Talk:Metrication

Archives
April 2004 – September 2005 September 2005 – October 2005

Inconsistent spelling: e.g. metre versus meter

The article is inconsistent in the use of US and non-US english spelling e.g. 'meter' and 'metre'. I note the following:

• The metric system is often considered more non-US than US.
• Spelling is not part of SI, but official SI definitions are in non-US english e.g. 'metre'. See the official SI website: http://www.bipm.org/en/si/base_units/
• The earliest version of the article that I could find (2001-10-24 14:03) used non-US english spelling e.g. 'metre'.

Does anyone else think spelling should be made more consistent? Bobblewik 10:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. Spelling should be kept consistent. Either stick the American English spelling, meter, or use the non-US English version, metre. I personally prefer the latter, as it makes a distinction between metre (as in the unit) and a meter (a device to measure things). That, however, is my own personal opinion. Wolf ODonnell 13:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I tracked the article back to its origins and found that the spelling "kilometre" was used in the first version, so, by the Wikipedia convention, let's use that. OK? --DannyWilde 13:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically, to follow Wikipedia policy, we should use US spellings in sections about the US and non-US spellings in sections about the UK and the Commonwealth. However, I imagine this switching won't be popular with most within one article. Moncrief 15:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Check WP:MOS again - it says to use consistent spelling throughout each article, and to use the relevant national spelling in articles which are specific to one English speaking country. This article isn't specific to any one country, so we should fall back on the "first spelling used" convention, which was "metre". Anyway, as I stated in the edit summary, the article was almost totally "metre" with only two "meter" cases, so changing those to metre was the simplest solution. It's a shame there is no software level solution for this problem like there is for dates. --DannyWilde 15:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the Manual of Style and spelling scope. There is no software solution for full words but symbols are independent of language. So if there is a choice between symbolic or full words, the symbolic form avoids a spelling decision. For example, note that we did not have to check the spelling version used in the text: from 40.2 cm in one part of Germany to 70 cm in The Netherlands to 94.5 cm in Edinburgh. Bobblewik 16:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Also on the spelling theme, should it be "tire" (USA) or "tyre" (everywhere else)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.48.74 (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

'conversion process' section

This section reads poorly to me, so I'll be reworking it, especially the first paragraph.--Andymussell 19:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

link to the French version

This article links to the French "Métrologie" article which is not the same thing. As a matter of fact, "Métrologie" links back to the English "Measurement".

Thanks 141.154.75.163!

i feel you deserve recognition for your swift action (while i was still trying to figure out how to go about reverting a page)

"The initial idea of metric would be to convert every measurement to base ten, though this failed."

There is a section that starts: The initial idea of metric would be to convert every measurement to base ten, though this failed.

SI is not about decimalisation. It is about coherence i.e. one unit for each quantity and ratios of 1 in combined units. It so happens that SI is mostly used with base 10 prefixes. But prefixes are not the initial idea, they are optional. You could use SI with any base if you ignored prefixes. Alternatively you could create a set of prefixes for any base as has already been done for base 2.

That section reinforces a popular misconception. Popular mythology also has it that non-metric units have a base (they don't). We had an editor add text saying that non-metric units are base 12 (they aren't).

If this is such a common misunderstanding, it would be better to replace that section with an explanation of coherence and explode the myths about the role of bases.

What do others think? Bobblewik 23:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is a historical fact that many proponents of the metric system also proposed "metric time" that would be base-10, so the ideas seemed to be closely linked. In any case, it is true that the attempt to metricate time, however defined, failed, since we currently have a system of time that is not metric with any base. --Delirium 23:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems there's disagreement over whether it's a myth. Cite sources, please. In the meantime, I have removed the paragraph from the intro section, where it doesn't really belong anyway. — mjb 23:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I agree - this sentence is terrible. In fact, the closest system that time works on is the Babylonian Sexegesimal system, which was a combination base 60/10. Its the same system that the 360 degree system comes from. As for the rest, its a bit disorganised and a bit negative - this is a huge subject, and what it doesn't really address is the fact that SI is much, much easier to use than any other system - that's why it was introduced. How many Inches in 2 1/2 miles? I haven't a clue. How many cms in 2 1/2 kms? 250,000 - easy. In fact, on further reflection, this is not just a bad sentence, its wrong. The real intended advantage of SI is that it is internally consistent. This means that units of mass, distance, and volume are integrated. Thus, 1000 litres of water is 1 ton and measures 1 meter cubed. This, in conjunction with the base ten system, allows rapid scientific calculations to be carried out. Its worth also pointing out that the number system 'we' use is already base ten.

Some comments about Canada

Canada is officially metric, but it is still very much mixed with the U.S. system.

Most construction, for example, uses the US system, and building materials are sold using US dimensions. This includes lumber and plumbing supplies.

A lot of food sales are still done with the US system, although law requires that metric costs are also displayed. Vegetables and meat, for example, sold by the pound. Until today I thought 355ml was a normal volume for a can of pop, I didn't know it lined up perfectly with 12 ounces.

Anything government regulated is metric. Distances on highways, speed limits, the weather reports from Environment Canada all metric.

I don't know if this is normal in the rest of the world, but machines here often have mixed metric and US fasteners. Especially automobiles and bicycles.

While fabrics are generally sold in metres, clothing sizes are in inches.

Filtered water is in litres.

I live in the Niagara Region, a sort of backward part of the golden horseshoe. If there are other Canadians out there reading this, maybe you could comment on your part of the country, and we can add a Canada section to the article.

Thanks --Uncle Bungle 23:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The UK section is also somewhat misleading, in that it only mentions a few customary sizes (selling things in customary sizes but labeled in metric units), but doesn't mention that many things are actually still labeled in customary units; for example, speed limits are all in mph. --Delirium 23:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed the relevant section slightly to read a bit more like the Metrication in the UK article, which was much clearer on this point. --Delirium 23:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Canada is not enough of an exception to Metrication to qualify for its own section. And there is already a Metrication in Canada article. — mjb 23:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The article reads: "Overall, few countries have experienced much popular opposition to metrication.". That wasn't true in Canada. Opposition to metrication may not have been successful, but that doesn't mean it was unpopular. --70.81.251.32 09:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Who decides when metrication is 'complete'

The article makes reference to metrication being "complete" in certain countries on certain dates, but who exactly makes the determination of completeness, and against what criteria? Is it just whatever goals the countries set for themselves? I gather the EC has some standards for its members, but that doesn't apply to the rest of the world. If two countries have "completed" metrication, does that mean they are at exactly the same level of Metric usage? I doubt it, since the article points to various countries that "completed" metrication but in which there are regions and industries where people are still using other systems in some parts of their lives. — mjb 23:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I would guess it is the official government targets for metrication to be completed, or some announcement by the government that metrication is complete. I don't think the actual level of metric usage has anything to do with it, except if there is widespread rejection.--Clawed 08:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Unsupported additions to the list of UK legal exemptions

The list of legal exemptions includes references to the actual text of UK law. I have deleted mention of aircraft parking bays and ammunition calibre because these are not mentioned in the legal text. Bobblewik 18:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Metrication in the UK

I have expanded the article Metrication in the UK and would like some feedback. Thanks. Seabhcán 15:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Metrication (1st paragraph)

This paragraph is just WRONG! There is NO COUNTRY in the world that has "completed" metrification! EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY still OFFICIALLY uses some non-metric units! 207.200.54.134 19:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to read the section on exceptions. If it does not cover what you are thinking about, then feel free to give more examples. bobblewik 20:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

There are no exceptions. A country is not metrified if it still oficially uses traditional units. That's like saying:

"I don't drink alcohol(1)!"

NOTE: (1) Except for Burbon."

207.200.54.134 21:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, they may be Imperial in name, but in reality are different. For example, the French 'livre' and German 'pfund' (both mean pound in their respective languages) refer to 500 g and are used in supermarkets. Also, I believe that the Aussies use a pint which has been rounded up to 600 ml. -- User:68.192.158.42

No, you are quite mistaken. The Pfund, and most likely the livre too, are not used in supermarkets and the like—it would be illegal. They are used sometimes colloquially. Of course there are prepackaged goods in integer multiples of 500 g, but that is usually coincidence. (Goods that are not sold primarily by a measurable quantity may be labeled in non-standard units, thus you may encounter 15-inch monitors etc.) Christoph Päper 13:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pfund (pound) is widely used in Germany by older people. Jestingly called 'Deutscher Markt-Pfund' German marked(-place) pund. Meaning excatly 500Gramms. Verry common for bulk ware sold by weight. --62.214.194.29 23:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The term Imperial system can refer only to the UK system (and that only since the 1820's)- most countries outside the English speaking world had their own systems (often suppressed or hijacked in colonies). Esthameian 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Forced Conversion

Your recent edit changed the definition from:

the process of converting

to

the process of forced converting

Is there a particular reason why you think that extra word is essential? bobblewik 22:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason it is important. Not one single country's people changed over voluntarily, all metrification has been done by force of law. Kinda like if you said that "Do you really think it's important to mention that the Nazis gassed the jews? Why don't we just say the Jews were gassed and leave out that one little fact?"

Why do you want to ignore FACTS? 207.200.54.134 23:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha Godwin's Law. I claim 5 units of your local currency. bobblewik 13:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• AH No, you don't know Godwin's law... When a COMPARISON to the Nazis is made, THAT'S Godwin's law. I use the Nazis just as a subject. I didn't say anyone is LIKE the Nazis therefore, this is not a case of Godwin's law... I could have said: "Do you really think it's important to mention that Pol Pot killed a lot of Cambodians? Why don't we just say a lot of Cambodians were killed and leave out that one little fact?" Doesn't have the same effect does it? arfon 06:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone forced? I doubt it. As an American engineer, I'd happily celebrate the day we left the old units behind. But this seems to be one of those "'Murica a'ginst the rest of the world" things, as in: "If we switch to metric, the terraists win!"

Atlant 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I see that you realize that your assertion holds little water due to the fact that you take my sentence, knowing full well the meaning, and then base your arguement the literal "everyone". arfon 06:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The war against tourism. You are either with us, or with the tourists. bobblewik 19:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• adding noise to the discussion Bobble? arfon 06:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

By definition all measurement law, or changes to that law, are enforced. If you invent a new measurement system and then set up a business selling products in those units you'll find that the police will fine you (for fraud), whether or not your country is metricated. There was a case recently in the UK where a Austrian themed pub was fined for selling draught beer in non-imperial units - in traditional Austrian half litre steins. The case was even taken up by the anti-metrication lobby as an infringement of 'the freedom to measure' (although there is no such right in any country). If you think that there should be no enforcement of any commercial standards or measurements, I think that is a position that should be argued elsewhere. Metrication is about converting law from enforcing local units to enforcing a common internation system. It implies that enforcement of units is accepted and not new.Seabhcán 10:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Such a right certainly is recognized in many countries, and the fact it isn't recognized in more legally-restricted countries doesn't mean it doesn't exist. --Prosfilaes 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No country with a national economy can afford to allow absolute freedom of measurement for use for trade (in the UK the main controls are on 'use for trade' , not on general public use). This was at least part of the reason for the reform of the UK system of traditional units in the 1820's when the term Imperial was first officially used. This version originally based the system of weight on the Troy pound, but this was made illegal for use for trade in the later reforms of the 19 century, switching to the avoirdupois pound, itself a continental European unit forced on England by economic pressure in Tudor times. Esthameian 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Afron requested some help mediating a dispute, and Ive taken the liberty of jumping in a smoothing a few kinks in the lede. AFAICT, IP:207.200.54.134's complaints are incoherent and hard to deal with. I suggest he first read Godwin's Law before making more extreme references which dont help make his case. I agree that the term "official" could be debated, but thats best left at the official article. I also think that opposition to the metric system is way overstated, particularly here in the U.S. where its regularly used alongside of the "standard" system. Few people complain, and those who do tend to frame their complaints incoherently. -Ste|vertigo 19:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

By law, people are forced to stop at red lights. That does not mean, however, that traffic laws are a violation of human rights. Albanaco 08:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Language reform

Is this link relevant? I say it is not. "Language reform is a kind of language planning by massive change to a language." says the article. Does metrication involve massive change to a language? There are some linguistic changes, certainly, but this is not language reform. Jimp 18:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And the presence of the link hurts the article how? Meanwhile...

Really, the conversion to metric is exactly an example of language reform, as people must be convinced to abandon the comfortable conventional units (language) that they have grown up in and adopt what is to them a foreign language. It needne't have been this way, of course; we could have been doing an adequate job of teaching Americans the units system that the rest of the world uses, but rather than take that approach, certain groups decided to treat metrication like they treated fluoridation, as some kind of threat to Our Precious bodily Essence. In this way, it's become a part of the ongoing culture war here in America.

In this way, it has a lot more to do with language reform than many folks realize.

Atlant 12:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"And the presence of the link hurts the article how?" Fair point: how can it hurt to have a link? Well, if we had a link to Atheism, would this hurt? The link is saying, albeit quite indirectly, that metrication is a form language reform but is it?

You argue that it is. I argue that it's not. I most certainly acknowledge that there is a linguistic change going on. Yes, as you say "people must be convinced to abandon the ... conventional units (language) ... and adopt what is to them a foreign language."

However, look through the Language reform article seems to indicate that this process is a large-scale change to a whole language. The linguistic effect of metrication, it seems to me, is too limited to be considered an example of language reform.

Furthermore metrication's linguistic changes are more of a side-effect whereas language reform, as far as I understand the term, is directed at the language directly.

I just don't want to have people's walking away from the article feeling that there's a greater threat to their precious bodily essence than there really is.

Jimp 16:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should try to make this understable to everybody. Sandonar

Opposition

This statement in the summary may be confusing or misleading:

Only France, the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan have seen significant popular opposition to metrication, the main objections being based in localism, tradition, cultural aesthetics, economic impact, or distaste for measures viewed as "foreign".

While it's true I believe that France and Japan encountered opposition, nowadays I don't think there is any significant opposition. Also, as another user pointed out, the measures are not foreign to France. While this may be clarified later on, we need to be careful not to confuse people early on.

Maybe something like this

Only the United States and the United Kingdom continue to see significant popular opposition to metrication, the main objections being based in localism, tradition, cultural aesthetics, economic impact, or distaste for measures viewed as "foreign". While France and Japan also had significant popular opposition at one time for similar reasons (although the measures were largely invented in France), metrication is now largely accepted.

However I'm not sure if this is fair of the situation in the UK. While I believe there is still some opposition in the UK, I don't know whether it can be considered significant... Nil Einne 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That section confused me, so I changed it to what you suggested. I think it was worded in a misleading fashion. Esn 02:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The references to surveys (claiming to show antimetric public attitudes in the UK) are to publications by the BWMA. This is a fanatically anti-metric organisation whose past cavalier attitude towards factual material suggest that the surveys should taken 'cum grano salis'. Perhaps a warning on the main page? Esthameian 01:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Caribbean countries and USA?

Today, only the United States, Liberia and Myanmar have not switched officially to the metric system.

Is this true? I'm pretty sure that several Caribbean nations continue to use the imperial system. 69.137.220.179 17:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats news to me. Do you know which ones? Seabhcán 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to look it up, but I think St. Lucia is one. Also, I think Jamaica is like the U.S. in that its government uses metric but I don't think the average citizen does. I might be wrong, though. 69.137.220.179 05:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This article on Jamaica states "Although there is still wide usage of imperial units in everyday conversation and even some resistance of the use of metric units amongst older folks, the metric conversion programme to date has gained credibility amongst stakeholders based on - the sustained implementation effort since 1991, and the Jamaican government's public support for the policy e.g. its allocation responsibility for the programme's completion to its leading standards agency, as well as the enactment of metric legislation."--T. Anthony 09:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Do you have a reference to St. Lucia's non-metric use? What system do they use, US or Imperial? The US government does not use metric, though (Nearly all US laws and regulations are in US units).Seabhcán 11:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful with sweeping statements like The US government does not use metric. It is easy to disprove. Your example of laws is clear but the scope of government activity is much wider than that. bobblewik 11:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In which areas does the US Government use metric? Seabhcán 15:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The US Armed Forces are completely metric for one. Also I-19 linking Tucson, Arizona and the Mexican border is signed in metric measurements. Also the medical industry, the automotive industry, and the wine and liquor industries in the US use metric as industry standard units of measure.

The US army uses it because it is part of NATO. One road amoung millions proves nothing. Neither the medical, automotive or liquor industries are part of government. Seabhcán 16:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We were discussing the validity of US government does not use metric rather than uses it because. So the fact the the US military uses it is a valid counter-example. It is easy to find other counter-examples with a google search key of 'site:.gov' and various metric units (e.g. in NASA, EPA, NRC, NIH, DHS etc). It is unfortunate that the 'percentage use' (whatever that might mean) might be low. But we can take comfort that it does get used to a certain extent. bobblewik

Ok. But I'm not sure that the military counts as part of the government either. The US is not a dictatorship (yet). Seabhcán 11:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the CIA? Is that government enough for you? Look for example at their data on the United States at [1]. −Woodstone 11:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The CIA page seems to use a mix of units (assuming that nm doesn't mean nanometres) Other countries which have declared themselves metric have passed laws mandating the use of metric units in industry. If you can point me to a weights and measures act which enforces the use of metric units? Anyway, this is all off topic - can anyone find a reference to St. Lucia not being metric? Seabhcán 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How about:

• St. Lucia Presses Ahead with Metric System
• Google search

I hope that helps.

I agree with you that the military is not quite the same as government. So let us leave them aside. However, any US government department that uses a mix means that it is not zero percent use. So that would be a good disproof. It would be nice to have a measure of 'metricness'. One thing that I do think is interesting is whether there is a lot of metrication behind the scenes. For example, the definition of low birth weight is in round kilogram values. I think that there is much more of that sort of thing than many Americans realise.

I hope this does not sound pedantic, but UK law does not mandate metric units in industry. You can run a business in cubits and sell to other businesses in fathoms if you want. UK law only mandates metric units for sales to *consumers* and then only if the unit is part of the price calculation. bobblewik 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just some info to show how metric some of the USA's government is, a few lines from [http://www.statebuy.state.gov/dosar/dosar11.htm%7C the department of state:

(a) Policy. The Metric Conversion Act of 1975, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 205a, et. seq. ), requires Federal agencies to establish implementing guidelines pursuant to metric policy to adopt the metric system as the preferred system of weights and measurements for United States trade and commerce. This section establishes the Department of State's metric conversion guidelines.

(d) Procedures.

(1) DOS contracting activities shall implement the metric system in a manner consistent with 15 U.S.C. 205a, et. seq.

(2) All DOS contracting activities shall use the metric system in acquisition consistent with security, operations, economic, technical, logistical, training and safety requirements.

(3) The Department shall encourage industry to adopt the metric system by acquiring commercially available metric products and services that meet the Department's needs whenever practical. Toward this end, solicitations for DOS acquisitions shall:

(i) State all measurement sensitive requirements in metric terms whenever possible. Alternatives to hard metric are soft, dual and hybrid metric terms. The Metric Handbook for Federal Officials regarding the selection of proper metric units and symbols is available from the National Technical Information Service;

There are plenty of good intentions on paper like that. But Seabhcán's original comment was about whether the US government uses metric. The answer to that question is yes. But *how much* is metric used and how visible is metric use are different questions. bobblewik 21:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think attempts to measure 'metricness' are laudable and interesting, but not part of the function of wikipedia. If such a measurement were published elsewhere it could then be reported here. Otherwise it would fall under WP:OR rules, I think. The US is generally considered to be non-metric (even though a mix of units is governed by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act). I think that detailed info on the use of the metric system in the US should be kept on the Metrication in the United States article.

The St. Lucia info is good. That article is from 2001. I'll try find out the current situation. Any more Caribbean islands in the same situation? Seabhcán 09:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just added some info on St. Lucia. It seems that they have started the process and it is continuing (as of 2005). It also seems that they are doing it to be inline with the rest of the Caribbean (CARICOM) which is already metric. refs in articleSeabhcán 11:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for digging deeper into that. bobblewik 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Metrication 'Map'

The metrication map shows the UK as a 'non-metric' country. The UK is officially metric, with goods, both prepacked and loose being sold only in metric units, dgrees celsius being used either solely or first and the metric system being the only system taught in schools for at least the last 10 to 15 years. The metrication process in the UK is not "complete" but it is officially a metric country.--Brideshead 13:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

AndyZ's PR script for Metrication

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 19 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rlevse 11:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to PR Script

I have changed all the inline web links I could find into footnotes to the reference section. I have also tried to make the spelling of liter and meter consistent throughout the article.

I have also spelled out units rather than leaving symbols in most sections, though there is one section where the units are for rather complex units, so I left them as is. --Gerry Ashton 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Change citation method

One of the recommendations in Talk:Metrication#AndyZ's PR script for Metrication is to use inline citations. Essentially, this means that the markup for the existing footnotes would be moved from the bottom of the article to the text that came from the sources. For example,

A survey of Switzerland in 1838 revealed that the 
''[[Foot (unit of length)|foot]]'' had 37 different
regional variations, the ''ell'' had 68, there were 83
different measures for dry grain and 70 for fluids, and
63 different measures for "dead weights".
<sup>[[Metrication#References|[2]]]</sup>

Would become

A survey of Switzerland in 1838 revealed that the 
''[[Foot (unit of length)|foot]]'' had 37 different
regional variations, the ''ell'' had 68, there were 83
different measures for dry grain and 70 for fluids, and
63 different measures for "dead weights".
<ref>[[Metrication#References|[2]]]
{{cite book|author=McGreevy, Thomas|year=1995
|title=The Basis of Measurement: Historical Aspects
|publisher=Picton Publishing (Chippenham Ltd)
|id=ISBN 0-948251-82-4}}
</ref>

Can we agree to let me make this change before we do anything else, since the rest of the recommendations are apt to generate additional references? --Gerry Ashton 17:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest...Self-Described Seabhcán 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Done

I carried out the change I proposed above. In the process I found that two of the four sources mentioned in the References section were no longer cited in the text. The change in reference system should avoid this problem in the future. --Gerry Ashton 17:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberia, Myanmar and USA

I have placed the Not verified template in this section because no sources are cited for this section. Furthermore, the introduction states "Today, only the United States, Liberia and Myanmar have not officially adopted the metric system...." This sentence not only needs a source, the word today should be replaced with a date. Since we have no source, we cannot say as of what date that sentence was true (if indeed it is true). --Gerry Ashton 20:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement is now sourced to the 2006 CIA World Factbook, but according to NIST [2] the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 made the metric system "the Preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce." It is certainly true that non-metric units are predominantly used in practice in the United States, but this is different from an "official" declaration.

It was already legal (and preferred for trade and commerce) since 1975. See extract from the "Metric Conversion Act, Dec. 23, 1975":

§ 204. Metric system authorized. - It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system. (14 Stat. 339, Adopted July 28,1866)

§ 205b. Declaration of policy. - It is therefore the declared policy of the United States-

(1) to designate the metric system of measurement as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce;

(4) to permit the continued use of traditional systems of weights and measures in non-business activities.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woodstone (talk • contribs) 21:12 3 September 2006.

(unindent)Government policy is meaningless; only action counts. The only laws that mean anything are the laws that the government is prepared to enforce with handcuffs and guns. By this reasoning, I believe SI and customary units are usually given equal status, in that the courts will eventually enforce contracts written in either system. --Gerry Ashton 20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Compulsory in all but three countries"

Where is the evidence for the phrase: "Compulsory in all but three countries"? I don't believe it. bobblewik 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur, and I've replaced the passage with a direct quote from the CIA World Factbook. Even though this is a reliable source, I would welcome more complete reliable sources about the state of affairs in Liberia and Burma [sic]. --Gerry Ashton 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. bobblewik 20:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also very much prefer a really reliable source. Appendix G of the CIA WFB calls the US Customary System the “American adaptation of the British Imperial System”, but it is in fact an adaptation of English units that precede the Imperial System, which is the only reason for differences in units of volume—hundredweight and ton have different reasons AFAIK. Its prefix table is missing yotta, zetta, deka—although it’s used later on—, yocto and zepto, but includes long-deprecated myria, hectokilo, decimilli and centimilli; it also only gives “u” as a symbol of micro instead of the preferred “µ”. In conclusio the CIA WFB is not a reliable source when it comes to the metric system (or any other system of measurement). I don’t dare to make conclusions about the CIA as a whole—well, actually I do, but never mind. — Christoph Päper 13:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Even the USA has very limited compulsory metrication. A 1988 law made metrication less than being voluntary.--Jusjih 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Metrication is really about trade, rather than people's daily life. The use of particular weights and measures in trade is complusory in all countries, including the US. In the US most laws on weights and measures in trade use US units, and use of these is compulsory. However, products destined for US military or for export must be sold in metric units. In this sense it is compulsory. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Illiteracy as reason for easy adoption?

On September 29 an editor using the IP address 88.76.208.8 removed some information, as shown (strikeout for removed material):

Overall, few countries have experienced much popular opposition to metrication. Some, such as 19th century European countries, Russia, India and China, converted before most of their populations were literate, so the initial conversion affected few people. For others, such as Ireland, the previous system was seen as foreign.

On October 1 User:Seabhcan restored the deleted passage, and provided the edit summary "rv. please back statements with refs. illiteratacy was widespead in 19th c and pre-soviet russia"

I'm not quite sure how to interpret this summary. If it means that a reference should be found to show that illiteracy was widespread in 19th century and pre-Soviet Russia to support deletion of the passage, that would be contradictory, since the passage contains an unsourced statement that there was illiteracy. If, on the other hand, it the edit summary asserts that there was illiteracy, and the passage should remain unless a source can be produced to show there was literacy, I point out that it is up to the article to present sufficient sources to support every statement; it is not up to a deleting editor to prove the information is wrong.

Furthermore, even if the people were illiterate, it still does not explain why introduction of new weights and measures would be easier. One could just as well argue that it is easier to introduce a new system to a literate population, since the literate population cound carry around written descriptions of the new system instead of having to rely on memory. Therefore I have removed the passage in question. --Gerry Ashton 00:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

When I reverted, I also re-added the source reference which must have gotten lost in some past edit. As for the truth of the statement, I agree that this is debatable. The section is perhaps a bit brief, as these countries did a lot of other things to ease the transition. This is explained in more detail in "Conversion process". In Russia, the verst was replaced by the kilometre, a difference in length of about 10% - something not noticed by non-scientists (and in an age before road signs). In some european countries, weights such as the pound were redefined to a half kilo, again a small difference. In Sweden, the local mile used to have an indefinite lenght of about 9km, and this was redefined to be exactly 10km. Illiteratacy also prevents grassroots opposition movements, such as the BWMA in 20th C UK. Self-Described Seabhcán 12:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I did not spot the reference that was added; when I saw the abbreviation "rv." I took it to mean that exactly what had been removed had been added back. --Gerry Ashton 21:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Liberia & Burma again

I've placed {{fact}} tags after Liberia and Myanmar in the following sentence (linking removed).

“ As of 2006, only the United States, Liberia and Myanmar still use non-metric units over metric ones, ”

Yes, I have seen the reference given for this claim. However here's what it says.

“ Note: At this time, only three countries - Burma, Liberia, and the US - have not adopted the International System of Units (SI, or metric system) as their official system of weights and measures. Although use of the metric system has been sanctioned by law in the US since 1866, it has been slow in displacing the American adaptation of the British Imperial System known as the US Customary System. The US is the only industrialized nation that does not mainly use the metric system in its commercial and standards activities, but there is increasing acceptance in science, medicine, government, and many sectors of industry. ”

What the reference says is that Liberia and Myanmar have not officially adopted the metric system. This does not entail that non-metric units are used in these countries. The US has not adopted English as its official language this doesn't automatically imply that everybody in the US speaks Spanish. Jimp 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable distinction; I support editing the article to match the reference. --Gerry Ashton 05:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The intro sentence used to say these countries were 'non-metric', not that they used non-metric units, someone changed it. All countries use non-metric units here and there - so the above statement is incorrect. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I talked with someone from Liberia recently. He said that, as the was no effective government in recent years, there was effectively no enforcement of any units. In the markets, goods are sold in a wide spectrum of local traditional units and US units (due the historical US connections) and these units are not standardised in any sense. The pre civil war laws enforced US units. The new government will probably change this chaos into metric in the near future, but they have other priorities at the moment. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a cite that people in _all_ other countries use metric primarily or exclusively; when I see the "Liberia and Burma" claim elsewhere, it's typically in the context of POV-pushing "The US is so backwards because only it and these two third-world countries use metric", and such "fun facts" tend to have rather low standards as to what qualifies as a "fact". —Random832^TC2007/01/23 14:23:23 UTC (09:23 EST)

I don't know of a single source that says that, but all countries do use the metric system. China, Russia, South America, mainland Europe, India all use it exclusively and enforce its use by law. I think it is in question whether it can be said that Liberia and Burma don't use metric, as these countries don't use a different system officially. Probably a less POV statement would be that the US is the only industrialised nation not to use metric. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any original source for the Liberia/Burma claim, so it might not be true that they don't use it in law (to the extent that law exists in Liberia and Burma). So the US might be alone in maintaining an alternative system. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes a country count as metricated?

In the section on historical context an IP user has inserted a new paragraph that reads:

Note, however, that even countries which have otherwise completed metrication still extensively use traditional units in many areas. For example, traditional Japanese houses are still constructed using their "customary" system, shaku-kan. Australians and Britons still given their weight in stone (1 stone = 14 pounds), Canadians (as do Americans) still give their weight in pounds, and all give their height in feet and inches by preference (even if they know what it is in meters). Note also that, although kilograms are required to be displayed in Canadian supermarkets, the unit costs in pounds are also displayed, generally much more prominently.

This contains many “facts” that have been contested on this Talk page and related ones several times. We do, for example, not have objective studies about the percentage of Canadians or Brits giving there body height or mass in old or metric measures and how much this depends on the context, but we know both types exist as well as intermediate ones.

Yes there are remnants of the English “systems” in many (former) Commonwealth countries, and yes there are some archaic “units” in use in other metric countries. But if I mount my basketball basket at 3.048 m (= 10 ft) height, am I using the foot, although my tape measure only has marks for metres through millimetres? What if I mount it at 3.05 m, or at 3 m? If I order a Maß in Bavaria or a pint in Britain, it both means a glass (or stein) of beer, the exact amount of it is secondary. (The Maß used to be slightly more than 1 l, likewise a pint may mean 5 dl in the future.) You probably all know the story about how two horse asses made rail tracks be 4 ft + 8.5 in or 1.435 m apart (or how this influenced the design of boosters for the Spaceshuttle).

If all prices are required by law to be displayed in relation to (round / decimal) metric quantities, but (some) retailers also display the price in relation to English units (presumingly without breaking the law), does this make the whole country metricated or non-metricated?

Often preferred numbers (including the use of vulgar fractions vs. decimal floating point) and the system of measurement are confused, which does not help to make the distinction required for this article. -- Christoph Päper 10:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's really a question of "soft" (3.048 m for 10 ft) vs "hard" (rounded 3 m replacing 10 ft usage) metrication, or whether fractions or decimals are being used, as even metricated countries use both extensively. It might not even be a question of law, by which you could easily argue that even the USA is already metricated (even "customary" measures are defined in metric terms, albeit out to a few decimal places). I think that the "natural" sense of being "metricated" is whether or not the people as a whole preferentially gravitate toward the units of one system or another (or, as seems to be the case in Australia, both, depending on context...I understand that the metric units have been commonly adopted in addition to the customary ones, ordered by length...for example, mm -> cm -> in -> ft -> meter). I believe that the facts in the paragraph under question are largely correct as presented, and arguing their veracity might come down more to how one wishes they were than what they actually are. Although I personally think that SI is very compelling, I believe that, for whatever reason, my view would be in the minority certainly in the USA, probably Canada (except for areas already metricated, which, by the way, is also the case in the USA), and possibly even the UK and other former Imperial countries, given the current state of public opinion, and even if one government or another (such as the UK or Canada) has adopted the metric system wholesale, that is certainly not true of the people being governed. Remember, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a forum, but a compendium of objective (and preferably well-sourced) facts. Albanaco 08:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Inability to divide metric units into three equal parts ?

The phrase 'inability to divide metric units into three equal parts' appears in the article. This statement is clearly false: Any metric unit has a definition which allows for the determination of one third of a quantity in that unit. One could for example construct a ruler calibrated for measurements in increments of 1/3 meter.

The phrase should therefore be removed (or perhaps be replaced by something meaningful). Lklundin 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried rephrasing this. --Gerry Ashton 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)