Talk:Paper size

Question about removal of proposed lead clarification

On 9 August 2025 at 06:23 UTC, I proposed a minor change to the lead to better reflect that ISO 216 is the official international standard, used by the vast majority of countries, whereas ANSI formats (Letter, Legal, Ledger) are exceptions. This change was reverted at 06:41 UTC with the comment “Improvement not obvious”. I would like to understand the reason for this removal, as the change was intended to be neutral and is supported by reliable sources (official ISO 216 page, CIA World Factbook, CEN adoption notes). 2A01:CB14:829F:7200:897:E732:B46A:7C92 (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The editor who reverted you posted a comment about this in the section immediately above this one ("Edit by IP"). Mindmatrix 10:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Wikipedia's W.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Mass changes of number style

@Sngpra: I reverted a mass of minor changes, mostly changing (eg) "1280 mm" to "1,280 mm". The MOS allows either comma or non-comma forms for 4-digit numbers, and since all values here are a maximum of four digits, I think the non-comma form is neater. So you need consensus for a change like this. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

simpler intro

@Imaginatorium: can we please put a simple explanation before getting abstract into the introduction? i tested the current with 12 year olds and they were not able to understand what it is about. with a simple thing like a1 is half of a0. and that c0 is envelope of a0 and b0 is envelope of c0. or - c sligltly larger for envelope, and b really larger for machines. or put something mathematical like

class-0- to class-4-formats

Format	Area in m²	Decimal (rounded)	Length (mm)	Width (mm)
B0	21/2	1.414	1414	1000
C0	21/4	1.189	1297	917
A0	20	1.000	1189	841
B1	2−1/2	0.707	1000	707
C1	2−3/4	0.595	917	648
A1	2−1	0.500	841	594
B2	2−3/2	0.354	707	500
C2	2−7/4	0.297	648	458
A2	2−2	0.250	594	420
B3	2−5/2	0.177	500	353
C3	2−11/4	0.149	458	324
A3	2−3	0.125	420	297
B4	2−7/2	0.088	353	250
C4	2−15/4	0.074	324	229
A4	2−4	0.0625	297	210

but such a table i would not put in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThurnerRupert (talk • contribs) 06:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The article is about paper sizes in general and "it's complicated™" because the US does not use the ISO sizes. So your table (or better still, the diagram) would probably generate more heat than light. So for your purposes, the section paper size#A series makes a better starting point. Inspired by your story, I have added a sentence there to explain in more practical terms how each size relates to the one above and the one below. Does that help? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

do you understand "most countries adhere to the ISO 216 standard, which includes the widely recognized A series (including A4 paper) defined by a consistent aspect ratio of √2"? that language is jibberish, normal people are not mathematicians. therefor i tried to write it a little simpler. you master english better than me, please propose something? ThurnerRupert (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Problem: the sentence you describe as "jibberish" is correct English and true; most people may not be mathematicians, but that does not necessarily mean they are innumerate. Your attempt at a replacement is not even close to English: for a start you need to learn to use capital letters at the beginning of a sentence, for words like "I", and so on. Without any plausible replacement why should anyone take your concerns seriously? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Imaginatorium: not sure how that answers my question, let me put it different therefor. i did add "A0 is 1 m2 of size, A1 is half of it, A2 half and so on." in the intro, to make it clear for any educational background what it is about. can you please be specific why this sentence is not acceptable? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Aspect ratio sorting

North American paper sizes table: Please make aspect ratio into two columns: one using colons, one using decimals. Else they cannot sort correctly when mixed together as is the sad case now. Jidanni (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at the table and the templates it's using and don't see any obvious way to fix this. It's not a question of colons vs decimals. The "aspect ratio" column is actually sorting by area, not by aspect ratio. And the "size" columns are sorting by just the first dimension, ignoring the second. We might be better off for now just making the table non-sortable. To fix it we need to consult a tables expert. Maybe we could find one at the teahouse or help desk. GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

One way to do it is simply to represent the aspect ratio as a number, equal to l/w. Perhaps a separate column, just for sorting. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thank you very much for the report. I found some bugs in {{resratio}} called by {{size}} and hopefully fixed them. The table seems to be sorting better now – I dare to say: correctly. — Christoph Päper 12:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's amazing. Magical even. Thank you. Great username by the way. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

1975?

"The system, first proposed in the 18th century and formalized in 1975" This seems wrong, as DIN formalized it much earlier. The article shows no hint what special happened in 1975. Wlodr (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Oops. 1975 is the date of ISO standard. Wlodr (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

DIN was founded in 1917 so DIN 476 could not have been adopted in the 18th century and there is nothing in the article that says it was, so I have removed this from the lead. Someone has conflated this with the proposals by Lichtenberg and Carnot mentioned in the "A series" section. GA-RT-22 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, perhaps "conflation" is the correct thing to do. The wording needs to be chosen carefully, but the point is that in the 18thC someone suggested using a series of sizes, where each was twice the area of the one below, and the aspect ratios were all the same, which entails a value of 1:root(2). The DIN version (A and B sizes) is only the latest practical implementation of this idea. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I would be ok with restoring "first proposed in the 18th century" if you want. I would not be ok with "The ISO 216 system originated in late-18th-century Germany as DIN 476". And I would be opposed to including this twice in the lead, once is plenty. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Actually, I'm sorry, but I forgot that this is the general article, rather than the one on the scalable sizes. So actually I think it would be better to omit all mention of the root(2) aspect ratio from this article. And I will try to put some time into rewriting the basic explanation on International standard paper sizes. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)