Talk:Paper size/Archive 3

Other sizes
I have "thrown in" a list of paper sizes I made some time ago. If someone can pretty up the tables it would be good. Rich Farmbrough, 10:56 20 August 2007 (GMT).

Missing from the article is the 12" by 12" size commonly seen in Scrapbooking. SpareSimian (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of non-standard sizes?
Should there be a section listing common criticisms of non-standard sizes and aspect ratios? This is hinted at in the article but no detail is given.  Tu rk ey ph an t 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

end of US government size
I don't understand the given reasoning for this. There is no problem copying an 8x10.5 sheet unto an 8.5x11 sheet, except that you will have somewhat larger margins. I worked for the government prior to the change in size and routinely photocopied documents where the original was on the smaller size, even though the copier had normal letter sized sheets. The site referenced for this section does not have any mention of the idea that there was a problem photocopying government sized documents and forms, merely the Reagan ended the 2 different sizes. Wschart (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thicknesses?
Are there any specifications on thicknesses?12.53.10.226 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In South Africa the common everyday plain A4 paper used in copiers and PC printers etc is 80gsm. I don't know if it is a specific standard as such and I don't know about other countries. Roger (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * thickness you can do something like this:

Paper weigh in US is 2.8ounce squarefeet. You take as many sheet as you like and weigh it. Let`s say you lay in a weigh 500pcs of paper, that`s one stack. If I\m guessing right you\ll read 1410ounce, measure it and divide it accordingly. Allow me to do the height measure for you:2.05in. 2in is close to a tall girl big thumb up. Don`t let her pass, peep her and let`s do some math $$x\cdot 500pcs=2.05in; x=2.05in/5/100pcs; x=10.4*10^2 in^-3/pcs; $$
 * An interessting enough fact is that japanesse factory probably honda, built a width slicing cutter to slice down a sheet width by 7. Th\t gives
 * $$10.4/7 *10^2in-3/pcs$$ width a paper piece

Post Quarto
I find it interesting that Post Quarto isn't included. I have found it as a size, which is basically the same size as Imperial and is produced by a number of correspondence paper manufacturers (At least here in the UK), and is widely available. J.P.Lon (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source please be italic and add it. Roger (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

jeppesen auronatical chart format
It might be noteworth to mention at the main article that Jeppesen, (the de-facto publischer of aeronatical charts worldwide) use the 5-1/2" × 8-1/2" paper -half letter- half letter format. (punced with 7 holes). This information is not well known for outside the US, and very handy to know for i.e. 'poor men' flight simmers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.9.104 (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This seemed like a good idea so I added it. Frankk74 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An unclear "Jepps*" entry in the table "Other sizes"
In the table "Other sizes", the 5.5 × 8.5 inch size had "Jepps*" added to the list of names by Frankk74 in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paper_size&diff=prev&oldid=310508971 There does not appear to have been any related entry made for the asterisk, which is confusing. Can the asterisk at least be removed or have a corresponding note added? Owen Genat 09:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen.genat (talk • contribs)

Add info on Choukei envelope
My Word says there is a envelope size "Choukei 3". This wikipedia page should explain it to me what "Choukei 3" is, but it does not. My guess is that it's one of the Japanese (JIS) sizes. I suggest that somebody adds this information, who is knowledgeable about it. 83.77.253.211 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some such info is available under http://www.edsebooks.com/paper/env.html 83.77.253.211 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t this belong in Envelope rather? — Christoph Päper 09:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ISO C4 is called Kaku Koku-sai A4. Kaku 6 is the same as ISO C5.


 * Furusu 10 is sized the same as Chou 3. You 2 is the same as ISO C6.

US (ANSI?) Architectural sizes
An anonymous user recently changed the table for American architectural Arch sizes, e.g. for ‘Arch A’ from 8½ʺ × 11ʺ to 9ʺ × 12ʺ. When I wanted to revert that unexplained and unsourced change, I encountered that this section does not cite any source (reliable or not). Can someone shed some light on this with an authoritative reference? — Christoph Päper 13:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that too and checked. The article was vandalised on 26 August 2014 with these two edits. I found the restored values accord with this, this and many others I found by searching for "architectural paper sizes", but I didn't go the extra step and identify a fully compliant reliable source. NebY (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
ISO_217 gives the RA and SRA series of paper which are used by printers then cut down to A series to allow printing to the edge. cant see any reason why it cant be included here. Dasy2k1 (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Continuing use of US standards
It will seem odd to many readers that the US continues to use nonstandard paper sizes with no apparent plan to phase them out. A section explaining the reasons for this would improve the article. Presumably this issue has been considered by the US government and shelved indefinitely like metrication, but some explanation would be informative. --Ef80 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's mostly a cultural issue---libertarianism, not invented here, switching costs, and the perception that the DIN/ISO standard is a solution looking for a problem. Libertarians widely dislike ISO because it has a long history of trying to impose top-down dumb standards that end up becoming market failures like OSI; the IETF reflects the American libertarian approach of get it running first and figure out the standards on-the-fly.  There is also a widespread dislike of the UN as either hopelessly ineffectual or even worse, the unwitting puppet of totalitarian regimes.  Anything associated with the UN like UNESCO or ISO is automatically suspect among American conservatives because it is associated with the New World Order.  No sane American politician is going to jeopardize their career in a tiff with anti-UN conservatives over something as minor as paper sizes when there are so many other bigger problems to worry about.
 * Also keep in mind that Americans have the lowest number of vacation days of any industrialized country (one reason why U.S. productivity is so high) which means that most Americans consider themselves lucky to cross an ocean on vacation more than twice or thrice in their lifetime. Why bother with a horribly expensive trans-Pacific or trans-Atlantic flight when vacation time is short and North America is so big and has so much to offer?  Which means that nearly all Americans have never actually handled or worked with ISO paper sizes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Paper size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704154509/http://www.naa.org/technology/pressweb/index.html to http://www.naa.org/technology/pressweb/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Playing card sizes
A table (or link to a page) discussing playing card sizes is expected and missing. There is an entire industry revolving around playing cards and sleeves for playing cards (and collectible cards such as sports players, etc.), so this is a rather glaring omission for now. Urhixidur (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Do card printers buy card already cut to the final sizes, or simply buy card in sheets and cut it after printing? I'd expect it to be the latter and that the card sheets would often be supplied in sheet paper sizes already listed here. NebY (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They cut them themselves of course. Note that some playing cards are not made of paper, especially cards for casino games like Poker and Blackjack.
 * European manufacturers (e.g. Cartamundi/ASS) sell normal cards at a standard format of 59 mm × 91 mm (about 2.3 in × 3.6 in). They also make extra-large ones (for juniors and seniors) at 56 mm × 100 mm or 63 mm × 110 mm and extra small ones at 36 mm × 54 mm (mainly for solitaire games) or 43.5 mm × 67.5 mm (Rommé, Canasta). Some special editions of old faces have different large formats, around 6 cm × 10 cm.
 * Games with individual faces may have different card sizes, but one standard US size for gaming cards seems to be 56 mm × 87 mm. That may be referred to as 2¼ in × 3½ in sometimes, which would be 57 mm × 89 mm, i.e. slightly larger.
 * The German version of this article suggests that A8 (52 mm × 74 mm) and B8 (62 mm × 88 mm) may be employed for playing cards, but as seen above this does not seem to be the actual case, although B8 is close, but the aspect ratio is off. — Christoph Päper 21:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That is interesting, but for the purposes of this article it's your first words that are decisive. The printers cut the printed cards themselves, of course. This article's about sizes of blank paper, as supplied to printers or other users, including the general public. It's not about standard sizes of printed paper or card products. NebY (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * True, I don’t know, though, whether cards are cut from a carton that has a standardized measure, but such aren’t included here either (think newspaper press for instance). — Christoph Päper 09:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Math for calculating A sizes
To "prove" the area of the A series is based on meters squared, it might be nice to include the math behind it with unrounded numbers. For A0, the width and height are given by:

1000 / (2 ^ (1 / 4)) = 840.8964153...

1000 * (2 ^ (1 / 4)) = 1189.207115...

840.8964153... x 1189.207115... = 1000000

So while the rounded size of A4 at 210x297mm has an area of 62370mm and a ratio of 1.414285714..., the math-defined size is 210.2241038... by 297.3017788... mm, is an area of 62500 and a ratio of 1.414213562... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.185.176 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Paper size. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.afandpa.org/paper.aspx?id=511
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dimensionsguide.com/junior-legal-paper-size/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tablet terminology
I think the section tablet sizes in the main article should be renamed to notepad sizes. The term tablet is misleading for some parts of the non-English-speaking world that use simple English for communication, where, the term tablet means either a medicine tablet (common meaning) or a tablet computer (specialized meaning). The paper tablet is always called a notepad or a writing pad, never a tablet. Vedabit (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

content from papermaking article
papermaking used to have a large section about paper sizes, which I assume existed before this article, paper sizes, was created. For the sake of reference and if someone finds something that should be incorporated, I am pasting the content removed from papermaking, and leaving a redirect to this page. Yama Plos  talk  22:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Folio
In the beginning of Western papermaking, paper size was fairly standard. A page of paper is referred to as a leaf. When a leaf was printed on without being folded, the size was referred to as folio (meaning leaf). It was roughly equal to the size of a small newspaper sheet. ("Folio" can also refer to other sizes – see paper sizes.)

Quarto
A Folio folded once produces two leaves (or four pages), and the size of these leaves was referred to as quarto (4to) (about 230 x 280 mm).

Octavo
If the original sheet was folded in half again, the result was eight pages, referred to as octavo (8vo), which is roughly the size of an average modern novel. An octavo folding produces four leaves; the first two and the second two will be joined at the top by the first fold. The top edge is usually trimmed to make it possible to look freely at each side of the leaf. Sometimes books are found that have not been trimmed on the top, and these pages are referred to as unopened.

An octavo book produces a printing puzzle. The paper was first printed before folding and thus pages 8 and 1 are printed right-side-up on the bottom of the sheet, and pages 4 and 5 are printed upside-down on the top of the same side of the paper. On the opposite side, pages 2 and 7 are printed right-side-up on the bottom of the sheet, and pages 6 and 3 are printed upside-down on the top of the sheet. When the paper is folded twice and the folds trimmed, the pages fall into proper order.

Sixteen-mo
Smaller books are produced by folding the leaves again to produce 16 pages, known as a sixteen-mo (16mo) (originally sextodecimo). Other folding arrangements produce yet smaller books such as the thirty-two-mo (32mo) (duo et tricensimo).

Octavo bookbinding
When a standard-sized octavo book is produced by twice folding a large leaf, two leaves joined at the top will be contained in the resulting fold (which ends up in the gulley between the pages). This group of eight numberable pages is called a signature or a gathering. Traditionally, printed signatures were stacked on top of each other in a sewing frame and each signature was sewn through the inner fold to the signature on top of it. The sewing ran around leather bands or fabric tapes along the backs of the signatures to stabilize the pile of signatures. The leather bands originally used in the West to stabilize the backs of sewn books appear as a number of ridges under the leather on the spine of leather books. The ends of the leather strips or fabric bands were sewn or glued onto the cover boards and reinforced the hinging of the book in its covers.

Standardisation ISO sizes


While opinions and speculation abound on exact reasons for standardized paper sizes, the most revealing feature of popular sizes (such as Letter and ISO 216 sizes) is that they conform not to some arbitrary device dimension, but that the length of the paper is chosen to be the width of the page times the square root of two (≈1.414). This feature allowed for a large page to be cut in half and the resulting two pages to have the same aspect ratio as the original piece (just with half the size). Repeated cuts can be made to reduce the entire sheet to one size of pages without wasted paper. This format was formalized by ISO 216 however such logic dictated efficient paper sizes long before the ISO was created. For example, traditional 8.5"x11" Letter paper is within a few millimetres of A4 paper (ISO 216) dimensions. While paper sizes "may" have been chosen based on the size of original frames, the frames themselves were chosen to make page reduction efficient without distorting the aspect ratio of the pages regardless of final size chosen. Some paper sizes do not conform to this idea when specific applications are needed.

Foolscap
Sorry i have no account here and dont know how to add a new discussion thread. I found 3 different sizes for Paper size "Foolscap". What is correct? please investigate!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foolscap_folio http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-foolscap.htm

Compare this two pages with this article. 3 different sizes of foolscap. Is there no international ISO for or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.60.99 (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, foolscap has no "standard". Foolscap was a "common use" standard before nstandards were invented :-), and thus was not standard at all. compare with historic "standards" for inch, foot, cubits, etc...  Yama Plos   talk  22:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Diagrams at Commons suggest more standards
I accidentally found these diagrams at commons, which suggest there was a separate soviet standard for paper sizes and a (proprietary?) J series with golden ratio for A-series sides. — Christoph Päper 09:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If I understand the diagram correctly, the SU standard (GOST?) was the same as the A series but used numeric designations. If there was reliable source, it should be included. I’m less sure about that “J series”, which is the A series cut to the Golden ratio. The file description says it was “created by contemporary artist Joshua Bryan”, so perhaps WP:OR. The sizes provided therein are wrong for J4 and J5, though. We could include a table showing the A series cut to various popular aspect ratios, of course, but I don’t see how that’s very useful. — Christoph Päper 09:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

They could be from ЕСКД ГОСТ 2.301-68 (= ESKD GOST 2301:1968). A Russian site says the designations of those longish formats are not purely numeric, but the ISO label followed by an ‘x’ (possibly multiplication sign ‘×’ actually) and the factor, e.g. DIN 2A0 = GOST A0x2, but DIN 4A0 ≠ GOST A0x4, also listed are: A0×3, A1×3, A1×4, A2×3–A2×5, A3×3–A3×7, A4×3–A4×9. I’ve added the resulting names to the first table where possible and necessary. Note that …×1 and …×2 usually would be aliases for existing formats.

ОСТ 5115 and ГОСТ 9327-60 seem related. The latter lists formats down to A13, B12 and C8 and also specifies ½, ¼ and ⅛ prefixes for halving the shorter side (repeatedly), e.g. ½A4 = 105 mm × 297 mm. — Christoph Päper 01:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The Russian version of this article now includes a table similar to the following.


 * The Soviet/GOST 2-digit codes are obviously based upon A4 = 11: The first digit is the factor the longer side (297 mm) is multiplied by and the second digit is the one for the shorter side (210 mm), so “23” is 2×297 mm × 3×210 mm = 594 mm × 630 mm, which cannot occur in the table above. — Christoph Päper 16:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The "11", "12" etc. designations come from the earlier Soviet standard GOST 3450-60 (where "60" stands for the year 1960). It's described here. Despite it being formally adopted for just eight years, in practice it was very widely used for much longer time until people finally were forced to use the international designations. Some older people still call A4 "the eleventh format". Hellerick (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now incorporated this into the article. It would be great if someone else could fact-check it. — Christoph Päper 16:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's correct, but I'm not sure whether the format "23" was used in practice. Probably it would be better to use "24" instead. And maybe it's worth of noting that the standard was specifying the sizes of mechanical drawings, not just generic paper sizes. Hellerick (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paper size. 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:
 * Added tag to http://home.comcast.net/~tamivox/dave/IntlPaper/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723180944/http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/ps/5003.PPD_Spec_v4.3.pdf to http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/ps/5003.PPD_Spec_v4.3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong dimensions for DL and DLE Format
DL and DLE sizes are not correct. The wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envelope#International_standard_sizes seems to list the correct size for the DL format.

I am hesitant to edit the page itself because I am not able to verify the supposedly correct values against the authoritative standard that defines them (paywalled; ergo mistakes like this). However, numerous online sources converge towards a common size for both DL and DLE, neither of which corresponds with the value mentioned in this article.

How should this issue be resolved?

31.203.178.78 (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note for those looking for the supposidly correct values, they are 110 x 220mm for DL and 114 x 225mm for DLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.203.178.78 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I just checked DIN 678-1:1998: For envelopes, it lists uncommon DL (110 × 220), C6/C5 (114 × 229) and E4 (280 × 400) alongside C6, C5, C4, B6, B5, B4. For inserts, it mentions the unnamed format 105 x 210, which results from folding according to DIN 676, as usual for DL and C6/C5, while the C and B envelopes usually contain the respective A and C formats, respectively, i.e. B envelopes are intended for return envelopes. E4 holds B4.


 * DIN 680:2008, the German standard for envelopes with address window (90 × 45 or 55), only covers DL, C6/C5, C6, C5, C4, because these are the envelope sizes intended for letters printed on A-series paper (and not other envelopes).


 * DIN 676:1995 has been incorporated in and replaced by DIN 5008:2011 (section 16). It requires the A4 paper format for office letters. There are two variants, A and B (to accommodate different letter heads), for folding the paper sheets twice, but both result in an insert 105 millimeters tall (and unfolded 210 millimeters wide, i.e. 1:2 aspect ratio).
 * I did not find any mention of "DLE" in German standards. It apparently stands for "DL Envelope", which is really just DL and thus 110 by 220 millimeters. The size 99 by 210 millimeters currently labeled as "DL" is 1/3 A4, which is not how A4 letters are folded according to German standards. As mentioned above, the insert size resulting from standard office letter folding rules is 105 millimeters tall. I will now update the article accordingly. ✅ — Christoph Päper 10:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

US Letter paper's ratio is almost exactly φ*4/5
The article currently says "The origins of the exact dimensions of Letter size paper (8 1⁄2 in × 11 in or 216 mm × 279 mm) are lost in tradition and not well documented." As I mentioned some years ago at Talk:Letter_(paper_size), Letter paper's aspect ratio is almost exactly four fifths of the golden ratio (which is itself (1+√(5))/2 ). The difference between φ*4/5 and 11/8.5 is only about 0.0003. I'm not sure where one would find a source proving this was deliberate, but it seems so unlikely to be mere unintentional coincidence that it deserves some sort of acknowledgement, at least something like "It is not known whether the close (about 99.9761%) match to four fifths of the golden ratio was intentional". Likely related: US Legal's ratio is within 2% of φ itself, as 14" is the closest half-inch step of height to match that ratio, for a width set to 8&frac12;". &mdash;Undomelin (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

PWG 5101.1
IEEE's Printer Working Group (PWG) publishes a freely available standard, PWG 5101.1, which includes media sizes that printer manufacturers should support. I repeat the tables provided therein below for convenient reference. — Christoph Päper 12:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistent Map and Article
The article claims: "In Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, and the Philippines, the US letter format is still in common use, despite their official adoption of the ISO standard." but the map shows a bunch of those countries using the US system. I'm not sure which is correct so don't want to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.173.200 (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional sizes
Apparently, IBM's Content Manager or document archival system OnDemand recognizes additional "paper sizes and dimensions" that can be written into metadata fields. I'm not sure where they come from and whether they should be added to the article. Some are apparently fanfold sizes for their IBM 1403 and IBM 3800 printers. — Christoph Päper 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Microsoft also supports some extra sizes, some of which agree with IBM above. — Christoph Päper 16:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Most Extra sizes are the base sizes increased by 1 in or 25 mm in each direction.

PS: I'm an idiot. Almost all of this is already covered in the section above, which I wrote. — Christoph Päper 16:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

International paper sizes section: Move ISO sizes table up?
I suggest moving the Overview: ISO paper sizes table up to near the top of the section, perhaps to after "...several extensions" and before "The following international...". Any reason not to? I imagine many readers come to this article for handy information about (for example) how big a sheet of A3 is, rather than for the history and formulas. Cheers  - --Frans Fowler (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Archiving
About to perform two tasks:
 * 1) standardized naming (i.e. /Archive_1 instead of /Archive1)
 * 2) autoarchival bot instructions
 * ✅ CapnZapp (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Loose sizes
The ISO 216 article referred to this heading -- I moved it out to "NA paper sizes", since that is what it is about. But can anyone explain what "loose sizes" even means?? These seem to be the common sizes; how is this "loose"? Imaginatorium (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Arch metric conversions
The values given for metric in the current table are not exactly matching those for inches, e.g. Arch D is given as 24 × 36 in² and 610 × 914 mm² while calculating (mm = in×2.54) would result in 609.6 × 914.4 mm². I wouldn't be surprised if the actual dimensions of plotters, papers etc. are actually the values stated in the current table (i.e., exact mm values) due to engineering practices but is there any source for that? I don't deem the current source and other "conversion" sites very credible in this regard (i.e., I think most copied from wikipedia if anything :)) and they are not unanimous anyway. --Stefantauner (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

ANSI F4
In the 1970s, ANSI almost introduced an approximated √2 ratio when a base size of 8½ in × 12 in, i. e. 1 inch taller than Letter/A, was briefly considered. It was labeled F4 in drafts due to its length of exactly one foot. At c. 216 mm × 305 mm it would have been slightly larger than ISO A4, 6 mm wider and 8 mm taller.

The series was intended to run from F9 = 1½ in × 2⅛ in through F0 = 34 in × 48 in. Its alternating aspect ratios 17:12 ≈ 1.417 and 24:17 ≈ 1.412 approximate √2 ≈ 1.414 very well. The standardization work was allegedly abandoned because the adoption of ISO sizes seemed more realistic at the time. 2A01:C22:B464:7B00:C8A3:872F:1C1E:DB30 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not know nor can I find any source to support this anecdotal claim. Can you provide anything?
 * However, the article already notes that the format RA4 from ISO 217 is very close to 8½ in × 12 in. I have compiled a comparison of the two series:


 * RA sizes marked with an asterisk * are not mentioned in the ISO 217 article. — Christoph Päper 10:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Leaner table layout
Currently, tables with halving series have a lot of redundant data. Should this be reduced, e.g. as follows? — Christoph Päper 01:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Tabular Overview of ISO-like Sizes
This table would not be suitable for the article, but perhaps someone who disovers here on Talk will find it useful or insightful. Columns are roughly ordered by size (not strictly possible due to different rounding rules being applied). — Christoph Päper 12:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Silver ratio
I was surprised this article didn't mention that ISO paper sizes use what's commonly known as the silver ratio. So I added this information and used a citation from the WP article Silver ratio ( which is also known as the silver ratio. ). The addition was reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paper_size&oldid=prev&diff=950655874) with the note "Origami reference contradicted by WP silver ratio (TW)". Why is that? I don't see the contradiction. Thanks, WikiWikiHigh (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the article silver ratio says that it is equal to 1+√2:1, which is not the paper size ratio. (This is the contradiction.) Then it seems that the British Origami Society calls √2:1 paper a "silver rectangle", and there is a description by David Lister of how this name was made up in 1979. You say "commonly used", but do you have any evidence of use of the word "silver" outside the origami world? It certainly is not very common, or I think I would have heard of it, and the section Paper sizes and silver rectangles" says "sometimes called". The second half of this section is wrong/confused, and suggests the Kapusta reference is using a different definition of "silver rectangle". Given all this confusion, any addition to the paper sizes article needs to be very carefully written, and does not need to be very prominent, I think. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see also the Paper sizes and silver rectangles section of the WP article you linked, and the Application section of the ISO 216 WP article. Mere mention in this article wouldn't be "prominent". It's commonly known among designers, particularly Japanese architects (example, example). WikiWikiHigh (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read what I wrote? Can you do elementary arithmetic?
 * I clicked your first link and got " The silver ratio is quite similar, however, instead of being the total length of line (a+b) divided by the greater segment (a) that is equal to the division of the between the two segments (a and b), it’s the double of the greater segment added by the smaller segment (2a+b) divided by the greater segment (a) that is equal to the division of the between the two segments (a and b), resuming: . The value of this ratio is or, rounded, 1.414." This is gibberish, but seems to say the "silver ratio" is a/b when (2a+b)/a = (a/b). The writer can't do arithmetic, so gets the wrong answer: this actually gives the 1+√2:1 answer. But when you look at buildings, paintings, Rorschach blobs, or whatever, if you are happy to be selective you can find any ratio you want, somewhere. So this does not have any real significance in architecture or anything else. But be that as it may, before adding something, a numerate person needs to confirm that it makes sense. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read what I wrote? Can you do elementary arithmetic? I quit reading after these were your first two sentences. Please be WP:CIVIL and assume WP:GOODFAITH. WikiWikiHigh (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you have no answer? I confess to being irritated to see an edit comment "Answer concerns", when what you wrote simply ignores everything I wrote. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Swedish extension to ISO sizes
The comparison image contradicts the text and table, listing in order of increasing size ...C F B G D... instead of ...C G B F D...; the reference matches the text, the image should be changed. 37.160.78.205 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

L, 2L, Cabinet and HV
My copy of Microsoft Word has a lot of (duplicate, redundant or unnecessary) predefined paper formats, most of which are described in this article. At least four formats, however, do not appear here.

Can anyone provide more details about those sizes? — Christoph Päper 09:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: L and 2L are in fact mentioned for photo prints. The archives mention Cabinet kyabine as proper content for Japanese You 0 envelopes (197 mm × 136 mm). — Christoph Päper 09:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have a Canon printer and these 4 sizes are listed for photo printing. I also found this HP website stating these are supported photo paper sizes. So I did some digging regarding photo prints.


 * Wikipedia has an article Cabinet card referring to a photograph style of size 108 by 165 (mm), it's a close approximation and is probably the origin of the Cabinet size. However I cannot find "HV photo paper" anywhere except in printer manuals. No documentation exists. Nor is there any photo paper supplier near me recognizes it. I'm guessing it either has a foreign name that got shortened to "HV" which no one actually uses in English; or it's a standard/brand so defunct that no living soul today remembers it. Maybe asking about these sizes in Photo print sizes could yield some result?


 * — VaslD (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

1/24 inch?
Why are the inch values in this article's tables given to the nearest 1/24 of an inch? Usually, inch fractions have a power of 2 as the denominator, e.g., 1/2, 3/4, 7/8, 5/16. 72.225.211.249 (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's what size uses by default.
 * The better question is why the article shows inches in the tables for metric formats at all. — Christoph Päper 15:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Describing the international paper sizes as "metric" is a bit of a travesty. As they all have an irrational aspect ratio, their dimensions are not going to be exact in any system of units (although they do have an exact area in square metres).  Since the size template is only used in stationary and printing related articles, my guess is the 1/24 default is related to printing measurements being multiples and submultiples of 1/6 inch.  A pica is 1/6 inch and a point is 1/12 pica. SpinningSpark 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ISO B0 and B1 share a side that is exactly 1 meter long and the (nominal) area of An paper is $\overline{6}$ m². Sizes are exact to the millimeter. That is systematic. That is metric. This is not to say that, for instance, 20 cm by 30 cm paper couldn't also be considered "metric".
 * Your observation re size is basically true. For some approximations, thirds, sixths or twelfths make sense, even if 24ths may not. — Christoph Päper 09:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Size of 'Government Letter' format
The article is inconsistent on the description of the 'Government Letter' paper size. The text refers to a size of 8'×10.5' while the table gives 8'×10' as the size. It seems that the situation is complex and both entries are valid; this should be clarified. -- Lemzwerg (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

K confusion
The newly added section titled "K" is completely unsourced, and full of confusion. I suppose "K" is short for kiku ("chrysanthemum", 菊), and perhaps these sizes get referred to using "K", but is this a formal name? Then the shirokuban stuff is confused: shi-roku is literally "four-six", meaning "four-by-six" (sun), but it is not helpful to claim this is the name "46" (forty-six). Please can someone else look at this, and possibly this section would be better deleted unless it can be sourced. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, all information that can be found for these East-Asian sizes is messed up or confused, often neglecting them being source in historic Japanese units of measure. PWG 5101.1 has some of them (incl. juuro-ku-kai, pa-kai, dai-pa-kai), some metric and some (Taiwanese ones) inch-based.
 * I've mostly used auto-translated Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia pages (e.g. zh:紙張尺寸, ja:紙の寸法, ja:判型, ja:菊判 Chrysantemum/Kikuban, ja:四六判 Shirokoban, ja:B40, ja:封筒 envelopes), but those cannot be used as formal references. — Christoph Päper 09:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, the PWG registry at IANA currently recognizes the following self-describing media size names related to East-Asian "K", sorted by size:

There apparently is an open issue from 2015 saying that Dai-Pa-Kai and Pa-Kai might have been swapped, referring to them as Chinese localised 8k and 16k sizes, respectively. — Christoph Päper 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Date of the adoption of ISO sizes into the UK
The article cites 1959 as the date of the adoption of ISO sizes into the UK. That may be the sate of some bill or other (there is no citation), but as late as 1974 I was still purchasing quarto loose leaf paper for my folders. I would suggest that the effective date of adoption by the general public was nearer to 1980, based on the size of old graph pads I have from university. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nowadays, many national standards are merely translations of international standards with a custom cover and price tag. In the past, they diverged more and the DIN, then ISO A and B series may have been incorporated into national standards together with other, local, traditional sizes. The dates listed are, as far as I know, the dates these series were first recognized as locally accepted by a national standard. I'm not sure which one this would be for GB or the UK, but probably one of these (likely BS 4000 or its predecessor):
 * BS 1808 Specification for cut business forms and letterheads
 * BS 3047 Specification for sizes of posters
 * BS 3429 Specification for sizes of drawing sheets
 * BS 4000 Sizes of paper and board
 * BS 4448 Specification for school exercise books and papers
 * BS 4623 Specification for folded continuous stationery for impact printers
 * — Christoph Päper 20:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * According to the BSI catalogue BS1808:1985 mentions ISO sizes, earlier versions do not give any indication. Likewise the entries for BS4000:1983 and BS4000:1968 do not give a hint about the contents.  With standards costing £130 to £186 each I'm not about to order up copies! BTW, all BSs would be valid for the whole UK, not just GB.  Prior to the NI agreement with the EU of course, God only knows what the situation is now with Merckle, von der Leyen and NI! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that assessment more or less. ISO paper was definitely not widely available in 1959.  Quarto and foolscap were the student de facto standards in 1970.  I seem to have changed to A4 sometime while at university (1972 to 1976), although I have kept very little material from those days so can't be sure of the exact date. SpinningSpark 09:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tracked down the final report of the Metrication Board which gives 1971 as the change-over date. That ties up with 's and my experience, I can remember a conversation on the subject some time during AY 73/4.  I've amended the article and provided a reference to the report. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

use of u+2236 ratio symbol
The inconsistent use of the ratio symbol (u+2236) in the article means that when users do in-page searches for specific ratios, they might find partial or no results at all despite there being such sizes. e.g. Compare how "4:3" vs. "4∶3" returns 3 matches for the former and 15 matches for the latter, neither overlapping with the other. (~ 2022-10-28 19:30:00 gmt+3)

Could the editor intervene and enforce one of the other to be used throughout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.145.55 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick look and it appears that the colon is used throughout the article where it is written into the source. The only times that (u+2236) appears is when the ration is automatically produced, typically by size (which calls resratio).  MOS:FRAC indicates that "Dimensionless ratios (i.e. those without accompanying units) are given by placing a colon between integers, or placing to between numbers-as-words: favored by a 3:1 ratio or a three-to-one ratio, not a 3/1 ratio or a 3–1 ratio.", so the problem lies with the templates.  I'll link this discussion to a note on both template talk pages. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. To be fair, this should probably normalize at the client level (browsers... document readers... file managers...) similar to how diacritics are treated. 5.22.128.44 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See Resratio for the maintainers reply. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"International standard"...
changed the heading "International paper sizes" to "International standard paper sizes". I honestly don't understand your explanation, starting with "The US is international too". For a start, the US is a single country, whereas "almost every other country" has to be something like "international". And I do not see how adding "standard" helps, because after all US sizes are absolutely a standard set of sizes, at least within the US. There are of course a few other countries, all close to the US (geographically, except the Philippines culturally) which use the US system/standard, but it is still pretty marginal. And how is calling almost all countries in the world except the US "international" a US-centric term? I thought it best to ask, rather than just revert... Imaginatorium (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking questions first and shooting afterwards.
 * Since the section is about the international standard (ISO) sizes, then the section title should say so, IMO. That was my primary motivation. American sizes are just as "international" as anywhere else so unless they are to be nested under this section (unlikely), then the scope of the section must be explicit.
 * On the question of "US-centricity", I observe a common practice in US writing to use the term "international (e.g., see early history of Internationalization and localization) to mean "not US" rather than "worldwide". Perhaps I over-interpreted it but the original title read to me that the original author had given it that name from the perspective of that mind-set. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Japanese sizes: 'sun'
The tables for Japanese (modern) sizes include conversions (very approximate, it seems) to sun (寸). I suggest these should all be removed; almost no-one alive even knows what a sun is, in any applied measurement sense. For traditional sizes, of course, it might have significance, if that is how the sizes were first defined. But I tried to edit the table, and the inch (I mean, really, what is this for?) column does not appear in the source - why not? Imaginatorium (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your main point about lack of sourcing remains valid but I suspect that the fractional inches column is for our American* friends who don't speak metric. See also convert. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. I just meant it is painfully confusing when editing an unfamiliar template that one of the columns expands to two columns. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * * and British Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's a "won't". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)