Talk:Metrication/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Proposed new layout

This article contains good information but is a little disorganised - For example, the sub-section on "Metric system concept" is under the "Anti-metric arguments and counter-arguments" section for some reason. I think we should rearrange using standard headings:

History
  • Discuss the medieval system where each country, and in many cases each town, had different units, set by city guilds. This interfered with inter-city trade and nations sought to standardise. England and Scotland standardised to the Imperial System in late 18th Century (I think).
  • Discuss briefly the SI system, what it covers and what it doesn't (Time), and its attempt at a single global system of measurement.
Adoption
  • Discuss adoption of SI in 19th Century Europe (Italy converted after unification), and its spread to the wider world through european empires. (French Empire, Spanish America, Africa, etc)
  • Japan (This must be an interesting story, when did Japan convert? What did they use before?)
  • Communist countries seem to have been major adopters in mid 20th Century (Soviet Union, 1924, China, ???)
  • Decolonisation of British Empire led to switch from Imperial to Metric - India (Year???), Austrailia(1970's), Canada (???), Ireland (1970-2005) etc.
  • We could have a neat little world map colour coding years of adoption.
Exceptions
  • Sections on the US, UK, etc.
  • Sections also on selected industries which still use non-metric, ie. Air and sea transport, and bolts in Australia.
Opposition
  • Some brief discussion of opposition movements - hopefully not just in the US and UK, but in other countries which eventually did go metric.

The article is weakened by its length. I propose that several sections be moved to their own articles, with the briefest of mentions and links remaining here. (eg: Metersticks, Related international standards, Anti-metric arguments and counter-arguments) I think there is a lot of good content here, and with a little editing we could get it up to Featured Article quality.

What do you think? I have started working on this new version here Seabhcán 09:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have uploaded the new layout version. The old version is here. Please place any angry comments on this page. Seabhcán 17:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
New layout is fine. However, replacing with a new page is not appropriate - the main reasons are so that we preserve the history (which is necessary for legal/licensing reasons), and so that we can use the Diff function to properly track changes. I'm therefore moving the old article back in and overwriting with the new version in the normal way. Enchanter 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Nice job on the new layout. Jimp 9Oct05
One comment/criticism: the Opposition section seems to repeat points made earlier under UK, US, etc. It seems there should either be individual country sections or a consolidated Opposition section, but not both. Ben Finn 20:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

UK dispute

I would like to inform Seabhcán that the UK IS officially a metric country, and that for 85% of official uses metric is used. Therefore, I have removed the UK from the list of countries that are not metric. You have complained and said that the UK is not a metric country, but if that is the case neither is Canada a metric country as the UK is ahead of Canada in the metrication process. The map also needs to be changed to reflect this. What you could put under the section on the UK is that most people in Britain use the imperial system for every day use but most young people don't use or understand the system. I'm 17 and I wouldn't know the difference between a foot and a yard. Most peolpe my age think the abbreviation "lb" is for a unit called "libs" not pounds.

I also live in the UK, and have previously lived in other countries which have completely metricated. The UK is not metricated. Some things are, such as petrol is sold in litres, others are completely unmetric, such as road signs. Most if not all products are sold in dual measurements. I haven't been to Canada, and if it is the same there then I would also describe that as non-metric. One difference is that Canada has officially declared it;s self metric and the UK hasn't. Also, the EU will shortly be taking the UK government to court to force them to complete metrication - something I doubt they would do if the country was metric. Seabhcán 10:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for the daily measurements as used by people (to refer to their heights, weights, etc.), but in all areas of commerce and roadway signage, Canada is "hard metric".Atlant 18:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Like Seabhcan and the user before him, I also live in the UK and would have to agree with the user before Seabhan, that the UK is officially metric. The official weights and measures of the UK are that of the metre, the kilogram and the litre. Metric is used for many things in Britain: Most of British industry and government use the metric system in their internal operations and in some of their public or official communications, schools teach mathematics and science exclusively in metric, many British sports (including rugby union, athletics and swimming) use metres and kilometres, roads and buildings are designed and constructed exclusively in metres, petrol is sold by the litre, travellers taking a car to the Continent or Ireland by ferry or through the Channel Tunnel have to give their vehicle dimensions in metres, ordnance Survey maps use metric scales and grid and give distances and heights in kilometres and metres respectively, all shops have to give prices per kilogram or litre, all British meteorological measurement, whether temperature, rainfall or visibility, use metric units, DIY and garden supplies are generally sold in metric quantities, medical records are kept using metric units, dosages of drugs are determined by body mass in kilograms and babies are weighed in grams, yet, much of British everyday life is untouched by metric and indeed in many cases people are forced to use imperial.
Distance signs and speed limits are exclusively in miles, yards and miles per hour, whilst feet and inches predominate in height and width restrictions, advertised petrol consumption is frequently given in miles per gallon, much of the non-specialist media give primarily imperial units (rarely with metric equivalents), estate agents give floorspace in square feet and room and garden dimensions in feet and inches, some market traders and some small shopkeepers display weights in pounds and ounces – sometimes (in defiance of the law) without their metric equivalent, Tesco advertise exclusively in imperial (although Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons advertise in Metric) even though goods must be priced and weighed in metric at the checkout, holiday brochures often give summer temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit even though 85% of the population use degrees celcius, descriptions of criminals wanted by the police are given by the media exclusively in imperial units, and despite working in metric units, medical professionals feel obliged to convert to imperial when communicating with patients.
So even though imperial measures are used for many everyday usage, Britain is officailly metric. This fact is clearly stated on the internet pages of the Department of Trade and Industry and other government department pages if you want evidence. So by saying the UK is an imperial country is simply untrue and is providing false information to the general public. The metrication page on Wikipedia should not continue to display the UK as an imperial country. 16:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The article lead says "Today only the UK, U.S., Liberia and Burma (Myanmar) have not fully metricated, although Liberia and Myanmar use it in practice and the UK is currently in the process of conversion."
This sentence does not contradict what you say, and neither does any part of this article. The UK has not fully metricated and is in the process of conversion. Seabhcán 08:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You can add Japan to that list of countries not fully metricated. Estate agents typically list room sizes in jou, and the recent census asked people to describe their home size in their choice of either square metres or tsubo. Rhialto 00:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Most countries which have officially adopted metric still use non-metric measurements for some purposes. Australia is a much more metric country than the UK, but even so Australians still use non-metric measurements for a few purposes. For example, many members of the younger generation of Australians will give their weight in kilograms yet their height in feet and inches. The issue I suppose is where to draw the line...
Also the sizes of Australian beer glasses are still based on Imperial fluid ounces (though rounded to the nearest 5 ml). Yes, Japan still uses tsubo for floor sizes but this really is a minor point. Besides this and the size of sake bottles Japan is metricated. Not fully metricated but pretty damn close. Jimp 2Nov05

Time

According to the article time has not been metricated. This is not true. Time has not successfully been decimalised. However the second is as much a part of SI & the metric system in general as is the metre. Jimp 9Oct05

I think you are technically correct, and if you want to change it I won't object. However, all the literature I've seen on this subject say it like "Time has not been metricated". I suppose that this is because it was part of the original system but was dropped. (The word "metricated" technically does not exclusively refer to the SI system anyway. It comes from the greek word "metron" which means "to measure". Older (pre 20th century) literature refer to what is now the SI system as the "Decimal metric" system) Seabhcán 12:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, while the second is part of SI, the minute, hour, day, etc are not. So you could say that the "second has been metricated" but not that "Time has been metricated". It's as if the inch was adoped, but common people kept using feet and yards. I suppose an SI watch would measure kilo-seconds and mega-seconds. Seabhcán 12:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
And we'll be quoting the average life span as about two gigaseconds. Jimp 11Oct05

What's this mean?

"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)
      • FYI iirc the original plan was to have 400 degrees in a circle, so that a right angle was 100 degrees, and this would mean that 1 degree was 100kms. This 1 degree of a 400 degree circle was a grad if I understand it. The surface distance from the equator to the poles is indeed 10,000kms, give or take a few meters, but the 360 degree system was in fact quite well engineered by the Babylonians and Greeks in the first place, so that has survived. the 360 degree system is not, however, imperial, unless you are talking about the Babylonian empire.

Non-European systems

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)

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)

Australian anomalies

Australia started going metric in 1966 with the conversion to decimal currency, and the full conversion to the metric system "was declared completed in 1977". Why is it that, even today, parents of new babies, most of of whom were born either after or during the conversion period and have little or no knowledge of the previous British system, almost always announce the baby's weight in lbs and oz rather than kg, and its length in feet and inches rather than cm? Is this practice unique to Australia? Cheers JackofOz 00:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed in Ireland that when people give an approximate measurement they use the old system ("Its about a mile", etc) but when precision is required they quote the value in metric. But its the same for money sometimes too (euro vs punt) Seabhcán 07:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The article states that there is little popular opposition to metrication. If that implies there was never any popular opposition, then it is simply wrong about Australia. Australians never wanted metrication, they had it foisted on them. (Australians are so supine you can do anything to them.) A funny side effect is that the journalistic hacks always convert stories from the US to metric so that a story that says "it happened about 200 miles ..." is always given as "it happened about 320 km ...", often giving hilarious contrasts between "about" and the exactitude of the metric measurement." Avalon 00:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Decimal currency is not metric currency. There is no such thing as metric currency. As an Aussie, I haven't noticed that much opposition to metrication nor much continued use of Imperial. Am I just too younge or have I not been paying enough attention? Jimp 2Nov05
That's really just a semantic difference. The metric system and decimal currency both utilise base 10, so they're very much in harmony. But anyway, what about my original question? Would you describe your baby's weight in pounds or in kilos? Most parents still use pounds and ounces to this very day, even though they don't profess any opposition to the metric system. This seems like a kind of resistance to me. JackofOz 09:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
That's really just a superficial similarity. The decimalisation of currency and the metrication of weights and measures have similar aims, but are really separate processes (except inasmuch as the currency pound and the pound weight are historically related). And I think that the description of babies in Imperial terms is simply another traditional usage, albeit one that's proven more resistant than most, for now. (If I had a baby, I'd think of his or her weight in kilograms, but likely describe it to my mother in pounds and ounces.) There are a few uses like this, but most are now entirely figurative ('miles away') or have been absorbed into the metric system ('weighs a ton', 'a hundred degrees'). -- Perey 14:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What about Korea?

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)

  • Pyung (평) is indeed confusing for me (Korean), but most measurements in Korea are metric. I doubt that they are using the same system as Japan however. If you can read Korean (which I think you do according to your user page), this encyclopedia suggests that it's origin is unknown... And also, Korea does not officially use the unit as they banned the use on official documents since January 1, 1983 (link). Anyways... -- WB 00:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Heights and weight

I think it might be notable to say that most Canadians still use feets/inches and pounds/ounce to state their heights and weights (and are not aware of the metric equivalents), but any suggestions on how I should incorportate this in? -- WB 00:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not quite true, at least in Eastern Canada. People above the age of about forty still use feet and pounds for personal measurements, but the vast majority of people under 40 (metrication in the schools started around 1970) were not taught the Imperial system, so they don't use it.Metrication is somewhat age-dependant in this country, still. Ramdrake 18:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In my experience that's true for Australia too. The police insist on saying wanted people are, for instance, "1.82m high" and most people say "How tall's that?" If you sau 5' 9" they know what you mean. Avalon 00:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Yet, Australians will predominantly use kilograms for weight (or at least the younger ones)... A lot of people give heights in feet & inches and yet have no clue how much a stone or a pound is...
I'm an Aussie. If you told me 5'9", I'd be asking "How tall's that?" ... or at least be doing the conversion in my head. I think in metric but I don't claim to speak for the whole country. It would be interesting whether most people really do use feet & inches. Jimp 2Nov05

In New Zealand (speaking as a New Zealander) I seem to see a fairly even split. Most people still refer to height in feet and inches, I myself refer to my height as 5' 10" however I can also refer to it in centimetres. However weight is always by kilo's. I Personally believe that because we take so many cues from the USA, reference to height in feet is still fairly commonplace (I'm 31 incidentally, so was raised in a fully metric nation).

Number of non-metric countries

"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)

No, you're not the only one. ;-) --hydnjo talk 13:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

ITU & the Internet

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)

Roman months

The so-called "Roman decimal month system" actually consisted of simply not having the calendar cover a sixth of the year during the dead of winter, when nothing of interest happened in the yearly agricultural cycle (keeping track of which was the main function of the calendar), so that it apparently wasn't even considered worthwhile to divide that period of the year into months. Not sure that this should be dignified by the description "decimal month system" AnonMoos 01:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Jimp 2Nov05

The US and metric

Shouldn't it be noted that one of the major impediments to metrication in the US is the fact that land titles are done in acres? Seems important. --Penta 02:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No. We generally only record evidence of title in the United States. No change needs to be made to existing deeds, and "acres" are always the least important information in the description on those deeds in any case, often "more or less" in legalese.
In fact, especially in most of the western United States, the normal descriptions in deeds are government sections, quarter sections, quarter-quarter sections and the like, and all across the country in towns block and lot description. They aren't usually done in metes and bounds.
Generally, there are at least 11 sections in every survey township which contain more or less than 640 acres.
The boundaries wouldn't be redrawn; the country wouldn't be resurveyed in one-kilometer blocks.
Parts of the U.S. have already made similar changes from arpents or varas. Gene Nygaard 04:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

U.S. has been officially metric for some time, no?

The article states that the US has not adopted the metric system. I seem to recall that it officially did so sometime in the late 1800s -- there was a spate of standardizations then (time, screw threads, ...).

And certainly the entire Defense Department is metric (all the military and all the DoD purchasing)... Big chunks of other industries are metric as well.

I'd characterize this as an example of legislative fiat more or less entirely ignored the those to who the fiat was intended to apply.

Does anyone have more than my not so distinct memory of this? ww 06:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If it is "officially" Metric (and I see no proof that it is), it hardly matters. Metric units are rarely used in everyday life, so "official" status is almost irrelevant. Moncrief 06:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
In the 1970s it was officially declared by Congress in a law that metric was the preferred measurement system of the US, and that the US should convert to the metric system. However, it hasn't made a huge amount of difference, because the US politicians may have talked the talk of metric but they didn't walk the walk -- an official declaration that metric is preferred in the absence of a concerted effort to make people use it is in the end just words on paper.
However, in any case, even before that the metric system was adopted as the official legal measurement system -- only the metric units really exist anymore, the non-metric units no longer have an independent existence but were redefined to be merely odd-sized factors of the metric units. e.g. an inch used to have an independent existence from the metre, with separate official standard, but was then redefined to be nothing more than a certain fraction of a metre. Thus, since nowadays physical definitions are only maintained for the SI units, and the non-metric units are just defined in terms of SI, technically they no longer independently exist. -- Mr. X
I think we can consider the United States "officially" metric, whether some believe it to be so or not. The U.S. automotive industry began to move to the metric system in the 1970s, and by 1985 had essentially completed the process. Except for some tubing and pipe fittings, one can hardly find any non-metric hardware on American vehicles today, and the engineers execute the designs in hard metric units on their CAD systems. Roughly 60% of all jobs in the U.S. are in some way related to the automotive industry, so by "majority rule", the U.S. has de-facto adoption of the metric system. I recently worked for Quantum Corporation, a disk drive company in Silicon Valley. All our design drawings were in metric dimensions. I think Moncrief is mistaken. Sure, highway signs, fuel pumps and kitchen measures still use the old Imperial units, giving comfort to those who refuse to accept the metric system, but behind the scenes the United States is 80%+ metric. Due to our engagement in the global economy, the conversion to metric is continuing at a steady pace. When the old generation finally passes away, the change will be completed.  Quicksilver 19:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Your last sentence is patently absurd. Young people in the U.S. use Imperial units as often as their parents and grandparents do - i.e., always. Are you implying that American teenagers are comfortable with and accustomed to measuring units in meters and kilograms? Certainly metric is used in many industries and among companies that engage in trade, but to suggest that "the change will be complete" when the older generation "finally" (lovely) passes away, as if this were Canada or the U.K., is an argument without proof. Moncrief 05:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I am 14 years old, and would give up the Imperial units in a heartbeat, as would many of my friends. Metric just makes sense. :)

the term

any idea who coined the terms metri(fi)cation, when they were first used, etc.? Also the logos, "US/UK/Australian metrication", whose logos are they, exactly? how can 'metrication' have logos, they must be designed and owned by someone, I suppose? Baad 08:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who coined that term, but the logos for metrication were used by the respective countries' Metrication Boards in their campaigns, I believe.

Metrication or metricification

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)

Metrication is vastly more common in the UK: 21,300 Google hits [1] as opposed to barely 700 for metrification [2]. 86.132.137.240 22:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
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) - I'm in good comapany with this error - [3] - here the Observer have written an articile using the word metrification including a reference to the 'Metrification Board' - but have provided a header correcting the article in with the word is described as an "erroneous term" Jooler 20:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

US

The US did make the switch official in 1975 but it doesn't seem to have caught on.

And, your point is?
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/t/Talk%7EMetrication_Archive_2_e940.html"