# Talk:Paper size

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated C-class)
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.
???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

## 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!

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)

## 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" × 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 (talkcontribs)

## 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)

## 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)

## 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)

## 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. Lets say you lay in a weigh 500pcs of paper, thats 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. Dont let her pass, peep her and lets do some math ${\displaystyle x\cdot 500pcs=2.05in;x=2.05in/5/100pcs;x=10.4*10^{2}in^{-}3/pcs;}$

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

## korean paper

A secondly interessting thing to mention is the koreean paper. I will come back withe link. Korean paper from 1700on is manufactured from tree-coating and China had said its great import quality had misled people confusing it with silk. A documentary on paper was also on air but in outside Europe countries the stte television apppies censrship & wasnt able to find refferences on thickness of paper_external silk road website-188.25.49.173 (talk) 14:13, May 31,Bogdan

## 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.

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

## 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)

## 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)

## 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)

## 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk 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

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

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

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[citation needed] (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.

## 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 09:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)