Talk:English units of measurement

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move and create disambiguation page. I have performed the move since it required an administrator, but leave it to participants to create the disambiguation page, which was the condition of support for some editors. -- Beland (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Beland (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English units → English units of measurement – per all other sister articles: Roman units of measurement, Danish units of measurement etc etc. Not that i believe anyone would think the title refer to military units, but i feel uniformity is good here. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 18:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME as this is the common name for the subject. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Source for that? English units is just an abbreviation of the proposed name. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 21:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Basic searches are inconclusive really: https://www.nrel.gov/comm-standards/editorial/non-si-units-of-measurement ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 21:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wavering oppose as unambiguous. FWIW, the "common name" is English Engineering Units because that is the US customary measure and by far the most significant usage still extant. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC) Revised per discussion below: a change is needed but this is not it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Courtesy link: #c-JMF-20250926150900-Blockhaj-20250925000300 Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it seems that Blockhaj and JMF are confusing this article (English units) with the United States customary units article. As it says in the hat note of this article, this article is about the historical development of measurement in England up to 1826. It is not about the system currently used in the US which, although commonly referred to as "English units" is in United States customary units.

The subject of this article, which died out in the early 19th century, is far removed from English Engineering Units or any other US units system. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] No, I am not. I thought I made that clear. I am saying that there is no meaningful "common name" because the term "English units" has come to mean US customary units, especially in engineering. "English units" is no longer a common name for the pre-1826 measures. The WP:common name defence of the status quo doesn't stand up to critical examination. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @JMF, are you are arguing that two different subjects cannot have the same common name? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] no, I am saying that the "common name" tag doesn't apply in any meaningful way to the pre-1826 units any more. Too long ago. It is not a convincing argument. If you could show that the term is used extensively (without qualification) in historic documents, that would be a lot more convincing to me at least. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] It's still the common name for the subject of this article though, even if no one is currently talking much about it. On the other hand, it could also be that that is also the common name for the subject of another article, and that other subject might more likely be being sought by that name, and so there might be a case to seek consensus to move that article to it, and move this article to another name, but this isn't the place for that discussion. And the new name for this article would not necessarily be English units of measurement, it could be English units (historical), Historic English units, Old English units, Ye olde English units, or whatever. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that sums up the dilemma well and a disambig article seems to be to only solution. Unfortunately it doesn't help with the same RtM at talk: Scottish units, probably makes it more difficult if anything 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @DeFacto I am not confusing any systems, i am just proposing we follow a standard naming scheme here on Wikipedia. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 14:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes, we got that but why? Surely "of measurement" is redundant in all cases? What other kinds of units could they be? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] unit ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 11:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems to me that there are three distinct meanings of "English units": (a) the formal historical name for the subject of this article, (b) an informal way of referring to units used in England since the year dot, and (c) the American usage of "English units" to mean American units. In terms of how commonly these terms appear, I would guess that (a) might be the least frequent. To explain what I mean by (b), I might say: "Feet and inches are the units used in England since antiquity." This is true, and nothing about it changed in 1826. I think it might be a good idea for "English units" to be a DAB page, particulary given the confusion evident above. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] This sounds like a promising idea, but would still need a new name for this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Well, how about "English units of measurement"? Would this be misunderstood as referring to US customary? I see I am sort of supporting the move proposal, but I hesitate to do that, because I am not convinced by the proposer's argument. (As JMF says, "what other sort could they be?") Imaginatorium (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Obsolete English units of measurement then? Per Obsolete Finnish units of measurement, Obsolete Austrian units of measurement. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 11:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] But that is obviously not right, because feet and inches are still (to one extent or another) used in England. And anyway, the topic of this article is the rather artificial restriction of English units (in the (b) sense) to the period when they were "officially" (haha!) called "English units" (sense (a)). Imaginatorium (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Old English units of measurement? ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 12:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was one of those involved in the original split between US customary, imperial, and this article, iirc. At that time, the various units of measurement article followed the "<country> units" naming convention. That has since changed to "<country> units of measurement" for most articles in the series, so it seems reasonable to follow through with this one too. However, given that in common speech, "English units of measurement" is often understood to refer to US customary units, it might be worth exploring whether there is an alternative term that would clarify that the article is about Early Modern (and earlier) units of measurement used in England in contrast to both the formalised imperial system first established in 1826 and the US customary systems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhialto (talk • contribs) 11:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] As an Australian, I would naturally think that "English units of measurement" refers to units used in England and would never have thought of them as the different values used in US customary units (thinking mostly of the different values of gallons).  Stepho  talk  12:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately in US usage, this term is used heavily in preference to the unwieldy "United States Customary Units", especially to contrast with metric units. The term "English Engineering Units" is particularly important. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that the reason for the 1826 threshold for the imperial units is that prior to this, "gallon" (and several other units) could refer to different quantities depending on what was being measured, but the 1826 Act made only a single unit for each common word valid for mercantile trade purposes; it marked a fundamental shift in how the terms were used. Rhialto (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – An equivalent discussion has been running at Talk:Scottish units, and i was asked to "repeat that coup" here.

As has been pointed out, it is common practice to follow naming conventions, see for example: Category:Lists of foods by type. If you look in the topic category, Category:Units of measurement by country, the only articles, not using "-units of measurement", are: English units, Mongolian units and Scottish units. In Category:Systems of units, we have a similar story (not counting articles with "system of units" in their name), with the exceptions being: Atomic units, FFF system, Gaussian units, MKS units, N-body units, Scottish units.--ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 13:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] The "coup" is asked if you could repeat was the answer to "what other kind of unit could there be" and you produced convincing evidence for Scottish military units. So can you identify significant usage of the term "English military units"? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @JMF: A Google search for "English military units" gets numerous hits, as does a Google Books search and an Internet Archive library search. Certainly enough to lend credence to the idea that the phrase "English units" could refer to military units. See also, e.g., Stanley D. M. Carpenter, Military Leadership in the British Civil Wars, 1642-1651 (2005), p. 54: "Vere remained in command of the English units until 1603 under the overall charge of Maurice". I don't think Vere was commanding yards and ounces. BD2412 T 22:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately, in the Scottish case, the phrase "Scottish units" was being used without qualification (admittedly in a military context) to mean military units. The evidence there seems pretty unarguable. What we need is the same unqualified usage for the English military units. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] At this point, why even argue against the move? Valid points have been brought up were the name is used in other contexts. The proposed name simply specifies the topic by adding two words, which neither hurts the topic nor the content and also standardizes it with other cognate articles. For military units, just search google:

It was not just Welshmen who were being posted to English units; the reverse was happening too. ... The greater importance given to placing Welsh-speaking soldiers in Welsh units than was attached to where English-monoglot Welsh soldiers was sent owed much to the practicalities of censoring Welsh letters in English units.[1]

Vere had two English units of 400 each, only one of which was used in the battle.[2]

From the fall of Tobruk to the moment the stampede of English units out of the Mersa Matruh defense locale toward the east began, Auchinleck’s objective was to keep Eighth Army together.[3]

ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 00:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Maybe I'm jumping too far ahead? If this article is moved to "English units of measure", then what happens to English units? By default, it will redirect to the moved article. Per the discussion above, it will need to become a disambiguation article, not a redirect. On that basis, I am happy to support the move. (The same logic should apply at Scottish units, but we don't actually have any Scottish military unit articles – let alone English military units?) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It's certainly no worse than the existing name, is consistent with the similar measurment topics and is distinct from English military units. There is already a hat note and some text in the lead for users looking for info on the US customary units.  Stepho  talk  02:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per De Facto and JMF. This looks to me like a solution in search of a problem. The current name is the common name, and I'm not convinced by the assertion that it's ambiguous. As the nom says, "not that I believe anyone would think the title refer to military units". So no change necessary. I think the Scottish one should probably be revisited too, because the same thing applies, and adding extra verbiage to the title just for the sake of "consistency" is not helpful for readers. The titles are consistent with Imperial units anyway, which is more important and directly related to this than Roman units.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]