# Talk:Paper size

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.
C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Measurement (Rated C-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Measurement 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.
C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Literature (Rated C-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.
C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Typography (Rated C-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography 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.
C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

## Archived

For older discussions see Talk:Paper size/Archive1 --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

## Type scaling

The main part of this article states "The main disadvantage of the system is type does not scale the same way; " I do not understand what is meant by that. Surely if I reduce a given page of text by a factor equal in both directions, then everything is just smaller, and the statement " the proportion between the type's x-height, page margins, and leading are distorted" sounds to me very strange: the proportions remain exactly as they are. Or, is the meaning that if one uses smaller font sizes then the leading is different? That is true, but that is a different effect, which holds for any system of paper sizes. I think it would be good to distinguish explicitly between two important issues:

1. the "photographic" type of reduction of an existing page onto a smaller size, for which the preservation of the aspect ratio is important; this is what happens e.g. when reducing a large page to a small one using a photocopier.
2. the production of printed text using a small font or a large font, and choosing a paper size that suits the font's size. In this case, the type on the page must be reset to take into account that small sizes of a certain font are not simply scaled-down versions of larger sizes. But that is true for any set of sizes, and if smaller sizes have a different aspect ratio the "problem" is likely to be greater.

For point 1 the ISO standard provides a solution, for point 2 no system provides a solution and thus I would propose that the paragraph is either removed or clarified.

RobertCailliau (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. The two criticisms of A-series paper are either (1) wrong ("the proportion between the type's x-height, page margins, and leading are distorted", or (2) a criticism of linear scaling of fonts to different sizes, which is a valid criticism in general, but has nothing to do with the proportions of particular types of paper -- photographic reduction or enlargement of text on letter-sized paper, for example will have the same issues with legibility as it would with A-series paper. Since no one has defended inclusion of this nonsense for almost a year, I'm removing it.Turjan (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

## Arch size chart

I threw together a size chart for Arch sizes to complement the ISO and ANSI charts. feel free to use it as you please.

Schmidt455 (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

2010-02-02, 12:15 PM

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!

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)

## Trim size

Although the whole idea of metric (what is called "international" here) paper size was initially some sort of mathematician's wet dream to have a size that can be just cut in half to produce another metric size, as anyone in the publishing business knows this is a fantasy. A3 copier paper can be cut to make A4. But beyond that 90 percent of paper is used in ways that requires a bleed margin or a trim margin. So paper is actually manufactured in non metric sizes in order to end up with metric sizes after printing or binding.

The upshot of all of this is that the implicit moral superiority of metric ("international") paper sizes is BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.148.77.146 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's calm down: the only "metric" part of A-sizes is that A0 is 1m2 in area. But bleed & trim exists for whatever size system one may select, so this does not add or subtract from the merits of whatever system. Still it remains that I can fold an A-size sheet in half and retain the aspect ratio. The intermediate manufacturing sizes that are never seen by the end users are irrelevant to those users. RobertCailliau (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

## Merger with ISO 216 page

Given the existence of the ISO 216 article, I think the corresponding information in this one should be deleted with a reference to that one. It might be worthwhile to have historical information about pre-metric paper sizes. 18.24.0.120 00:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I see a slight argument for keeping the information, since it's nice to have a side-by-side comparison of US vs ISO paper sizes. Kaszeta 15:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is today widely referenced as a description of the ISO paper sizes. It would be rather odd if an article about paper size did not cover prominently the by far most widely used ones. Markus Kuhn 13:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would rather suggest to remove the ISO 216 article and merge it with this one. Markus Kuhn 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above suggestion. Theshibboleth 03:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with RoySmith that one of those things should happen, however my preference is for ISO 216 to be merged into this article. Thryduulf 18:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Same for me. I think we should merge IS0 216 into this article - CyrilB 12:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the neatest solution would be to have the sizes and "basics" in both articles (using transclusion if that's the only way), while moving the historical discussion to the ISO-216 article. Shinobu 10:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems that The USA et. al. just like to be different. I mean no one else in the world uses Imperial measurement any more - GET WITH THE TIMES PEOPLE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.35.43 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment to the annon poster: Some people don't seem to understand the enormous size of the US economy. It may be just one country, but its one big country in terms of economic power. :) Anyway, to the point, ISO should be merged with this article. When coming across this article today, I was actually quite impressed with its completeness and organization. fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

## Oversized for printing?

I've recently been looking the exact size for the oversized paper sizes used in printing processes where you want print to the edge. But I can't seem to find those sizes anywhere. Is this because there's no exact standard, or is just not here because the author doesn't have the knowledge of this?

The article currently lacks a description of the ISO 217 RA and SRA untrimmed format series used in the printing industry [1]. Markus Kuhn 16:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A0 Oversize is (as I understand it) a classical size in the printing industry. I believe A0 Oversize is 905x1245 mm. ISO 217 SRA specs [[2]] provide dimensions close to that, but not exaclty the same. Are they the same? I feel that A0 Oversize should be added to the page, somehow.--Svenjick (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

## 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)

## 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" x 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)

## Ridiculous precision

Can we get rid of the four-decimal-place numbers and the properly-annotated repeating decimals? It's ridiculous. This isn't physics. You can't possibly cut paper to this precision. It's just visual noise and an ignorance of the concept of 'significant figures.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.195.47 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

## A4R

Curious about references to paper size 'A4R'. Searches result in lots of printer manuals. What is it, please? Nick Wilkinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.83.139 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It usually means A4 Rotated by 90 degrees... That is, same dimensions as A4, but wider than high Ratfox (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2009 (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. Turkeyphant 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)