Talk:Paper size

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

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)

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)

It's clear that one of two things should happen; either ISO 216 should be merged into this article, or the ISO-216 information in this article should be deleted from here and merged into the other. My personal preference would be the latter, since I think this article is too long as it is. Maybe do that, plus rename this article to be Non-ISO paper sizes, and make Paper size a dab page pointing to both of them? ---- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 19 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)

I agree with Thryduulf. This article is very complete. 158.42.188.203 11:41, 31 May 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. Turkeyphan^t 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

External links

I recently added a link to an article on BeLight Software's website. Yes, the website is commercial, but the article in no way promotes a product. The article contains diagrams and information that is not found in this article or within other articles in the External Links section. There are at least two other commercial sites in the external links section that sell printing services. The articles don't add much to the discussion of ISO and ANSI paper sizes. I find absolutely no reason why this link should not be included here, seeing as it offers something to the readers. You can view the article at http://www.belightsoft.com/products/resources/paper-sizes-and-formats-explained.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacMan77 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions to wikipedia under MacMan77, consist entirely of adding external links to belightsoft.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be belightsoft.com related only. It appears that your account is only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote BeLight Software right? --Hu12 (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you if this article (and other articles) didn't add something to the content found on the Wikipedia page. I have also added other links to Tom's Software, but those were somehow overlooked. Did you read the article on paper size? I would suggest that you read both the Wikipedia page and the article. If indeed there is something additional, I would leave the link in the external links section. Nothing promotional, and the site definitely won't jump in ranking since Wikipedia uses the no follow tag. MacMan77 (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)