Talk:Metric system/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

other archives

← previous next →

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origin of the name metre

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

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

Year of origin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New "Common prefixes" section

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

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

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

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

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

Explain something to me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As european I wonder why 510,072,000 km² (the surface of earth) is not written as 510.072.000 km² or 510,072 Mm²? European sign for separating thousands is "." and the sign for decimal separation is "," (also in UK). Is this not also international like SI units? 80.202.228.89 (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In the US 510.072.000 km² or 510,072 Mm² would not be understood unless the reader already knew the magnitude of the number, or there were enough numbers in the text to figure it out from context. This is true even among scientists and engineers. Something that cannot be reliably understood in a major country line the US is not international. The international way of writing this would be 510072000 km² which has not been widely adopted, but is less likely to be misinterpreted than using "." as a thousands separator or "," as a decimal point in an English-language publication. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was this omitted?

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

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

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

Inaccurate U.S. information

Moving the historical information regarding the U.S. authorization of the metric system to a reference implies a biased, non neutral, political motivation, i.e., that it is a government's responsibility to not merely authorize the use of a standards system, but to further impose it use as the only standard. A more straightforward, non-slanted presentation would not try to obscure this history.

The metric system has been competitively available for official use in the U.S. since 1866. The majority of the American people have merely chosen to use a different system. Those who want to use metric are perfectly free to do so, and have been for a very long time.

The maps used in this article also fail to accurately reflect this history and different philosophical approach to standards. They are likewise produced on the premise that a country must adopt a single standard and cannot have multiple systems. The U.S., on the first map, would more appropriately be colored in green and grey diagonal strips and in yellow and grey diagonal strips on the second map, or to be simply in grey on both. --Debohun (talk) 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the metric system in general, so it would not be appropriate to devote too much attention to the US, especially since there is another article that focuses on the US (Metrication in the United States). However, I have modified the caption of the second map so it does not say that the US hasn't adopted the metric system. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation system

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

nonsense

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

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

There are inherent advantages having 360 degree in a circle. Please read following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal . --198.208.240.250 (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the 'not commonly used' notes for terminology.

Hi,

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

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

A new reference is needed in History.

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

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

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

Incorrect comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parts of the article needing clarification

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

Conversions

SO, How many milimeters are there in an inch? Couldn't find this exotic info anywhere here or in the aticle on "milimeter". Why not have a conversion table? Please? 76.166.245.241 (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you try Inch? JIMp _talk·cont 09:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Another place for this kind of information is Conversion of units. Or, just write something like "convert inch to millimeters" in the Google search window. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No trolling on Wikipedia, or please DO refrain from bashing the US. And no manipulations.

To all editors: we all have opinions, most of us don't see US as 'the ultimate Paradise', but most of us should realise (also written "realize") that Wikipedia is spoiled (-t) BIG DEAL by our wars.

I don't care whether the article is written in US or British English, as long as it is consistently written in one or the other. If US version is preferred by the majority, then let it be. After all, language (on the level needed in Wikipedia) is just a tool of communication.

But what is actually more worrying are the subtle manipulations done out of the domain of "written word". Such "small and innocent" edits as placing an image of the world with three countries not using the metric system is nothing else than a very, very transparent manipulation. You got your revenge on those Yankees, those "fatsos", those whatyoucallem? Bravo! You spoiled our work!

Press is done praising Wikipedia, now it's the time to make some news stories. So please stick to the rules: no bias, no personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LMB (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 October 2009

The United States is the only large industrialized country that does not use the metric system as its predominant units of measure. There is nothing wrong with making that obvious. If you remove the image I will initiate a request for comment. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The map is not an attack on the US, for heaven's sake. The fact that the metric system is so universally used is the main reason it is notable. The names of the 3 countries that do not use the metric system are important information, and the article would be biased if they were NOT displayed prominently. A map is a perfectly reasonable way to illustrate this. If we allow consideration for a few individuals' tender feelings to trump notability, and let important facts be removed or "dumbed down" in Wikipedia articles by people who are personally offended by them, we will soon have no Wikipedia. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose this opinion comes from a mixture of paranoia and bad conscience ... I find the attempts very embarrassing to conceal the fact that the US is one of the very few countries worldwide who didn't yet adopt the metric system; I find it even more embarrassing than the fact itself! Besides, alleging that a map is supposed to be a "revenge" or "manipulation" shows in which world of thought some people live... I would like to suggest that we use the original map showing the three countries missing rather than a map dissimulating the fact that we (together w/ Burma and Liberia, LOL) are the only ones missing (Image:Metric_system.png VS Image:Metric system adoption map.svg). PS: Sorry for not being logged in, I'm not at home... --84.115.170.128 (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact we do not have complete or up to date information on Burma or Liberia. Some reports say that metric measurements are in use, and no reports I have seen so far say that the Imperial system is in consistent or officially mandated use. --JWB (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that there are no objections to restoring the original graphic (Image:Metric_system.png), so I am going to restore it in the next days. As I already stated above, I think it shows better the actual situation! --84.115.170.128 (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I object. This is an article about the metric system. It is not an article about countries that don't use the metric system. There is no benefit to the article in using a map whose sole purpose is to emphasize what countries don't use it. Any information that is in the "map of shame" is also in the current map (with countries using the metric system in green), but the current map has the benefit of not trying to push a POV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point! But still the optical difference between the green and grey used is so small that one can't distinguish Burma and Liberia ... Therefore I the grey should be altered to yellow, orange, red or s/th similar. What do you think? --84.115.170.128 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The caption works fine, IMHO. I'd leave it as is. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The map expresses a definite POV - that metrication is all-or-nothing, and that a (somewhat out of date) record of oversimplified yes-or-no status is what matters. The date-of-adoption image communicates much more information, although still incomplete. --JWB (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

inches in a yard

inches in a yard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.202.219 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

36 JIMp _talk·cont 09:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

millimeter-Newton-second systems

A "millimeter-Newton-second" systems subsection was just added. I wonder whether this really qualifies as a system. My experience with electrical simulations is that pure numbers are entered, no units, so the input may use any self-consistent units. Also, I doubt any new names for created for derived units. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also regarding this new section I wonder about the notability of the following.

A consequence of this is that the density term is in mega-grams per cubic millimetre. To convert from g/cm³, a common unit for density, requires multiplication by 10⁹.

The base unit of mass in this system is the megagram (1 N = 1 kg·m/s = 1 Mg·mm/s). The base unit of volume is the cubic millimetre. Combine them and we get a huge base unit of density (one billion times the SI unit). Tell me we're mentioning this because its commonly used (or even that its a commonly noted difficulty) and not just because wow that's really big. JIMp _talk·cont 08:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Revocation of 2 April 2010

I appreciate what the author was trying to do, but he was inadvertently replicating what already appears in the article SI prefixes. The section in this article has a "main artilce" link, it should only be an outline. This section is, in my opinion, already too long. Martinvl (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that the author put into this addition, but all that is needed here is a summary of what prefixes are about. The length of the section shodul be comparable to other sections in this article, not be the dominant section. Martinvl (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Using Metric Measure in Wiki Articles

I am not sure that this is the right place for this suggestion and perhaps someone could tell me a better way to make the following suggestion:

I note that in many articles, maybe everywhere I have looked, English measure and the equivalent Metric units appear in parens afterward. It seems to me that this is tedious.

Would it not be better to standardize so that only one system is used (I would favor Metric) since the conversions can be done by an interested reader?--Jrm2007 (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but there are a lot of people out there who don't. In the United Kingdom, for example, being pro-metirc is viewed by many as being pro-EU. See, for example, the BWMA's page - it depeicts a "For Sale" sign outside the Houses of Parliament. In contrast, on its page, the UKMA states categorically that it is a states "Today, opposition to metric units is more or less an article of faith for many people opposed to Britain's EU membership and for some other politicians. Wild myths have become accepted as fact by many politicians and journalists. The result is that most politicians do not want to touch the measurement issue with a bargepole." The present system is a compromise to try to reconcile the two groups. I believe that there is a similar mood in the US. On the other hand, Australia, India, South Africa (amonst others) are fully metric. Martinvl (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that many who favor English measure really want to see both measures in every article? It really gets tedious in the articles about animals where there are many measurements listed. Perhaps a solution would be a preference which would do some sort of automatic listing.

Perhaps every measurement (weight, length, temperature) could be surrounded by special characters, like [M 60degreesC M] or something, and by reading the user preference, the conversion would be automatically done.--Jrm2007 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that given the views of a significant number of readers, we have an unhealthy compromise which is neccessary to get on with the rest of Wikipedia. I, for one, would like Wikipedia to base its use of units of measure on those used by academic journals rather than those used by newspapers. Martinvl (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I think this is a valuable discussion, this page is not really the right venue for it. What about moving this thread to Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement or possibly Wikipedia:Village pump? --Chetvorno^TALK 14:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Automation is not practical. The most important reason is that most of our readers do not establish accounts and thus have no opportunity to set preferences. A lesser reason is that there are some fields where everyone uses metric and there is no reason to present customary units (medications, for example). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That readers do not all hold accounts would simply result in some default behavior. And in the case of medications the "tag" i suggest could simply be omitted.--Jrm2007 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The likes

The text says "via the likes of Benjamin Franklin". Why is it phrased this way? If there's evidence it was Franklin, then it's "via Benjamin Franklin", and if there's not evidence, then it's not. "The likes" in unencyclopedic.  Randall Bart   Talk  19:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of "Conversion Errors" belongs in another article

There is no basis for including a discussion of conversion errors in the article on the metric system, while not mentioning these errors in the articles on the other unit systems. This misleadingly suggests that the metric system is culpable for errors in conversion, which is entirely false. These anecdotes should be moved to Conversion of units and substantially removed from this text. This needs to be corrected promptly as it is a violation of NPOV. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Contents of the article lede

My changes to the lede were revoked by User:Chetvorno with the comment that they did not meet the WP:NOTE criteria. I disagree.

There is (or there should be) a considerable degree of overlap between the article SI and the article on the metric system. The article on the metric system should, in my view, be written so as to describe the features that are common to SI, to the CGS system and to all the other metric systems, to a lesser extent to show why the different systems evolved and how this is currently being handled. The use or otherwise of metric units on British roads signs possibly has a place in the article Metrication and certainly has a place in Metrication in the United Kingdom, but I do not think that is has a place in the article “metric systems”, and certainly not in the article lede.

The revocation that was done by User:Chetvorno was to reinstate such material into the lede. Martinvl (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the irrelevant material about whether metric units are used on road signs and soft drink bottles (which was left over from a previous edit war). But you've also removed (or downplayed) the reasons why the metric system is important in the modern world: that it is the official system of measurement of all but 3 nations, that it is universally used in scientific work and also dominates commercial and personal use. This is more important than details about the retirement of prototype standards. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated the bit about the three countries. The paragraph that I moved from the lede into a section lower down was inadvertenly deleted by me in a later edit for which I apologise. I trust that I have the balance correct. I agree that the lede could do with a bit more work, but more imprtantly the entire article needs an overhaul, if only to allow it to pass the Class B test. One item that I will be looking at more closely is the section on the history of the metric system and seeing if I can write a serparate article and just summarise it in this article. (Half the material for such an article already exists in Wikipedia, just a matter of copying those sections and massaging them into a single article). Martinvl (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The new article is under development here. Martinvl (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What is "lede"? SpencerCollins (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

... an alternative spelling for "lead" - see WP:LEDE. Martinvl (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of non-essential material

I intend deleting the subsection "practicality" as it is subjective and unsiourced. I also intend deleting the section "Coincidental similarities". This section is close to trivia. I am planning a total overhaul of the sections "Overview" and "history", so at this stage I do not plan to make any suggestions regardign these sections. Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Millimetre-newton-second systems

Is the mmNs "system" really a system, or is it just a computer interface? If it is really a system, what are the units of force, energy & power? If these do not exist, then it is really just a user interface with computations being done with whatever normalisation the programmer sees fit. Having been a computer programmer in real life in engineering applications, I suspect the latter. Unless anybody can offer explanation to the contrary, I plan to delete this sub-section (it is unreferenced).Martinvl (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Future shape of article

My view of the future is:

• The section "Overview" will disappear - its contents being moved into other parts of the article.
• The section "Features of the metric system" is moved to the top of the article.

Any comments? I don't think that this will affect its current class. Martinvl (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Overview Section redundant?

I woudl like to remove the section "Overview" as I believe that anything of consequence in that section is now redundant (either in the lede or in the rest of the article). I am currently working a new article User:Martinvl/History of the Metric System. It is still in draft form in my work space, but other editors can see what material I am covering. It is possible that certain snippets from the Oversiew section of this article which would otherwise be lost, will have found their way into my new article. Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have restructed things such that the Overview section is redundant. The overview itself is (or should be) in the lede. I have also answered the question of lack of references which prevented this article from becing classed as a "B-class" article. Other than tidying up, I plan to add another section which will catalogue the most important cgs and SI units. Martinvl (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this article too high-brow?

I have now more or less finished overhauling this article. I believe that I have met most, if not all of the criteria for this to be rated as a "B-class" article, but I still need to go through it with a fine-tooth comb - all help and second opinions appreciated. On reading it, I believe that although it is encyclopeadic, it may be too high-brow for a large class of readers. To this end, I propose writing a parallel article "Metric System overview" which will be targeted at the non-specialist reader. My target audience will be the non-technical reader who has had minimal exposure to the metric system but who is otherwise an average Wikipedia user. To this end, I will mention in passing that electrical units are also part of SI, but I will not labour the point. However, the treatment of prefixes will be given much more prominence than in this article.

Does anybody had a better suggestion for a name - I thought about "Metric System for the layman", but felt that it might be too patronisong. Any suggestions? It is still a few weeks before I start the article as I still need to finish off "History of the Metric System" (Draft in progress at User:Martinvl/History of the Metric System). Martinvl (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a different course of action: go through the wording of this article and see if it can be expressed in simpler English. I think another article on broadly the same topic would be redundant.Michael Glass (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I recently assisted at a dayschool for would-be editors sponsored by the Institute of Physics. One of the topics that came up was the need for articles "Introduction to XXX", an example being the complementary pair Special Relativity and Introduction to special relativity. In light of this, I have written an article Introduction to the metric system. My target reader is a typical Wikipedia user who, for whatever reason, has studied very little science. Martinvl (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Base 10 or Base 100

By base 10 arithmetic (or decimal arithmetic), I mean arithmetic where there are 10 digits - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. This contrasts with base 16 (hexadecimal) arithmetic which is often used in computing and which uses 16 digits - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E and F or with binary (base 2) arithmetic which used 2 digits - 0 and 1 or actoal (base 8) arithmetic which uses 8 digits - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Martinvl (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-English info do not belong in "English-speaking countries" section

In the Metric system#Usage in English-speaking countries section, in the "Variations in spelling" subsection, it lists the translation of kilometre in Italian, German, Malay, French, Greek, Portuguese, and Bulgarian. What do these have to do with "English-speaking countries"? --71.141.123.108 (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This was added to show that the word "kilometre" can be specific to the country concerned, but that "km" is international and is a "symbol", not an "abbreviation". Martinvl (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a bug in Google Chrome or not, but the Russian word for kilometer (километр) is showing up as киломеmр. Screenshot here if you can't see a difference like me. http://i.imgur.com/EZmkLuu.jpg mcklucker (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Coherence

This section of the article currently reads as follows (delinked & dereffed).

The metric system is a coherent system - the various derived units are directly related to the base units without the need of intermediate conversion factors. For example, the units of force, energy and power are chosen so that the equations

force = mass × acceleration

energy = force × distance

energy = power × time

hold without the introduction of constant factors. Many relationships in physics, including Einstein's mass-energy equation, E = mc², do not require extraneous constants when expressed in coherent units.

In SI, which is a coherent system, the unit of power is the "watt" which is defined as "one joule per second". In the foot-pound-second system of measurement, which is non-coherent, the unit of power is the "horsepower" which is defined as "550 foot-pounds per second", the pound in this context being the pound-force.

Other defined units are derived in a similar way building up on the base units.

This is not correct.

• Foot-pound-second systems are coherent.
  • Gravitational fps systems they are based on the foot, the pound-force and the second. They use the foot-pound force per second not the horsepower as the unit of power.
  • Other fps systems are based on the foot, the pound-mass and the second. The unit of power in these is the pound square foot per cubic second (lb·ft²·s⁻³).
• The imperial and US systems are not coherent.
  • The BTU (1 BTU ≠ 1 lb·yd²·s⁻²), horsepower (1 hp ≠ 1 lb·yd²·s⁻³), the psi and the inHg (1 psi ≠ 1 lb·yd^–1·s⁻¹ ≠ 1 inHg), the gallons (1 imp gal ≠ 1 yd³ ≠ 1 US gal) don't match with the pound and yard.
• Some versions of the metric system are also incoherent.
  • The calorie, the metric horsepower, the are (0.01 ha), the litre, the mmHg don't fit in (not into any system in use).

When talking coherence we must refer to specific versions of the metric system. Coherence is a property of the specific version related to the base units chosen. The SI and the cgs system, for example, use different base units. Each are coherent unto themselves. Talk of cohenence between the two is meaningless. JIMp _talk·cont 10:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Revocation - 25 August 2011

I have undone the changes made by an annonymous editor who left the comment "Correction of a POV statement, as there is no consensus over the paternity of the metric system among the official international organisms(One source given is from the website of an Australian biologist and the other is a TV show from the BBC"

The paper written by the "Australian biologist" (the late Pat Naughton) is in fact a reproduction of a published work by one of the founder members of the Royal Society. Naughton's contributions were to publicise this paper. The BBC video was a report on Naughton's findings. If the annonymous editor can find a reputable source to sho that somebody else made contributions to the metric system before 1668, please amend this article. If you can't find any such references, don't go around accusing people of POV. Martinvl (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)