Talk:Imperial unit/Archive 1

Metrication and Current Use
I take some exception to Crissov's reversions in the "Current Use" section -- first, I would argue that this article is sparsely wikified and needs more wikification. I might agree that some of the added content belongs in metrication, but Crissov should have made those transfers instead of simply reverting.
 * Actually I didn't revert, but overwrite, because I was editing at the same time as you. I looked at the diff and found all your edits to belong into Metrication or be unnecessary links, that only clutter the text. Maybe some of your Canada-related edits were justified, but it was not worth the work to merge them with my edit (for me). Christoph Päper 22:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, some of what is written in the section is incorrect and misleading. My edits were an attempt to clarify the text, correct errors, and remove colloquialisms from the writing.

To quote from the text:
 * In Canada, the government's efforts to implement the metric system were more extensive: pretty much any agency, institution, or thing provided by the government will use SI units exclusively.

Expressions like "pretty much" are conversational, inspecific, and don't belong in an encyclopaedia.


 * Imperial units were eliminated from all road signs, although both systems of measurement will still be found on privately-owned signs (such as the height warnings at the entrance of a multi-storey parking facility). Temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit will occasionally be heard on English Canadian commercial radio stations, but only those that cater to older listeners.

This is very region specific -- the only two places where Fahrenheit temperatures are heard with any regularity are in Southwestern Ontario and the British Columbia lower Mainland and this should be made clear.


 * The law requires that measured products (such as fuel and meat) be priced in metric units, although there is leniency in regards to fruits and vegetables. Traditional units persist in ordinary conversation and may be experiencing a resurgence due to the reduction in trade barriers with the United States.

Speculation - I'm guilty of this myself. It doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia.


 * Few Canadians would use SI units to describe their weight and height, although driver's licences use SI units. In livestock auction markets, cattle are sold in dollars per hundredweight (short, of course)

Colloqualisms are not appropriate in encyclopaedic text.


 * whereas hogs are sold in dollars per hundred kilograms. Land is surveyed and registered in metric units, but imperial units still dominate in construction, house renovation and gardening talk (although "two-by-fours" don't actually measure 2×4", for example).

Again, more colloquialisms, and false, to boot -- Canadian tradespeople may continue to use Imperial but engineers and architects design (and are required by law to do so) in metric; moreover, commercial contractors will generally handle their projects in metric because inspectors expect the documentation to submitted in SI and keeping the system consistent reduces the possibility for errors. Rhombus

Use The Closest SI unit
Concerning my last edits: I think it's only fair to give Imperial units in the closest (although probably seldomly used) SI ones to show that the SI in many cases can provide units of a similar magnitude as Imperial ones (e.g. 1 furlong ~= 2 hectometre). It's true that in many countries decimetre isn't used that much, but it is the closest SI unit compared to foot (1 ft. ~= 3 dm). It's also good habit to not begin a value with zero (e.g. 0.9144 m), although the closeness of yard and metre could be shown better else. Crissov 09:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "Hectometer" is not an SI unit. Meter (or metre) is the SI unit.  Hecto/kilo/centi/etc. are prefixes. (Unsigned comment by 68.58.8.191 06:58, 10 November 2005)


 * Nonsense. The prefixed units are units too.  That's normal, proper usage.  Sometimes, as in NIST SP 811, the prefixed ones are distinguished from the "base units" or "derived units" by describing them as "multiples or submultiples" of that unit.  Yet even NIST SP 811 also uses the word unit a dozen times or so in a meaning which includes prefixed units.  Gene Nygaard 10:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The SI authority says:
 * SI units are divided into two classes: base units; derived units.
 * The CGPM adopted a series of prefixes for use in forming the decimal multiples and submultiples of SI units.
 * The SI units, that is to say the base and derived units of the SI, form a coherent set, the set of SI units. The multiples and submultiples of the SI units formed by using the SI units combined with SI prefixes are designated by their complete name, decimal multiples and submultiples of SI units. These decimal multiples and submultiples of SI units are not coherent with the SI units themselves.
 * I interpret that text as meaning that metre is a unit and kilometre is a multiple. The distinction may be trivial in many cases but have I interpreted it correctly? Bobblewik 17:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You have interpreted one meaning of the word correctly. Your mistake is assuming that that is the only meaning.
 * There are, for example, even setting aside normal use of the language being outside the scope of any of these standards agencies, several places with the BIPMs SI brochure, and within the similar NIST SP 811, where the word unit cannot be interpreted with that meaning.
 * The listing of the "hectare" among the units in BIPM Table 8, under the caption "Other non-SI units currently accepted for use with the International System.
 * Section 1.3 (similar in section 3.2): "As an exception, the multiples and submultiples of the kilogram are formed by attaching prefix names to the unit name “gram”, and prefix symbols to the unit symbol “g”."
 * Section 5.2:
 * "1. Roman (upright) type is used for the unit symbols. . ..
 * "2. Unit symbols are unaltered in the plural.
 * "3. Unit symbols are not followed by a full stop (period), except as normal punctuation at the end of a sentence."
 * Gene Nygaard 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Table 8 does not contain SI units. So perhaps it is not useful to examine it for SI terms. It is clear from the quotes and elsewhere that the term unit is sometimes used as a single word synonym for the more cumbersome phrase decimal multiple of an SI unit. It could be correct usage or it could be technically incorrect usage. SI is a standard, not a language, so if usage does not match the definition then it is usage that is wrong, not the definition. The definition itself suggests not a synonym. It surely can't be simultaneously a synonym and not a synonym? Bobblewik 21:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It could be that decimal multiple of an SI unit is adjectival. A red rose is still a flower (rose) and kilometre is still a unit (metre). Hmm. Bobblewik 21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Decimetre vs. centimetre
I can see where you're coming from but I think that it would be more useful to people to say a foot is equal to 30.48 cm rather than 3.048 dm and a yard 91.44 cm rather than 9.144 dm. If people want to see how good SI really is, they can go to the SI page. Which is more important: to show that "the SI in many cases can provide units of a similar magnitude as Imperial ones" or to explain the meaning of these terms in the most accessible form? I want to change the decimetres to centimetres.

Jimp 6Jul05
 * IMHO we should either use both, deci and centi (and deka and hecto), with equal rights or none of them, i.e. just milli, no prefix, kilo etc. IOW, either use all prefixes, that do not fit into the 103·n scheme, where they fit, or none of them. Christoph Päper 7 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)
 * That's a fair approach if you're saying that this is what we should all do every day but it's not what we all do everyday. We use what we use.  An encyclopædia would best employ familiar units.  That's my HO.  Jimp 8Jul05
 * How do you define familiar units? Wikipedia is an international project, that would also like to be professional. Professionalism includes consistency—is −3, −2, 0, +3 consistent? It is not, so we better either use −3, 0, +3 or −3, −2, −1, 0, +1, +2, +3. (That is milli, centi, deci, -, deca, hecto, kilo.) This matters more in an article like this one than in any other that is not about measurement. Christoph Päper 8 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Yes, familiar units could be a little loose and it does depend on familiar to whom?, e.g. in Europe centilitres (it seems) quite familiar (judging but imported bottles of booze I've bought) whereas you rarely hear of them at home (Australia).  But let's not get carried away here.  Any definition of familiar unit which might say hectare and centimetre are less familiar than kiloare (or would it be kilare, y'know 10 ha) and nanometre would have to be looked on with some scepticism.  Consistancy is nice but isn't comprehensibility more useful? Jimp 11Jul05


 * I would expect that regardless of what you chose for metric units you would give the volumes in cu in since that is how they were originally worked out as doubled cubes whose sides were standard lengths.


 * bush·el1 (bʊsh'əl) n.(Abbr. bsh. or bu.)
 * A unit of volume or capacity in the U.S. Customary System, used in dry measure and equal to 4 pecks, 2,150.42 cubic inches, or 35.24 liters.
 * A unit of volume or capacity in the British Imperial System, used in dry and liquid measure and equal to 2,219.36 cubic inches or 36.37 liters.
 * A cube whose volume is 4 bushels has a side of 20.6" +/- .1" which is a familiar unit. Rktect 16:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 3rky, you are being a turkey, as usual.
 * The U.S. bushel wasn't 'worked out as a doubled cube whose sides were standard lengths". It is the volume of a cylinder 8¼ inches in diameter and 8 inches high.
 * The imperial bushel wasn't 'worked out as a doubled cube whose sides were standard lengths". It is the volume occupied by 80 lb of water (weighed in air with brass weights, at 62 °F).  Gene Nygaard 03:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an incorrect definition
I am not sufficiently expert to disentangle this article and related ones, but it has a fundamental error in it. The article describes the following relationship:

Imperial (alias English Customary) -- "irregularly standardized" US

This is incorrect. The true relationship is

English Customary ("irregularly standardized") Imperial (standardized 1824, refined 1878, recently obsolete) US (standardized)

This article needs a small rewrite and a renaming to "English units" (or something of the sort), and a new "Imperial unit" article needs to be written. --John W. Kennedy 13:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Official definitions
The U.K. Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 1804  doesn't really constitute an official redefinition of any units, as is currently claimed in this article: Units of Measurement Regulations 1995.
 * British law now defines each Imperial unit entirely in terms of the metric equivalent. See the

If it did, the U.K. would have a weird official definition of the hour, with a nautical mile officially defined as "nautical mile (UK) metre 1853 metres" and a knot officially defined as "knot (UK) metres per second 0.51477 metres per second".

Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 1804 is intended merely as a compilation and restatement of pre-existing definitions.

In other words, notwithstanding Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 1804, the official definition of those Admiralty miles remains 6080 feet, and the official definition of those feet remains one-third of the official definition of the yard as 0.9144 m given in the Weights and Measures Act of 1963, the statutory implementation of the international agreement of 1959 (which also includes the current, official definition of the avoirdupois pound as 0.45359237 kg). Gene Nygaard 14:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Practical Usage
How would you convert the following to the metric system? "LOUNGE 15'2 Max X 12'4" -- What do the 15 and 12 stand for? feet? - are the 2 and 4 inches? --81.86.159.146 14:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. The 2 and 4 should also have either " or &Prime; (double prime) after it (better also single prime &prime; for feet).  Therefore (depending on context, perhaps one less digit in metric conversions, your best guess as to appropriate precision),
 * LOUNGE 15&prime;2&Prime; max. &times; 12&prime;4&Prime; (4.62 m max. &times; 3.76 m)
 * Gene Nygaard 15:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the "Max"? The correct English notation for dimensions is 15'-2" x 12'-4". The 15' uses (') as notation for feet and (") as notation for inches. To convert to the metric system I would take the totals as inches and multiply by 25.4

The precision for conversion is not approximate but in practice dimensions of rooms are usually not taken with a tensioned tape, they are typically taken at one height and don't allow for how much a wall may be out of plumb or square, the tape is often hooked over a piece of trim which may or may not put it in the same plane as the wall and so the accuracy tends to be +/- 1" or 25.4 mm. I have frequently seen architects drawings give dimensions for structural steel in mm to 3 decimal points even though the specifications for the steel allow a variance of +/- 1/8" in 100 feet.

The correct conversion should round down to the nearest 1/10 meter or to put it a little differently, if those were the field measures for the room and we were dependent upon that extra inch of possible error we might have a problem getting the furniture to fit.

(15 x 12)+ 2 = 4.6 m (4622.8 mm or 4.6228 m +/- .0254 m) and (12 x 12)+4 = 3.7 m. (3759.2 mm or 3.7592 m +/- .0254 m). Rktect 12:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete?
Is it really true that people think the system obsolete? Although we're taught metric, we learn imperial through our own inquisition. Even if its not used everywhere it will still be used when talking to one another. "Let's go down the pub for a litre!" somehow I think not.


 * Outside the U.S. and some die-hards in the British Empire, it is indeed obsolete.
 * Urhixidur 23:49, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)


 * At least completely archaic. In Sweden, where I live, apart from deliberate archaisms, I only know about the imperial usage of inches being regularly used as a measurement for computer and television screens.


 * These diagonals are another fine example of commercial obfuscation. A computer monitor billed as being so many inches (in the U.S.) is actually about an inch (sometimes two) smaller, because the American law allows the measurement to include the casing. In Canada, the law stipulates the measurement must be of the viewable area, but the economic power of our southern neighbour is such that the law is systematically flouted.
 * Urhixidur 03:28, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)


 * With all due respect there is a reason the metric system has failed to replace the Imperial or English system and that is its lack of human scale. People may have 10 fingers and 10 toes but that is about it for the decimal divisions. Most people really like the way that the so called archaic and obsolete standards fit their bodies.

The metric system supersizes us. Running a mile in the morning is better exercise than running a kilometer. Drinking liters instead of pints makes us fat and lazy. Even the proportions of buildings look better in English units than metric units, integral unit fraction modules of pi and phi can be more easily aproximated as orders of architecture in the Imperial system than in the metric system. Aside from that there is the doubling system where each volume is the cube of a unit of length. Where is that in the metric system?

Avoirdupois System
The Imperial system is also called the English system, the British system or, perhaps more correctly, the Avoirdupois System.

... says the article. However the Avoirdupois System is only for weights (or was that masses) and doesn't include length, area and volume. So more correctly? I think not.


 * If you really wanted to be more correct you could call it the Egyptian (Horus Eye Fractions) or Biblical system (1: Kings, Sea of Solomon, Forest of Lebanon) and recognize that it wasn't invented out of whole cloth by the English. Its the statute mile of Queen Elizabeth that is the English invention. Rktect 13:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Volume
Here's the list of Imperial volumes.


 * 1 fluid ounce = 28.413 062 5 mL
 * 1 gill = 5 fluid ounces = 142.065 312 5 mL
 * 1 pint = 4 gills = 568.261 25 mL
 * 1 quart = 2 pints = 1.136 522 5 L
 * 1 wine gallon = 231 cu in = 3.785 411 784 L
 * 1 gallon = 4 quarts = 4.546 09 L
 * 1 peck = 2 gallons = 9.092 18 L
 * 1 kenning = 2 pecks = 18.184 36 L
 * 1 bushel = 8 gallons (4 pecks or 2 kennings) = 36.368 72 L
 * 1 firkin = 9 gallons = 40.914 81 L
 * 1 kilderkin = 18 gallons = 81.829 62 L
 * 1 barrel = 36 gallons = 163.659 24 L
 * 1 hogshead (of beer) = 54 gallons = 245.488 86 L
 * 1 quarter = 8 bushels = 290.949 76 L
 * 1 puncheon = 84 wine gallons = 317.974 589 856 L
 * 1 hogshead = 2 barrels = 72 gallons = 327.318 48 L
 * 1 butt = 126 wine gallons = 476.961 884 784 L
 * 1 tun = 3 puncheons = 252 wine gallons = 953.923 769 568 L
 * 1 chaldron = 32 bushels = 256 gallons = 1163.799 04 L
 * 1 last = 80 bushels = 640 gallons = 2909.497 6 L

The Imperial system is confusing enough without having lists which are all over the place. Here's what I suggest.


 * 1) Seperate the wine gallon measures from the Imperial gallon measures.
 * 2) Seperate the bushel measures from the firkin measures.


 * 1 fluid ounce = 28.413 062 5 mL
 * 1 gill = 5 fluid ounces = 142.065 312 5 mL
 * 1 pint = 4 gills = 568.261 25 mL
 * 1 quart = 2 pints = 1.136 522 5 L
 * 1 gallon = 4 quarts = 4.546 09 L


 * 1 peck = 2 gallons = 9.092 18 L
 * 1 kenning = 2 pecks = 18.184 36 L
 * 1 bushel = 8 gallons (4 pecks or 2 kennings) = 36.368 72 L
 * 1 quarter = 8 bushels = 290.949 76 L
 * 1 chaldron = 32 bushels = 256 gallons = 1163.799 04 L
 * 1 last = 80 bushels = 640 gallons = 2909.497 6 L


 * 1 firkin = 9 gallons = 40.914 81 L
 * 1 kilderkin = 18 gallons = 81.829 62 L
 * 1 barrel = 36 gallons = 163.659 24 L
 * 1 hogshead (of beer) = 54 gallons = 245.488 86 L
 * 1 hogshead = 2 barrels = 72 gallons = 327.318 48 L


 * 1 wine gallon = 231 cu in = 3.785 411 784 L
 * 1 puncheon = 84 wine gallons = 317.974 589 856 L
 * 1 butt = 126 wine gallons = 476.961 884 784 L
 * 1 tun = 3 puncheons = 252 wine gallons = 953.923 769 568 L

Jimp 4Jul05

Definition list(s)

 * 1 fluid ounce := 28.413 062 5 mL
 * 1 gill := 5 fluid ounces = 142.065 312 5 mL
 * 1 pint := 4 gills = 568.261 25 mL
 * 1 quart := 2 pints = 1.136 522 5 L
 * 1 wine gallon := 231 cu in = 3.785 411 784 L
 * 1 gallon := 4 quarts = 4.546 09 L
 * 1 peck := 2 gallons = 9.092 18 L
 * 1 kenning := 2 pecks = 18.184 36 L
 * 1 bushel := 8 gallons (4 pecks or 2 kennings) = 36.368 72 L
 * 1 firkin := 9 gallons = 40.914 81 L
 * 1 kilderkin := 18 gallons = 81.829 62 L
 * 1 barrel := 36 gallons = 163.659 24 L
 * 1 hogshead (of beer) := 54 gallons = 245.488 86 L
 * 1 quarter := 8 bushels = 290.949 76 L
 * 1 puncheon := 84 wine gallons = 317.974 589 856 L
 * 1 hogshead := 2 barrels = 72 gallons = 327.318 48 L
 * 1 butt := 126 wine gallons = 476.961 884 784 L
 * 1 tun := 3 puncheons = 252 wine gallons = 953.923 769 568 L
 * 1 chaldron := 32 bushels = 256 gallons = 1163.799 04 L
 * 1 last := 80 bushels = 640 gallons = 2909.497 6 L

Table(s)
Christoph Päper 4 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

PS: Use four tildes to sign your contribution.


 * How many cubic inches in any Imperial unit is just a matter of doubling the last cube
 * drachm fluid British .023281 cu in (24/2024 cu in)unit netto
 * drachm fluid US .024233 cu in (25/2024 cu in)unit brutto
 * noggin British 8.669 cu in
 * quartern = 1/2 Imperial gallon = 138.71 cu in cube with side 5.18"
 * bucket = 4 Imperial gallons = 1,109.7 cu in cube with side 10.35" 1/8 crc (Old English fote)
 * bushel (dry)= 2219.3 cu in = 1/4 cubic royal cubit, cube with side of 13"
 * strike 2 bushels (dry)= 4438.6 cu in = 1/2 crc cube with side of 16.43"
 * bag or sock = 3 bushels (dry)= 6657.9 cu in = 3/4 crc cube with side of 18.81"
 * coomb (cubit) = 4 bushels (dry) = 8877.2 = crc with side 20.7" = 32 Imperial gallons
 * barrel (dry = 36 Imperial gallons =9987.01704 cu in with side 21.53"
 * seam or quarter = 8 bushels (dry)=17,754.4 cu in with side 26"
 * butt = 126 Imperial gallons = 34,954.9 cu in with side 32.7"
 * chaldron = 32 bushels (dry)= 71,017.6 cu in with side 41.4"
 * wey = 40 bushels = 88,772 cu in with side 44.6"
 * puncheon = 70 imperial gallons = 155,351 cu in with side 53.76"
 * register ton = 100 cubic feet = 172,800 cu in with side 55.7"
 * last British = 80 bushels (dry) = 177,544 cubic in with side 56.2"
 * rod British = 1000 cubic feet = 1,728,000 cu in with side 120"

Rktect 13:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Four Tables
Yes, something like those wet, dry, brewery and wine tables was what I'd had in mind. The way I see it, it's better to split these up rather than having them all lumped in together. Better because one can more readily see the connexions between the units rather than puzzling over how many kennings there'd be in a barrel. Would there be a point in having both?

I think I'll put them in the article however, how about the following (notice I've made soe minor changes)? I think that the extra column makes the ratios between units all the more clear. It also makes clear the fact that bushels and firkins are used for different things.

By the way, I'm not so sure about including the 6 wine gallons = 5 imperial gallons as it's an approximation but this is not made obvious in the table & thus could throw people off. Jimp 6Jul05


 * Well, there is and was no Imperial unit “wine gallon”, only an (older) English one (see above), but if it had been adjusted like the other wine measures in 1824, it would probably be exactly 5/6 Imperial gallons. (There is also no US customary unit “wine gallon”, by the way, but maybe there was 200 years ago.) I marked it in red for that reason. I also think that the currently stated value for the (wine) hogshead is wrong, compare the templated table above. Christoph Päper 6 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)

Okay, there is and was no wine gallon in the Imperial system. So it therefore doesn't really deserve a place in the list of imperial volumes after all. However, you mention that the other wine measures had been adjusted. So, are the units tun, butt and puncheons part of the Imperial system? If so, what are their values?


 * All my knowledge about these is in the tables in . Most of the information therein came from sizes.com IIRC. I'm not sure, but they seem more like preferred/only allowed barrel sizes to me than real units or measures, which were only used in few businesses anyhow and are now long obsolete. I also don't know about the importance of either brewery (beer and ale) or wine casks, but it is important to differnetiate. The change from 252 wine gallons (pre-1824 and current US wet gallon) to 210 imperial gallons in the size of a tun was probably in tolerance limits of that time (from 953.92 to 954.7 litres). In brewery measures the absolute sizes changed, too, but the number of gallons (now imperial, ale&beer/brewery gallon before) stayed the same (as the 1803 values), because they are close to each other for the imperial gallon is a water weight based redefinition of the (282) cubic inch measure based beer gallon. CMIIW Christoph Päper 7 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

70 Imperial gallons are 318.2263 litres however the value for one puncheon given in the table (at present) is 317.974 589 856 litres i.e. 84 U.S. gallons. Were these other wine units adjusted in 1824 after all? If the puncheon had been adjusted to 70 Imperial gallons, then this is what the table should be stating. If the puncheon had been abolished, then there need be no mention of it on this page (except as an historical note). The same goes for the tun & butt, of course.

Here's a site that indicates that the puncheon is 70 gal. http://home.clara.net/brianp/quickref.html
 * Sure it is, but it used to be 63 wine gallons and is still---well, if it's still in use there, where it was also called pon---63 US fluid gallons (of 231 in³ a.k.a. Queen Anne gallon, previously (7/2)²·&pi; × 6 in³). The puncheon (or tertian) is unambiguous, because it is a wine measure only, unlike its alias firkin as well as gallon, hogshead and barrel.

P.S. The four tildes only works when you're signed in & I don't awlays sign in. Thanks for the tip anyway. Jimp 6Jul05


 * At least they ensure the correct date. Christoph Päper

Ah, yes, it's July not June.

Jimp 6Jul05


 * I agree; the wine units are not Imperial units. Nor are poppyseeds and barleycorns, and I'd question kennings too.  Put in a link to medieval weights and measures instead.
 * There is an imperial barrel of 36 imperial gallons, half the hogshead listed here, which may or may not be officially defined as two imperial barrels as well (it is a unit which was 63 wine gallons, two of those old barrels). Gene Nygaard 6 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)
 * That ought to be what used to be a brewery, beer & ale, ale, or beer barrel. Someone applied "1 hogshead = 2 barrels", which is true for wine but not beer (1½), to the wrong barrel. Gee, so many reasons against using any of this! Christoph Päper 7 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Yeah, why oh why do people cling to such a jumbled old system ... but they do. I've removed the wine units, poppyseeds and barleycorns. In their place I've added links to Tun (unit) and Medieval weights and measures. Jimp 7Jul05
 * Hmmm... I only put the barleycorns in as a mild joke, about a year ago, and I was slightly astonished, revisiting this page recently, to find that they had not only survived all this time but had spawned poppyseeds as well. I'm rather sad to see them go, but I wouldn't seriously defend them.  However, they really shouldn't be written off as medieval; my grandfather (born 1876) used to recite the length table to me beginning with them, and I've no reason to doubt that that was the way he'd learned it at school.  seglea 23:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to delete your little friends but ... oh well. I think you're probably right that they shouldn't be written off as mediæval, no. I've created a new page English units where they now live happily. Jimp 13Jul05

Length, Area & Mass
I've made the other lists to have the same look as the volume lists. Jimp 8Jul05

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)