Talk:Pound

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Anthroponymy

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles

Requested move

Talk:Pound — Pound → Pound (disambiguation) and Pound (weight) → Pound

This would undo a complex move recently done by new User:Chaosfeary, who did not clean up the resulting links to the disambiguation page and who is now saying he's leaving Wikipedia and asking for speedy deletion of user and talk pages. The move served no purpose; it doesn't make linking currencies any easier, because they still must be disambiguated by country, and it unnecessarily makes linking the mass units more difficult. Gene Nygaard 16:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up ALL double-redirects and many redirects (definitely all in mass/weight-related articles). A few redirects are not going to hurt anyone in the meantime until one of the Wikipedia:Bots clean them up automatically (The whole point is that when one article is moved you don't have to then edit a further 600 pages).

It's funny how you try to slur me with "new user" with the implication that this change was done by "someone unfamiliar to Wikipedia". Your first edit was 4 days after mine. I have been using Wikipedia longer than you, not the other way around. Also, the fact that I am leaving Wikipedia is nothing to do with this, it's for personal reasons, and so does not have anything to do with this subject.

The move DID serve a purpose, it helps people looking for the term "pound" who are not necessarily looking for the weight. Most people, in fact, would not be looking for the weight as a huge amount of people (see Pound (currency)) use the Pound currency....

It is not "difficult" to simply add (weight) to the end of Pound, it seems more just laziness on your part as you mostly make edits personally on articles that are in a technical or electrical context.

It does make linking currencies easier, since the links to the type of money of some of the countries using the currency are already included on the disambiguation page, meaning users do not necessarily have to go to Pound (currency) first but could go straight to, for example, Isle of Man pound.

As for if you are worried that "Pound (weight)" being confused with "Pound-force", maybe instead Pound (weight) should be simply moved to "Pound (mass)?

--Chaosfeary 09:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

They aren't redirects. They aren't going to be "fixed" by any bot, unless someone decides to take it on as a bot-assisted project, and you'd might or might not get someone to do that if you requested a bot.

Your moves weren't a normal simple move from one name to another, where the links to the old title automatically become redirects to the article under the new title. The problem comes about because of your three-way move. Links which previously went to a specific article now go to a disambiguation page. It has nothing to do with "double" redirects, the primary concern in a simple move. That isn't right, and even if that change were to stand, they'd have to be fixed.

But you have not only not made those necessary changes, and reiterated here that you do not intend to do so, but you have also said you were leaving Wikipedia; you've had your user page and talk page deleted, and you even requested that your account and edit history be removed (something that isn't done, AFAIK). Gene Nygaard 13:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, anybody who wants to can find out that your first edit was last month on 5 Oct 2005, 303 days after my first edit on 6 Dec 2004, not 4 days before it. Of course, you may have been editing before under some other name, or just an IP without having an account (in my case, the first time I did that wasn't more than a week before my account was established). That isn't terribly important to the issue at hand, however--but your leaving with a huge amount of unnecessary and unfinished business is directly relevant. Gene Nygaard

It's worked that way since time immemorial. It's only been changed for a couple of days, and now we have hundreds of links going to a disambiguation page. It isn't working any more. Gene Nygaard 23:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support (nominator) Gene Nygaard 16:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Chaosfeary 09:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, I don't think primary-topic disambiguation is appropriate in this context. James F. (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, in for a penny in for a pound or is it quids in? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there are so many meanings of pound, selecting one out of the bunch would impede efficiency. Fresheneesz 01:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As metrification fells the once might pound (weight), the pound (currency) assumes more importance. Leave pound as a disamb page. 129.252.70.25 22:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The article title "pound (weight)" is misleading. The term pound-weight and symbols such as "lb.-wt." are mostly obsolete terminology that was common in textbooks in the first half of the 20th century for what is now generally known under the name pound-force (symbol lbf or lb_f), a different unit which is a spinoff from the mass units which are the primary topic of this article. Gene Nygaard 16:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, move Pound (weight) to Pound (mass), then, maybe?

--Chaosfeary 09:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Outcome

The move request was not fulfilled, due to a lack of consensus for it. However, I did run a bot to change links to Pound to the new Pound (weight), so that ought to clean up something. Rob Church ^Talk 11:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

abbreviation

Why is the abbrerviation for pound LBS ? What does LBS have to do with the measurement of weight (or amount of force)

The abbreviations for pound and for pounds, singular and plural, are both lb; lbs is wrong for both. - Post169 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comes from latin libra [1] Nobody Ent 18:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pound

Pound is not used to measure mass or weight, only mass; weight is measured in Newtons or Poundals. Pseudoanonymous 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Mass versus weight” article

The subject of “mass vs. weight” is currently being discussed at Talk:Kilogram: Location for “Mass versus weight”. A consensus has been so far achieved that the section Kilogram#Mass versus weight should be moved out of Kilogram. Consideration is being given as to where to move it to. Options are to move it to Mass, or to Weight, or to give it its own article, Mass versus weight that all other articles can link to. If you would like to express an opinion on this matter, please click here. Greg L (my talk) 22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]