Talk:Quart

Metric value

What's a US quart in metric/SI? reference to another US unit (not the same as UK gallon) doesn't help. jimfbleak 08:28 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As the articles says 1.136 liters. IIRC a US quart and an Imperial quart are the same (their definitions are different though). --mav

A US & an imperial quart are only the same with respect to their ratios to other units of volumes (excluding fl. oz. & any cubic length). So yeah, a quart is 0.25 gal or 2 pints in both systems, in this way they are the same. But an imperial quart is still about 20% bigger than a U.S. one so in this respect they are different. ... Maybe that's what you mean by "IIRC" Jimp 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Colbert Report

Shouldn't this page be protected, wikiality was mentioned on Colbert again tonight? "If we believe there are 5 pints in a quart..." or something to that effect.RudeBII 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No. People are done with that little stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.49.13 (talk) 23:37, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Per this edit, the usage of the page was established as American English. Kindly maintain it consistently, pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 23:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't it be "liters", rather than "litres"? 2601:545:8201:6290:ED27:28EF:9CC0:7D1D (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Also, quart is very commonly used in the US but has fallen out of use in the UK (in favour of "two pints"). --Red King (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Status of the quart in UK statute measure

For new readers, be advised that this discussion predates identification of a reliable source for, and subsequent addition of, a definition of "statute measure" at Weights and Measures Acts (UK)#Statute measure. It became clear in the course of this discussion that such a definition was essential before progress could be made towards resolution. --Red King (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Section 8 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 reads:

8 Units of measurement, weights and measures lawful for use for trade.

(1)No person shall— (a)use for trade any unit of measurement which is not included in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 to this Act, or

(b)use for trade, or have in his possession for use for trade, any linear, square, cubic or capacity measure which is not included in Schedule 3 to this Act, or any weight which is not so included.

and, in Schedule 1, under "Volume", only the pint is defined. However, in the 'subsequent amendments' section, we find

Textual Amendments

F4 Sch. 1 Pt. IV: definitions of

“gallon” , “quart” and “gill”

omitted (1.10.1995) by virtue of S.I. 1994/2867, reg. 6(5)(b)(i).

So the quart is not a statute measure, but I acknowledge that the correct date is 1995 not 1985 and will correct the article accordingly. --Red King (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: This article is about the quart in general, and not only about its status under British Weights & Measure legislation. Even if it was not allowed for trade (and we'll see in a moment that that is not true) that would not mean that it therefore isn't used at all in the UK as, clearly, the Weight and Measures legislation only covers a narrow usage profile.

However, if you read further into section 8 of the act you will see that subsection 5A explicitly allows the use of imperial units such as the the quart as supplementary units for trade, and lists it explicitly as such in Schedule 1 Part VI.

This is why Wikipedia recommends the use of secondary sources, and frowns upon original research using primary sources such as is happening here. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: That doesn't change the fact that it is an obsolete measure, and it is simply wrong to claim in this article that it is in current use. It is not: a two-pint bottle of milk says "two pints", it does not say "quart". I have not seen a single example this century. Compare that with pounds weight, which are still widely seen on street-markets as supplementary measures.

It is not "original research" to cite an Act of Parliament, in particular the 'Textual Amendments" citation that has a clear and unambiguous statement that the quart etc was deleted from the permitted list.

In the context of this article, and in the interests of consensus, I propose this replacement:

Presently, two kinds of quarts remain in active use: the liquid quart and dry quart of the US customary system. Since 1995, the imperial quart of the British imperial system is not 'legal for use in trade' but may be quoted as supplementary measure.

Can you live with that? Otherwise you must produce a citation that it "remains in use". --Red King (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: I favour leaving the article as it is until we can establish that there is a consensus, amongst reliable sources, that the quart is never used for anything anymore in the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: In the absence of any experience or other evidence, the obligation to provide evidence lies with those who assert that it is indeed still used, despite dropping out of statutory measure over 24 years ago. If you insist, I shall have to tag it in the meantime as dubious and citation needed. Any such citation needs to be no older than ten years, if current usage is to be claimed. --Red King (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: as we see, it is still included in the list of available units in the W&M Act, so that should serve as a reliable source that it still exists in UK law. Without evidence that it has vanished entirely from use throughout the UK, I don't see how we can legitimately now exclude it from the article, sorry. Which policy are you relying on to support your 10-year rule? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto:, don't start wp:wikilawyering me. Any reasonable definition of "current" means "the last ten years". You know I can't prove a negative. For all either of us know, there is a tailor somewhere in these benighted isles that gives equivalent prices in shillings and pence per ell and someone like Bill Bryson has given it in a book to illustrate the ideosyncratic English: it would still be wp:fringe. It is indisputable that imperial quarts are not a statute measure and the article should say that. If it is also to say that the unit, while permitted as a supplementary measure, is still actually used in the real world, a citation is needed to support that claim. --Red King (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: let's concentrate on getting the content right, and not attack each other. It could be that we cannot reliably source the assertion that the quart is still in current use in the UK, but equally, we would need to be able to reliably source that it isn't in use anywhere in the UK if we were to add that to the article. All we can currently say (reliably sourced) is that it is still permitted to be used for trading purposes as a supplementary unit. For now I would suggest that the best compromise would be to limit its mention to something like that. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Nowhere on wikipedia (or indeed anywhere outside Kafka) is there a requirement to prove a negative, but it would be an exceptional scholar who could identify the moment when regular usage that unarguably did exist, ceased to do so. I accept your proposal and invite you to draft a sentence accordingly. --Red King (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: in fact the quart is a "statute measure"; it is defined as "1⁄4 gallon" in the Weights and Measures Act 1985 - a statute. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Not any more it isn't, as I sure you well know. The current version of the W&MA says that it was deleted by Statutory Instrument, see above. Mention in a former edition of a statute does not make it a statute measure. I take it that you weren't serious. --Red King (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: can you give a link to that amendment please - I didn't see that in the version I looked at. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: See the second block of text ("Textual amendments") that I quoted from the current (as amended) version of the Act to open this discussion? "omitted ... by virtue of S.I. 1994/2867, reg. 6(5)(b)(i)." (I don't know how to find Statutory Instruments, though). Is that not what you mean? (To save you hunting back, the citation is the second one in the reflist talk below). --Red King (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: ah, found it! But I think it's saying they've moved from Schedule 1 part IV to part VI. i.e. they've moved from being primary to supplementary, but are still defined in the Act as units for trade. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto:, Part VI is simply giving the SI equivalent values of traditional units. Nowhere does it say that these are permitted "for trade" within the meaning of the Act. I'm afraid it looks like you may be clutching at straws here. (BTW, you may find useful this citation, which I've just added to Imperial measures re Land Registry. It supports your position [which I have always accepted] that traditional measures are fully permissible under UK law as supplementary information. You may even be amused, as I was, that whoever wrote it doesn't seem to be aware that US measures with the same names aren't always the same size). --Red King (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: firstly, I can confirm that I am not "clutching at straws here", I'm trying to ensure that the article is factual - and verifiably so. As for the purpose of "Part VI", in the version of that section that I have (annotated as being "up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 14 September 2019") the title of Part VI is "DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN UNITS WHICH MAY NOT BE USED FOR TRADE EXCEPT AS SUPPLEMENTARY INDICATIONS". So they are explicitly permitted for use for trade when used as supplementary indications. And they are given a statutory definition in that section, not in terms of a metric unit, but as "1⁄4 gallon" (the gallon is previously given as statutory definition as "4.54609 cubic decimetres"). So if a "statutory measure" is a measure which is legally defined in a statute, the quart appears to be such a measure. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: What part of (1)No person shall— (a)use for trade any unit of measurement which is not included in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 to this Act, do you not understand? --Red King (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: I understand it all, but it needs to be seen in the context of subsection 5A too, which says:

(5A) Nothing in this section precludes the use for trade of any supplementary indication; and for this purpose any indication of quantity ("the imperial indication") is a supplementary indication if—

(a) it is expressed in a unit of measurement other than a metric unit,

(b) it accompanies an indication of quantity expressed in a metric unit (“the metric indication”) and is not itself authorised for use in the circumstances as a primary indication of quantity, and

(c) the metric indication is the more prominent, the imperial indication being, in particular, expressed in characters no larger than those of the metric indication.

This is why we need reliable secondary sources to interpret and summarise this stuff for us, rather than trying to make sense of it ourselves. But, I still read it as confirming that the quart is legal for trade, and as it is defined in the Act it is a "statute measure". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Sigh. I am permitted by law to add the supplementary information that my product is very very tasty. As far as the law is concerned, it is just noise. But if I want to sell it by weight, volume, length or area, I must use one of the measures specified in Sections I to V and I must not obscure that information with extraneous detail about historic measures. I am permitted to use those obsolescent measures but not (except draught beer/lager) obliged to use them. The statutory measures are those specified in sections I to V. This is entirely unambiguous: no interpretation by a third party source is needed. It reads to me that you are trying to throw red herrings across the trail. --Red King (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: however we decide to word its relationship with other units wrt trade, it is clearly relevant, in this article specifically about the quart, to state too that it still has a statute standard definition in UK law and is still legally protected for use for trade as a supplementary indication (as explicitly stated in subsection 5A). -- DeFacto (talk). 09:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto:, I can live with that, provided that its supplementary status is made clear in this article. The problem is that the article currently begins Presently, three kinds of quarts remain in use: the liquid quart and dry quart of the US customary system and the imperial quart of the British imperial system. That, I believe, is untrue for the Imperial quart but if you assert that it is true, then you need to provide a citation to support it. Unevidenced content gets deleted and I am sure we can avoid that with clever wording. --Red King (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Quart again

[Moved this here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)]

I waited for you to rewrite it diplomatically. As you didn't, I had a go and really believed that by taking the UK together with AU and CA, I had reflected equally the legal position as we each understand it. I'm afraid I really don't see the point of your edit. The quart can be used for trade in AU and CA as well, but only as a supplementary designation, exactly as in the UK. It is not at all obvious how the two sentences differ semantically (as opposed to verbally), it just reads as "the UK is special". Why? Your edit note was too terse, would you elaborate please? --Red King (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: this is an article about the quart and not about metrication in the UK. I don't know what the rules about it are in Australia or Canada, but I do know (and I thought we now agreed that per subsection 5A) that it can be legally used for trade in the UK and I don't think we should try to obfuscate that with irrelevancies about other units. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: It is rather difficult to write about a quart without mentioning two pints. But yes, perhaps I tried too hard to walk on eggshells and am happy to lose that reference. As per the citations, Australia and Canada list the quart as secondary measures: the only difference is that they state explicitly that it is a "secondary measure" whereas the UK's W&MA weasel-words its way round by doing the same thing in effect by having different Schedules. Yes, I do agree. I did write "may be sold" as a less legalistic form of words than "used for trade" and won't insist on that wording. The critical issue is that we cannot imply that it is permissible to use it alone: it can only be listed as supplementary information.

I really believe that it is more helpful to the reader to give all three countries together since their laws are the same in essence. --Red King (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: I can't see "quart" or "secondary" mentioned on either the Australian or Canadian document you cited. The point about the word "trade" is that, in this context, it only means "sold by measure" and not "sold" in general. In the UK I can legally sell a quart jug as a "quart jug" without giving its capacity in metric units and I can ask for x quarts of milk or petrol, or whatever without using metric units. The only thing I can't do is sell by volume in quarts without giving a metric unit equivalent. And I think the current "In the United Kingdom the quart can be used for trade as a supplementary indication" says that adequately, but I would also be okay with something like "In the United Kingdom goods may be sold by the quart if the equivalent metric measure is also given" to avoid the legalese. What I disagree with is biased editorialising such as use of the word "only" in, for example, "quarts may only be given as supplementary information" which gives implications that are not supported by the cited source. Let's focus on what the quart is, and present it neutrally and avoid any spin or disparagement. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I will need to go back and recheck AU and CA, that was from memory so I will take it out in the meantime. Re the word "only", I hadn't seen or intended that interpretation but I can see now how it could be inferred. No matter: your In the United Kingdom goods may be sold by the quart if the equivalent metric measure is also given captures the essence well and I am happy with that. I'll leave it to you to edit accordingly. --Red King (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Red King: fair enough, and I've done the UK reword as suggested. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)