Talk:U.S. customary units

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition The units of measurement that are currently used in the United States. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Physics, Chemistry and Engineering [Categories OK]
 Subgroup categories:  Chemical Engineering and Environmental Engineering
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Wikipedia has an article of the same name

To the best of my memory, I was not a significant contributor to the WP article. This CZ article was written essentially from scratch. It may contain some WP content because the two article include the same measurement units and SI equivalents. Milton Beychok 23:13, 25 August 2008 (CDT)


Thanks to Paul Wormer and Anthony Argyriou for your recent edits of this. Milton Beychok 15:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


Earlier today I added a sentence to the lede about the standardization of US units overlooking a similar sentence much further down in the article. The main difference between the two sentences is that I copied from the given reference explicitly the countries involved in the agreement, whereas in the older sentence the countries are called the "Commonwealth of Nations" (plus US). The two statements are not completely overlapping: in 1959 the Commonwealth consisted of many more nations than the ones I listed. Pakistan and some African countries, India, etc. So, what is correct? And, mentioning this once is sufficient; I prefer it in the lede. --Paul Wormer 16:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment,Paul. You are right, there is no point in that info being mentioned twice ... so I deleted my original mention and left yours in the lede. However, I corrected "= 0.453 592 27 kilogram" to "= 0.453 592 37 kilogram" as given in both references 1 and 2. Milton Beychok 18:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops, thank you. --Paul Wormer 18:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)