Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom

This is not a platform for protest

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

Does the user Defacto own this page?

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

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

Simple status and introduction

Metrication, 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. 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)

Beer, cider and milk

Section 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 lead photo

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)

The article is called Metrication in the United Kingdom and the lead summarises that saying some progress has been made towards metrication since the mid-20th century but today it remains equivocal and varies by context and that in 2017 the process was halted and that the UK has now officially embraced a dual system of measurement.

In other words, it is saying that more than 50 years after the start of a metrication process the UK still uses two systems and is not committed to changing that. Some might say the current halfway house is a bit of a mess.

For me, the current lead image, which has stood the test of time, epitomises that, and complies perfectly with both MOS:LEADIMAGES and the other relevant recommendations of MOS:IMAGE. For those reasons I support keeping the current image.

PS, "consensus" does not mean "majority" in these discussions, per WP:DETCON: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the perspectives shared, yet I propose an alternative stance. In my opinion, Britain merits a representation that accurately portrays the duality of measurement systems. For example, using an odometer displaying both metrics can effectively illustrate this duality, highlighting coexistence rather than conflict.

The current picture seems to emphasize dissent or disagreement that showcased in 2013, rather than showcasing the prevailing state 10 years later. It appears more as a protest or a symbol against metrication rather than a reflection of the norm. Considering the array of conflicting interests involved, opting for an image that solely presents the dual system could offer a clearer representation.

Moreover, I acknowledge the difficulty in transitioning away from the existing depiction. However, to enhance the visual representation and avoid potential misinterpretation, employing an image solely dedicated to the dual measurement system seems more prudent. Friendliness12345 (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)