File talk:SI-metrication-world.png

message: May be Third Last: Liberia (one star)
2nd Last: Myanmar (Burma)
Last: USA (50 stars) 
Why U.S. intend to stick on fahrenheit, pounds, gallons, barrels, inches, miles  and more??
Something special on our blue planet?
Why no S.I. in U.S.A.? (i.E. Why speed (km/h) in U.S. is called "kph", or even "mph") 
[kpkp_de@yahoo.de]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.135.176 (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has been moved from 
The different shades of purple representing 1860-1960 are virtually indistinguishable, at least on my laptop here. -- Beland 06:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. Why not use the colors of the rainbow instead? --Lorenzarius 02:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three old fashioned nations left among more than 200 - Who will be first to invent the metric system? 

message: This really should not bear the qualifier of 'adoption', because the USA adopted the metric system over one hundred years ago. They just haven't fully converted yet. It should probably be 'conversion', or something like that. DarrenBaker 03:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't adopt the metric system, they simply removed a ban on its use, decriminalising it. Seabhcán 19:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm afraid that's simply not true. It was NEVER illegal or banned, and what's more, they officially adopted it as the standard in 1893.  DarrenBaker 06:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In every country laws exist which regulate trade of particular products and the units that they are traded in. This is to allow market transparency  in comparing prices. US laws proscribe (or used to) that, for example, hay must be sold by the bushel and gas by the gallon. It would be illegal to sell gas by the cubic foot, or by fluid oz. However, at various times the US has permitted the use of metric units (decriminalising it). So, it may be illegal to sell cloth by the ell, but it is legal to sell it by the metre as well as the yard. Often individual laws must be passed for each product or industry. The UK thought it had legalised the metric system by a sweeping but simple law in 1863. However, lawyers and judges have tended to listen to older laws which ban it in specific cases. Thus there have been hundreds of laws passed since to permit metric in varous industries, the most recent in 1995. Seabhcán 09:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're saying, but since the US was involved in the development and standardisation of SI itself, and then was one of the first 17 countries to adopt the length and weight measures as standard, I would consider the more detailed machinations that followed to be moot. They adopted the metric system, but did not use it, except to define their common measurements. Miles, feet, yards, pounds and inches are all defined in the NIST in terms of their metric equivalents, and have been since that date in 1863. Whether or not it's in common usage doesn't matter. DarrenBaker 16:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not in common usage then its the US is not a metricated country, and that is what this image and related articles are about. Some guys in Washington wrote some nice words about the metric system in 1863, but it didn't change the reality. It's like if Kennedy had made his wonderful speach about going to the moon in 1963, but nothing had been done. The US would have 'adopted' the plan of going to the moon. Nice words are only turned into reality by a lot of hard work. Seabhcán 16:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the image had to do with common acceptance and usage, then your point would be well made. Unfortunately, the image refers (referred? I don't see it here any more) to adoption, and therefore is incorrect. I don't think in any way that the US is a metricated country, just that it's in the slow laborious process of being metricated. My point was just that the image should have borne the qualifier of 'converted' or 'metric in common usage', and not 'adopted'. DarrenBaker 18:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So you're argueing about the word 'adopted' If you would like to rename the image, be my guest. Seabhcán 18:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was. At the beginning. Then the image moved, so it's all been for naught, really. DarrenBaker 18:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved? From where. It is and always was at :Image:SI-adoption-world.png Seabhcán 18:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see the problem - I'm a berk, that's the problem. I neglected to notice that this is the discussion page. Pardon my noncery. DarrenBaker 18:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Changed. Thanks, Seabhcán! DarrenBaker 19:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction 

message: The map implies that Australia went metric in the 1980s. This is not really a good indication of when it converted. The bulk of the change over happened in the 1960s. The change from acres to hectares in the real estate business didn't happen until the 1980s however almost everything else happened in the 60s.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.71.34 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: as I note below, Australia officially adopted the metric system in 1966. The colour should be orange not red surely. However there are still 'hangovers' from the imperial system, e.g. occasionally quoting height in feet & inches. Walkingmelways (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Official conversion however occured as decimal currency (1966), temperature and weather reporting (1961) and the national speed limit signs on public roads (1974) all changed to metric.  You will still find some that use the imperial system only as a legacy and therefore are not really a good indication of when the country converted.  1960 would be closer than 1980 in this sense, although the current map colourings show little distinction between 1960 and 1980 shades of blue. Andmark (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia

message: I'm not sure if East Timor is the correct colour. I assume the colour suggests it changed between 1940 and 1959. Portugal (its colonizer) adopted metric at home well before 1940, and East Timor changed sovereignty in 1975 (independence and then invasion by Indonesia) and 1999 (independence). If East Timor had decided to change to metric in between changes of governments, then you'd expect it to be listed in the table cited (it is not).
Please tell me that the author did give East Timor back to Indonesia! Andjam 10:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was missing a lot of information on some countries (hence the grey patches) and I'm sure I made mistakes on others. Please feel free to correct it if you have better data. Also, yes the colours didn't turn out fantastic - everything seems to look purple. But I don't have special software for creating these maps. Seabhcán 19:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Timor 

message: What does n.a. mean on this diagram?  Do people in those countries not measure anything? PRB 10:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No data Available. bogdan | Talk 11:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should put this information in the caption. "NA" means "not applicable" and it does, as it stands, imply that metrication in these countries is not applicable because they don't measure things. int3gr4te 09:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  n.a. 

message: The Republic of Ireland completed metrication on January 20, 2005. This map needs to be updated to reflect this. 64.128.179.40 17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wouldnt that mean the map is up to date anyway - Ireland is currently colored as having gone metric 'after 1980' - thats what I read it as -- Astrokey44|talk 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: How did Hainan Island end up being a different colour from the rest of China? -- ran (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well its fixed now --Astrokey44 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hainan]] 

message: Canada started the conversion to metric in the 1970s
* Or 1871 depending on who you ask ;) --74.98.117.140 14:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: The island of Tierra del Fuego, in the extreme South of South America is part Chilean and part Argentinian... so it can't have a colour diferent to Argentina and Chile... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.196.66 (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There must have been a previous edit where someone changed the countries' colours but forgot to colour the islands.. happens quite a lot actually. Ive fixed this now --Astrokey44 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South of South America... in red? 

message: Countries such as Angola, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique and São Tomé and Príncipe should have the same colour as Portugal, its colonizer at the time of the adoption of the metric system. Regards, Manuel de Sousa 22:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese speaking nations 

message: The article says Australia was metric by the early 1970s, yet it's coloured red for the 1980s. Surely a mistake?
:It's coloured red for 1970-1999 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Australia officially adopted the metric system in 1966. It should be orange not red surely. Walkingmelways (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Official conversion occured as decimal currency (1966), temperature and weather reporting (1961) and the national speed limit signs on public roads (1974) all changed to metric.  You will still find some that use the imperial system only as a legacy and therefore are not really a good indication of when the country converted.  1960 would be closer than 1980 in this sense, although the current map colourings show little distinction between 1960 and 1980 shades of blue. Andmark (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: Why is Hawaii coloured differently to the rest of the United States? Novakreo 02:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaii 

message: The island of Saaremaa (West of Estonian mainland) is couloured differently than the rest of Estonia. It should be the same. H2ppyme 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonia 

message: I can't figure out how to revert back to the colorblind version, but it should be done. Editor Brhaspati did the right thing by converting the image; the revert by editor Soap was inconsiderate and seemingly based on image size (which can be remedied with optimization) and personal preference (which is irrelevant).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.224.161 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I found the colour-blind version a lot easier to distinguish, especially around Europe. His argument for reverting it was just dumbfounding.Fudge-o (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorblind version