Talk:Metrication

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Talk:Metrication

Merging of anti-metrication to Metrication

After reading Anti-metrication through and commenting on its talk page I would like to suggest merging it to the "Opposition" paragraph of this article, because currently, after cleaning up the article, there's not really all that much left to merge (most of it is highly POV without any real understanding of SI system), so it wouldn't get too long. --piksi (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Metrication

Inconsistent spelling: e.g. metre versus meter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tire vs tyre )? Peter Horn User talk 23:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

'conversion process' section

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

src: media1.fdncms.com

link to the French version

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

This has since been corrected, the current link is Métrification. Peter Horn User talk 00:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Thanks 141.154.75.163!

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

src: milebehind.files.wordpress.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

src: www.us-metric.org

Some comments about Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filtered water is in litres.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automotive is very, very metric. For instance, while I was working in the industry, all the bolts were metric, and all parts were measured in metric. Construction tends to be very imperial, as are blueprints for custom designs in machining. There is no real 'unpopularity', rather it is simply accepted.Annihilatron (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Additions from a college aged BCer - yards are never used. Feet are used for very short distances, mainly only height. Metres for everything else. Same can be said about weight - lbs for people, grams for small weights and kgs for big ones. Older people use more imperial units. I have no idea what an ounce is, or how many are in a lb. Neither does my girlfriend. Liquids are millilitres / litres exclusively. The article stating that Canada is not complete, while the UK is nearly complete is simply incorrect. As a young person who left the UK for Canada many years ago, I know first hand that metric is used FAR more with much less resistance in Canada. Canada should be listed as nearly complete. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.191.14 (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In the 'Conversion Process' section, there is this statement: This may be due to the overwhelming influence of the neighbouring United States; similarly, still many English Canadians[citation needed] (unlike most French Canadians[citation needed]) often use non-metric measurements in day-to-day discussions of height and weight, and for clothing sizes, which are invariably measured in inches, though most driver's licences and other official government documents record weight and height only in metric (Saskatchewan driver licences, prior to the introduction of the current one-piece licence, indicated height in feet and inches but have switched to centimetres following the new licence format[citation needed]).

... which I believe is incorrect, specifically about the French Canadians. From personal experience (not standardized survey) I believe most French Canadians do in fact use non-metric measurements as much as the English Canadians. The previous comment mentions the proper usage of weight units. Celsius is always used for temperature, with the notable exception of swimming pool (or other basin) water temperature which is almost measured in Fahrenheit, presumably because of continuity and habit of always having used this unit. Using Celsius for such a measurement is usually very confusing and difficult to relate to. Weather is however always measured in Celsius. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.176.68 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

src: milebehind.files.wordpress.com

Who decides when metrication is 'complete'

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

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

src: 2.bp.blogspot.com

Unsupported additions to the list of UK legal exemptions

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

src: milebehind.files.wordpress.com

Metrication in the UK

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

src: stateoftheunit.com

Metrication (1st paragraph)

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

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

---

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

"I don't drink alcohol(1)!"
NOTE: (1) Except for Burbon."  

207.200.54.134 21:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

Forced Conversion

Your recent edit changed the definition from:

the process of converting

to

the process of forced converting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atlant 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation

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

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

src: milebehind.files.wordpress.com

Language reform

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

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

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

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

Atlant 12:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Jimp 16:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Opposition

This statement in the summary may be confusing or misleading:

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

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

Maybe something like this

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

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

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

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

There can be no hiding the fact that literally every opinion poll - in the UK - shows a a range of 'preference' to 'total preference' for imperial.

When discussed Brits are pretty vocal about their feelings towards metric. 212.62.5.158 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible rephrasing to address remaining concern:

Only the United States continues to see significant popular opposition to metrication, the main objections being based in localism, tradition, cultural aesthetics, economic impact, or distaste for measures viewed as "foreign". Popular opposition in the United Kingdom exists to a lesser degree and can be associated with anti-European Union sentiment. Japan had significant popular opposition at one time for similar reasons. While France where the measures were largely invented saw popular opposition during the early 1800s. Excepting the United States, metrication is now largely accepted in all countries. -- Mrichmon (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mrichmon's rephrasing. Being from France, I wonder if it is even useful t state there was any metrication opposition as it barely last a couple of years.Xionbox^? 05:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree and, since no one has expressed a contrary opinion since 1 April, I have applied the the suggestion (slightly rephrased). --Red King (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Caribbean countries and USA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about:

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

I hope that helps.

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

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

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

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

(d) Procedures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metrication 'Map'

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

How can an 'officially metric' country only allow imperial in the most visible place of all - ROAD SIGNS. It's the first thing a visitor would see! How do you you define 'official'? "Must conform to X but need not be X" ? 212.62.5.158 (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, what precisely do the colours that aren't on the legend mean? I could guess, but it should say what cream and grey mean. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.151.37 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

AndyZ's PR script for Metrication

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

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

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

Response to PR Script

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

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

Change citation method

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

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

Would become

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

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

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

Done

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

Liberia, Myanmar and USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The US government/states does not allow metric only labeling on some goods. FPLA issues 84.49.32.115 (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

"Compulsory in all but three countries"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illiteracy as reason for easy adoption?

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

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

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

Russia only abolished serfdom in 1868 and before that, involuntary servitude of peasants to feudal lords was inherited from father to son for 700+ years. Serfs had no formal education at all, illiteracy was 95%+ and serfs were little more than work animals for the nobility. See the famous painting "Volga barge-pullers" by Ilya Rjepin. There is a steamship visible in the distant background, but people still pulled the barge, because vodka-powered illiterates were cheaper than coal or wood.

They couldn't even count basic math, that is why there were many pogroms in the 18-19th century Russia, as the peasants couldn't figure out how jewish merchants managed to trick them during dealings, so they went for the "evil magic" explanation, which is best "cured" by live burning. In this environment the dead-simple base-10, count on your fingers metrication was much welcome. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.26.110 (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Liberia & Burma again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, the law most certainly exists in Burma, as you can see from recent news. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.125.192 (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What makes a country count as metricated?

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

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

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

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

It should be noted that it is a fallacy that beer in British pubs is only in pints. That is true only for draft beer from the tap. Bottled beer in the UK is already sold in the 500 mL size and if you ask for a beer that is not on tap and you are given beer from a bottle, the amount you get will only be 500 mL. Beer glasses used for tapped beer are actually 2 ml over the stated definition of a pint (568 mL). The glasses are actually a more rounded 570 mL. You can Google 570 mL pint glasses and see for yourself.

Wine and other spirits (hard liquor) are also sold in a rounded metric amount. The pubs are more metric than metric haters want to admit. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

In the UK the use of metric by the masses is divided. Educated professionals tend to speak and use metric predominately in both their professional and private lives. Those of the lower classes and working poor are the ones clinging to imperial. They may be the majority but that is not something to boast about. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Inability to divide metric units into three equal parts ?

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

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

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

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

Yeah sure 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 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the UK is semi-metric. This article used to exclude it from the metric countries and someone changed it quite recently. ... Seabhcan 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The UK is convoluted and my best advice is to see Metrication in the United Kingdom for the whole sorry mess we've got into. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the UK as a person you are measured in feet, weighed in stones, travel in miles, drink pints. It is only a semi-metric system for economic reasons. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You might measure yourself in inches and stones, travel in miles and drink pints, but a doctor will measure you in centimetres and weigh you in kilograms; a road is constructed in metres (and the sign says "110 yards ahead" and is placed 100 metres from the hazard); any regulation will be metric (e.g. only taking 100ml of liquid on a plane), everything in a shop is labelled in metric, recipe books always have metric measurements (though many have old measures too), education is completely metric, temperatures are always metric (both for cooking and the weather), furniture is built and sold in metric, ...

In short, the UK is metric for very nearly everything outside day-to-day speech, and even then only body measurements and large distances are given in Imperial measurements. ? (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's only partially true. To say 'temperatures are always metric' is a downright lie. They're primarily metric but if you go and buy a thermometer it will have both Fahrenheit and Celsius/Centrigrade on it, and weather forecasts tend to use a mixture - metric is primary for temperatures with Fahrenheit equivalents being sprinkled throughout, and metric isn't used at all for wind speeds which are always in miles per hour - because miles are standard for road distances and speeds. The BBC defaults to celsius for temperatures but it can be switched to Fahrenheit in the 'My Weather' controls. The Met Office currently talkes about the Icelandic volcano 'It is currently erupting up to a height of 23,000 ft' and puts the metric in parentheses. The Met Office use Celsius exclusively unless you pay over half a grand or more and then you'll get temperatures in BOTH Celsius and Fahrenheit.

It's also a total lie to say that 'only body measurements and large distances are given in Imperial measurements'. It's half a mile to my local shop. It's half a mile from the local train station to the centre of town. These aren't large distances. The speed limit in urban areas is 30 miles per hour or less. If I need to tell someone how far the table is away from the wall I will use inches, not centimetres, and they will understand me perfectly well - and guess what, we're not even middle aged, never mind OAPs. Asked how wide a room is I and everyone I know would answer in feet, not metres. Asked how long a hosepipe is I and everyone I know would answer in feet or maybe yards. Asked how far away the bridge is over there (gestures) I and everyone I know would answer in feet or yards or fractions of a mile. The local fields and brownfield sites are talked about in acres, not hectares.

The UK is metric where the government - following EU directives - can decree it. The UK has had a parallel system since the 1970s, which remains to this day for millions of people. In shops not everything is labelled in metric - it depends what the product is, some of it will be labelled in metric AND standard British weights and measures. Recipe books tend to have dual measures because it doesn't make sense to alienate people who were taught prior to the 1970s - a lot of the people who cook real food were born before then! Education isn't completely metric - it's still dual to some extent. Most of the rulers you buy in shops are still dual, and thankfully so - it's far more flexible to have two options from which to select whichever's best for the job at hand: if I need tiny units, then millimetres are best, but generally a centimetre isn't as useful as the sub-measurements of an inch.

Frankly, I find having two systems very, very useful. If forced to lose inches, feet, yards, and miles I'll go on using them not out of 'habit' or 'stubbornness' but because they are more useful for certain tasks. I suspect the countries that have been metric for more than a century have long-forgotten how useful other systems are, and have lost flexibility in the same way that speaking only one language is restrictive. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.9.248 (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a crock of crap to always claim that metrication exists where the government forced it. If the government forced it, it was because greater interests forced the government to. That being industry. It is industry that is metric and wants metric. The people that actually make things. When the industries of a nation are metric or predominately metric, the nation is metric. An article by the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16245391) showed via the comments of the readers that those who are industrial employed professionals were very pro-metric and those outside the professions tended to be haters of metric.

This explains why engineering is still done in the UK, but why the manufacturing has moved to Eastern Europe. This way there is no interference from the metric haters. They are kept away from the manufacturing jobs and deemed unemployable. So yes, why the underlings of British (and American too) society are continuing to fight a war against the metric system, the professionals and the rest of the world are happily not omly embracing the metric system, they are prospering from it. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I find two systems GREAT too. More choice. With and overlap. So long as I am not forced to use one or the other (unless my life depends on it!) then give me that choice. Who cares?

It's just the two (metric/imperial) extremes (in the UK) that make it such an issue - however I have to say the pro-metric extreme are typicically off their rockers falling into two campe:- 1) Every thing is metric! Nothing is imperial! Everyone speaks metric - all of them - except grannies with babies -or- 2) The world is falling apart because the UK uses a mix of imperial and metric - it really is a right old British mess and everyone thinks of it as a mess nd it's awful when you hear young children say imperial 'words'. The mixture makes Britiain a laughing stock, costs millions and will probably cause the moon to explode. 212.62.5.158 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it odd that only in the UK and US there is this resistance and both nations are experiencing decline while others in the metric world are growing. Yes, the UK and US are laughing stocks because they insist on moving backwards while others move forward. The world sees the decline in the UK & US and sees their own growth. The UK & US are burdened by having to deal with two incompatible unit standards, whereas the rest of the world works only with one. So, you want two, but are you willing to pay the price for two? That is the main reason for having only one, the cost. Who should pay for the privilege of two? Are you willing to pay more for a product that is not made to a single standard? 68.105.199.216 (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

British business and industry are fully metric - but the man in the street has the imperial system drummed into him by certain big newspapers. Roads are built to metric standards, but motorists read distances in miles, kitchen units are sized in metric units but estate agents size kitchen in imperial units, the press uses imperial units for people's weights but the medical proffesion uses metric. Children learn to manipulate mertic units in ther classroom, but never practice them at home or in the playground. Does this explain the Very British Mess? Martinvl (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Arguments for metrication.

This article should be called "Opposition to metrication". Everything in it points to how metrication is a bad thing but makes very few references to the benefits.98.199.206.122 (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What are the benefits? Xandar (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You can not design microchips in inches nor describe large distances in a comfortable fashion. Using 3-4 independent units for measuring distances alone is just silly.

Actually the converse is true: in the French metric system you can't describe large distances in a comfortable fashion. In the UK's indigenous system it's very comfortable. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.9.248 (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all imperial units are indigenous to the UK, nor are they any better for describing large distances. Spinrad (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is focused on improving the associated article, not on pro- vs. anti- discussions regarding the article's subject. However, on the pro- side see this. For more info about opposition to metrication see the Anti-metrication article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ireland the most recent country to convert?

The opening section states, "Other countries in the former British Empire completed metrication during the second half of the 20th century, the most recent being the Republic of Ireland, which finalised conversion in early 2005."

Ireland is said to have completed metrication when it changed road distances from miles to kilometres. However the UK, according to this image, completed metrication sometime between 1960 and 1980, has still not made these changes but is still considered metric. How is this so?
Does this mean that pre-2005 both Ireland and the UK used miles, yet Ireland was considered imperial while the UK was not? Still raining here (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The UK introduced a kind of 'parallel-running' in the 1970s. The government and its offshoots use metric, e.g. the exclusion zone for protests around Parliament was measured in kilometres, not miles. But the parallel system remains in many instances - miles per hour, for example - and in non-government-influenced areas the culture remains 'bi-lingual' so to speak. It's actually better having two systems, just like it's better to speak two languages. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.9.248 (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Misdirection

isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? I just typed "metric conversion" and was directed here. I would think a basic page on metric conversion would be a prerequisite in any encyclopedia, but worse after it redirected me here I couldn't even find the conversion I needed. Typical Wikipedia over enthusiasm? exterminating the un-useful information or pages, I guess metric conversions have become ungood. Double plus good comrades. Lucien86 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The article you want is Conversion of units. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Metrication

The lead paragraph now includes "metrification". That is not an acceptable alternative. Let's delete it. Rlsheehan (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Attribution of the "only three countries are not yet officially metric" claim

I believe that we should state that according to the CIA's World Factbook, only 3 countries have yet to adopt the SI in the text of the article. The reason is that without this attribution in the text the text becomes inconsistent. Here is how:

... Liberia ...[has]... yet to adopt the International System of Units as their official system of measurement.[1][2] ... Liberia ...[is]... substantially metric ...

... Myanmar ...[has]... yet to adopt the International System of Units as their official system of measurement.[1][2] ... Myanmar ...[is]... substantially metric ...

This is particularly relevant with Liberia, where there is quite a substantial (though not universal) use of metric measures in government web pages. See the links in the Wikipedia article on Liberia. Therefore, though the CIA Handbook would ordinarily be classed as a reliable source, it may not be completely up-to-date in this instance. Michael Glass (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with Michael - the CIA Handbook has a few quirks, for example that the date of independence of the following Commonwealth countries:

• Australia attained independence in "1 January 1901 (from the federation of UK colonies)",
• South Africa "31 May 1910 (Union of South Africa formed from four British colonies: Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal, and Orange Free State); 31 May 1961 (republic declared) 27 April 1994 (majority rule)"
• New Zealand "26 September 1907 (from the UK)"
• Canada "1 July 1867 (union of British North American colonies); 11 December 1931 (recognized by UK)"

These four countries were de facto independent in 1919 as each had a seat at the Treaty of Verseilles (at the end of World War I), but their independence was confirmed by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The United States' independence is given by "4 July 1776 (from Great Britain)", even though the US War of Independence dragged on until 1783.

Given the inconsistency over the dates of independence, one can assume that there is inconsistency elsewhere, including possibly their notes on metrication. On the other hand, the CIA handbook is maintained by the CIA and is the first port of call for US diplomats. It is of course possible that in the case of Liberia and Burma the system of units of measure is such a mess that there is no offical system. Martinvl (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In my view the focus of an article--and even more so in the lead section--should be on the subject ar hand, not on the sources, Discussing more about who says what is the cause of some humanities' scientific work to be so tedious. In the lead we should just state facts to the best of our knowledge as gathered from sources. If more nuance is needed, that can be added in later sections, as is already the case. Even there, I would not advocate naming sources in the running text. Better is to leave that to notes. -Woodstone (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should present the facts to the best of our knowledge, and we should avoid making the prose too tedious. However, there is a problem whether the CIA report is strictly accurate. If we put it in the text without explicit attribution it implies that the CIA is correct; if there is any doubt, then the statement should be put as the opinion of the CIA. I won't labour the point, but the following wording may suggest ways to satisfy all the concerns that have been expressed:

Only (Burma (Myanmar), Liberia, and the United States) have yet to adopt the International System of Units as their official system of measurement, according to the CIA. However, they all have adopted some metric usages through international trade and standardisation. In 1866, the United States accepted the metric system for commercial and legal proceedings, without displacing their customary units. Liberia and Myanmar are both substantially metric countries. They trade internationally in metric units and visitors report that they also use metric units for many things internally with exceptions such as old petrol pumps calibrated in British Imperial gallons in Myanmar.

This, of course, incorporates several changes to the whole paragraph, especially toning down the amount of metrication claimed, as other sources reveal that usage is more mixed than the quoted source implies. Michael Glass (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Union

The article says Russia adopted metric system in 1925. That year would then apply for most other former Soviet states as well. --Soman (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Soviet Russia adopted the metric system on January 1, 1922 (by a decree of September 14, 1918). It was the Soviet Union that adopted the metric system in 1925. YuryM (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Links in "Chronology and status of conversion by country" section

Section Chronology and status of conversion by country used bold for links to industrial nations. That deviates from usual style, and there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for such a deviation in this article.

Moreover, "industrial nation" is not a well defined binary term; the link currently provided links to developed country; bot that term doesn't even occur in that article!

Much more relevant in this context are links to articles that actually describe metrication for a given country. I therefore had thought of reusing the bold links to such articles. But as I started doing so, I realized that there actually is no need to link to each country. WP:OVERLINK advises against such links, and I don't see why someone would need a link to France - bold or not - from this table, anyway. So I planned to only keep links to those countries where I found a section on metrication. But it seemed that the only country with such a section that doesn't already link to a dedicated article is Liberia. There is therefore no need to differentiate the two kinds of links.

The years have been used for links to articles, but that is just a form of Easter egg. This is further aggravated by the facts (a) some years are for more than one country, but the linked article only refers to one, (b) not all metrications took place in just one year, and (c) there are links that are connected with no date, such as the ones to Metrication in the United States and Liberia#Weights_and_measures - It is already awkward to link the current "---", but it would even be worse to have country specific links behind different "---"s. I therefore removed them.

I'm also not happy about the repeated links to to Imperial units, but I can see some use for someone who e.g. may only be interested in, say, Jamaica, without having to look at the entry for the UK, so I leave that for now. -- Sebastian 21:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Way too rosy picture, imperial flatscreens retake the world!

The end of the current article has totally unfounded optimism! The skyrocketing low-cost airline phenomenon and the proliferation of flat screen sizes (laptop, LCD, plasma TV) are imposing feet and inch units on the masses worldwide and metrication is on the decline. Because it is USA who consumes most, everybody manufactures to imperial-customary units. Metric may not exist 50-100 years from now.

The situation is made worse by ivory-tower SI "experts", who are all busy officially banning separate names for mere metric multipliers (e.g. hectare, liter, metric ton), while the imperials soldier on to (re)-conquer the world. (It is just like the Vatican and the orthodox arguing for centuries over the iota and comma in the filiale, while the protestants were successfully spreading heretic practices of divorce of marriage and repudiation of the eucharist, all over the world. That's what ivory tower leads to.) 91.83.26.110 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are so, so wrong. With the growth of industry in China and Germany the world is being flooded with hard metric products. As the US continues to export jobs to metric countries, the products are being redesigned to rounded metric sizes. Screen sizes in inches is just a trade name, the actual screens are made to a metric dimension, and only translated to inches. It is done this way to inflate the size. An actual 800 mm screen is sold as 32 inches, even though the two "sizes" are not the same. Pre-historic measurements have the advantage of not being understood by the masses and a means to overstate the size to the consumer. 4 x 8 foot panel board is made to 1220 x 2440 mm in Chinese factories and sold that way in the US but as 4 x 8 foot, even though the rounded metric size is larger.

An increasing number of imported products sold in the US require the need for metric tools to install and service as products made in metric countries don't use inch fasteners.

The reality is it is the US that is in a steep decline and by 2020 will not exist as a single unified nation. Once it is broken apart and a German run EU and Chinese run Asian union are the new leaders of the world, everything America influenced in the last century will disappear, especially the remnant use of USC/Imperial. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it is USA who consumes most - Really? Do you have any supporting evidence for that statement?

Metric may not exist 50-100 years from now. - Indeed! And the Pope may not be Catholic in 50-100 years from now. But somehow, I have the sneeking suspicion that both are unlikely. Again, do you have any supporting evidence for that statement?

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Metrication???

Can some tell me where the word "metrication" comes from please? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
(The conversion to metric measures is "metrification". e.g. when "one" converts a railway to use electricity, one "electrifies" it; one does not "electries" or "electrize" it.)

A google search for both "metricate" and "metrificate" indicates that "metricate" is the conventional term. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 12:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dual calibrated speedometers

In Canada speedometers are often dual calibrated, km/h primary (outer) and MPH secondary (inner). I know, I live in Quebec and our family Toyota Echo's speedometer is calibrated like that. I herewith invite outher Canadian Wikipedians to confirm this and to add (post) an appropriate photo. Peter Horn User talk 00:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion, Metrication opposition

Response to DeFacto 28 Oct 2011

I have removed the word "permitted" in text "The metric system is permitted for use in most busineeses ...." Where the law requires that specific units of measure be used, the requirement is, with few exceptions, to use metric units - the word "permitted" is a clear misrepresentation of fact - the word "required" is much closer. Martinvl (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your change isn't supported by the reference, it says "... used for most transactions..", which my text covered, it doesn't support your "... used by most businesses...". So I've added the cn flag. My text already covered the compulsory use: "Metric units must be used for the retail sale of...", and that is spported by the reference. -- de Facto (talk). 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported and misleading table

I have serious reservations over the contents of the large table in the 'Chronology and status of conversion by country' section.

1. The content is largely unreferenced.
2. The content does not reflect the column headings: for example the UK did not convert to metrication in 1965 and Ireland did not convert in 1967.

I suggest complete removal of the table if these issues aren't addressed urgently. -- de Facto (talk). 18:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather than just delete it, correct it. I sugget that you place a "citation needed" lag on each entry and as it is corrected, that flag be removed. In that way the structure for retain what is a useful piece of information is retained even if the information wiothion that structure needs to be modified.

BTW, the British metrication program was commenced in 1965. Martinvl (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Added tags as suggested. You agree then, that the UK didn't actually convert in 1965. BTW, there's no obvious reference, either here, or in the Metrication in the United Kingdom article that UK metrication started in 1965 either. -- de Facto (talk). 22:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom, the metric system is permitted for use by most businesses and is used for most transactions.

This unsupported statement begs two questions: in which industries is use of the metric system not (legally) permitted? And in which transactions is the metric system (legally) not used? If answers cannot be given, with sources, the sentence should be removed or rewritten. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have yet again removed the word permitted. Martinvl (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, are you saying that it isn't permitted? It certainly isn't compulsory, except in certain selling situations - as I put in the text. I see you also restored your unsupported assertion that it is "used by most businesses" yet again. This needs an RS.

No, what I am saying is in some cases there is no legislation one way or the other and in others, apart from a few specified cases, the units specified in the SI Brochure must be used.

BTW, I am getting very tired of this argument, especially when you are taking a "Holier than thou" attitude when there is a pro-metric bias. Martinvl (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

When, other than for the retail situations mentioned (and supported) must they be used?

Please don't personalise it - we want a neutral article, not one dominated by your POV (or mine). The discussion must continue until all the assertions are reliably supported, neutrally presented and a consensus is reached. -- de Facto (talk). 09:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, the "used for most transactions" is directly supported by the reference, the other is implicit as why would the government advice be such otherwise?. The exceptions aren't mentioned in the source, so who are we to speculate. -- de Facto (talk). 08:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The way in which the legal system works is that the government makes various laws. Accademic lawyers often advance their interpretation of what the law means, but if there is a disagreement between two parties, then the courts will clarify the meaning. As far as I am aware, the courts have never clarified the meanign of this phrase. It would therefore be improper for Wikipedia to venture a suggestion as to what his means. Moreover, this phrase has been removed from the EU directive - my own understanding is that the directive now applies ot the whole of the Internal Market, but the British Government have not impelemnted that part. It is unlikely that the courts will ever be called on to clarify the situation, so it is best to leave the phrase as it is. Martinvl (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

How about "may be used" rather than "is permitted to be used". In Common Law juristictions, everything is permitted unless it is explicitly prohibited. So we should only use the word 'permitted' if the statute uses that word. And a citation will be required. --Red King (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thailand

Thailand officially adopted the metric system in 1923, but reference[2] for Royal Thai Survey Department says they were using it in the late 19th Century. Giblin, R.W. (2008) [1908]. "Royal Survey Work.". In Wright, Arnold; Breakspear, Oliver T. Twentieth century impressions of Siam (65.3 MB). London&c: Lloyds Greater Britain Publishing Company. pp. 121-127. Retrieved 7 October 2011. 

I can dig out the page number if anyone thinks it worth the trouble.--Pawyilee (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

USMA unreliable?

Given the consensus of a discussion at Talk:International System of Units is that USMA is not a reliable enough source to base Wikipedia information on, we need to remove reliance on it here too. There are different views about what constitutes official adoption so we need to avoid giving a one-sided view on that too. MeasureIT (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When did the US start metrication

Citing four dates for when the US started metrication without clarifying any differences makes the US look likea Banana republic. A little research will show the relevance of the various dates:

• 1866 - It became legal to use metric units in the US
• 1893 - Mendenhall Order - the yard was defined in terms of the metre
• 1975 - Signing of the Metric Conversion Act
• 1988 - I do not know why the USMA included this date - maybe User:MeasureIT could help. If (s)he is unable to help, please do not reinstate this information.

In order to keep conssitency with other countries in the list, I have chosen 1975 as that was the date when a start was made to replace the existing system of measure with the metric system. Martinvl (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Then there is the United States Coast Survey, which is now the National Geodetic Survey. They began in 1807 and always did their fundamental work in metric, although sometimes provided conversions to customary units for users who were more familiar with that system.

As the Metrication in the United States article explains, the significance of 1988 is the passage of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. As originally passed, it required the federal government to use metric in a variety of situations. From this time, many federal-aid highway projects began to be designed in metric. Later, Congress gutted it and some state highway departments that had converted to metric have changed back. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What we know is that metrication couldn't have legally started before 1866 because metric units were illegal. If we assume that the units were made legal because some people were already using them, or at least wanted to use them, then it seems reasonable to assume that they were legally using them (ie metrication legally started) in 1866. MeasureIT (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The metrication process involves the actual replacement of legacy units of measure with metric units (whether backed up by law or by agreement). As far as I am aware, this did not happen in the US in any industry until 1975. New industries mighte well have adopted the metric system from the beginning, but there were no conversions. User:MeasureIT is therefore incorrect in stating the the conversion process started in 1866 (unless of course (s)he can give examples of actual conversions). Martinvl (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

MeasureIT is incorrect in stating "What we know is that metrication couldn't have legally started before 1866 because metric units were illegal." Although specific state or federal laws might have mandated this or that unit of measure for a particular purpose, there was no law adopting a general system of measures for all or most purposes. To this day, there is still no federal law adopting US customary measures for all or most purposes. Jc3s5h (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Original Research in Overview

It appears I stumbled into an edit war. While I have no intention of getting involved, I do think this paragraph needs to be very much rephrased:

"The U.S. Metric Association (USMA) urges caution in defining what is meant by a country "being metric" - one could claim that the U.S. has been metric since 1866, 1893, 1975, or 1988 depending on which official declaration you prefer to cite" but the USMA notes that the U.S. is non-metric in areas such as road signs, speedometers, and weather reports. How do you decide whether a country is "metric" or "non-metric"?"

This is a perfectly valid opinion and question, but in its current state doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article - see WP:NOR. This article should be documenting verifiable facts and general consensuses. To me at least, it reads more like an argument. We certainly shouldn't be asking questions; even rhetorical ones.

I appreciate the quote from [3], but it would be better to get a quote of the claim itself rather than of a claim that 'one could claim'. Because: has anyone actually claimed that the US was metric in 1866? Bearing in mind, this would make it the first country (besides France) to institutionalise the metric system.

There's also a problem with this source (see WP:SOURCES)...

"All views expressed are those of the page author, the U.S. Metric Association, Inc., and not of Colorado State University, and any concerns or comments about this site should be directed to the page author, the U.S. Metric Association, and not to Colorado State University."

The address given for the USMA is a residential address [4], and it is not a government body, meaning it has no official capacity. I find myself agreeing with many of the USMA's statements, but I am aware that these are the publicised opinions of a lobbyist group and not the mandates of a government agency.

Compare that to the National Institute of Standards and Technology [5], which is an agency of the US Department of Commerce whose purpose is "to establish the SI (International System of Units, commonly known as the metric system) as the preferred system of weights and measures for U.S. trade and commerce". The fact that a government agency exists with this prerogative would suggest that the US government has not already accepted the SI units as their official system of weights and measures for the past 25-150 years. And so any claims otherwise should be taken with a grain of salt.

--Carbon Rodney 15:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed one of the more obvious references, but this article is so riddled with references from pressure groups that removing them would completely destroy the article. Instead this article needs a total overhaul so that material which is little more than "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" becomes irrelevant and details of US metrication be moved into the artcile Metrication in the United States. (I beleive that I have already replicated everything regarding British metrication in the article Metrication in the United Kingdom Martinvl (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Pressure groups have been trying to foist the metric system on the USA for a long time, but so far they're losing. Name something in that section that you object to. It certainly looks reasonable to me, but maybe I overlooked something? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 21:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a mess. We need to describe more about what metrication is, and how far the various countries which are only partially metricated have got. We need an agreed list of column headings for the table too. Attributes which can be judged objectively and with the support of reliable sources, rather than the current unsupportable single "year of metrication or (year metrication process started" column. May I suggest some column headings...

• When were metric units first legally allowed
• Are there purposes for which metric units are legally allowed?
• Are there purposes for which metric units are legally required?
• Are there purposes for which non-metric customary units are legally allowed?
• Are there purposes for which non-metric customary units are legally required?
• Are there purposes for which dual units are legally allowed?
• Are there purposes for which dual units are not legally allowed?
• Are there purposes for which dual units are legally required?

That way we would get a feel for how metric a country was. Specifics of what is and what isn't allowed can be given in the appropriate "Metrication in <country name>" articles. This way we can avoid having to balance the subjective views of who has and who hasn't metricated. MeasureIT (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting original-research guideline. Are there any valid sources that define, through some kind of semi-official standard, to what extent a given country has been metricated? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 22:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggested doing it this way to avoid the original research currently present in the article. If we have columns for objective facts as I suggest, then they can confidently be filled with the support of reliable sources. This contrasts with the current situation where no-one agrees when, or even if, a country went metric. If a source says that metric units were legalized in 1866, then "1866" can be entered in the "When were metric units first legally allowed" column without applying any speculation as to whether that implied metrication had started, or not. The same objectivity applies to all the column heading I mentioned. MeasureIT (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The United Nations has 193 member states. It User:MeasureIT really proposing that this information should be assembled for all 193 counties? The resultant article woud be enormous. As User:Baseball Bugs notes, where can this information be found? Who is going to identify the status in, for example, Mali? Is User:MeasureIT planning to do it? In order to assist going forward, I have reinstated my text about US metrication as it fits in with the rest of the article. Martinvl (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What were you replying to here? You seem to have imagined that I had proposed a row for each member state of the UN. The current article has about 40 states listed; a properly sourced list might be less, or more, who knows. What do you mean by "where can this information be found?"? Where was the other information in this article, or in any other article, found? Ideally it would be found in reliable sources, of course. If we can find reliably sourced data for Mali then why not add it? There is none in the current article, so what makes you think there would have to be some in a more objective article? I'll add data if I find reliably sourced data, of course. If you really wanted to assist in going forward, you wouldn't keep removing sourced information which allows readers to judge for themselves when metrication started in the US and stop insisting that it started in 1975, and removing the evidence to the contrary. MeasureIT (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Cuba?

It seems like the Cuban government publishes official prices in US customary units. Are they not metricated?

-- Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle77 (talk o contribs) 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Before the metric system section

What's the purpose of having a "Before the metric system" section in this article? It seems like a random collection of mentions of non-metric units. If we include all, it would explode, but why include this section in the first place? --Makkachin (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Metrication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051129061234/http://www.caribbeannetnews.com:80/2005/03/17/moving.shtml to http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/03/17/moving.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101124224700/http://transportation.ky.gov/design/memos/11-98.htm to http://transportation.ky.gov/design/memos/11-98.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. --^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Is kWh a metric unit ?

The article starts: "Metrication or metrification is conversion to the metric system of units of measurement." The kWh unit contains a 3600 factor, so it is not a metric unit. Should the creepy continued use of the kWh, in most "metric" countries, as an official de facto self standing unit of energy, considered "metrication" ? --Robertiki (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a few comments here.

• The kilowatt-hour is a metric unit in the broad sense but it is not an SI unit (like km/h, hectares, calories, bars and some others). SI is by design more restrictive, and its only unit of energy is the joule. Normally the term "metrication" refers to the replacement of pre-metric measurement systems (such as imperial units, including the BTU for energy) with metric units; it doesn't normally refer to replacing older metric units (like CGS) with more modern ones. But this is an interesting point in its own right, and I am not sure whether "SI-ification" should be included on this page.

• You're using words like "creeping" which I find confusing. What does it mean, exactly? Are you claiming that the usage of this unit is increasing over time in certain countries? My understanding is that electrical energy in most everyday contexts is measured in kilowatt-hours in most countries (I don't know if there are exceptions to this). So I am not sure what unit the kilowatt-hour is supposed to be replacing.

• My main objection - you did not cite any sources to support your claim, which makes it look like WP:OR. If you are claiming that usage of this unit is increasing then that is certainly a non-trivial and contestable claim, and you are expected to justify it.

I hope that explains why I reverted. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Robertiki seems to think that only factors of 10 can be metric. This is not correct given that all variations of the metric system of the past 2 centuries (both pre-SI and SI) use the second (60 per minute), the minute (60 per hour), and the hour (24 per day). Although the metric system favors decimalization, not since the French Revolution has decimalization in the metric system extended completely to the point that all time measurement would be in decimal time. Archon 2488 brings up the more valid and interesting question--most, but not all, metrication is "SI-ization" or "SI-ification", and maybe Wikipedia should cover that distinction more clearly (whether all within the metrication article or in more than one article--either might work). -- ¾-10 18:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Answering both:

• The kW.h is not mentioned in the non-SI units list mentioned in the SI.
• The metric system is an internationally agreed *decimal* system of measurement. From its beginning, the main features of the metric system were the standard set of inter-related base "metric" units and a standard set of prefixes in powers of ten.
• The second (time) is a metric unit. It is the angular second (dimensionless unit), that is not metric.
• The kW.h is not a unit, but a derived unit. No metric derived unit is derived from non metric units. Where time is needed, only the "second(time)" unit is used. The kW.h, if it where "metric", would be the only derived unit composed with a non-metric unit.

I am claiming that the usage of this unit is increasing over time in certain countries. Some of the most important technical-scientific associations are restating that it is ok to extend the use of the kW.h. I am searching public sources.

--Robertiki (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

To follow your logic, we'd also be unable to call kilometres per hour a metric speed scale, which defies common sense. The term "metric" doesn't normally refer exclusively to SI units. If we accept that line of argument, there was no metric system at all before 1960. The commonsense, broad definition of "metric" is something like "derived from, or relating to, metric standards, such as the metre, the kilogram, and the second". This would include CGS units (which are also "metric" in the normal sense of the term, but are also absent from the SI brochure, I believe).

You're also using the term "derived unit" in a confusing way. Normally it refers to units within SI (such as the joule) which are derived via dimensional analysis from the seven SI base units. It doesn't normally refer to non-SI units. Most non-SI units, however, are defined in terms of SI units (such as the hour, which is 3600 SI seconds).

I am interested, however, to see what you mean by extending the use of this unit. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be relevant to ask the question over at the talk page of Kilowatt hour, since that article does not currently answer that question and since that would be the natural place to answer it. Later, the answer can be copied to this article. Lklundin (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Category

Does anyone object to me adding Category:Metrication as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia categories named after events?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with the uses of maintenance categories in general, let alone Category:Wikipedia categories named after events, but I notice that the existing members of the latter do relate to events rather than processes such as metrication. There are exceptions, but they may represent a drift that should be reversed rather than followed. NebY (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I guess metrication is a process more than an event.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else's opinion?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Fully agree that "metrication" is not an event (with a precise date). It is an abstract process, still ongoing. -Woodstone (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Someone reverted my edit. Right thing to do.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Chinese units

In the section "Before the metric system", when describing Chinese units, I changed "dimensions" to "values" because "dimensions" sounds like you are talking about the dimension of a physical quantity; e.g. force has dimension [MLT^-2], energy has dimension [ML²T^-2], speed has dimension [LT^-1] etc. Instead we are talking about the numerical value of a unit. I also italicized names of Chinese units, because they are for the most part foreign words. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Good catch! NebY (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

US "has not adopted the metric system as the primary measurement system" is either misworded

or a lie. All customary US units are defined in metric terms using metric standards and the most important have been for over a century. Maybe a word other than 'primary' would get the point across with outright fabrication? -- LlywelynII 13:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"Primary", in this context, does not refer to how the units are defined, but to the extent of their use. In the United States, most of the occasions when humans use units of measure (outside of quantities of computer storage or electricity, where there are no customary units) those measurements are in customary units. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That's peachy that you can invent a sense of the word that fits what's being described. It's still the wrong word in this instance. The primary (fundamental/first/definitional) units of the United States are metric. When a human stops to ask "what is this customary unit?" the actual and legal answer is "some proportion of that 1-meter/kg thing over yonder". It should be reworded. -- LlywelynII 17:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Several of the maps

are also well out of date or, in the case of North Korea at least, misinformed. -- LlywelynII 13:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"China"

in Wikipedia's sense of the PRC, did not exist at all in 1925. Should we move Taiwan (i.e., the Republic of China) down to there from its current inexplicable position in the 1980s or move the PRC up to 1949, when it began existence? -- LlywelynII 17:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Metrication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928081538/http://www.hubertlejardinier.com/confiture.htm to http://www.hubertlejardinier.com/confiture.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630082718/http://www.practicallyedible.com/edible.nsf/pages/oventemperatures to http://www.practicallyedible.com/edible.nsf/pages/oventemperatures
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050301093830/http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/metric-convention.html to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/metric-convention.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/metric-conv.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/natl-highway.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127211746/http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2003/jul/22-27.pdf to http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2003/jul/22-27.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Metrication

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Metrication's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Alder":

• From Mesures usuelles: Alder, Ken (2002). The Measure of all Things - The Seven-Year-Odyssey that Transformed the World. London: Abacus. ISBN 0-349-11507-9. 
• From History of the metric system: Alder. The Measure of all Things - The Seven-Year-Odyssey that Transformed the World. ISBN 978-0-349-11507-8. 
• From International System of Units: Alder, Ken (2002). The Measure of all Things--The Seven-Year-Odyssey that Transformed the World. London: Abacus. ISBN 0-349-11507-9. 

Reference named "histmet":

• From History of the metric system: "History of measurement". Laboratoire national de métrologie et d'essais (LNE) (Métrologie française). Retrieved 2011-02-06. 
• From Units of measurement in France: "History of measurement". Métrologie française. Retrieved 2011-02-06. 

Reference named "SIBrochure":

• From International System of Units: International Bureau of Weights and Measures (2006), The International System of Units (SI) (PDF) (8th ed.), ISBN 92-822-2213-6, archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-08-14 
• From History of the metric system: International Bureau of Weights and Measures (2006), The International System of Units (SI) (PDF) (8th ed.), ISBN 92-822-2213-6, archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-08-14 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT? 08:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia