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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reddit as a source. 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. PamD 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—given all the informality and pseudogonzo 'personality' modern journalists try to inject in their work—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 WP:RS. 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 WP:BLUE anymore. We should provide at least one governmental or fairly authoritative private source (leading newspaper style guides, SAE publications, &c.) for each of them. — LlywelynII 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.").[1] 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: [2]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)