Talk:Weights and Measures Acts (UK)

misplaced commas

Something seems not quite right about ...following which the, by then European Union (EU) and its commission (EC), confirmed that the UK would be able...

The first comma functions as an open parenthesis, in which case its counterpart should come two words later, making by then parenthetic. The comma following (EC) seems to be functioning as a close parenthesis, in which case the corresponding open parenthesis should follow (EU). However, that would leave the sentence with too many commas. I think maybe we should eliminate both of the existing commas in the text above. Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of "°"

What does this represent and is it necessary for the article? Also, the citation titles do not totally represent the source title. What is more important, the facsimile supplied title or the title of the original source?66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a designation of an ordinal number, so "3°" is "third," "5°" is "fifth," etc. I'm not sure what you mean by source titles and actual titles, because they appear to correlate to me (rephrase the question maybe?). But to your original question - yes, they are necessary for the article, because it means one doesn't have to worry about what suffix to end with. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: after re-reading your query, are you asking why the citation doesn't list the full book title? If so, I believe it's for brevity. Technically speaking only the title itself needs to be included, not the subtitle. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is the only one that I have come across that uses the "°" and I believe that where I read style for at least UK/Brit related citations it is not normally part. The title used in the citation is that provided by the source of the image reproduction instead of the work itself. I would think that should the source become defunct or moved without appropriate redirect that the original publication title should be supplied. That way people do not have to go hunting and peeking for what is the "original" secondary source. This is a common problem with many pictorial sources that are so common today. Even in the old days it was not the title of the microfilm or fiche that was the source to be cited but the original published or facsimile source. At least as long as the film or fiche and its location existed it was possible to review sources but that is not always possible with a defunct link.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it's completely unnecessary, and we shouldn't use it. Googling (e.g.) "18° Henry VI. Cap. 16." -wikipedia finds exactly no one else who writes it this way. The standard is no longer to write out Cap. either but to leave a lower-case c. that doubles between Latin and English readings. "18 Henry VI. c. 16." -wikipedia finds more hits. It's not dispositive since a zealous editor could enforce changes there as well but it's worth noting that the current Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom and the subsidiary pages of List of Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom do not use the degree sign as an ordinal in the manner it's being employed here. — LlywelynII 11:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Scope

Obviously, the page right now is heavily WP:BIASed towards coverage of the UK. Cursory googling shows that vanilla American "Weights and Measures Act" -Wikipedia splits between discussion of UK & Canadian law; Ngram includes their separate 1985 acts first but gives high notice to Bombay, Punjab, and Rajasthan; India and Canada also appear first and prominently in lists of Google Books hits. So... time to spin out the UK material into a separate page. — LlywelynII 04:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Anchors

I've tried adding an anchor for "11 Henry VII c. 4", but when it is referenced in Editing Stone (unit) it can't be found. Could a knowledgeable editor please check the anchor sho that the link from stone can be reinstated. Thanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Tractatus (1303)

Is the English text taken from an original document, or has someone modern attempted to translate it from the Latin (in which case the translation needs attention)?----Ehrenkater (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The text is taken from Adams (1821): "The very words of a law of William the Conqueror are cited by modern writers on the English weights and measures; their import is 'We ordain ... established'".

Thanks for that.

• As you note above re the document from 1067, their import is (as stated); it is not meant to be a complete translation, and the article should not give the impression that it is a complete translation.

• Thanks for changing the date to 1267/8, which is definitely an improvement; however I note that the source (Adams p. 26) says 1266 (which is not inconsistent with 51 Henry III).

• You haven't answered my question about the document from 1303. I couldn't find that in Adams, and if it has been copied from some other authoritative text, then it looks as if there are a couple of words missing in the 2nd para ("and usually weighs of wheat" doesn't make any sense); would it be possible to check the transcription from the source?----Ehrenkater (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Advice please: meaning of "statute measure"?

I won't bore everyone with the details but another editor and I are having a fruitless debate on the status of imperial measures since the Weights and Measures Act 1985.

Section 8 of the Act reads:

8 Units of measurement, weights and measures lawful for use for trade.

(1)No person shall—

(a)use for trade any unit of measurement which is not included in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 to this Act, or

(b)use for trade, or have in his possession for use for trade, any linear, square, cubic or capacity measure which is not included in Schedule 3 to this Act, or any weight which is not so included.

Schedule 1 lists the permitted measures, all of which are metric with the sole exception of the pint in limited circumstances.

The Act permits imperial measures to be given as supplementary information. The other editor asserts that this means that they too are statutory measures since they are listed in the statute (Schedule 1, part VI and Schedule 3).

I have spent long enough on this topic and don't wish to go further down the rabbit hole as now the other editor has updated all the imperial measures articles that were obsoleted by the 1985 Act. Statute measure redirects here but is not discussed directly. I don't want to draw others into an edit war, I'm really looking for a sensible, evidence-based, NPOV, non-OR, way to conclude this short of walking away and leaving the articles with false information. --Red King (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the "other editor" (me) is suggesting that they are "statute measures", not because they can be legally used as supplementary indicators, but because they are given standard definitions in the statute. The closest I have found in Wiki, so far, to a definition of a "statute measure" is at Unit of measurement#Legal control of weights and measures, where it says: To reduce the incidence of retail fraud, many national statutes have standard definitions of weights and measures that may be used (hence "statute measure"), and these are verified by legal officers.. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: try using the terms "defined by law" and "legal for trade". It would be clearer to the reader (WP:RF) and nicely cover imperial measures which are defined, but not legal for sale such as pounds and gallons. Just a suggestion, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin, that is helpful. It prompts me to wonder if we could work on a definition that starts from measures that 'must be used and those that may be used? --Red King (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

IIRC, apart from a few special cases (draught beer for example), supplementary units are not legal fro trade, but may be displayed on packaging. For instance Bass in bottle used (may still) be sold as 568 ml (1 full pint). The pint is supplementary information to assist the purchaser, but the legal capacity is 568 ml. Until the passing of the The Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2009 these supplementary units were to be made illegal from the end of 2009, but in a rare burst of sanity the EU relented and allowed to UK to continue with them. For instance under the unmodified regulations 1⁄4" Whitworth screws would have had to be labelled as 6.35 mm Witworth screws, and to mention 1⁄4" on the outer packaging would have become illegal, a problem much discussed in The Model Engineer at the time. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Section 8, subsection 5A of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 clarifies their status when it states: Nothing in this section precludes the use for trade of any supplementary indication... And Schedule 1: Part VI gives the statute standard definitions of all the usual imperial units and clarifies again that they are legal for trade when used as supplementary indications, stating: Definitions of certain units which may not be used for trade except as supplementary indications. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Directive 2009/3/EC of the European Parliament point (3) starts: "Directive 80/181/EEC authorises the use of supplementary indications in addition to the legal units laid down in Chapter I of the Annex to that Directive until 31 December 2009". Note the differentiation between indications and legal units. This regulation of the directive permits the continuation of dual labeling mainly for the American market, but as a side effect allows it to continue in the UK. The "‘pint’ for milk in returnable bottles and beer and cider on draught, ‘mile’ for road signs and speed indications, and ‘troy ounce’ for transactions in precious metals" are considered in point (1). Whilst the UK is still part of the EEC the directive dictates that national legislation must be aligned to the eurodirective. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It's all the fault of that Margaret Thatcher, who invented the Single Market which required removal of this sort of non-tariff barriers to trade! ;-) --Red King (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Directive 2009/3/EC is an amendment to Directive 80/181/EEC, and the list of imperial units listed in Chapter III are all described as Legal Units of Measurement Referred to in Article 1(c). They are all "legal units", even according to the EU Directive! -- DeFacto (talk). 22:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The Whitworth screw example doesn't stand up to detailed scrutiny. --Red King (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I had hoped that we wouldn't get bogged down in the minutiae of Britain's metrication problems (as noted above, that just leads us into fruitless debate at cross purpose because of the conflict of values: it is a waste of our time). So can we try to take a world-wide view: how can we explain to a Chinese reader what a statute measure is? I really struggle to accept that if a measure is mentioned anywhere in statute, that makes it statute measure. Surely it refers to units of measure that must be used, rather than those that may be appended, entirely at the manufacturers discretion, as additional information? --Red King (talk)

@Red King: From what I've discovered during these discussions it is not just being mentioned in a statute that matters, it is being given a standard definition in a statute that counts. That makes the absolute magnitude of the measure subject to statute and thus a "statute measure". And looking at the W&MA and the EC Directive, it is only measures that can be legally used for trade that are thus defined. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and the WMA 1985 is the first (I think) that actually uses the term "use for trade" and defines its meaning. So if we were to define "statute measure" as being "those measures that are permitted [by the Act] to be "used for trade" (and these other measures defined thusly may be given as supplementary information), then I believe we would have solved the problem.

Unfortunately, such a definition walks us straight into the WP:OR wall. I have been searching and I can only find references to the statute mile (in Britannica). The term "statute measure" is bandied about but never (that I can find thus far) defined. So your Mission Impossible, if you choose to accept it, is to find a wp:RS definition. --Red King (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that would be OR. There are a clues in the online Oxford English Dictionary though. It lists compounds of "statute", grouped by type, and the second group, b, is described as "Designating a unit of distance, area, capacity, or weight that is set by statute." It then lists the following under this group:

statute acre n. now historical

statute measure n. now historical

statute mile n.

statute perch n. now historical

statute pole n. now historical

statute ton n.

All but "statute mile" and "statute ton" being said to be "now historical". Mile and ton are listed in Schedule 1, Part VI of the W&MA 1985, but none of the other units are listed in it at all. The quotes given for "statute measure" suggest it was a land size or area measure only; the most recent one, dated 2002 is: The ‘hide’ notionally comprised 120 acres, but represents a fiscal rather than a statute measure. Make of that what you will, but to my mind "statute measure" seems to be an obsolete term now. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, an adjective not a compound noun, that puts a different perspective on it! So IMO, this article can and should say that "a statute measure is one defined by statute, as opposed to informal, customary, specialist or regional definitions", citing the definition of a hide that you quoted. You found it, you do the honours. I'm not sure where, perhaps it merits its own section?

Can we say that it is obsolete? I don't think so in the absence of an RS - the OED doesn't say it is archaic so no. --Red King (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I had a crack at it - sources were hard to find, so some "interpolation" was necessary - please feel free to do with it what you will! -- DeFacto (talk). 00:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Spot on. The debate was not fruitless after all! (We need to resume the discussion at Quart. Now that we have a convincing definition of a statute measure, I concede that the quart is such a measure but it needs qualification concerning its relative status. Some more of your way with words needed!). --Red King (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Worldwide perspective

Well, the anglophone world. Perhaps this will give us a different mindset to look at the problem?

• Australia has the concept of primary and secondary units, and interestingly their Weights and Measures Act 1965 doesn't specify units of any kind! It specifies a Chief Metrologist whose job it is to do the dirty work: the latest version of the regulation states that the metric system is primary but it still recognises and defines imperial units as secondary.
• Canadian law is closer to UK law, equally declaring that Canada uses SI measures but with recognition for traditional Quebecois measures and "Canadian" (sic!) measures meaning Imperial.

References

Portrayal of the Weights and Measures Act of 1985

@Red King: there are a couple of things to talk about here. The first is in your edit summary in this edit. In the first sentence you said rv treading dangerously close to OR by replacing RS with your own reading of the Act. Well, I only removed stuff, I did not replace it with anything - OR or otherwise. Please elaborate.

The second is the description of the 1985 act that we are now left with. In the second sentence of your edit summary you said Yes, SIs have updated the text since 2002 but the fundamental principles have not changed. As I see it, the fundamental principles certainly have changed. As enacted, the legislation certainly did make it unlawful to use any of those units of measure for trade, but a few years later (in the early nineties I think) it was radically amended. That amendment made it lawful again for those units to be used, if used as supplementary indications. One minute those units were unlawful, the next they were entirely lawful again - that sounds like a very fundamental change of principle to me. Regarding the third sentence in your edit summary: Hopefully my qualified version meets you half way. Well no, I think we should either removed your over editorialised "summary" of the act altogether (as my edit left it) or we need to expand it - to explain the fundamental change of heart shortly after the act was enacted. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto:, I didn't actually say that you had added anything but you did change the article by removing material that was properly cited. It is your OR that the text is no longer relevant. I acknowledge that my choice of words could have been better.

So lets stick to the verifiable facts that I think we can agree should be given in the article:

• In the Act as passed originally, a list of historical measures were declared unlawful 'for use in trade'. (The cited text said that words to the effect that these measures are unlawful for commercial use. I believe that we both agree that this is sloppy wording). If you think that this list should be relegated to a footnote, I wouldn't object so long as it doesn't disappear.
• The Act made it unlawful for a trader to possess for trade any rule, scale or balance that was not calibrated in metric or both, and still does.
• The Act also made it unlawful for a trader to sell goods by these measures: they can sell a prepackaged goods with dual marking but they cannot measure out bulk quantities using the old units. This is still true.
• A subsequent SI declared that these traditional measures could be given as supplementary information, provided that the font was no larger etc etc. The Legislation.gov.uk site gives the relevant SI numbers and can be cited.
• Any other key points in the evolution of the Act as amended by later SIs? Which?
• Is it reasonable or OR to say that nothing in act precludes sale of fractional metric quantities that happen to be integer imperial quantities (I believe that coffee packed in 475g bags rather than 500g is just shrinkflation and has nothing to do with opposition to metrication, but realise that my opinion doesn't matter. But cynically I notice very few liquids sold as 568ml rather that 500ml).
• We need to avoid misleading the reader: these historical measures are lawful only in very circumscribed circumstances, we would fail wp:readers first if we do not make clear that the lawfulness is highly qualified

Finally, I do agree that the article as it was needed to be changed. I believe that we are not too far apart on this so I'm sure we can reach a consensus wording. --Red King (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Red King: sure, the material I removed was cited, but without clarification it was misleading and could lead to readers wrongly believing that it was still the case. So yes, we should put the readers first - and not include such potentially misleading content. How is it OR to remove that? OR is specifically related to material added, and not to material removed. And as you later go on to say, my reason for removal is verifiable from reliable sources. I'd agree to replacing the current biased and inadequate summary with a complete, up-to-date and neutrally worded one. There might be problems though if what we write is our interpretation of the Act, a primary source, rather than being based on a cross-section of up-to-date secondary sources (which might be difficult to find). My offering (I don't cover measuring equipment):

The Act defines the four primary units of measurement as the metre or the yard (defined in terms of the metre) for length, and the kilogram or pound (defined in terms of the kilogram) for mass. The Act also requires standard physical examples to be maintained (known as "United Kingdom primary standards") for each of the four primary units.

In addition, the definitions of units which are multiples or sub-multiples of the primary units are defined, in terms of the primary units, and given as: mile, foot, inch, kilometre, decimetre, centimetre, millimetre, acre, square yard, square foot, hectare, decare, are, square metre, square decimetre, square centimetre, square millimetre, cubic metre, cubic decimetre, cubic centimetre, hectolitre, litre, decilitre, centilitre, millilitre, gallon, quart, pint, gill, fluid ounce, pound, ounce, ounce troy, tonne (metric tonne), kilogram, hectogram, gram, carat (metric) and milligram.

As originally enacted, the act also defined, in the same way, units which could not be used for trade as: furlong, chain, square mile, rood, square inch, cubic yard, cubic foot, cubic inch, bushel, peck, fluid drachm, minim, ton, hundredweight, cental, quarter, stone, dram, grain, pennyweight, ounce apothecaries, drachm, scruple, metric ton and quintel.

As of January 2020, following multiple amendments over the years since enactment, the metre, yard, kilogram and pound remain as the primary defined units and with the requirement to maintain the "United Kingdom primary standards" for them.

At the same time, all the imperial units, except pint and ounce troy (but including all of those which were originally defined as not to be used for trade) were reclassified as being available for use for trade as supplementary indications, namely: mile, furlong, chain, yard, foot, inch, square mile, acre, rood, square yard, square foot, square inch, cubic yard, cubic foot, cubic inch, bushel, peck, gallon, quart, gill, fluid ounce, fluid drachm, minim, ton, hundredweight, cental, quarter, stone, pound, ounce, dram, grain, pennyweight, ounce apothecaries, drachm, scruple, metric ton and quintel.

I was puzzled by your "shrinkflation", interpretaion, for the following reasons... After metrication, the 1⁄4 lb became 100 g, 1⁄2 lb became 200 g, 3⁄4 lb became 300 g and 1 lb became 400 g - all being about 12% smaller than the imperial sizes. The same with liquids: 1 pt became 0.5 l - also 12% smaller and 1 gal became 4.5 l - about 1% smaller. As for what we see in the shops now; beer, lager, cider, milk and vinegar are still commonly sold in the same volumes as they were before metrication - 568 ml (1 pt). Some vendors have indeed indulged in "shrinkflation" by re-packaging these in 500 ml containers. Sausages, jam, marmalade, golden syrup, beef burgers, honey, Christmas puddings and treacle are commonly sold in 454 g (1 lb), although some vendors have, again, taken the opportunity to downsize to 400 g. It's the same with sliced meat, milk powder, thin sausages, honey, sauces, jams, etc. which are still commonly sold in 340 g (12 oz or 3⁄4 lb) packages, except where the vendors have decided to "go metric" and use 300 g packages. Mind you, even after "metricating", vendors didn't stop the shrinking - we now commonly also see 395, 390, 380, 375,... g packaging too! -- DeFacto (talk). 12:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto:, I agree absolutely that the original text was misleading as it stood, given the changes in the meantime. But I also felt that your first edit went too far in the opposite direction. Your proposed revision is spot on, I couldn't have done better myself (true in more ways than one!) except maybe insert the word "only" before "supplementary indications" (and it sb quintal). Please go ahead.

Shrinkflation: my comment was not intended as a debating point but just a wry remark about how ideological purity (on both sides of the debate) gets overwhelmed by marketeers. But it is worth remarking that your "After metrication, the ​1⁄4 lb became 100 g, ​1⁄2 lb became 200 g, ​3⁄4 lb became 300 g and 1 lb became 400 g - all being about 12% smaller than the imperial sizes" is true but equally the equivalent packaging on the Continent is 125/250/375/500, about 10% more than the imperial sizes. Surprise surprise, mass was cut by 12% but prices weren't (or at least rather less than 12%). --Red King (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Red King: thanks and yes! -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about vinegar but I'd say milk is 50/50 imperial/metric. Beer, lager and cider though IME are always in 500ml cans and bottles (or smaller), not 568ml. Every time you pour a bottle into a pint glass you see the EU short measure. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: it may vary by region, I can't recall seeing fresh milk sold other than in pints in supermarkets recently. I agree that some, maybe "new", brands of beer, lager and cider are sold in the smaller containers, but a lot of the popular established brands are still in pint bottles and cans. For a (very) full pint glass you could try this! -- DeFacto (talk). 19:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I do have a couple of quart flagons ready for use! Scroll down this page and they're all 500 except for one 330. The second page is much the same, 500, 440 and 330. The first milk page is here and it seems to be own brand in pints and fancy stuff in litres, which matches my experience. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Stella, Carlsberg, Magners, Heineken, Budweiser and Fosters all do pints nationally, so if you like a full measure you still have some choice, but no as much as I remembered. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield:, if you are paying (say) £1 per 100ml, then you are getting the same value at £5 for 500ml or £5.67 for 567ml. No short measure. But of course in reality when you buy a bottle or glass of beer, probably less than half the price is for the actual beer: the fixed cost are the same no matter what the unit size so the obvious solution is to buy your own barrel :-) Anyway, coming from the grim north, you should be used to having the top 10% of your pint in bubbles not beer. Which takes us irredeemably over the NOTFORUM line so "this correspondence is now closed". --Red King (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)