Talk:Net weight

"Cmon" isn't a speedy category. --Dweller 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
Seems like merging this with gross weight would be a useful way to explain both concepts. Friday (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You'd still need this as a redirect for searchers, so what would bve gained? --Dweller 15:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Context, I guess. This is really short right now, and since the two terms are complementary, it seems sensible to put them together.  Friday (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think merging would be great. Oppose speedy and merge it either with Weight or Gross weight. This article was noticed because of a question on the reference desk about the "e" symbol, so the information has to be merged, not deleted. --GunnarRene 16:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that there isn't enough info here to merit an article, and it should be merged with gross weight. Also, i think "net weight" is the far more common spelling. -- N  scheffey (T/C) 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between "nett weight" (with two "t"s) as defined here, and "net weight" (with just one "t") as ordinarily understood? Michael Hardy 22:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I see it says it's an alternative spelling. I've moved the title to the standard spelling. Michael Hardy 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm, excuse me, but the standard spelling in whose country? --Dweller 08:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but since this isnt a particularly Anglo-centric topic and "nett weight" receives 32,000 google hits while "net weight" receives 3,000,000+, I think it's best to use the latter. Do you disagree? -- N  scheffey (T/C) 14:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably. Assuming you're not getting Google hits on the weight of nets. Anyway, I've posted on Michael's talk page about tomato/tomato. Happy to let go of it. --Dweller 16:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep separate; but perhaps merge gross weight and gross vehicle weight rating and perhaps others, unless gross weight is broadened (which probably should be done) to a scope more general than automobiles, such as "gross tonnage" of ships. Gene Nygaard 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And, of course, I forgot the most important reason to keep separate. The gross weight article deals primarily with automobiles, where it is distinguished from things such as curb weight and dry weight, whereas the "net weight" article deals primarily with groceries and the like, where there is not generally any interest in any "gross weight" as such.  Gene Nygaard 00:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There SHOULD be a merger here, because net weight and gross weight are the same thing, just used in different contexts. There should be a section under gross weight that talks about net weight, but having two small articles on the subject, one a complete stub, is pointless. I think gross weight is the more general term, and should be used as the title, with net weight being a section in the article Charlesblack 16:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither Net weight nor Gross weight are much more than dictionary definitions and are not likely to become much more. Not only ahve I decided to merge the information but I have merged them both into Weight while forking the information about vehicles over to the GVWR article. It makes more sense there.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have information here from a supplier of CP Anodes that states the nett weight as 50kg, the core weight as 1.7kg and the gross weight as 51.7kg. So there are at least some companies out there that make a distinction between different "weights". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.215.28.70 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's a BIG difference between 'nett weight' and 'gross weight'! If I buy a jar of jam with a nett weight of 454 grams (= 1 lb), that will be the weight of the jam inside — i.e. the weight I am really interested; but the 'gross weight' would include the weight of the jar itself — which would be of interest, for example, were I too have to ship this product.

And please note that 'nett' with 2 Ts is the traditional UK spelling, even though it is now rather dated and is tending to fall out of use; but I do think it is important, not least, because it avoids any shadow of possible ambiguity with 'the weight of a net' — or indeed, nowadays in ITC terms, the 'weight' something has on a 'net'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty19 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)