Talk:Paper size/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Other sizes

I have "thrown in" a list of paper sizes I made some time ago. If someone can pretty up the tables it would be good. Rich Farmbrough, 10:56 20 August 2007 (GMT).

Missing from the article is the 12" by 12" size commonly seen in Scrapbooking. SpareSimian (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of non-standard sizes?

Should there be a section listing common criticisms of non-standard sizes and aspect ratios? This is hinted at in the article but no detail is given. Turkeyphan^t 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

end of US government size

I don't understand the given reasoning for this. There is no problem copying an 8x10.5 sheet unto an 8.5x11 sheet, except that you will have somewhat larger margins. I worked for the government prior to the change in size and routinely photocopied documents where the original was on the smaller size, even though the copier had normal letter sized sheets. The site referenced for this section does not have any mention of the idea that there was a problem photocopying government sized documents and forms, merely the Reagan ended the 2 different sizes. Wschart (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thicknesses?

Are there any specifications on thicknesses?12.53.10.226 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In South Africa the common everyday plain A4 paper used in copiers and PC printers etc is 80gsm. I don't know if it is a specific standard as such and I don't know about other countries. Roger (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

thickness you can do something like this:

Paper weigh in US is 2.8ounce squarefeet. You take as many sheet as you like and weigh it. Let`s say you lay in a weigh 500pcs of paper, that`s one stack. If I\m guessing right you\ll read 1410ounce, measure it and divide it accordingly. Allow me to do the height measure for you:2.05in. 2in is close to a tall girl big thumb up. Don`t let her pass, peep her and let`s do some math $x\cdot 500pcs=2.05in;x=2.05in/5/100pcs;x=10.4*10^{2}in^{-}3/pcs;$

An interessting enough fact is that japanesse factory probably honda, built a width slicing cutter to slice down a sheet width by 7. Th\t gives

$10.4/7*10^{2}in-3/pcs$ width a paper piece

Post Quarto

I find it interesting that Post Quarto isn't included. I have found it as a size, which is basically the same size as Imperial and is produced by a number of correspondence paper manufacturers (At least here in the UK), and is widely available. J.P.Lon (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source please be italic and add it. Roger (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

jeppesen auronatical chart format

It might be noteworth to mention at the main article that Jeppesen, (the de-facto publischer of aeronatical charts worldwide) use the 5-1/2" × 8-1/2" paper -half letter- half letter format. (punced with 7 holes). This information is not well known for outside the US, and very handy to know for i.e. 'poor men' flight simmers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.9.104 (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This seemed like a good idea so I added it. Frankk74 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An unclear "Jepps*" entry in the table "Other sizes"

In the table "Other sizes", the 5.5 × 8.5 inch size had "Jepps*" added to the list of names by Frankk74 in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paper_size&diff=prev&oldid=310508971 There does not appear to have been any related entry made for the asterisk, which is confusing. Can the asterisk at least be removed or have a corresponding note added? Owen Genat 09:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen.genat (talk • contribs)

Add info on Choukei envelope

My Word says there is a envelope size "Choukei 3". This wikipedia page should explain it to me what "Choukei 3" is, but it does not. My guess is that it's one of the Japanese (JIS) sizes. I suggest that somebody adds this information, who is knowledgeable about it. 83.77.253.211 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Some such info is available under http://www.edsebooks.com/paper/env.html 83.77.253.211 (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn’t this belong in Envelope#Sizes rather? — Christoph Päper 09:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Japanese traditional long (Choukei) envelopes, opened on the short side

Designation	Size (mm × mm)	fits
Chou 1	142 × 332	A4 folded in half lengthwise
Chou 2	119 × 277	B5 folded in half lengthwise
Chou 3	120 × 235	A4 folded in thirds
Chou 31	105 × 235	A4 folded in thirds
Chou 30	92 × 235	A4 folded in fourths
Chou 40	90 × 225	A4 folded in fourths
Chou 4	90 × 205	JIS B5 folded in fourths

Japanese rectangular (Kakukei) envelopes, opened on the short side

Designation	Size (mm × mm)	fits
Kaku A3	320 × 440	A3
Kaku 0	287 × 382	B4
Kaku 1	270 × 382	B4
Kaku 2	240 × 332	A4
Kaku 3	216 × 277	B5
Kaku 4	197 × 267	B5
Kaku 5	190 × 240	A5
Kaku 6	162 × 229	A5
Kaku 7	142 × 205	B6
Kaku 8	119 × 197	salaries, wages

ISO C4 is called Kaku Koku-sai A4. Kaku 6 is the same as ISO C5.

Japanese Western-style (Youkei) envelopes, opened on the long side

Designation	Size (mm × mm)	fits
You 0 = Furusu 10	235 × 120	A4 folded in thirds
You 0	197 × 136	kyabine (cabinet) size photos (165 mm × 120 mm)
You 1	176 × 120	B5 folded in quarters
	173 × 118
You 2	162 × 114	A6
You 3	148 × 98	B6 folded in half
You 4	235 × 105	A4 folded in thirds
You 5	217 × 95	A4 folded in fourths
You 6	190 × 98	B5 folded in thirds
You 7	165 × 92	A4/B4 folded in quarters

Furusu 10 is sized the same as Chou 3. You 2 is the same as ISO C6.

US (ANSI?) Architectural sizes

An anonymous user recently changed the table for American architectural Arch sizes, e.g. for ‘Arch A’ from 8½ʺ × 11ʺ to 9ʺ × 12ʺ. When I wanted to revert that unexplained and unsourced change, I encountered that this section does not cite any source (reliable or not). Can someone shed some light on this with an authoritative reference? — Christoph Päper 13:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw that too and checked. The article was vandalised on 26 August 2014 with these two edits. I found the restored values accord with this, this and many others I found by searching for "architectural paper sizes", but I didn't go the extra step and identify a fully compliant reliable source. NebY (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

ISO_217 gives the RA and SRA series of paper which are used by printers then cut down to A series to allow printing to the edge. cant see any reason why it cant be included here. Dasy2k1 (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Continuing use of US standards

It will seem odd to many readers that the US continues to use nonstandard paper sizes with no apparent plan to phase them out. A section explaining the reasons for this would improve the article. Presumably this issue has been considered by the US government and shelved indefinitely like metrication, but some explanation would be informative. --Ef80 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's mostly a cultural issue---libertarianism, not invented here, switching costs, and the perception that the DIN/ISO standard is a solution looking for a problem. Libertarians widely dislike ISO because it has a long history of trying to impose top-down dumb standards that end up becoming market failures like OSI; the IETF reflects the American libertarian approach of get it running first and figure out the standards on-the-fly. There is also a widespread dislike of the UN as either hopelessly ineffectual or even worse, the unwitting puppet of totalitarian regimes. Anything associated with the UN like UNESCO or ISO is automatically suspect among American conservatives because it is associated with the New World Order. No sane American politician is going to jeopardize their career in a tiff with anti-UN conservatives over something as minor as paper sizes when there are so many other bigger problems to worry about.

Also keep in mind that Americans have the lowest number of vacation days of any industrialized country (one reason why U.S. productivity is so high) which means that most Americans consider themselves lucky to cross an ocean on vacation more than twice or thrice in their lifetime. Why bother with a horribly expensive trans-Pacific or trans-Atlantic flight when vacation time is short and North America is so big and has so much to offer? Which means that nearly all Americans have never actually handled or worked with ISO paper sizes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paper size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704154509/http://www.naa.org/technology/pressweb/index.html to http://www.naa.org/technology/pressweb/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Playing card sizes

A table (or link to a page) discussing playing card sizes is expected and missing. There is an entire industry revolving around playing cards and sleeves for playing cards (and collectible cards such as sports players, etc.), so this is a rather glaring omission for now. Urhixidur (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Do card printers buy card already cut to the final sizes, or simply buy card in sheets and cut it after printing? I'd expect it to be the latter and that the card sheets would often be supplied in sheet paper sizes already listed here. NebY (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

They cut them themselves of course. Note that some playing cards are not made of paper, especially cards for casino games like Poker and Blackjack.

European manufacturers (e.g. Cartamundi/ASS) sell normal cards at a standard format of 59 mm × 91 mm (about 2.3 in × 3.6 in). They also make extra-large ones (for juniors and seniors) at 56 mm × 100 mm or 63 mm × 110 mm and extra small ones at 36 mm × 54 mm (mainly for solitaire games) or 43.5 mm × 67.5 mm (Rommé, Canasta). Some special editions of old faces have different large formats, around 6 cm × 10 cm.

Games with individual faces may have different card sizes, but one standard US size for gaming cards seems to be 56 mm × 87 mm. That may be referred to as 2¼ in × 3½ in sometimes, which would be 57 mm × 89 mm, i.e. slightly larger.

The German version of this article suggests that A8 (52 mm × 74 mm) and B8 (62 mm × 88 mm) may be employed for playing cards, but as seen above this does not seem to be the actual case, although B8 is close, but the aspect ratio is off. — Christoph Päper 21:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That is interesting, but for the purposes of this article it's your first words that are decisive. The printers cut the printed cards themselves, of course. This article's about sizes of blank paper, as supplied to printers or other users, including the general public. It's not about standard sizes of printed paper or card products. NebY (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

True, I don’t know, though, whether cards are cut from a carton that has a standardized measure, but such aren’t included here either (think newspaper press for instance). — Christoph Päper 09:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Math for calculating A sizes

To "prove" the area of the A series is based on meters squared, it might be nice to include the math behind it with unrounded numbers. For A0, the width and height are given by:

1000 / (2 ^ (1 / 4)) = 840.8964153...

1000 * (2 ^ (1 / 4)) = 1189.207115...

840.8964153... x 1189.207115... = 1000000

So while the rounded size of A4 at 210x297mm has an area of 62370mm and a ratio of 1.414285714..., the math-defined size is 210.2241038... by 297.3017788... mm, is an area of 62500 and a ratio of 1.414213562... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.185.176 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Paper size. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.afandpa.org/paper.aspx?id=511
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dimensionsguide.com/junior-legal-paper-size/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Tablet terminology

I think the section tablet sizes in the main article should be renamed to notepad sizes. The term tablet is misleading for some parts of the non-English-speaking world that use simple English for communication, where, the term tablet means either a medicine tablet (common meaning) or a tablet computer (specialized meaning). The paper tablet is always called a notepad or a writing pad, never a tablet. Vedabit (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

content from papermaking article

papermaking used to have a large section about paper sizes, which I assume existed before this article, paper sizes, was created. For the sake of reference and if someone finds something that should be incorporated, I am pasting the content removed from papermaking, and leaving a redirect to this page. YamaPlos talk 22:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Folio

Main article: Folio (printing)

In the beginning of Western papermaking, paper size was fairly standard. A page of paper is referred to as a leaf. When a leaf was printed on without being folded, the size was referred to as folio (meaning leaf). It was roughly equal to the size of a small newspaper sheet. ("Folio" can also refer to other sizes – see paper sizes.)

Quarto

Main article: Quarto

A Folio folded once produces two leaves (or four pages), and the size of these leaves was referred to as quarto (4to) (about 230 x 280 mm).

Octavo

Main article: Octavo

If the original sheet was folded in half again, the result was eight pages, referred to as octavo (8vo), which is roughly the size of an average modern novel. An octavo folding produces four leaves; the first two and the second two will be joined at the top by the first fold. The top edge is usually trimmed to make it possible to look freely at each side of the leaf. Sometimes books are found that have not been trimmed on the top, and these pages are referred to as unopened.

An octavo book produces a printing puzzle. The paper was first printed before folding and thus pages 8 and 1 are printed right-side-up on the bottom of the sheet, and pages 4 and 5 are printed upside-down on the top of the same side of the paper. On the opposite side, pages 2 and 7 are printed right-side-up on the bottom of the sheet, and pages 6 and 3 are printed upside-down on the top of the sheet. When the paper is folded twice and the folds trimmed, the pages fall into proper order.

Sixteen-mo

Smaller books are produced by folding the leaves again to produce 16 pages, known as a sixteen-mo (16mo) (originally sextodecimo). Other folding arrangements produce yet smaller books such as the thirty-two-mo (32mo) (duo et tricensimo).

Octavo bookbinding

When a standard-sized octavo book is produced by twice folding a large leaf, two leaves joined at the top will be contained in the resulting fold (which ends up in the gulley between the pages). This group of eight numberable pages is called a signature or a gathering. Traditionally, printed signatures were stacked on top of each other in a sewing frame and each signature was sewn through the inner fold to the signature on top of it. The sewing ran around leather bands or fabric tapes along the backs of the signatures to stabilize the pile of signatures. The leather bands originally used in the West to stabilize the backs of sewn books appear as a number of ridges under the leather on the spine of leather books. The ends of the leather strips or fabric bands were sewn or glued onto the cover boards and reinforced the hinging of the book in its covers.

Standardisation ISO sizes

While opinions and speculation abound on exact reasons for standardized paper sizes, the most revealing feature of popular sizes (such as Letter and ISO 216 sizes) is that they conform not to some arbitrary device dimension, but that the length of the paper is chosen to be the width of the page times the square root of two (≈1.414). This feature allowed for a large page to be cut in half and the resulting two pages to have the same aspect ratio as the original piece (just with half the size). Repeated cuts can be made to reduce the entire sheet to one size of pages without wasted paper. This format was formalized by ISO 216 however such logic dictated efficient paper sizes long before the ISO was created. For example, traditional 8.5"x11" Letter paper is within a few millimetres of A4 paper (ISO 216) dimensions. While paper sizes "may" have been chosen based on the size of original frames, the frames themselves were chosen to make page reduction efficient without distorting the aspect ratio of the pages regardless of final size chosen. Some paper sizes do not conform to this idea when specific applications are needed.

Foolscap

Sorry i have no account here and dont know how to add a new discussion thread. I found 3 different sizes for Paper size "Foolscap". What is correct? please investigate!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foolscap_folio http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-foolscap.htm

Compare this two pages with this article. 3 different sizes of foolscap. Is there no international ISO for or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.60.99 (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, foolscap has no "standard". Foolscap was a "common use" standard before nstandards were invented :-) , and thus was not standard at all. compare with historic "standards" for inch, foot, cubits, etc... YamaPlos talk 22:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Diagrams at Commons suggest more standards

• 
• 

I accidentally found these diagrams at commons, which suggest there was a separate soviet standard for paper sizes and a (proprietary?) J series with golden ratio for A-series sides. — Christoph Päper 09:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If I understand the diagram correctly, the SU standard (GOST?) was the same as the A series but used numeric designations. If there was reliable source, it should be included.

Unsourced former Soviet standard designations

ISO	GOST?	Size	Aspect ratio
A1	24	594 mm × 840 mm	1:√2 = 2√2:4	0.707	1.414
–	23	594 mm × 630 mm	⅔√2:1 = 2√2:3	0.943	1.061
A2	22	594 mm × 420 mm	√2:1 = 2√2:2	1.414	0.707
(A5×4)	21	594 mm × 210 mm	2√2:1	2.828	0.354
(A4×4)	14	297 mm × 840 mm ?	1:2√2 = ¼√2:1 = 1√2:4	0.354	2.828
(A4×3)	13	297 mm × 630 mm ?	2:3√2 = ⅓√2:1 = 1√2:3	0.471	2.121
A3	12	297 mm × 420 mm	1:√2 = ½√2:1 = 1√2:2	0.707	1.414
A4	11	297 mm × 210 mm	√2:1 = 1√2:1	1.414	0.707

I’m less sure about that “J series”, which is the A series cut to the Golden ratio. The file description says it was “created by contemporary artist Joshua Bryan”, so perhaps WP:OR. The sizes provided therein are wrong for J4 and J5, though.

Unsourced J series with Golden ratio

Designation	Short side	Long side
A0	841 mm ×	1189 mm
J0	735 mm ×
A1	594 mm ×	841 mm
J1	520 mm ×
A2	420 mm ×	594 mm
J2	368 mm ×
A3	297 mm ×	420 mm
J3	260 mm ×
A4	210 mm ×	297 mm
J4	179 184 mm ×
A5	148 mm ×	210 mm
J5	123 130 mm ×

We could include a table showing the A series cut to various popular aspect ratios, of course, but I don’t see how that’s very useful.

A series cut to common aspect ratios with minimal loss (the long side is cut for 4:3, otherwise the short side)

Ratio	9:16 (0.5625)	3:5 = 9:15 (0.6)	1:φ (0.618…)	5:8 = 10:16 (0.625)	2:3 (0.6)	1:√2 (0.707…)	Base	4:3 (1.3)
Designation			J?			A
0	669	713	735	743	793	841	1189	1121
1	473	505	520	526	561	595	841	793
2	334	356	367	371	396	420	594	560
3	236	252	260	263	280	297	420	396
4	167	178	184	186	198	210	297	280
5	118	126	130	131	140	148	210	197

— Christoph Päper 09:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

They could be from ЕСКД ГОСТ 2.301-68 (= ESKD GOST 2301:1968). A Russian site says the designations of those longish formats are not purely numeric, but the ISO label followed by an ‘x’ (possibly multiplication sign ‘×’ actually) and the factor, e.g. DIN 2A0 = GOST A0x2, but DIN 4A0 ≠ GOST A0x4, also listed are: A0×3, A1×3, A1×4, A2×3–A2×5, A3×3–A3×7, A4×3–A4×9. I’ve added the resulting names to the first table where possible and necessary. Note that …×1 and …×2 usually would be aliases for existing formats.

ОСТ 5115 and ГОСТ 9327-60 seem related. The latter lists formats down to A13, B12 and C8 and also specifies ½, ¼ and ⅛ prefixes for halving the shorter side (repeatedly), e.g. ½A4 = 105 mm × 297 mm. — Christoph Päper 01:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Russian version of this article now includes a table similar to the following.

Russian/Soviet formats with multiplied shorter side (mm×mm)

n	(×1)	×2	×3	×4	×5	×6
A0	841×1189	1682×1189	2523×1189	3364×1189	4204×1189	5045×1189
A1	594×841	= A0	1784×841	2378×841	2973×841	3568×841
A2	420×594	= A1	1261×595	1682×595	2102×595	2523×595
A3	297×420	= A2	892×420	1189×420	1487×420	1784×420
A4	210×297	= A3	631×297	841×297	1051×297	1261×297
A5	148×210	= A4	446×210	595×210	743×210	892×210

The Soviet/GOST 2-digit codes are obviously based upon A4 = 11: The first digit is the factor the longer side (297 mm) is multiplied by and the second digit is the one for the shorter side (210 mm), so “23” is 2×297 mm × 3×210 mm = 594 mm × 630 mm, which cannot occur in the table above. — Christoph Päper 16:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The "11", "12" etc. designations come from the earlier Soviet standard GOST 3450-60 (where "60" stands for the year 1960). It's described here. Despite it being formally adopted for just eight years, in practice it was very widely used for much longer time until people finally were forced to use the international designations. Some older people still call A4 "the eleventh format". Hellerick (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I've now incorporated this into the article. @Hellerick: It would be great if someone else could fact-check it. — Christoph Päper 16:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's correct, but I'm not sure whether the format "23" was used in practice. Probably it would be better to use "24" instead. And maybe it's worth of noting that the standard was specifying the sizes of mechanical drawings, not just generic paper sizes. Hellerick (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paper size. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://home.comcast.net/~tamivox/dave/IntlPaper/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723180944/http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/ps/5003.PPD_Spec_v4.3.pdf to http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/ps/5003.PPD_Spec_v4.3.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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong dimensions for DL and DLE Format

DL and DLE sizes are not correct. The wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envelope#International_standard_sizes seems to list the correct size for the DL format.

I am hesitant to edit the page itself because I am not able to verify the supposedly correct values against the authoritative standard that defines them (paywalled; ergo mistakes like this). However, numerous online sources converge towards a common size for both DL and DLE, neither of which corresponds with the value mentioned in this article.

How should this issue be resolved?

31.203.178.78 (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Note for those looking for the supposidly correct values, they are 110 x 220mm for DL and 114 x 225mm for DLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.203.178.78 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I just checked DIN 678-1:1998: For envelopes, it lists uncommon DL (110 × 220), C6/C5 (114 × 229) and E4 (280 × 400) alongside C6, C5, C4, B6, B5, B4. For inserts, it mentions the unnamed format 105 x 210, which results from folding according to DIN 676, as usual for DL and C6/C5, while the C and B envelopes usually contain the respective A and C formats, respectively, i.e. B envelopes are intended for return envelopes. E4 holds B4.

DIN 680:2008, the German standard for envelopes with address window (90 × 45 or 55), only covers DL, C6/C5, C6, C5, C4, because these are the envelope sizes intended for letters printed on A-series paper (and not other envelopes).

DIN 676:1995 has been incorporated in and replaced by DIN 5008:2011 (section 16). It requires the A4 paper format for office letters. There are two variants, A and B (to accommodate different letter heads), for folding the paper sheets twice, but both result in an insert 105 millimeters tall (and unfolded 210 millimeters wide, i.e. 1:2 aspect ratio).

I did not find any mention of "DLE" in German standards. It apparently stands for "DL Envelope", which is really just DL and thus 110 by 220 millimeters. The size 99 by 210 millimeters currently labeled as "DL" is 1/3 A4, which is not how A4 letters are folded according to German standards. As mentioned above, the insert size resulting from standard office letter folding rules is 105 millimeters tall. I will now update the article accordingly.  Done — Christoph Päper 10:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

US Letter paper's ratio is almost exactly φ*4/5

The article currently says "The origins of the exact dimensions of Letter size paper (8 1⁄2 in × 11 in or 216 mm × 279 mm) are lost in tradition and not well documented." As I mentioned some years ago at Talk:Letter_(paper_size)#Origins, Letter paper's aspect ratio is almost exactly four fifths of the golden ratio (which is itself (1+√(5))/2 ). The difference between φ*4/5 and 11/8.5 is only about 0.0003. I'm not sure where one would find a source proving this was deliberate, but it seems so unlikely to be mere unintentional coincidence that it deserves some sort of acknowledgement, at least something like "It is not known whether the close (about 99.9761%) match to four fifths of the golden ratio was intentional". Likely related: US Legal's ratio is within 2% of φ itself, as 14" is the closest half-inch step of height to match that ratio, for a width set to 8½". —Undomelin (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

PWG 5101.1

IEEE's Printer Working Group (PWG) publishes a freely available standard, PWG 5101.1, which includes media sizes that printer manufacturers should support. I repeat the tables provided therein below for convenient reference. — Christoph Päper 12:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

North American Sheet Media Sizes

Legacy Name	Alias (common name)	Self-Describing Name (inches)	Localized Name	Width	Height	Covered
	index-3x5	na_index-3x5_3x5in	3 x 5"	3 in	5 in	Yes
	personal (envelope)	na_personal_3.625x6.5in	Personal Envelope	3.625 in	6.5 in	No
monarchenvelope		na_monarch_3.875x7.5in	Monarch Envelope	3.875 in	7.5 in	No
na-number-9-envelope		na_number-9_3.875x8.875in	#9 Envelope	3.875 in	8.875 in	No
	index-4x6 (postcard)	na_index-4x6_4x6in	4 x 6"	4 in	6 in	Yes
na-number10-envelope	comm-10 (envelope)	na_number-10_4.125x9.5in	#10 Envelope	4.125 in	9.5 in	No
	a2 (envelope)	na_a2_4.375x5.75in	A2 Envelope	4.375 in	5.75 in	No
	number-11 (envelope)	na_number-11_4.5x10.375in	#11 Envelope	4.5 in	10.375 in	No
	number-12 (envelope)	na_number-12_4.75x11in	#12 Envelope	4.75 in	11 in	No
	5x7	na_5x7_5x7in	5 x 7"	5 in	7 in	Dukes
	index-5x8	na_index-5x8_5x8in	5 x 8"	5 in	8 in	Yes
	number-14 (envelope)	na_number-14_5x11.5in	#14 Envelope	5 in	11.5 in	No
invoice	statement, mini, half-letter	na_invoice_5.5x8.5in	Statement	5.5 in	8.5 in	Half Letter, Memo
	index-4x6-ext	na_index-4x6-ext_6x8in	6 x 8"	6 in	8 in	No
na-6x9-envelope	6x9 (envelope)	na_6x9_6x9in	6 x 9"	6 in	9 in	No
	c5 (envelope)	na_c5_6.5x9.5in	C5 Envelope	6.5 in	9.5 in	No
na-7x9-envelope	7x9 (envelope)	na_7x9_7x9in	7 x 9"	7 in	9 in	Imperial
executive		na_executive_7.25x10.5in	US Executive	7.25 in	10.5 in	Executive, Monarch
na-8x10	governmentletter	na_govt-letter_8x10in	8 x 10"	8 in	10 in	8 * 10.5, Quarto
	governmentlegal	na_govt-legal_8x13in	8 x 13"	8 in	13 in	8.5 * 13, Foolscap
quarto		na_quarto_8.5x10.83in	Quarto	8.5 in	10.83 in	8 * 10, 9 * 11
na-letter	letter, a, engineering-a	na_letter_8.5x11in	US Letter	8.5 in	11 in	Yes
	fanfold-european	na_fanfold-eur_8.5x12in	European Fanfold	8.5 in	12 in	Fanfold 12 × 8.5
	letter-plus	na_letter-plus_8.5x12.69in	US Letter (Plus)	8.5 in	12.69 in	No
	foolscap, german-legalfanfold	na_foolscap_8.5x13in	Foolscap	8.5 in	13 in	F4
	oficio	na_oficio_8.5x13.4in	Oficio (Mexico)	8.5 in	13.4 in	216 mm * 340 mm
na-legal	legal	na_legal_8.5x14in	US Legal	8.5 in	14 in	Yes
	super-a	na_super-a_8.94x14in	8.94 x 14"	8.94 in	14 in	No
na-9x11-envelope	9x11 (envelope), letter-tab	na_9x11_9x11in	9 x 11"	9 in	11 in	No
arch-a	architecture-a (envelope)	na_arch-a_9x12in	9 x 12"	9 in	12 in	Yes
	letter-extra	na_letter-extra_9.5x12in	US Letter (Extra)	9.5 in	12 in	No
	legal-extra	na_legal-extra_9.5x15in	US Legal (Extra)	9.5 in	15 in	No
	10x11	na_10x11_10x11in	10 x 11"	10 in	11 in	No
na-10x13-envelope	10x13 (envelope)	na_10x13_10x13in	10 x 13" Envelope	10 in	13 in	No
na-10x14-envelope	10x14 (envelope)	na_10x14_10x14in	10 x 14" Envelope	10 in	14 in	No
na-10x15-envelope	10x15 (envelope)	na_10x15_10x15in	10 x 15" Envelope	10 in	15 in	No
	11x12	na_11x12_11x12in	11 x 12"	11 in	12 in	No
	edp	na_edp_11x14in	11 x 14"	11 in	14 in	No
	fanfold-us	na_fanfold-us_11x14.875in	US Fanfold	11 in	14.875 in	US Std Fanfold
	11x15	na_11x15_11x15in	11 x 15"	11 in	15 in	No
tabloid	ledger, b, engineering-b	na_ledger_11x17in	11 x 17"	11 in	17 in	ANSI B
	european-edp	na_eur-edp_12x14in	12 x 14"	12 in	14 in	No
arch-b	architecture-b, tabloid-extra	na_arch-b_12x18in	12 x 18"	12 in	18 in	Yes
	12x19	na_12x19_12x19in	12 x 19"	12 in	19 in	No
	b-plus	na_b-plus_12x19.17in	12 x 19 1/6"	12 in	19.17 in	No
	super-b	na_super-b_13x19in	13 x 19"	13 in	19 in	A3+, Super B
c	engineering-c	na_c_17x22in	17 x 22"	17 in	22 in	ANSI C
arch-c	architecture-c	na_arch-c_18x24in	18 x 24"	18 in	24 in	Yes
d	engineering-d	na_d_22x34in	22 x 34"	22 in	34 in	ANSI D
arch-d	architecture-d	na_arch-d_24x36in	24 x 36"	24 in	36 in	Yes
f	e1	asme_f_28x40in	28 x 40"	28 in	40 in	Engineering F
	wide-format	na_wide-format_30x42in	30 x 42"	30 in	42 in	Arch E 1
e	engineering-e	na_e_34x44in	34 x 44"	34 in	44 in	ANSI E
arch-e	architecture-e	na_arch-e_36x48in	36 x 48"	36 in	48 in	Yes
	f, engineering-f	na_f_44x68in	44 x 68"	44 in	68 in	Maybe

ISO Sheet Media Sizes

Legacy Name	Alias (common name)	Self-Describing Name (mm)	Localized Name	Width	Height	Covered
iso-a10	a10	iso_a10_26x37mm	A10	26 mm	37 mm	Yes
iso-a9	a9	iso_a9_37x52mm	A9	37 mm	52 mm	Yes
iso-a8	a8	iso_a8_52x74mm	A8	52 mm	74 mm	Yes
iso-a7	a7	iso_a7_74x105mm	A7	74 mm	105 mm	Yes
iso-a6	a6	iso_a6_105x148mm	A6	105 mm	148 mm	Yes
iso-a5	a5	iso_a5_148x210mm	A5	148 mm	210 mm	Yes
	a5-extra	iso_a5-extra_174x235mm	A5 (Extra)	174 mm	235 mm	Maybe
iso-a4	a4	iso_a4_210x297mm	A4	210 mm	297 mm	Yes
	a4-tab	iso_a4-tab_225x297mm	A4 (Tab)	225 mm	297 mm	No
	a4-extra	iso_a4-extra_235.5x322.3mm	A4 (Extra)	235.5 mm	322.3 mm	No
iso-a3	a3	iso_a3_297x420mm	A3	297 mm	420 mm	Yes
iso-a4x3, a4x3		iso_a4x3_297x630mm	A4x3	297 mm	630 mm	Yes
iso-a4x4, a4x4		iso_a4x4_297x841mm	A4x4	297 mm	841 mm	Yes
iso-a4x5, a4x5		iso_a4x5_297x1051mm	A4x5	297 mm	1051 mm	Yes
iso-a4x6, a4x6		iso_a4x6_297x1261mm	A4x6	297 mm	1261 mm	Yes
iso-a4x7, a4x7		iso_a4x7_297x1471mm	A4x7	297 mm	1471 mm	Maybe
iso-a4x8, a4x8		iso_a4x8_297x1682mm	A4x8	297 mm	1682 mm	Maybe
iso-a4x9, a4x9		iso_a4x9_297x1892mm	A4x9	297 mm	1892 mm	Maybe
iso-a3-extra		iso_a3-extra_322x445mm	A3 (Extra)	322 mm	445 mm	No
iso-a2	a2	iso_a2_420x594mm	A2	420 mm	594 mm	Yes
iso-a3x3, a3x3		iso_a3x3_420x891mm	A3x3	420 mm	891 mm	Yes
iso-a3x4, a3x4		iso_a3x4_420x1189mm	A3x4	420 mm	1189 mm	Yes
iso-a3x5, a3x5		iso_a3x5_420x1486mm	A3x5	420 mm	1486 mm	Yes
iso-a3x6, a3x6		iso_a3x6_420x1783mm	A3x6	420 mm	1783 mm	Yes
iso-a3x7, a3x7		iso_a3x7_420x2080mm	A3x7	420 mm	2080 mm	Maybe
iso-a1	a1	iso_a1_594x841mm	A1	594 mm	841 mm	Yes
iso-a2x3, a2x3		iso_a2x3_594x1261mm	A2x3	594 mm	1261 mm	Yes
iso-a2x4, a2x4		iso_a2x4_594x1682mm	A2x4	594 mm	1682 mm	Yes
iso-a2x5, a2x5		iso_a2x5_594x2102mm	A2x5	594 mm	2102 mm	Yes
iso-a0	a0	iso_a0_841x1189mm	A0	841 mm	1189 mm	Yes
iso-a1x3, a1x3		iso_a1x3_841x1783mm	A1x3	841 mm	1783 mm	Yes
iso-a1x4, a1x4		iso_a1x4_841x2378mm	A1x4	841 mm	2378 mm	Yes
a0x2	2a0	iso_2a0_1189x1682mm	A0x2	1189 mm	1682 mm	Yes
a0x3		iso_a0x3_1189x2523mm	A0x3	1189 mm	2523 mm	Yes
iso-b10	b10	iso_b10_31x44mm	B10	31 mm	44 mm	Yes
iso-b9	b9	iso_b9_44x62mm	B9	44 mm	62 mm	Yes
iso-b8	b8	iso_b8_62x88mm	B8	62 mm	88 mm	Yes
iso-b7	b7	iso_b7_88x125mm	B7	88 mm	125 mm	Yes
iso-b6	b6 (envelope)	iso_b6_125x176mm	B6 Envelope	125 mm	176 mm	Yes
	b6/c4 (envelope)	iso_b6c4_125x324mm	B6/C4 Envelope	125 mm	324 mm	No
iso-b5	b5 (envelope)	iso_b5_176x250mm	B5 Envelope	176 mm	250 mm	Yes
	b5-extra	iso_b5-extra_201x276mm	B5 (Extra)	201 mm	276 mm	No
iso-b4	b4 (envelope)	iso_b4_250x353mm	B4 Envelope	250 mm	353 mm	Yes
iso-b3	b3	iso_b3_353x500mm	B3	353 mm	500 mm	Yes
iso-b2	b2	iso_b2_500x707mm	B2	500 mm	707 mm	Yes
iso-b1	b1	iso_b1_707x1000mm	B1	707 mm	1000 mm	Yes
iso-b0	b0	iso_b0_1000x1414mm	B0	1000 mm	1414 mm	Yes
	c10 (envelope)	iso_c10_28x40mm	C10 Envelope	28 mm	40 mm	Yes
	c9 (envelope)	iso_c9_40x57mm	C9 Envelope	40 mm	57 mm	Yes
iso-c8	c8 (envelope)	iso_c8_57x81mm	C8 Envelope	57 mm	81 mm	Yes
iso-c7	c7 (envelope)	iso_c7_81x114mm	C7 Envelope	81 mm	114 mm	Yes
	c7/c6 (envelope)	iso_c7c6_81x162mm	C7/C6 Envelope	81 mm	162 mm	Maybe
iso-c6	c6 (envelope)	iso_c6_114x162mm	C6 Envelope	114 mm	162 mm	Yes
	c6/c5 (envelope)	iso_c6c5_114x229mm	C6/C5 Envelope	114 mm	229 mm	Yes
iso-c5	c5 (envelope)	iso_c5_162x229mm	C5 Envelope	162 mm	229 mm	Yes
iso-c4	c4 (envelope)	iso_c4_229x324mm	C4 Envelope	229 mm	324 mm	Yes
iso-c3	c3 (envelope)	iso_c3_324x458mm	C3 Envelope	324 mm	458 mm	Yes
iso-c2	c2 (envelope)	iso_c2_458x648mm	C2 Envelope	458 mm	648 mm	Yes
iso-c1	c1 (envelope)	iso_c1_648x917mm	C1 Envelope	648 mm	917 mm	Yes
iso-c0	c0 (envelope)	iso_c0_917x1297mm	C0 Envelope	917 mm	1297 mm	Yes
isodesignated	designated-long, dl (envelope)	iso_dl_110x220mm	DL Envelope	110 mm	220 mm	Yes
iso-ra4		iso_ra4_215x305mm	RA4	215 mm	305 mm	Yes
iso-sra4		iso_sra4_225x320mm	SRA4	225 mm	320 mm	Yes
iso-ra3		iso_ra3_305x430mm	RA3	305 mm	430 mm	Yes
iso-sra3		iso_sra3_320x450mm	SRA3	320 mm	450 mm	Yes
iso-ra2		iso_ra2_430x610mm	RA2	430 mm	610 mm	Yes
iso-sra2		iso_sra2_450x640mm	SRA2	450 mm	640 mm	Yes
iso-ra1		iso_ra1_610x860mm	RA1	610 mm	860 mm	Yes
iso-sra1		iso_sra1_640x900mm	SRA1	640 mm	900 mm	Yes
iso-ra0		iso_ra0_860x1220mm	RA0	860 mm	1220 mm	Yes
iso-sra0		iso_sra0_900x1280mm	SRA0	900 mm	1280 mm	Yes

Other Metric Sheet Media Sizes

Legacy Name	Alias (common name)	Self-Describing Name (mm)	Localized Name	Width	Height	Covered
	small-photo	om_small-photo_100x150mm	100 x 150mm	100 mm	150 mm	No
		om_wide-photo_100x200mm	100 x 200mm	100 mm	200 mm	No
	Italian (envelope)	om_italian_110x230mm	Italian Envelope	110 mm	230 mm	No
	Postfix (envelope)	om_postfix_114x229mm	Postfix Envelope	114 mm	229 mm	iso_c6c5_114x229mm
	medium-photo	om_medium-photo_130x180mm	120 x 180mm	130 mm	180 mm	No
	large-photo	om_large-photo_200x300	200 x 300mm	200 mm	300 mm	No
folio		om_folio_210x330mm	Folio	210 mm	330 mm	F4
	folio-sp	om_folio-sp_215x315mm	Folio (Special)	215 mm	315 mm	No
	Invite (envelope)	om_invite_220x220mm	Invitation Envelope	220 mm	220 mm	No

Japanese Sheet Media Sizes

Legacy Name	Alias (common name)	Self-Describing Name (mm)	Localized Name	Width	Height	Covered
jis-b10		jis_b10_32x45mm	JIS B10	32 mm	45 mm	Yes
jis-b9		jis_b9_45x64mm	JIS B9	45 mm	64 mm	Yes
jis-b8		jis_b8_64x91mm	JIS B8	64 mm	91 mm	Yes
jis-b7		jis_b7_91x128mm	JIS B7	91 mm	128 mm	Yes
jis-b6		jis_b6_128x182mm	JIS B6	128 mm	182 mm	Yes
jis-b5		jis_b5_182x257mm	JIS B5	182 mm	257 mm	Yes
jis-b4		jis_b4_257x364mm	JIS B4	257 mm	364 mm	Yes
jis-b3		jis_b3_364x515mm	JIS B3	364 mm	515 mm	Yes
jis-b2		jis_b2_515x728mm	JIS B2	515 mm	728 mm	Yes
jis-b1		jis_b1_728x1030mm	JIS B1	728 mm	1030 mm	Yes
jis-b0		jis_b0_1030x1456mm	JIS B0	1030 mm	1456 mm	Yes
	exec	jis_exec_216x330mm	JIS Executive	216 mm	330 mm	na_foolscap_8.5x13in
	kaku2 (envelope)	jpn_kaku2_240x332mm	Kakugata 2 Envelope	240 mm	332 mm	No
		jpn_kaku3_216x277mm	Kakugata 3 Envelope	216 mm	277 mm	No
		jpn_kaku4_197x267mm	Kakugata 4 Envelope	197 mm	267 mm	No
		jpn_kaku5_190x240mm	Kakugata 5 Envelope	190 mm	240 mm	No
		jpn_kaku7_142x205mm	Kakugata 7 Envelope	142 mm	205 mm	No
		jpn_kaku8_119x197mm	Kakugata 8 Envelope	119 mm	197 mm	No
	chou4 (envelope)	jpn_chou4_90x205mm	Chou 4 Envelope	90 mm	205 mm	No
	hagaki (postcard)	jpn_hagaki_100x148mm	Hagaki	100 mm	148 mm	No
	you4 (envelope)	jpn_you4_105x235mm	You 4 Envelope	105 mm	235 mm	No
	you6 (envelope)	jpn_you6_98x190mm	You 6 Envelope	98 mm	190 mm	No
	chou2 (envelope)	jpn_chou2_111.1x146mm	Chou 2 Envelope	111.1 mm	146 mm	No
	chou3 (envelope)	jpn_chou3_120x235mm	Chou 3 Envelope	120 mm	235 mm	No
		jpn_chou40_90x225mm	Chou 40 Envelope	90 mm	225 mm	No
	oufuku (reply postcard)	jpn_oufuku_148x200mm	Oufuku Reply Postcard	148 mm	200 mm	No
	kahu (envelope)	jpn_kahu_240x322.1mm	Kahu Envelope	240 mm	322.1 mm	No

Chinese Sheet Media Sizes

Legacy Name	Alias (common name)	Self-Describing Name (mm)	Localized Name	Width	Height	Covered
	prc-32k	prc_32k_97x151mm	Chinese 32k	97 mm	151 mm	No
	prc1 (envelope)	prc_1_102x165mm	Chinese #1 Envelope	102 mm	165 mm	No
	prc2 (envelope)	prc_2_102x176mm	Chinese #2 Envelope	102 mm	176 mm	No
	prc4 (envelope)	prc_4_110x208mm	Chinese #4 Envelope	110 mm	208 mm	No
	prc8 (envelope)	prc_8_120x309mm	Chinese #8 Envelope	120 mm	309 mm	No
	prc6 (envelope)	prc_6_120x320mm	Chinese #6 Envelope	120 mm	320 mm	No
	prc3 (envelope)	prc_3_125x176mm	Chinese #3 Envelope	125 mm	176 mm	No
	prc-16k	prc_16k_146x215mm	Chinese 16k	146 mm	215 mm	No
	prc7 (envelope)	prc_7_160x230mm	Chinese #7 Envelope	160 mm	230 mm	No
	juuro-ku-kai	om_juuro-ku-kai_198x275mm	Chinese 4k (Large)	198 mm	275 mm	No
	pa-kai	om_pa-kai_267x389mm	Chinese 16k (Large)	267 mm	389 mm	No
	dai-pa-kai	om_dai-pa-kai_275x395mm	Chinese 8k (Large)	275 mm	395 mm	No
	prc10 (envelope)	prc_10_324x458mm	Chinese #10 Envelope	324 mm	458 mm	No
	roc-16k	roc_16k_7.75x10.75in	ROC 16k	7.75 in	10.75 in	No
	roc-8k	roc_8k_10.75x15.5in	ROC 8k	10.75 in	15.5 in	No

Inconsistent Map and Article

The article claims: "In Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, Venezuela, Chile, and the Philippines, the US letter format is still in common use, despite their official adoption of the ISO standard." but the map shows a bunch of those countries using the US system. I'm not sure which is correct so don't want to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.173.200 (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional sizes

Apparently, IBM's Content Manager or document archival system OnDemand recognizes additional "paper sizes and dimensions" that can be written into metadata fields. I'm not sure where they come from and whether they should be added to the article. Some are apparently fanfold sizes for their IBM 1403 and IBM 3800 printers. — Christoph Päper 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

IBM name	Dimensions	Notes
Quarto	215 × 275 mm	article has 8 × 10 in (UK) and 9 × 11 in (US) for Quarto
Euro Fanfold	250 × 340 mm
Short	8½ × 10½ in	shortened Letter (11 in)
Wide	14 × 11 in
Narrow	10 × 14 in
Stationery	8 × 10 in	= Quarto (UK)
3800N	8½ × 10 in	shortened Letter (11 in)
3800NS	11½ × 7½ in
3800WS	13½ × 7½ in
3800W	13½ × 10 in
1403W	13½ × 11 in
1403WS	13½ × 8½ in	shortened Legal (14 in) landscape-oriented
Executive 1	7 × 10½ in
Executive 2	7¼ × 10½ in	= Executive (Imperial) in article
Executive 3	7½ × 10½ in
Cut Sheet	17 × 22 in	= ANSI C = double Ledger or Tabloid

Microsoft also supports some extra sizes, some of which agree with IBM above. — Christoph Päper 16:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Meaning	Dimensions	Notes
Quarto	215 × 275 mm	same as IBM
US Executive	7¼ × 10½ in	same as IBM's Executive #2
US Note	8½ × 11 in	= Letter
US Standard Fanfold	14⅞ × 11 in	probably based upon Letter or Ledger
German Standard Fanfold	8½ × 12 in	ISO RA4?
German Legal Fanfold	8½ × 13 in	misnomer? same as Government Legal
10x14	10 × 14 in	probably based upon Legal
9x11	9 × 11 in	probably based upon Letter or Ledger
10x11	10 × 11 in
12x11	12 × 11 in
15x11	15 × 11 in
11x17	11 × 17 in	= ANSI B, Ledger, Tabloid
US Tabloid Extra	11.69 × 18 in (297 × 457 mm)	Tabloid = 11 × 17 in, A3 = 297 × 420 mm
US Legal Extra	9½ × 15 in	Legal = 8½ × 14 in
US Letter Extra	9½ × 12 in	Letter = 8½ × 11 in
US Letter Plus	8½ × 12.69 in (216 × 322 mm)
A4 Extra	9.27 × 12.69 in (235 × 322 mm)	A4 = 210 × 297 mm, metric foolscap folio (F4) = 210 × 330 mm
A4 Plus	210 × 330 mm
A+/SuperA/SuperA/A4	227 × 356 mm (8.95 × 14 in)
B+/SuperB/SuperB/A3	305 × 487 mm (12 × 19.2 in)	A3 = 297 × 420 mm
A3 Extra	322 × 445 mm
B5 Extra	201 × 276 mm	B5 = 176 × 250 mm (ISO) or 182 × 257 mm (JIS)
A5 Extra	174 × 235 mm	A5 = 148 × 210 mm
PRC 16K	146 × 215 mm (5¾ × 8½ in)	188 × 260 mm in article, A5 = 148 × 210
PRC 32K	97 × 151 mm	130 × 184 mm in article

Most Extra sizes are the base sizes increased by 1 in or 25 mm in each direction.

Envelopes and postcards

Meaning	Dimensions	Notes
US Envelope 6¾ (Personal)	3⅝ × 6½ in
US Envelope Monarch	3⅞ × 7½ in
US Envelope #9	3⅞ × 8⅞ in
US Envelope #10	4⅛ × 9½ in
US Envelope #11	4½ × 10⅜ in
US Envelope #12	4¾ × 11 in
US Envelope #14	5 × 11½ in
Japanese Postcard	100 × 148 mm	A6 = 105 × 148
Japanese Double Postcard	200 × 148 mm	A5 = 210 × 148
PRC Envelope #1	102 × 165 mm
PRC Envelope #2	102 × 176 mm	B6 = 125 × 176
PRC Envelope #3	125 × 176 mm
PRC Envelope #4	110 × 208 mm
PRC Envelope #5	110 × 220 mm	= DL
Envelope Invite	220 × 220 mm	double DL or square DL
Italian Envelope	110 × 230 mm	10 mm longer than DL
PRC Envelope #6	120 × 230 mm
PRC Envelope #7	160 × 230 mm	C5 = 162 × 229
PRC Envelope #8	120 × 309 mm
PRC Envelope #9	229 × 324 mm	= C4
PRC Envelope #10	324 × 458 mm	= C3

PS: I'm an idiot. Almost all of this is already covered in the section above, which I wrote. — Christoph Päper 16:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

International paper sizes section: Move ISO sizes table up?

I suggest moving the Overview: ISO paper sizes table up to near the top of the section, perhaps to after "...several extensions" and before "The following international...". Any reason not to? I imagine many readers come to this article for handy information about (for example) how big a sheet of A3 is, rather than for the history and formulas. Cheers - --Frans Fowler (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

About to perform two tasks:

1. standardized naming (i.e. /Archive_1 instead of /Archive1)
2. autoarchival bot instructions

 Done CapnZapp (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Loose sizes

The ISO 216 article referred to this heading -- I moved it out to "NA paper sizes", since that is what it is about. But can anyone explain what "loose sizes" even means?? These seem to be the common sizes; how is this "loose"? Imaginatorium (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Arch metric conversions

The values given for metric in the current table are not exactly matching those for inches, e.g. Arch D is given as 24 × 36 in² and 610 × 914 mm² while calculating (mm = in×2.54) would result in 609.6 × 914.4 mm². I wouldn't be surprised if the actual dimensions of plotters, papers etc. are actually the values stated in the current table (i.e., exact mm values) due to engineering practices but is there any source for that? I don't deem the current source and other "conversion" sites very credible in this regard (i.e., I think most copied from wikipedia if anything :)) and they are not unanimous anyway. --Stefantauner (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

ANSI F4

In the 1970s, ANSI almost introduced an approximated √2 ratio when a base size of 8½ in × 12 in, i. e. 1 inch taller than Letter/A, was briefly considered. It was labeled F4 in drafts due to its length of exactly one foot. At c. 216 mm × 305 mm it would have been slightly larger than ISO A4, 6 mm wider and 8 mm taller.

The series was intended to run from F9 = 1½ in × 2⅛ in through F0 = 34 in × 48 in. Its alternating aspect ratios 17:12 ≈ 1.417 and 24:17 ≈ 1.412 approximate √2 ≈ 1.414 very well. The standardization work was allegedly abandoned because the adoption of ISO sizes seemed more realistic at the time. 2A01:C22:B464:7B00:C8A3:872F:1C1E:DB30 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not know nor can I find any source to support this anecdotal claim. Can you provide anything?

However, the article already notes that the format RA4 from ISO 217 is very close to 8½ in × 12 in. I have compiled a comparison of the two series:

Alleged ANSI/ASME F series

ISO 217	mm × mm	US	mm × mm	in × in
RA0	860 × 1220	"F0"	864 × 1219	34 × 48
RA1	610 × 860	"F1"	610 × 864	24 × 34
RA2	430 × 610	"F2"	432 × 610	17 × 24
RA3	305 × 430	"F3"	305 × 432	12 × 17
RA4	215 × 305	"F4"	216 × 305	8½ × 12
RA5*	152 × 215	"F5"	152 × 216	6 × 8½
RA6*	107 × 152	"F6"	108 × 152	4¼ × 6
RA7*	76 × 107	"F7"	76 × 108	3 × 4¼
RA8*	53 × 76	"F8"	54 × 76	2⅛ × 3
RA9*	38 × 53	"F9"	38 × 54	1½ × 2⅛

RA sizes marked with an asterisk * are not mentioned in the ISO 217 article. — Christoph Päper 10:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Leaner table layout

Currently, tables with halving series have a lot of redundant data. Should this be reduced, e.g. as follows? — Christoph Päper 01:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

ISO 217 raw and ISO 5457 untrimmed sheet sizes

raw		special raw		untrimmed		trimmed		drawing area
RA0	1,220 mm (48 in)	SRA0	1,280 mm (50+1⁄2 in)	A0U	1,230 mm (48+1⁄2 in)	A0T	1,189 mm (46+3⁄4 in)	1,159 mm (45+3⁄4 in)
	860 mm (33+3⁄4 in)		900 mm (35+1⁄2 in)		880 mm (34+3⁄4 in)		841 mm (33 in)	811 mm (32 in)
RA1		SRA1		A1U		A1T
	610 mm (24 in)		640 mm (25+1⁄4 in)		625 mm (24+1⁄2 in)		594 mm (23+1⁄2 in)	564 mm (22+1⁄4 in)
RA2		SRA2		A2U		A2T
	430 mm (17 in)		450 mm (17+3⁄4 in)		450 mm (17+3⁄4 in)		420 mm (16+1⁄2 in)	390 mm (15+1⁄4 in)
RA3		SRA3		A3U		A3T
	305 mm (12 in)		320 mm (12+1⁄2 in)		330 mm (13 in)		297 mm (11+3⁄4 in)	277 mm (11 in)
RA4		SRA4		A4U		A4T
	215 mm (8+1⁄2 in)		225 mm (8+3⁄4 in)		240 mm (9+1⁄2 in)		210 mm (8+1⁄4 in)	180 mm (7 in)

ISO 217 overformats and ISO 5457 untrimmed sheet sizes

Format	R… series	SR… series	…U series	…T series	drawing area
A0	1,220 mm (48 in)	1,280 mm (50+1⁄2 in)	1,230 mm (48+1⁄2 in)	1,189 mm (46+3⁄4 in)	1,159 mm (45+3⁄4 in)
	860 mm (33+3⁄4 in)	900 mm (35+1⁄2 in)	880 mm (34+3⁄4 in)	841 mm (33 in)	811 mm (32 in)
A1
	610 mm (24 in)	640 mm (25+1⁄4 in)	625 mm (24+1⁄2 in)	594 mm (23+1⁄2 in)	564 mm (22+1⁄4 in)
A2
	430 mm (17 in)	450 mm (17+3⁄4 in)	450 mm (17+3⁄4 in)	420 mm (16+1⁄2 in)	390 mm (15+1⁄4 in)
A3
	305 mm (12 in)	320 mm (12+1⁄2 in)	330 mm (13 in)	297 mm (11+3⁄4 in)	277 mm (11 in)
A4
	215 mm (8+1⁄2 in)	225 mm (8+3⁄4 in)	240 mm (9+1⁄2 in)	210 mm (8+1⁄4 in)	180 mm (7 in)

Tabular Overview of ISO-like Sizes

This table would not be suitable for the article, but perhaps someone who disovers here on Talk will find it useful or insightful. Columns are roughly ordered by size (not strictly possible due to different rounding rules being applied). — Christoph Päper 12:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Informative compilation of all √2 series; only larger edges, only millimeters, some formats interpolated or assumed

n	OST бn	SAC Dn	DIN Dn	OST аn	An, AnT	RAn	NAn	SIS En	AnU	OST вn	SRAn	Cn	SIS Gn	Bn	JIS Bn	SIS Fn	SIS Dn	*Hn
0	1056	1064	1090	1152	1189	1220	1219	1242	1230	1256	1280	1297	1354	1414	1456	1477	1542	1610
1	747	760, 764	771	814	841	860	864	878	880	888	900	917	958	1000	1030	1044	1091	1139
2	528	528, 532	545	576	595	610	610	621	615	628	640	648	677	707	728	738	771	805
3	373	376, 380	385	407	420	430	432	439	440	444	450	459	479	500	515	522	545	569
4	264	260, 264	272	288	297	305	305	310	308	314	320	324	339	354	364	369	386	403
5	186	184, 188	192	203	210	215	216	220	220	222	225	229	239	250	257	261	273	285
6	132	126, 130	136	144	149	152	152	155	154	157	160	162	169	177	182	185	193	201
7	93	88, 92	96	101	105	107	108	110	110	111	112	115	120	125	128	131	136	142
8	66	59, 63	68	72	74	76	76	78	77	78	80	81	85	88	91	92	96	101
9	46	40, 44	48	50	53	53	54	55	55	55	56	57	60	63	64	65	68	71
10	33	25, 29	34	36	37	38	38	39	38	39	40	41	42	44	45	46	48	50
(11)	23	16, 20	24	25	26	26	27	27	27	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	36

Silver ratio

I was surprised this article didn't mention that ISO paper sizes use what's commonly known as the silver ratio. So I added this information and used a citation from the WP article Silver ratio (which is also known as the [[silver ratio]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.britishorigami.info/academic/lister/a4.php|title=The A4 rectangle|last=Lister|first=David|work=The Lister List|publisher=British Origami Society|location=England|accessdate=2020-04-12}}</ref>). The addition was reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paper_size&oldid=prev&diff=950655874) with the note "Origami reference contradicted by WP silver ratio (TW)". Why is that? I don't see the contradiction. Thanks, WikiWikiHigh (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article silver ratio says that it is equal to 1+√2:1, which is not the paper size ratio. (This is the contradiction.) Then it seems that the British Origami Society calls √2:1 paper a "silver rectangle", and there is a description by David Lister of how this name was made up in 1979. You say "commonly used", but do you have any evidence of use of the word "silver" outside the origami world? It certainly is not very common, or I think I would have heard of it, and the section Paper sizes and silver rectangles" says "sometimes called". The second half of this section is wrong/confused, and suggests the Kapusta reference is using a different definition of "silver rectangle". Given all this confusion, any addition to the paper sizes article needs to be very carefully written, and does not need to be very prominent, I think. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see also the Paper sizes and silver rectangles section of the WP article you linked, and the Application section of the ISO 216 WP article. Mere mention in this article wouldn't be "prominent". It's commonly known among designers, particularly Japanese architects (example, example). WikiWikiHigh (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? Can you do elementary arithmetic?

I clicked your first link and got " The silver ratio is quite similar, however, instead of being the total length of line (a+b) divided by the greater segment (a) that is equal to the division of the between the two segments (a and b), it’s the double of the greater segment added by the smaller segment (2a+b) divided by the greater segment (a) that is equal to the division of the between the two segments (a and b), resuming: . The value of this ratio is or, rounded, 1.414." This is gibberish, but seems to say the "silver ratio" is a/b when (2a+b)/a = (a/b). The writer can't do arithmetic, so gets the wrong answer: this actually gives the 1+√2:1 answer. But when you look at buildings, paintings, Rorschach blobs, or whatever, if you are happy to be selective you can find any ratio you want, somewhere. So this does not have any real significance in architecture or anything else. But be that as it may, before adding something, a numerate person needs to confirm that it makes sense. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? Can you do elementary arithmetic? I quit reading after these were your first two sentences. Please be WP:CIVIL and assume WP:GOODFAITH. WikiWikiHigh (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So you have no answer? I confess to being irritated to see an edit comment "Answer concerns", when what you wrote simply ignores everything I wrote. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Swedish extension to ISO sizes

The comparison image contradicts the text and table, listing in order of increasing size ...C F B G D... instead of ...C G B F D...; the reference matches the text, the image should be changed. 37.160.78.205 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

L, 2L, Cabinet and HV

My copy of Microsoft Word has a lot of (duplicate, redundant or unnecessary) predefined paper formats, most of which are described in this article. At least four formats, however, do not appear here.

Curious page sizes in MS Word (German locale)

Name	Nominal size	mm × mm	in × in	AR
L	89x127mm	88.9 × 127	3+1⁄2 × 5	10∶7
2L	127x178mm	127 × 177.8	5 × 7	7∶5
Cabinet	120x165mm	119.9 × 165.1	4+17⁄24 × 6+1⁄2	1.38
HV	101x180mm	101.1 × 180.1	4 × 7+1⁄12	16∶9

Can anyone provide more details about those sizes? — Christoph Päper 09:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: L and 2L are in fact mentioned for photo prints. The archives mention Cabinet kyabine as proper content for Japanese You 0 envelopes (197 mm × 136 mm). — Christoph Päper 09:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I have a Canon printer and these 4 sizes are listed for photo printing. I also found this HP website stating these are supported photo paper sizes. So I did some digging regarding photo prints.

Wikipedia has an article Cabinet card referring to a photograph style of size 108 by 165 (mm), it's a close approximation and is probably the origin of the Cabinet size. However I cannot find "HV photo paper" anywhere except in printer manuals. No documentation exists. Nor is there any photo paper supplier near me recognizes it. I'm guessing it either has a foreign name that got shortened to "HV" which no one actually uses in English; or it's a standard/brand so defunct that no living soul today remembers it. Maybe asking about these sizes in Photo print sizes could yield some result?

— VaslD (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

1/24 inch?

Why are the inch values in this article's tables given to the nearest 1/24 of an inch? Usually, inch fractions have a power of 2 as the denominator, e.g., 1/2, 3/4, 7/8, 5/16. 72.225.211.249 (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's what {{size}} uses by default.

The better question is why the article shows inches in the tables for metric formats at all. — Christoph Päper 15:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Describing the international paper sizes as "metric" is a bit of a travesty. As they all have an irrational aspect ratio, their dimensions are not going to be exact in any system of units (although they do have an exact area in square metres). Since the {{size}} template is only used in stationary and printing related articles, my guess is the 1/24 default is related to printing measurements being multiples and submultiples of 1/6 inch. A pica is 1/6 inch and a point is 1/12 pica. SpinningSpark 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

ISO B0 and B1 share a side that is exactly 1 meter long and the (nominal) area of An paper is ⁠1/n+1⁠ m². Sizes are exact to the millimeter. That is systematic. That is metric. This is not to say that, for instance, 20 cm by 30 cm paper couldn't also be considered "metric".

Your observation re {{size}} is basically true. For some approximations, thirds, sixths or twelfths make sense, even if 24ths may not. — Christoph Päper 09:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Size of 'Government Letter' format

The article is inconsistent on the description of the 'Government Letter' paper size. The text refers to a size of 8'×10.5' while the table gives 8'×10' as the size. It seems that the situation is complex and both entries are valid; this should be clarified. -- Lemzwerg (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

K confusion

@Crissov: The newly added section titled "K" is completely unsourced, and full of confusion. I suppose "K" is short for kiku ("chrysanthemum", 菊), and perhaps these sizes get referred to using "K", but is this a formal name? Then the shirokuban stuff is confused: shi-roku is literally "four-six", meaning "four-by-six" (sun), but it is not helpful to claim this is the name "46" (forty-six). Please can someone else look at this, and possibly this section would be better deleted unless it can be sourced. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, all information that can be found for these East-Asian sizes is messed up or confused, often neglecting them being source in historic Japanese units of measure. PWG 5101.1 has some of them (incl. juuro-ku-kai, pa-kai, dai-pa-kai), some metric and some (Taiwanese ones) inch-based.

I've mostly used auto-translated Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia pages (e.g. zh:紙張尺寸#中华民国（台湾）, ja:紙の寸法, ja:判型, ja:菊判 Chrysantemum/Kikuban, ja:四六判 Shirokoban, ja:B40, ja:封筒 envelopes), but those cannot be used as formal references. — Christoph Päper 09:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the PWG registry at IANA currently recognizes the following self-describing media size names related to East-Asian "K", sorted by size:

East-Asian "K" paper sizes in PWG 5101.1 with IANA-registered additions

Moniker	Size	mm  ×  mm	in  ×  in	aspect ratio
om_dai-pa-kai_275x395mm	#8K?	275 × 395	10+5⁄6 × 15+13⁄24	13∶9
roc_8k_10.75x15.5in	8K	273 × 394	10+3⁄4 × 15+1⁄2	13∶9
om_pa-kai_267x389mm	8K	267 × 389	10+1⁄2 × 15+1⁄3	1.46
jis_b4_257x364mm	B4	257 × 364	10+1⁄8 × 14+1⁄3	√2∶1
iso_b4_250x353mm	B4	250 × 353	9+5⁄6 × 13+11⁄12	√2∶1
om_juuro-ku-kai_198x275mm	16K	198 × 275	7+19⁄24 × 10+5⁄6	1.39
roc_16k_7.75x10.75in	16K	197 × 273	7+3⁄4 × 10+3⁄4	1.39
om_16k_195x270mm	16K	195 × 270	7+2⁄3 × 10+5⁄8	1.38
om_16k_184x260mm	16K	184 × 260	7+1⁄4 × 10+1⁄4	√2∶1
jis_b5_182x257mm	B5	182 × 257	7+1⁄6 × 10+1⁄8	√2∶1
iso_b5_176x250mm	B5	176 × 250	6+11⁄12 × 9+5⁄6	√2∶1
prc_16k_146x215mm	16K	146 × 215	5+3⁄4 × 8+11⁄24	1.47
prc_32k_97x151mm	32K	97 × 151	3+5⁄6 × 5+23⁄24	14∶9

There apparently is an open issue from 2015 saying that Dai-Pa-Kai and Pa-Kai might have been swapped, referring to them as Chinese localised 8k and 16k sizes, respectively. — Christoph Päper 13:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Date of the adoption of ISO sizes into the UK

The article cites 1959 as the date of the adoption of ISO sizes into the UK. That may be the sate of some bill or other (there is no citation), but as late as 1974 I was still purchasing quarto loose leaf paper for my folders. I would suggest that the effective date of adoption by the general public was nearer to 1980, based on the size of old graph pads I have from university. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Nowadays, many national standards are merely translations of international standards with a custom cover and price tag. In the past, they diverged more and the DIN, then ISO A and B series may have been incorporated into national standards together with other, local, traditional sizes. The dates listed are, as far as I know, the dates these series were first recognized as locally accepted by a national standard. I'm not sure which one this would be for GB or the UK, but probably one of these (likely BS 4000 or its predecessor):

• BS 1808 Specification for cut business forms and letterheads
• BS 3047 Specification for sizes of posters
• BS 3429 Specification for sizes of drawing sheets
• BS 4000 Sizes of paper and board
• BS 4448 Specification for school exercise books and papers
• BS 4623 Specification for folded continuous stationery for impact printers

— Christoph Päper 20:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

According to the BSI catalogue BS1808:1985 mentions ISO sizes, earlier versions do not give any indication. Likewise the entries for BS4000:1983 and BS4000:1968 do not give a hint about the contents. With standards costing £130 to £186 each I'm not about to order up copies! BTW, all BSs would be valid for the whole UK, not just GB. Prior to the NI agreement with the EU of course, God only knows what the situation is now with Merckle, von der Leyen and NI! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment more or less. ISO paper was definitely not widely available in 1959. Quarto and foolscap were the student de facto standards in 1970. I seem to have changed to A4 sometime while at university (1972 to 1976), although I have kept very little material from those days so can't be sure of the exact date. SpinningSpark 09:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've tracked down the final report of the Metrication Board which gives 1971 as the change-over date. That ties up with Spinningspark's and my experience, I can remember a conversation on the subject some time during AY 73/4. I've amended the article and provided a reference to the report. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

use of u+2236 ratio symbol

The inconsistent use of the ratio symbol (u+2236) in the article means that when users do in-page searches for specific ratios, they might find partial or no results at all despite there being such sizes. e.g. Compare how "4:3" vs. "4∶3" returns 3 matches for the former and 15 matches for the latter, neither overlapping with the other. (~ 2022-10-28 19:30:00 gmt+3)

Could the editor intervene and enforce one of the other to be used throughout? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.145.55 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and it appears that the colon is used throughout the article where it is written into the source. The only times that (u+2236) appears is when the ration is automatically produced, typically by {{size}} (which calls {{resratio}}). MOS:FRAC indicates that "Dimensionless ratios (i.e. those without accompanying units) are given by placing a colon between integers, or placing to between numbers-as-words: favored by a 3:1 ratio or a three-to-one ratio, not a 3/1 ratio or a 3–1 ratio.", so the problem lies with the templates. I'll link this discussion to a note on both template talk pages. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. To be fair, this should probably normalize at the client level (browsers... document readers... file managers...) similar to how diacritics are treated. 5.22.128.44 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

See {{Resratio}} (talk) for the maintainers reply. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"International standard"...

@John Maynard Friedman: changed the heading "International paper sizes" to "International standard paper sizes". I honestly don't understand your explanation, starting with "The US is international too". For a start, the US is a single country, whereas "almost every other country" has to be something like "international". And I do not see how adding "standard" helps, because after all US sizes are absolutely a standard set of sizes, at least within the US. There are of course a few other countries, all close to the US (geographically, except the Philippines culturally) which use the US system/standard, but it is still pretty marginal. And how is calling almost all countries in the world except the US "international" a US-centric term? I thought it best to ask, rather than just revert... Imaginatorium (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: Thank you for asking questions first and shooting afterwards.

Since the section is about the international standard (ISO) sizes, then the section title should say so, IMO. That was my primary motivation. American sizes are just as "international" as anywhere else so unless they are to be nested under this section (unlikely), then the scope of the section must be explicit.

On the question of "US-centricity", I observe a common practice in US writing to use the term "international (e.g., see early history of Internationalization and localization) to mean "not US" rather than "worldwide". Perhaps I over-interpreted it but the original title read to me that the original author had given it that name from the perspective of that mind-set. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Japanese sizes: 'sun'

The tables for Japanese (modern) sizes include conversions (very approximate, it seems) to sun (寸). I suggest these should all be removed; almost no-one alive even knows what a sun is, in any applied measurement sense. For traditional sizes, of course, it might have significance, if that is how the sizes were first defined. But I tried to edit the table, and the inch (I mean, really, what is this for?) column does not appear in the source - why not? Imaginatorium (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Your main point about lack of sourcing remains valid but I suspect that the fractional inches column is for our American* friends who don't speak metric. See also {{convert}}. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I just meant it is painfully confusing when editing an unfamiliar template that one of the columns expands to two columns. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

* and British Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No, that's a "won't". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)