![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Years ago I read in a book I believe to be true that a fire at the British national bureau of standards destroyed all gold standards. It was going to take 30 to 50 years to replace all of those standards with accurate new ones. This was too long of a wait for the French. The French then moved ahead establishing the metric system and converting all commerce and scientific systems to metric. The French cited development and implementation time would be considerably less time.
I can no longer find a reference to this writting but I do vividly remember reading it and a rendering drawing of the building burning. Can anyone help? I am not trying to vandalize this site, just offer what I believe to be factual history.
The burning and destruction of the British Bureau of Standards in 1780, in which all gold standards of Imperial Measurement system were destroyed, helped the cause. The clincher to development of the new system was the report from the British, it would take 50 years to replace the gold standards of Imperial measures destroyed in the fire and destruction of the building. The French found it would take less time to develop the replacement system than it would take to accurately replace the Imperial Measure system. citation needed
Gerry, I think this is probably the reference I saw. Perhaps the 1891 date of publication of this fact is what I remember more than the actual date of the fire. I think it is more fair to say, the fire and "virtual loss" of these standards did not drive the rapid development of the metric system; it did drive the accelerated adoption of it's widespread use internationally.
I came here looking for that. I think it would be nice to have it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.91.119 ( talk) 05:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I am in AP European History and we are studying the French Revolution now. Our book and both of my test prep books say it was established in 1793 not 1791. Is the page's information wrong or are the books wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.152.16 ( talk) 02:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Two editors changed the spelling of "decameter" to "dekameter", once saying in the edit summary "'deka' is the non-US spelling, and this article uses UK spelling."
However, I believe "deca" is correct. The brochure provided by the Bureau international des poids et mesures (8th edition, 2006) gives the prefix as "deca" in English (page 127) and as "déca" in French (page 32). The spellings in the English half of the brochure are British spellings, not American ones. ("Labelled", for example, rather than "labeled".)
I hope this note clarifies matters. -- Dominus ( talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The spelling of English words is in accordance with the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual, which follows Webster’s Third New International Dictionary rather than the Oxford Dictionary. Thus the spellings “meter,” “liter,” and “deca” are used rather than “metre,” “litre,” and “deka” as in the original BIPM English text [emphasis added].
A new "Common prefixes" section has been added. I'm not sure we need it, considering how easy it is to go to the SI prefix article. If we do keep it, we need to clean it up. Powers should be expressed with actual superscripts. Some of the prefixes are not at all common; I have never seen deka used in a real-life situation. As far as I know, hecto- is only used for hectare. -- Gerry Ashton ( talk) 15:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am having trouble understanding something. Now I know that most of the world uses the metric system but I have a problem with its wide-spread use here. This is the English version of Wikipedia. The United States has the single largest concentration of English speaking people in the world at over 300 million. So why is it such a pain in the ass to find measurements listed in miles, feet, inches, gallons or pounds on this site? Nearly everything here has measurments in metric but less than half of the one's I've seen have standard. I'm starting to wonder, perhaps Americans are to ignorant to contribute? —Preceding
A wonderful opportunity to call Americans Ignorant. BTW you ignorant wanker it's *too* ignorant. Shit, I bet that you say *IGORANT*.
unsigned comment added by 74.128.188.55 ([[User talk:74.128.188.55|talk]]) 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Please consider that only speaking one language is mainly an american thing. The english language wikipedia, being the largest in existence, is also read by many people from non-english countries (afaik most European countries also teach english at school). And since practically everyone except the USA uses the metric system / SI it seems to be the right choice for an encyclopaedia everyone can edit.
This might sound a bit bold, but the metric system isn't that hard, why don't you just look it up? 84.59.119.48 ( talk) 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the enlish language wikipedia. It is not the native speakers enlish language wikipedia. I guess there are two to three billion people out there in the world comprehending english language sufficiently to be adressed by the english wikipedia. Why should the english wikipedia ignore the habits of 9/10 of its adressees? -- GlaMax ( talk) 08:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like the complaints was about the lack of non-metric measurements in articles. It does not seem he alleged that metric should be eleminated in favor of non metric.
He has a point take the article on Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth Not one measurement in the right pane is given in non metric (not even in parenthesis) meaning one looking for a quick answer to something that can be answered by that pane cannot get said answer unless they have working application of the metric system. And not to be an ass to GlaMax, but Wikipedia does come available in numerous other languages. Perhaps a concerted effort to update more commonly referenced pages to reflect both systems would be something to consider? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.6.31 ( talk) 07:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday (June 28) I added documentation on the "Law of 1866" that officially authorized the use of the metric system in the United States. For some reason, this was edited out. I went to some trouble to find it and I feel I am entitled to an explanation. Dougie monty ( talk) 04:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Moving the historical information regarding the U.S. authorization of the metric system to a reference implies a biased, non neutral, political motivation, i.e., that it is a government's responsibility to not merely authorize the use of a standards system, but to further impose it use as the only standard. A more straightforward, non-slanted presentation would not try to obscure this history.
The metric system has been competitively available for official use in the U.S. since 1866. The majority of the American people have merely chosen to use a different system. Those who want to use metric are perfectly free to do so, and have been for a very long time.
The maps used in this article also fail to accurately reflect this history and different philosophical approach to standards. They are likewise produced on the premise that a country must adopt a single standard and cannot have multiple systems. The U.S., on the first map, would more appropriately be colored in green and grey diagonal strips and in yellow and grey diagonal strips on the second map, or to be simply in grey on both. -- Debohun ( talk) 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The first edit I can find that cites a source ocurred at 12:57, 12 January 2007 UTC, and was by Michael Zimmerman. He used {{ Cite web}} so ideally all the citations in this article would use templates in that family. -- Gerry Ashton ( talk) 18:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The map isn't even subtle, you know? It's a very obvious POV attack, as in "OH NOEX LULZ TEH USA IS ST00PID BECAUSE ONLY IT AND THESE OTHER TWO WORTHLESS COUNTRIEZ R NOT USING METRIC WHICH ROXX0RZ!" Give me a break.
Until you have metric time, and until you can explain why there are 360 degrees in a circle (and not 1000), you metriphiles can stuff it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 ( talk) 22:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There are inherent advantages having 360 degree in a circle. Please read following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal . -- 198.208.240.250 ( talk) 12:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Two other "worthless" countriess? You're the one that's making the attack. Dannysjgdf ( talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The first unsigned message is the strongest proof that the metric system would be beneficial. Imagine a guy like that having to think in meters. Wow, it would open a new universe to him. Well, intelligence –and love- can’t be bought I concede. -- Magnvss ( talk) 17:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Despite the flames, I think that Unsigned has a point. Please see my comment on the discussion page of the SI System page, which for brevity, I will not repeat here. As to Magnvss, 'beneficial' is in the eye of the beholder, and also in the eye of the holder of the purse-strings. Again, please read my post there. 76.98.119.56 ( talk) 02:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, thought I was logged in. Bejmark ( talk) 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the intent of the unsigned comment (but not the manner). This article appears to have a biased agenda right from the beginning. A map of the countries of the world adopting the Metric System probably shouldn't be shown at all (won't a simple list due fine here?) and even less so as the first graphic. Mkoistinen ( talk) 16:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
What a silly flame. Maps such as these are used throughout Wikipedia to display a variety of things. The content of the map was true, so why is it biased? Ludicrous. The new format of the map says exactly the same thing, but the colours are different. Less biased? Odd. As an aside no one knows exactly why we have 60 seconds and 360 degrees, because it's based upon the ancient Babylonian number system and the origins have been lost to time, although several theories exist. A decimalised time system has indeed been devised (see Decimal Time), but as the old system would be so problematic to replace and so thoroughly ingrained, there's little or no point, despite the advantages it may offer. Interesting how Wiki itself often provides the information to repudiate people's points. If only it were more wisely utilised. -- Roobens ( talk) 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The map is completely redundant with File:SI-metrication-world.png which shows US, Liberia and Myanmar clearly in black, and has more readable colors overall. -- JWB ( talk) 19:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
The section on units lists 'kiloliter' as not being commonly used - it is very commonly used to measure consumption of water for domestic purposes (we have metered water charges here in Australia). The usage of the terms 'cubic meter' vs 'kiloliter' could be considered regional or linguistic variations. kL is certainly more commonly used in Australia.
Also, I suggest adding ML (megaliter) as a commonly used unit of measurement for volume, particularly of water storages, tank capacities (measured both in kL and ML), and consumption by urban communities. Adding ML for volume would give a good illustration of the fact that the prefixes find different uses due to convenience and perception; ie ML is used, but Mm (megameter) is not, because it's unweildy compared to '1000km'. 220.253.83.143 ( talk) 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This article, and specically its History section, should help the poor reader who wishes to find out when Britain or England went metric. A good reference is the article, "Metric usage and metrication in other countries", by the U.S. Metric Association, at URL = < http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm> . In the History section's last paragraph, an appropriate footnote or reference should be added at the end of the sentence "As of 2006, 95% of the world's population live in metricated countries, although non-metric units are still used for some purposes in some countries."
Why don't I just add the reference myself? I did try to and I find that editing the Reference section just gives me something like "reflist" enclosed by double curly brackets, which of course I'm not able to add my reference to. For7thGen ( talk) 17:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Fnlayson insists on putting the following invisible HTML comment at the beginning of the article:
Note: This article uses British/Commonwealth English, since that variety of English was used in the earliest version of the article and because article covers an international topic. Please do not change to US English spellings. For details on Wikipedia's policies on this subject, see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English & Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling).
Fnlayson misrepresents the Manual of style when he writes "because article covers an international topic." There is no requirement that UK spelling be used in articles that cover international topics. One could try to argue that since the US has not adopted the metric system to the same degree as other English speaking countries, the metric system has strong national ties to every English-speaking country except the US, and thus some national variety of English other than US English should be used, though I view that as a weak argument. As far as I'm concerned, if the first major contributor had used US English this article would be in US English; only the first-contributor rule applies to this article. -- Gerry Ashton ( talk) 16:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In the history section, it says "Attempts were in vain in that Belgium claimed its independence from the Netherlands, but the metric system survived and began a slow but steady conquest of the world". The meaning of this is not immediately clear to me, and it doesn't seem to follow logically from the preceding paragraph. "Attempts" at what were "in vain"? Could someone who has been involved in writing this article clarify this part of it? 84.198.246.199 ( talk) 00:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
SO, How many milimeters are there in an inch? Couldn't find this exotic info anywhere here or in the aticle on "milimeter". Why not have a conversion table? Please? 76.166.245.241 ( talk) 01:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
To all editors: we all have opinions, most of us don't see US as 'the ultimate Paradise', but most of us should realise (also written "realize") that Wikipedia is spoiled (-t) BIG DEAL by our wars.
I don't care whether the article is written in US or British English, as long as it is consistently written in one or the other. If US version is preferred by the majority, then let it be. After all, language (on the level needed in Wikipedia) is just a tool of communication.
But what is actually more worrying are the subtle manipulations done out of the domain of "written word". Such "small and innocent" edits as placing an image of the world with three countries not using the metric system is nothing else than a very, very transparent manipulation. You got your revenge on those Yankees, those "fatsos", those whatyoucallem? Bravo! You spoiled our work!
Press is done praising Wikipedia, now it's the time to make some news stories. So please stick to the rules: no bias, no personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LMB ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 October 2009
The map expresses a definite POV - that metrication is all-or-nothing, and that a (somewhat out of date) record of oversimplified yes-or-no status is what matters. The date-of-adoption image communicates much more information, although still incomplete. -- JWB ( talk) 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
inches in a yard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.202.219 ( talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A "millimeter-Newton-second" systems subsection was just added. I wonder whether this really qualifies as a system. My experience with electrical simulations is that pure numbers are entered, no units, so the input may use any self-consistent units. Also, I doubt any new names for created for derived units. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
A consequence of this is that the density term is in mega-grams per cubic millimetre. To convert from g/cm3, a common unit for density, requires multiplication by 109.
I appreciate what the author was trying to do, but he was inadvertently replicating what already appears in the article SI prefixes. The section in this article has a "main artilce" link, it should only be an outline. This section is, in my opinion, already too long. Martinvl ( talk) 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the work that the author put into this addition, but all that is needed here is a summary of what prefixes are about. The length of the section shodul be comparable to other sections in this article, not be the dominant section. Martinvl ( talk) 06:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure that this is the right place for this suggestion and perhaps someone could tell me a better way to make the following suggestion:
I note that in many articles, maybe everywhere I have looked, English measure and the equivalent Metric units appear in parens afterward. It seems to me that this is tedious.
Would it not be better to standardize so that only one system is used (I would favor Metric) since the conversions can be done by an interested reader?-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 03:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The text says "via the likes of Benjamin Franklin". Why is it phrased this way? If there's evidence it was Franklin, then it's "via Benjamin Franklin", and if there's not evidence, then it's not. "The likes" in unencyclopedic. Randall Bart Talk 19:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no basis for including a discussion of conversion errors in the article on the metric system, while not mentioning these errors in the articles on the other unit systems. This misleadingly suggests that the metric system is culpable for errors in conversion, which is entirely false. These anecdotes should be moved to Conversion of units and substantially removed from this text. This needs to be corrected promptly as it is a violation of NPOV. Greg Comlish ( talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
My changes to the lede were revoked by User:Chetvorno with the comment that they did not meet the WP:NOTE criteria. I disagree.
There is (or there should be) a considerable degree of overlap between the article SI and the article on the metric system. The article on the metric system should, in my view, be written so as to describe the features that are common to SI, to the CGS system and to all the other metric systems, to a lesser extent to show why the different systems evolved and how this is currently being handled. The use or otherwise of metric units on British roads signs possibly has a place in the article Metrication and certainly has a place in Metrication in the United Kingdom, but I do not think that is has a place in the article “metric systems”, and certainly not in the article lede.
The revocation that was done by User:Chetvorno was to reinstate such material into the lede. Martinvl ( talk) 16:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I intend deleting the subsection "practicality" as it is subjective and unsiourced. I also intend deleting the section "Coincidental similarities". This section is close to trivia. I am planning a total overhaul of the sections "Overview" and "history", so at this stage I do not plan to make any suggestions regardign these sections. Any comments? Martinvl ( talk) 09:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the mmNs "system" really a system, or is it just a computer interface? If it is really a system, what are the units of force, energy & power? If these do not exist, then it is really just a user interface with computations being done with whatever normalisation the programmer sees fit. Having been a computer programmer in real life in engineering applications, I suspect the latter. Unless anybody can offer explanation to the contrary, I plan to delete this sub-section (it is unreferenced). Martinvl ( talk) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
My view of the future is:
Any comments? I don't think that this will affect its current class. Martinvl ( talk) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I woudl like to remove the section "Overview" as I believe that anything of consequence in that section is now redundant (either in the lede or in the rest of the article). I am currently working a new article User:Martinvl/History of the Metric System. It is still in draft form in my work space, but other editors can see what material I am covering. It is possible that certain snippets from the Oversiew section of this article which would otherwise be lost, will have found their way into my new article. Any comments? Martinvl ( talk) 14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I have now more or less finished overhauling this article. I believe that I have met most, if not all of the criteria for this to be rated as a "B-class" article, but I still need to go through it with a fine-tooth comb - all help and second opinions appreciated. On reading it, I believe that although it is encyclopeadic, it may be too high-brow for a large class of readers. To this end, I propose writing a parallel article "Metric System overview" which will be targeted at the non-specialist reader. My target audience will be the non-technical reader who has had minimal exposure to the metric system but who is otherwise an average Wikipedia user. To this end, I will mention in passing that electrical units are also part of SI, but I will not labour the point. However, the treatment of prefixes will be given much more prominence than in this article.
Does anybody had a better suggestion for a name - I thought about "Metric System for the layman", but felt that it might be too patronisong. Any suggestions? It is still a few weeks before I start the article as I still need to finish off "History of the Metric System" (Draft in progress at User:Martinvl/History of the Metric System). Martinvl ( talk) 17:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
By base 10 arithmetic (or decimal arithmetic), I mean arithmetic where there are 10 digits - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. This contrasts with base 16 (hexadecimal) arithmetic which is often used in computing and which uses 16 digits - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E and F or with binary (base 2) arithmetic which used 2 digits - 0 and 1 or actoal (base 8) arithmetic which uses 8 digits - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Martinvl ( talk) 12:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
In the Metric system#Usage in English-speaking countries section, in the "Variations in spelling" subsection, it lists the translation of kilometre in Italian, German, Malay, French, Greek, Portuguese, and Bulgarian. What do these have to do with "English-speaking countries"? -- 71.141.123.108 ( talk) 00:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This section of the article currently reads as follows (delinked & dereffed).
The metric system is a coherent system - the various derived units are directly related to the base units without the need of intermediate conversion factors. For example, the units of force, energy and power are chosen so that the equations
- force = mass × acceleration
- energy = force × distance
- energy = power × time
hold without the introduction of constant factors. Many relationships in physics, including Einstein's mass-energy equation, E = mc2, do not require extraneous constants when expressed in coherent units.
In SI, which is a coherent system, the unit of power is the "watt" which is defined as "one joule per second". In the foot-pound-second system of measurement, which is non-coherent, the unit of power is the "horsepower" which is defined as "550 foot-pounds per second", the pound in this context being the pound-force.
Other defined units are derived in a similar way building up on the base units.
This is not correct.
When talking coherence we must refer to specific versions of the metric system. Coherence is a property of the specific version related to the base units chosen. The SI and the cgs system, for example, use different base units. Each are coherent unto themselves. Talk of cohenence between the two is meaningless. JIMp talk· cont 10:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I have undone the changes made by an annonymous editor who left the comment "Correction of a POV statement, as there is no consensus over the paternity of the metric system among the official international organisms(One source given is from the website of an Australian biologist and the other is a TV show from the BBC"
The paper written by the "Australian biologist" (the late Pat Naughton) is in fact a reproduction of a published work by one of the founder members of the Royal Society. Naughton's contributions were to publicise this paper. The BBC video was a report on Naughton's findings. If the annonymous editor can find a reputable source to sho that somebody else made contributions to the metric system before 1668, please amend this article. If you can't find any such references, don't go around accusing people of POV. Martinvl ( talk) 19:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Years ago I read in a book I believe to be true that a fire at the British national bureau of standards destroyed all gold standards. It was going to take 30 to 50 years to replace all of those standards with accurate new ones. This was too long of a wait for the French. The French then moved ahead establishing the metric system and converting all commerce and scientific systems to metric. The French cited development and implementation time would be considerably less time.
I can no longer find a reference to this writting but I do vividly remember reading it and a rendering drawing of the building burning. Can anyone help? I am not trying to vandalize this site, just offer what I believe to be factual history.
The burning and destruction of the British Bureau of Standards in 1780, in which all gold standards of Imperial Measurement system were destroyed, helped the cause. The clincher to development of the new system was the report from the British, it would take 50 years to replace the gold standards of Imperial measures destroyed in the fire and destruction of the building. The French found it would take less time to develop the replacement system than it would take to accurately replace the Imperial Measure system. citation needed
Gerry, I think this is probably the reference I saw. Perhaps the 1891 date of publication of this fact is what I remember more than the actual date of the fire. I think it is more fair to say, the fire and "virtual loss" of these standards did not drive the rapid development of the metric system; it did drive the accelerated adoption of it's widespread use internationally.
I came here looking for that. I think it would be nice to have it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.91.119 ( talk) 05:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I am in AP European History and we are studying the French Revolution now. Our book and both of my test prep books say it was established in 1793 not 1791. Is the page's information wrong or are the books wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.152.16 ( talk) 02:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Two editors changed the spelling of "decameter" to "dekameter", once saying in the edit summary "'deka' is the non-US spelling, and this article uses UK spelling."
However, I believe "deca" is correct. The brochure provided by the Bureau international des poids et mesures (8th edition, 2006) gives the prefix as "deca" in English (page 127) and as "déca" in French (page 32). The spellings in the English half of the brochure are British spellings, not American ones. ("Labelled", for example, rather than "labeled".)
I hope this note clarifies matters. -- Dominus ( talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The spelling of English words is in accordance with the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual, which follows Webster’s Third New International Dictionary rather than the Oxford Dictionary. Thus the spellings “meter,” “liter,” and “deca” are used rather than “metre,” “litre,” and “deka” as in the original BIPM English text [emphasis added].
A new "Common prefixes" section has been added. I'm not sure we need it, considering how easy it is to go to the SI prefix article. If we do keep it, we need to clean it up. Powers should be expressed with actual superscripts. Some of the prefixes are not at all common; I have never seen deka used in a real-life situation. As far as I know, hecto- is only used for hectare. -- Gerry Ashton ( talk) 15:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am having trouble understanding something. Now I know that most of the world uses the metric system but I have a problem with its wide-spread use here. This is the English version of Wikipedia. The United States has the single largest concentration of English speaking people in the world at over 300 million. So why is it such a pain in the ass to find measurements listed in miles, feet, inches, gallons or pounds on this site? Nearly everything here has measurments in metric but less than half of the one's I've seen have standard. I'm starting to wonder, perhaps Americans are to ignorant to contribute? —Preceding
A wonderful opportunity to call Americans Ignorant. BTW you ignorant wanker it's *too* ignorant. Shit, I bet that you say *IGORANT*.
unsigned comment added by 74.128.188.55 ([[User talk:74.128.188.55|talk]]) 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Please consider that only speaking one language is mainly an american thing. The english language wikipedia, being the largest in existence, is also read by many people from non-english countries (afaik most European countries also teach english at school). And since practically everyone except the USA uses the metric system / SI it seems to be the right choice for an encyclopaedia everyone can edit.
This might sound a bit bold, but the metric system isn't that hard, why don't you just look it up? 84.59.119.48 ( talk) 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the enlish language wikipedia. It is not the native speakers enlish language wikipedia. I guess there are two to three billion people out there in the world comprehending english language sufficiently to be adressed by the english wikipedia. Why should the english wikipedia ignore the habits of 9/10 of its adressees? -- GlaMax ( talk) 08:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like the complaints was about the lack of non-metric measurements in articles. It does not seem he alleged that metric should be eleminated in favor of non metric.
He has a point take the article on Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth Not one measurement in the right pane is given in non metric (not even in parenthesis) meaning one looking for a quick answer to something that can be answered by that pane cannot get said answer unless they have working application of the metric system. And not to be an ass to GlaMax, but Wikipedia does come available in numerous other languages. Perhaps a concerted effort to update more commonly referenced pages to reflect both systems would be something to consider? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.6.31 ( talk) 07:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday (June 28) I added documentation on the "Law of 1866" that officially authorized the use of the metric system in the United States. For some reason, this was edited out. I went to some trouble to find it and I feel I am entitled to an explanation. Dougie monty ( talk) 04:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Moving the historical information regarding the U.S. authorization of the metric system to a reference implies a biased, non neutral, political motivation, i.e., that it is a government's responsibility to not merely authorize the use of a standards system, but to further impose it use as the only standard. A more straightforward, non-slanted presentation would not try to obscure this history.
The metric system has been competitively available for official use in the U.S. since 1866. The majority of the American people have merely chosen to use a different system. Those who want to use metric are perfectly free to do so, and have been for a very long time.
The maps used in this article also fail to accurately reflect this history and different philosophical approach to standards. They are likewise produced on the premise that a country must adopt a single standard and cannot have multiple systems. The U.S., on the first map, would more appropriately be colored in green and grey diagonal strips and in yellow and grey diagonal strips on the second map, or to be simply in grey on both. -- Debohun ( talk) 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The first edit I can find that cites a source ocurred at 12:57, 12 January 2007 UTC, and was by Michael Zimmerman. He used {{ Cite web}} so ideally all the citations in this article would use templates in that family. -- Gerry Ashton ( talk) 18:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The map isn't even subtle, you know? It's a very obvious POV attack, as in "OH NOEX LULZ TEH USA IS ST00PID BECAUSE ONLY IT AND THESE OTHER TWO WORTHLESS COUNTRIEZ R NOT USING METRIC WHICH ROXX0RZ!" Give me a break.
Until you have metric time, and until you can explain why there are 360 degrees in a circle (and not 1000), you metriphiles can stuff it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 ( talk) 22:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
There are inherent advantages having 360 degree in a circle. Please read following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal . -- 198.208.240.250 ( talk) 12:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Two other "worthless" countriess? You're the one that's making the attack. Dannysjgdf ( talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The first unsigned message is the strongest proof that the metric system would be beneficial. Imagine a guy like that having to think in meters. Wow, it would open a new universe to him. Well, intelligence –and love- can’t be bought I concede. -- Magnvss ( talk) 17:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Despite the flames, I think that Unsigned has a point. Please see my comment on the discussion page of the SI System page, which for brevity, I will not repeat here. As to Magnvss, 'beneficial' is in the eye of the beholder, and also in the eye of the holder of the purse-strings. Again, please read my post there. 76.98.119.56 ( talk) 02:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry, thought I was logged in. Bejmark ( talk) 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the intent of the unsigned comment (but not the manner). This article appears to have a biased agenda right from the beginning. A map of the countries of the world adopting the Metric System probably shouldn't be shown at all (won't a simple list due fine here?) and even less so as the first graphic. Mkoistinen ( talk) 16:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
What a silly flame. Maps such as these are used throughout Wikipedia to display a variety of things. The content of the map was true, so why is it biased? Ludicrous. The new format of the map says exactly the same thing, but the colours are different. Less biased? Odd. As an aside no one knows exactly why we have 60 seconds and 360 degrees, because it's based upon the ancient Babylonian number system and the origins have been lost to time, although several theories exist. A decimalised time system has indeed been devised (see Decimal Time), but as the old system would be so problematic to replace and so thoroughly ingrained, there's little or no point, despite the advantages it may offer. Interesting how Wiki itself often provides the information to repudiate people's points. If only it were more wisely utilised. -- Roobens ( talk) 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The map is completely redundant with File:SI-metrication-world.png which shows US, Liberia and Myanmar clearly in black, and has more readable colors overall. -- JWB ( talk) 19:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
The section on units lists 'kiloliter' as not being commonly used - it is very commonly used to measure consumption of water for domestic purposes (we have metered water charges here in Australia). The usage of the terms 'cubic meter' vs 'kiloliter' could be considered regional or linguistic variations. kL is certainly more commonly used in Australia.
Also, I suggest adding ML (megaliter) as a commonly used unit of measurement for volume, particularly of water storages, tank capacities (measured both in kL and ML), and consumption by urban communities. Adding ML for volume would give a good illustration of the fact that the prefixes find different uses due to convenience and perception; ie ML is used, but Mm (megameter) is not, because it's unweildy compared to '1000km'. 220.253.83.143 ( talk) 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This article, and specically its History section, should help the poor reader who wishes to find out when Britain or England went metric. A good reference is the article, "Metric usage and metrication in other countries", by the U.S. Metric Association, at URL = < http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm> . In the History section's last paragraph, an appropriate footnote or reference should be added at the end of the sentence "As of 2006, 95% of the world's population live in metricated countries, although non-metric units are still used for some purposes in some countries."
Why don't I just add the reference myself? I did try to and I find that editing the Reference section just gives me something like "reflist" enclosed by double curly brackets, which of course I'm not able to add my reference to. For7thGen ( talk) 17:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Fnlayson insists on putting the following invisible HTML comment at the beginning of the article:
Note: This article uses British/Commonwealth English, since that variety of English was used in the earliest version of the article and because article covers an international topic. Please do not change to US English spellings. For details on Wikipedia's policies on this subject, see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English & Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling).
Fnlayson misrepresents the Manual of style when he writes "because article covers an international topic." There is no requirement that UK spelling be used in articles that cover international topics. One could try to argue that since the US has not adopted the metric system to the same degree as other English speaking countries, the metric system has strong national ties to every English-speaking country except the US, and thus some national variety of English other than US English should be used, though I view that as a weak argument. As far as I'm concerned, if the first major contributor had used US English this article would be in US English; only the first-contributor rule applies to this article. -- Gerry Ashton ( talk) 16:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In the history section, it says "Attempts were in vain in that Belgium claimed its independence from the Netherlands, but the metric system survived and began a slow but steady conquest of the world". The meaning of this is not immediately clear to me, and it doesn't seem to follow logically from the preceding paragraph. "Attempts" at what were "in vain"? Could someone who has been involved in writing this article clarify this part of it? 84.198.246.199 ( talk) 00:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
SO, How many milimeters are there in an inch? Couldn't find this exotic info anywhere here or in the aticle on "milimeter". Why not have a conversion table? Please? 76.166.245.241 ( talk) 01:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
To all editors: we all have opinions, most of us don't see US as 'the ultimate Paradise', but most of us should realise (also written "realize") that Wikipedia is spoiled (-t) BIG DEAL by our wars.
I don't care whether the article is written in US or British English, as long as it is consistently written in one or the other. If US version is preferred by the majority, then let it be. After all, language (on the level needed in Wikipedia) is just a tool of communication.
But what is actually more worrying are the subtle manipulations done out of the domain of "written word". Such "small and innocent" edits as placing an image of the world with three countries not using the metric system is nothing else than a very, very transparent manipulation. You got your revenge on those Yankees, those "fatsos", those whatyoucallem? Bravo! You spoiled our work!
Press is done praising Wikipedia, now it's the time to make some news stories. So please stick to the rules: no bias, no personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LMB ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 October 2009
The map expresses a definite POV - that metrication is all-or-nothing, and that a (somewhat out of date) record of oversimplified yes-or-no status is what matters. The date-of-adoption image communicates much more information, although still incomplete. -- JWB ( talk) 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
inches in a yard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.202.219 ( talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A "millimeter-Newton-second" systems subsection was just added. I wonder whether this really qualifies as a system. My experience with electrical simulations is that pure numbers are entered, no units, so the input may use any self-consistent units. Also, I doubt any new names for created for derived units. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
A consequence of this is that the density term is in mega-grams per cubic millimetre. To convert from g/cm3, a common unit for density, requires multiplication by 109.
I appreciate what the author was trying to do, but he was inadvertently replicating what already appears in the article SI prefixes. The section in this article has a "main artilce" link, it should only be an outline. This section is, in my opinion, already too long. Martinvl ( talk) 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the work that the author put into this addition, but all that is needed here is a summary of what prefixes are about. The length of the section shodul be comparable to other sections in this article, not be the dominant section. Martinvl ( talk) 06:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure that this is the right place for this suggestion and perhaps someone could tell me a better way to make the following suggestion:
I note that in many articles, maybe everywhere I have looked, English measure and the equivalent Metric units appear in parens afterward. It seems to me that this is tedious.
Would it not be better to standardize so that only one system is used (I would favor Metric) since the conversions can be done by an interested reader?-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 03:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The text says "via the likes of Benjamin Franklin". Why is it phrased this way? If there's evidence it was Franklin, then it's "via Benjamin Franklin", and if there's not evidence, then it's not. "The likes" in unencyclopedic. Randall Bart Talk 19:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no basis for including a discussion of conversion errors in the article on the metric system, while not mentioning these errors in the articles on the other unit systems. This misleadingly suggests that the metric system is culpable for errors in conversion, which is entirely false. These anecdotes should be moved to Conversion of units and substantially removed from this text. This needs to be corrected promptly as it is a violation of NPOV. Greg Comlish ( talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
My changes to the lede were revoked by User:Chetvorno with the comment that they did not meet the WP:NOTE criteria. I disagree.
There is (or there should be) a considerable degree of overlap between the article SI and the article on the metric system. The article on the metric system should, in my view, be written so as to describe the features that are common to SI, to the CGS system and to all the other metric systems, to a lesser extent to show why the different systems evolved and how this is currently being handled. The use or otherwise of metric units on British roads signs possibly has a place in the article Metrication and certainly has a place in Metrication in the United Kingdom, but I do not think that is has a place in the article “metric systems”, and certainly not in the article lede.
The revocation that was done by User:Chetvorno was to reinstate such material into the lede. Martinvl ( talk) 16:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I intend deleting the subsection "practicality" as it is subjective and unsiourced. I also intend deleting the section "Coincidental similarities". This section is close to trivia. I am planning a total overhaul of the sections "Overview" and "history", so at this stage I do not plan to make any suggestions regardign these sections. Any comments? Martinvl ( talk) 09:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the mmNs "system" really a system, or is it just a computer interface? If it is really a system, what are the units of force, energy & power? If these do not exist, then it is really just a user interface with computations being done with whatever normalisation the programmer sees fit. Having been a computer programmer in real life in engineering applications, I suspect the latter. Unless anybody can offer explanation to the contrary, I plan to delete this sub-section (it is unreferenced). Martinvl ( talk) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
My view of the future is:
Any comments? I don't think that this will affect its current class. Martinvl ( talk) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I woudl like to remove the section "Overview" as I believe that anything of consequence in that section is now redundant (either in the lede or in the rest of the article). I am currently working a new article User:Martinvl/History of the Metric System. It is still in draft form in my work space, but other editors can see what material I am covering. It is possible that certain snippets from the Oversiew section of this article which would otherwise be lost, will have found their way into my new article. Any comments? Martinvl ( talk) 14:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I have now more or less finished overhauling this article. I believe that I have met most, if not all of the criteria for this to be rated as a "B-class" article, but I still need to go through it with a fine-tooth comb - all help and second opinions appreciated. On reading it, I believe that although it is encyclopeadic, it may be too high-brow for a large class of readers. To this end, I propose writing a parallel article "Metric System overview" which will be targeted at the non-specialist reader. My target audience will be the non-technical reader who has had minimal exposure to the metric system but who is otherwise an average Wikipedia user. To this end, I will mention in passing that electrical units are also part of SI, but I will not labour the point. However, the treatment of prefixes will be given much more prominence than in this article.
Does anybody had a better suggestion for a name - I thought about "Metric System for the layman", but felt that it might be too patronisong. Any suggestions? It is still a few weeks before I start the article as I still need to finish off "History of the Metric System" (Draft in progress at User:Martinvl/History of the Metric System). Martinvl ( talk) 17:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
By base 10 arithmetic (or decimal arithmetic), I mean arithmetic where there are 10 digits - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. This contrasts with base 16 (hexadecimal) arithmetic which is often used in computing and which uses 16 digits - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E and F or with binary (base 2) arithmetic which used 2 digits - 0 and 1 or actoal (base 8) arithmetic which uses 8 digits - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Martinvl ( talk) 12:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
In the Metric system#Usage in English-speaking countries section, in the "Variations in spelling" subsection, it lists the translation of kilometre in Italian, German, Malay, French, Greek, Portuguese, and Bulgarian. What do these have to do with "English-speaking countries"? -- 71.141.123.108 ( talk) 00:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This section of the article currently reads as follows (delinked & dereffed).
The metric system is a coherent system - the various derived units are directly related to the base units without the need of intermediate conversion factors. For example, the units of force, energy and power are chosen so that the equations
- force = mass × acceleration
- energy = force × distance
- energy = power × time
hold without the introduction of constant factors. Many relationships in physics, including Einstein's mass-energy equation, E = mc2, do not require extraneous constants when expressed in coherent units.
In SI, which is a coherent system, the unit of power is the "watt" which is defined as "one joule per second". In the foot-pound-second system of measurement, which is non-coherent, the unit of power is the "horsepower" which is defined as "550 foot-pounds per second", the pound in this context being the pound-force.
Other defined units are derived in a similar way building up on the base units.
This is not correct.
When talking coherence we must refer to specific versions of the metric system. Coherence is a property of the specific version related to the base units chosen. The SI and the cgs system, for example, use different base units. Each are coherent unto themselves. Talk of cohenence between the two is meaningless. JIMp talk· cont 10:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I have undone the changes made by an annonymous editor who left the comment "Correction of a POV statement, as there is no consensus over the paternity of the metric system among the official international organisms(One source given is from the website of an Australian biologist and the other is a TV show from the BBC"
The paper written by the "Australian biologist" (the late Pat Naughton) is in fact a reproduction of a published work by one of the founder members of the Royal Society. Naughton's contributions were to publicise this paper. The BBC video was a report on Naughton's findings. If the annonymous editor can find a reputable source to sho that somebody else made contributions to the metric system before 1668, please amend this article. If you can't find any such references, don't go around accusing people of POV. Martinvl ( talk) 19:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)