Talk:United States customary units

"preferred"
Can anyone point to the exact source for this naming of the metric system as the "preferred" system of the United States? I cannot find that anywhere, included the text of the bill itself (though it's possible that I'm fatigued). https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0055/1669179.pdf Wuapinmon (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest using a version of the law that is searchable rather than images. Also, the version I linked to is the current United States Code, eliminating the possibility that the word "preferred" had been amended out of the law. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Easy readable source example can be found at Cornell Law School as well. Good overview and more references at NIST Metric Policy Ws1920 (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Reddit as a source?
Use of Reddit as a source in this article is being discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Freedom units" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Freedom units. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pam D  11:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"Freedom unit" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Freedom unit. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Doug Mehus T · C  22:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Table cells shifted
In the "Length" section's table, it looks like all the cells under the "Divisions" header needs to be shifted up one row. "12 p." is on the same row as "1 pica (P.)" instead of "1 point (p.)". The same applies to the remaining rows. I'm not sure if the "SI equivalent" column needs adjusting, so I'm mentioning it here. The table in the "Volume" section has the same issue, so all tables should be checked. Jroberson108 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe or there might not be any Divisions (subdivisons) for a point (typography). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Names
1st, standard layout is to hash out alt names in the lede or in a Name/Names section IMMEDIATELY after the lede. That bit should go up and the alt names should be bolded.

2nd, per the redirect discussion above, freedom or Freedom units should be restored as a slang name (probably with a link to the etymon Freedom fries) assuming that reliable sources can be found using it in the wild. G-d knows it's popular enough in informal conversation on Youtube, Reddit, and Twitter. I assume&mdash;given all the informality and pseudogonzo 'personality' modern journalists try to inject in their work&mdash;it's leaked over into bits of the NY Times, New Yorker, &c. or adjacent blogs. Sure, if it hasn't fully transitioned, we'll have to wait for the. From the first page on Google, NIST is at least talking about the term, even if not using it themselves.

3rd, as already discussed in the archives, these are English units. The label may be unhelpful but it's not wrong or mistaken in any way, as the current POVy treatment maintains. (Calling this system "imperial" is of course wrong since that's a completely separate formalized system but the US conventional units are simply a separate development of traditional English units and that name continues in current use for it, even if we park different content under that name here.)

4th, given that there has been years of discussion on these topics and especially that some people are misunderstanding or mistakenly disparaging some of them, though, we shouldn't treat these names as anymore. We should provide at least one governmental or fairly authoritative private source (leading newspaper style guides, SAE publications, &c.) for each of them. — Llywelyn II   03:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Obsolescence of US survey units
In a series of edits Nrostrander added information about US Survey units becoming obsolescent on 1 January 2023. The immediate problem I see with these edits is that only the survey mile and the survey foot are marked as becoming obsolescent. But all the units that are defined in terms of the survey foot, such as the link, chain, and rod, will be equally obsolescent.

I write "obsolescent" rather than "obsolete" because the units will only be frowned upon for new work in new coordinate systems. Obviously it will still be necessary to read old documents with the old definitions in mind. New work on projects started in the old system will still use the old system. The state plane coordinate systems of 1983 which used survey units will continue to use survey units as long as they are still used, which will probably be at least 100 years. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * As you added this and the 'disputed' tag, I was folding that new section into the existing paragraphs above it, which it in large part duplicated, and removing some editorialising about motives, "unfortunately", etc. NebY (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term the NIST etc are using is deprecated, not obsolete or obsolescent. The chain, rod etc are also being redefined ("Likewise, other measures previously based only on the “U.S. survey foot” will be defined using the foot equal to 0.304 8 meter (exactly) after December 31, 2022. These measures are the “chain,” “link,” “rod” (also “pole” or “perch”), “furlong,” and “fathom” for length, and the “acre” for area."). NebY (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with @NebY that it should reflect the exact terminology as used by the NIST in Federal Register document number 2019-22414. The term "obsolete" should not be used, yet for clarity, it was a copy over from the NIST's website under the important dates section here: [Https://www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfoot https://www.nist.gov/pml/us-surveyfoot]. It may be beneficial to also update the Federal Register citation to ensure the specific document number (2019-22414) and pages that capture this information (pages 55562-55565) are noted. Nrostrander (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Though it can inform our work as editors, and especially our choice of terms, that Federal Register document is WP:PRIMARY material and must be treated with caution, if cited at all. NebY (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I updated the terminology used to reflect "depreciated" as used in the NIST. Nrostrander (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition, the source cited in the note at the bottom of the length table does not say anything about the obsolescence of the survey foot. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the solution for the length table is to label the current column with metric equivalents as "before 1 January 2023" and add a new column "On or after 1 January 2023". The survey foot and survey mile would be marked "deprecated" with no value in the last column, and the link, chain, rod, league, etc. would be marked with the new value. The new value would be consistent with the length of the international foot, 0.3048 m exactly. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jc3s5h I would support this recommendation as it would clearly reflect the updated values of the units as of January 1, 2023 being defined in relation to the international foot exactly and not to the "depreciated" U.S. survey foot. Nrostrander (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting idea. Would it only be the middle section (US survey) that would have the extra column?
 * I see Rod (unit) and Furlong talk about the difference, though in different ways, but chain (unit) is silent on it. NebY (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the extra column should only be in the middle, US Survey, section.
 * It would take me some time to find the sources, but I recall seeing some disagreement in sources. Some treated link, rod, chain, US survey/statute mile, and league as only defined in terms of the US foot. Other sources seemed to acknowledge a survey and international version of each of those.
 * An NGS video on the topic is available. I'm not inclined to re-watch the 51 minute video, but a slideshow is available at the same site for download. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wondered if there was such disagreement about the chain etc; logically, there would be. Thanks for the link; I skimmed the slideshow - complications all the way! NebY (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @NebY and @Jc3s5h
 * Have we determined the best way to reflect the changes in the unit's definitions? I know we discussed possibly using another column in the "U.S. Survey" section, but I am reluctant to make the change until we can agree on a path forward. Nrostrander (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I continue to support a 3rd column. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think it's sensible. I'm not sure how it would be best done; maybe split the Survey section out into a second table? NebY (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've created three replacement tables in one of my sandboxes, to replace the one length table. If no one objects, I'll make the replacement in a few days. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this. Could "International", "International Nautical" and "Us Survey" usefully be moved up to become the top rows? At present, it takes a moment or two to see what each table's about. NebY (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just the sort of feedback I was hoping for. I'll wait a little to see what other comments come in. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I notice you sometimes use ft. (or in.) and sometimes ft (or in). Is this a deliberate distinction? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any changes to abbreviations. I see that WP:MOSNUM uses the undoted form, and calls them symbols,even though one could argue they are abbreviations. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The IEEE standard for US customary units uses ft, in, etc. (no dot) and calls them symbols. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I made the changes discussed in this thread. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The US "customary units" is the Imperial System of Measurement, as there was no consensus or widespread adaption of the "standardized" British Imperial Units in 1820
the US system is the Imperial System of Measurement, because there wasn't a standard definition of Imperial System of Measurement 150 years ago, despite efforts (by some people) to make them uniform, so the two are the same, depending on your source of information about a measurement2601:647:4000:12E0:50BC:2C5:6C96:D0DE (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Following the Weights and Measures Act of 1824, the defined Imperial units were implemented in the United Kingdom, the British Empire and elsewhere, in a process of legally imposed standardisation that accelerated, and was accelerated by, the Industrial Revolution and the UK's development into - for a while - the world's pre-eminent industrial power. The suggestion that if standardisation didn't happen instantaneously, it never happened is absurd, as is the failure to consider the differences between the imperial and US customary measurement systems. NebY (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Imperial
My edit was just contested a second time, so I'm taking this to the talk page. I've addressed the concerns raised by the first editor who reverted me at length in my edit summary here; as for the latest revert, the second mention of "imperial units" discusses the history of the actual imperial units, not stating it as an alternative name for "customary units" (which, again, I suspect Wikipedia editors have made up, but I'm not 100% certain). If DUPLINKs are a concern, remove the second link. But DUPLINK isn't a reason to remove an alternative name. MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This article has had a hatnote at the top that says "Not to be confused with Imperial units." that is supposed to clarify the confusion. Repeating the message seems excessive [though more text can be added if needed]. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The hatnote indicates that they are two separate topics, not that "imperial units" is widely used as the alternative name for "customary units", correctly or otherwise. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, a reader looking for the article about customary units might arrive here and think, "Oh, I'm looking for imperial units, so this must be the wrong article." InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @InfiniteNexus: Saying that "imperial units" is "widely used as an alternative name" is not referenced in the article, so should not be in the lead; and if it were, it should be alongside any other alternative names so referenced. lists it, along with other names, but the prevalence of their usage is not referenced.
 * There's a reference in the same section which uses "US Customary" in various ways. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I explained in my edit summary, I am going to invoke WP:BLUESKY on this one, or failing that, IAR. (Though I am sure if you are really seeking refs, it would not be difficult to find.) I never heard anyone call these anything but "imperial units", and most people aren't aware of the term "customary units". InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary included "but it would be doing a disservice to readers not to mention "imperial" in the lead". That same paragraph of the lead, the first, mentions and links imperial system, a redirect to Imperial units, and "imperial counterparts", saying "there are significant differences between the systems." It's therefore entirely redundant to squeeze in a previous mention; tempting as it is to say everything of note in the very first sentence, that's simply not possible. What's more, the claim that US units are often incorrectly referred to as imperial units is contrary to WP:LEAD in that it is not a summary of content in the body of the article supported by reliable sources, neither the claim that they are referred to as imperial units nor the claim that it occurs often (for which a mere sample of sources making that mistake would be insufficient; we would require a RS for "often"). NebY (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:BOLDALTNAMES clearly says to mention the most significant alternative names in the first sentence. If people claim that other names are equally significant, add them to the lead as well. Of course, not all of them, only the significant ones. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:BOLDALTNAMES also says articles with such emboldened names should usually also redirect to the article. There is an article with the name "imperial units", but it's not a redirection, it's about something else. Bazza 7 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It says "usually" for a reason. It isn't a requirement, and in this case it's a technical impossibility. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * From a quick search of "imperial units" (not all of these are reliable sources, but this is just illustrating the pervasiveness of the name):         InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If imperial units didn't exist as a separate topic, someone would've sent this to RM on the grounds of COMMONNAME long ago. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A quick check of those links: The Washington Post article's paywalled and I don't have a subscription. The BBC link concerns the units used in the UK, not the US: "In the UK we use metric for money (pence) and imperial for large distances (miles)." Study.com does indeed claim that the US uses imperial units and even that it "is currently used by only three countries in the world. These are: the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar", contradicting the BBC. The Masterclass source says "the United States has its own system, based on the old British Imperial System of inches and pounds" - it does not say the US uses the imperial system or call the US system the imperial system. Howstuffworks does indeed assert that the US uses the imperial system "as their official system of measurement", citing Buchholz on Statista.com. Yourdictionary states "The United States Customary System (USCS) was based on the British Imperial System, and many use the term “imperial system,” or IS, to describe both of these systems today." The abbreviation IS is startling but otherwise that is closer to describing the relationship between the systems correctly while supporting your assertion. Lastly, you provided that Statista.com link from Howstuffworks, in which Buchholz makes a more qualified statement. Your survey illustrates limited pervasiveness of the term "imperial system" as a name for the US's system of units. NebY (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See "US Customary System: An Origin Story" The truth is before US independence more or less the same units were used in the US and UK. The US drew from these units to standardize on the US customary units; this has been a drawn-out process that still isn't finished (witness the survey foot). The UK made a separate selection from the available units and established imperial units in 1824. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the history, but the point is, most readers aren't. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Archived link for the WaPo article. See the "Converting between imperial and metric measures" box and PDF on the BBC page. I included the MasterClass link because it goes out of its way to include a section for, and the title literally reads . I can search for more sources if you'd like; stand by. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * More sources, this time only from actual RS's (in addition to WaPo): Business Insider The Guardian Gizmodo HuffPost New Scientist Nature. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The BBC PDF has "In the USA measurements with the same names as the UK imperial system are nearly always used" - it's not calling the US system "imperial units". That Masterclass title specifically distinguishes the US System from the British Imperial System. That's the point. This article is about the system of United States customary units as distinct from the imperial system, and those somewhat scathing statements from WaPo and others saying that the US or Nasa or Nasa's subcontractors use or used imperial units aren't naming the system we describe. NebY (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh? They most definitely are. I've never tried to claim the customary and imperial systems are the same, only that customary units are "often incorrectly" referred to as imperial units. This is pretty much common knowledge, but I've provided plenty of RS's above that verify that claim. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the sources listed above, which satisfy WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:DUE (I won't insist on bolding), I suggest:

InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, would you look at that: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy! Still doubtful that "imperial" isn't the overwhelmingly COMMONNAME, regardless of whether it is correct? I wasn't even looking for the RfC on purpose, I just happened to come across it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * if there are no objections. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The examples quoted above each say that the US uses imperial units; they don't show any awareness that the US uses another system, the subject of our article. They're not evidence that the system of United States customary units is called imperial - and of course, far from including a WP:RS that the US system is "often" called imperial, they remain only an WP:OR demonstration that the world-wide web is vast and contains several of almost anything. NebY (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why the lead says "incorrectly". Netherlands mentions how it's often called "Holland" despite that we make a distinction between them with two separate articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the examples above are of people incorrectly saying the US uses the imperial system, not of people incorrectly referring to United States customary units as imperial units. The parenthesised text "often incorrectly referred to as imperial units" is not supported by those examples, let alone by any reliable source. NebY (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How about ? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That isn't any better. The examples above are not of people incorrectly identifying as, referring to, calling or otherwise naming US Customary units "imperial"; they are people incorrectly saying the US uses the imperial system, and "often incorrectly identified as" is not supported by reliable sources. It is not a summary of the body of the article per WP:LEAD either. That parenthetical statement serves only to tell the reader "don't call it imperial", and even if that wasn't contrary to Manual of Style, there's no need to rush to say it. The first paragraph of the lead already carefully explains that the US system of customary units is not the imperial system and describes the relationship - and of course the very existence of a separate article is another powerful indicator that it's a different subject. NebY (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what "identified" means. A photo of someone is released on the Internet, and the press misidentifies the subject as John Doe. A system of miles and ounces is used in the U.S., and the general public often misidentifies the system as the imperial system. It's just another word for "mistaken". It doesn't mean people think the customary system is called the imperial system. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead has to be clear and accessible, not a challenge for the reader that requires a particular nuanced use of a word to be puzzled out to make sense. What's more, switching that word doesn't address all the other problems described above; it is not supported by reliable sources, it is not a summary of the body, it lurches into the instructional, and it is superfluous. After lengthy discussion, it's time to drop that insertion as contested by three editors and lacking consensus. NebY (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems you're the only one continuing to object to the note after I presented additional rationale, and is now taking advantage of the lapse of time and falsely claiming there is "consensus against" it. The note supported by reliable sources, and the lead is not  a summary of the article body, but it's clear this has reached a point of WP:IDHT and I no longer have the energy to fight for this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)