bit of a perverse satisfaction in being proved wrong, or wrong in certain points of contention. I guess it's because at the moment of doubt of previously held beliefs and/or general confusion, I believe that I am learning in the purest sense and this for me is the sweet epiphany that I believe what life is all about. This is all of course a bit subjective, unlike the value of PI. :-) I am the skeptic that would love to be proved wrong. For instance I do not believe that the Earth has been visited by any alien species. If someone had undisputable, irrefutable proof that indeed there is substance to the whole "Roswell Syndrome" I would literally be dancing in the streets to the beat of my erred thinking. Hope you are having a great evening Bro.
Jim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blakley ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
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 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have changed lb to lbs had it originally appeared that way, but have reverted because I don't believe it was proper to change the lbs I had written into lb. lbs is a specifically plural abbreviation of lb and is quite commonly used. As such there is no need to arbitrarily change it to lb. There is no inconsistency with the lb already in the article because lb should always be used in a singular sense but may be used in a plural sense (although less common in many circumstances), whereas lbs is exclusively plural. Just by browsing a few websites, I've seen lbs used quite frequently: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I really could go on forever, but I'll spare you. The point is I think your reversion of lbs to lb is much along the same lines as it would be for me to change colour to color or centre to center. These are all very acceptable forms and should not be changed without a good reason (although I personally believe lbs is preferred to lb when plural, but this may be regional or dependent upon context). Talmage 06:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that this article is about the British admiralty/imperial units, not the modern metricised units. A full discussion of the modern importance of the metricised/international mile is very appropriate in the article nautical mile, but highlighting the prominence of metricised units is inappropriate in an article about imperial units. Rhialto 12:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Rhialto removed milk from the list of items sold in pint units, commenting that half-litre is the usual unit. I'm not so sure about this and have reverted the edit. 75% of milk bought in the UK is from supermarkets [8], who continue to sell milk in multiples of pints [9]. Doorstep deliveries are also mainly in pints. But I am, of course, happy to be shown evidence to the contrary. Bazza 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, most supermarkets sell in multiples of 500ml (almost a pint), 1l, 2l, 3l, 4l, etc. Only people that still think its a "pint" of milk is yer granny. Same with beer - its 500ml. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.72.35 ( talk) 11:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The article at present is a mix of "Imperial" and "imperial" and attempt to rationalise that to the latter was reverted by User:Ckatz. Oxford Dictionaries give lowercase [10], as do various others [11]. There appears to be no consensus, though, but the article should be consistent. As it seems to concentrate mostly on the British imperial system, and a lowercase "i" seems to be preferred by British English dictionaries, I have edited the article to use "imperial" where appropriate. Bazza 12:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
In American English, both US and, decreasingly, U.S. are common abbreviations for United States; US is yet more common in other varieties. ... When the United States is mentioned by acronym in the same article as other abbreviated country names, for consistency do not use periods (the US, the UK and the PRC); and especially do not add periods to the other acronyms, as in the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.).
For infoboxes. Suggesting an "English/Metric" conversion control be provided as an option in Infoboxes, so that users can have stats displayed to their preference. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#English.2FMetric_Conversion_Feature.3F Rep07 ( talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Do UK (EU) passports have a height and weight section? Mine doesn't seem to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.46.66 ( talk) 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)