Talk:Miles per hour

Old stuff[edit]

So, uh, does that mean I'm not allowed to say "the train inched along at one mile per hour"? Stan 23:53 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Grammatically you can say it, but the unit of measurement is miles plural. The definition isn't singular, and this is a stub about definition. Mile is similarly used as meaning plural in language (eg, some say 'how many mile did you travel?'), but the correct plural is miles. It is the same, to take an unconnected example, with the TV Show Charlie's Angels. You could have a Charlie's angel, if referring to one of the women, but the definitionary title is plural and could not be written as Charlie's Angel. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:00 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Woo, fine point, but I'll buy it. Stan 00:49 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

"Miles Per Hour" is against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), does not make sense to me, and looks bad in my opinion, anyway. In addition to it creating double redirects. So I'm moving it back to "miles per hour". -- Egil 07:16 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

PS: Turns out is used to be "mile per hour". I'll leave it at "miles per hour", which works for me, although I could also live with "mile per hour". SI rules would not apply here, presumably. -- Egil 07:56 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

I've edited the "only used in the US," because as far as I'm aware, the UK still posts speed limits in miles per hour, despite using metric for most other things. Please correct me if this information is out of date. --Delirium 02:21, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start an article on List of countries that have not adopted the SI unit yet. If the list contains only USA for the next few weeks, then delete it. Kowloonese 05:23, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Truth is, there are apparently a few countries, notably former British colonies and the British Commonwealth, which are not completely metric. In Canada, grocery stores sell things by the 100g, but go to Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers where they still advertise that you will drop pounds and inches. Likewise, there are several countries that still use the Calorie (kcal or Cal) instead of the kilojoule (kJ) for the energy content of foods.

Maybe a run-down of these would be in order, listing what's not yet metric and where, and possibly why. –radiojon 03:09, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

It has not been the British Commonwealth since 1949. It is now the Commonwealth of Nations. Hu 01:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation[edit]

I noticed that my recent edit was reverted, where I placed greater emphasis of "mph" over "mi/h". The facts are thus:

The "OED" marks "mi" as an American abbreviation for "mile". The only internationally accepted abbreviation of "mile" (that I am aware of) is "m", which obviously cannot be used due to the possible confusion with the metre.
The abbreviation "mph" is standard, and I have never seen "mi/h" used anywhere, not even in the United States. (See Principle of Least Astonishment.)
The convention of using solidi and indices to express derived units is taken from the SI. The Imperial units, and hence also the American units, do not use this.

So while some Americans who want to minimize the Imperial and metric differences may advocate "mi/h", it is by no means preferable, even formally.

Just to add to that: In the UK, I have never seen mile abbreviated to "mi" as I have in the US and incidentally some tourist areas in Brazil. In the UK, if mile is to be abbreviated, it is with "m" (all motorway/highway distance signs for example show "m" in them e.g. "Birmingham 87 m" or "motorway ends 1/2 m"). Oddly enough there's no confusion with metre (probably as the metric system is not used on roads and the fact that where "m" for metre is used it's obvious).

I have also seen 'mile' abbreviated in this way on English motorways. It is a source of confusion, and therefore dangerous. If I read "Birmingham 87 m", my mind goes through a thought process something like this:

Birmingham is 87 metres away
No, that can't be write, Birmingham is the other side of Coventry.
Hmmm - must be something wrong with that sign
Oh, now I get it, they mean miles!

In the meantime, my attention has been distracted from what I should have been doing - driving.

Thunderbird2 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird - can I ask you to stay off *British* (not 'English'- aaaarrrgh!) roads please? ;-) BachgenCymraeg (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what's accepted as common practice in America should be the standard we all aspire to. Mwahcysl (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wereon 16:38, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That wasn't hard, was it? -- Cyrius|✎ 17:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Unlike SI units, there are no authoritative definitions of non-metric units and symbols. However, the US Government style manual lists abbreviations with mile as 'mi' and mile per hour as 'mi/h'. There is no listing for mph. The same abbreviations are in the Federal Highway Administration guide and they do make use of them e.g. http://www.tfhrc.gov/humanfac/01103/how2use.htm. The abbreviation 'mi' is also quoted in NIST Handbook 44 and the NIST Guide to SI Units lists both 'mi' and 'mi/h'. I can't give an example but from quotes on the FHWA site, I would not be surprised to see 'MI' used on US road signs.

kilometres per hour is not an SI unit, nor is it an SI derived unit unless you REALLY stretch the concept by saying it's metres per 3.6 seconds.

The mile article right here on Wikipedia also quotes 'mi' as an abbreviation. To take your points in turn:

1. I don't believe that there is an 'internationally accepted abbreviation' for mile. As you say, the letter 'm' is already taken by metre. To extend the point about internationalisation, abbreviations that depend on language cause problems. For example, the italian abbreviation for 'miles per hour' would be 'mao', not 'mph'.

2. If by standard you mean mph is the 'most frequent' abbreviation, then I agree. Since there is no standards authority for non-metric units, the term 'standard' cannot wholly mean 'officially sanctioned'. But the examples above show that the US government sometimes uses 'mi/h'. If you do some research you will also find some other users.

3. You are correct to say that SI practice uses '/' and many authors/styleguides simply use the same devices. However, these devices were not invented by the SI committees, they merely inherited language-independent practice that is hundreds of years old. It is not correct to say that non-metric units do not use such devices. But it is true to say that they sometimes use other devices. For example, division is sometimes shown as a 'p' (mph) and sometimes not present at all (psi).

kilometres per hour is usually abbreviated kph (in the UK at least), and kph is not an SI unit

I have no particular conclusion, but I just wanted to share my lack of certainty on this issue. Bobblewik (talk) 17:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the UK, metres are abbreviated to mtrs. Then again, they are not used in Britain that much; we still use inches, feet, yards, and miles. Btline (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, whenever you buy any commonly-available goods by length or area (timber, curtain poles, carpet), it is always in metres. Yards are only used on road signage (the 300, 200 and 100 yard signs prior to a junction and signs warning of lane merging, roadworks etc)

google:[edit]

What's the advantage of using

22/15 =[[google:{{mile}}/{{foot}}/3600|1.4667]] [[foot per second|feet per second]]

22/15 =1.4667 feet per second

over

22/15 = 1.4667 [[foot per second|feet per second]]

22/15 = 1.4667 feet per second

In other words, why use a special wikilink syntax, two specialized templates (used only on this page and on Knot (speed)), and a piped link, just to link to a search page with no results? I can't see any reason for it. If you're worried about editors' being able to easily check the math, why not just use a comment?

22/15 = 1.4667 [[foot per second|feet per second]]

If there's no reasonable objection, I'll make the change and list the {{mile}} and {{foot}} templates on WP:TFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkov (talk • contribs) 19:06, November 19, 2006‎

Silly Question[edit]

Anyone know why when on the BBC they refer to car speeds it's almost always in MPH and not KPH?

Because the UK still in many cases uses the Metric System.

That was probably a typo. I guess you meant to write: The UK doesn't use the Metric system on the roads (with the exception of some restriction signs for height, width or weight). --Rdiggle 15:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK we use Imperial and begrudgingly use Metric. We buy food by the Pound which is also labelled 454gm. We buy liquid by the litre which is also labelled 1.76 Pints. However we buy petrol by the litre and have to covert it to gallons to work out our MPG. Nobody uses litres/100km. The UK has no legal obligation to use the metric system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.15.48 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

condition[edit]

This article is in really bad condition. Kudos will go to anyone who is able to fix it. -- penubag (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miles per hour → Mile per hour — WP:SINGULAR: "Use the singular form: Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses." None of the exceptions apply, AFAICT. A. di M. (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Silly nom. "Mile per hour" only works at 1 mph. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? "Second" only works for 1 s, "metre" only works for 1 m, "kilogram" only works for 1 kg and so on, but that doesn't sound like a good reason for using the plurals. A. di M. (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See top of the page also. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Common-sense exception to WP:SINGULAR. Powers ^T 23:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your point is that it's hardly ever used in the singular, that's true of pretty much *any* unit of measurement, and yet almost all unit articles are at the singular title. A. di M. (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that the disparity is to a degree beyond other units of measure. People say "just a second" or "in a minute" all the time, but "mile per hour" is virtually unheard of except in this encyclopedia. Powers ^T 02:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Powers above. It is an article about the term, not about the scientific notation for the unit. -- de Facto (talk). 07:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. the term is conceptual, not literal. --emerson7 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Also practical more than scientific. Millions use the plural every day. The article is doing fine, thank you, with the current name and a redirect from Mile per hour. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all of the above oppose comments plus ignore all rules citing common sense as the good reason.
See also Kilometres per hour but note also Metre per second, Foot per second, Inch per second, and Metre per hour. Should all those be changed too? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 05:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is about an everyday term, not about scientific notation or an SI unit. And we have a redirect: one name has to hold the article and the other a redirect; this is the right way round per 'common name'. --Nigelj (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If every other unit of measurement has singular article title, than this one should be in consistency with others. Vanjagenije 01:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

MrOllie (talk) Why did you remove the external links in Miles Per Hour?[edit]

Those links had been there for a long time. I was using them to convert speed units, and certainly other people were using them for the same purpose. You sited the WP External Links Guidelines as your reason for removing the links, but those guidelines allow external links. So tell us your specific reason, quoting those guidelines, for removing the links. Wilomina (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my talk page, where you duplicated this discussion: WP:ELNO points 1, 4 and 13, also Wikipedia is not a link directory. I suggest you find links such as these on Google next time you need them. - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid duplication, I'll carry on this chat on your talk page, located at MrOllie (talk). Thanks. Wilomina (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need links to conversion sites here. A simple Google search turns up scores of them, and Google even does conversion on it's main search page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kilometres per hour which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mph[edit]

Although in the opening sentence we only list 'mph, MPH or mi/h' as abbreviations, I see that in the article we carefully use 'Mph' no fewer than four times. I this an Americanism? Personally I've never seen 'Mph' anywhere outside of this article. If it's legit, we need to reference this usage somewhere, and if it's not, we need not to use it. --Nigelj (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Miles per hour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140301142524/http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=39808 to http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?newsID=39808

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Miles per hour. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 03:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miles per hour. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 03:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MPH (in capital letters)?[edit]

The GCOR use the abbreviation MPH throughout. Is this "against the rules", or is MPH an officially allowed (in whatever form) abbreviation? --User:Haraldmmueller 12:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded it after I've seen that the removal a year ago was without any reason given. --User:Haraldmmueller 15:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good! (edit conflict)There's no official national across-the-board abbreviation or symbol for miles per hour in the US, but that's true for most United States customary units - see also Talk:Miles per hour#Abbreviation above. But while we don't want to list every one we can possibly find, perhaps only used casually in some document or website, it does seem a little odd to omit MPH when it's the one in the infobox image and is listed under "Use only the following abbreviations" in the the US railroad General Code of Operating Rules you link. It used to be in this article until this rather mixed group of unexplained edits. ~~I'll put it back "without prejudice".~~ NebY (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also[edit]

Burma. Drsruli (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]