Talk:Stone (unit)

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Vs. Pound Sterling

Is it known whether the UK's continued common use of "stone" has anything to do with avoiding confusion over the fact "pound" is also the unit of currency? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea but to be honest I doubt it. Please don't let that put you off researching it if you'd like to follow it up, but as a BrE speaker brought up pre-metric I can tell you that I don't "feel" the language point at all - context is all, and you can almost never get confused between the two. But feel free to

prove me wrong! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I think it's just that we have continued with the traditional unit (stone) and see no need to express heavy weights in what to us are less appropriate units (in that pounds go into hundreds for human body weight). We still use pounds for smaller weights (cakes etc) without any confusion, and hundredweights (cwt = 112 lb) and tons (20 cwt = 2240 lb) for larger units, though 50kg has replaced the hundredweight, and the metric tonne has replaced the imperial ton for many applications. Dbfirs 08:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hundredweight

in the

WP:LEAD (inter alia, "explain why the subject is notable") it belongs in the lead. Against claims that the hundredweight is unnotable... at the very least it's much more notable than this unit itself is. —

Llywelyn II

13:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You have presented no sources for your claim that the values of the hundredweight are "utterly inexplicable". You have presented no sources here for your contradictory claim that they are explained by differences in the value of the stone. You have presented a lesser claim at

secondary sources, integrated the material into the body of the article and established consensus that it is of sufficient value to the reader to include a summary of it in the lead. NebY (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation

Was this necessary? Who is it saving from what confusion? The article is already entitled "Stone (unit)". Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stone (unit). 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118111241/http://www.physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app8.pdf to http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP447/app8.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of subsection heading

Moved from User talk:DeFacto

– -- DeFacto (talk). 08:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by this? Virtually everything in the "Great Britain and Ireland" section is modern — the only exceptions are the statutes of 1300 and 1350 — so having a header that implies that "modern" excludes that content is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend, I reverted your change because "since metrication" didn't make sense because - it is so ambiguous and imprecise. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]