Talk:Metrication/Archive 2

message: "The gon is a recent name for what is still also called a grad or grade; thus kilometre : centigrade : : nautical mile : minute of arc." says the article.  I can make neither head nor tail of it.  What's needed are some words in place of these mysterious bold colons.  The question is "What words?"  Now I could throw some in but as I'm not quite sure what was intended I think I'll wait to see whether the author of this puzzling sentence (or whatever it may be called) turns up to explain the meaning. Jimp 11Oct05
:A kilometer is to a centigrade (centigon) as a nautical mile is to a minute of arc.
:Gene Nygaard 00:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's this mean?

message: Great article! I'd say it's written to a higher standard than most FAs. Still, I agree with an earlier poster who requested more info on non-Western systems of measurement that have been displaced by metric. It'd make the article even better and more complete, I think. Babajobu 07:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. This article mentions Chinese, Indian and Japanese systems, but I think the best place for indepth discussion of these topics is in the History of measurement article. Seabhcán 09:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-European systems

message: I noticed that Japan was mentioned as being one of the countries resisting metric - is that for their system of measurement for houses? Because I used to live in a place with about 25 Jo in Japan and now I live in a place with 6 pyung in Korea. Both of them use cm for height and kg for weight though so in that sense they're a lot more metric than Canada, where I'm from. Mithridates 18:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Korea? 

message: "This process [of metrication] was begun in France in the 1790s and spread over the following two centuries to all but four countries, representing 95% of the world's population. [...] Today only the U.S., Liberia and Burma (Myanmar) have not officially switched to metric measurements, although Liberia and Myanmar use it in practice; the UK is currently in the process of conversion."
Am I the only one to which the preceding paragraph seemed a little off in the way it was worded?  The first part says "all but four countries", the next lists only 3 countries, and tacks the UK on at the end (while not putting it in the same category as the other three and, through discussion on this talk page, seems that the UK is already mostly metric.)  Should it maybe be reworded, possibly *before* the UK is officially metric and the point is moot?  :) --Canuckguy 00:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're not the only one. ;-)  --hydnjo talk 13:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of non-metric countries 

message: The article said:
:The ITU's role in the existence of the internet is especially notable, since the Internet could not exist today if each country had insisted on its own proprietary protocols.
I don't think thats true. Most of the protocols used on the Internet were developed by the IETF or by industry -- not through the ITU process. The ITU's answer for computer networking, OSI, never took off. Sure, ITU protocols are used in some areas (directory services, videoconfrencing, etc.), but most of the important Internet protocols (TCP/IP, DNS, WWW, etc.) have nothing to do with the ITU.
It would be true to say that in the phone system (as opposed to computer networking), the ITU has historically had a much greater role. -- Mr. X.
*Um... wrong article perhaps? -- WB 01:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITU & the Internet 

message: I've never heard of the word metrication only metricification. But the UK site www.ukma.org.uk appears to use the former exclusively. Odd that. Jooler 08:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Metrication is vastly more common in the UK: 21,300 Google hits  as opposed to barely 700 for metrification . 86.132.137.240 22:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well once again that just shows what a load of nonsense Google stats are. "vastly more common my arse!" - I just did a straw poll among freidns and nobdy uses the term metrication. Also the name of the government board that imposed the metric system in the UK in the 1970s was the "Board of Metrification" Jooler 20:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Metrication  or metricification

message: 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)
thread_title: Merging of anti-metrication to Metrication

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Tire vs tyre )? Peter Horn User talk 23:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent spelling: e.g. metre versus meter 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  link to the French version 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:   is this something you're required to do very often? Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The initial idea of metric would be to convert every measurement to base ten, though this failed." 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some comments about Canada 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who decides when metrication is 'complete' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsupported additions to the list of UK legal exemptions 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opposition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Metrication 'Map' 

message: 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.  See footnote
*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.See footnote
*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.See footnote
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.See footnote
*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.”
See footnote
*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. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rlevse 11:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AndyZ's PR script for [[Metrication]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Response to PR Script

message: 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 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".
[2]
Would become
A survey of Switzerland in 1838 revealed that the 
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".
[2]


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)
replies: text: Be my guest...Self-Described Seabhcán 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change citation method

message: 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)
thread_title: Done

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

text:  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)
replies: text: Even the USA has very limited compulsory metrication. A 1988 law made metrication less than being voluntary.--Jusjih 16:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Compulsory in all but three countries" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Illiteracy as reason for easy adoption?

message: 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)
thread_title:  What makes a country count as metricated? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have tried rephrasing this. --Gerry Ashton 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inability to divide metric units into three equal parts ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ireland the most recent country to convert? 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Soviet Union 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links in "Chronology and status of conversion by country" section 

message: Can some tell me where the word "metrication" comes from please? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Metrication??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dual calibrated speedometers 

message: I propose merging what little can be salvaged from Metrication opposition into this article. Would that be acceptable? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than concerns about it opening a can of worms to an ongoing debate within this article, there seems to be some overlap of information: There are also Metrication in the United States and Metrication in the United Kingdom, which both detail various pros and cons, or at least usages and non-usages of metric. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the article Metrication in the UK and Metrication in US have only recently been seperated (less than six months ago I think). Anyhow, I think the best proposal would be to merge all articles, from Metrication to Metrication Opposition, and all of the Metrication in any given country. That would require some effort and restraint from certain editors, but eventually, we may succeed. Xionbox₪ 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly a good case to merge Metrication and Metrication opposition - why were they ever separate articles?  However including Metrication in the United Kingdom and Metrication in the United States might be counter-productive as these articles might well dominate the artcile. Both are articles of long-standing having been started in 2004 and 2005 respectively. Martinvl (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't include them, just link to them as "see also", if they aren't already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Which they are. So no problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Me. Too. I'd rather exile them off the planet. Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.--Pawyilee (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the original saying was "give them an inch and they will take an ell". :-) Martinvl (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All of us who are used to the English System will eventually be "exiled off the planet", i.e. deceased, and then you metric fans can have your way. (Meanwhile, at the Pearly Gates, we'll probably have to learn about cubits, etc.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Similarly in Britain (except for the supermaket).  IMO, this is one of the reasons for the decreasing levels of numeracy in both countriues. Martinvl (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Science classes in my day (decades ago) were using strictly metrics. So that's nothing new. There was no need to convert anything as it was in isolation from the "real world". In the "real world" in America, metrics are kind of a joke. And in the UK also, at least to some extent, hence good ol' "miles per gallon" instead of "kilometers per liter" or whatever. The core problem with metrics is that they're not based on anything humans can relate to. They're a measuring system designed by a committee. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion, Metrication opposition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Response to DeFacto 28 Oct 2011 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  USMA unreliable? 

message: It seems like the Cuban government publishes official prices in US customary units. Are they not metricated?    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodle77 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuba? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Metrication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay, I guess metrication is a process more than an event.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else's opinion?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Good catch! NebY (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese units 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: US "has not adopted the metric system as the primary measurement system" is either misworded

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

message: 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)
replies: text: If China began metricating in 1925, then I would think that that date would apply to both the PRC and Taiwan, as both can claim continuity from the 1925 ROC. if the ROC began metrication in 1925, though, why would we have Taiwan placed in the 1980s? those two things cannot Both be true. Unless, (and I very highly doubt this), the 1925 date was some policy adopted by specifically the Chinese Communist Party that year. Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "China"

message: 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  tag to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/metric-conv.html
*Added  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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: 
From History of the metric system: 
From International System of Units: 
Reference named "histmet":
From History of the metric system: 
From Units of measurement in France: 
Reference named "SIBrochure":
From International System of Units: 
From History of the metric system: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Metrication]] 

message: Can we get some opinions on this one please. We have a WP:SPA IP editor () who has, over the last few weeks, made quite a few controversial and poorly supported changes to this article. One such change being related to the controversial issue of how metricated the UK is. The long-standing version of the article had a relatively balanced statement on this: """. The IP replaced that, with "" and any attempts to moderate that have been reverted. Another change they made is to state the definition of metrication (metrification) as "", supported with cites to references that do not support that, but attempts to engage them (#Definition of 'metrified') failed, and adjustments have been reverted. Opinions please? -- DeFacto (talk).
:One of the larger changes is the change to the country adoption status of the UK. The long-standing version of 'Partially complete' implies there are multiple systems in use, including official usage (such as on the roads), which is true. Whereas 'Almost complete' is a finer case which would have to be supported with references such a report by a governmental or standardisation body on the status of metrication in the UK. Which it is not. I would say this also relates to the long-standing statement changes as well as the claims need some harder sources to back them up. Needless to say, these changes should be discussed. Voello (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The contributor of the additions in question has now been indefinitely blocked and the content has been removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial opinion versus straight facts 

message: I've spent some time tidying up the overview and country sections. I've done it in small steps and with verbose edit summaries to try and keep it transparent and clear. Please feel free to change/revert my changes or to comment on any of them here. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Canadian, I don't fully agree with the description of metrication in Canada as being "almost complete" or "almost entirely complete", in part because it is not made very clear anywhere in the article exactly what these terms mean in a Canadian context.  If it refers only to the legal status of metric in Canada, then the description might be valid in some way. The citation provided to back this claim seems to deal only with legal status, and the description of "almost complete" or "almost entirely complete" do not appear anywhere in the cited article that I can see. However, if these terms are also supposed to take into account public acceptance of the metric system, as I believe they should, then I think "partly complete" or "partial adoption" would be more appropriate descriptions.  Public acceptance of the metric system is still very limited in this country, and is only used in public discourse in a few areas where it has been made legally mandatory to the exclusion of imperial units.  After decades of teaching only metric at Canadians schools, educators have now returned to teaching both metric and imperial to students who use both systems in the classroom but mostly revert to the old imperial units in family and social environments.  That said, I don't want to change or revert anything without first raising it with you here on the discussion page.  Maybe there's something I'm overlooking that you can clarify for me.  Many thanks!
ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy-up 

message: Antarctica should be labelled as metric since it is primarily visited for scientific research, and scientists primarily use the International System of Units. Sauer202 (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost certainly true but counts as wp:OR unless cited, as there is no single legislative body. (And it may be that at least some US visitors use English engineering units, xref Mars Climate Orbiter). --Red King (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctica is metric 

message: There are various mismatches between the world map and the table of countries  (picture / table):
* Ireland:   yellow /  green
* US:      red / orange        
* Jamaica:   orange / yellow
* Trinidad & Tobago:    green / yellow
* India:  yellow / green
* Pakistan: yellow / green
There are major countries missing in the table, e.g.
* Europe and Asia: Latvia, Lithuania, Turkey, Bangladesh, Nepal, most countries of former Soviet Union
* Americas: Colombia, Venezuela, Panama, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Cuba
* Africa: Egypt, Algeria and many others. Former French, Spanish and Portuguese colonies probably (!?) have been metricated along with their colonial powers 
Wassermaus (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , these anomalies are due to the map and the rows in the table being based on different  levels of original research by a variety of editors with different agendas and different motivations, and where sourced, using a variety of self-published and unreliable sources with no consistency and no agreed definition as to what the scale of 0-100% metrication really means. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The scale is indeed wholly subjective. A couple of month ago I removed one of those self-published maps because of its unreliability and inaccuracy (in the case of Canada at the time), but my move was reverted. Both maps should be removed.--Lubiesque (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries: mismatch table <-> world map 

message: Many of the Caribbean islands and countries on this map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Metrication.svgare are green, which indicates adoption of the metric system. Most of these Caribbean countries and territories have either not transitioned to the metric system or use it alongside the imperial system and sometimes U.S. Customary. For instance, in four British Overseas Territories (Anguilla the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Montserrat) as well as six countries (Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) petrol is sold by the imperial gallon, speed limits and road signage are in miles, and the temperature is primarily reported in Fahrenheit. A similar case exists in places such as the Bahamas or Belize, with the main difference being petrol its sold by the U.S. liquid gallon. Those are only a handful of examples. Some of these countries, such as St Lucia, intended to convert to metric in the early 2000s but two decades later this conversion has lapsed. 
Next time this map its updated or a new map is created for this article, this Caribbean countries and territories should be indicated as 'not transitioned' or 'incomplete transition'.
Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caribbean Countries on Map – Inaccurate Data 

message: Content of this section has been translated in the section L'adoption du mètre in the Wikipédia article Mètre in French. Charles Inigo (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of metrication 

message: Creation of a subsection Egypt copied from the Wikipedia article Metre, section Early adoption of the metre as a scientific international unit of length: the forerunners. Charles Inigo (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt 

message: I don't think the map showing the USA as having "absolutely no adoption" is correct. The metric system has been the standard in industry and manufacturing since the 1980s. All labels on food products give measurements in metric as well as customary, with wine and spirits given only in metric units. All car speedometers have KPH as well as MPH. The US military is metric, as is any scientific or engineering endeavor (though in the latter customary is still used as well). There's a good article from a scientist at the (US) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) dispelling lots of the common myths surrounding the US's use of the metric system: https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/busting-myths-about-metric-system Mpaniello (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The change was made on October 24 amongst a bunch of changes by others. It's likely the plainly incorrect change was overlooked. I have undone the change. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much! Mpaniello (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Absolutely" No Adoption in USA? 

message: The length of this talk page is becoming unwieldy. Any objection to automatic archiving? Jc3s5h (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto archiving

message: the history of measurement,
The forerunners, and
The adoption.
Are not really required for metrification and should just be links to their respective pages. It is a double up. 
If no one objects i will remove these in 4 weeks. 1.145.18.193 (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been fixed this talk can be closed, the article has been refocused on metrication. Friendliness12345 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed remove it 2406:3400:212:D700:D2B0:A20:F186:2D49 (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been fixed this talk can be closed, the article has been refocused on metrication. Friendliness12345 (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before the metric system section 

message: Metrification is a change in an existing measurement system to the metric system. A picture showing duel measurement doesn't show metrication or tie into the paragraph, recommend using a map of the world to show the current status.  1.145.113.110 (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Change it in 30 days if not objections. 2406:3400:212:D700:D2B0:A20:F186:2D49 (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been fixed this talk can be closed, the article has been refocused on metrication. Friendliness12345 (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was metrification showing a picture of two measurement systems 

message: This is incorrect as per the us governments own measurement authority NIST. https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/busting-myths-about-metric-system
we should remove it. 2406:3400:212:D700:2567:EB6:AFDF:A4D1 (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: References to the NIST have been included to show the current status of the USA in the overview. This has been now been addressed and this talk can be closed. Friendliness12345 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA factbook is false my the US government's weights and measures  

message: metrification article be about "metrification" ie what is the metrification process. 
The headings should be:
• overview
• mandatory metrification
• voluntary metrification
• barriers to metrification
 
• countries status of metrication
• resistant industries to metrification. 2406:3400:212:D700:2567:EB6:AFDF:A4D1 (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been captured and under "Methods of conversion", and other sections, have been updated to capture all this information, this talk can be closed. Friendliness12345 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is off topic metrification