Talk:Cup (unit)

Sweden doesn't use scales

I spent a year in Sweden, and I love their recipes for the simple reason, that they measure EVERYTHING in decilitres. Can someone from Sweden confirm this, and edit the section about Europe accordingly? 46.5.253.50 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Not easy to know what you mean. See http://www.tasteline.com for more of a clue.

Dry Ingredients

In the US at least, the "cup" is used so often as a measurement of flour, sugar, and similar dry ingredients that I think this merits a mention, especially since in other parts of the world cups are used only to measure wet ingredients (or "bulk" ingredients like chopped vegetables, where cup measurement is not very exact). Americans particularly might be surprised to find that most places outside the US use weight exclusively for measuring flour and sugar.62.114.88.167 11:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Old comment but it should be mentioned that measuring dry ingredients using volume rather than weight is generally only done at home in the U.S. No professional bakery worth it's salt would measure any dry ingredients using anything but a scale. 2601:18C:4301:2880:F445:3495:E0E0:9BDF (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Canadian Cups

I live in Canada and grew up thinking that a cup was 250mL, just for the easy math I suppose. All of my measuring gear is set for 240mL though, so I'm not sure the statement that Canadian cups are 250mL is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.190.107 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in Canada, and all the measuring cups in the kitchen show 250 mL on a metric scale on one side, and 8 oz. on a presumably US customary scale on the other side. When filled to 8 oz., the level is short of the 250 mL mark, I suppose at 237 mL if the scales are agreeing with the conversion math. One of the cups is identified as from the US. It seems that in Canada, we learn that a cup is practically 250 mL, learn that we use Imperial units from England, but in practice use the same cups as in the US which are 8 US fluid ounces and not 10 Imperial fluid ounces. 199.247.253.42 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the US units for the cup definition would be 240 mL. not 236 or 237 mL. The NIST defines the cup differently than the FDA. Per the FDA, the definitions are as such:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2004-title21-vol2/xml/CFR-2004-title21-vol2-sec101-9.xml

(viii) For nutrition labeling purposes, a teaspoon means 5 milliliters (mL), a tablespoon means 15 mL, a cup means 240 mL, 1 fl oz means 30 mL, and 1 oz in weight means 28 g.

Thus as for cup measure, 8 ounce means 240 mL and not 237 mL. Very few realize that two different agencies in the US define units differently.

"Imperial Cup" - no such thing

I don't think there is, or was, any such thing as an "imperial cup", either formal or informal. A discussion on the Miscellaneous page of the Reference Desk seems to be reaching the same conclusion. So if nobody has any credible objection, and if (big if) I remember to return here in the near future, then I will delete the part about the "imperial cup". 92.29.82.48 (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections recieved. There's no such thing as a "metric cup" either. Someone wants to cup-ize the world, but its just a North American thing. 92.29.42.231 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So they never measured in cups in the UK? In Canada, before metric conversion, a cup was a comonplace unit equal to half a pint - but Imperial pints differed from US ones - and still do. It is more than possible that Canadainas at least still have measuring cups that are 10 imperial ounces each & recipe books that use that unit, regardless of whether people in Manchester do--JimWae (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thinking more about this: Measuring cups now sold in Canada are marketed as having both metric and imperial measurements on them -- but one cup is (oddly) 8 ounces. Anyone know if those are imperial ounces or US ounces? And have they always been so?--JimWae (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that 8 ounces on a cup means 240 mL per the FDA (US) definition.68.105.199.216 (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a site that gives currency to a different sized Imperial cup. All the more reason to abandon both Imperial & US capacity/volume measures.--JimWae (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is another - --JimWae (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cups were and still are used in a number of recipes in the UK. I have no idea what measurement though and they're very rarely shown on measuring cylinders and the like --81.108.16.230 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly a unit of measurement traditionally used in British cookery called a "cup" which is half a pint or 10 fluid ounces. I have numerous cookery books that use the term (i.e. as a British not US unit) and I have at least one measuring jug which has "cups" as a measurement (against fluid ounces 1 cup=10 fl oz). Whether its called an "Imperial" cup or not I don't know, or for that matter whether it has any official status, but it certainly has considerable currency amongst anyone brought up in traditional British home cookery as I was. 82.68.102.190 (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cream is often sold in 284ml tubs in the UK. This may have some (limited) use in the argument for Imperial cups?

284ml is simply half a pint (imperial) measured by the Napoleonic system. So far as cups are concerned, there was I believe an attempt once to decree a standard cup, but it has never really caught on. More often we refer to coffee cups, tea cups and breakfast cups (being c. 2 1/2, 5 and 7-8 fl ozs respectively). See Elizabeth David, Spices Salt and Aromatics in the English Kitchen (London, 1970), p.67. She also points out that before the creation of the Imperial Pint in 1878, references in English recipes to a pint are to a 16 fl oz pint. S.C.

German cups

Quote: for example, in German recipes (cup) will simply refer to an amount that roughly fits into a typical teacup

... which is why this unit is very rarely (if at all) used in German recipes. Maikel (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You will still find these measures a lot in older cooking books, newer regional cooking tradition and personal (family) recipes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.202.57 (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well you'll find a lot of "tablespoons" (lit. "eating spoons", in the varieties "stroked-down" and "piled-up") and "teaspoons" ("stroked-down" or "piled-up") and even knife-tips, but I don't think there are so many "cups" around.--2001:A61:20EC:CD01:E040:4962:D974:C204 (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Using volume measures to estimate mass

Quote: In Europe... - the UK is in Europe, so this is an overgeneralisation. Danensis (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Customary"?

Why "customary"? Aren't all weights and measures customary? Kortoso (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The term is used to differentiate those measures from legally defined ones. In many countries goods may only be sold using the legally defined set of measuring units. Customary units are forbidden in trade, mainly because they are poorly or inconsistently defined. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Customary is defined by Merriam Webster. as 1. based on or established by custom 2. commonly practised, used, or observed. Custom is defined as 1. a. a usage or practice common to many or to a particular place or class or habitual with an individual b. long-established practice considered as unwritten law c. repeated practice d. the whole body of usages, practices, or conventions that regulate social life

There are 3 countries in the world where the customary usage is also the legal correct measurement system, two of them are USA and Liberia. All the other English speaking world principally use Metric and have done so in the case of the UK for over 40 years. In the UK there are some traditional weights an measurement such as pound, pint and mile that are still used, but in no way is cup a customary usage - its is only customary in the USA, it not even in traditional usage anywhere outside the USA.

The question then is the Wikipedia merely a reflection of only the united states in North America view of the English language, as opposed to the Canadian in North America or any other country that primarily use English for example the English? If it is surely it should be forked to reflect this. If not surely what the vast majority of English speakers use, should be the criteria which in this case is: litres and not cups and that should be conveyed in the initial subject line.

personally don't want to get into an edit war over this, but I suspect that Roger (Dodger67) will keep reverting it back to the customary, as its customary For Them whilst its actually neither traditional nor customary for the vast majority of the English speaking world X-mass (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@X-mass - you might find it useful to firstly read WP:AGF and secondly take a really good look at my edits as well as the accompanying edit summaries. I have simply removed extraneous details that are relevant only to the American cup from the lead, which is supposed to discuss the concept of cup measures in the broadest sense. Information about specific individual varieties of cup measures belong in the respective subsections. I have no idea which passage you "suspect" I will revert, also have no idea which "them" you believe I belong to. The article text as it is now (timestamp of my signature) is acceptable to me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Metric cups (measuring cups of 250ml) are used in metric countries precisely because they use the metric system - try reading an Australian, South African, New Zealand, etc. recipe book sometime. I can buy such a cup in a supermarket less than 1km from where I am right now. They are available in thousands of shops across the country (do a bit of clicking if you want to know what country I'm referring to). Details about the American cup belong in the section about the American cup. Do not make generalisations about cup measures in general in the lead that are true of only the US version of the cup. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

References

I don't believe "metric cup" and "legal cup" are genuine terms

After a bunch of searching, I could not find any non-Wikipedia-inspired uses of the term "United States 'legal' cup" and I believe it is a Wikipedia invention. While it's interesting trivia that a US regulation (not law) for nutrition labeling rounds the cup to 240mL, it's not creating a new unit of measure. This would be better as a footnote, not a confusing section that leads people to believe a cup in the US is 240mL. The term "metric cup" also appears to be fictional. I could only find one published use of the term prior to 2000, in a book proposing a "metric cup". And in many years in Canada I never heard anyone refer to the "metric cup". TL;DR: the terms "metric cup" and "legal cup" should be removed unless citations exist for their use. Billgordon1099 (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The term "metric cup" is most definitely not fictional. It's used all over the place in Australia and New Zealand, even by people who should know better. I think what you're saying is that it's not in use in Canada. You just need to google for "australian cup measurement" to find thousands of hits. I've updated the article to reflect this, though it might need further tuning. I can't find a really definitive one, so I've added the best I can find. In all likelihood there's a Government site that confirms this. Groogle (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have a definitive source, don't add the information. "In all likelihood" is not a source. 2601:58B:4204:B6B0:647B:B8EE:39F0:D770 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Korean cup

Apparently a Korean cup is 200ml as the Japanese cup. (see e.g. http://english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/FO/FO_EN_7_5_1_1.jsp) 86.56.94.60 (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"ingredients measured with the same size cup will have their volumes in the same proportion to one another"

From the introduction of the article "No matter what size cup is used, the ingredients of a recipe measured with the same size cup will have their volumes in the same proportion to one another. The relative amounts to ingredients measured differently (by weight, or by different measures of volume such as teaspoons, etc.) may be affected by the definitions used."

This is explained like it was an advantage of cups over other units. But couldn't this be said about every single unit? Equal volumes of whatever lead up to equal proportions in a recipe. Doesn't matter if it's cups, or truckloads , or cubic palm sizes.

It makes the article look not serious and to be honest I think it should be removed. Dsnipper (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That assertion seems questionable. from the Daily Telegraph of 31 March 2017 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/equipment/dear-americans-fed-stupid-cup-measurements/ :- "US food website Serious Eats – which has seen the light and offers both cup and weight measures in its recipes – once asked 10 people to measure a cup of plain flour into a bowl. Depending on the scooping method, how it was packed and whether they tipped every last bit out, that cup of flour weighed anything between 113g and 170g. (Apparently, according to websites devoted to the science of weighing flour, the official weight of 1 cup of plain flour is 120g and the correct technique is to spoon it into the cup, then level off with a knife). This is a huge disparity; someone might make a cake with 40 per cent too much flour in it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.55.206 (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't revert content without valid reason

On 21 October an anonymous user changed the page with the comment "Reference to the UK cup edited - it is not in general use (I have never seen it in a modern British cookbook and is a matter of puzzlement to many British readers of US cookbooks."

This says more about the user than the facts. Many cookbooks refer to it, and removing that information can just add to the sense of puzzlement. I've reinstated it with a couple of references. If anybody can find substantiated evidence that it's no longer in use, feel free to add an appropriate comment. Groogle (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Jamaica

What about in Canada, the cup is often used, but no mention? Amqui (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

History of this measurement?

The cup is an informal unit of domestic cookery, and I think having a proper history section would clear up a lot of the debate here. As it's a unit of volume, if a cook was using the same cup to measure everything then the proportions would be the same, so originally it didn't matter how big the cup was. When did cups become standardised in the US? Relatively recently, I would imagine. Gymnophoria (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"Coffee cup"

The current article has this prose:

A "coffee cup" is 1.5 dl or 150 millilitres or 5.07 US customary fluid ounces, and is occasionally used in recipes. It is also used in the US to specify coffeemaker sizes (what can be referred to as a Tasse à café). A "12-cup" US coffeemaker makes 57.6 US customary fluid ounces of coffee, or 6.8 metric cups of coffee.

This seems correct to me, and has very precise-sounding measurements; sadly without references. Yet, the Tasse à café that this article links to says:

A tasse à café (French pronunciation: [tɑs‿a kafe], coffee cup) is a cup, generally of white porcelain and of around 120 ml (4  fl oz), in which coffee is served.

Additionally, the coffee cup article doesn't talk about "coffee cup" as it relates to Cup (unit), but has a section on the demitasse:

The Demitasse is a cup specially crafted for espresso. It is 60-80 ml in capacity, and usually served on a saucer.

Going to the Demitasse article, we find:

[The demitasse] typically has about 60–90  ml (2–3 fl oz) capacity — half the size of a full coffee cup (a tasse à café is about 120 ml (4 fl oz)).

All this seems to suggest that a "coffee cup" is probably somewhere in the range of 120-180 ml, but that's just guessing based on the uncited estimates made in Cup (unit), Tasse à café, coffee cup, and Demitasse. Anyone know of a reliable source for information on this topic? -- RobLa (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The cup of coffee section is essentially unsourced. Unless someone has sources, I will remove the parts that do not have sources. In particular "A customary "cup" of coffee in the U.S. is usually defined as 4 fluid ounces" is dubious. Michaplot (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This is under the "customary cup" section for a reason, in that the measurement is customary. That being said, 4 fluid ounces is the customary measurement of a cup of brewed coffee in the U.S., as recognized by manufacturers of coffee brewing machinery. The Black and Decker carafe pictured illustrates this, and although the carafe doesn't give the measurements in ounces, I have personally checked them and found them to be accurate (4 ounces per "cup" of brewed coffee and 5 ounces per "cup" of water). This is true for drip coffeemakers, but percolating coffeemakers may have a greater loss: Folgers says to start with 6 fluid ounces of water to produce each 4-ounce cup of brewed coffee, presumably with a percolating coffeemaker. However, the references to a U.S. "coffee cup" and "12-cup US coffeemaker" under the "Metric Cup" section are incorrect - although misleadingly precise, they refer to the water used to brew the coffee but incorrectly state that they are for the brewed coffee itself (a 12-cup coffeemaker makes 48 ounces of brewed coffee, not 57.6). Since a customary U.S. cup of coffee isn't metric, and since the references are incorrect anyway, these probably should be removed. -- Aahz, 24.126.154.144 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the unsourced content should not be removed. Wikipedia requires that every statement be verifiable, not that every statement be cited. As the anonymous editor above has indicated, the evidence that coffee cups are 4 fluid ounces can be commonly found in the instruction manuals, and by talking to industry experts, so is therefore not dubious. I also strongly agree with the anonymous editor's statement about customary; customary units are not usually precisely defined in law or regulations, and therefore citing precise controlling definitions is difficult. Peter K. Sheerin 01:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

While I find the section on coffee cups quite helpful and interesting, it seems like the image should line up with the US coffee cup subsection, and not at the top of the US section. Sadly after several attempts to fix this I've given up because it always looks terrible.Palehose5 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cup (unit). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813113845/http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=77734a162c4f7ddd997233b4d623c029&rgn=div8&view=text&node=21%3A2.0.1.1.2.1.1.6&idno=21 to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=21%3A2.0.1.1.2.1.1.6&idno=21

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Stocksy txpa518c328XNc100 Large 757081.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

L?

Since when has the abbreviation for litres been a capital L, and millilitres been mL? I've only ever seen lowercase l. 195.157.65.228 (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a symbol, not an abbreviation. Both l and L are permitted by BIPM, while NIST prefers the upper case L. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Cup serving size?

I find the first line of the article ambiguous: "Not to be confused with drinking cups, or "cup" serving sizes, which may not necessarily correspond with this unit."

I understand that a drinking cup may not hold 1 cup of liquid, but what is a cup serving size? Is it an alternative unit of measurement? It's not mentioned anywhere except the first line of the lede: "The cup is a cooking measure of volume, commonly associated with cooking and serving sizes."

There's a page on serving size but it's just about "the amount of a food or drink that is generally served." https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Serving_size

I'm guessing a "cup serving size" is not a unit of measurement but just an informal term e.g. if you serve someone a cup of ice cream, it may not be 1 cup in volume.

Can the wording of the first line be clarified? 24.69.141.161 (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Cup is no unit

Cups are used in US recipe books. To be a unit, it must be legally defined. In the US it is 240 ml.

In the UK, pubs use pints (lawful unit) and half-pints (not cup).

A cup from a coffee shop varies on the size of cup they give you.

There is no such thing as a metric cup. The expression is misleading. It is not SI, and also not decimal (multiples or sub-multiples of 10).

Book reader (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversion to unreferenced version

@Dodger67: A change I made today to the United Kingdom section of the article was reverted, with a personal comment Clearly has not seen many pre-metric British cookbooks. Please refrain from assuming you know what I have or have not seen. I have a stack of pre-metric British cookbooks collected over a large number of years in my pre-metric British house; they do not use Cup as a standard measure, using instead imperial units for weight (and volume where unavoidable) as the article states. I made the change because the information in the text was all unreferenced; in particular, the claim that there is such a thing as a "standardised cup" in use in the United Kingdom. I inserted a Template:By whom request for clarification in January this year but it has not been fulfilled, which led to my removing the affected information. If you have reliable sources for the official definition of a Cup as a unit of volume in the United Kingdom, please add them to the article (or point me at them and I will do it). Bazza (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)