Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom

Before this gets out of hand...

The edit warring on this article needs to stop. It isn't going to resolve the issue. If it continues, the article will probably get full protected. Looking over the history, it looks like the dispute is once again about the strawberries. Since that discussion, it appears that this source by BBC has been published, which may be relevant to this article. However, I still can't find any sources establishing the current status of ASDA's trial. And there really isn't much information on the ASDA trial. It was just a few news sources stating that a grocery store chain was attempting a trial with imperial units. Overall, it really didn't have a lasting effect on the subject. It might be worth considering the possibility of removing ASDA paragraph altogether. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a term for winning an argument by outlasting all those who disagree? I would agree with removing the Asda material. DeFacto won't. I moved away from editing this article precisely because of the unacceptable behaviour of that editor AND the fact that Wikipedia seems to have no processes to stop someone who has more time on his hands than anyone else winning a fight by wearing everyone else into the ground. It does not lead to good encyclopaedic content. It does not lead to consensual discussion. I think I'll walk away again. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alpha_Quadrant. With respect to the Asda/strawberry content, you know how difficult the discussion was, and how long it took us to arrive at a concise and RS wording to cover that information. Since then, another user (User:Jillipede) has appeared on the scene and attempted to insert something, similar to the OR/SYTH that we had managed to get eliminated, back into that paragraph. A curious aspect of 'Jillipede' is that the account has only been used three times (here, here and here). All 3 edits were to Asda related content, the first time was just 2 minutes after the account was created, and the other 2 were yesterday to insert this content about Asda strawberries. I reverted the 2 attempts to put the OR/SYNTH content into this article, fully reasoned in my edit summaries, (here and here). But shortly after my 2nd revert, User:Charlesdrakew reverted me, thus restoring the anti-consensus and OR/SYNTH, un-reliably-supported, POVy-worded content, and with the bizarre, inexplicable and infammatory edit summary: "Rv more POV-pushing by DeFacto"! Then User:Tom Morris came along and protected the article, so the bad content is locked in for the moment. -- de Facto (talk). 09:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The ASDA trial was extensively discussed atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers recently with a clear consensus that it is worthless as evidence of anything. We have no information on sample size, raw data, participation rates or methodology or even that this was anything more than a cheap publicity stunt without any meaningful survey ever being done. I would not know exactly where to find that discussion among the walls of text created by DeFacto's ad nauseum circular arguments which consist of repeated assertions withouy any reliable sources to back them. I agree with HiLo48 about the wearing down of opposition instead of gaining consensus. To me this behaviour is against the whole ethos of Wikipedia.--Charles (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Charlesdrakew, I notice that rather than explaining why you reverted my removal of the OR/SYNTH content, you chose to personalise the discussion yet again. Do you have nothing worthwhile to add regarding that content, and why you chose to restore it then? -- de Facto (talk). 10:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion needs to stay on topic. Bringing up past disputes isn't going to resolve the current issue. Accusing other editors of point of view pushing won't help this discussion either. I agree that User:Jillipede is clearly not a new users. In particular, this edit used the term "rv" instead of "reverted", suggesting they have a fair understanding of Wikipedia jargon. There is really no point in trying to figure out who the account belongs to. Yesterday I asked Tom Morris in IRC to full protect the article, given that the edit warring wasn't resolving the issue.

I understand that we had a very long discussion back in October to establish the current wording. However, we don't know the current status of the trial because there hasn't been any additional coverage in reliable third party sources. Given the fact that the trial received such limited coverage in the first place, would it be possible to agree on it's complete removal? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The event is part of the bizarre UK unit of measure saga. It would be a shame to lose that part of the picture. The BBC found it notable enough to mention it in their recent piece that you mention above. Although we do have reliable sources supporting the fact that it started, we certainly don't know of a reliable source describing what became of it. So we certainly shouldn't keep the OR/SYTH addition by User:Jillipede/User:Charlesdrakew currently locked into the article - the addition that is based on speculation and a personal interpretation of the Asda online shopping site (we don't even know if the offer was ever available online). -- de Facto (talk). 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that the BBC is being led by rubbish in this article? HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, led where, and what part of the article are you characterising as "rubbish" - presumably not any of the notable, duly weighted, reliably sourced content? -- de Facto (talk). 09:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose to raise an 'edit protected' to get this User:Jillipede/User:Charlesdrakew addition of OR/SYNTH content reverted. -- de Facto (talk). 09:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for reactivating this thread - I appear to have stirred a hornet's nest and wanted to explain myself. Suffice to say, yes, I've casually contributed to Wiki over the years but without registering (awful, I know). I couldn't let the daft inclusion of that Asda strawberry trial pass when I saw it but suspected an anonymous edit would not go down well, given the rather lively revision history, so finally set up an account. I then promptly forgot to return to Wiki until today and missed the entire debate. Sorry! Jillipede (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jillipede,

Welcome to WIkipedia. Just to update you, User:DeFacto who was pushing the Asda story has been barred from Wikipedia (you can check his user page) and all references to the Asda story have been removed - their publicity stunt was just not WP:NOTABLE. Meanwhile I am in the process of rewriting large sections of the artcile - my current draft is on view at User:Martinvl/Metrication process. Comments on the draft are welcome on the talk page associated with the draft. I have annotated the draft for the benefit of visitors so that they can see which sections are real draft and whuich sections are rubbish that I am whittling down. Martinvl (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Current Usage

The "Current Usage" section starts off with this summary: The United Kingdom is unique within Europe in that it has retained the imperial system of measurements.[54]

Rubbish! This is in an article about metrication in the UK, which a self-contradictory situation.

The population continue to resist metrication and the traditional imperial measures are preferred by the majority...

That's unsupported POV

... and continue to be in widespread common use.[52][54]

I'd agree with that, and I assume most Brits would agree (even if they don't much like it).

Many aspects of business, commercial and government and associated administrative activities have metricated either totally or partially; including manufacturing and building industries and education. The sport of rugby union has also metricated. [55] Many activities remain without visible evidence of metrication where imperial units are used or even mandated,[54] including road signs, estate agents' advertisements and the non-specialist media.[citation needed] Trade is substantially metric.[56]

Yeah yeah. Redundant comments (see next point).

Proposal: Remove this introductory paragraph. Apart from some of its content being self-contradictory or unsupported POV, the bits that are OK are just about to re-appear in the point by point list that follows. The introductory paragraph is pointless. Remove it and just have the point-by-point list. Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Many years ago I worked (in real life) on a computer manual for one of the big computer companies. Their MoS demanded that there be an introductory paragraph between second and third level headings - something that I have subsequently tried to do (even though it is optional in Wikipeidia). I originally added the paragraph "Many aspects of business, commercial and government and associated administrative activities have metricated either totally or partially; ... " which was copied from the UKMA booklet "A Very British Mess". DeFacto put the rest ahead of what I had written and also removed the UKMA reference (though not the text). I am open to suggestions from others - my own [biased] view is to remove the first two sentences and to reinstate the UKMA sentence (thogu I have foudn a similar quote in the Final Report of the Metricaton Board, dated 1980. I will dig it out and see if we can work it into the intro paragraph.

I would be happier if we could avoid referencing UKMA (or BWMA) articles in support (or otherwise) of stuff here. Both those organisations are single-agenda pressure groups, their opinions are obviously strongly biased (either way). Steve Hosgood (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not happy with the "Retail" part - it reeks of OR. I would be far happier if it were condensed into something that is properly referenced. Martinvl (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

To have an overall neutral POV, the 'current usage' section needs to differentiate the varying levels of metrication in as many as possible aspects of life in the UK where measurements are used. The scale of "level of metrication" ranges from virtually "none whatsoever", through to virtually "exclusively metric". "Aspects of life" are more difficult to get a representative selection of; but we need to be careful not to weight the list too hevily towards regulated-measures activities and away from unregulated activities, which will tend to distort the picture as the proportion of activities which have metricated. Perhaps the section should be divided into two major sub-sections - "regulated-measures" and "unregulated-measures" activities. -- de Facto (talk). 14:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Spilting the section into "regulated" and "unregulated" parts goes against WP:STRUCTURE. Martinvl (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, I don't think it does. This would be a "fact fork" not a "POV fork". -- de Facto (talk). 08:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "The United Kingdom is unique within Europe in that it has retained the imperial system of measurements." is very misleading (and in its probably understood meaning just incorrect).

• At first reading it gives the impression that, while other European countries use metric, Britain uses imperial measures. It is only after some thought that one realises that it can be interpreted to mean that Britain retains some imperial measures for certain purposes and/or as "supplementary indications" alongside metric units, but other European countries do not.
• The statement gives the impression that other European countries do not continue to use traditional measures such as the inch. One would assume that "usage" is intended - as in the rest of the article - to include colloquial usage, not just formal use in trade and industry, and is intended to include usage as a secondary indication, not just primary usage. However, in Germany, for instance, the inch (Zoll) is still in use for certain purposes . At least in Germany, this is common knowledge, and can easily be confirmed by a glance at German Wikipedia. I suppose that part of the sentence could be interpreted as correct if one notes that the term"imperial" refers to the British empire and the German inch is therefore not "imperial". The use of supplementary indications is permitted in Germany as it is in Britain. The relevant provision of German weights and measures legislation is "Soweit nach den §§ 1 und 2 des Einheiten- und Zeitgesetzes Größen in gesetzlichen Einheiten anzugeben sind, ist die zusätzliche Verwendung anderer als der gesetzlichen Einheiten nur gestattet, wenn die Angabe in der gesetzlichen Einheit hervorgehoben ist." [Where according to sections 1 and 2 of the Units and Time Act dimensions are to be specified in statutory units, the supplementary use of other than statutory units is permitted only if the statutory unit is given greater prominence] (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/einhv/gesamt.pdf). The German regulation seems to insist on greater prominence for the metric units, whereas the British regulation, if I recall correctly, merely states that the non-metric unit must not be more prominent., but that's not a great difference.

So the wording is inappropriate even in a news item, let alone an encyclopaedia. I assume that the situation is similar in other European countries. --Boson (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Two quotes worth working on for the introductory paragraph:

• From the Final Report of the Metrication Board

Today [1980] metric units are used in many important areas of British life - including education; agriculture; construction; industrial materials; much of manufacturing; the wholesaling of petrol, milk, cheese and textiles; fatstock markets and many port fish auctions, nearly all the principal prepacked foods; posts and telecommunications: most freight and customs tariffs; all new and revised Ordnance Survey maps; and athletics. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, Britain is far from being wholly metric.

• From A Very British Mess - publisher United Kingdom Metrication Association - 2005

...although many aspects of national life are metric (including most industry and building, school mathematics and science, athletics, rugby union and Ordnance Survey maps), many imperial relics remain (e.g. in road signs, football commentaries, estate agents' advertisements and most non-specialist media).

I know that the latter is probably not suitable for Wikipeida as it comes from a lobbying organisation, which is a pity because, stripped of its POV (as shown here) it is probably a very accurate description. This paragraph was here originally before DeFacto started his additions. (Initially he removed the citation, left the text and added a "citation needed" tag).

Martinvl (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will stand by my previous opinion that we ought to avoid references originating from either the BWMA or the UKMA, and I'm pleased to see you agreeing above, Martinvl. Much as I am amused by the UKMA's phrasing "many imperial relics remain..." in the above, I think that would count as "weasel words" rather nicely in the context of Wikipedia. There are currently two references to UKMA-sources and one to BWMA-sources in the 'references' section, plus the indirectly-cited (via The Times) BWMA "survey" mentioned at the bottom of the "Public Opinion" section. I'd suggest that we bin the lot unless there's any good reason not to, especially the last-mentioned one in "Public Opinion". Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. There's a lot of pointless re-stating of facts between the current "Legal Requirements", "Popular Opinion", "Public Debate" and "Current Usage" sections. I suggest we remove "Public Debate" as a section, and re-site its (perfectly valid IMHO) comment about the conflation of Euroscepticism and metric measures into the "Popular Opinion" section. I then suggest that we delete the "Current Usage" section but split up and re-site its bullet-list of examples into the "Legal Requirements" and "Popular Opinion" sections. This would make the "Popular Opinion" section into something more like a "Popular Opinion and Informal Usage" section, we could rename it like that if anyone else agrees. Any support for that? It would cut the article length down and lose a fair bit of repetition. Can't be a bad thing, surely? Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To elaborate on the above: I'd suggest that the bullet list get split something like this:

• Weather forecasts: -> "Popular Opinion and Informal Usage" section. Not governed by any law that I'm aware of.
• Commodities: -> not sure. Is this covered by legal requirements?
• Energy: -> "Legal Requirements" section. This is a "sale" or "transaction".
• Retail (and all its sub-sections): -> "Legal Requirements" section.
• Education: -> "Legal Requirements" section.
• National Health Service: -> "Legal Requirements" section.
• Information dissemination: lose this top-level heading.
• Information dissemination/Government organisations: -> "Legal Requirements" section.
• Information dissemination/Newspapers: -> "Popular Opinion and Informal Usage" section.
• Information dissemination/Unit of measure inconsistencies: -> "Popular Opinion and Informal Usage" section (as a subsection of "Information dissemination/Newspapers"?)
• Mapping: -> "Legal Requirements" section (as a subsection of "Information dissemination/Government organisations"?)
• Road transport (and its subsections): -> "Legal Requirements" section (but please can we lose all the text and replace by just a reference to Road signs in the United Kingdom?).
• Rail transport: not sure about this. Is this private or public? Covered by legislation or not? Hmm.
• Air and shipping: not sure about this either. It's covered by international agreements, maybe nothing to do with MitUK after all. Lose it?
• Industry: -> "Popular Opinion and Informal Usage" section. Not governed by any law that I'm aware of, though industry (via the CBI) were amongst those pushing for metrication since the 1950's.

More and more it looks like "Popular Opinion and Informal Usage" would be a poor choice of section name for all this non-mandated stuff. Any better ideas? Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am currently working on a total revision of the sections 1945 to 1973, 1973 to 1999, 2000 to 2006 and 2007 onwards. The current working version (I dare not call it a draft as I am not there yet) is at User:Martinvl/Metrication program. Please feel free to read it, but please realise that parts of it are still random jottings or aides memoire that I have made.

Following on what Steve has said, I propose the following:

• I remove the section on "EU directives" from my rewrite and merge it into the section "Legal Requirements" (and possibly rename that section).
• The section "Public Debate", "Popular Opinion" be merged with my section "Assessment of the British metrication program" to form a single section. It might warrant being in a section by itself or being a subsection of one or other section.
• I am not in favour of removing the "Current Usage" section, but I suggest that it be trimmed down considerably by removing material which is either poorly sourced or which is reproduced elsewhere. I feel that the subsection "Information dissemination" (with a slighty reduced lede) be retained as it shows up one of the conflicts in the UK.
• I would also like to retain the section "Road Transport" as this was one of the areas highlighted by the Metrication Board in its final report as needing attention.
• I see no problem with keeping the UKMA and BWMA cost calculations in the Costs section as we are not only giving both sides of the argument but we are also showing alternatives to the official government line. Maybe we coud seek the opinion of the larger community on this one by means of a RfC.

Martinvl (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest the following:

• Weather forecasts: -> Possibly ditch (Not governed by any law that I'm aware of - possibly covered by "Public Safety" requirement, but that is my own WP:OR).
• Commodities: -> Merge into the section that I am writing
• Energy: -> Merge into the section that I am writing
• Retail: COmpress and merge into the section that I am writing. Possibly a note on the recent EU directive that prohibits fixed sizes for all but a few products.
• Education: -> Merge into the section that I am writing.
• National Health Service: -> Not sure.
• Information dissemination: Disagree, keep this subsection - it leads into a "for and against argument" in the subsequent sections. However trim the lede back.

• Information dissemination/Government organisations: -> See above.
• Information dissemination/Newspapers: -> See above.
• Information dissemination/Unit of measure inconsistencies: -> See above

• Mapping: -> Merge into the section that I am writing
• Road transport (and its subsections): -> Keep it for the time being, but trim it down.
• Rail transport: -> Merge into section that I am writing.
• Air and shipping: -> Merge into Legal Requirements section (The EU directive has specific exemptions in this area.

Before we leap into this, we also need to agree a program so that information is not hidden while we are working on things.

Martinvl (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy that what you're doing (trying out a rewrite in your sandbox) is a perfectly good way of making sure information is not hidden. I was wondering if it was going to be me doing a sandbox mockup, I'm rather happy to see you doing it! But I'll suggest not replacing the actual page without polling the "usual suspects" on their talk pages first, OK? Steve Hosgood (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have merged the NHS bit into "Legal Requirements" (and also added new info regardign weighing devices). My next plan is to merge "Air and shipping" into the same section by citing the EU exemption for that area. I think that it would then be appropriate to tidy up the section "Legal Requirements" while I look at the big section that I am writing. This will also give us time to review where to go.

What do you think of the following as an introductory paragraph to the "Current Useage" section: In its final report (1980), the Metrication Board wrote "Today metric units are used in many important areas of British life - including education; agriculture; construction; industrial materials; much of manufacturing; the wholesaling of petrol, milk, cheese and textiles; fatstock markets and many port fish auctions, nearly all the principal prepacked foods; posts and telecommunications: most freight and customs tariffs; all new and revised Ordnance Survey maps; and athletics. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, Britain is far from being wholly metric." The report major identified areas that had not yet been metricated as being the retail petrol trade (metricated in 1984), retail sale of loose goods (metricated in 2000) and roads signs (as of 2012 not metricated). The report did not address issues related to the media such as news reports and advertising. Martinvl (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really following this closely (I think it is better to let the two of you sort something out first), but, as a small point, you probably want things like "metricated in 1984" and "as of 2012 not metricated" in square brackets [thus] which, I believe is the convention for insertions by the editor, not in the original quote. References for the dates would also be useful. --Boson (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, I would say that introduction to "current usage" is an improvement and should be inserted. I think it's easier to sort out details afterwards, rather than waiting to get to a final version of everything on the talk page. --Boson (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the section heading "Legal Requirements" is a bit misleading. "Regulated Activities" might be better. I mean "Legal Requirements" sort-of implies that it is a crime not to comply, but I suspect that if your doctor has a weighing machine that can weight in imperial measures, they're not committing a crime - just not complying with the letter of the recommendations. Given the current state of funding for the NHS, I can guess that replacing weighing machines is not high on a surgery's agenda... Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I note that your sandbox article suggests (at the top) that it will become a new section. I presume that means "a new section replacing the 'history' paragraphs starting with 1945-1973 plus the following ones up to the present time"? I would really like to see this whole article end up about 50% of its current length eventually. Merging the above-mentioned bullet-lists into the last paragraph of "History" would achieve some of that as suggested earlier. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right - I am planning on merging all the post-war history into the new section. I am thinking of compressing and pulling most of the EU stuff into "Legal Requirements" - I am quite happy with "Regulated Activities" as a replacement for "Legal Activities".

As an interim measure, I am thinking of introducing the new section on a piece-meal basis under the name "Metrication Process" and to make the existing history sections subsections of the new section. As new text is added to the new section, we can strip out duplicate legacy text. Any comments?

The NHS stuff is the result of a reclasification of scales from non-medical to medical equipment which means that using inappropriate scales could render the health provider guilty of negligance if inappropriate scales led to a fatality. This paragraph does not relate only to medical scales, but also to traders. Martinvl (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the existing (post war) history sections have already been re-used in your new section. Making them subsections of the new section would just result in lots of repetition AFAICS. I'd suggest you just wholesale replace the postwar history section with the new postwar history. You might want to drop in a few of the existing date-headers though. I felt it was valid to point out that the tone of metrication changed (with the new government) in 1970, and again (with a new government) in the early 1980's. You're losing a bit of this historical phasing info with your current proposed layout. Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I chose a poor example with medical scales. Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at your sandbox - especially "Note 2" which shows a list of many obsolete imperial measures illegal for trade, allegedly from 1994/5. I think you'll find that that list is cumulative: many of those measures had been outlawed well before 1995 in earlier versions of Weights and Measures Acts and/or Units of Measurement Acts. It might be interesting (since you're presenting a history) to list when each group of old units went out of service as each Act replaced an earlier one. There had been Units of Measurement Acts from 1978,1980 and 1986 IIRC. Difficult to search online for them much before 1986 though. I spotted a reference to the 1986 Units of Measurement Act online, but it was just a scan of the printed paper version in a .pdf (this paragraph updated Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

Steve, a few comments

• I know that quite a bit of existing stuff is repeated in the proposed new section. My plan was to cull such stuff from the legacy text as it is introduced into the new section.
• There was a big cull in the 1970's - I haven't tracked them down yet. The original UK metrication policy was that it should be voluntary - something that was largely achieved before the abolishion of the Metrication Board. I need to work that into the article. The 1986 and subsequent culls were done in tandem with EU directives.

Martinvl (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your sandbox article, Martinvl, you've got "quintal" down twice in Note 2. Might I suggest that you break up note 4) to maybe 4a) - discontinued measures and 4b) - measures permitted for certain circumstances (mentioning the circumstances). Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but it might be a few days. (Real life getting in the way!) Martinvl (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what input is still wanted on the various suggestions. Anyway, here are some miscellaneous points:

• Condensing: I agree with the idea of considerably condensing the existing content.
• Headings: I don't know if we need as many headings, though it might be a good idea to retain them temporarily, for structure, until we have a resonably stable finished version.
• Weather forecasts: It think we could do with a brief mention of concurrent use of Fahrenheit and Celsius, but I don't think we need to go into as much detail as currently.
• Spelling (draft in user space): I think we want to talk about the metrication "programme"' with British spelling (for this meaning of programme).

Not sure about that! I use "programme" exclusively for TV and Radio broadcasts, but "program" for sets of jobs to be done in some sort of sequence - esp. for the case of computer programs. So I'd have thought it was a Metrication Program by that logic. Steve Hosgood (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a new one on me. In my experience, "program" is used only in connection with computers (in British English).--Boson (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• I share the concern about UKMA and BWMA as general sources, but have no objection to occasional use as sources for their points of view, provided both are given due weight.

--Boson (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My rewrite at User:Martinvl/Metrication program is taking shape - I have added a few banners to show where I am with various sections. I have not included "Current Situation", but I hope to cut this back dramatically. Please feel free to visit the draft and to let me know whether or not I am on the right track. Martinvl (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As part of my rewrite, I plan to move most of the stuff about transportation into a new article, currently in draft form at User:Martinvl/Metrication of British Transport. The draft is nearly ready for release (the sections on shipping and aviation will not be in the first release). Comments are of course welcome, though I expect that editors will have an opportunity to work on the article directly by the start of next week.

Once I have released that, I plan to reduce the amount of material in this artcile dramatically. I do not plan to do any more work on the new article until I have finished my work on revising this article. Martinvl (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The article Metrication of British Transport has now been released. It needs a little tidying uup (categories etc). Martinvl (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The shift to metric in Welsh schools

Martin: I notice that you've mentioned Scotland's and England's schools in your in-progress draft. I was part of the first intake-year of my comprehensive school who were taught exclusively in S.I. units. I joined that school in September 1970 and did my O-levels in summer 1975. The Welsh Joint Education Committee were responsible for the exam syllabus at my school (and most others in Wales). I recall the headmaster telling my parents that the Nuffield Foundation had been involved somewhere in the setup work that must have preceded the changes that I benefited from in 1970. The lathes in metalwork, the textbooks of all subjects - it all had to be changed for S.I. I remember that past papers for Physics O-level were partially useless as revision material because some questions were set in C.G.S, and some even in imperial.

The only subject that couldn't be fully done in S.I. was geography, and that was because the Ordnance Survey didn't have 1:50000 maps (or 1:25000 maps) for our area until 1975 or so (it was the back of beyond!). I can still remember that the scale of a one-inch-to-the-mile map is 1:63360! Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the info. I think that given the status of Wales at the time, I should write "England and Wales" (unless you have references otherwise). Was the Welsh Joint Education Committee akin to the Oxford Committee (mentioned in teh text). Martinvl (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Legally, Wales was not at that time treated any different from England, but the WJEC was (and I think still is) run from Cardiff and only had responsibility for the exam contents and standards of Welsh schools. The Oxford Committee was/is the same sort of thing but with governance over schools in - errr - the Home Counties? I've always had the impression that Wales had been singled out for an early test-run of metrication in schools (as in, had there been a glitch it would have affected fewer people). As it was, Welsh kids attending secondary school from 1970 onwards got taught 100% in S.I units (except map-reading in geography!), whereas I'm under the impression that for England, some regions didn't start until the intake of 1974. Citations would be needed of course. Steve Hosgood (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What is more important than catloguing the progress of each part of the UK is that the representation of the teaching profession on the Metricaion Board was minimal (I have a ref for that)! Also, that costs were borne where they fell, so that sectors for whom it was beneficial to metricate did so and those for whom it was not beneficial were reluctant to do so (espl. the retail sector). Martinvl (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

True - it's overlong as it is! Cataloguing would make it worse. But when you mention costs, that's something I mentioned above concerniong the Nuffield Foundation. Looks like they funded some or all of the S.I switch in the schools. Certainly in my school, probably Wales-wide, maybe UK-wide? Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Completion of article overhaul

I am nearly ready to complete the overhaul to this article. The new text can be seen at User:Martinvl/Metrication program (some of it has already been migrated into the article). If anybody has any comments that will affect the article as a whole, please let me know. For the record, I plan to keep the existing text apart from:

0 Lede - replace with new text

1.3 1945 onwards - replace with new text

4.1 Commodities - delete (to be merged into new section - "Metrication Process")

4.3 Education - delete (to be merged into new section - "Metrication Process")

4.5 Mapping - delete (to be merged into new section - "Metrication Process")

In addition I plan to add a new section "Metrication Process" (see new text in my user area).

Martinvl (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A few comments on sourcing

I think it is still lacking somewhat in secondary, third-party sources, particularly for evaluative statements, such as ". . . a debate in which government and opposition south to score political points against each other . . ." and " . . . little, if any partisan feeling was forthcoming". If we cannot attribute these assessments to a political commentator, we should probably to remove them altogether.

Statements implying causation or result generally need better sourcing ("Due to public opposition to metrication . . .", " The result was the repeal of directive 71/354/EEC . . . ", ". . . further metrication took place in response to specific triggers rather than being the result of general policy".

Authoritative primary sources, such as legislation, should only be used for the facts of their content, and more care should be taken to avoid any impression of evaluation.

In footnotes, third-party sources, such as research reports from the United States National Bureau of Standards should be designated in such a way that it is clear that they are third-party. The unwary reader might think it was a British government institution.

Comparisons with Australia and South Africa need a third-party source.

Some information on the progress of metrication is still insourced. Whole paragraphs are as yet unsourced, e.g. the one starting "The retail industry proved the most difficult for the Metrication Board . . .". Particularly when making assessments like this, secondary sources are essential.

All statements containing dates and figures should be sourced. I think primary sources would be OK for the dates when boards were set up, etc.

Even though the source is implied in statements like " When the White Paper itself was finally published in 1972, it set out . . .", it would probably be best to give full citation (preferably with page numbers) when referencing information contained in White Papers, reports, etc. Care should be taken to avoid the impression of original research when summarizing.
--Boson (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I will try to work them int the article. Martinvl (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have done the changes - I hope that they meet with approval. Still quite a bit of work to be done, but I think that even in its present state it presents a much more balanced picture than previously. Martinvl (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A few comments (post rewrite)

I think I broadly welcome Martinvl's work on this article. However, I note that the article as a whole is currently slightly over 100 000 characters long, and does still repeat itself a bit.

Here is a suggestion. Totally remove paragraphs 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 and put them into the currently rather minimal article on Metrication Board. Merge paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 under the title "1799 - 1965". Quite honestly, no actual progress was made on metrication in that entire time! However, it is IMHO worth keeping what's already written about those times.

Next - retitle section 2 as "Metrication program - 1965 to present day" and increment the level of indenting to *all* the article content from 2.1 ("Announcement of the program and the Metrication Board White Paper") through to 6 ("Costs") so that they all appear as sub-topics of "Metrication program - 1965 to present day". The current paragraph 7 ("Advocacy groups") would end up as paragraph 3 (and onwards to the end of the article).

I consider that this would usefully get the article down to about 90 000 characters and conveniently remove one chunk of repetition as a side effect. I would just hop in there and do this, but recent history of OTT editing on this article suggests that such a change could do with being discussed first! Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Steve, thank you for your comments. I am quite happy to merge 1.2 and the lede of 1.3 into a single subsection - a good idea. I also like the idea of merging 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 into 2.1 and also into 3.0. This woudl probably allow us to remove 10% of the text and get below 90k characters. I am happy to move 6 into 2 as 2.7.

I would prefer to leave 3, 4 and 5 as they are, if only because merging them into 2 would make that section rather too large.

There is however one topic that I should have touched on, but didn't (not sure whether or not it would be OR or something else horrendous). One of the reasons that the imperial system survived is that it was used virtually unchanged across all of England and Wales since medieval times and in Scotland since 1707. The only major changes since Henry VIII's time was the standardisation of the mile and of the pint/gallon etc. In the case of France, Germany, Neterhlands and Italy, this was not the case - all had multiple systems of measurement. Martinvl (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not wrong there Martinvl, one of the (long revoked) clauses of Magna Carta (1215) required that parliament enforce a single set of weights and measures across the land (in those days, England). Wales got subsumed in the 1300's, Scotland formally joined up in the early 1700's though the "Imperial System" as such didn't exist until 1824. The other big driving force that made the UK's weights and measures strong was of course the existence of the British Empire. Covering as it did about a quarter of the world's landmass at its height, in world terms the Imperial System (and its predecessors) would have been the dominant system until sufficient countries started to adopt metric - probably meaning that metric was not really a world player until late in the 1800's at the earliest. From Britain's point of view, until the Empire collapsed (or was disbanded) starting after WWII, there was no pressure to discontinue Imperial. Like your reworked lede to MitUK says, Martinvl, the Hodgson Committee's finding were still being dissed as "premature" right into the late 1950's. Steve Hosgood (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a page in my sandbox User:Steve_Hosgood/sandbox/Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom which is proposed as a replacement for the existing MitUK article. Obviously, it's just a first attempt, but what I've done is to factorise-out as much Metrication Board specific stuff as I can (and remove a couple of restatements of facts). The upshot is that the article has been trimmed to 91 000 characters from being just shy of 100 000 when I took my snapshot this morning. I am also working on User:Steve_Hosgood/sandbox/Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom which I propose as an eventual replacement for Metrication Board. Yes - quite a few references in both articles are broken, so neither are ready for use just yet. What do you think? Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your comments regarding the stability of the English system of measurement with which I agree. Maybe we could work them into the article once we have finalised its new shape.

I have taken a look at your progress to date on your proposed changes to Metrication in the United Kingdom. From the context of what you wrote, it appears that you were working on another article – Metrication Board, but I think that you posted the wrong Wikilink.

My main comment regarding your proposed changes on the article Metrication in the United Kingdom is that in my view you have removed too much of the material regarding the Metrication Board. I know that you plan to revamp the article Metrication Board (the current article certainly needs revamping), but I don’t think that many people will click onto the link, so certain important things need to be retained in the original article. In particular I would like to keep the list of sub-committees as this shows that the road signage and the retail industry were only a small part of the program. The other part that I would like to keep is the first paragraph of the section entitled “After the Metrication Board”. Again, keeping this will demonstrate to Joe Public that metrication is more than just market stalls and that the UK is a metric country.

I have a secondary comment regarding structure. I would like to renumber you section 1.3 as 2.0 The metrication process and then the paragraph starting “The lead in the metrication process …” would become the first paragraph of subsection 2.1 The Metrication Board. The two paragraphs that I highlighted could be worked into this section.

Meanwhile I will hold off any edits to the current version.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The acre for land registration

At the moment a note in the article says "The acre was removed from the list of units permitted for economic, public health, public safety or administrative purpose from 1 January 2010 as the Land Registry Office had ceased using it some years previously." Is there a citation for this? I could not find one in [1] but perhaps it is buried in the details. Michael Glass (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember seeing a press notice some years ago about this, but there was no legislation. Like a lot of British metrication, the change-over was voluntary and quiet - all that happened was the legislation being tidied up after the event. Martinvl (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is an indirect reference here:

• "Directive 2009/3/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 amending Council Directive 80/181/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement". Retrieved 2009-05-08. (10) Since the acre is no longer in use for land registration purposes in the United Kingdom and Ireland, there is no longer any need to provide for an exemption in that respect. . . .(f) in Chapter II, the following row shall be deleted from the table: "Land registration . . . acre . . .

If only public bodies under government control were involved, I suppose legislation would not be necessary.

--Boson (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference above appears to be adequate for the purpose of the article. Do we need any further confirmation? Michael Glass (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy and neutrality of this article

The content of this article is unbalanced because a lot of it is based on the accounts (and therefore point of view) of the government agency tasked with overseeing the metrication task. It is also based on unsourced interpretations of many primary sources, such as the reports of that government agency, the original texts of UK legislation and EU directives, and other government-sourced data. There are also highly unreliable sources of fact used, such as various documents from the websites of campaigning pressure groups. 6 foot 6 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I would think statements by campaigning organizations are suitable for verifying facts about their points of view, though obviously not for statements about whether metrication is in fact "a good thing" or "a bad thing". I would generally think that government/EU institutions are acceptable for facts about legislation and purported government objectives. I would also think primary sources are acceptable for facts about legislation that do not require or imply assessment or evaluation. Could you say which statements you think your individual concerns apply to? Which specific sources do you think would be better for which specific statements? --Boson (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the sites of campaigning organisations can be used to verify their opinions, but this isn't an article about their opinions alone, so anywhere their opinions are used (other than when actually describing their own agenda in isolation) it should be balanced with the opinions from the other sides of the argument to achieve a balance. Looking at this article, it does not present a neutral look at metrication in the UK as such. It only presents a look at how successive governments, the EU and other organisations have forcibly introduced metrication into certain walks of life under their direct influence and control, and particularly by the use of legislation to mandate the use of metrication in certain situations. It does not actually present a balanced view of the conversion of the UK to the metric system and how widely it has been adopted and accepted outside of the places where there is no legal choice. The first sentence in the article's introduction betrays this bias when it states: "Metrication in the United Kingdom is the process of introducing the metric system of measurement in place of imperial units in the United Kingdom." What it should say, if it were the introduction to a neutral article, is: "Metrication in the United Kingdom is the process of acceptance and adoption of the use of metric units of measurement in favour of imperial units in the United Kingdom." The article may well include much of the current content, but neutrally described for what it is, as attempts to influence the adoption of metrication, and then balanced with contemporary reports, opinions and views of the reception given to those attempts and with an account of the effect they have had, and with a review of the longer term effects of the initiatives. What also needs to be covered is the acceptance, or otherwise, of the UK people of metric units and how they have been assimilated and absorbed, or otherwise, into British culture and into the British way of life. As I see it, we are a very long way from providing a truly NPOV article fulfilling the expectation set by the article title. 6 foot 6 (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could suggest some alternative sources to complement what you appear to perceive as partial sources. Your suggestion for the first sentence seems rather strange, being - as it appears to me - at odds with the normal factitive sense of words like metrication. The way you express yourself above (e.g. ". . . the EU and other organisations have forcibly introduced metrication . . . " for the normal exercise of sovereign power, which applies to many areas of life - and weights and measures have long been a matter for the exercise of sovereignty) smacks of an attempt to introduce an anti-EU, anti-metrication bias to the article. --Boson (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to ask for exactly the same thing. On a related issue, does the username "6 foot 6" suggest a single-minded campaign on WP? Could the user disclose whether s/he has an alternate or previous account, please? Tony (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

DNFTT. 6foot6 is an obvious sock of banned user DeFacto (talk · contribs). I suspect this will not be the last one either. Toddst1 (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)