Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Unsupported addtions to the list of legal exemptions

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

Oops - I did not notice that the list was legal exemtions - the fact is that the UK military still uses fractions of an inch to measure amunition caliber - where should that fact go? Thanks! Trollderella 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure where it should go. There is a lot of colloquial and legacy stuff around. Some people misunderstand that metrication can mean merely changing a label on existing non-metric products or it could mean new designs being fully hard metric. Perhaps there already is a section on that. If not, perhaps there should be. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 18:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Trollderella. You added the text The UK military continues to use fractions of an inch to measure amunition caliber.. I searched the British Army website (http://www.army.mod.uk/) and it looked to me like they use mm by default. I could only find one instance of fractions of an inch. That was for a heavy machine gun with calibre described as .5 inch or described as 12.7 mm.

Which weapons were you referring to? Bobblewik 22:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you are right - they are describing .5 inch as 12.7mm, I am speaking primarily of spoken usage, which may lag, for example, the 50cal you talk about is imperial, but they are now 'officially' 12.7mm, while 51mm mortars are nominally 51.25mm, they are reffered to as 2inch mortars (which, indeed, they are). The same is true of 81mm mortars, and what is called on their web page a 7.62mm general purpose machine gun is clearly a .3cal, while the .2cal machine gun is now a 5.56mm. Trollderella 18:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In common usage among soldiers I have never heard of a "2inch" morter, all calibres are quoted in mm. Perhaps its different amongst the older guys though..but i've never come across it. Bensonby 16:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Pint

The article states:

Draught beer and cider are the only goods that may not be sold in metric units in the United Kingdom; the only legal measures for these drinks when sold on draught are 1/4 pint (190 ml) (rarely encountered), ½ pint (284 ml) and multiples of the latter.

1/4 pint is 142 ml; 190 ml is nearly equal to 1/3 pint. What is it in fact, 1/4 or 1/3 ?? LHOON 13:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1/3rd (a noggin)

comment

From the perspective of the European continent, the UK and its old-fashioned system of measurement from the time of the ancien régime appears now like a funny exotic village of Asterix inside the European Union. The recent statements of Mr Verheugen on that matter are simply amazing and show the complaisance for ultra-nationalistic British lobbies in Brussels. But here only a small questions to the Britons who read this page: is metrication better accepted in parts of the country like Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (the Republic of Ireland has indeed got totally rid of the "Imperial" (!) system)? --Hubertgui 10:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think most people only care about the pint, and only because beer/cider is traditionally sold in pints. The media is responsible for most of the anti-metric sentiment, presenting it as a loss of tradition and an imposition from the EU. Most young (<30) can use the SI system, and wouldn't have any difficulty following a recipe given in metric (though imperial measurements are usually given afterwards in British books). I don't think Scotland/Wales are any different, but I don't know for sure.

This page only provides aruments for metrification in the UK, it devotes insufficient space to the arguments against. They are a sentence or two at most

Please feel free to add them, although please be careful to cite sources when you do, especially as this could be a controversial issue! The POV tag is generally added only if there is substantial disagreement between people who can't agree - you might want to consider taking it down when you've made a change, since I don't think there is any conflict at this stage. Trollderella 02:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any arguments for metrication, only a description of the status quo. If nobody can say what's wrong with the article then I'm going to remove the tag, as it's not helping. --Heron 10:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I must add (totally my POV) that some of the "arguments against" are downright hilarious. A kilo too heavy for a housewife to carry? Did new mothers in the 1960s require pulleys and levers or some other mechanism to lift their newborns? 222.155.212.98 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup

This article needs a serious looking at, the information is duplicated throughout and some bits seem a little bit biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CR7 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 July 2007‎ (UTC)

Telegraph

The Telegraph still appears to be fairly anti-metric: there was a recent article quoting a weight as 2.2lbs - a figure which is uncannily close to 1kg. Perhaps a rough conversion by an anti-SI journalist?

82.21.250.171 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MetricbritainLogo.gif

Image:MetricbritainLogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"glass" in Ireland

A comparison with Ireland, where metrication is complete, indicates that this is not true. Beer is still sold by the pint, but this is officially described as a 'glass of beer'.

A "glass" in Ireland is a half-pint, not a pint. - Francis Tyers · 13:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Metrication a condition of accession? Unlikely!

I've marked this as dubious, because later events seem to contradict it. If its true, then why was there any need for the Council to issue a Units of Measure Directive? It's timing suggests that it was to achieve a common system of weights and measures to further the aims of the European Single Market. Does anyone have a citation that confirms or denies either position? --Red King (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section to put it into context. -- MLV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.23.173 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The decision to convert to metric was announced to the UK Parliament on 24 May 1965 (Hansard Cols 32-33), eight years before the UK's accession to the EEC. As the accession negotiations were not conducted until 1970-71, the decision in 1965 could not have been influenced by any terms of accession.

Moreover, the 1972 White Paper includes the following passage at paragraphs 30 and 31:

"30. In October 1971 the Council ratified a directive on units of measurement (4). This provides for the exclusive use by 1 January 1978, of a prescribed system of metric units of measurement over a wide area, including the economic field, the field of public health and safety, and administrative activities. This is firmly based on the International System, though it also includes certain additions and other special arrangements, some temporary and some permanent.

31. This directive would apply to the United Kingdom as a member of the EEC. But we have reached agreement with the Community on adaptations to take account of our use of imperial units. It has been agreed that a list of imperial units used (5) in our legislation shall be added to the directive and that decisions should be taken by agreement before 31 August 1976 into which chapters of the Annex to the directive these imperial units should go. Those on which no decision is taken by then will automatically remain authorised for use until 31 December 1979. The Community have also agreed that it will be possible to extend the period of use where special considerations justify it."

Subsequently, Directive 80/181/EEC included extensive derogations permitting the UK and Ireland to retain imperial units for as long as they wished, and in 2008 these derogations have become permanent.

From this it is clear that the EEC has always been and remains willing to accommodate any requests to retain imperial units for particular purposes. Except where measurement units affect cross-border trade, there never has been any pressure from the EEC or EU for the UK or Ireland to adopt metric units.

The fourth sentence of this article is therefore inaccurate and should be deleted. The same applies to the first sentence of the section headed "UK metrication and the European Union.Pqr456 (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Statistics with no source

The following was added in a series of edits 5 April 2009:

Great efforts are made to abolish the imperial system completely. One is in schools. Children are only taught in metric systems, and never in imperial. In year 6, children start to learn the metric-imperial conversion, as they do in secondary school. But even in secondary school, text book references are in metric. But there's only one problem. Many parents use imperial measures with their children, so what happens is that the children use imperial to measure the height of people, which they discuss with their parents, but metric to measure other things. The same happens with weight, but isn't as common, as most children still use kilograms to measure the weight of people. But in capacity and temperature, metric is always used. The only thing that can be done about this is to encourage parents to only use metric measurements with their children. In all total measurements, around 70% of children use length entirely in metric except for long distances, in which case 70% of children would use miles. 80% use weight entirely. 95% use capacity and temperature entirely.

These statistics should not be in the article unless a reliable source for them can be provided. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have re-instated a small portion of the above with a reference to the National Curriculum in which at least one inaccuracy is corrected. -- MLV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.23.173 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Accepted units

Is it true that the UK does not accept the use of convenient units like hecto(gramme)s, decilitres and decimetres? If so I think it should be stated in the article.--Pieter Kuipers (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not true in the sense they are illegal, but they are very rarely used. It is more a question that in scientific engineering sytems, e.g. for SI or whatever, these units are not used; and, I imagine, since these were the first areas largely to adpot metric systems, it probably caught on from there. SimonTrew (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. As someone who grew up with these units, I think they are indispensable, and I can almost sympathize with the anti-metric position if they aren't around. If you don't calculate in hectos, I'd prefer pounds to 100s of grammes, and if you don't calculate in decimetres, inches seem better than 10s of centimetres.--Pieter Kuipers (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hectares (ha) are certainly used in the United Kingdom. In addition, a number of items (eg special cheeses) are priced per 100 g. Martinvl (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. A kilogramme is very roughly 2 pounds (and in fact in many European countries a pound has been legally defined as exactl 500 g for about a century), so there isn't a big difference. If anything, the hectogramme would compete with the ounce, but since the metric system has so simple conversion factors you can just as well work with grammes, as most European countries do. (Actually, in Austria they use dekagrammes.) As to decimetres/inches, why not simply use centimetres like everybody else in Europe? The centimetre is closer to the inch than the decimetre, and it's printed on all the yardsticks sold in the UK nowadays. Hans Adler 11:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, priced per 100 g. But not per hectogram. Hectare is a bit of an oddity as an are is 100 square metres so hectare is 10,000 square metres; but nobody uses are: probably, again, because it is within reasonable bounds of converting from an acre (though personally I have really no idea how big a hectare is, except by converting it to acres). It may also be to do with the fact that "are" may be seen as a mistype for "acre" or for the second person of the verb "to be".

I don't think it is "anti-metric" as such, just we don't use those units. User:Hans Adler is probably the best to give his opinion here because he as come from using metric to using British measure (I use the word British advisedly, i.e. the odd mix of the two). SimonTrew (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Road Signs

I'm not sure that the use of "110 yds" in a road sign is necessarily a measurement of a metric distance - it also happens to be exactly one-sixteenth of a mile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDaveHPP (talk • contribs) 17:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think on Road signs in the United Kingdom it says they are actually at 100 metre intervals, so it is kinda a back conversion. SimonTrew (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning sign intervals are specified and measured in metres in the regulations but the signs themselves have to display distances in converted yards, according to the DfT's transport manual (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/trafficsignsmanualchapter4.pdf (p. 10)) Wcp07 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Weather Reporting

I deleted "Most newspaper weather forecasts provide fahrenheit equivalents in brackets for all temperatures" from the original article. Before doing the deletion, I checked the paper version of my daily newspaper (The Times). In its weather forecasts, The Times has an all-celsius map with a celsius-fahrenheit conversion table. In yesterday's copy (2009-08-29) the expected temperatures at the various pop festivals was given in celsius only. The online version of the Daily Telegraph was celsius-only with no fahrenheit option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 07:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC) (Amended) Martinvl (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Space (nbsp) before a unit abbreviation - clarification

I'm not quite sure why all unit abbreviations must be preceded by an 'nbsp' space - e.g. '454 g' instead of '454g'? Is this a Wikipedia convention, and if so, surely it only applies to metric units, not Imperial/customary ones (which are, after all, a lot less standardised than the units of the metric system - particularly when it comes to writing abbreviations)?

Also, does 'imperial' (as in, 'the imperial system') really have to be spelt with a capital 'I', or are both spellings acceptable? After all, metric is not spelt as 'Metric'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eljay* (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The spacing is defined at Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Unit_symbols. No exception is made for nonmetric units.

MOSNUM uses "imperial" in the lower case throughout, but does not define that it must be used that way. So, I imagine, we should follow that by implication and say "imperial" except, of course, at the starts of sentences.

Hope that helps. SimonTrew (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The space between the value and the units is specified in the definitve SI brochure which is published by the BIPM. Martinvl (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

...which of course MOSNUM follows where not ridiculous for a general-purpose encyclopaedia. But that is necessarily quiet about units in other systems of measure, which was part of the question. MOSNUM makes a blanket statement that it should be used for all symbols.

Fully written units need not have non-breaking spaces since the reader is unlikely to be mislead by a unit symbol dangling on the next line. SimonTrew (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Speedometers

Is there a law mandating compulsory dual speedometers (ones that measure both mph and km/h) in British cars? If so, that would address a major argument against completing metrification - that converting the UK's road signs would be dangerous for drivers whose cars only display mph. Wcp07 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes - It is an EU requirement that all speedometers must be able to display km/h - this has been the case since avout 1980. On some cars, such as mine, the units can be switched, but the vehivle must be stationary to enable the driver to do that. Finally, I do not believe it to be dangerous to convert to km/h when some cars display only mph - South Africa did it in the 1970's (I was living there at the time, so I speak from experience), so did Australia. Martinvl (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Australia did change all the road signs at a time when most cars displayed only mph. We had little stickers to put on our speedometers, but we learnt the conversions needed. One of the educational videos can be seen on Youtube at [1].Michael Glass (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm from my experience that conversions (the other way round) aren't a big problem. But of course if people interpret a 50 km/h (30 mph) sign as 50 mph then that's more dangerous than the opposite mistake. And these things do happen. (The other day I crossed a street in Vienna in order to cycle on the left-hand side of the road. I had to cross it again.) Hans Adler 09:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Frequently, for the first couple of days when abroad, I tend to look the wrong way when crossing the street, and I know my contintental friends do the same when in England. At least we tend to put "LOOK LEFT" and "LOOK RIGHT" on the pavement or on signs, how thoughtful of us! (And according to an essay "Traffic" by Ian Parker in Granta 65 "London", they are the worst ones to paint.) Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tesco milk

I don't often shop at Tesco so perhaps I am mistaken, but noticed that their plastic bottles of milk very prominently display a "1", "2", "4" or "6" indicating the quantity in pints. I haven't one to hand, but I think this is more prominent than the metric measure. I presume they can do this because it does not say "1 pint" for example but just "1".

Under the EU Units of Measure Directive, Milk in returnable containers, draught beer and cider may be dispensed by the pint.Martinvl (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to check this online, but to buy groceries online one must have a clubcard (or sign up for one), which I refuse to do (or any other supermarket loyalty card.) So, perhaps someone else can confirm or deny this. I just mention it in passing. Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, MartinV1 is right. The one I bought earlier today has a big 2 on the front and on the side has "2 pints/1.136 litres". (It's interesting that small shops sell in 0.5l and 1l containers, perhaps to hide how much more they are charging than the big supermarkets. --Red King (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

MartinV1 is right, but I don't see the relevance here. These containers are not returnable in a common sense of the word, which I would take to mean that they are reused (at least some of the time), not just recycled. Anyway, my point was not that they were sold in pints, but that the numbers were more prominent than the metric measures — though I think they do not have the unit of measure (which seems to be confirmed by what you say), which may be how they remain legal because although it may be obvious to you or me that it means 1 pint, 2 pints etc it just says 1 or 2. As I say, I cannot check this readily (Tesco is a very long walk from here), but I imagine other editors could. I don't mind being wrong, I just thought it was vaguely interesting if there is a loophole that providing one puts just the number and not the unit of measure, its prominence does not apply.

I guess it would also mean, they could call a 750 ml measure "1" and a 500 ml measure "2" and a 1000 l measure "3" and so on, i.e. they could claim that the numbers purely indicate a particular size and is only coincidentally related to any existing units of measures, and they could change the design of the label in any way at any time providing it meets the statutory requirements. Si Trew (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Undiscovered Scotland

I notice that an editor removed the link to the weights and measures article of Undiscovered Scotland [2] as a promo link. Perhaps that editor could explain in more detail what he found objectionable about the link. How is it more a promo link than links to the British Weights and Measures Society or the UK Metric Association? Michael Glass (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the primary purpose of that website is obviously to promote Scotland, but that particular page of the site is almost exclusively about weights and measures. As a person of Scottish ancestry now living on the opposite side of the globe, I found it very educational, and having read it, I am now no more or less likely to visit Scotland. I'd be happy with that link. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The page looks excellent to me on first sight. I was prepared to see the frequently mentioned dubious claim that there was a "Scottish inch" which was slightly more than an English one. (As Connor showed, this is very likely a misconception that arose a long time after the genuine Scottish units fell out of use.) I was delighted to see that they don't even mention it. Very sensible; it looks as if this was solidly researched.

I am in favour of restoring the link, for the description of the current state of metrication in the UK. Hans Adler 11:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This text is now a reference rather than an external link. Martinvl (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there enough on the widespread usage of Imperial in the article?

With the use of the Imperial unit being widespread in the UK; body height (measured in feet, inches).. body weight (measured in pounds, stone).. road sign distance (measured in yards, miles).. car speed (mph)... beer/milk (measured in pints).. petrol (gallon).. etc etc. Its a misnomer that the UK‎ has "officially adopted the metric system"..because Imperial is used throughout (for example its illegal to have road signs in metric). The only thing the UK has agreed to (to appease Europe) is to allow metric appear ALONGSIDE imperial measurements in SOME cases... but everyone uses imperial anyway. Does the article show enough of the general usage of Imperial???StiffyAdams 19:14 Feb 15, 2010 (UTC)

Reinstatement of 16 February 2010

I have reinstated a large amount of material that was removed. Although the section on "Legal situation" had no references, a simple "References required" would have sufficed. The section on road signs was properly referenced. The section about which shops sold what was unreference, but was retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the information was by accident. Basicly I added some more information as the section on cream was incorrect, this edit was reverted by someone claiming it was unreferenced. However the original was not referenced either and was incorrect, hence I changed it back and in the process I deleted the other sections by accident. I apologies for the deletion and shall edit to include the information I added whilst retaining the other information. DanielR235 11:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Specification of railways.

The current text reads "most of Britain’s rail network is still specified in miles and chains and speeds in mile per hour.". I seriously doubt this. I don't believe that Railtrack or Network Rail have ever written a specification for track or bridges in miles and chains. To do so would be completely out of step with civil engineering standards and practice for the past 20 years or more. Likewise, trains are always specified in kph but translated by the PR people to mph when brought into use – see Pendolino for example. Citation needed! --Red King (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I travel to London by train every day. The bus stop at my station is 36 miles 44 chains from London - there is a sign to this effect of which I made a mental note this evening. The speedomoeters on the mainline trains that I use display mph - I have checked. However, the speedometer and distance markers on the underground train that I use are in metric units. Again I have checked. Martinvl (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this is how they are still reported. But it is not how they are 'specified'. This is equivalent to saying that distances on the UK roads are specified in miles, when they clearly are not. Yes, the road signs for public use are in miles but the road signs for technical use are in km and the road projects are specified in metres. Likewise, all modern European and Japanese cars are specified in metric, but have an MPH speedo for UK customers. You would need to produce an engineering specification to convince me otherwise. Meanwhile, I'll change 'specified' to 'given'. --Red King (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have access to the designs but I am quite happy for you to reword tings to imply that there is a Very British Mess here. I am reluctant to do so myself because I made a few small contributions to that publication. Martinvl (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture in lede

I decided to move picture of the Eurostar into the lede as I beleived that it caption summarised the metrication dilemma in the UK. Martinvl (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Information about Royal Usage

I note that information about Royal usage of the metric system and the Imperial measures was removed from the article. I would like to make the following points:

• The Royal family is of some importance in British life.
• The information is fully documented.
• The information is about both metric and non-metric use by the monarchy.
• The information has now been augmented with further information about metric and non-metric usage on the Royal Estate at Sandringham and Prince Charles's Rainforest Project, plus appropriate links.
• The presentation of the information is concise and non-judgmental.
• If there is any problem with the wording, the documentation or the subject matter, please take it to the talk page. Michael Glass (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk wrote in the edit summary that this article shouldn't be a list of all UK sources that use metrics. Perhaps not every local council, although I'm not sure even that wouldn't be useful. It is of great interest to our readers to know exactly what the state of play is. Here, even summary style should probably encompass the details likely sought by visitors to the page. Tony (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While Phainuk might be right in saying that this article should not be a list of all UK sources that do or do not use metric units, maybe he should look at the section Current Useage. That section reeks of original research. If he is concerned about the quality of the article, he should tidy that section up before ermoving a section that is at least properly referenced. Martinvl (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well let's start with the basics. You assert that the information is properly referenced. In fact what it says is not backed up by its sources, so no, it is not properly referenced. The section claims to reflect royal usage. The sources do not back that up. Instead, they demonstrate usage on websites connected to the royals, which is not the same thing at all. Any further claim - as implied by the title - is pure speculation. It claims that "Prince Charles's Rainforests Project uses metric measures." While this is eminently plausible, it is not referenced. The sources demonstrate nothing more than that four webpages connected to the Rainforest Project use metric units. Anything more is pure speculation on the part of the author.

But even if it were well referenced, that is not, in and of itself, enough to justify inclusion. If I tried to put a sentence on this article saying "Swiss cheese has holes in it" or "The Great Pyramid is in Egypt", it would not belong in this article regardless of how good the referencing was. It wouldn't be relevant.

In this case, you argue that it should be included because "Royal family is of some importance in British life". It would be possible to turn this entire article into a list of every institution, person or place that meets that standard. Trouble is, there wouldn't be room for much else and all told it wouldn't tell the reader very much about metrication in the UK at all. Just as this section tells the reader very little about metrication in the UK. All it is is irrelevant and badly referenced waffle.

Finally, Martin. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm talking about this section now. If the rest of the article needs work (and it does) then it needs work, but this section also needs work. Pfainuk talk 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I welcome Pfainuk's edits to the wording of the article and the fact that he has improved the wording instead of deleting it. Michael Glass (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC). Wording tweaked. A check of the Prince's website showed that it consistently uses metric measures. I have changed the wording to reflect this fact. Please double check if in doubt. Michael Glass (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that I approve of its being here. The section is and remains completely pointless, serving no benefit to the encyclopædia whatsoever and should be deleted. Pfainuk talk 06:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as being any more or less pointless than a lot of the other examples the article is cluttered with. Maybe we need to look at all of them and choose a representative "handful". HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have merged the section on the British monarchy into its parent section. I have removed most of the references as I believe them to be excessive and at risk of WP:OR, I have added a little analysis as to which websites adopt which model in respect of units of measure. I trust that this change makes use of User:MichaelGlass’s research and addresses the comments made by both User:HiLo48 and User:Phainuk Martinvl (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Eurostar Image

Does the image of the Eurostar with the caption "Eurostar - Speed 300 km/h or 186 mph?" actually add anything at all to the article? I can't see any reason for the image to be there. A picture of a ruler with metric and imperial on it would be far more suitable. Beaver225 (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the aim here is to show that the km/h is a nice round figure (even though it's not the maximum speed of which the train is capable) wheras the mph is not. That being said, I would have thought that a picture of a truck "limited to 56mph" (i.e. 100km/h) might make the point better. Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Eurostar image at the top of the article with its current caption is confusing. There is nothing in the image that shows measurement except a small yellow sign (much too tiny to be read at thumbnail) which says "81 km". It would be better to have no lede image than this. Jonathunder (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - I thought that the caption was self-evident, but apparently it was not. I have updated it to get the point across that I was originally trying to make. Martinvl (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Current usage

This section is strong on claims but weak on citations. Perhaps a UK national would be in the best position to remedy this situation. Michael Glass (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a ref to the Weights and Measures act 1985, as a start. Si Trew (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Revocation dated 6 November 2010

The EU directive on units of measure (Directive 80/181/EEC) permits either metric or imperial units on Britain's road. British statute permits the Secretary of State to make orders regarding road signs. The current set of orders (TSRGD 2002) lists signs that are permitted, but has the over-riding clause that the Secretary of State can make any exceptions that he sees fit - after all the Secretary of State published the TSRGD in the first place. In the case of Driver location signs, he has seen fit to do so. The signs are therefore 100% legal. Martinvl (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

1970 debate

Does the section on the "farce" of a debate on the metric system, complete with some very outlandish (cherry-picked?) quotations, really meet our NPOV guidelines? Surely there must have been some more rational objections raised to metrication. Right now this section frames the issue as though anyone opposed must be daft or acting in bad faith. 71.205.185.26 (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)