Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom

Simple status and introduction

Metrication, the process replacing an existing unit of measurement (imperial units for the United Kingdom) with the SI system of measurement, commonly called the metric system. The United Kingdom, has completed its manditory metrification process, with all of government, industry and commerce having metrificated, however the United Kingdom has chosen to retain the manditory use of Imperial units for road signs for distance (in miles and yards) and speed (in miles per hour), and are imperial units are still allowed to be used solely for the sale of draught beer or cider (in pints), milk in returnable containers (in pints), and precious metals (by the troy ounce). Reteilers can also display an imperial measurements alongside the metric measurements but it cannot stand out more than the metric measurement, and for heights for bridges a duel measurement system is also used.

In practice the imperial system is still used in every day language, for example Imperial units are also often used to describe ones height and weight, or vehicle fuel economy. Due to duel measurement systems in use in the United Kingdom, imperial units are still taught alongside metric units in schools. 1.145.113.110 (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a spellchecker on your device? That's full of spelling errors. Sticking in the article in that condition was not a good move. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for actually opening a talk section, but the point of that is to allow time for other opinions and for a consensus to emerge, and not simply to state what you have just placed in the article. I have backed out your latest changes to the lead for the reasons in my edsum and per HiLo48, it was a bit of a mess. In addition to the spelling errors, it is not a summary of the article. For instance, the article only says that children in schools should still be "cognisant of the Imperial measurements still in common use". My children know a yard is about a metre and a mile is about 1500 metres. I doubt they know that a gill is a unit of measurement, nor how many ounces to the kilo (to name just two that do not get taught). What they (and I) do know is not really relevant to the lead in any case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

More than happy to do it this way. Happy for any corrections, let's be open to change. Is totally unclear what is the current status. Let's tighten up the language be clear on what metrication is, and what is not metricated in the UK. Agreed it should be restricted to imperial units still in use. Besides spelling and making it clearer of which imperial units still in use, any other comments on this change. 2406:3400:212:D700:9C9D:93B7:EA7A:E6CF (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is that all the detail should be presented in the article body, not in the lead section (the article introduction if you like), and it needs to be robustly sourced to reliable secondary sources there in the article body.

An updated summary of the main points of the article body can then be discussed here and, when/if a consensus is reached here, be summarised in the lead section. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia Feature articles, on a guide on how to write a good articles by editors. What you call detail is required for the statute see this on old british coins 2406:3400:212:D700:9C9D:93B7:EA7A:E6CF (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Another feature article considered the gold standard is climate change, which does have references. 1.145.73.79 (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

From MOS:CITELEAD:

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source.

(Emphasis mine). This is not the case for the climate change article, as it is considered a controversial subject. It is not helpful to compare this article to other articles because (a) they are not directly comparable in most cases and (b) the fact they do it some way does not mean they do it right. We should refer to policy and guidelines, not to articles. (Oh, and incidentally: [1]) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Clearly pick another featured article, is not comparing controversial articles it is showing what wkipedia considers well written, in format and etc. There are pages full the metrification of the UK doesn't even flow properly. 2406:3400:212:D700:D38C:A3A9:A2F4:4E17 (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia Feature articles, on a guide on how to write a good articles by editors. What you call detail is required for the statute see this on old british coins 2406:3400:212:D700:D38C:A3A9:A2F4:4E17 (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. 2406:3400:212:D700:D38C:A3A9:A2F4:4E17 (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The claims have been made not to show references in the introduction. It is common in the featured articles, considered the standard for sites, such as AUSTRALIA.

• They are all sourced from government websites.

• It is been claimed you don't need to exactly specify what is metricated and what isn't, it is common to see the detail as there isn't much such as the coin reference above.

I really don't understand the reluctance to be precise. It makes it clear. 2406:3400:212:D700:D38C:A3A9:A2F4:4E17 (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no reluctance to precision in the article body. The lead, however, is a summary and is already at 4 paragraphs, so is long enough. If you want to add anything, you need to explain what needs cutting too and why. Leads are there as a summary of main text, and I think you should be concentrating on main text for the precision you require. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

2406:3400:212:D700:D38C:A3A9:A2F4:4E17, 1.145.73.79, 2406:3400:212:D700:9C9D:93B7:EA7A:E6CF, 1.145.113.110, if you have some appropriately sourced information, that is not already in the body of the article, and which you think would add value to the article, then please, of course, per WP:BOLD, add it into the appropriate main body section of the article (but not directly into the lead for the reasons that Sirfurboy has explained). Appropriate sources generally means secondary sources which comply with the requirements of WP:RS.

It will then probably be reviewed by watchers of this article, who will be looking at it for relevance, neutrality, verifiability, due weight, clarity, etc., per the Wiki policies. If they edit or remove it, and you disagree with that, then please follow WP:BRD and add a new section here to present your rationale for what value you think it adds, and why you disagree with their change(s), and work towards reaching a consensus of how to proceed. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Friendliness12345 (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Beer, cider and milk

Section 8, subsection (2) or the weights and measures act states:

 No person shall use for trade—
   ...
   (d)the pint except for—
     (i)the purposes of the sale of draught beer or cider, or
     (ii)the purposes of the sale of milk in returnable containers,

That is permissive, not mandatory. AIUI retailers are free to use metric units if they want, but are likely to face some customer resistance! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Section 2, subsection (1) of the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988 (as amended) says:

 Unless pre-packed in a securely closed container and except when sold as a constituent of a mixture of two or more liquids, beer or cider shall be sold by retail—
   (a) only in a quantity of ⅓ pint, ½ pint, ⅔ pint or a multiple of ½ pint

This is not permissive, it is mandatory, and retailers are not allowed to use metric units in this context. Kahastok talk 18:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The rules around this could be better written.

The pint is the quanity of the serving in the glass, pints are defined exactly in SI units.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/1804/schedule/made

You can't sell beer/cider in other sizes by the glass. "In the UK, free-flow beer must be sold in stamped pint or half pint glasses. This ensures consistency all over the country."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/south_yorkshire/7546315.stm Friendliness12345 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate. (1) ⅓ and ⅔ pints are also permitted, see Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988 as cited above.

(2) the glasses do not need to be stamped if the liquor is delivered from a measured half (or similar), section2, subsection (2) says:

 Paragraph (1)(b) above shall not apply where—
   (a)the quantity of the intoxicating liquor the subject of the sale is ascertained by means of measuring equipment stamped in accordance with regulation 16(2) of the Measuring Equipment (Intoxicating Liquor) Regulations 1983(1);
   (b)the liquor in question is delivered directly from the measuring equipment into the container in which it is intended the buyer should receive it;
   (c)the liquor in question is so delivered after the buyer has ordered it; and
   (d)the measuring equipment (or that part of it from which the liquor is delivered) is installed in such a position that the delivery of the liquor into the container can readily be seen by customers in that part of the premises where the buyer ordered the liquor.

come to think of it, I haven't seen measured halves for decades, probably not since the 1970s, but they used to be standard in Vaux pubs and in clubs when bright beer was being dispensed from cellar tanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Well clarfied. I think this brings this discusssion to a close. Friendliness12345 (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Friendliness12345 (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead photo

Discussion started by blocked sockpuppet is now closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi all, I believe we should open a debate on the lead photo (Tomatoes for sale in a UK greengrocer's shop 2013)as the choice for the lead photo for metrication in the UK. I don't believe this is a "natural and appropriate representations of metrication", or is high quality, as required for a lead imagine MOS:LEADIMAGE and in addition it appears to be non-conforming M:SHOCK, as create controversy of showing non-compliance, or criminal activity. It is also hard to read the units on the imagine in contravention of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, and doesn't convey quickly if the readers have arrived at the right page as per the requirements MOS:LEAD. The imaging is also unverifiable. To remove any shock value intended or otherwise, and to make a clear imagine that represents metrication in the UK, it is proposed to use a more suitable lead imagine that represents actual metrication in the UK. I agree with the earlier talk page that show the image. Being the post office metrication poster. https://metricationuk.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/19750929_mail_goes_metric_poster.png?w=480 Debate and discussion is healthy, on this subject. If there is a consenses ie a majority of replies agree, it should be replaced. Friendliness12345 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC) The article is called Metrication in the United Kingdom and the lead summarises that saying some progress has been made towards metrication since the mid-20th century but today it remains equivocal and varies by context and that in 2017 the process was halted and that the UK has now officially embraced a dual system of measurement. In other words, it is saying that more than 50 years after the start of a metrication process the UK still uses two systems and is not committed to changing that. Some might say the current halfway house is a bit of a mess. For me, the current lead image, which has stood the test of time, epitomises that, and complies perfectly with both MOS:LEADIMAGES and the other relevant recommendations of MOS:IMAGE. For those reasons I support keeping the current image. PS, "consensus" does not mean "majority" in these discussions, per WP:DETCON: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC) I appreciate the perspectives shared, yet I propose an alternative stance. In my opinion, Britain merits a representation that accurately portrays the duality of measurement systems. For example, using an odometer displaying both metrics can effectively illustrate this duality, highlighting coexistence rather than conflict. The current picture seems to emphasize dissent or disagreement that showcased in 2013, rather than showcasing the prevailing state 10 years later. It appears more as a protest or a symbol against metrication rather than a reflection of the norm. Considering the array of conflicting interests involved, opting for an image that solely presents the dual system could offer a clearer representation. Moreover, I acknowledge the difficulty in transitioning away from the existing depiction. However, to enhance the visual representation and avoid potential misinterpretation, employing an image solely dedicated to the dual measurement system seems more prudent. Friendliness12345 (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) This was changed many months ago and the imagine was removed by consensous to change it back consensus is required. Friendliness12345 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC) @Friendliness12345, you changed it in this edit, less than two months ago, without a new consensus, and with a misleading edit summary which disguised the change by saying Cleaning up image description. That is not acceptable. Such a change might be considered disruptive, and should be reverted. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC) I understand your perspective, but I respectfully disagree. The key premise remains unchanged, even though modifications were made weeks ago based on a consensus and in good faith. While this is an important part of the metrication process, it does not represent the entirety or current status of metrication. It’s crucial to place this development in the proper context within the timeline of metrication, but it's only a small part of the overall picture. Your recent reverted changes suggest a possible ideological bias, whether consciously or unconsciously. This bias is evident in your selective quoting of sources, which appear to take an anti-European Union (EU) stance. There is a tendency to blame the EU for the metrication process and to advocate for allowing fruit sellers to exclusively use imperial units. Friendliness12345 (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC) You needed a consensus, but did not get one, so per WP:STATUSQUO we need to restore the status quo image which has stood for years. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Defacto, you seem to have Semmelweis reflex. Don't assert "no consensus" because you believe others might object to an edit. WP:NOTUNANIMITY The fact that pre-existing imagine is pre-existing carries no weight during discussion, and I have made my comments of the pre-existing imagine in my opening on this talk. I believe the current MOS:LEADIMAGES captures the fact britain currently uses a duel measurement system after 50 years as you state, and shows the current state of measurement in the UK. You clearly have objections to this revised imagine and believe a consensus on the new imagine had not been reached.i believe you are WP:STONEWALLING WP:DRNC I propose we either invoke an unbais third party, or reconsider your objections, and be open minded that the new imagine better represents metrication in the UK. Friendliness12345 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Your are talking nonsense. There is currently no consensus to change the lead image, so we need to honour the existing consensus. Your personal view is irrelevant if no-one else supports you. I'm not saying that we should ignore a new consensus, I'm saying your personal crusade to change it is not a new consensus, it's just your personal POV. Looking back through the article history, it seems that this image was added in January 2014, following a talkpage consensus. As there is no apparent support yet for your unilateral change, even after not letting it drop after several months of failing to get one, so I suggest you follow Wiki policy, and change it back to the 10-year consensual version. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC) The picture was changed. You didnt even notice until you started reverting users, in a edit war on this page. Sorry but i beleive the imagine was changed in accordance with Wikpedia policy at the time, and this has been concluded. My personal view is valid, as is yours, however the fact that you are the only one who wants to revert and old edit. The lead imagine has changed this is the new position. You will need a consensus to change the current imagine. I suggest you start a new talk to make this request. Friendliness12345 (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Ps I have nothing else to add to this talk. You will need a consensus to change the current lead image. Friendliness12345 (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC) The picture will rightly be restored to the one which currently has consensus then. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC) You changed the picture without consensus and disguised your change of it with a false edit summary - that was not an edit which was "in accordance with Wikpedia policy". That was a disruptive edit. Sure your personal view is valid, but it does not trump Wikipedia policy on consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC) deFacto, you do not decide if consensus has occurred. I have just read your talk page - you do do not soley decide consensus has occurred. You had opportunity to comment further at the time. The picture of the Odomintor, which demonstrates the hybrid metric system works for this article on Metrication in the UK. I invite you to express your concerns about the current imagine in the interest of cooperation, or suggest an alternative. Friendliness12345 (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Two things undermine your assertion of consensus: Your edit summary was false, it disguised your edit as a "Cleaning up image description" rather than as replacing the lead image with one you personally favour. There was no new consensus before you made the edit anyway. As this is an historically sensitive issue, and as there was no consensus for your change your edit contravenes Wiki policy, so it needs to be reverted. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Defacto, this is a sensitive issue for you, and I can see that. The original issue was back in 2013/14 when this was a current issue. The last comment was made 26 Nov 2023, no other comments were made including from yourself. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Thank you for bringing the edit summary to my attention. I will follow the process for edit summary corrections. Defacto, we can keep arguing however it seems that it is time now to elevate this to a third party on "which imagine best represents Metrication in the United Kindgom". I have requested a third party to comment on wikpedia third opinion section to resolve this issue. Friendliness12345 (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC) There was no consensus achieved by 26 November 2024 though - there was just your proposal to change it and my opposition to changing it. So why did you then decide to nevertheless change the image more than 7 months after that (11 July 2024) with still no consensus and without further discussion? Let's wait and see if a third opinion is offered. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Third opinion response It isn't anyone's job to monitor an article to catch an edit that was made without consensus and instantly revert it, especially not when said edit does indeed seem to attempt to mask what was actually changed through its edit summary because that would negate the use of the watchlist which could perceivably be used for that purpose. For that I am in agreement with @DeFacto. However, you are also right that they do not decide what is and isn't consensus, but neither do you. As per your own admission in the opening of this discussion "if there is a consenses ie a majority of replies agree, it should be replaced", no such thing was reached. This was just a 1v1 and as per that, I do believe WP:STATUSQUO is in order for where the article should be right now. I'd like to point out that I'm completely disregarding any pro-EU or anti-EU sentiment in other edits or discussions, as that doesn't seem relevant for this specific issue. However, diving into the discussion that initially led to the disputed image being added, I would argue that the wrong decision was made. While the image that was in the article at the time is a poor representation (in that it wasn't depicting the topic of the article) and rightfully replaced, I do believe "Suggestion 2" would probably be a better fit over "Suggestion 1" as no note for its legal status would be required. But I'd also argue that "Suggestion 1" is better than its removal entirely. 2A02:A020:3C4:8CE4:2417:37D6:6347:50 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC) I agree Suggestion 2, should replace the main imagine for the reasons you state ie no note explaining the legal status is required. This now brings this discussion to a close by consensous thank you for your help in this matter. Friendliness12345 (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC) However, that was ruled out by the consensus of January 2014. Nothing has happened since then which has changed that consensus. An image change requires a new consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC) DeFacto you are now going against the 3rd party, and the consensus, which i agree with the suggestion 2 is better. This is the consensus of today. You are the only one who now has objections. Friendliness12345 (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC) That's not what they said. They said they "believe WP:STATUSQUO is in order for where the article should be right now". They then added an opinion on the outcome of the consensus of 10 years ago. That doesn't mean you can unilaterally overrule the 10-year-old consensus. As we reached stalemate in this discussion, as confirmed by the third opinion, you might consider starting an RfC to choose a new image rather than continuing with your disruptive editing and risk being sanctioned. You should offer up the old image and your favoured alternatives, and add a bit of commentary saying why you don't like the old one and why you favour the new suggestions. Then wait and see if there is any interest. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Defacto so not revert should you revert a 3rd time you will be reported. Friendliness12345 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC) you do not understand how this works. I third party had made the call, I refer you to consensus. Friendliness12345 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC) You are confused as the 3rd party states concensous wasn't reached 10 years ago, or reached in error. He has taken the discussion right back to the original metric imagine as the statusquo, and shouldn't have been changed. "However, diving into the discussion that initially led to the disputed image being added, I would argue that the wrong decision was made." It is stating the disputed imagine was the fruit sellers imagine. He has recommended the other image. Suggestion 2. Friendliness12345 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC) You seem to misunderstand several aspects of this. The role of the third party was to give an opinion on this discussion, not on the one of 10 years ago The giver of the third opinion also offered an opinion on what their own choice might have been 10 years ago What do you mean by "it is stating the disputed imagine was the fruit sellers imagine"? They did not "recommended" an image, they simply gave an opinion on one of the images discussed back then I see you've now replaced the status quo image with a second copy of another image already in the article, and with an inaccurate and unsupported caption. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC) The role of the mediator was to determine which lead photo repesents metrication in the UK, and if a consensus can be reached, as we are having a dispute on which is the best photo. This has been resloved now by consensus. His opinion is the same as mine, which is the mediator and myself agree the imagine of the green grocer is not appropriate for metrication in the UK. He has proposed the alternative from the orginal discusion, which is his opinion is better. I am happy with this picture too, which is my opinion. This has now been resloved by consensus of today. Friendliness12345 (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC) Simply the talk was open on "I believe we should open a debate on the lead photo (Tomatoes for sale in a UK greengrocer's shop 2013)as the choice for the lead photo for metrication in the UK." The concensous this was not the best photo for metrication in the United Kingdom for 2023/2024. In the opinion of the 3rd party, the "Suggestion 2" was more appropriate for 2023/2024. My opinion concurs with this suggestion. As such we now have consensus on the lead photo. Friendliness12345 (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC) @Friendliness12345, I think you need to read WP:Third opinion, especially where it says: "This is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal process, enabling two editors involved in a current dispute to seek advice from an uninvolved third party". We need to consider what was said and see if we agree with it, and if it can help us reach a consensus. Even if we had reached a consensus that the tomatoes photo isn't suitable as a lead image (which we have not yet done) - see WP:Consensus, which says: "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)", we would still need to explore what we could replace it with. As I said above, a new WP:RfC on it might be a good idea. That would give interested parties the opportunity to discuss candidates and maybe reach a consensus on a new lead image. Until then though, protocol dictates that the status quo image should be restored until a replacement is duly agreed. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC) DeFacto, I really appreciate your commitment to getting this right, however it is now time to closed this talk. "WP:RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable." As this was a dispute between two parties, we resolved this using a third opinion was, required as per the protocol. If you a consensus has not been reached, you can open a dispute, or open a new discussion to propose alternative imagines. Friendliness12345 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC) You are mistaken. The third opinion did not support your view at all, quite the contrary, they quite clearly said "I do believe WP:STATUSQUO is in order for where the article should be right now." Their additional comment about the 10-year-old consensus clearly has no relevance to this discussion, it just their view of what happened before. I left them a message, but they haven't responded yet. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC) Defacto your reliance on a discussion 10 years ago, is a bit odd please see the flowchart at WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Further i have read the comments at the time, and believe at the time the picture was not the consensus the at the time. Further, it is noted that you will refute any opinion against your interests. First you revert, and go to talk page. The majority agree with the arguments made, however this is when you state the majority or the third opinion is not aligned to your beliefs you will state "consensus isn't the majority it is based on the quality of the arguments". I would argue on this bases on this alone the quality arguments there is no logic to keep the green grocer imagine, other than you feel attached to the imagine. The quality arguments:The confirmation on the position that (Tomatoes for sale in a UK greengrocer's shop 2013) It is not high quality, as required for a lead imagine MOS:LEADIMAGE and in addition it appears to be non-conforming M:SHOCK, as create controversy of showing non-compliance, or criminal activity. It is also hard to read the units on the imagine in contravention of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, and doesn't convey quickly if the readers have arrived at the right page as per the requirements MOS:LEAD. Further and as per the third opinion, this not not the best picture a "legal note is required". A consensus has been reached the imagine is not appropriate. The proposed imagine, who went to the source of how a disputed imagine arrived determined • Suggestion 2: File:The Black Arch near Larne (2) - geograph.org.uk - 851820.jpg. was best. It is high quality, as required for a lead imagine MOS:LEADIMAGE and in is doesnt cause M:SHOCK, by creating controversy of showing non-compliance, or criminal activity. It is not hard to read the units on the imagine in contravention of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, and It conveys quickly if the readers have arrived at metrication in the UK as per the requirements MOS:LEAD. Further and as per the third opinion, no "legal note is required". In addition it demonstrates your sole purpose of favouring the other imagine in that the UK embraces a duel system, and it isn't committed to changing that. A consensus has been reached, based on the quailty of arguments in regard to imagine. I think it is now time to take this to dispute resolution. Friendliness12345 (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC) This is going to need an RfC. The IP made a good contribution as a third person, but by calling up a previous consensus, where more than the two of you had contributed, it no longer became eligible for WP:3PO. Instead we have an issue of WP:CONLEVEL which states Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Which is not to say that an image should be frozen in time because no editors can ever displace an older agreement, but rather, where there is a clear 1 on 1 disagreement, and the third person both said that STATUSQUO should be returned to and that the older consensus should be revisited, and that another image, not the one under dispute, would be their choice, it is clear that it is time to bring in more editors for a broader discussion. I will revert to the status quo, which should be presented as one RfC option (as status quo ante bellum). I presume the road signs will be a second option in the RfC. Should we add any others? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Sirfurboy it is well noted you conclude with Defacto when he has a dispute. This is evidence in other disputes he has had. Friendliness12345 (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC) This has been presented to the wp:Dispute Notice Board. Please let that process conclude. Friendliness12345 (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC) I have requested that you withdraw the bad faith accusation above on your talk page, and you have declined. I shall answer it here. It is clear from the edit history of this page that I have this one on my watchlist and edit here. I will also point out that, in saying that this needs an RfC, I took no side on which image should be used (indeed, I do not care). Instead I sought to diffuse an edit war by appropriate process that will involve more editors and will reach a high level of consensus. However, in starting the RfC discussion, you have three times accused me of concluding(sic) with another editor. In fact I have not. I have had no conversations with them on or off wiki. However you have continued to edit war for your version. I request that you self revert and we can then start again, and try to get an RfC going. I decline to take part in Dispute Resolution, which is an optional process, because I had already begun an alternative process - workshopping an RfC. If we can restore to status quo ante bellum and decide what the RfC options should be, we can proceed with that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Revert of introduction to the post-Brexit review consultation

In this edit, Friendliness12345 reverted my expansion to the introduction to that section. The reason given was: Future status of metrication has been reverted: this is not an accurate or neutral summary of the situation and does not reflect the source - take to talk per WP:BRD rather than reverting and we can discuss it there. We need to understand this in more detail.

I had replaced one sentence with four new sentences to add necessary context and clarify some details about the review that the consultation was part of - all supported by the already cited BBC News source:

Cited ource used: "Brexit: Imperial units only part of laws revamp, says No 10". BBC News. 2021-09-17. Retrieved 2021-09-17.

1. As part of a larger post-Brexit review of laws inherited from the European Union (EU), the Brexit minister, David Frost, announced in September 2021 that the government would be reviewing the laws requiring traders to use metric units for the sale of most packaged or loose goods in the UK.

   A simple neutral statement of the context of the exercise, supported in the cited source by the following content:

   "The government says its review of EU rules on imperial measures for traders is only a "small part" of plans to reshape laws after Brexit."

   "But No 10 said it was just one element of its drive to recast laws inherited from the EU."

   "An EU law requires traders to use metric measurements when weighing packaged or loose goods for sale in England, Wales and Scotland."

   "Brexit minister Lord Frost said the review would allow the UK to ensure "Brexit freedoms" are harnessed to help businesses."

2. The inherited laws allowed the display prices by imperial units, but they were not allowed to "stand out more" than the equivalent prices by metric units.

   The current situation, supported in the cited source by the following content:

   "An EU law requires traders to use metric measurements when weighing packaged or loose goods for sale in England, Wales and Scotland."

   "They are still allowed to sell goods and display prices in imperial quantities, but they cannot "stand out more" than the metric measures."

3. Since the "Metric Martyrs" case in 2001, in which a group of market traders were convicted for using only imperial units, this law has not been rigorously enforced.

   The reason it's topical, supported in the cited source by the following content:

   "The rules shot to prominence after the prosecution of the "metric martyrs", a group of market traders convicted in 2001 of selling goods using only imperial measures, but have since not been rigorously enforced."

4. Ahead of the 2019 General Election, the prime minister, Boris Johnson, pledged to change the rules (if elected to push Brexit through), saying, "We will bring back that ancient liberty. I see no reason why people should be prosecuted."

   Why they were doing it, supported in the cited source by the following content:

   "Boris Johnson pledged to change the rules ahead of the 2019 election, telling the Daily Mail, external: "We will bring back that ancient liberty. I see no reason why people should be prosecuted.""

Friendliness12345, do you still have an issue with any of that? Is any of it inaccurate? Is any of it not neutral? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This is known as "emphasis bias", this is not netural. A simple one line would work, not over and over stating the cause and causality of the reasoning for the survey. this is covered in a another section.

This section was to cover the future status.

Which the the survey resulted in the preferred state was the status quo, and as such the government will not change the legislation. Friendliness12345 (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Friendliness12345, can you elaborate a bit please.

• What are you saying is not neutral - the sources or the interpretation?
• How do you expect readers to know the context of a one-liner with no context given?
• You say "This section was to cover the future status". The future status of what? It is not explained. The survey was only about whether to change how fresh produce sold by weight can be priced, and that needs to be explained.

-- DeFacto (talk). 07:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

1. "Due to no longer being bound by the regulations of the EU common market, the UK Government sought public opinion on changing the current systems of measurement when buying or selling goods." This is simply netural sentence on what factual in one sentence, of what has occurred, and bringing the reviewing, i understand you the government to look stupid for institing on a review that has gone overwhelming against it but that isn't the purpose of this page.WP:NPOV
2. The rest is rolling back, to past information, and retelling a longer story that isn't necessary. WP:TMI
3. The future status: is means the UK has no plans to alter its current measurement state either by further metrication and decided not to reverse metrication.

Friendliness12345 (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I cannot understand much of the answers you have written. Please try again - perhaps writing it first in you native language, and then using a machine translation service to translate it into English. Sorry.

Remember though, that this review was solely to discover what the appetite was to liberalise the ways in which imperial units are used on labels when selling to domestic consumers - either for stating the unit price of loose produce or for stating the amount in pre-packaged products. It had nothing to do with future changes in any of the numerous other fields in which imperial units dominate, or which use mixed units (e.g. road signs, sports rules, land sales, advertising, product descriptions, DIY supplies, school curricula, weight-watcher clubs, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera). Hence 'future status' needs fully qualifying to avoid misleading or confusing readers.

Remember to, that describing it clearly and neutrally (which I favour) is what we are supposed to do in an encyclopaedia, and not keeping it as terse and ambiguous as possible so that readers cannot readily appreciate what it all means (which you seem to be favouring). -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I find your coments insutling and unnecessary. I am sorry you are obfuscated by my comments.

It is not netural. I have explained this.

You clearly disagree, and that is okay.

I have explained.

1. It is not the purpose of the section. You changed the section to suit your agenda. The section is to demonstrate there are no government plans to change the status quo.
2. The history has already been told under retail, and roads above. You could retell the entire story again.

You should be reported. Friendliness12345 (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Your further explanation adds to the confusion.

1. What is the purpose of the section then? I changed the content to add context and detail to the previously inaccurate and misleading content that had been added.
2. The history of what? Of the review of the desired units to be used on pricing and package size labels as part of a post-Brexit law rationalisation exercise? I don't that it anywhere.

Your removal of context and addition of inaccurate, ambiguous, and poorly written snippets is disruptive. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Defacto, I do not believe what you have expressed is suitable for this section, or the level of detail of retelling the entire history of what led to the survey is required.

However, as always we might both be wrong and we clearly need a third party might be more suited to resolve this as well.

Maybe the section should be removed, re-written, or expressed differently. Therefore, before you comment on my opinion, my communication style and etc. I will invoke a third party to help bring this matter to a close. Friendliness12345 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: On whether User:Friendliness12345 is difficult to understand: yes, I agree with User:DeFacto, your comments are incoherent and ungrammatical, preventing other editors from interacting and engaging with you as they must on Wikipedia. Please take steps to remedy the problem, or consider contributing to a Wikipedia in a language you are more confident in.

On whether [2] this edit was correct—no, there is no justification in replacing sourced content with an uncited ungrammatical sentence.

That said, Friendliness12345 has a point (I think, I may have misunderstood) in saying that events which happened five years ago should not appear in the "Future" section. Considering that there are two discussions of the December 2023 survey in the article, I would suggest moving the content in the "Future" section, little of which discusses the future, into the "2000s" section, and removing the duplicated material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

thank you. I have moved this to the section under 2000, and removed the duplication, and deleted the section. Friendliness12345 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)