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.
Say what you want about leaving the history/discussion behind, but this is obviously the correct name for the page. "Pounds per square inch" gets 1,650,000 Google hits. "Pound-force per square inch" gets 969. That is a factor of about 1700. Ever heard of a landslide? Rracecarr 03:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess you're right that it should be pound per square inch not pounds per square inch. But pound-force doesn't belong. Rracecarr 03:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It belongs enough so that it shouldn't have been moved without discussion. And in any case, it should have been properly moved with the move button, not by copy and paste. That improper move, besides leaving behind the history mentioned above, also left behind a talk page and its history at Talk:Pound-force per square inch, and that talk page doesn't discuss any such move either. Gene Nygaard 10:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Pounds per square inch also includes a different and distinct unit which is not and should not be included in this article. Those lb/in² (for which lbf/in² is wrong and inappropriate), use the normal pounds as units of mass, not the pounds-force used in the units of pressure or stress which are the subject of this article.
Can someone source this "pound-force per square inch" business? Pounds are a unit of force. You wouldn't say "newton-force per square meter". The newton is a unit of force. "Force" is redundant. Who says "pound-force"? Robert K S (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
In the english engineering system of units force and mass are both measured in lbs therefore pound-mass (lbm) and pound-force (lbf) are used to distinguish between the two. Also, a correction is required on this page. KSI is kilo pounds per square inch but KIP is kilo pounds.
I agree, the sentence about kip is wrong, additionally though, KSI is kip per square inch, a kip is a unit of force = 1000 lb. I think the terminology altogether should be clarified to kip per square inch, since a kip is much more common than is kilo-pound(I know kip is just an abbreviation for kilo-pound, but you rarely hear kilo-pound)22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It's funny how those towing the "pound-force" and "pound-mass" line on Wikipedia continue to blather on about how they are right but when asked to produce relaible sources they come up empty. There are numerous sources that use lb as force, including the Federal Aviation Regulations (administered by the FAA), Shigley, and various aerospace engineering texts. Can anyone break the mould and actually provide a source for the origin of the pound-force or pound-mass? I've heard a lot of garbage about some NIST declaration, but all that tells you is how to convert from metric/SI (kg) to imperial (lb), and such things are usually declared for trade regulation purposes. It doesn't define anything physical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
In the English speaking world, steam locomotive boiler pressures are normally expressed as x lb/in2. In Europe, they are normally expressed as x kg/cm2. Question is, how do you convert one to the other? Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Gauge pressure is not relative to a standard or fixed atmospheric condition. It is relative to the surrounding atmosphere. A gas cylinder with the same absolute pressure would have different gauge pressures at sea level than at a higher altitude since the corresponding atmospheric pressures would be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly it's not possible to do exactly this. kg is a unit of mass (not weight), pressure requires units of force. These have long been confused, but the SI system tries to be a little stricter in their use. So the nearest SI equivalent to this would be kgf/cm2 using the kilogram-force unit (weight) rather than the kilogram.
Then there's already the convenient unit of the technical atmosphere, which is equal to 1 kgf/cm2 (it's also within a few % of the usual standard atmosphere). This is in the article's conversion table already, maybe it just needs some clearer captioning?
I think that it would be a good idea to make clear whether the word "bike" in the sentence "Bike tire overpressure (common): Pg = 65 psi" refers to a motorcycle or a bicycle. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
If 1 psi = 6.894757 kpa (or 6.895 * 103 pa), then it should not be shortened (as in the table) to 1 psi = 6.894 * 103 pa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Those units are not "usually unpacked" from their abbreviated or shortened forms. PSI is unpacked to "Pounds per square inch" all the time in standard engineering and industrial usage, and almost never as "pound" singular. Any practicing engineer or industrial worker dealing with material strengths, pressure, etc. will be very familiar with this. If you google "pound per square inch" almost without exception all the results are plural. Again - We cannot override real-world naming standards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Is that a rhetorical point or are your serious? I'm not necessarily for consistency for consistency's sake and believe WP:PLURAL allows for exceptions, so if you feel that inches of mercury is a more appropriate title, would you support a move of that article and ones like it? I'm interested in the discussion here and no strong preference either way. — AjaxSmack 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. "In Standard English, [the use of the plural] crucially depends on whether the phrase is prenominal or not. Prenominally, the phrase will not show plural marking, while elsewhere it will have the normal plural marking, as appropriate." In other words, the unit is the pound per square inch, but pounds per square inch is the better name for the article. The source isn't reliable, but it's the most on-point I can find after a quick search. I'll see what else I can find. Garamond Lethet c 04:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia rules shouldn't trump correct English grammar. The plural form is used unless the actual expression is a value of one unit or less (or fewer, depending.) If this is a real conflict, the Wikipedia rule needs to change to allow this. htom (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I think this is similar to the last guideline on WP:PLURAL#Exceptions in reference to The Beatles: in common English usage, it is normally almost always plural unless the phase refers to only one unit or individual. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Red Slash, htom, etc.; the current plural form is common usage. ╠╣uw[talk] 10:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Oppose changing something well used and well recognized to something weird and confusing. No one says "pound per square inch", and the awkward distinction suggests something different is meant. If WP:AT or WP:PLURAL support this, then they would be wrong. Fortunately, they don't. "pounds per square inch" is singular. "Per square inch" is not a qualifier of "pound(s)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, how about Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? Starting the discussion appealing to a ruleset seems to be getting rather common around here, but let the record show that as long as people use psi, the article is correctly named and practical reasoning can prevail. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
It is not only about the policies and guidelines. It is also a matter of consistency. The titles of many articles on units are in singular form, for example it is foot per second but not feet per second. I am just raising up the issue and hope that we can discuss about it. --Quest for Truth (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Expecting English (or American, or any of the other derivative languages) to be consistent ... not going to happen. There's a huge pile of rules, and "Be consistent" is not one of them. I understand the desire for consistency, but there is no Committee of Proper (no, Correct) English (no, American) to set such things. In a century or three, doubtless the rules will change. Again. As they have before. htom (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not talking about the consistency of the English language. I mean the article titles should be consistent. While we say "feet" and "pounds" more than "foot" and "pound" (see foot vs feet and pound vs pounds) as the values are usually greater than one, the article titles are in singular, i.e. foot (unit) and pound (force). So the same should apply to other units like this one. --Quest for Truth (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Not to beat the idiomatically dead horse, but the comment from htom that you were immediately replying to had this gem, "'Be[ing] consistent' is not one of [the rules of Wikipedia]." Your mission is to see consistency in Wikipedia, while years or decades of practical and consistent use... be damned? The rules ... which are non-existent in this case ... are not intended to generally cause article titles to go against convention or practice. While on the subject, I wonder if you would be so kind to go offer your input to the Burma article, and post a few times that you wish to change the title of it to Myanmar. I am sure your input there will be appreciated, because after all, we should consistently call countries by their official, actual name, not some pretender name.
I think htom is correct. You are inventing a rule or a convention here, or you are giving undue weight to internal consistency of Wikipedia. I can guarantee that editors and publishers of major reference works always like to have internal consistency. They do so at their own peril if there is a historical or legitimate reason not to be so rigid. Try doing something like using "Jehovah" instead of "LORD" in the 1901 American Standard Version. Consistent, yes; hated and controversial, yes. What about the ancient King James Version? Do you think those translators were unwise to use words other than "Jehovah"? Its 1611 preface had specifically mentioned the fact that it would be detrimental to consistently use the same English word for every translation of a Hebrew word. They devoted lots of type space on the topic, indicating that word choice consistency was a hot topic four hundred years ago. See https://archive.org/details/prefaceofthetran467smit and quoted here:
"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle Reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places, (for there be some words that be not of the same sense every where,) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never suppose; if one where pain, never ache; if one where joy, never gladness, &c. thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist, than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?
[...] "We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever; we might be taxed peradventure with St. James's words, namely, To be partial in ourselves, and judges of evil thoughts. Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling; and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us. Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for baptism, and congregation instead of Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their azymes, tunike, rational, holocausts, prepuce, pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood." (Quote from "The Translators to the Reader", Original Preface found in 1611 Authorized Version, modernized spellings.)
So I close in saying that Wikipedia should be consistent of course, but it must give ear to the idiosyncratic inconsistencies of the real world. Rules on word choice are "superstitious" if not based on logic; otherwise, "we be in bondage to them." If we suffer from "scrupulosity" or we resort to "obscurity," we will be in danger of not "being understood." Be thou admonished, gentle Reader. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.