Talk:Metric system

• /Archive I
• /Archive II

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)

By your argument, the UK must be treated exactly as the US, here in the UK, the Pint is the official unit of measure for lager and milk and Miles are the official measure for distance on the roads. Furthermore, cars must advertise their fuel efficiency in MPG (despite the fact that we buy petrol in litres!) Mkoistinen (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2008 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.50.25 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the article is "As of 2007 only three countries, the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar (Burma) had not mandated the metric system upon their populace." So far as the U.S. is concerned, the government hardly ever forces inhabitants to trade with each other in metric units. Also, in this context, I don't think it is correct to equate "United States" with "federal government". In this context, "United States" equates to all levels of government, including state, local, territorial, and tribal. Some government entities require inhabitants to deal with the government in metric units, others require them to deal with the government in customary units. --Gerry Ashton 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So if the United States are using the metric system, in which country I'm living here? So Florida doesn't belong to the United Statest? No one use here the metric System. Also in no school they teach the metric system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.74.180 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

At least the money is metric. 1$=100¢. And what about the road signs?--85.179.62.100 (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's decimal not metric. JIMp _talk·cont 23:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the volume or weight of every product you buy - trust me, it will have the metric units on the packaging. Also, I learned about the metric system in my grammar school in the US in the 1970 and I know my children are learning about it in the US schools in the 1990's and 2000's. Do you have any basis for your claim? Mkoistinen (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Calories are a metric unit. 83.231.208.161 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it is not an SI-Unit. That's why Calories should not be used. The Joule is the correct SI-Unit for measuring energy and nothing else. I allways use Joule or kWh. 1 J = 1 Ws, so conversion is easy. --91.89.137.197 (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2009 (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[1]), 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)

Actually, Jefferson wanted just the opposite. Jefferson himself wanted the US to join France's metric system, and when that fell through in 1790 he proposed a decimalized US 'metric system' based on the length of the seconds pendulum at 38° N latitude. He wanted to do away with the confusing welter of incompatible traditional units the US had inherited from Britain, which were being used by merchants to defraud people, because uneducated citizens couldn't do the math to convert between units. He wanted to replace them with a single consistent system that any citizen could understand, that was based on powers of ten so it wouldn't require math for conversion. That's the the meaning of your quote from Jefferson. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In scientific applications, such as prehistoric archaeology and antropology, metric measurements are used in the U.S. But in historic archaeology (post 1600), inches, feet, yards, miles, pounds, tons are used. Musicwriter (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Fire that clinched the birth widespread usage of the metric system.

Years ago I read in a book I believe to be true that a fire at the British national bureau of standards destroyed all gold standards. It was going to take 30 to 50 years to replace all of those standards with accurate new ones. This was too long of a wait for the French. The French then moved ahead establishing the metric system and converting all commerce and scientific systems to metric. The French cited development and implementation time would be considerably less time.

I can no longer find a reference to this writting but I do vividly remember reading it and a rendering drawing of the building burning. Can anyone help? I am not trying to vandalize this site, just offer what I believe to be factual history.

The burning and destruction of the British Bureau of Standards in 1780, in which all gold standards of Imperial Measurement system were destroyed, helped the cause. The clincher to development of the new system was the report from the British, it would take 50 years to replace the gold standards of Imperial measures destroyed in the fire and destruction of the building. The French found it would take less time to develop the replacement system than it would take to accurately replace the Imperial Measure system.

A search in Google Books turned up a short article in Nature (July 23, 1891, p. 280). The Palace of Westminster was destroyed in a fire in 1834. A number of standards of weights and measures were thought to have been damaged or destroyed; some of the standard brass yards had gold plugs near the ends, and the length of the yard was indicated by marks on the plugs, which might have given rise to the idea of gold standards. Several of the standards were not actually destroyed, but were rescued from obscurity in 1891. In any case, a fire in 1834 is too late to account for the French adoption of the metric system.

I'm not sure if this is the fire you are thinking of, or if there was a different fire that destroyed important standards at an earlier date --Gerry Ashton 05:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gerry, I think this is probably the reference I saw. Perhaps the 1891 date of publication of this fact is what I remember more than the actual date of the fire. I think it is more fair to say, the fire and "virtual loss" of these standards did not drive the rapid development of the metric system; it did drive the accelerated adoption of it's widespread use internationally.

Origin of the name metre

I came here looking for that. I think it would be nice to have it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.91.119 (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Metre would be the better place &, yes, here it is. Another good place to look would be wiktionary. Jɪmp 01:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Year of origin?

I am in AP European History and we are studying the French Revolution now. Our book and both of my test prep books say it was established in 1793 not 1791. Is the page's information wrong or are the books wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.152.16 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"deka" vs. "deca": "deca" is correct

Two editors changed the spelling of "decameter" to "dekameter", once saying in the edit summary "'deka' is the non-US spelling, and this article uses UK spelling."

However, I believe "deca" is correct. The brochure provided by the Bureau international des poids et mesures (8th edition, 2006) gives the prefix as "deca" in English (page 127) and as "déca" in French (page 32). The spellings in the English half of the brochure are British spellings, not American ones. ("Labelled", for example, rather than "labeled".)

I hope this note clarifies matters. -- Dominus (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Earlier, I was mislead by an error in NIST Special Publication 330. In the forward on page iii it says:

The spelling of English words is in accordance with the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual, which follows Webster’s Third New International Dictionary rather than the Oxford Dictionary. Thus the spellings “meter,” “liter,” and “deca” are used rather than “metre,” “litre,” and “deka” as in the original BIPM English text [emphasis added].

However, the rest of the document really uses the American "deka" spelling, contrary to what the forward says.--Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New "Common prefixes" section

A new "Common prefixes" section has been added. I'm not sure we need it, considering how easy it is to go to the SI prefix article. If we do keep it, we need to clean it up. Powers should be expressed with actual ^superscripts. Some of the prefixes are not at all common; I have never seen deka used in a real-life situation. As far as I know, hecto- is only used for hectare. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't need it but if we're going to have such a thing, let's use {{SI prefixes}} or {{SI-Prefixes}}. Jɪmp 19:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

- Yep, chunk the table. It's covered by the SI prefix article and the main article link is there for a reason. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's gone. Jɪmp 23:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good deal, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Explain something to me

I am having trouble understanding something. Now I know that most of the world uses the metric system but I have a problem with its wide-spread use here. This is the English version of Wikipedia. The United States has the single largest concentration of English speaking people in the world at over 300 million. So why is it such a pain in the ass to find measurements listed in miles, feet, inches, gallons or pounds on this site? Nearly everything here has measurments in metric but less than half of the one's I've seen have standard. I'm starting to wonder, perhaps Americans are to ignorant to contribute? —Preceding

A wonderful opportunity to call Americans Ignorant. BTW you ignorant wanker it's *too* ignorant. Shit, I bet that you say *IGORANT*.

unsigned comment added by 74.128.188.55 ([[User talk:74.128.188.55|talk]]) 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record it looks as though the USA has around 215 million native English speakers (i.e. significantly fewer than the 300 million asserted above) but there are also substantially in excess of 100 million other English speakers in the UK (including England), Canada, Australia etc. etc. So largest number - yes but are the rest significant - you bet you! Velela (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that 215 million figure? The population of the US is a bit over 300 million; 215 would indicate nearly 30% don't speak English natively, which is a pretty high number. Or, could it be that you are of the "UK, USA, and Australia: 3 continents divided by a common language" opinion? :-)  Frank  |  talk  16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...... Wikipedia ? as in English language ? Velela (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• That does not include bilingual and multilingual people. The footnote says that covers only those who speak exclusively English at home. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• And also excludes those 5 and under, and those living in dormitories and other group living situations. Its total is only 268 million, so it excludes about 40 million...certainly not all of them speak English. But it doesn't matter all that much. At least I see where the number came from.  Frank  |  talk  12:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on which articles you are looking at. Metric and US units are listed in many articles, e.g. aircraft ones. Just like a lot of things here, someone has to want to do it and then do it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What kind of articles have you been reading? Scientists and engineers often prefer SI units because they are consistent; that is, many important equations can be written without any conversion factors. Also, customary American units lack units for electricity. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

volt and amp are not metric units, but SI units. There is a lot of read-across between the two systems, but Metric and SI are not the same thing! Take the dimension of time. The second is an SI unit, defined very specifically and accurately. However, would you regard a unit that is scaled in 60's, 24's and 365's as metric? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.43.240 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The original question was about the lack of US/Imperial units compared to Metric/SI units on Wikipedia. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say all units ever approved by the relevant French metric authorities up to signing of the Convention du Mètre (Metre Convention) of 1875 are metric units, as are all units ever approved by the General Conference on Weights and Measures(CGPM) . SI is a subset of metric units, and was first defined by the CGPM in 1960; it has been updated by the CGPM from time to time since then. So all SI units are metric units, but not all metric units are SI. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider that only speaking one language is mainly an american thing. The english language wikipedia, being the largest in existence, is also read by many people from non-english countries (afaik most European countries also teach english at school). And since practically everyone except the USA uses the metric system / SI it seems to be the right choice for an encyclopaedia everyone can edit.

This might sound a bit bold, but the metric system isn't that hard, why don't you just look it up? 84.59.119.48 (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the enlish language wikipedia. It is not the native speakers enlish language wikipedia. I guess there are two to three billion people out there in the world comprehending english language sufficiently to be adressed by the english wikipedia. Why should the english wikipedia ignore the habits of 9/10 of its adressees? --GlaMax (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the complaints was about the lack of non-metric measurements in articles. It does not seem he alleged that metric should be eleminated in favor of non metric.

He has a point take the article on Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth Not one measurement in the right pane is given in non metric (not even in parenthesis) meaning one looking for a quick answer to something that can be answered by that pane cannot get said answer unless they have working application of the metric system. And not to be an ass to GlaMax, but Wikipedia does come available in numerous other languages. Perhaps a concerted effort to update more commonly referenced pages to reflect both systems would be something to consider? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.6.31 (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was this omitted?

Yesterday (June 28) I added documentation on the "Law of 1866" that officially authorized the use of the metric system in the United States. For some reason, this was edited out. I went to some trouble to find it and I feel I am entitled to an explanation. Dougie monty (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not omitted. See here. You should see a "history" link on each page that will show you the history of all changes to each article. -- Dominus (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved the 1866 part up to be in chronological order and put the quote in a reference as it was not needed in the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation system

The first edit I can find that cites a source ocurred at 12:57, 12 January 2007 UTC, and was by Michael Zimmerman. He used {{Cite web}} so ideally all the citations in this article would use templates in that family. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

nonsense

The map isn't even subtle, you know? It's a very obvious POV attack, as in "OH NOEX LULZ TEH USA IS ST00PID BECAUSE ONLY IT AND THESE OTHER TWO WORTHLESS COUNTRIEZ R NOT USING METRIC WHICH ROXX0RZ!" Give me a break.

Until you have metric time, and until you can explain why there are 360 degrees in a circle (and not 1000), you metriphiles can stuff it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Two other "worthless" countriess? You're the one that's making the attack. Dannysjgdf (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The first unsigned message is the strongest proof that the metric system would be beneficial. Imagine a guy like that having to think in meters. Wow, it would open a new universe to him. Well, intelligence –and love- can’t be bought I concede. --Magnvss (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite the flames, I think that Unsigned has a point. Please see my comment on the discussion page of the SI System page, which for brevity, I will not repeat here. As to Magnvss, 'beneficial' is in the eye of the beholder, and also in the eye of the holder of the purse-strings. Again, please read my post there. 76.98.119.56 (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, thought I was logged in. Bejmark (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"beneficial' is in the eye of the beholder" actually i believe countries started saving money when they converted, so no its not. --Hypo Mix (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the intent of the unsigned comment (but not the manner). This article appears to have a biased agenda right from the beginning. A map of the countries of the world adopting the Metric System probably shouldn't be shown at all (won't a simple list due fine here?) and even less so as the first graphic. Mkoistinen (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to lessen this bias, I have replaced the map (first image) with one showing all the countries that have adopted the metric systems (according to CIA World Factbook) instead of highlighting those that have not. I believe this is the correct spirit of this article and better avoids any agenda. Mkoistinen (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What a silly flame. Maps such as these are used throughout Wikipedia to display a variety of things. The content of the map was true, so why is it biased? Ludicrous. The new format of the map says exactly the same thing, but the colours are different. Less biased? Odd. As an aside no one knows exactly why we have 60 seconds and 360 degrees, because it's based upon the ancient Babylonian number system and the origins have been lost to time, although several theories exist. A decimalised time system has indeed been devised (see Decimal Time), but as the old system would be so problematic to replace and so thoroughly ingrained, there's little or no point, despite the advantages it may offer. Interesting how Wiki itself often provides the information to repudiate people's points. If only it were more wisely utilised. --Roobens (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I respect your opinions here, but please bear in mind, I am not try to add to the controversy, but rather diffuse it. If the issue is so "silly" as you put it, why bother continuing to discuss it here? I do not dispute the origins of the Metric System or the number of seconds or degrees. If any number of users (including 1) think there is a bias -- and this can be removed or diffused, then why not? The previous map was fine, but both the coloring and the caption was specifically pointing out the non-adopters of the system rather than illustrating where it had been adopted. It puzzles me why you do not see the inherent bias in this, nor why you'd stand in opposition to the subtle, but effective improvement of the article. Mkoistinen (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Regardless of a person's feelings on the issue, that the metric system is used by most nations is an important notable fact, perhaps the most important one in the article, and a map is a perfectly reasonable way of illustrating it. Roobens is right, changing the map was pretty silly, it just changed the colors. Doesn't that demonstrate what a non-issue this is? I don't see that the article is biased in any way. Aren't there better things to argue about than this? --Chetvorno^TALK 03:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The topic you point out (why 3 countries haven't adopted the Metric System) is an important one, but it is not the primary topic of this page. Surely you understand this? And, therefore, the article should not highlight this topic from the start -- even if only in an illustration and its caption. Just because you don't see the bias doesn't mean it didn't exist. However, the reverse was true -- if any one person sees the bias, then it does exist. And clearly, the original poster under this heading was one such person feeling this bias. Mkoistinen (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The map is completely redundant with File:SI-metrication-world.png which shows US, Liberia and Myanmar clearly in black, and has more readable colors overall. --JWB (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 'not commonly used' notes for terminology.

Hi,

The section on units lists 'kiloliter' as not being commonly used - it is very commonly used to measure consumption of water for domestic purposes (we have metered water charges here in Australia). The usage of the terms 'cubic meter' vs 'kiloliter' could be considered regional or linguistic variations. kL is certainly more commonly used in Australia.

Also, I suggest adding ML (megaliter) as a commonly used unit of measurement for volume, particularly of water storages, tank capacities (measured both in kL and ML), and consumption by urban communities. Adding ML for volume would give a good illustration of the fact that the prefixes find different uses due to convenience and perception; ie ML is used, but Mm (megameter) is not, because it's unweildy compared to '1000km'. 220.253.83.143 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A new reference is needed in History.

This article, and specically its History section, should help the poor reader who wishes to find out when Britain or England went metric. A good reference is the article, "Metric usage and metrication in other countries", by the U.S. Metric Association, at URL = <http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm> . In the History section's last paragraph, an appropriate footnote or reference should be added at the end of the sentence "As of 2006, 95% of the world's population live in metricated countries, although non-metric units are still used for some purposes in some countries."

Why don't I just add the reference myself? I did try to and I find that editing the Reference section just gives me something like "reflist" enclosed by double curly brackets, which of course I'm not able to add my reference to. For7thGen (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Converting to Metric is better covered in Metrication, which is linked in the text near the end of the History section. There's also the Metrication in the United Kingdom article covering the UK switch. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for info on doing cites. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect comment

User:Fnlayson insists on putting the following invisible HTML comment at the beginning of the article:

Note: This article uses British/Commonwealth English, since that variety of English was used in the earliest version of the article and because article covers an international topic. Please do not change to US English spellings. For details on Wikipedia's policies on this subject, see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English & Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling).

Fnlayson misrepresents the Manual of style when he writes "because article covers an international topic." There is no requirement that UK spelling be used in articles that cover international topics. One could try to argue that since the US has not adopted the metric system to the same degree as other English speaking countries, the metric system has strong national ties to every English-speaking country except the US, and thus some national variety of English other than US English should be used, though I view that as a weak argument. As far as I'm concerned, if the first major contributor had used US English this article would be in US English; only the first-contributor rule applies to this article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's my reading of the national ties part. Maybe I'm extrapolating it a but I'm not misrepresenting it. I fail to see why this warrants bringing up here or really discussing... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to rely on the national ties part, please phrase the comment in those terms. As the comment stands, it falsely claims all international topics should be in UK English. If anyone believes the comment, that editor might start a topic on an international topic and falsely believe he should use UK spelling even though he is more comfortable with US spelling. If you don't want anyone to believe the comment, then you should remove it. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's actually the converse of the national ties part. US spelling should not be used because there are no strong ties to the US. If you want to quote policy then include a "per something" or wording to that effect. I'm not going scan through the history to verify an article started in one type of spelling. I doubt that message will help anyway... -Fnlayson (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

US spelling may be used in ANY article unless of the other rules requires a different variety. When a new article is started on an international topic, US spelling is one of the acceptable choices for that article. An example of an featured article on an international topic that uses US spelling is Mercury (planet). I will now modify the comment to reflect that. I see that Fnlayson has already made a suitable change to the comment. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I used "should" there on purpose. Wasn't quoting policy there, just an interpretation. I understand what the policy actually allows. I'd like [know] what specifically the weasel word tag was added for to properly address them.. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what Fnlayson means when he writes "I'd like what specifically the weasel word tag was added for to properly address them." If he is urging other editors to improve some part of this article, I'd like a more specific pointer. I must admit though I find it hard to get excited about improving this article, since the SI article contains the information that is useful for modern measurements.

As for "I'm not going scan through the history to verify an article started in one type of spelling" I think that requirement in the MOS is a burden on editors, but it is there. Personally, if an article has a consistent style and I need to add a new bit of information that depends on the variety of English, I just go with the flow. It is only when someone tries to change the style, or the style is inconsistent, that I look at the article history. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Parts of the article needing clarification

In the history section, it says "Attempts were in vain in that Belgium claimed its independence from the Netherlands, but the metric system survived and began a slow but steady conquest of the world". The meaning of this is not immediately clear to me, and it doesn't seem to follow logically from the preceding paragraph. "Attempts" at what were "in vain"? Could someone who has been involved in writing this article clarify this part of it? 84.198.246.199 (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)