Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The shift to metric in Welsh schools

Martin: I notice that you've mentioned Scotland's and England's schools in your in-progress draft. I was part of the first intake-year of my comprehensive school who were taught exclusively in S.I. units. I joined that school in September 1970 and did my O-levels in summer 1975. The Welsh Joint Education Committee were responsible for the exam syllabus at my school (and most others in Wales). I recall the headmaster telling my parents that the Nuffield Foundation had been involved somewhere in the setup work that must have preceded the changes that I benefited from in 1970. The lathes in metalwork, the textbooks of all subjects - it all had to be changed for S.I. I remember that past papers for Physics O-level were partially useless as revision material because some questions were set in C.G.S, and some even in imperial.

The only subject that couldn't be fully done in S.I. was geography, and that was because the Ordnance Survey didn't have 1:50000 maps (or 1:25000 maps) for our area until 1975 or so (it was the back of beyond!). I can still remember that the scale of a one-inch-to-the-mile map is 1:63360! Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the info. I think that given the status of Wales at the time, I should write "England and Wales" (unless you have references otherwise). Was the Welsh Joint Education Committee akin to the Oxford Committee (mentioned in teh text). Martinvl (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Legally, Wales was not at that time treated any different from England, but the WJEC was (and I think still is) run from Cardiff and only had responsibility for the exam contents and standards of Welsh schools. The Oxford Committee was/is the same sort of thing but with governance over schools in - errr - the Home Counties? I've always had the impression that Wales had been singled out for an early test-run of metrication in schools (as in, had there been a glitch it would have affected fewer people). As it was, Welsh kids attending secondary school from 1970 onwards got taught 100% in S.I units (except map-reading in geography!), whereas I'm under the impression that for England, some regions didn't start until the intake of 1974. Citations would be needed of course. Steve Hosgood (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What is more important than catloguing the progress of each part of the UK is that the representation of the teaching profession on the Metricaion Board was minimal (I have a ref for that)! Also, that costs were borne where they fell, so that sectors for whom it was beneficial to metricate did so and those for whom it was not beneficial were reluctant to do so (espl. the retail sector). Martinvl (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

True - it's overlong as it is! Cataloguing would make it worse. But when you mention costs, that's something I mentioned above concerniong the Nuffield Foundation. Looks like they funded some or all of the S.I switch in the schools. Certainly in my school, probably Wales-wide, maybe UK-wide? Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Before this gets out of hand...

The edit warring on this article needs to stop. It isn't going to resolve the issue. If it continues, the article will probably get full protected. Looking over the history, it looks like the dispute is once again about the strawberries. Since that discussion, it appears that this source by BBC has been published, which may be relevant to this article. However, I still can't find any sources establishing the current status of ASDA's trial. And there really isn't much information on the ASDA trial. It was just a few news sources stating that a grocery store chain was attempting a trial with imperial units. Overall, it really didn't have a lasting effect on the subject. It might be worth considering the possibility of removing ASDA paragraph altogether. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a term for winning an argument by outlasting all those who disagree? I would agree with removing the Asda material. DeFacto won't. I moved away from editing this article precisely because of the unacceptable behaviour of that editor AND the fact that Wikipedia seems to have no processes to stop someone who has more time on his hands than anyone else winning a fight by wearing everyone else into the ground. It does not lead to good encyclopaedic content. It does not lead to consensual discussion. I think I'll walk away again. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alpha_Quadrant. With respect to the Asda/strawberry content, you know how difficult the discussion was, and how long it took us to arrive at a concise and RS wording to cover that information. Since then, another user (User:Jillipede) has appeared on the scene and attempted to insert something, similar to the OR/SYTH that we had managed to get eliminated, back into that paragraph. A curious aspect of 'Jillipede' is that the account has only been used three times (here, here and here). All 3 edits were to Asda related content, the first time was just 2 minutes after the account was created, and the other 2 were yesterday to insert this content about Asda strawberries. I reverted the 2 attempts to put the OR/SYNTH content into this article, fully reasoned in my edit summaries, (here and here). But shortly after my 2nd revert, User:Charlesdrakew reverted me, thus restoring the anti-consensus and OR/SYNTH, un-reliably-supported, POVy-worded content, and with the bizarre, inexplicable and infammatory edit summary: "Rv more POV-pushing by DeFacto"! Then User:Tom Morris came along and protected the article, so the bad content is locked in for the moment. -- de Facto (talk). 09:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The ASDA trial was extensively discussed atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers recently with a clear consensus that it is worthless as evidence of anything. We have no information on sample size, raw data, participation rates or methodology or even that this was anything more than a cheap publicity stunt without any meaningful survey ever being done. I would not know exactly where to find that discussion among the walls of text created by DeFacto's ad nauseum circular arguments which consist of repeated assertions withouy any reliable sources to back them. I agree with HiLo48 about the wearing down of opposition instead of gaining consensus. To me this behaviour is against the whole ethos of Wikipedia.--Charles (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Charlesdrakew, I notice that rather than explaining why you reverted my removal of the OR/SYNTH content, you chose to personalise the discussion yet again. Do you have nothing worthwhile to add regarding that content, and why you chose to restore it then? -- de Facto (talk). 10:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion needs to stay on topic. Bringing up past disputes isn't going to resolve the current issue. Accusing other editors of point of view pushing won't help this discussion either. I agree that User:Jillipede is clearly not a new users. In particular, this edit used the term "rv" instead of "reverted", suggesting they have a fair understanding of Wikipedia jargon. There is really no point in trying to figure out who the account belongs to. Yesterday I asked Tom Morris in IRC to full protect the article, given that the edit warring wasn't resolving the issue.

I understand that we had a very long discussion back in October to establish the current wording. However, we don't know the current status of the trial because there hasn't been any additional coverage in reliable third party sources. Given the fact that the trial received such limited coverage in the first place, would it be possible to agree on it's complete removal? Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The event is part of the bizarre UK unit of measure saga. It would be a shame to lose that part of the picture. The BBC found it notable enough to mention it in their recent piece that you mention above. Although we do have reliable sources supporting the fact that it started, we certainly don't know of a reliable source describing what became of it. So we certainly shouldn't keep the OR/SYTH addition by User:Jillipede/User:Charlesdrakew currently locked into the article - the addition that is based on speculation and a personal interpretation of the Asda online shopping site (we don't even know if the offer was ever available online). -- de Facto (talk). 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that the BBC is being led by rubbish in this article? HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, led where, and what part of the article are you characterising as "rubbish" - presumably not any of the notable, duly weighted, reliably sourced content? -- de Facto (talk). 09:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose to raise an 'edit protected' to get this User:Jillipede/User:Charlesdrakew addition of OR/SYNTH content reverted. -- de Facto (talk). 09:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for reactivating this thread - I appear to have stirred a hornet's nest and wanted to explain myself. Suffice to say, yes, I've casually contributed to Wiki over the years but without registering (awful, I know). I couldn't let the daft inclusion of that Asda strawberry trial pass when I saw it but suspected an anonymous edit would not go down well, given the rather lively revision history, so finally set up an account. I then promptly forgot to return to Wiki until today and missed the entire debate. Sorry! Jillipede (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jillipede,

Welcome to WIkipedia. Just to update you, User:DeFacto who was pushing the Asda story has been barred from Wikipedia (you can check his user page) and all references to the Asda story have been removed - their publicity stunt was just not WP:NOTABLE. Meanwhile I am in the process of rewriting large sections of the artcile - my current draft is on view at User:Martinvl/Metrication process. Comments on the draft are welcome on the talk page associated with the draft. I have annotated the draft for the benefit of visitors so that they can see which sections are real draft and whuich sections are rubbish that I am whittling down. Martinvl (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Completion of article overhaul

I am nearly ready to complete the overhaul to this article. The new text can be seen at User:Martinvl/Metrication program (some of it has already been migrated into the article). If anybody has any comments that will affect the article as a whole, please let me know. For the record, I plan to keep the existing text apart from:

0 Lede - replace with new text

1.3 1945 onwards - replace with new text

4.1 Commodities - delete (to be merged into new section - "Metrication Process")

4.3 Education - delete (to be merged into new section - "Metrication Process")

4.5 Mapping - delete (to be merged into new section - "Metrication Process")

In addition I plan to add a new section "Metrication Process" (see new text in my user area).

Martinvl (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A few comments on sourcing

I think it is still lacking somewhat in secondary, third-party sources, particularly for evaluative statements, such as ". . . a debate in which government and opposition south to score political points against each other . . ." and " . . . little, if any partisan feeling was forthcoming". If we cannot attribute these assessments to a political commentator, we should probably to remove them altogether.

Statements implying causation or result generally need better sourcing ("Due to public opposition to metrication . . .", " The result was the repeal of directive 71/354/EEC . . . ", ". . . further metrication took place in response to specific triggers rather than being the result of general policy".

Authoritative primary sources, such as legislation, should only be used for the facts of their content, and more care should be taken to avoid any impression of evaluation.

In footnotes, third-party sources, such as research reports from the United States National Bureau of Standards should be designated in such a way that it is clear that they are third-party. The unwary reader might think it was a British government institution.

Comparisons with Australia and South Africa need a third-party source.

Some information on the progress of metrication is still insourced. Whole paragraphs are as yet unsourced, e.g. the one starting "The retail industry proved the most difficult for the Metrication Board . . .". Particularly when making assessments like this, secondary sources are essential.

All statements containing dates and figures should be sourced. I think primary sources would be OK for the dates when boards were set up, etc.

Even though the source is implied in statements like " When the White Paper itself was finally published in 1972, it set out . . .", it would probably be best to give full citation (preferably with page numbers) when referencing information contained in White Papers, reports, etc. Care should be taken to avoid the impression of original research when summarizing.
--Boson (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I will try to work them int the article. Martinvl (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have done the changes - I hope that they meet with approval. Still quite a bit of work to be done, but I think that even in its present state it presents a much more balanced picture than previously. Martinvl (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A few comments (post rewrite)

I think I broadly welcome Martinvl's work on this article. However, I note that the article as a whole is currently slightly over 100 000 characters long, and does still repeat itself a bit.

Here is a suggestion. Totally remove paragraphs 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 and put them into the currently rather minimal article on Metrication Board. Merge paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 under the title "1799 - 1965". Quite honestly, no actual progress was made on metrication in that entire time! However, it is IMHO worth keeping what's already written about those times.

Next - retitle section 2 as "Metrication program - 1965 to present day" and increment the level of indenting to *all* the article content from 2.1 ("Announcement of the program and the Metrication Board White Paper") through to 6 ("Costs") so that they all appear as sub-topics of "Metrication program - 1965 to present day". The current paragraph 7 ("Advocacy groups") would end up as paragraph 3 (and onwards to the end of the article).

I consider that this would usefully get the article down to about 90 000 characters and conveniently remove one chunk of repetition as a side effect. I would just hop in there and do this, but recent history of OTT editing on this article suggests that such a change could do with being discussed first! Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Steve, thank you for your comments. I am quite happy to merge 1.2 and the lede of 1.3 into a single subsection - a good idea. I also like the idea of merging 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 into 2.1 and also into 3.0. This woudl probably allow us to remove 10% of the text and get below 90k characters. I am happy to move 6 into 2 as 2.7.

I would prefer to leave 3, 4 and 5 as they are, if only because merging them into 2 would make that section rather too large.

There is however one topic that I should have touched on, but didn't (not sure whether or not it would be OR or something else horrendous). One of the reasons that the imperial system survived is that it was used virtually unchanged across all of England and Wales since medieval times and in Scotland since 1707. The only major changes since Henry VIII's time was the standardisation of the mile and of the pint/gallon etc. In the case of France, Germany, Neterhlands and Italy, this was not the case - all had multiple systems of measurement. Martinvl (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You're not wrong there Martinvl, one of the (long revoked) clauses of Magna Carta (1215) required that parliament enforce a single set of weights and measures across the land (in those days, England). Wales got subsumed in the 1300's, Scotland formally joined up in the early 1700's though the "Imperial System" as such didn't exist until 1824. The other big driving force that made the UK's weights and measures strong was of course the existence of the British Empire. Covering as it did about a quarter of the world's landmass at its height, in world terms the Imperial System (and its predecessors) would have been the dominant system until sufficient countries started to adopt metric - probably meaning that metric was not really a world player until late in the 1800's at the earliest. From Britain's point of view, until the Empire collapsed (or was disbanded) starting after WWII, there was no pressure to discontinue Imperial. Like your reworked lede to MitUK says, Martinvl, the Hodgson Committee's finding were still being dissed as "premature" right into the late 1950's. Steve Hosgood (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a page in my sandbox User:Steve_Hosgood/sandbox/Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom which is proposed as a replacement for the existing MitUK article. Obviously, it's just a first attempt, but what I've done is to factorise-out as much Metrication Board specific stuff as I can (and remove a couple of restatements of facts). The upshot is that the article has been trimmed to 91 000 characters from being just shy of 100 000 when I took my snapshot this morning. I am also working on User:Steve_Hosgood/sandbox/Metrication_Board which I propose as an eventual replacement for Metrication Board. Yes - quite a few references in both articles are broken, so neither are ready for use just yet. What do you think? Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your comments regarding the stability of the English system of measurement with which I agree. Maybe we could work them into the article once we have finalised its new shape.

Disagree. Not unless you can find some references to it being true. Currently that's just you and me happening to agree on a likely set of causes and events. Not necessarily true though! Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a look at your progress to date on your proposed changes to Metrication in the United Kingdom. From the context of what you wrote, it appears that you were working on another article – Metrication Board, but I think that you posted the wrong Wikilink.

Oops - quite right! I posted the wrong link, but I've revised so that it's now the correct link!. Thanks. Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

My main comment regarding your proposed changes on the article Metrication in the United Kingdom is that in my view you have removed too much of the material regarding the Metrication Board. I know that you plan to revamp the article Metrication Board (the current article certainly needs revamping), but I don’t think that many people will click onto the link, so certain important things need to be retained in the original article. In particular I would like to keep the list of sub-committees as this shows that the road signage and the retail industry were only a small part of the program. The other part that I would like to keep is the first paragraph of the section entitled “After the Metrication Board”. Again, keeping this will demonstrate to Joe Public that metrication is more than just market stalls and that the UK is a metric country.

Hmm - my thinking was that the metrication board should be mentioned as being important during the 1970's, but that if readers aren't really interested in the nuts and bolts, they don't have to wade through a lot of stuff about the Board. I do agree that what currently appears as the final paragraph of User:Steve_Hosgood/sandbox/Metrication_Board is in the wrong article and needs to go back to MitUK - that was just a copyediting error that I've not had time to go and fix (yet). And I won't be doing anything before at least lunchtime today! Real life gets in the way! Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've not done the suggestion about the list of subcommittees. IMHO, that's the sort of stuff that really does belong in the Metrication Board article. I mean, how many casual readers care about that? Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S: We're not here to "demonstrate to Joe Public that [...] the UK is a metric country." We're here just to document something that happened in history (and is still happening). Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a secondary comment regarding structure. I would like to renumber you section 1.3 as 2.0 The metrication process and then the paragraph starting “The lead in the metrication process …” would become the first paragraph of subsection 2.1 The Metrication Board. The two paragraphs that I highlighted could be worked into this section.

I'll look at all these points, thanks for the comments. Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Done that. Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile I will hold off any edits to the current version.

I have no objections to you (or other nice, non-sockpuppets(!)) dropping some edits into my sandbox article directly BTW. The goal is to MAKE THE ARTICLE SMALLER AND MORE READABLE! I've just gone and and made it 1000 characters bigger with my changes noted above. Grr. Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Regards Martinvl (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Steve, having said that, another editor has corrected a couple of typos and I have added a link. You might like to incorporate them into your sandbox. Martinvl (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Done that - thanks. Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, my sandbox articles "Metrication in the UK" and "Metrication Board" are good enough to be used to replace the real articles. My goal of reducing MitUK by 10% wasn't quite reached (!) but, hey - it wasn't a bad attempt. And much of the low-level detail about the activites and structure of the Metrication Board ended up in that article, where (IMHO) it belonged all along. If anyone wants to do the replacement operation, it's OK with me. I'll do it myself on Monday if no-one posts here to object. OK? Steve Hosgood (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am quite happy for both to be posted. The revision of the MitUK article is suufficiently mature that it can stand as it is, while the Metrication Board article, although it still needs some work, is much better than the existing article. Martinvl (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Steve - I have moved both articles from your sandbox to the main user space. Thank you for taking thre initiative in this overhaul. Martinvl (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine - I shall delete my both sandboxes down to a placeholder in case I want to do such a thing again (like when I think I've spotted another potential 10% chop!). And as for taking the initiative, well - you took the initiative last time, thanks for that. Still plenty to do though.

A suggestion - you claim Dutch heritage. Do you fancy writing a page on "Metrication in the Netherlands" - it might make the existence of the MitUK page look less conspicuous if it was more obvious to readers that every land currently using metric as a main system had to convert at some point. There will have been hiccups along the way for most of them, some (like pre-revolution France) needed to metricate just in order to tidy up internal trade issues (and I believe the same was true of the Netherlands). Steve Hosgood (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your wish is my command - please visit Dutch units of measurement#Dutch metric system. Maybe we could publicise that section a bit better. Also see History of the metric system. Martinvl (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The acre for land registration

At the moment a note in the article says "The acre was removed from the list of units permitted for economic, public health, public safety or administrative purpose from 1 January 2010 as the Land Registry Office had ceased using it some years previously." Is there a citation for this? I could not find one in [1] but perhaps it is buried in the details. Michael Glass (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember seeing a press notice some years ago about this, but there was no legislation. Like a lot of British metrication, the change-over was voluntary and quiet - all that happened was the legislation being tidied up after the event. Martinvl (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is an indirect reference here:

• "Directive 2009/3/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 amending Council Directive 80/181/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement". Retrieved 2009-05-08. (10) Since the acre is no longer in use for land registration purposes in the United Kingdom and Ireland, there is no longer any need to provide for an exemption in that respect. . . .(f) in Chapter II, the following row shall be deleted from the table: "Land registration . . . acre . . .

If only public bodies under government control were involved, I suppose legislation would not be necessary.

--Boson (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference above appears to be adequate for the purpose of the article. Do we need any further confirmation? Michael Glass (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy and neutrality of this article

DNFTT. 6foot6 is an obvious sock of banned user DeFacto (talk · contribs)

The content of this article is unbalanced because a lot of it is based on the accounts (and therefore point of view) of the government agency tasked with overseeing the metrication task. It is also based on unsourced interpretations of many primary sources, such as the reports of that government agency, the original texts of UK legislation and EU directives, and other government-sourced data. There are also highly unreliable sources of fact used, such as various documents from the websites of campaigning pressure groups. 6 foot 6 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I would think statements by campaigning organizations are suitable for verifying facts about their points of view, though obviously not for statements about whether metrication is in fact "a good thing" or "a bad thing". I would generally think that government/EU institutions are acceptable for facts about legislation and purported government objectives. I would also think primary sources are acceptable for facts about legislation that do not require or imply assessment or evaluation. Could you say which statements you think your individual concerns apply to? Which specific sources do you think would be better for which specific statements? --Boson (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Sure, the sites of campaigning organisations can be used to verify their opinions, but this isn't an article about their opinions alone, so anywhere their opinions are used (other than when actually describing their own agenda in isolation) it should be balanced with the opinions from the other sides of the argument to achieve a balance. Looking at this article, it does not present a neutral look at metrication in the UK as such. It only presents a look at how successive governments, the EU and other organisations have forcibly introduced metrication into certain walks of life under their direct influence and control, and particularly by the use of legislation to mandate the use of metrication in certain situations. It does not actually present a balanced view of the conversion of the UK to the metric system and how widely it has been adopted and accepted outside of the places where there is no legal choice. The first sentence in the article's introduction betrays this bias when it states: "Metrication in the United Kingdom is the process of introducing the metric system of measurement in place of imperial units in the United Kingdom." What it should say, if it were the introduction to a neutral article, is: "Metrication in the United Kingdom is the process of acceptance and adoption of the use of metric units of measurement in favour of imperial units in the United Kingdom." The article may well include much of the current content, but neutrally described for what it is, as attempts to influence the adoption of metrication, and then balanced with contemporary reports, opinions and views of the reception given to those attempts and with an account of the effect they have had, and with a review of the longer term effects of the initiatives. What also needs to be covered is the acceptance, or otherwise, of the UK people of metric units and how they have been assimilated and absorbed, or otherwise, into British culture and into the British way of life. As I see it, we are a very long way from providing a truly NPOV article fulfilling the expectation set by the article title. 6 foot 6 (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you could suggest some alternative sources to complement what you appear to perceive as partial sources. Your suggestion for the first sentence seems rather strange, being - as it appears to me - at odds with the normal factitive sense of words like metrication. The way you express yourself above (e.g. ". . . the EU and other organisations have forcibly introduced metrication . . . " for the normal exercise of sovereign power, which applies to many areas of life - and weights and measures have long been a matter for the exercise of sovereignty) smacks of an attempt to introduce an anti-EU, anti-metrication bias to the article. --Boson (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC) I was just about to ask for exactly the same thing. On a related issue, does the username "6 foot 6" suggest a single-minded campaign on WP? Could the user disclose whether s/he has an alternate or previous account, please? Tony (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC) DNFTT. 6foot6 is an obvious sock of banned user DeFacto (talk · contribs). I suspect this will not be the last one either. Toddst1 (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Revocation of 20 May 2012

I have undone the changes by an annonymous editor. Whether or not the EEC was the driver behind Britain's metrication, the cost of metrication was borne where it fell - no compensation was paid. Thus, when the stationery industry found that they could replace all their foolscap products and their quarto products with a single product line - the A4 product line,they jumped at the opportunity. Likewise with the fastener industry - they reduced the number of nut and bolt product lines and again had huge savings. In contrast, the retail food industry had no benefit, traders had to pay to change their scales to metric units, but did not see any benefit. Martinvl (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Loose goods and goods sold from bulk

The expressions "loose goods" and "goods sold from bulk" come from the reference in question. The former applies, for example, when a shopper selects potatoes from an open box and then weights them herself (in some stores) or has them weighed for her at teh till (in other stores). "Goods sold from bulk" apply, for example, where the customer asks for "a piece of cheese" (or meat) and the shop assistant cuts a piece ands weighs it in front of the customer. Martinvl (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Teaching of imperial units in schools

On Tuesday the Telegraph[2] reported that schools are going to start paying more attention to teaching imperial measurements again. Will someone put this on the page please. (Posted by Annonymous user and moved into its corect place by User:Martinvl).

• If this affects the text that is already present, this will be done once more details are available. Until then, nothing specific can be written. Martinvl (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Main image

Can we try and find an image which better portrays the character of metrication in the UK. I swapped it for one I thought gave a better flavour of the half-cocked, laissez-faire, attitude that seems to prevail amongst the general public, but another contributor has swapped back the characterless image that I don't think says anything about the peculiarly British character of this metrication process and progress. Carlton Card (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are some thumbnails to try and stimulate some suggestions!

• 
  Current image
• 
  Suggestion 1
• 
  Suggestion 2

If I can find some others I will add them later. Carlton Card (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I kind of liked Carlton Card's first new image (Suggestion 1 above). Metrication in the UK IS a mess. It's in a kind of half baked state right now, and that's what his new image showed. An image that shows only metric measures is not truly representative of the current state of affairs. (Although I acknowledge that the tape measure in the current pic does show both scales.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The road sign looks OK, and more visually appealing than the others. I don't think an incorrect (and probably illegal) greengrocer's sign is appropriate. It might be appropriate in an article on the stereotypical signage skills of greengrocers but, in view of the Metric Martyrs etc., greengrocers' signs like this are more illustrative of anti-metric advocacy than of metrication in the United Kingdom. --Boson (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with HiLo on this one - it captures the essence perfectly for me. But, hearing Boson's view, let's see if we can find (or take?) anything else that captures the idiosyncratic and hybrid nature of the UK situation - with, perhaps, a touch of typical irreverence (or ignorance) towards the metric system thrown in too - but which couldn't be mistaken as advocacy either way. Carlton Card (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I realise that I am late to join this conversation, but I'm not sure how meaningful one price display in one shop is, as a summary of an entire country's measurement practices. I agree with Boson that the sign is probably not legal (I think the imperial price is legally considered as supplementary, and should be no more prominent than the metric one). The vast majority of such price labels in British shops show either metric prices only, or metric with supplementary imperial, so the image is not even representative of British shops. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that use of supplementary imperial seems to be falling by the wayside, even in well-known imperial-friendly supermarket chains such as Tesco. Certainly in my local Tescos, though loose veg *may* be marked with prices by the pound, it's either in very small print or on a separate label quite often misplaced on the shelf. Or (quite frequently) just not there at all. Asda don't seem to be doing imperial pricing at all any more, though they certainly did a couple of years ago. Spar, Nisa, "Best One" and other smaller chains discontinued the practice years ago. Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish to revise my comment about Tesco (above). It seems to vary from store to store. I was in a Tesco last night where almost all the supplementary imperial labelling was in a font only slightly smaller than the primary "per kg" labelling. All except for a tub of potatoes where my previous claim held - the "per lb" labelling in that case was in a tiny font. Evidently that label had been produced by a totally different machine from the rest. Other Tesco stores that I've visited recently seem to use that latter style more often (even exclusively). It must be down to what equipment they have in a given store. Steve Hosgood (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

New (late 2013) metrication survey

A recently published survey seems relevant here, are you interested in incorporating something from it? Ref: http://ukma.org.uk/still-a-mess — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheteQuadrant (talk • contribs) 19:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A survey of only 4000 people by an organisation with an agenda is probably not worth mentioning. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem if anything based on the UKMA's "executive summary" is about the UKMA's position. Since yougov is a reputable organization in the field, I also don't see a problem with attributed statements about the survey on the full yougov report if it is mentioned who commissioned the report and a link is provided to the full report including the appendices.

The sample sizes (1878 and 1978) also appear normal to me.

Whether there is anything worth incorporating is another matter. --Boson (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the sample sizes are a little on the smallish size, but not by much from a statistical perspective. The polling organisation is a reputable one. It could quite validly be included. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The survey was done by an independent polling firm, so there should be no POV problem in principle with including any relevant information that it contains. The conclusion that "it's a horribly confusing mess" isn't really an agenda-push either. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I added something about it. Carlton Card (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

De-Metrication?

So apparently a lot of UKIP advocate using both measurements And David Cameron recently said he 'liked' pounds and ounces in various articles - Maybe it is worth adding it to Advocacy? 151.224.254.144 (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Recentism.Charles (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metrication in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529152114/http://www.uctc.net/papers/114.pdf to http://www.uctc.net/papers/114.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Metrication in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424231200/http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=2515 to http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?id=2515
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721202405/http://www.ukho.gov.uk/AboutUs/Documents/timeline.pdf to http://www.ukho.gov.uk/AboutUs/Documents/timeline.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://origin-www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3046/pdfs/uksi_20093046_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907121105/http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards/Infrastructure/Guidance%20Notes/GEGN8573%20Iss%203.pdf to http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards/Infrastructure/Guidance%20Notes/GEGN8573%20Iss%203.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610221523/http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Book/Briefing%20Leaflet/GERT8000-RBBL%20ERTMS%20Iss%201.pdf to http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Book/Briefing%20Leaflet/GERT8000-RBBL%20ERTMS%20Iss%201.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metrication in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?view=image%3Bsize%3D100%3Bid%3Dnnc1.cu01594990%3Bpage%3Droot%3Bseq%3D5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322041427/http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/cockcroft/cockcroft06.html to http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/cockcroft/cockcroft06.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/ebooks/a-history-of-the-ordnance-survey/2009_12_21_10_07_54/document.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/PressReleaseDetails.aspx?id=20486
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vmine.net/scienceinparliament/sip61-4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531035638/http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/legal-metrology-and-prepack/documents/pack-sizes/index_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/legal-metrology-and-prepack/documents/pack-sizes/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Do we need this content in the "Criticisms addressed by introduction of standard curricula" paragraph?

In this edit I removed, with an explanatory edit summary, the following paragraph:

The National Curriculum makes no mention of the manipulation of imperial units, an activity that Workman, when writing his book "The Tutorial Arithmetic" in 1902, bemoaned as "...half a year of school life ... entirely wasted for every English boy in learning the arithmetical devices necessary for managing the "weights and measures" previously explained."[61] In 1995, educationalist Jenny Houssart wrote "For years there was a feeling that the metric system was something teachers pretended existed, although inhabitants of the real world knew better."[62] Lord Howe of Aberavon, speaking in the House of Lords, asserted that the United Kingdom's policy came close to recreating "Disraeli's two nations—divided between, on the one hand, a metrically literate elite and, on the other, a rudderless and bewildered majority."[63][64]

Shortly afterwards, in this edit, Charlesdrakew reverted all of my recent edits without a content-related reason.

So I am bringing this one here, firstly to ask Charlesdrakew if he has a content-related reason for keeping this stuff which, with no qualifying context, seems to me to be a WP:SYNTH collection of three quotes from arbitrary individuals, the first two at least of whom are not noted as commentators on UK metrication. Secondly, I wondered if anyone else has an opinion on the value or appropriateness of this paragraph. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is here to describe the process of metrication in the United Kingdom. In doing that it may describe the arguments for and against metrication to a degree, insofar as they have been widely made in the United Kingdom. It should not cross the line into engaging in the argument itself, and that is what that paragraph does. The fact that it is also original synthesis compounds the issue. As such, I would endorse your removal. Kahastok talk 18:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is not only to describe the process. The background and historical context are just as important and the quotes help to illustrate that. They may need separating out to avoid synth but not removing entirely.Charles (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This paragraph does not provide any background or historical context. The only thing it does is argue the benefits of metrication, and in doing so it clearly breaks WP:NPOV.

If we were to accept your suggestion and separate them, and presumably add a few more for neutrality, we'd be left with a random collection of quotes, sitting there, not being used to make any point at all because any point they might be used to make would break the WP:NOR rule against interpreting primary sources. And even that would break WP:WEIGHT because the significance of these quotes is not established by secondary sources. Kahastok talk 10:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, with no clear justification to keep it, I have removed it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And now Charlesdrakew has reverted it back, apparently because I subsequently removed more unsupported content! Charles please give your reason for restoring this, despite not being able to justify keeping it - this, I would say, is very close to being disruptive. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced/synthesis material being restored

Can we discuss whether we really want this article to host large amounts of unsourced synthesis. By that I mean synthesis of primary sources which is not attributed to any secondary sources. Examples include this, this and this which I removed and which Charlesdrakew restored (along with other content previously discussed above and considered to be unworthy), characterising my reasoned edit as "butchery"! -- DeFacto (talk). 10:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Original research and original synthesis have long been major problems on this topic and you are right to remove it when you find it IMO. Typical examples have been where use instances of usage and infer from them usage rules - this is clear WP:OR interpretation of primary sources. Our rules place emphasis on secondary sources as the basis for what goes into articles per WP:WEIGHT and for all interpretation of primary sources per WP:PSTS.

The section Unit of measure inconsistencies is a prime example. There is no way we can rewrite this section based on the sources without original synthesis - most of the sources don't even mention units of measure, let alone inconsistent usage.

So the new tag on the section you removed misses the point. It isn't that there are no sources - clearly there are - it's that the use of the sources amounts to original research. I'll add an appropriate tag.

I would more widely criticise the information dissemination section which seems to be there to bring together a series of fairly disparate instances of usage with little in common. I think a decent description of units in use would be of benefit - and that's what the wider "current usage" section should be doing - but it needs to be based on actual descriptions of current usage, not on people finding websites and inferring usage from them. Kahastok talk 09:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

With good arguments against it and with no justification offered to keep it, I have removed it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Questionable content

Per WP:NOTRELIABLE I don't think we should give article space to the opinions of UKMA. Being a single-issue pro-metrication pressure group they have a very apparent conflict of interest on this. To that end, I removed their opinions on the cost of road sign conversion from the article which were sourced to their self-published website. Within an hour my edit was reverted by Charlesdrakew, with the comment "nothing wrong with using the source when it is clearly stated" - which is clearly not what the policies say. What do others think - should it be kept in? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Just because you hate that organisation does not make its work unreliable. Charles (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The UKMA are a biased source. That does not make them unreliable - if I were looking for a source making the case for metrication they would be my first port of call. But they must be used with care. In particular, I would suggest as a rule that they should not be used for anything potentially controversial without specific acknowledgement of who they are and (if it is not obvious) how they are biased.

(And to be clear, exactly the same goes for the BWMA on the other side of the argument.)

In this case, we actually do acknowledge the UKMA as the source of the figure. We also have to consider WP:WEIGHT. In this case, this is a question worth asking I think - is raising the UKMA objection to the government figure due weight? Kahastok talk 21:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem I have is not that they are biased (which they clearly will be) but that they certainly have a COI in relation to producing an accurate estimate of the cost of replacing road signs, and thus fall foul of WP:NOTRELIABLE, and so their own source should not be used here. The only way to judge due weight for their estimates is to see how widely secondary sources report them in relation to the DfT figures. If due weight is established, then the secondary sources should be used to support this, otherwise it should probably be dropped. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

With no argument (or secondary sources) supporting the weight given to this I have now removed it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have restored text supported by research based on reliable sources and published by UKMA, as we use government publications to reference the government estimates. I do not see any undue weight in putting the other side of the case.Charles (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is established by reliable secondary sources. It is not obvious to me that the government (as of 2005 and 2008-09) is the UKMA's equivalent on the other side of the argument (we'd normally say that was the BWMA). Do you have any independent reliable sources establishing this? Kahastok talk 09:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Charlesdrakew, despite the assertion in your edit summary, the UKMA publication is not a secondary source and neither is it a reliable source in this context because of the apparent conflict of interest that a single-issue pressure group has in presenting a neutral and accurate estimate versus making a convincing case for conversion. The answer, I think, is to see how reliable secondary sources report UKMA's report (because if it has due weight then it will appear in reliable sources) or if it isn't so covered then take it out. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. The surveys on which the study is based are primary sources. Newspapers employ reporters to research and write articles. Nobody has a problem with them being secondary sources even though newspapers mostly have a POV. This is equivalent. There is nothing wrong with reporting views of pressure groups as long as it is made clear that they do have a position on the subject. The term conflict of interest applies more to editors being too close to the subject.Charles (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Charlesdrakew. The text that you restored cites just once reference, the one published by UKMA - it is currently the only source in the article to support their costs - and is the actual source (i.e. primary) of their aguments. The views of pressure groups can be appropriate, sure, but to achieve due weight they need to be have been published by RSes and not simply by themselves. As it stands, it is only supported by a self-published and unreliable source (due to the COI concern mentioned previously). Their counter costing discussion needs to be supported by a reliable secondary source (i.e. not just their original report document) to be policy compliant here - if it is notable it will surely have been reported in secondary sources - without that it needs ditching. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The key point here is WP:WEIGHT. I have no WP:V or WP:NOR concerns with including the information given attribution. I have no reason to view WP:COI as relevant here. It's a biased source and we make it clear that it's a biased source.

But inclusion of information from a self-published primary source such as this (and it is not credible to suggest that it is a secondary source for its own contents) needs to be backed in terms of WP:WEIGHT. If I find any random study - shoot, if I do my own study and publish it myself (as the UKMA did) - why should it not be included in this article? Answer is because it wouldn't meet the standard of WP:WEIGHT. Because I would (presumably) not be able to demonstrate that it represents a significant strand of opinion. The UKMA don't have a right to a free pass on WP:WEIGHT solely because they are the UKMA.

So, what independent reliable sourcing suggests that the weight we give the UKMA study is appropriate? Kahastok talk 14:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

With no secondary sources found after more than a week, I have again removed the content in question. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

2016 Survey

I have removed the 2016 public survey of preference following European Union membership referendum it doesnt appear to be relevant and is possible misleading, this article is not a dumping ground for random weighted surveys. MilborneOne (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This is actually a completely separate topic and I have separated it as such. I would note that despite your edit summary, 5191 is actually quite a large sample size (bigger than the one you've left in) and that weighting as described is a standard part of modern opinion polling and generally improves accuracy.

Your best critique in terms of accuracy is that it's one poll and we've got nothing to say it isn't an outlier in the distribution of results that might have been achieved. Outliers happen and are often overreported.

So, as above, the question of WP:WEIGHT rears its head. Is this due weight? If so, can we prove that? I would not be surprised if we found that it is not due weight. Kahastok talk 22:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kahastok: WRT due weight, the poll section as added was supported by two reliable secondary sources, one being one of the leading daily American newspapers the other an American financial and business news website. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: why do you think that a survey about UK metrication is not relevant here and what is "possibly misleading" about it? And as for your edit summary when removing it, the survey was taken by a reputable and professional survey company and weighted to accurately represent the views of the entire GB population, and reported in secondary sources - we personally are not in a position to question their choice of appropriate sample size - unless you can show secondary sources criticising it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

We dont include every opinion poll here just because it mentions metrication doesnt make it relevant. Clearly the British Weights and Measures Association is not neutral on the subject, that said the other opinion result on the page probably doesnt warrant mention either, if we are to take public opinion seriously then per weight we should present a range of such polls over the years and look to see if secondary sources show us any trends. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with that.

Note that the key secondary sources for WP:WEIGHT are sources that are trying to do what we are trying to do - describe metrication in the United Kingdom. These sources should be the ones being used as a basis for writing an article such as this. I do not find news reports describing specific polls suitable for judging weight because there is no way to judge the weight given to a poll against weight given in other parts of the article. Kahastok talk 18:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It isn't the British Weights and Measures Association who conducted the survey, it was YouGov, an independent organisation specialising in public surveys, so we have no reason to suspect it wasn't conducted with complete integrity and neutrality. The Brexit referendum has clearly rekindled interest in the weights and measures debate and surely this article about exactly that subject should cover it - where supported by reliable sources. I would say that all professionally conducted opinion polls on the subject, if covered in secondary sources, should be included in the article. We have a duty (per WP:POV) to cover (in accordance with WP:WEIGHT) all sides of this subject. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Boson: as you contributed to the survey content in question here, I wondered if you had an opinion on whether or not it should stay in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I only made a minor correction to some text that could have been misleading. I have no objection to the removal of the material as a matter of editorial judgement. --Boson (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metrication in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160214072518/https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/s070922.pdf to http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/s070922.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

New section on reasons to oppose metrication

Unofficialwikicorrector has now twice added a section of reasons to oppose metrication, the second time AFTER I asked them to discuss it here. It has not been discussed. It's unsourced. (Two "facts" behind the reasons are sourced, but not the reasons). It's obviously original research, and pushing a particular point of view, without any balancing material being presented. To me, this is completely unacceptable, and we need to see some reasons here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, hello HiLo48. I'm new to editing on wikipedia, so I'm still getting adjusted. My section, Reasons to oppose metrification and reinstate the imperial system, was not meant to be biased but instead to provide information on a major viewpoint of the British people. I'm personally British and I wanted to provide some context from not my personal experience, but from data showing the options of the British people and why they might oppose complete metrication or want to revert back to the imperial system. It is clear my reasons need to be more detailed, so I will try to provide more sufficient, in-depth answers with more citations. Please note that some of my evidence was already on this specific wikipedia article but I will still reference it.

I do need help with one part. If you read my section, you would know I stated the U.S. accounts for approximately 15% of trade with the U.K. and the U.S and the U.K. have the same definition for pounds and feet, as the U.S Customary system is driven from the imperial system. Many countries that export to the U.S., including the U.K., cater to American market by converting their products to U.S. Customary units and modifying the actual container or amount slightly, which would be considered hard conversion. I know this from my experience of living in the states and I would like to add that to my section. Could you please help me find a solid source of information for what I just discussed?

Once again, this section isn't meant to push any narrative, it is just meant to inform Wikipedia readers of reasons why a good percentage of the British population oppose metrification and reinstate the imperial system. I will be updating and reediting this section, with more supporting information and references.

Thank you for your help,

UnofficialwikicorrectorUnofficialwikicorrector (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Unofficialwikicorrector: I agree that the article needs some work, particularly regarding the further lack of any progress in the last 20 or so years, and the impact Brexit has had on attitudes and on the political will. Before adding a new section though, you need to read WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:VER and understand that it is not only facts that need sourcing, but that opinions need attributing and supporting too. Things that might be obvious and everyday events to Brits will not necessarily be recognised by others without reliable sourcs to back it up. Good luck with your Wiki work, and be very aware, that there will be many editors from both sides of the metricate/don't metricate argument watching this and ready to ruthlessly defend their bias, and even a few editors that want to see a policy-compliant, well balanced, duly weighted, and reliably sourced portrayal of reality to prevail. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

My views on metrication aren't important here. What I am concerned about is having the article contain an accurate description of the situation in the UK. We already have the section called Public Opinion. It gives us survey results on how people feel about metrication. It is well sourced. Whether we can also report on why people feel the way they do, in a well sourced way, is the question here. The now reverted addition from Unofficialwikicorrector didn't provide sourcing for the reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I was agreeing with all of, but nevertheless, the article could be brought more up to date too, as I said. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

For sure. Just thought too that, if we find sourced reasons why a seeming majority don't want metrication, we should also include reasons others do want it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Defacto and HiLo48. Thank you for supporting me and helping me develop this new section I'm working on. As you know with Brexit, there had been a resurgence to revert to the traditional measures for everyday life and that is one particular reason why I'm working on this. Could please define the Wikimedia standard for credible sources and evidence? Do newspapers and articles count?

Have a great day,

Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Unofficialwikicorrector: on top of the policies I mentioned in my post at 07:00, 22 May 2020 above, WP:RS explains how to identify reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Time for a thorough clean-up?

This article really needs a good shake-up. It is barely encyclopaedic, with large tranches of it nothing more than personal opinion (OR), and where loosely sourced, using primary sources such as the reports from the Metrication Board, EU legislation and directives, UK legislation, the text of court rulings, Trading Standards procedures and the like. It even uses output from the United Kingdom Metric Association, a single-issue pressure group campaigning for metrication! It doesn't stand up to scrutiny when judged against Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. Can anyone help to improve this situation, or are we going to have to cut it down to the little that can be salvaged using the secondary sources that are used in the article? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

This is fair comment but let's at least in the first instance invite better citations. It is not obviously POV or at least not obvious to me (what makes you think so?). As for the primary sources, true these are not ideal according to policy but they are impeccably WP:RS (except, arguably, the UKMA). I don't think it is consciously OR any more than most Class C articles but it would be improved enormously given more citations. But yes, it falls short of the standard we want to achieve, but I suggest that it would be more productive to improve it than to gut it. --Red King (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Any cleanup needs to take account of brexit. Blithely quoting Brussels directives as an excuse is not relevant for what is now a non-EU country. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Conversely, the 'Great Reform Act' asserts that all existing "EU" laws are now UK law and will stand until individually amended or repealed. So editing must be cautious not to jump the gun. I really can't see trade and industry agreeing to the clock been wound back to 1966.

(BTW, there are no such thing as "Brussels directives". EU Directives are not and never were 'orders from Brussels', they are agreed [between national governments] statements of common standards that the Commission gets to write down in legalese, just as Whitehall does for UK law. After that, it is up to national legislatures to formalise it into national legislation [and, in the UK, gold plate it of course]. Therefore if there really are any references to "Brussels directives" in the text, they should certainly be changed to the relevant Act or SI.). --Red King (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"Brussels" is both a common term (easier than "Strasbourg") and an extremely useful one to encompass all of the EU, EC, and EEC directives. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It might be a common term, but it's sadly not neutral. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I regret that I reacted to the Daily Wail terminology. I should have ignored it per wp:NOTFORUM and just off topic. Best to just let it go. In the scheme of things, it is trivial. --Red King (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Good. Let's get back to the substantive point that XXX directives do not directly apply to the UK now, so so going forward metrication is the responsibility of the UK government. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Until Parliament amends or repeals the Weights and Measures Act, or the Minister declares a new SI, the status quo hasn't changed and won't change. Therefore, ditto this article. A 'thorough clean-up' can't delete the history of how we got here. --Red King (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't taking the opinion of the UKMA as fact similar to taking the Conservative party opinion on good governmant? 92.40.82.111 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd be more impressed by the UKMA if they didn't state falsehoods such as "The majority of Britain’s traffic signs do not indicate any sort of measurement and therefore would not need to be changed from imperial to metric. Some examples are shown below." and then show the 300 yard marker from a trunk road. If this is a level of their accuracy and research then they join the Daily Mail. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Differentiating between pre-packaged, packaged, and loose goods

We should use the terms "pre-packaged", "packaged", and "loose goods" in this article in accordance with the definition within the legislation of food packaging, and weights and measures laws in order to make this article less confusing for the reader.

Also, we must differentiate between stating whether the measurement units are on the packaging of goods or are displayed alongside loose goods.

Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to do just that? I for one would be hazy about the difference between "pre-packaged" and "packaged". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Speed limiter photograph

I had previously posted an image of a speed restriction sign on a van, showing that its speed limiter was set to a metric value, which is fairly common. This photograph had previously been on the (now apparently deleted) article on metrication of UK transport. This has repeatedly been taken down because an editor thinks it is original research or undue weight (it is a photograph that I personally took, illustrating a relevant and trivially verifiable fact), which seems bizarre to me as this argument applies no more to this specific photograph than to literally any of the other photographs in the article, and it is as relevant to the subject of the article as photographs of loose tomatoes for sale or height restriction signs in front of a tunnel. I would like an uninvolved editor to offer an opinion on this please. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately the photograph only shows that the limiter is set to 62mph=100kph. It doesn't show that it is set to a metric value per se. I would imagine that the owners of the van have set the limiter to the lowest of the maximum permitted speed in countries where it might be used. On the continent I assume that is 100 kph, here it would be 70 mph, so the lower speed was selected. All of this is supposition and not acceptable in the article. Without the manuals for the limiter it is impossible to determine what the actual setting is, hence the accusations of OR. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think that a sign reading "100 km/h" is not indicating a round value in metric units. I have not made any of the assumptions you have suggested about why the value might have been selected, nor have I tried to say anything to this effect in the image caption or the body of the article, so these points are not relevant. It is no more necessary to acquire the manual for the speed limiter to ascertain whether "100 km/h" is a round value in metric units than it is necessary to acquire the manual for the scale the tomatoes will be weighed on to ascertain whether the scale was calibrated in metric units, or to find the manual for the hospital trolley to verify that its weight tolerance derives from a risk-assessment using weights in kilograms rather than pounds. The point is about the information that is publicly displayed. You are applying a standard to this image which applies to no other, which was my chief point above. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not the fact that 100kph is a round value, it's the assertion that "its speed limiter was set to a metric value". How can you tell that the calibration is in metric? BTW, I clearly said "... I assume ...", I was suggesting an explanation of the values, not claiming that you had made the assumption. To re-iterate the key fact: you need to justify the assertion that the setting is in metric, not simply assume it from a nice round number. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I honestly find this extremely pedantic, and possibly a bit tendentious, but it is at most an objection to the wording of the caption, not to the photograph per se. Your objection (which could equally apply, as I have suggested, to several of the other photographs of measurements in the article) could be resolved by replacing the caption with a tedious circumlocution to the effect that the speed limiter was set to a value – which could have been in nominal units of smoots per nanosecond or furlongs per fortnight, whatever units the speed limiter uses internally, for all the difference it would make to my point – which happens to be a round value in metric units. We do not need to be electrical engineers with a detailed understanding of how the speed limiter internally represents speed in order to make this point. The implicit suggestion in your objection, that an arbitrary non-round value in imperial could have been chosen intentionally, and the round value in metric is thus coincidental, defies credibility to an extent that I do not think one needs to find explicit evidence that this is not the case, any more than one needs to find evidence that the pounds that tomatoes are being priced in are not Tower pounds. But as I say, we don't need to write anything to this effect in the caption; I am confident to trust our readers to use their own common sense on this topic. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:IMGCONTENT says The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The subject of the image in question (metric speed limiters) is not described in the article. But even if it was discussed in the article, WP:DUE says Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. That would mean that the use of km/h speed limiters would need to be described relative to the use of mph speed limiters in the article to establish relative weight. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The body of the article also does not discuss hospital trolleys or signage on rivers, so again it is not clear why a standard is being applied to one picture but not the other. To my mind, it is enough that the body of the article talks about the units used in transportation generally; there's no logical need for the highly specific subject of a particular photograph to be discussed in the body in order for the photograph to be able to convey relevant information. The same is true of your point about needing to establish the relative weighting of metric/imperial usage in these contexts; to be consistent, we'd also need e.g. to find sources that describe the relative commonality of kilograms vs pounds in hospital equipment and cite these in the article, which seems like slight overkill to me. Moreover, I find it a bit of a reach to read "all significant viewpoints" (which seems on my reading to refer to matters of opinion, rather than e.g. factual statements about which units are on a sign) as including the relative use of metric/imperial units in a given context. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That older content flouts the policies and guidelines is not a good argument for adding new content that does the same. If I took a photo of one of the 50,000 Royal Mail vans or of one of the 30,000 BT vans or of one of the 10,000 British Gas vans that have speed limiters set to 70 mph would you be prepared to use one of those instead? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You're seriously arguing that a photograph of a weight restriction on a hospital trolley violates (your extremely strict reading of) WP guidelines? If so, why are you not arguing we should remove it? Any such photograph is just an arbitrary illustration of a particular point about usage of units in the UK. Same with the pile of tomatoes at the top. You could argue, regardless of what was photographed, why photograph that and not something else? It's not really an argument for anything, and if we followed such logic consistently we'd end up removing a huge amount of content for no net benefit to the encyclopedia. I also do not understand why you think a sign that does not use metric units would be more relevant to an article about metrication. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Your logic is all screwed-up - it was you who suggested there may be other guideline violations, not me. I was responding to your point - this one: The body of the article also does not discuss hospital trolleys or signage on rivers, so again it is not clear why a standard is being applied to one picture but not the other.

And the article isn't just about things that have been metricated; it includes discussion on things that have not, and the 'bilingual' nature of units in use across the UK, and the reluctance to move totally to either 'language'. The lead picture illustrates Metrication in the UK beautifully.

Road distances and speed limits have not been metricated, so an image of a van with an mph limiter would be appropriate as that is covered in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think any of the images in question come remotely close to violating guidelines; that is quite the overstatement. There might well be arguable reasons against including any specific image, but I do not see that incompatibility with WP content guidelines is one such reason as they are all directly relevant to the subject of the article. That perspective arose from your reading of said guidelines, not mine, and I have consistently explicitly disagreed with it. I was not objecting to "other guideline violations" – I merely observed that you do not apply this reading of WP content policies/guidelines consistently to the other images in the article. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, some older content may also violate the guidelines, but that is not a valid reason for excusing more recently added content from adhering to them. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The photo doesn't show metrication

The photo doesn't show metrication, or mandatory metrication, recommend changing it 2406:3400:212:D700:B632:4D38:70C3:3F4 (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It embodies metrication in the United Kingdom though, which is the subject of this article, and why that photo was chosen. So I oppose changing it. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't embody metrification. It shows someone breaking the law. Metrification is the process is changing to the metric system. This would be a better poster

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/royal-mail-post-office-a4-poster-1622406375 2406:3400:212:D700:B632:4D38:70C3:3F4 (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this about metrication in the UK

The should be about the process that the UK took to become metric. Most of the UK is metric it is easier to list what isn't metric.

There is very little that isn't mandatory to be metric in the UK. 1. Road speed and distances, and 2. Three items for sale milk,beer/cider, and precious metals.

Why can't we express the sincincty and precisely? 2406:3400:212:D700:B632:4D38:70C3:3F4 (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a platform for protest

It is understood that people in the UK and who are trying to keep this page as a protest to the metric system, however it should just be the facts. The process the UK has gone through to achieve the change, and why a duel measurement system still exsists in the UK. 2406:3400:212:D700:B632:4D38:70C3:3F4 (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Friendliness12345 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Does the user Defacto own this page?

All significant changes to this page are constantly rejected by the user Defacto no matter who makes them. It seems highly unlikely that no real changes to this page has happed for years. Should this user be rejected from reverting changes made to the page. 2406:3400:212:D700:B632:4D38:70C3:3F4 (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If you disagree with any of the changes I've made, and I usually give my reasons for them in the edit summary, then please challenge them. But don't forget to explain why you think any specific edit was mistaken rather than just making an unsubstantiated and generalised personal attack like this one with no rationale. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate user discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Friendliness12345 (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)