Talk:Paper size

Significant Figures?

Looks like about 7 too many significant figures on lb/in^2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.191.131 (talk • contribs)

Tabloid vs. Ledger?

Is tabloid the same as ledger for US paper sizes? And would this be an appropriate footnote to the table? -- Ansible

Tabloid = Ledger = 11" x 17". My favorite paper size. -- Someone else 01:06 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Who uses North American paper sizes?

Does anyone else use the same size paper as in the USA? -- Ansible

The U.S. "Letter" format of 216x279 mm is the official paper format only in the USA and Canada. The Canadian standard actually specifies a P4 format of 215x280 mm (U.S. "Letter" rounded to the nearest multiple of 5 mm), though the difference is within the tolerance interval. Mexico and all other Central and South American countries that have a national standards body have officially adopted ISO 216 and do use A4 paper. However, some of these local markets for paper and stationery products in Central and northern South America are today so much dominated by U.S. suppliers selling products designed for the U.S. market that the U.S. "Letter" format is now also commonly encountered there. In Mexico, in particular, I have been told that it may even have become a dominant format in recent years. Inch-based paper formats were used for a while in other parts of the world in the 1970s and 1980s in the context of tractor-fed endless printing of perforated forms. However, endless form printing has mostly vanished in favour of A4 with the advent of page-feeding laser and ink-jet printers, except in some special applications such as payroll slips and airline tickets. Markus Kuhn 09:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think even the US uses most of the paper sizes listed under that section, except perhaps in very specialized publishing contexts. "Letter", "legal", "ledger", and "executive" are the only ones I can recall ever seeing in a stationer's, although the letter series (A, B, C, D, and E) are used for technical drawings.

By personal observation I can tell you all that in practice Mexico does not use ISO A4 for anything at all. The marriage certificate issued to my wife & me at the Palacio Municipal of Acapulco, back in 1969 is the US "legal" format, or something very close to it, and so are all Mexican (state of Guerrero) civil registry certificates (birth, marriage and death) Mexico may officially adopted ISO 216, but in daily practice American paper sizes prevail. Peter Horn 01:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Below is from American Forest & Paper Association website: http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Pulp_and_Paper/Fun_Facts/The_U_S__Standard_Paper_Size.htm

Why is the standard paper size in the U.S. 8 ½" x 11"? Back in the late 1600's, the Dutch invented the two-sheet mold. The average maximum stretch of an experienced vatman's arms was 44". Many molds at that time were around 17" front to back because the laid lines and watermarks had to run from left to right. Sounds big?...well to maximize the efficiency of paper making, a sheet this big was made, and then quartered, forming four 8.5" x 11" pieces.

This was well before paper machines dominated hand made paper labor. A couple centuries later when machines dominated the trade (although many hand made paper makers still existed), and the United States decided on a standard paper size, they stuck with the same size so as to keep the hand made paper makers in business.

Oddly enough, the United States used two different sizes - the 8" x 10.5" and the 8.5" x 11". Separate committees came up with separate standards, the 8" x 10.5" for the government and the 8.5" x 11" for the rest of us. Once these committees found out about each other a couple years later, they agreed to disagree until the early 1980's when Reagan finally proclaimed that the 8.5" x 11" was the official standard sized paper.

United States History

Not until World War I or shortly after was a standard paper size agreed to in the United States. Interestingly enough, within six months of each other, two different paper sizes were set as the standard; one for the government and one for the rest of us.

1. In 1921, the first director of the Bureau of the Budget established an interagency advisory group with the President's approval called the Permanent Conference on Printing which established the 8" x 10½" as the general U.S. government letterhead standard. This extended an earlier establishment made by the former President Hoover, the Secretary of Commerce at the time, who established the 8" x 10½" as the standard letterhead size for his department.

2. Now, during the same year, a Committee on the Simplification of Paper Sizes consisting of printing industry representatives was appointed to work with the Bureau of Standards as part of Hoover's program for the Elimination of Waste in Industry. This group came up with basic sizes for all types of printing and writing papers. The size for "letter" was a 17" x 22" sheet while the "legal" size was 17" x 28" sheet. The later known U.S. letter format was these sizes halved (8 ½" x 11" and 8 ½" by 14").

Even in the selection of the 8 ½" x 11", no special analysis was made to prove this was the optimum size for commercial letterhead. The Committee that developed the sizes did so using one objective - "to reduce inventory requirements for paper into sizes which would cut from a minimum trimming waste."

References: 1. Labarre Dictionary of Paper and Paper-Making Terms, 1937 Edition.

2. Kuhn, Markus . 1996. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html

3. Dunn, A. D. 1972. Notes on the Standardization of Paper Sizes. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/dunn-papersizes.pdf

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)[reply]

I agree with the above suggestion. Theshibboleth 03:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Traditional paper size"

The term "Traditional paper size" does not parse very well without mentioning regions. Would it be better to rename the section 'Regional paper sizes', 'Historical paper sizes' or something else?

D and E sizes

ISO 216 defines only the A and B formats. ISO 269 defines the C series for envelopes. The current table with standard paper sizes also lists curious D and E formats. However, none of these formats is defined in any of the ISO or national standards for paper or envelopes that I have consulted. Unless someone can add a detailed source reference for these formats, I propose to remove them. Markus Kuhn 09:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was more than once close to delete them, because I had not seen any proof for their existence before, but I was too lazy to do a real research to be sure about it. Now that you do not know them either, I am confident enough to finally remove them. Christoph Päper 14:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added a note on the Swedish standard where these come from. Markus Kuhn 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal

A request for those who are watching this article, and any passers-by: I came here looking for information on what the paper size legal is used for, and in which circumstances it is preferred over letter. If/when this is added, legal should be made into a disambiguation page pointing here. arj 23:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comparison to QWERTY keyboard layout

Do we really need that here? It seems rather far fetched, and there were good reasons for using certain keyboard layouts during the age of typewriters and there will always be different keyboard layouts because different languages use different character sets (German QWERTZ keyboards also have keys for äöüß, for example). Paper sizes, on the other hand are always pretty arbitrary, there is no fundamental reason why a certain size should not be a few millimeters larger or smaller, but the special thing about ISO is the relationship between different sizes (rather than the sizes per se). I would suggest to remove the comparison to keyboards. Dontaskme 19:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC) I agree the qwerty reference is inapropriate, and seems to indicate more about the author's pet peves than paper size. Also, might this article be a little too focused on photocoppiers, seperate from other forms of printer? Richard Daly 21:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong content?

After reading the paragraphs leading up to the table of A, B, and C size comparisons, it seems to me that either the numbers in the A column are too small, the numbers in the B and C columns are too large, or the information in the previous paragraphs is misleading. By my understanding, (which is limited to the content of the article,) B and C should actually be smaller than A. Honestly, though, I could be wrong, as I know nothing about the paper standards. However, if I am wrong, then something about the article needs to be clarafied. Could someone explain this? telekid 12:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reproduce the reported problem. The table is correct, and the text explains correctly: "B1 is half way between A0 and A1 in area. The C series, defined in ISO 269, is half way between the A and B series of the same number; for instance, C0 is half way between A0 and B0. This way, C0 is slightly larger than A0, and B0 slightly larger than C0. [...] For instance, a letter written on A4 paper [...] fits inside a C4 envelope [which] can fit inside a B4 envelope." Perhaps the confusion arose merely from the fact that larger numbers mean smaller paper? Markus Kuhn 15:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world does "Cut," and "Uncut" mean?

"Uncut ream weight:

In countries using US paper sizes, the weight in pounds for an uncut ream (500 sheets) is used, so to compute the weight per area, one must know three (or four) quantities: 1. The weight of a ream. 2. The number of sheets in a ream. 3. The uncut dimensions of a sheet of paper. 4. The conversion factors between avoirdupois pound and gram (1 lb ≈ 454 g) and between square inch and square metre (1 m² ≈ 1550 in²): 1 lb/in² ≈ 7037 g/m².

For example, a "20 pound ream of Letter paper" has a weight of only 5 pounds because uncut dimensions are twice the cut dimensions. Since the cut dimensions are 8½ in × 11 in, the uncut dimensions are 17 in × 22 in. Therefore paper weight per area of this type of Letter is:" What in the world does the author of this article mean when he says the words "Cut," or "Uncut?"

Nowhere in the article does the author say what those mean. I don't have a clue of what this guy's talking about when he says these words, so I haven't the slightest about what he's talking about. Could someone please get this edited? I just had to sign in with a new account just to point this out. --Pz.Az.06Maus 00:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exact meaning of the bizarre American Way of Expressing Paper Strength remains a mystery to many of us. They way I understood it (I did not write that section!), the ream weight does not refer to the ream of paper that you buy in the shop, which has already been cut by the manufacturer to the final size for the end user, but to some larger ream size that is used within the paper industry. What this larger, still uncut, ream size is, is apparently meant to be clear from the context (no idea, how). I do not know of any written standard that actually specifies the details. References welcome. Markus Kuhn 11:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, Cut means that the product is down to the size that the Customer gets from when he buys paper, and uncut means that the paper hasn't been completely finished and is still in groups of pages in a single sheet, thus requiring dividing those sheets to make the final product. Is this right? Sorry if this is confusing. --Pz.Az.06Maus 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Markus Kuhn 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, someone should be listening to this soon...--Pz.Az.06Maus 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does 13x19" fit into all this?

Hewlett Packard and other printer manufacturers have been selling wide format inkjet (don't know about laser) printers for the past few years that can handle up to 13x19 inch paper. I've seen this size available in many office supply stores and it's also available from a large number of online sources. 330.2 x 482.6 mm are the metric dimensions. Not even close to any of the A series divisions of an A0 sheet.

(these sizes are common in photography, and with the advent of digital cameras and decent home printing comes a whole new set of page sizes. The article links to these.)

Question to adoption by other countries

"Porstmann's system was introduced as a DIN standard in Germany in 1922, replacing a vast variety of other paper formats, and by 1940 it had been adopted by some 10 additional countries."

It would be interesting to know which countries adopted this standard when. Since 1940 was during WWII there is although the question whether the countries which were occupied or annexed by Germany at that time are in that count, too and if so whether they just kept this standard after war. 129.13.186.1 13:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first external link has a list of the adoption dates of the respective national standards, and it does not show any temporal correlation with countries being invaded by Hitler. Markus Kuhn 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps have written "before WWII", as the last adopter before 1940 was Italy in 1939. That would have avoided this thought. I'll change it. Thomas Blomberg 21:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

legal

where did the legal size originate...is its or was its use enforced in some courts?

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)[reply]

comparison of paper sizes image

that image confused me... a2 is equivalent to 4 a4 pages... (ISOA) but that diagram seems to indicate that a3 is equivalent to 4 x a4 pages.. the orientation of the a4 segment of the diagram seems wrong..