Talk:Metric system

Template:WP1.0 /Archive I

Cross Post On New Intro

1) [Snip, Snip, Snip] = Post on another article, albeit one somewhat related, i.e. Talk: Exponentiation. See User talk: Pol098. FrankB

2) Looking over your evolution of [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metric_system&diff=prev&oldid=46287122 metric system ] I am struck by the thought that your familiarity to the SI has blinded you to the need to properly introduce a topic and in particular to remember at the forefront of your mind the audience for whom you are supposed to be writing. Don't get me wrong, what you did is good writing– perhaps even great prose, but I think the prior introductory start was more appropriate and also more in line with the WP:MOS. I suggest you take a week away from the article (a good trick this aiding dispassionate reconsideration) and then comeback to compare the two styles of intro with an editors eyes rather than that of an author. You may find that others have reverted you in the iterim.

I find your explanation to be superior -- just misplaced so far at the top as it introduces the topic with not comprehensible historic phrases gradually building to the technical, but by squarely hitting the lay reader in the eye with yet another incomprehensible bit of technical jargon — the [SI]. Give it some thought and consider rearranging once again to give your fuller clearer explainations more at the end of the intro, not at the top. In the future, please try to clearly indicate in the summary when you are making such a 'major reordering' and rewording. This change took some hunting in the historypage to see where the revolution in the article occured. Thanks from all of us tracking. Best wishes, FrankB 18:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The above cross post: Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pol098" FrankB

Continuing:

3) I'm going to revert the article to the old form, and then re-revert to the current form to document the dramatic change in the intro introduced by user: Pol098

4) This should be discussion by a lot of editors, so weigh in. FrankB 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

5) It would have been better if the world had waited a while until the compter age was born. A system compatible with base 2 and so base 8 and 16 would have been directly compatible with computer architechture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdavisiii (talk • contribs)

definition of a metre

I am quite sure that the metre is actually defined as how far light travels in a specified time (about 1/3E8 seconds) in a vacuum, not what it says in the article. This is because the speed of light in a vacuum is considered a constant.

You are right; that change was made in 1983. Gene Nygaard 13:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I stayed away from that as my recollection backs up the above, but I'm not sure how current my knowledge was. Someone needs to add a cite with due research into the current standards definition. My specific recollection was it was a specific wavelength tied to some excited cesium compound and was so many wavelengths of that specific frequency of light traveling through a vaccuum. Either definition requires a very precise timing capability, and it may be that this recollection of mine is instead how the standard second is defined. My editing load is overstressed, and the article is actively being pursued by you all. I'd suggest formal footnotes for both aspects. I just happened by in invitation to some discussion on the above section on our talks. Good hunting! FrankB 17:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, just read the metre article. I added the correct definition, but I think the intro needs a major rework, as it does not reflect current practice. (second is the base unit defined by cesium clock, metre is derived by defining speed of light, kg is the last unit defined by an artifact, etc.)--agr 18:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

None of which is essential for the introduction here—and all of which are covered in the more specific SI article, and probably already too much here. Gene Nygaard 14:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, none of them are essential to this article. None is a disputed point. Specific references to the appropriate CGPM resolutions governing the current definitions are provided in detail at SI base unit. Gene Nygaard 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Along with the precise wording of the quasi-official English versions of those definitions, of course. Gene Nygaard 14:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the the precise definitions need not be repeated here, but they should at least be alluded to. The present intro is heavy on jargon, too long and poorly organized. Also the second has never been "about one 86400th of the mean autorevolution period of Earth" That would be a sidereal day (86,164 seconds); the second was defined in terms of the the solar day. I'm up for taking a whack at a rework but I don't want to start an edit war. --agr 11:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and did an edit. I removed some duplicated content and rearranged things a lot. The opening sentence is based on the definitions in several dictionaries I consulted. --agr 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

UK usage

It's a common misconception, for some reason, that people in the UK use the metric system. We are members of the European Union, of course, and officially we should have adopted the system, but the reality is quite different. Distances on road signs are still measured in miles, rather than kilometres; for the most part, produce (from, say, a greengrocer) is measured in pounds, not grams; and we weigh ourselves in stones and pounds, and measure ourselves in feet and inches. Britain is far away from having adopted the metric system. There are exceptions, of course, but by and large Britain still uses the imperial system of weights and measures. --Stevefarrell 02:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Past discussions indicate—to me as a fellow European—that the everday experiences of Britons differ, probably mostly by age and education. (The exceptions you list form basically the complete list, when adding the Fahrenheit temperature scale for summer and fever.) This has lead to a lot of annoying “I know better” edits of related articles.

To be considered a “metric country” the official position (laws, regulations etc.) should be considered first and prominently, then official exceptions (like British road signs and the pint, which seems to be the mere name of a kind of beer glass today), then colloquial, foreign-induced and compatibility remnants. Of the last you’ll find examples in basically all countries of the world, although often metricised (like the 500-gram pound). Anyhow, you’re certainly only using a small subset of the 1820s Imperial units, not the whole “system”.

This discussion actually belongs to the article(s) on metrication, where actual adoption is covered in more detail. Christoph Päper 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

True, and I did read this article again and noticed that the UK has indeed officially adopted the metric system, but in everyday use the imperial system is more usual. Personally I feel the metric system makes more sense; I mean, it's multiples of ten. I find myself amused by metric system paranoia in this country (and the US) that seems to think that fully adopting the system would mean all sorts of crazy changes, like straight bananas and crashing your car because you're not sure how fast you're going anymore. --Stevefarrell 16:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the UK is that although most businesses use metric and it's taught in schools and used in shops and what not, the road signs are still in imperial and certain areas of industry still operate purely on imperial (those involved the inland waterways for example), which needs to be sorted out. Once that happens the UK will be fully metric (apart from old people, who were brought up on imperial and younger people who are biased against anything that turns us less British.

The change to a complete metric system will happen eventually, but it won't be any time soon.

I think that the map of non-metric countries should be changed and have the UK in blue or something saying that while it's officially adopted there is still significant use of the imperial system. --62.173.194.7 10:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We do use metric all the time. It only the roadsigns that are imperial. I reckon we should keep the map the same. I don't want people to think we're as backwards as the yanks when it comes down to weights and measurements.

What units are used on the odometers of cars in Britain? Ordinary Person 11:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Miles. Road distances and speeds are still in miles and yards, although actual numbers are posted very rarely. Ireland finally got rid of imperial measures on its roads last year without any great trouble.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 13:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that this world map on the page that shows what countries do not use metric should be updated. It should have another color for those countries that use both metric and imperial measurements, such as the UK.

The metric system IS used in Britain. All kids are taught only metric measurements at school. Produce MUST be purchased in metric measurements however inconvenient that might be for some old people. I only ever hear people use celcius when talking about temperature (on weather programmes and everyday life) except if they talk about body temperature (as 100F is an easy figure to remember) or if they wish to emphasise how hot it is ("London sizzles at 90F", for example, in a newspaper). The only real exception seems to be with regards to miles on road signs although all cars display kilometres and miles on the odometer and general road signs usually use metres nowadays (e.g. "service station in 200 metres"). The only other exception are drug dealers who continue to sell hashish in ounces and tenths of an ounce. Thank god we've finally got rid of the illogical metric system. The USA is now one of only 3 backward countries to continue using such a system! 213.230.129.22 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant "illogical imperial system" there, right? 195.200.34.50 17:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm 19 (And from the UK ) and I don't actually know or understand the imperial system, my dad is 52 and understands both but usually uses the imperial system and my grandma is 82 and doesn't actually understand the metric system at all. Although the imperial system is still in use, it is dropping off the map. Liam Markham 17:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'm 18 and although certain right wing tabloids like to stress how everybody uses the Imperial system, those tabloids are dedicated to fostering a sense of outrage in old people. in practice Imperial measurements are used very rarely. I can only think of five examples

1. Golf (yards etc)
2. Greengrocers when weighing produce out for older people
3. Miles on road signs
4. In american made mechanical components (quarter inch-bolts)
5. Dealers selling quarters and halves.81.77.175.47 15:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How are those "quarters" and "halves" actually measured? I'll bet on a scale calibrated in grams. Question then becomes, how does one know if they are getting what they asked for.

Centimetres

I notice that centimetres are not even mentioned in this sentence, "All lengths and distances, for example, are measured in metres, or thousandths of a metre (millimetres), or thousands of metres (kilometres), and so on." Distance can be measured in centimetres (one hundredth of a metre) and I therefore believe it should be included. I am also unsure that 'or' has been used appropriately in this sentence. I believe that a comma between listed metric measurments would suffice.--MSmith 11:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Decimetres (1/10th of a metre), decametres (10 meters), hectometres (100 meters), megametres (1000 kilometers), etc, aren't mentioned and I dont think every differen't unit in metric needs mentioning either. I beieve thats what the "and so on" is there to cover. One should look to the entries themselves for each definition as there are twenty one different units of length[1] alone. Lando242 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the units are of common use, and others not. Millimetres, centimetres, metres and kilometres being the usual ones, the others existing but almost never used. It probably makes sense to say which are in common usage and which exist by virtue of the system being generic. A bit like hogsheads exist in the imperial system but are hardly ever used... Except as a joke.CyrilleDunant 06:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

“Common use” is a big word (or two). Dekagrams or hectograms are the primarily used unit in loose food sales in various countries. Decimetres are often preferred when giving water levels of rivers or tides (cf. English hands and horses). Hectolitres are common in breweries and the like. A hectare (from hecto-are) is another, much more popular name for the square hectometre (ha = hm²), like the are itself is a square dekametre (a = dam²). Megagrams are sometimes used to distinguish the metric tonne from English tons. And so on. Just because you do not use it, does not mean noone is using it. Christoph Päper 15:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I will specify, then. Some of the subunits are un general common usage, whereas are in specific common usage. Your examples are very true, but they do not change the fact that some subunits are more common than others, in general terms.CyrilleDunant 16:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a section discussing common usage in various countries/cultures? In e.g. Norway we tend to use centimetres for distances between 1 cm and 1 m; desilitre is commonly used in cooking (as opposed to UK which uses ml). Nilenico 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not. For one thing, it editors from various countries may know the common usage, but it may be hard to find reliable sources stating what the common usage is. Also, one of the main advantages of the metric system is that people who visit a region, or deal with information from an unfamiliar occupation, can easily adapt to the units that are commonly used in the region or occupation; indeed, it is so easy that I don't think it needs to be written about. --Gerry Ashton 18:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"All lengths and distances, for example, are measured in metres, or thousandths of a metre (millimetres), or thousands of metres (kilometres), and so on." The "and so on" here refers only to the example, which only mentions prefixes that express powers of ten that are multiples of three, and therefore can be misunderstood. There is no preference, in indicating measurements, for a given set of unit prefixes, namely for those expressing powers of ten that are multiples of three. You can use 12 dm, 120 cm or 1200 mm or 1.2 m or 0.12 dam or 12x10^-4 km, it's all the same -- some are just unusual. The prefix chosen is a matter of convenience for the work at hand, and people prefer better-known prefixes too. Xyzt1234 10:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jefferies, Walters, Livingstonson

The following text was just revised to put in some material about Jefferies, Walters, & Livingstonson. No reference was supplied to support the edit, so I have moved it here:

It was believed that in the late 18th century, Louis XVI of France charged a group of savants to develop a unified, natural and universal system of measurement to replace the disparate systems then in use. This alleged group, which allegedly included such notables as Lavoisier, allegedly produced the metric system, which was then allegedly adopted by the allegedly revolutionary government of France. However, this is not true, as the metric system was actually devised by a group of three Scottish men. One of the three, Walter Jeffreys, who was known to be an avid player and national champion of Chinese checkers, detailed the concept of the system to the other two, his good friends from college, Jeffrey Walters and Pip Livingstonson. Their creation of the metric system led them to become millionaires (by today's standards, billionaires), which also led to them being quite popular with the ladies.

--Gerry Ashton 03:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

UK or US spelling

User:Samibellina made an edit to change the spelling of decimalise and recognise to use a z instead of an s. We use the UK spelling of metre; does that mean we should use UK spellings for other words too, in this article? (By the way, I don't think Samibellina got all the instances of decimalise.) --Gerry Ashton 00:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this doesn't mean we should use "UK spellings" (which I prefer to call "Commonwealth spellings"). However, I can't think of any reason why we should use US spellings. The policy is to stick with what was originally on the article and not to change from one acceptable spelling standard to another.

"there is certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia, summarized here:

• "Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
• "If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
• "Where varieties of English differ over a certain word or phrase, try to find an alternative that is common to both.
• "If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used."

I could argue that the first significant contributor was User:210.237.26.133 who is me and I'm an Aussie therefore we should use Australian English thus we should have "~ise" rather than "~ize" but that would sound too much like blowing my own horn. All I did was merge a couple of sections from other articles here. A lot of what I'd merged here was redundant info which was covered elsewhere. This redunant info I later removed.

It would therefore be fair to discount myself as the first major contributor. So what was the first major contribution which was not simply a merge from elsewhere? It seems to me that it was this edit by User:DevaSatyam. Here's his edit summary "Stressed more the universality of the system rather than the decimalisation and spelled out more clearly the original goals of the system" (emphasis added). Let me quote some of the text he added.

"The proliferation of disparate measurement systems was one of the most frequent causes of disputes ... break with this situation and standardise on a measuring system.

"Later improvements in the measurement ... the standardisation of mechanical parts ...

"All multiples and submultiples ... the relatively recent decimalisation of the British and Irish Pound ..." (emphasis added)

He obviously preferred "~ise" over "~ize".

On 27 October 2005 User:Arfon added the following

"The inconsistancy problem was not one of different units but one of differing sized units so instead of simply standardizing size of the existing units, the leaders of the French post-revolution government decided that a totally new and foreign system should be adopted."

Other "~ize"s came and went but by the time User:Samibellina made his/her edit (15 September 2006) the article was dominated by "~ise"s with only Arfon's "standardizing" and a "Geometricized" in the "See also" section.

The article had lived happily with its "~ise"s for about a year. What reason did User:Samibellina have for changing it? None was given. There is no justification for this type of edit. I've reverted this. --Jimp 6 October 2006

I've not bothered to read further than the title in this discussion. There is no such thing as British English, Commonwealth English or American English. There is just English, invented in England by the English. These terms are just excuses for other countries who can't spell and so bastardise a langauge we spent 1000's of years creating. If they want they can do the same and spell words however they like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.42.10.194 (talk • contribs) 16:37 October 6, 2006 UTC.

212.42.10.194 you are a complete, euro-centric, fool. -/-

212.42.10.194, languages evolve. You can't bastardise something that is made of bits of other languages anyway. We have to accept, English is a shambling mess of a language badly in need of a reform. Oh and by the way, I am English. Liam Markham 17:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A shambling mess it may be but in need of reform ... Jimp 00:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's Noah Webster reincarnated! Funny, I thought he was American.--Roonerspism 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Metric units in everyday life

I would like to present the informal definitions of the metric units.

These definitions come in extremly handy when doing back-of-an-envelope calculations.

Examples of informal definitions of metric units.

• 1 meter is choosen such that the equator has a length of 40.000 km
• 1 liter is a cubic decimeter
• 1 kilogramm is the mass of 1 liter of water (at 0 Degree Celsius)
• 1 Newton is the gravitation force acting on 100 gram
• 1 Watt second is the energy needed to lift 1 kilogram up 1 meter, it's also the energy generated by an electric current of 1 ampere over a potential difference of 1 Volt lasting for 1 second

Note: these definitions are correct with a precision of less than 1%, which is usually sufficient in every-day life.

To illustrate my point, I like the following example:

A pump with 1 horse power can lift 1 cubic feet of water 1 yard within 1 second. What is it's efficiency?

A 1 kilowatt pump can lift one liter of water 1 meter within 1 second. The efficiency is of course 1 percent.

I oppose inclusion of this information in every metric related article, and also because it contains errors which I explained elsewhere. I won't bother to say where, because it seems to me that an editor who scatters discussion about a topic should do the work to read all the responses in all the places. --Gerry Ashton 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, definitely not in "every metric related article". And, no, nor here. There is a place for this. It's Metric metersticks metric yardstick. Go there and be dazzled ... or if you're less than dazzled make a few dazzling additions to that article. Jimp 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect that "1 Newton is the gravitation force acting on 100 gram" 0.1kg*9.81m/s^2=0.981N calling it 1N is more than 1% error. just thought i would point that out. Guglido 05:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maps don't agree

The first map shows the UK as being a metric user, the second map shows the UK as not converting to metric yet.

I don't know how to edit them.

Ordinary Person 11:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This could reflect the fact that Britain has adopted the metric system but hasn't fully metricized, since the first map shows what countries use the metric system and the second shows which ones have metricized. SteveSims 03:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ups, sorry. I just noticed that this section is about the same discussion I just started below: Talk:Metric_system#Contradiction_in_images - Can we just continue down there? - Thanks, next time I will be reading first, then posting ;-) Cheers, MikeZ 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit by 70.137.135.191

I realise 70.137.135.191 is not finished editing, but I hope he or she will be a bit more concise and not put the same facts in two different sections.

Also, this article uses UK spelling. Is artefact the correct UK spelling for the word that Americans write as artifact? --Gerry Ashton 23:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in images

The two images contradict each other in term of metrication of the UK. (Images in opening section and in the history section). Can we agree on the terms, that the UK is officially using the metric system, and to reflect this consistently in both images? In my opinion it's rather irrelevant that some old English imperial measurements are still used in every days life in the UK (e.g. half-a-pint of beer). MikeZ 12:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we include the moon as well now? :-) [2] ... MikeZ 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the same in Canada, older generations continue to use the old system for certain things, even on the news a lot of time, so I don't really know how to phrase this. Sure most people know metric, but, like with many things, people like to stick with what they know, especially in carpentry etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.55.25.28 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

So do we still need the contradiction tag? --Freiddie 12:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I took it out. There isn't a contradiction now that the image was changed. 213.107.97.72 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to redo the map showing countries that don't use the metric system, countries that have adopted it but don't use it in their everyday life and countries that have adopted it and actually use it in their everyday life? -HeffeQue 11:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be better, if we could find reliable sources that have that information. Also, the phrase "adopted it" is ambiguous. One could say the U.S. adopted the Metric system in 1866; that's when it was legalized. I doubt you could find a country that hasn't made it legal. The trick is making the preceeding system illegal, or mostly illegal. --Gerry Ashton 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thailand

Thailand uses the metric system, contrary to the indication on the map. Traditional units are also used but the official system is still metric.

Requesting update to the map.

References: http://www.cicc.or.jp/english/hyoujyunka/databook/221.htm http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Thailand.html http://www.tourismthailand.org/about/aboutthailand.aspx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pandafaust (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

RE: Thailand

The country colored blue in the map is not Thailand. That's Myanmar (Burma).

I don't know if Myanmar uses the metric system or not, but I just wanted to point out that the country someone thought was Thailand is actually Myanmar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.129.150.61 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Liberia, Myanmar & the US

Why do these countries not use the metric system? Some explaination should be given why every country in the world except these three don't. 211.30.75.123 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The explaination would need to come from reliable sources. If you read the previous discussion, people would like to see better sources to even confirm that Myanmar and Liberia don't use the metric system, so finding adequate sources to explain why they don't use it is going to be difficult.

The topic of why the US does not use it is covered in Metrication in the United States. --Gerry Ashton 06:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an urban ledgend that these two countries don't use the metric system. The reality is that when the survey was taken back in the '70s, only they and the US had made no official intent to change. However, both of these countries have slowly adopted the metric system due to their trade partners being fully metric. Travellers to both countries have found of mixture of units used. Metric for things new and modern and non-metric for remnant products that haven't faded from use yet, such as old vintage cars or older petrol pumps.

"Three countries use non-metric measurement systems; Liberia, Myanmar, and the United States." reads the caption. If only it were this simple. Here's another country: Japan which continues to use the tsubo extensively in housing, the shō for sake bottles (though labelled as 1.8 litres), and the inch for other various products (e.g. photographs, colthing, TV screens). In an Australian you order beer at the pub by the pint, ¾ pint, ½ pint ... though it be rounded to the nearest 5 ml. Canadian paper sizes are US paper sizes (based on the inch) rounded to the nearest 5 mm. The imperial system is still used extensively in the UK. Then, on the other hand, what do we really know about measurement in Liberia and Burma? Jimp 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Inches in these countries are just trade names. You can't actually purchase anything by the inch. The same with pints. A pint is just a trade name for a glass. Pints vary in capacity from 400 to 600 mL depending on the location. The reality is that non-metric hangs on in remnant applications, but anything new is metric.

I thought that although they don't really use the system, the US did sign that metre treaty or something in the late 1800s. So does that count? -- Thai H. Nguyen 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The US federal government and the state governments often force people to use customary units, or often use only customary units in laws and regulations. These governments rarely require the use of metric units to the exclusion of customary units. So I think it is fair to say the US is not a metric country. --Gerry Ashton 21:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

US law requires the use of the metric system when dealing with the government. If a company constructs a building for the government, it must be metric. Even NASA must now be metric. Metric is used in 40+ % of American industry and all products once made in the US in inches or other non-metric measures and now made outside the US are metric. Thus americans who buy and use imports are using a metric product. American made cars are fully metric too. America's new industries are metric, but america's rust belt industries (if they are still in business) tend not to be.

If American standard paper size is 279 mm x 216 mm and Canadian is 280 mm x 215 mm, then they are close, but not the same.

So basically all this amounts to the map and the whole statement that the US, (at the very least) doesn't use the metric system should probably just be removed as it is untrue and pretty much irrelevent.

History: Lagrange, others?

It seems hard to find info on early history of metric system, but I understand that after Lavoisier was executed, the great physicist-mathematician Joseph Louis Lagrange replaced him as head of bureau of measures, and contributed idea of decimals, which is maybe SI's most popular aspect to this day. But no mention of Lagrange here, nor of other savants who contributed.--MajorHazard 12:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ToC, "History" heading

There is a sizeable chunk of text directly after the ToC, and before the "History" heading. It would be a good idea to incorporate this into the introduction, and other portions of the article. If there is an appropriate banner for this, add it to the top of the page. --67.161.117.214 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I put that ToC there so that readers wouldn't have to scroll down before getting to it. Before that it was just one rather long uninterupted introduction. The thought that putting the ToC after the first paragraph would make it seem as if there were a one-paragraph intro then untitled chunk of text hadn't occured to me but I see how this might be the case now. It seems a good idea to me to incorporate some of this text into the body of the article so that we have an intro reasonably enough sized that it becomes unnecessary to float the ToC within it. Jimp 15:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Metric System

I think that this article should include a list of the measures by greatest to least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.164.164.63 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

If you mean measures such as kilometre, metre, centimetre, or millimetres I think that the article on SI prefix is enough. If you mean the base units like metre, gram, or litre, the article, International System of Units would be enough. I don't think that we should do something that was already done on other articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thai H. Nguyen (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

A Useful Metric Calculator

As there is a metric unit calculator tool already in the External Links section, I would like to propose the addition of The Converter Site (http://www.theconvertersite.com) - a metric and imperial conversion tool - to the external links part.

Why not put your proposition at Talk:Conversion of units? That is a better place for stuff like this. I'm moving the tool that's on the page. Jimp 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC) ... Okay I went to move the tool that was here to Conversion of units but found comments that external links should be first discussed. Seemed a resonable request so I mentioned it on the talk page. I also made note of the site you, anon poster above, mention. Let's see what they reckon over there. However, if such links are not appropriate on that page, I don't see how they'd be appropriate on this. Jimp 05:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Wikipedia, and are even regarded as Vital articles. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Measurement to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

SI prefixes

Two editors added some, but not all, of the SI prefixes, to the article. I have changed this to refer to the main article SI prefix. If someone feels the information should be duplicated in this article, I suggest they use the SI prefixes template, which contains all the templates. Also, the section heading would need to be changed, since the table contains some rather uncommon prefixes. --Gerry Ashton 00:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there allready was an article. What you did is much better. CyrilleDunant 05:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-metric units in various industries

I have worked in and around the oil industry my whole life. Even though Venezuela is a metric country, the oil industry still measures depths of wells in feet, pipe in inches, pressure in psi, production in barrels per day, etc. Most of the oilfields in South American do the same. Mexico uses use meters for depth. However, for pressure they almost never the official units, but a related unit, kgf/cm2.

Another example: years ago I was at an oil industry exposition in Caracas, Venezuela. An American exhibitor had a display that included a turbine meter to measure the flow of gas in pipelines, and the display showed metric units (cubic meters of gas, basically). I commented to the salesman, he should have brought a device with US units. He answered, that when they were planning the exhibit, they asked the US Commerce department and were told that Venezuela was metric. However, when they got there, every engineer and businessman visiting the booth had remarked, "You have a good product. Too bad you don't have a device that displays US units."

I translate oil industry documents from most countries in Latin America, and it's still true that the oil industry works in US units.

I don't know how this type of information would fit into the main article, but I think it should be addressed somehow. Not to encourage the us of non-metric units, but simply to recognize that in some particular industries, that US units are still commonly used. Marzolian 19:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Aviation does that with altitudes in feet and speed in knots, as I understand it. -Fnlayson 19:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the only example of the lingering of non-metric units in countries which are officially metricated. It very much is worth breifly mentioning that this type of thing does occur in certain industries/feilds/contexts/etc. Any great detail, though, would be better placed at Metrication#Exceptions. Jɪmp 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• That'd be the better place anyway. Definitely link the Metrication article in History section or wherever to help keep it short.. -Fnlayson 05:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Only reason why oil industry still uses imperial units is that oil is traded and priced by barrels or gallons. Most people (at least in continental Europe) have no idea how much gallon or barrel is. Petrol is priced by litres on petrol stations.88.101.76.122 12:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Development of the Metric System

1) Just to inform you all that new research by an Australian academic working at Oxford and Cambridge universities has uncovered conclusive evidence that the metric system of measurement was first outlined by an English scientist and presented to the Royal Society 120 years before Louis 15th and his lot developed it. Not got a detailed academic reference as yet but it was reported on BBC Radio 4's "PM" programme this evening, Friday 13th July 2007. Link to a "listen again" of the programme available for the next 24 hours: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/pm - Astix 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

New evidence for origin of metre

The metric system, and metre was first fully described by Englishman John Wilkins in 1668 in a treatise presented to the Royal Society some 120 years before the French adopted the system. It is believed that the system was transmitted to France from England via the likes of Benjamin Franklin (who spent a great deal of time in London), and produced the by-product of the decimalised paper currency system, before finding favour with American revolutionary ally Louis XV. [published work by an Australian linguistics researcher] sources: (more credible ones pending) http://blog.plover.com/physics/meter.html BBC Radio 4 2007-July-13 "PM" programme

I am the author of the article at http://blog.plover.com/physics/meter.html. I can state definitively that it does not argue that Wilkins was the source of the meter, or that what he was describing was actually the metric system.

The article does point out that Wilkins proposed a decimal measurement system based on natural units in 1668, and that his definition of the "standard", the basic unit of length in his system, was extremely close in length to the length of the meter as it was later defined. Moreover, because Wilkins' definition of the units of mass was essentially the same as that later adopted in the metric System, the units of mass that he defined in 1668 were very close in magnitude to the ones that would later be adopted in the Metric System.

Whether Wilkins' definitions were used by, or even known to the French inventors of the metric system, the article does not say, and I do not know.

Although I believe what my article says is correct, it is not a credible source on these matters to the standards that Wikipedia requires. It is just some guy's blog.

-- Dominus 23:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

saw a clip on bbc news the other day and it stated that the metric system was invented/thought-up by an english bloke a few hundred years back (think it's probably the same as the above post).

sounds about right the british invented/discovered most things

anyone know anymore?

-- found_ur_scoota 21:25, 18 July 2007

• Read the start of the History section and also the Original system section. -Fnlayson 03:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Advantage of Decimal Prefixes

When I have to add up columns of dollar-amounts, the advantages of a decimal system are clear. But I seldom have to tally columns of meters or litres. Do the prefixes really make it that easy to tell that 1680mm + .000553km + 279cm is a decameter? When a family member is away and I have to adjust a recipe, the disadvantages become very clear, as they will to anyone who doesn't have exactly 10 or 100 members in the household. Like many people, I generally make quick calculations or measurements in terms of halves, thirds, or quarters (ex. half-a-litre, half-a-kilometer). I recognize that wikipedia isn't the place to lobby for binary prefixes but I disagree with the idea that the decimal prefixes are advantageous just because they are decimal...they're just prefixes. It seems to me that the advantage of the prefixes is that is lets you define a lot of different measurements, at different scalse, whenever you define just one base measurment. Rods, furlongs, and miles all measure the same thing but at a different scale. The advantage of the metric prefixes is that it lets you have a variety of measurements without naming them all. 204.50.190.50 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but you can also add up a liter of milk (>99% water, 1 liter of water masses 1 kilogram) and a kilogram of flour and figure out you'll get about two kilograms of dough. But maybe that's more of an SI problem? --Kim Bruning 05:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro / Base Units

The version as of Sept. 4, 2007 opened by saying that the metric system is "based on" the metre and gram. It then went on to say that there are variations with different "base units". Finally, it said that SI is now considered the standard metric system. This seems a bit inconsistent to me because:

- SI, the recognized standard system, is actually "based on" the kilogram, not the gram. (Yeah, I know they're related...)

- the metre and gram do not form a complete set of base units, so it's a stretch to say the metric system is "based on" them.

- how can we say in the opening sentence that it is based on specific units, when the next sentence says there are different base units?

My proposed solution was to mention the SI base units, being the base units for the "standard" metric system. However, this change was reversed. We are now left with an intro that doesn't even mention any metric units by name. I'd like to see metre and kilogram (or gram) mentioned in the opening paragraph, if only to indicate to the reader that he or she is in the right place. Any thoughts?Awnmwad 03:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

... reversed by me. I'd mentioned in the edit summary, that this seemed like too much detail for the intro and that it was overly centred on SI (which is but one metric system, albeit the recognised international standard). I stick by my reasoning on this. I suppose the intro could give examples of units which metric systems are based on but I really don't see why any units need be named in the intro. I doubt that we're talking about a significant proportion of readers who'd be unfamiliar with the term metric system but recognise metre, kilogram or gram. Jɪmp 05:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the U.S. not Metric, but the UK is?

Yeah sure the U.S. citizens still use english measurements in day-to-day life, but so too do UK citizens. UK citizens talk about "miles" and "gallons" or "pints", and yet the UK is considered metric. Why?

Also, nearly all things in the U.S. are measured with metric (same as the UK). My carton of milk says "3.8 liters". My pop-tarts say "400 grams" and "200 Calories" (kilocalories). My American-made car's engine is "2.2 liters" and outputs "70 kilowatts" of power according to my manual. I'm drinking a "2 liter" bottle of pop (soda? cola? coke?)..... and so on. Metric is the official measurement of U.S. business (same as the UK). - Theaveng 14:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• This really belongs more on the Metrication or Metrication in the United States. Although it could fill up some pages on a discussion forum too. Also, saying metric is official measurements for US business is largely incorrect. US Legislation only makes SI preferred for trade and commerce.-Fnlayson 14:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some government regulations in the U.S. are stated in customary units (for example, the size of fish that anglers are allowed to keep in Vermont[3]), so I'd say that the U.S. is officially mixed, as opposed to countries where people use pre-metric units informally, but the government never forces anyone to understand a pre-metric unit. I suppose the UK could be considered officially mixed, since I understand that speed limit signs are still in miles per hour. --Gerry Ashton 15:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson once said the law should be written so it can be understood by the common citizen. I guess that "rule of thumb" is still in effect today, and that's why the laws use the units familiar to today's citizens. (If a law stated Vermonters must throw back fish less than 10 cm, would the fishermen understand it? Doubtful.) Doesn't the UK Parliament pass laws using Imperial Units too? - Theaveng 15:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)