Talk:Metric system

Target readership

Almost anywhere there are Simple English Users, there is no need to talk about a "metric system". 1. that term is only used in English,

it's SI officially. 2. it's the only units of measurement they will learn officially anyway.

To Americans US units of measurement are still the units learned first, so it's only them (not typically SE users) who are likely to refer to Metric System vs. "units"...

Here we should think in terms of SE and SI, period.

Especially since we're trying to provide a basis for translation. (Added in 2003)

Following a discussion at International System of Units, it was proposed that the article on SI would be targeted at readers who had a poor command of English, but a good understanding of science (typically readers whose mother tongue is not English), while the article Metric system would be targeted at younger readers. Martinvl (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This proposal – targeting the article Metric system at younger readers – is not something we have a consensus on yet. I encourage more editors to give their opinion. --Thrasymedes (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I tutor "A Level" physics on a one-to-one basis. Last night I had a student (17 years old) who suggested that a metre stick had a mass of 0.120 grams. I asked her if that was a realistic answer. She wasn't sure. The family computer was open behind me so I showed her the tables that appear in this article. "Wow, that is great" was her reply and she e-mailed the links to herself. She had something to latch onto and on reading the article decided that a metre stick was more likely to have the mass similar to that of a cricket (or hockey) ball than of half a peanut. Her mistake - she meant 0.120 kg. I relate this story because this article is the result of my teaching experience within the UK and it is the sort of experience that I have time and time again. I imagine that it would be much the same as in the US, US. Martinvl (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be an overview of the metric system, covering history, variations such as cgs and SI and the generics, and not targeted specifically at younger readers. --Centaur (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Scope of this article

I have been in discussion with User:Thrasymedes about the scope of this article. As described above, I have targeted it at readers who have a minimal scientific background, but Thrasymedes feels that we need to include a reference about the metre being defined in terms of the speed of light. I disagree, but obviously consensus needs to be reached. The first consideration is article size. If the article is too long, it is not Simple English. I have checked the lengths of a number of other Good Articles – most appear to be between 30 kbytes and 40 kbytes, a few as low as 12 kbytes and I found one that was 60 kbytes long. This article is currently about 22 kbytes long. Once I have completed the bit about metrication in the UK and the US and added a few more citations, I expect it to be 24-25 kbytes. Is this article "complete" or does it need to be expanded? If we expand it, the expansion should be done so that the article still looks "complete". Possible areas that should be added can be found in

• en:Metric system (85 kbytes)
• en:History of the metric system (132 kbytes)
• en:Introduction to the metric system (42 kbytes)
• en: Proposed redefinition of SI base units (56 kbytes)
• en:Metrication in the United Kingdom (100 kbytes)
• en:Metrication in the United States (58 kbytes)
• en: Imperial and US customary measurement systems# Metric equivalents

If anybody would like to make suggestions, please add them as a new subsection and identify how they would fit into the existing article structure. Martinvl (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The second

I would like to add a new section "Time" in the section Metric system#Units. I estimate that it will add 200 – 300 bytes to the article. Martinvl (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I must say that this article looks great. The work that's been put into it really shows. If I had one suggestion, it would be to expand the introduction. At the moment it looks a bit thin and a strong lead section will be important for those readers who just want a summary of the important bits in a few short paragraphs. I know you're keeping an eye on the size of the page, but I wouldn't worry about counting every byte. The article isn't overly detailed, and you can always split off content if you think it's becoming too long.

I can't offer an educated opinion on the speed-of-light issue, because I'm not hugely familiar with the topic. If you could tell me about how it's pertinent to the metric system, or if there's an article somewhere that will tell me more about it, then I might be able to help. Osiris (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The second, metre and kilogram are currently defined as:

• Second: The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom
• Metre: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second.
• Kilogram: The kilogram is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram.

The change in definition of the second was made because the earth is slowing down and the rate of slowing down can actually be measured, so the earth cannot be used as the master clock. There were similar technical reasons for changing the definition of the metre and also for the proposed change in the definition of the kilogram.

At the end of this year, the CGPM will debate whether or not to change the definition of the metre. (See en:Proposed redefinition of SI base units. The proposal is that the metre will be defiend as "The kilogram, kg, is the unit of mass; its magnitude is set by fixing the numerical value of the Planck constant to be equal to exactly 6.62606X×10−34 when it is expressed in the unit s−1·m2·kg, which is equal to J·s."

If you don't understand Quantum theory you will probably not understand the definition of the second or of the kilogram. That is why I left them out. If you read the text as I wrote it, you will notice that I have worded things carefully to avoid having to explain these things - I believe that they are not appropriate for the article.

It will be noticed that I have also skipped over the concept of base and derived units. This was to avoid having to explain the inter-relation between electrical theory and mechanics. This is (or should be) however explained in International System of Units. My current thinking is that it might be appropriate to write a short section with the title "Science" or "Use in science and engineering". I am not too sure how to do it yet, nor am I fully convinced that it would be appropriate at this level. Martinvl (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Martinvl, I appreciate your diligent efforts for a simple English article, in both content and layout. I have a few of points where it would be good if you could reply with an explanation:

Your reasoning for the not including the modern SI definitions seems to be that they are too difficult to understand for those without a (high school and up?) knowledge of science. Generally, we don't simplify science here - we simplify the language. If you want to do this, we would need to get a consensus of the community and all the science articles would be affected. --Thrasymedes (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The International System of Units with its base and derived units is the standard modern form of the metric system. The older forms of the metric system described in the article are metric but not standard anymore. The article gives an out of date picture of the system. If you read the current article, you might assume that the old definitions are still used today. --Thrasymedes (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Weight is used as a replacement for mass. Mass is a technical term that cannot be replaced with weight – intended simplifications like this confuse people. Anyway, mass is on the BE850 so there is no problem using it for simple English. --Thrasymedes (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Thrasymedes

I re-formatted the indentations of your comments. I trust that you do not object.

It would appear that the editor of Talk:International System of Units#Simplicity has a different view to you.

It might be helpful if you looked at this page. That page identified the need to create articles "Introduction to XXXX" and on the basis of that I created the article en:Introduction to the metric system. In my view, the need to clearly identify the readership of an article is even more pressing in Simple English as we have two totally different sets of readers - readers who use English as a first language and who have sufficient background to understand the science behind the articles should also be able to read the article in the English Wikipedia while readers for whom English is a second language might well find equations and concise technical terminology very useful. Yes, certain facts that I have written might well be "out-of-date" from the point of view of coherence, but the article steers clear of unit coherence, base units and derived units. These concepts could well be include in International System of Units.

Where appropriate, I have replaced the word "weight" with the word "mass" (and also changed the associated note).

Martinvl (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we absolutely do simplify science here. At least we're supposed to. It's not just about simplifying the language, we're supposed to try to make complex scientific concepts easy to understand. If you take the definition of the second given to me above (which would be incomprehensible to most of our readers), our purpose is to figure a method of explaining that definition in a simpler way. It doesn't necessarily have to skimp on the details, but you'd probably first have to explain what each of the big words mean. And if there isn't room to do that in this article, then leave it for another article (the article on the unit itself might be a better place), where there is more room. It shouldn't be left out of the encylcopaedia entirely just because it's difficult to understand, but choosing the most suitable place to do it is important to keeping it simple. Unless you have room to explain the science behind it, then it's better left for an article where you do.

Perhaps what we need here is clearer direction. Make it clear that these old definitions are not standard anymore. You can still leave the specific definition to the base unit's article, but point the readers to where they can get it. Metre does give both the old and current definitions, though it could use expanding. So on this article, keep it general, perhaps by simply mentioning that the metre was re-defined using the speed of light... Would that work? Osiris (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with explaining that the metre is now defined in terms of the speed of light, but at the end of the year there is a potential problem when the kilogram is redefined. The current definition is quite simple - it is the mass of a particular artifact kept in a vault near Paris. In the new definition, the Planck constant will be defined as being exactly 6.626 069 57 × 10³⁴ J·s. For this to be meaningful, we will need to define what Planck constant is, what a joule is and how a joule relates to a kilogram. That is rather a lot of science for an article such as this. I would rather just say something like "a scientific experiment" or "a scientific experiment based on the speed of light/Planck constant". Martinvl (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Just keep it non-specific, and leave the specifics and complex science for the Kilogram article. That would be my suggestion. I'm sure there are ways to phrase it vaguely so that we don't have to go into complex detail. Osiris (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. For example, "The kilogram is now defined in terms of the Planck constant." This doesn't explain it, but we don't need the details on this article. --Thrasymedes (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Martinvl (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Supported basic information missing

This article is lacking in basic information. For example, the first section "Description" (ignoring the introductory lead for now, which should summarize this and the rest of the article) begins: "The names of most units of measure in the metric system have two parts." But what exactly a metric system is has not been described yet. The first section needs to begin something like: "The metric system is a decimal-based measurement system. The system was first created by the French in the 1790s. Later other countries adopted the system. Today it is called the SI system. ..." With references, of course. Do you see what I mean? Then the lead section makes sense, and will not require references.

Then the details of the units can be introduced, followed by some history, who owns/runs the system today, the controversies, support and opposition, compliance and non-compliance with the spirit and letter, population refusal to accept (the French people refused to use it in the early 19th century, and it was abandoned there for several decades, the Japanese took decades to get it used, India compromised it with local units, the US ignore it, the UK pretend they have metricated but the people refuse to accept it other than at work), etc., etc., etc.

What we see is a good start, but basic information is in short supply. I notice too a few gems of unsupported POV appearing - such as... "The most commonly used units of measure in the metric system are listed below" - says who? Or "The word gramme can also be used in British English, but many British people think that this is old-fashioned." - needs a reference. Or "Some companies saved a lot of money by changing to the metric system..", "Other companies lost money because they had to make many changes but did not have any benefit from the changes." - who in what context? Or "Today some people in the United States want to complete the change-over to the metric system. They say that it will make things easier for everybody. Other people say that it will cost too much money. Some people want to use the metric system because it will make it easier to export goods. Other people do not want the metric system because it will make imported goods more competitive in the United States." - is far too weasely. Centaur (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I will respond paragraph by paragraph:

• Para 1 - I have made a few changes to accommodate these observations.
• Para 2 - The article is now 30 kbytes in length. In order to keep below the maximum length of 40 kbytes many things have had to be stripped out. I have included what I believe to be the most important points. Many of the points that you raised, for example Mesures usuelles require a paragraph to present in a neutral manner -for example mesures uselles only applied to the retail industry, not to all sectors of French society.
• Para 3 - I have added a citation for the bit about saving money. Although it might be weasly, the rest is self-evident - I have kept the language as simple as possible.

Martinvl (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 was referring to the "Description" section, not the lead section which you changed. I have now inserted a bit in the section in question to get the ball rolling.

The points I raise in paragraph 2 are more important, in terms of article balance and completeness, that a lot of the superfluous stuff about the US and British customary system that you have added, so need taking seriously - this article is about the metric system, and not the other systems, after all.

The unsupported POV I mention in paragraph 3 needs addressing, even if it means removing the one-sided POV that exists there. Centaur (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I adjusted your wording - the term "quantity" is the correct scientific term. I removed the sentence "Today ..." as it is not 100% true - cgs units such as darcys (used to measure permeability) are still used in the oil industry. They are metric units, but are not SI units.

I do not understand your other comments. Please explain more fully.Martinvl (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Quantity" sounds just fine, thanks. If the SI isn't the only metric system, then we must say that there are more than one metric systems. Both my other concerns are to do with POV balance I suppose, let me try and explain.

Firstly (my paragraph 2 above) the article describes how the French introduced the system and how most of the world have gradually adopted it, but it fails to mention that its introduction met considerable resistance in some places, and in some places where it is nominally the official system, it is a cut-back version, with local units and corruptions of units accepted alongside, or in place of SI units. For instance, in France, where it was introduced at the end of the 18th century, it was initially rejected and had to be withdrawn early in the 19th century, and was not returned for many decades. In the UK it was voluntarily adopted by industry back in the 1960s/70s and forced by legislation into business, commerce and government (some apparently EU inspired) up to the end of the 20th century - but the population have clearly resisted it, even rejected it en masse, and the ideal of full metrication of the UK has long since been abandoned by the government and the EU. I believe Japan is still trying to introduce it after nearly a century of effort, and South Korea have tried twice. Some African countries had tried several times without success and the US was seriously pursuing the idea for a while, but is no more. The article needs to describe the good, bad and the ugly. You say there isn't room, I think you need to make room, and there is plenty of less metric system related stuff that could be removed.

Secondly (my paragraph 3 above) the article contains unreferenced POV, assertions of most commonly used units being... and the word gramme being considered old fashioned, but the main one to do with the paragraph on US findings of costs and benefits of going metric. Centaur (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In terms of priorities, I would rate a discussion about coherent units and the way in which electrical and mechanical systems are linked as being far more important than mesures uselles which were phased out 170 years ago. The bit about being forced into legislation would require an article on its own if it is to be presented in a neutral manner. In short, it is not practicable to implement your suggestions about the politics of he introduction of the metric system. Martinvl (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are exaggerating the work required, so disagree with your verdict. As it stands, this article POV is not balanced, so does not comply with the WP:Rules rules for this encyclopedia. Centaur (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this disruptive? (2 March 2014)

I believe that User:Centaur's changes here are highly disruptive in that he has removed an objective and neutral, albeit simplified explanation of the issues surrounding metrication in the US. In its place he substituted an assertion that the USMA was the only organization that wanted metrication.

Does anybody else have an opinion? For the record I have filed a complaint at WP:AN#User Centaur for disruptive editing. Martinvl (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive? No. Slightly clumsy? Yes. It seemed right when I wrote it, but I didn't read it back properly. I'm sorry I messed up, but I have now reworded it. What I wanted to do was make it clear where that opinion and analysis came from - the website of a lobby group.

For "objective and neutral" information about use, or otherwise, of the metric system in the US, I would caution against sourcing it from such a potentially heavily biased source. Centaur (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reworked the last paragraph, removed all references to the USMA (including citations). Everything now has citations.Martinvl (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You have now replaced the non-neutral, but attributed POV, with a non-neutral personal (so unsourced) synthesis of published material that advances a position, thus unambiguously contravening WP:Synthesis. You have basically searched-out a bunch of unrelated references (all from pro-metrication sources, I might add) to support each of your series of one-sided statements. In fact, it is such a blatant contravention that it needs to be removed, or at least templated as unacceptable content.

To make that paragraph neutral, you need to find reliably sourced synthesis of the US opinions - i.e. someone else's published summary of the US feelings over the question of metrication. Centaur (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

System of units or system of measurement

On the BIPM page on SI, you will see "... adopted the name Système International d'Unités ... for the recommended practical system of units of measurement." Note the words "units of measurement", not just "measurement". They could have written "system of units of physical measurements" as there are many systems of measurements - measurements of quality, measurements of economies etc.

When you do your driving test, the examiner uses a system of measurement which measures the quality of your driving - he uses two metrics - "minor faults" and "major faults". SI has nothing to do with measurements of ability to drive, but is it closely related to the imperial system and other systems of units - in particular there is a one-to-one correspondence between a "foot" and a "metre", between a "pound" and a "kilogram". There is however no link whatsoever between a "metre" and a "major fault". There are certain fundemental rules that hold for all systems of physical measurements such as Newton's laws of motion. Newton's and Kepler's Laws of Motion and are the same regardless of whether you use metres-kilograms-second or Astronomical units, sun-masses and years. Does this explain the difference between systems of units and systems of measurement? Martinvl (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The driving examiner's unit of measurement is driving faults then. As with system of measurements, system of units requires context. The BIPM use "system of measurement" in other documents too, and it is in wider outside use - we should stick with that. --Centaur (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

At risk of repeating myself, this BIPM page uses the phrase "system of units of measurement", not "system of measurement".

Also, this document on legal metrology produced jointly by the BIPM, OIML, ISO and others defines a "system of units" (para 1.13) as "set of base units and derived units, ....". The document does not describe a "system of measurement", but does describes a "measurement system" (para 3.2) as "set of one or more measuring instruments and often other devices ...". The JCGM document is designed as a legal handbook. It is the closest that we get to a dictionary and as such, its definitions supercede any other definitions. I would also suggest that you look at page 59 to see how the various definitions inter-relate. Martinvl (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No matter how many times you repeat yourself, you cannot escape from the fact that BIPM, also use the term "system of measurement" - and it is widely used elsewhere too. Here are a few examples for you to consider. BIPM: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Others: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Centaur (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets start with the SI Brochure. The phrase "system of measurement" occurs once - a verbatim quote from the CGPM meeting in 1960. On the other hand the phrase "system of units" occurs many times. The underlying reason is that the language has become more formalized over the last half century. At least one of the other BIPM sources that you quoted is a repetition of the 1960 meeting. That is why the page The International System of Units (SI) uses the phrase "practical system of units of measurement". Martinvl (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a convincing reason to justify replacement en masse of the long-time established phrase with one that is less common. Centaur (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have modified the text to replace "system of measurement" with an alternate. I have looked at each case separately. WHere the text related directly to SI, I have used "system of units of measurement" (as per the SI Brochure), otherwise I have used the wording "measurement system". Martinvl (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? It seems like you are engaging in a "replace that phrase at any cost". First you replaced it with one thing, now, after I contested that change, you are replacing it with another. Yet you haven't provided any rational reason, let alone sourced reason, for the change.

Let's have the discussion first, here, and see: 1) if there is a good reason for change, 2) what the change should be. Centaur (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The SI Brochure is the definitive description of SI. We should follow its conventions. The sidenote on section 1.1 aligns the brochure with the Vocabulary of international metrology (VIM). The second paragraph of section 1.1 states "In order to establish a system of units, such as the International System of Units ...". The phrase "system of units" occurs frequently in the brochure. The most frequent occurrences are in the phrases "International System of Units" or "practical system of units". The phrase "System of measurement" occurs once in the entire brochure - when quoting a statement from the 1960s verbatim. For that reason any statement that is connected with SI should use the wording "system of units" or "system of units of measurement" rather than "system of measurement". I have amended the article to show this, but have left the words "system of measurement" for non-SI systems. Martinvl (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A few more references from the Vocabulary of International Metrology:

• 2.1 measurement - process of experimentally obtaining one or more quantity values that can reasonably be attributed to a quantity.
• 1.1 quantity - property of a phenomenon, body, or substance, where the property has a magnitude that can be expressed as a number and a reference
• 1.1 (Note 2) A reference can be a measurement unit, a measurement procedure, a reference material, or a combination of such.

SI only concerns itself with measurement units (or units of measurement), not with procedures or reference materials. That is why it is a "system of units" or "system of units of measurements", but not "system of measurement". Martinvl (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia is committed to neutrality, and is not bound to mirror or push the view of any particular single outside organization. Wikipedia is free, indeed bound, to provide neutral content, and in this case it would seem that "system of measurement" is normal English usage for this type of definition, and that trumps alternative minority definitions, even if they are the preferred ones of an organization such as the BIPM.

Here is the full definition of the SI from NIST, and in the first sentence of the forward it describes SI thus: "The International System of Units, universally abbreviated SI (from the French Le Système International d’Unités), is the modern metric system of measurement." (my bold). That corroborates what I am saying. Centaur (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the document properly (I presume that you are talking about this document) and do a search on "system of measurement" and "system of units". When I did it, the first got 4 hits - I did not count number of hits for the second, but it was many more than 4. You might like to count them for me. Martinvl (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I saved my post without pasting the link. You now seem to concede that "system of measurement" is indeed a valid description for the subject of this article. You now need to convince us why we should replace it (assuming you still want to replace it). I've shown that, although the BIPM don't use it in their primary definition of the SI, that the NIST do. The vast majority of the hits on "system of units" that you saw in their document is as part of the phrase "International System of Units", the title of the thing they are discussing, or in various references to content of the BIPM document. They define the SI as a system of measurement, not as a system of units. The British National Physical Laboratory also use "system of measurement" (as well as system of units) in their description of the metric system here [13]: "Legislation, authorizing construction of this new system of units, was passed on 26 March 1791 and the Metric System of measurement was born." and here [14]: "The international system of units (SI) is the most widely used system of measurement for commerce and science." (my bold).

"System of measurement" has been the description used in this article from day 1, and, as we see from the few references I have quoted, it is a valid description, and in use with two of the world's leading national measurement standards laboratories. Why should we change it? Centaur (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion on the System of measurement outlines what as "system of measurement" is. In short it includes the gathering of information, processing of information and presentation of information. The term "System of measurement" includes items such as error analysis, data context and also units of measure. The metric system (and particularly SI) is concerned only with units of measure - it depend neither on the context of the data nor the way in which the data was collected. Martinvl (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This has always been system of measurement, and that is a common term in the sources, including in publications from NIST and NPL, as we have seen. I'm not convinced that the discussion that you added to System of measurement, after I created it to link from the repeated use of that term here, and in other systems of measurement articles, is necessarily valid yet, and the discussion on WP:Simple talk, and that article's talpage, is still open. Centaur (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

History of the metric system

I have reinstated the paragraph about pints and fluid ounces. This is an example of what the situation was across all of Europe and simplifies the explanation. I removed the bit about the palme, the doigt and the trait because they were insignificant - how long were they in actual use? Please answer that before you even think about reinstating the sentence. Martinvl (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The 21st century example is not relevant and not helpful. However, even if it was, there was no need to add a disputed link at the same time and certainly no need to remove an entire section about 18th century rejection of the metric system. The history of the metric system is incomplete without discussing some of the many examples of rejection and public resistance to it. Centaur (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You had obviously not seen the original paragraph that I introduced in which I discussed the mesures usuelles. I have expanded that sentence, introduced the name "mesures usuelles" and put its usage into context. Martinvl (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw it. I also saw you delete good content - again, and still with no good reason. Centaur (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction in Metre Convention section (Hallcock vs BIPM)

Did the US sign the Metre Convention in 1875 as referenced to Hallcock or in 1878 as referenced to the BIPM? Centaur (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The US representative signed in 1875 (along with other representatives). Congress ratified in 1878. Martinvl (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

History

User:Martinvl, what exactly don't you like about my additions - they are all fully referenced? It seems radical to remove them all without first explaining why. Centaur (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The first explanation is given below. Once we have sorted that one out, we will progress to the next one. There is no point in choking by trying to look at too many at once. Martinvl (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a deliberate attempt to obstruct development of the article. Please give a broad outline of your objections to my additions. Centaur (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Martinvl, Alder starts his summary of the metric system (Ch.12, p.343) stating: "Inaugurated during the French Revolution, and rescinded during the French empire, the metric system has gone on in the past two centuries to be readopted by France and embraced by every other nation on earth - except the United States, Myanmar (formerly Burma) and Liberia." Why don't you think this article should, at least, cover those aspects? You seem to want to leave out any discussion of the negatives and present the system as if through rose-tinted spectacles. Wikipedia has a requirement for neutrality, so we need to cover all sides. Please read the reliable sources, such as Alder, and help create a great article that gives the full, true and neutral picture. Our readers deserve it? Centaur (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Reinstatement of history (12 March 2014)

I have reinstated the earlier version of the section History. I think it best that the changes made be discussed one by one, starting at the beginning. Once consensus has been reached on one section, we can move onto the next.

Gallons and Quarts

The section en:Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable#Add a concrete example encourages editors to add examples to explain the text. In the case in question, the difference between US and UK pints and fluid ounces is something to which everybody can relate. An alternative would have been troy ounces and ounces avoirdupois, but since nobody use the troy pound these days, it would not have been as good an example. (For the record, the troy pound was banned in the UK in 1878. Also there are 12 troy ounces in a troy pound). This difference is also very typical of the situation in Europe in 1789 (outbreak of the French Revolution). Using one to lead into the other is, in my view, a very good way to show the scale of the problem. Martinvl (talk)

It's not rocket science though, it surely suffices to explain that there were numerous different units around. We aren't writing for an audience with learning difficulties, but for one with limited English. Centaur (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Before 1959 there were differences between the imperial and the US foot. Since those differences were about 2 parts per million; they could be solved by tweaking the definition. Can you tell me what sort of variations were found across France in 1789 without looking it up? We have a choice of either giving a discourse as to the scale of variations in France or giving a typical example. I go for the example. Since the example is already there, removing it without consensus is vandalism. Martinvl (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with simply saying there were differences, which were big enough to cause concern and confusion, or whatever the reason for wanting to standardize the measures was? Centaur (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my opening line, en:Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable#Add a concrete example encourages editors to add an example to explain things. Martinvl (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This concept here isn't "confusing even to expert readers" though, it's very simple actually, and readers should not have difficulty or confusion with it. Centaur (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Add this

Someone add "People write "(Arabic name for kilometer)" in UAE". 111.88.116.25 (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)