Talk:Paper size/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

JIS B series exportation?

Does anyone know if/how much JIS B series is used outside of Japan? I went to a seemingly experienced print shop here in New Zealand and asked if they knew what JIS B series paper was, and they said they only know international standard sizes (i.e. ISO 216). When I ordered them to cut 500 sheets of B4, I measured it later and it matches JIS B4 rather than ISO B4.

Is JIS B series being silently spread as 'regular' B series? Leedar (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

US sizes in use in Latin America

I read in the article that outside of Canada, USA, and Mexico, "Elsewhere in the world, paper and other stationery in U.S. sizes is not easily available." However being a frequent traveler to many countries in Latin America, I know that many countries there use the U.S. sizes. In Brazil, both paper sizes can be bought in the store. In Chile and Colombia, the standard available in stores is the US standard, not the ISO standard. Same with Costa Rica. By contrast, in Peru, A4 is the commonly available size.

I edited the article to try to make it more accurate according to my first-hand experience in Latin America and added some evidence through citations. What I had actually come to the article to find was a table of countries vs. the availability of common paper sizes there so that when I send them electronic documents -- for which I make a separate "Letter" size and an "A4" size, I know which size document to send to which country.

I am currently writing from Mexico, where I can confirm that the US sizes are the only paper sizes available commonly in stores and people generally do not know what "A4" size means. Kevin 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

If Acrobat's PDF Printer is correct, it describes tabloid as 17"×11" and ledger as 11"×17". Basically making tabloid naturally portrait, and ledger naturally landscape. Not that that would change anything intrinsic to the paper itself, but it might have some soft of historical significance. - Nakamura2828 20:41, 18 August 2006 (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)

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)

I live in Venezuela: all official documents and everything uses the US standard. I have never even seen a single sheet of A4 paper in my country. Where does this information about Venezuela adopting ISO 216 standard in 1962 comes from? In reality we mainly use these 3 sizes: American Letter "Carta" (8.5" x 11", 216 mm × 279 mm), "Oficio" (8.5" x 12.4", 216 mm × 315 mm) and American Legal "Extra Oficio" (8.5" x 14", 216 mm × 356 mm). Legal documents are required to use either "Carta" (8.5" x 11") or "Oficio" (8.5" x 12.4"). Beware that you will not find ISO sizes in any bookstore or shop. The not so funny story is that, in Microsoft Windows, when you set the locale to Venezuela it likes to default everything to A4 and many people leave that setting alone but in fact use (8.5" x 12.4") sheets. To make matters worse, the spanish translation for the "Legal" size word is "Oficio"; but in Venezuela, Legal = Extra Oficio. --201.243.201.109 14:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time (or last time) that Microsoft didn't get something right. It may also depend on the segment of the economy. For example, is the ISO A-series commonly used for technical drawings in Venezuela? If so, that may be what influenced Microsoft to set A4 as the default size. —Quicksilver^{T @} 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I will check this out, but i have only seen US/Ansi sizes for everything.

Since all data on Wikipedia has to the properly referenced, try to provide at least for example the law that makes Carta or Oficio mandatory. Shinobu 15:34, 18 September 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

---

So to wrap up this discussion... The answer to "Wo uses non-ISO paper?" is "Inhabitants of the U.S, Canada and Mexico", right? Shinobu 10:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, why won't the US implement ISO standards? 59.154.26.124 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to this line from the article: "See switch costs, network effects and standardization for possible reasons for differing regional adoption rates of the ISO standard sizes." -Nakamura2828 14:26, 24 October 2006 (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)

"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?

Would 'Old British and American Paper Sizes' be better?--Moncubus 23:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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.)

Perhaps it's an attempt to have a full Arch B printable area with ½ inch margins? That might make sense for draftwork or the like. That's just a guess --Nakamura2828 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just did some searching, and I think I was right. This page names 13"×19" paper "Arch B Extra" - Nakamura2828 20:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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..

As far as I can see, there is no error: A3 is half the size of A2. The confusing thing with this diagram is that A0 is defined as the size of the complete figure (containing all the other paper sizes), whereas the other paper sizes are defined by non-overlapping rectangles (I think I'm not clear here...): To be consistent, A0 should be represented by a rectangle (of the size of the current figure) placed on the right.

All the even sizes (A0, A2,A4,A6) are represented by rectangles standing upright from right to left, and all the odd sizes have a horizontal (landscape) orientation, from bottom to top. -- CyrilB 08:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency between article and cited source

From the article:

QUOTE:

ISO paper sizes are all based on a single aspect ratio of the square root of two, or approximately 1:1.4142. Basing paper upon this ratio was conceived by the German scientist Georg Lichtenberg in 1786 (in a letter to Johann Beckmann),

END QUOTE

But in the letter:

QUOTE:

Having found that ratio, I wanted to apply it to an available sheet of ordinary writing paper with scissors, but found with pleasure, that it already had it. It is the paper on which I write this letter, but to which, because since by cutting some of its original form may have been lost, I also add an uncut original. The short side of the rectangle must relate to the large one like 1 : √2, or like the side of a square to its diagonal.* This form has something pleasant and distinguished before the ordinary [form]. Are these rules given to the paper makers or has this form spread through tradition? Where does this form come from, which appears not to have emerged by accident?

END QUOTE

So it seems that paper had a 1:√2 aspect ratio traditionally even before Lichtenberg.

Suggestion for SVG artists

It would be nice to have an additional drawing, to better visualize the core difference between ISO and US formats. Draw several ISO paper formats in portrait orientation on top of each other, with the bottom-left corner of each page aligned on the same point. Then draw a single red line through all the top-right corners, to visualize that all formats have the same aspect ratio. In a second figure, try the same for U.S. Letter (8.5"x11") and its multiples and divisions (11"x17", 17"x22", 5.5"x8.5", etc.). It will then become obvious (and can be indicated with two red lines through all the top-right corners) that such a series alternates between two different aspect ratios. Markus Kuhn 12:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The video standards guys already have done something like this, but in PNG format. It would be nive to keep the design in sync. -- Christoph Päper 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The image on top.

Don't you guys think it would be better to put the american sizes in the image for comparison? There was the old yellowish image with the american sizes. The current blue one doesn't have the american paper sizes. --Quaestor 03:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about that here: Commons:Image talk:A size illustration.svg Shinobu 10:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since it looks like the new image is going to have just the A-sizes, I have moved it down and replaced the comparison image at the top. It is very useful for understanding the relative sizes of A4, Letter, and Legal. -SCEhardT 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Having both of the images on the page seemed redundant to me, do we really need both? mr_flea 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

paper thickness and density

Are there any standards for paper thickness and/or density ? It appears that index cards and printer paper have a consistent thickness, while stationery seems to have a wide variation.

The misleadingly-titled section "Paper_size#Expressing_paper_thickness_and_density" doesn't say anything about thickness, except to say that "the product of thickness and density of paper is expressed in grams per square metre (g/m²)". (Which seems to me to be a bit misleading -- I suspect manufacturers measure the weight and divide by the area, rather than measuring the thickness *and* measuring the density and then multiplying).

From the "grammage", it's impossible to calculate the thickness unless you already know the density. You cannot use the density of pine wood (less than 1000 kg/m^3), because I hear that nicer paper has "a lot" of clay (more than 1000 kg/m^3) added to make it more opaque.

"Thickness is normally expressed in inches or millimeters, but can also be measured in points, where 1 point = .001 inches."

Yes, but what specific thickness(es) are standard? Or at least typical? One sheet of 80gsm paper is about 0.09mm thick (measure a 500 sheet ream's thickness and divide by 500).

Why "grammage"? Whose invention was this? An economist's no doubt. Before Australia converted to the international sizes, we (and printers elsewhere I'm sure) referred to the "weight" of paper, and that was carried through to the A and other series. The "age" suffix is now being unnecesssarily added to everything, either as an adjective or to denote a plural. So we get signage instead of signs and so on - I've even heard "lackage". There is a place for it, but not in this sense, nor in most instances where it's now comonly used. so we have paper that is A4 size with a weight of 80 gsm.

This whole article is getting bloated, posted merge paper weight section to Basis weight of paper as paper size and paper weight are two different issues (well, mostly). MDSNYDER 04:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the section out & moved it to Paper density. Jimp 01:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

History background

I know that Leonardo DaVinci is the inventor of the defined paper sizes used today. I wonder why no mention is made of him in the page...

Do you have any source for this? It certainly should be added if it's true. Moncubus 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would love to know the history of how paper sizes came to be.--71.146.29.69 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

½ vs. .5

Why use ½ and .5 interchangeably? It makes it harder to search through the page. If I'm looking for 8½, I also have to type in 8.5. This doesn't make sense to me.

A4 Paper in the United States

The written commentary regarding "A4 Paper in the United States" is noncomplient with Wikipedia's standards, not to mention poorly written. Of particular note is the unabashedly opinionated statement, "Due to the widespread use of Letter paper size, adopting A4 paper size is quite impractical in the United States." A false presumption based on a conservative stance certainly has no place here. The entry is made worse through its inclusion of arbitrary, indeterminate phrases such as "not many", "often", and "sometimes". It sounds more like an angry, defensive rant than an entry in an encyclopedia.

I concur. The section does not add any substance to the article and should be deleted. Immediately. --Coolcaesar 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

F4A Paper in Hong Kong

My school in Hong Kong regularly uses F4A paper (216cm * 343cm). Does anyone know if it common throughout Asia? The only reference I have found on the web so far has been at (sorry to link to a commercial site): http://www.bigboxx.com/shop/...

Should this paper size be added to the main page?

8.5" x 13.5" is foolscap (foolscap folio). We used to use this in Malaysia as well, it was often labelled F4, but apparently this is wrong - F4 is foolscap quarto (6.74" x 8.5"), foolscap folio is Ffol. Nowadays most people have moved to A4. Andrew Yong 11:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While the terms foolscap and F4 were often used interchangably, there were in fact two common paper sizes that were interchangably referred to whichever name was used. Proper foolscap folio i.e. 8.5" x 13.5" was sometimes called foolscap and sometimes F4. More commonly now metric F4 with dimensions of 210 mm x 330 mm is available but it too may be called F4 or foolscap. I don't think you can say the name F4 is wrong. There is no single defined F4. (The only defined F4 is the Swiss one from what I can tell and this isn't in use). The name F4 was adopted for this paper size I presume as portmanteau of foolscap and A4 as metric F4 has the same width as A4 but is longer. (foolscap is of course fairly similar) While F4 is dying out, out it still exists, for example see [2] & [3] (both commercial links). Technically as no definition by a standards organisation exists AFAIK, you could say that calling foolscap F4 and the 210x330mm size F4 are both just as correct, even if very confusing. Nil Einne 14:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Plus" and "Extra" sizes

I've see references to sizes like Letter Plus, Legal Extra, A4 Plus, etc. but no mention of those in the article. See Zan Paper sizes for an example. (The reason I found this article in the first place was that I wondered what size paper a particular printer supported, since the blessed sellers instead of stating max length and width listed a bunch of obscure paper sizes.) Letter Plus is a little longer than Letter, Letter Extra is one inch extra on both sides. A4 Plus adds some length, and A4 Extra adds some margin on both sides.

Where do these extra sizes come from? Invention of printer makers, software makers, some industry group, or what? In my google search, "Letter Plus" paper sizes yielded mostly Microsoft API references, and technical documentation for certain printer brands.

- The 'extra' sizes are what we use here at work for generating a PDF that has room for cropmarks, trim and registration, etc. In other words, A4 will be the usual 210 by 297, which is the final trim size of the artwork, whereas the A4 Extra size will add (about 25mm on each side? not sure) all around the trim dimensions so that the page is now big enough to accomodate the crops and reg marks too. Ian Tindale 15:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Square root of two aspect ratio advantages

The article alludes to the fact that using an aspect ratio of radical two has advantages, but it does not spell out these advantages. I think it would be well worth expanding on this point in the article. WilliamKF 23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Illustration upgrade

A long time ago I improved (IMHO) and extended the series of paper size illustrations and you might want to have a look at it. Here's what's available:

• 
  A series compared to Letter and Legal
• 
  A series
• 
  B series
• 
  C series
• 
  ANSI series

As someone pointed out, there is probably no need for both A series images in the same article. —Bromskloss 09:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Illustration suggestion

The paragraph explaning the comparative sizes of the A, B and C series is accurate, but not obvious. An image showing the comparative sizes would be useful IMHO. (perhaps just by overlaying, for eg, C4 and B4 onto the A-series sheet, in a similar way to the A-series image with US paper sizes overlay? --Nemo 04:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In ISO 216, the images have been lined up (properly scaled) side by side. Just for your information. —Bromskloss 14:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not quite what I had in mind, but satisfies enough of my personal curiosity that this has been thought of. cheers :) --Nemo 04:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Some questions

• Does anyone know which standard the "Architecture" sizes come from?
• Could someone add a list of Canadian P-series sizes?
• Are the traditional US sizes (Letter,Legal,etc.) standardised anywhere?

--124.188.225.17 02:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are all the paper sizes?

Hey there...this may be a stupid question, but it bares asking.

I came here looking for the size 5 x 8 to see what it is called, and nothing. Why is this? I have a book I just measured that is about 5 and 1/3 by 8 inches. Why is that size not here? 5.5 by 8.5 is here, but this book is exactly 8 inches across. Are there paper sizes that people just come up with to use for no reason? Or did this books publisher use a paper size they thought was standard, and therefore should be on here?

Thanks Rob 03:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a stupid question at all. But you have to understand something about paper, and more specifically about how books are made. I don't know how much you know about printing, but you could probably be excused for thinking that that book you described was printed on pieces of paper 5-1/3 x 8 inches, then glued together into a book. But it wasn't; unless you're talking about a very small subset of books made by hand, or by small boutique presses, books, magazines, newspapers, etc., are all printed on much larger pieces of paper (or more likely not even on sheets of paper, but on a huge roll, called a "web"). For instance, if that book was printed on a sheetfed press, it may have been printed on paper 25 x 35 inches, in what's called a "signature" containing many pages, that gets folded several times, then trimmed to make part of a book.

So your finished book, and many other finished books, may not be any kind of standard size at all, even though it may have been printed on standard-size pieces of paper. Does that help explain? +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In the same vein, I could not find reference to two other sizes in common use:

210 mm * 270 mm used to be the standard business page size in France (and possibly elsewhere) until the A series took over for most cases. And 240 mm * 320 mm is still the most widespread paper format for hand drawing. Did I miss something ? Even today, I can still find these sizes being required for pupils in the public school system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.205.217 (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Geography

"Imperial sizes were used in the United Kingdom and its territories." Well, yes. But doubtless they were adopted in at least a few other places? Rich Farmbrough, 10:49 20 August 2007 (GMT).

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).

Original research in "Tablet sizes" section?

I noticed the following two paragraphs in the Tablet sizes section:

For varied commercial purposes, all sorts of sizes have been recently observed: 4 by 5½ inches; 5 by 8 inches; 5⅜ by 8¼ inches; 6 by 9½ inches; 7¼ by 9½ inches; and 7¾ by 9⅞ inches.

The only "metric" paper in the shops where this observation was taken are a few Chinese-made "composition books" for children which are 190 mm by 247 mm, a slight modification from the 7¾ by 9¾ inch ones. But the holes in the sheets of any of these tablets fit American-standard binders.

These paragraphs sound to me like a Wikipedia editor went into a few stationery shops and looked around and wrote up their findings. This would constitute original research and does not belong here. On the other hand, if these observations were part of a study or something that has been reported in a publication, then this should be cited. Does anyone know the source of the information in these paragraphs? —Bkell (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

From the article history, it appears that these paragraphs were added by an anonymous user, 165.121.144.179, in June 2005 [4]. It appears unlikely that we will be able to ask the author for the original source. Unless someone objects, these paragraphs should probably be replaced with something more concrete and verifiable. —Bkell (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Largest size?

To quote: The largest standard size, A0, has an area of 1 m². Aren't B0 and C0 bigger? --Clum (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

K16 size paper

Today I printed something and now my printer is asking for size "K16" paper, which I didn't know existed, and don't find any reference to on Wikipedia. I did find this link to a Xerox user manual [5] that refers to size K8 and K16 paper and seems to imply they are Chinese in origin or use. From the manual (pg 3-10):

Indicate your language preference to enable the set of 8K and 16K paper sizes that is best suited to your needs. If you select "Traditional Chinese," the dimensions of the 8K and 16K paper sizes are 267 x 388mm and 194 x 267mm respectively. If you select "Simplified Chinese," the dimensions will be 270 x 390mm and 195 x 270mm respectively.

Can anyone comment? --Mr Minchin 17:48, 25 January 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)

Fibonacci / golden ratio proportions

In literature on book design (concretely the series Nordisk boktryckarekonsts fackbibliotek, which is in Swedish and published 1903–1957, so it's probably not useful as reference here), I've seen claims that page proportions given by successive Fibonacci numbers were used (as approximations of the golden ratio), concretely 8/5=1.6, 13/8=1.625, and 21/13≈1.615. None of the paper formats listed on this page seems to be close to that, however. They needn't be, of course, since books are made from bigger sheets of papers which are folded and then trimmed, but it would be interesting if someone could provide a concrete example of how one might arrive at a golden ratio proportion page starting from one of the listed sheet sizes. 81.231.33.12 (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No mention has been made of the photographic "Plate Sizes" or "Postcard".

Ref: BS 1112:1972 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehimself (talk • contribs) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Whole Plate - 6-1/2" x 8-1/2" - based on the size of the standard glass photographic plate.

Half Plate - 6-1/2" x 4-3/4" - wider than half the "plate" size, to preserve the proportions.

Quarter Plate - 3-1/2" x 4-1/2" - a quarter of "plate" size plus a printing margin.

Postcard - 3-1/2" x 5-1/2" - a convenient ratio for seaside views and also allowing the reverse be divided into two to provide space for a message and the address.

With the advent of commercial photo printing 4” x 6”and 5” x 7” were introduced, to allow full-frame prints to be made from 24mm. x 36mm. negatives on 35mm. film. This 2/3 ratio came about because the early Leica cameras were designed to use two 18mm. x 24mm. frames of standard movie stock. Later attempts to introduce more harmonious proportions for miniature cameras gained a small following but always failed because the industry was so heavily committed to the 24 x 36 format. Mikehimself (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that although digital cameras use the 3/4 ratio (the same proportions as a standard computer monitor) most prints are still made on 4" x 6" (10 x 15cm.) paper, resulting in some cropping of the image.Mikehimself (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)