Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metrication in the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Simple status and introduction
editMetrication, the process replacing an existing unit of measurement (imperial units for the United Kingdom) with the SI system of measurement, commonly called the metric system. The United Kingdom, has completed its manditory metrification process, with all of government, industry and commerce having metrificated, however the United Kingdom has chosen to retain the manditory use of Imperial units for road signs for distance (in miles and yards) and speed (in miles per hour), and are imperial units are still allowed to be used solely for the sale of draught beer or cider (in pints), milk in returnable containers (in pints), and precious metals (by the troy ounce). Reteilers can also display an imperial measurements alongside the metric measurements but it cannot stand out more than the metric measurement, and for heights for bridges a duel measurement system is also used.
In practice the imperial system is still used in every day language, for example Imperial units are also often used to describe ones height and weight, or vehicle fuel economy. Due to duel measurement systems in use in the United Kingdom, imperial units are still taught alongside metric units in schools.[a] 1.145.113.110 (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a spellchecker on your device? That's full of spelling errors. Sticking in the article in that condition was not a good move. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for actually opening a talk section, but the point of that is to allow time for other opinions and for a consensus to emerge, and not simply to state what you have just placed in the article. I have backed out your latest changes to the lead for the reasons in my edsum and per HiLo48, it was a bit of a mess. In addition to the spelling errors, it is not a summary of the article. For instance, the article only says that children in schools should still be "cognisant of the Imperial measurements still in common use". My children know a yard is about a metre and a mile is about 1500 metres. I doubt they know that a gill is a unit of measurement, nor how many ounces to the kilo (to name just two that do not get taught). What they (and I) do know is not really relevant to the lead in any case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- More than happy to do it this way. Happy for any corrections, let's be open to change. Is totally unclear what is the current status. Let's tighten up the language be clear on what metrication is, and what is not metricated in the UK. Agreed it should be restricted to imperial units still in use. Besides spelling and making it clearer of which imperial units still in use, any other comments on this change. 2406:3400:212:D700:9C9D:93B7:EA7A:E6CF (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- The point is that all the detail should be presented in the article body, not in the lead section (the article introduction if you like), and it needs to be robustly sourced to reliable secondary sources there in the article body.
- An updated summary of the main points of the article body can then be discussed here and, when/if a consensus is reached here, be summarised in the lead section. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I refer you to Wikipedia Feature articles, on a guide on how to write a good articles by editors. What you call detail is required for the statute see this on old british coins 2406:3400:212:D700:9C9D:93B7:EA7A:E6CF (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Another feature article considered the gold standard is climate change, which does have references. 1.145.73.79 (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- From MOS:CITELEAD:
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source.
- (Emphasis mine). This is not the case for the climate change article, as it is considered a controversial subject. It is not helpful to compare this article to other articles because (a) they are not directly comparable in most cases and (b) the fact they do it some way does not mean they do it right. We should refer to policy and guidelines, not to articles. (Oh, and incidentally: [1]) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly pick another featured article, is not comparing controversial articles it is showing what wkipedia considers well written, in format and etc. There are pages full the metrification of the UK doesn't even flow properly. 2406:3400:212:D700:D38C:A3A9:A2F4:4E17 (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I refer you to Wikipedia Feature articles, on a guide on how to write a good articles by editors. What you call detail is required for the statute see this on old british coins 2406:3400:212:D700:D38C:A3A9:A2F4:4E17 (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. 2406:3400:212:D700:D38C:A3A9:A2F4:4E17 (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- The claims have been made not to show references in the introduction. It is common in the featured articles, considered the standard for sites, such as AUSTRALIA.
- • They are all sourced from government websites.
- • It is been claimed you don't need to exactly specify what is metricated and what isn't, it is common to see the detail as there isn't much such as the coin reference above.
- I really don't understand the reluctance to be precise. It makes it clear. 2406:3400:212:D700:D38C:A3A9:A2F4:4E17 (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is no reluctance to precision in the article body. The lead, however, is a summary and is already at 4 paragraphs, so is long enough. If you want to add anything, you need to explain what needs cutting too and why. Leads are there as a summary of main text, and I think you should be concentrating on main text for the precision you require. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- 2406:3400:212:D700:D38C:A3A9:A2F4:4E17, 1.145.73.79, 2406:3400:212:D700:9C9D:93B7:EA7A:E6CF, 1.145.113.110, if you have some appropriately sourced information, that is not already in the body of the article, and which you think would add value to the article, then please, of course, per WP:BOLD, add it into the appropriate main body section of the article (but not directly into the lead for the reasons that Sirfurboy has explained). Appropriate sources generally means secondary sources which comply with the requirements of WP:RS.
- It will then probably be reviewed by watchers of this article, who will be looking at it for relevance, neutrality, verifiability, due weight, clarity, etc., per the Wiki policies. If they edit or remove it, and you disagree with that, then please follow WP:BRD and add a new section here to present your rationale for what value you think it adds, and why you disagree with their change(s), and work towards reaching a consensus of how to proceed. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:04, 1 November 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) 00:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly pick another featured article, is not comparing controversial articles it is showing what wkipedia considers well written, in format and etc. There are pages full the metrification of the UK doesn't even flow properly. 2406:3400:212:D700:D38C:A3A9:A2F4:4E17 (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- From MOS:CITELEAD:
- Another feature article considered the gold standard is climate change, which does have references. 1.145.73.79 (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I refer you to Wikipedia Feature articles, on a guide on how to write a good articles by editors. What you call detail is required for the statute see this on old british coins 2406:3400:212:D700:9C9D:93B7:EA7A:E6CF (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- More than happy to do it this way. Happy for any corrections, let's be open to change. Is totally unclear what is the current status. Let's tighten up the language be clear on what metrication is, and what is not metricated in the UK. Agreed it should be restricted to imperial units still in use. Besides spelling and making it clearer of which imperial units still in use, any other comments on this change. 2406:3400:212:D700:9C9D:93B7:EA7A:E6CF (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Beer, cider and milk
editSection 8, subsection (2) or the weights and measures act states:
No person shall use for trade— ... (d)the pint except for— (i)the purposes of the sale of draught beer or cider, or (ii)the purposes of the sale of milk in returnable containers,
That is permissive, not mandatory. AIUI retailers are free to use metric units if they want, but are likely to face some customer resistance! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Section 2, subsection (1) of the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988 (as amended) says:
Unless pre-packed in a securely closed container and except when sold as a constituent of a mixture of two or more liquids, beer or cider shall be sold by retail— (a) only in a quantity of ⅓ pint, ½ pint, ⅔ pint or a multiple of ½ pint
- This is not permissive, it is mandatory, and retailers are not allowed to use metric units in this context. Kahastok talk 18:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- The rules around this could be better written.
- The pint is the quanity of the serving in the glass, pints are defined exactly in SI units.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/1804/schedule/made
- You can't sell beer/cider in other sizes by the glass. "In the UK, free-flow beer must be sold in stamped pint or half pint glasses. This ensures consistency all over the country."
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/south_yorkshire/7546315.stm Friendliness12345 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's not quite accurate. (1) ⅓ and ⅔ pints are also permitted, see Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988 as cited above.
- (2) the glasses do not need to be stamped if the liquor is delivered from a measured half (or similar), section2, subsection (2) says:
Paragraph (1)(b) above shall not apply where— (a)the quantity of the intoxicating liquor the subject of the sale is ascertained by means of measuring equipment stamped in accordance with regulation 16(2) of the Measuring Equipment (Intoxicating Liquor) Regulations 1983(1); (b)the liquor in question is delivered directly from the measuring equipment into the container in which it is intended the buyer should receive it; (c)the liquor in question is so delivered after the buyer has ordered it; and (d)the measuring equipment (or that part of it from which the liquor is delivered) is installed in such a position that the delivery of the liquor into the container can readily be seen by customers in that part of the premises where the buyer ordered the liquor.
- come to think of it, I haven't seen measured halves for decades, probably not since the 1970s, but they used to be standard in Vaux pubs and in clubs when bright beer was being dispensed from cellar tanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well clarfied. I think this brings this discusssion to a close. Friendliness12345 (talk) 10:53, 25 November 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) 00:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well clarfied. I think this brings this discusssion to a close. Friendliness12345 (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- come to think of it, I haven't seen measured halves for decades, probably not since the 1970s, but they used to be standard in Vaux pubs and in clubs when bright beer was being dispensed from cellar tanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The lead photo
editDiscussion started by blocked sockpuppet is now closed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi all, I believe we should open a debate on the lead photo (Tomatoes for sale in a UK greengrocer's shop 2013)as the choice for the lead photo for metrication in the UK. I don't believe this is a "natural and appropriate representations of metrication", or is high quality, as required for a lead imagine MOS:LEADIMAGE and in addition it appears to be non-conforming M:SHOCK, as create controversy of showing non-compliance, or criminal activity. It is also hard to read the units on the imagine in contravention of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, and doesn't convey quickly if the readers have arrived at the right page as per the requirements MOS:LEAD. The imaging is also unverifiable. To remove any shock value intended or otherwise, and to make a clear imagine that represents metrication in the UK, it is proposed to use a more suitable lead imagine that represents actual metrication in the UK. I agree with the earlier talk page that show the image. Being the post office metrication poster. https://metricationuk.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/19750929_mail_goes_metric_poster.png?w=480 Debate and discussion is healthy, on this subject. If there is a consenses ie a majority of replies agree, it should be replaced. Friendliness12345 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Third opinion responseedit
This is going to need an RfC. The IP made a good contribution as a third person, but by calling up a previous consensus, where more than the two of you had contributed, it no longer became eligible for WP:3PO. Instead we have an issue of WP:CONLEVEL which states Which is not to say that an image should be frozen in time because no editors can ever displace an older agreement, but rather, where there is a clear 1 on 1 disagreement, and the third person both said that STATUSQUO should be returned to and that the older consensus should be revisited, and that another image, not the one under dispute, would be their choice, it is clear that it is time to bring in more editors for a broader discussion. I will revert to the status quo, which should be presented as one RfC option (as status quo ante bellum). I presume the road signs will be a second option in the RfC. Should we add any others? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
|
Revert of introduction to the post-Brexit review consultation
editIn this edit, Friendliness12345 reverted my expansion to the introduction to that section. The reason given was: Future status of metrication has been reverted: this is not an accurate or neutral summary of the situation and does not reflect the source - take to talk per WP:BRD rather than reverting and we can discuss it there.
We need to understand this in more detail.
I had replaced one sentence with four new sentences to add necessary context and clarify some details about the review that the consultation was part of - all supported by the already cited BBC News source:
- Cited ource used: "Brexit: Imperial units only part of laws revamp, says No 10". BBC News. 2021-09-17. Retrieved 2021-09-17.
As part of a larger post-Brexit review of laws inherited from the European Union (EU), the Brexit minister, David Frost, announced in September 2021 that the government would be reviewing the laws requiring traders to use metric units for the sale of most packaged or loose goods in the UK.
- A simple neutral statement of the context of the exercise, supported in the cited source by the following content:
- "The government says its review of EU rules on imperial measures for traders is only a "small part" of plans to reshape laws after Brexit."
- "But No 10 said it was just one element of its drive to recast laws inherited from the EU."
- "An EU law requires traders to use metric measurements when weighing packaged or loose goods for sale in England, Wales and Scotland."
- "Brexit minister Lord Frost said the review would allow the UK to ensure "Brexit freedoms" are harnessed to help businesses."
- A simple neutral statement of the context of the exercise, supported in the cited source by the following content:
The inherited laws allowed the display prices by imperial units, but they were not allowed to "stand out more" than the equivalent prices by metric units.
- The current situation, supported in the cited source by the following content:
- "An EU law requires traders to use metric measurements when weighing packaged or loose goods for sale in England, Wales and Scotland."
- "They are still allowed to sell goods and display prices in imperial quantities, but they cannot "stand out more" than the metric measures."
- The current situation, supported in the cited source by the following content:
Since the "Metric Martyrs" case in 2001, in which a group of market traders were convicted for using only imperial units, this law has not been rigorously enforced.
- The reason it's topical, supported in the cited source by the following content:
- "The rules shot to prominence after the prosecution of the "metric martyrs", a group of market traders convicted in 2001 of selling goods using only imperial measures, but have since not been rigorously enforced."
- The reason it's topical, supported in the cited source by the following content:
Ahead of the 2019 General Election, the prime minister, Boris Johnson, pledged to change the rules (if elected to push Brexit through), saying, "We will bring back that ancient liberty. I see no reason why people should be prosecuted."
- Why they were doing it, supported in the cited source by the following content:
- "Boris Johnson pledged to change the rules ahead of the 2019 election, telling the Daily Mail, external: "We will bring back that ancient liberty. I see no reason why people should be prosecuted.""
- Why they were doing it, supported in the cited source by the following content:
Friendliness12345, do you still have an issue with any of that? Is any of it inaccurate? Is any of it not neutral? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is known as "emphasis bias", this is not netural. A simple one line would work, not over and over stating the cause and causality of the reasoning for the survey. this is covered in a another section.
- This section was to cover the future status.
- Which the the survey resulted in the preferred state was the status quo, and as such the government will not change the legislation. Friendliness12345 (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Friendliness12345, can you elaborate a bit please.
- What are you saying is not neutral - the sources or the interpretation?
- How do you expect readers to know the context of a one-liner with no context given?
- You say "This section was to cover the future status". The future status of what? It is not explained. The survey was only about whether to change how fresh produce sold by weight can be priced, and that needs to be explained.
- -- DeFacto (talk). 07:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Due to no longer being bound by the regulations of the EU common market, the UK Government sought public opinion on changing the current systems of measurement when buying or selling goods." This is simply netural sentence on what factual in one sentence, of what has occurred, and bringing the reviewing, i understand you the government to look stupid for institing on a review that has gone overwhelming against it but that isn't the purpose of this page.WP:NPOV
- The rest is rolling back, to past information, and retelling a longer story that isn't necessary. WP:TMI
- The future status: is means the UK has no plans to alter its current measurement state either by further metrication and decided not to reverse metrication.
- Friendliness12345 (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot understand much of the answers you have written. Please try again - perhaps writing it first in you native language, and then using a machine translation service to translate it into English. Sorry.
- Remember though, that this review was solely to discover what the appetite was to liberalise the ways in which imperial units are used on labels when selling to domestic consumers - either for stating the unit price of loose produce or for stating the amount in pre-packaged products. It had nothing to do with future changes in any of the numerous other fields in which imperial units dominate, or which use mixed units (e.g. road signs, sports rules, land sales, advertising, product descriptions, DIY supplies, school curricula, weight-watcher clubs, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera). Hence 'future status' needs fully qualifying to avoid misleading or confusing readers.
- Remember to, that describing it clearly and neutrally (which I favour) is what we are supposed to do in an encyclopaedia, and not keeping it as terse and ambiguous as possible so that readers cannot readily appreciate what it all means (which you seem to be favouring). -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I find your coments insutling and unnecessary. I am sorry you are obfuscated by my comments.
- It is not netural. I have explained this.
- You clearly disagree, and that is okay.
- I have explained.
- It is not the purpose of the section. You changed the section to suit your agenda. The section is to demonstrate there are no government plans to change the status quo.
- The history has already been told under retail, and roads above. You could retell the entire story again.
- You should be reported. Friendliness12345 (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your further explanation adds to the confusion.
- What is the purpose of the section then? I changed the content to add context and detail to the previously inaccurate and misleading content that had been added.
- The history of what? Of the review of the desired units to be used on pricing and package size labels as part of a post-Brexit law rationalisation exercise? I don't that it anywhere.
- Your removal of context and addition of inaccurate, ambiguous, and poorly written snippets is disruptive. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Defacto, I do not believe what you have expressed is suitable for this section, or the level of detail of retelling the entire history of what led to the survey is required.
- However, as always we might both be wrong and we clearly need a third party might be more suited to resolve this as well.
- Maybe the section should be removed, re-written, or expressed differently. Therefore, before you comment on my opinion, my communication style and etc. I will invoke a third party to help bring this matter to a close. Friendliness12345 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- 3O Response: On whether User:Friendliness12345 is difficult to understand: yes, I agree with User:DeFacto, your comments are incoherent and ungrammatical, preventing other editors from interacting and engaging with you as they must on Wikipedia. Please take steps to remedy the problem, or consider contributing to a Wikipedia in a language you are more confident in. On whether [2] this edit was correct—no, there is no justification in replacing sourced content with an uncited ungrammatical sentence.That said, Friendliness12345 has a point (I think, I may have misunderstood) in saying that events which happened five years ago should not appear in the "Future" section. Considering that there are two discussions of the December 2023 survey in the article, I would suggest moving the content in the "Future" section, little of which discusses the future, into the "2000s" section, and removing the duplicated material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- thank you. I have moved this to the section under 2000, and removed the duplication, and deleted the section. Friendliness12345 (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- 3O Response: On whether User:Friendliness12345 is difficult to understand: yes, I agree with User:DeFacto, your comments are incoherent and ungrammatical, preventing other editors from interacting and engaging with you as they must on Wikipedia. Please take steps to remedy the problem, or consider contributing to a Wikipedia in a language you are more confident in. On whether [2] this edit was correct—no, there is no justification in replacing sourced content with an uncited ungrammatical sentence.That said, Friendliness12345 has a point (I think, I may have misunderstood) in saying that events which happened five years ago should not appear in the "Future" section. Considering that there are two discussions of the December 2023 survey in the article, I would suggest moving the content in the "Future" section, little of which discusses the future, into the "2000s" section, and removing the duplicated material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your further explanation adds to the confusion.
- @Friendliness12345, can you elaborate a bit please.
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).