Talk:International System of Units/Archives/02/2013

Electral Energy
my name is Abdul Yakini from Ghana please i what to no more about electral energy can you help me to come clear with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.90.48 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you look at the article Outline of the metric system. That article will give you many links to relevant topics. Martinvl (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Derived units
I am a little concerned that the column "Relationship with other units" is not strictly accurate. For example, if one is measuring a force, one does not measure mass in kilograms, distance in metres and elapsed time in seconds and calculate the force using the relationship shown, we need to measure the acceleration to get the force. A number of other relationships are also slap-dash in this respect. I propose that this column be discarded on grounds that it coudl be misleading. Martinvl (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any intent that the units shown are actually measured with instruments that read out in the stated units, just that those are units that are likely to come up if you are performing dimensional analysis. There is a similar table on page 25 of The International System of Units (SI), Special Publication 330, 2008 edition. There the column is titled "Expressed in terms of other SI units". So I see no reason to delete the column, but perhaps the column heading could be clarified. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that reference. I checked it and the corresponding table in the SI Brochure.  The two are identical, but varous editors have made additions to the Wikipedia table, such as the entry for force. In that case, I will realign Wikipedia with the literature. Martinvl (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have restored the table back to its original form and added some comments "deliberately left blank" and also a note about the ordering of the table. When I get round to working on the article Derived units I will get that table back into alignment with the source material and I will expand further on the notes in the sources that are not reproduced in this article. (Unless somebody would like to do it first). Martinvl (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Misleading and badly sourced
I've just spent some time reviewing the section on Worldwide adoption of SI, and have serious reservations about its quality. I live in the UK, so concentrated on the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth content.

I tried to verify the content against the cited references and found the following shortcomings: 212.183.128.129 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The section badly needs reliable secondary sources, it currently relies solely on (transcriptions of?) papers from the government department responsible for the metrication programme.
 * What sources there are, are all hosted (potential copyvio?) on the website of the UK Metric Association, a currently active pro-metrication lobbying group.
 * Potentially biased views from the government papers were conveyed as if they were facts and without attribution.
 * The government views were misrepresented and embellished in places.
 * I have reverted the changes. I would also like to draw to attention the following:
 * I would welcome it if yo uwere able to supply some secondary sources.
 * The location of the sources is immaterial provided that the text has not been doctored. Copyright violation is a matter between the UK Metric Association and the the British Government - if you are concerned about it, write to your MP, but I think that under Open Government and Freedom of Information you will be banging your head against a brick wall.
 * Please be specific aboput which statements you find as beign "potentially biased".
 * Please be sepcific about embellishment of government views.


 * As regards the various comments made during your changes:
 * I have changed the "Main" to "See also". Why did you not do that?
 * I mentioned IRL and SA because as far as metrication was concerend, their programs were indistinguishabel from the UK and Australia respectively.
 * I have re-instated the photo.
 * Potentially biased opinions, such as those of a government department - what do you understand the implications of changing from cgs to SI to be? If you can't identiofy them, then your suggestion of bias is probably unfounded.
 * The statement "attribute potentially biased views and the 1980 report cannot support the 2000 info". I don't see what your problem is.  BTW, the paper concerned was hosted by the USMA, not the UKMA.
 * Martinvl (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ireland and South Africa
These countries were not in the Commonwealth during the period under discussion in the UK section of the article so please either leave them out of the section or accept a section title which is inclusive of them. But please do not insist on including them in the discussion but excluding them from the title. 212.183.128.236 (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I reject this request on grounds of simplicity of language. You will notice that I have added a note clarifying the situation and I am sure that most reasonable people will accept this. Martinvl (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We'll need to get outside help with this then. I'll see if there is an Ireland project, or similar, and ask there if they think it's reasonable to group Ireland in with British Commonwealth countries like this. 212.183.128.211 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely don't see why South Africa and Ireland are included in the section but I also don't understand the justification of the section at all - there didn't seem to be any connection between adoption of SI and the commonwealth of nations. To me it reads like all the countries were adopting it independently and there was no discussion about it in any commonwealth meetings etc. If the commonwealth has no relevance then there shouldn't be a commonwealth section. --  Jamie  ut 23:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I second Jamie as it remains unclear why UK, Commonwealth, Ireland and South Africa have been thrown into one section. While I agree that simplicity of language is to be prefered, I think that this should not be done at the expense of clarity. Perhaps it is best to split this into three sections United Kingdom and Commonwealth of Nations, Ireland and South Africa. I am missing also a note here that Ireland unlike UK underwent considerable effort to adapt road signs, ordnance survey maps etc. to the metric system. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there should even be a 'UK & Commonwealth' section. Firstly, if anything it should just be a commonwealth section and shouldn't list the UK separately. More importantly there doesn't seem to be any sort of relevance to the commonwealth at all - so why group independent efforts of countries together under a shared international group when that international group has no relevance to the subject? --  Jamie  ut 00:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A few responses:
 * @Jamie - The metrication processes in Australia, South Africa etc were triggered by metrication in the United Kingdom - it should be noted that Commonwealth preferences continued to operate until killed off by the EEC. I have worked that into the article.
 * @AFBorchert - This section deals with events in the 1960s and 1970s, not events of the 21st century.
 * Martinvl (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The enclosing section is titled Worldwide adoption of SI, there is no restriction to the 1960s or 1970s. The transition in Ireland was started in the 1990s and finished in 2005. The development in Ireland was not triggered by the metrication in the UK but rather by the EU (which was joined in 1973). However, the EU put never pressure on the transition which lead to such diverting developments in the UK and Ireland. Each of them was given entire freedom to execute the transition at their own pace. While Ireland started right away with the transition, UK has still no fixed schedule for it despite the EU requirement. (There is an interesting paper by the UKMA which sheds some light on the diverting development.) In summary: The current section about United Kingdom and the Commonwealth which currently still includes Ireland is seriously misleading and omits relevant information. The note For the sake of brevity, the term "Commonwealth" includes Ireland and South Africa [..] is in no way helpful but adds to the confusion. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Martinvl That still doesn't explain why the UK is getting special treatment out of the commonwealth nations here. If it had been New Zealand that pushed for the change amongst the commonwealth nations I would not expect the section to be titled 'NZ and the Commonwealth'. Secondly my main point here is that there is nothing in this article that suggests metrication in the commonwealth nations was part of a unified Commonwealth effort - if it was then the article would benefit from a rewrite so it's clear what influence any commonwealth meetings etc. had on metrication. --  Jamie  ut 10:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * After having a look for some sort of connection between the commonwealth and metrication the only relevant information I could find was it was discussed at the fifth commonwealth standards conference but this was not (1) a push for the commonwealth nations to adopt the metric system (2) raised by the UK. Of course this was only a brief search so I'm sure there is plenty I've missed. Matrinvl, perhaps you could provide some information as to why the commonwealth countries are being grouped together when it seems to me they adopted the metric system independently and not as part of a unified move. --  Jamie  ut 10:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the context of the transition from imperial to metric units, the unifying characteristic seems to be former membership of the British Empire (or even the United Kingdom). --Boson (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So perhaps the section could be something along the lines of Adoption from Imperial Units or something similar? --  Jamie  ut 13:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In light of the above discussion, I am of the view that the sub-section title should be changed to "United Kingdom and the former Empire" and would cover the period 1926 to date. The text would be changed accordingly. Martinvl (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you can put the United States as well into this happy lot. Remember also that Ireland became independent in 1921 which predates 1926. In summary, it is hard to name a political entity that includes UK, Commonwealth as we know it today, South Africa, and Ireland but to exclude the United States. I still think that it would be preferable to split this into separate sections for the individual countries as the transitions to the metric system evolved quite independently. This also appears to be preferabe as there was pretty little development in the UK while Ireland, Canada etc. have essentially finished the transition. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Andreas, anything of consequence in the United Kingdom is metric, though the government are trying to convince the general public that they are "strong with Europe", so they keep miles on roads signs (apart from driver location signs). As far as I can see, the only difference between the United Kingdom and Ireland is road signs. In both countries, draught beer is sold by the pint, hospitals record your weight in kilograms, road are designed in kilometres, buildng plans are in metric units, ordinance (national)survey maps have a kilometre grid, apart from milk in returnable containers, it is a legal requirement that metric units be displayed on packaging (imperial units are an optional extra), furniture dimensions are given in centimetres etc etc usw. Martinvl (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin, there are indeed things in common (there is one metric grid covering Ireland and the UK for ordnance survey maps etc) but I think that the differences and attitudes in regard to road signs are significant. In 2009, the UK successfully negotiated an indefinite exemption from EU laws allowing them to continue to use miles, pints and the troy ounce for precious metals. According to a statement by Geoffrey Howe in 2012, the weights and measures in UK are still in a mess: Litres for petrol and fizzy drinks, pints for beer and milk, metres and kilometres for athletics and the Ordinance Survey, miles per gallon for cars, the metric system for school, still pounds and ounces for the market. Any attempt to finish the transition does not appear to be popular and in fact there are cases where there is a return to imperial units (according to a survey from May 2011 70% of customers found metric labelling confusing and wanted products labelled in imperial instead). In contrast, you will find hardly anywhere imperial units still in use in Ireland, the pints in bars are a notable exception.
 * BTW, in regard to your recent edits: The metrication of the road signs started in Ireland in the 1990s. They started with the distances on the directional signs, the speed limits came later and were completed in 2005. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Andreas, the section in question covers the period 1960 to date. From what you said, the only main divergence was from the 1990s onwards and then only in respect of road signs.  If you read between the lines, you wil find that the BBC news article in unreliable.  It quotes results from Asda and Asda clientelle are sharply skewed towards the bottom end of the socio-economic spectrum.  Martinvl (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Martinvl: the BBC article clearly states the source of the statistic it gives: "In May 2011, a survey by supermarket chain Asda suggested 70% of customers found metric labelling confusing and wanted products labelled in imperial instead. In response, the company reverted to selling strawberries by the pound for the first time in over a decade." What makes you conclude that it is unreliable - do you have evidence that the BBC statement is false?


 * Also, do you have a source showing what the socio-economic mix of Asda customers is, and how that compares with the UK population in general? (this is my first contribution to this debate) 212.183.128.241 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

How should we proceed then? Current direction seems to be to scrap the whole content or to dedicate a separate section to each country. I favour the latter. Any comments? 212.183.140.18 (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Revised text
I revised the text to incorporate "Former Empire" rather than "Commonwealth". That version was unfortunately reverted by an administrator who was under the misaprehension that I was edit-waring rather than trying to present a solution. What do editors think of this version as opposed to this version? Martinvl (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You were edit-warring. You should have come here to discuss your proposed change before making the edit, not after you were caught warring. 212.183.128.225 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Questionable sources
The UK section currently relies entirely on sources of questionable reliability:


 * Two are located on the website of the currently active metrication lobbying group the UK Metric Association (UKMA) but stated in the cite to be published by a UK government department. The 1972 and 1980 documents in question ( and ) are clearly not scans of original prints and, assuming they are transcriptions, do not contain any evidence that they are faithful reproductions of the original content, or any mention about UKMA having the right to publish them.


 * The one used to support the information about South Africa, despite being cited in the reference as being published by the South Africa government is actually a short section on the webpage of the currently active metrication lobbying group U.S. Metric Association!


 * The one being used to support the information about Australia, despite being cited in the reference as being published by the Australian Metric Conversion Board is actually another webpage on the UKMA website!

Presumably, if the information that these are being used to support is accurate and notable, there will be other, less questionable sources available to support it. Until we see reliable sources, or evidence that these are acceptable, I think we should omit these. 212.183.128.236 (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything that needs changing here, and have reverted. Garamond Lethe t c  20:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "reverted"? Nothing has been done about this yet. This is a discussion about unreliable sources. The host websites are unreliable and the documents they carry are potentially in violation of copyrights. See WP:COPYLINK: "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."


 * Can we legitimately use these sources? 212.183.140.58 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all I suggest that you read Open Government Licences. This removes objections as per WP:COPYLINK. Secondly, the statement tha tteh host website is unreliable is in itself a livbellous statemenht, unless you can prove the same.  In short, unless you are accusing the UKMA of falsifying the document, there is no problem in linking to it - after all, we are not publishing the view of the UKMA, but the view of the the Government. Martinvl (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * UKMA is self-published, and WP:RS does not generally classify such sites as reliable, hence they are unreliable. We don't know who made the transcriptions, whether they had permission, or how accurately they were made. So, because we cannot be confident about the accuracy of their content, I do not believe that we should use them as references. Can you provide evidence that they are an accurate representation of the documents that they are purported to represent? Are Are you saying that these documents are the only available sources for the assertions being made? 212.183.128.211 (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * They are the only on-line versions that are available, if you can find electronic copies elsewhere, please let me know.  As they are morte than 30 years old, Paper copies are available at Kew and maybe the successort to HMSO can supply some paper copies. Martinvl (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't know who created them, or when. If there are no other published (reliable) sources at all covering this, then it probably isn't notable or worth mentioning in an encyclpaedia article. We can't just use any old document, on any old site, in an attempt to prop up the content.


 * Will you support removal of that section, or do we need to go to dispute resolution on this? 212.183.128.211 (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI: I have posted a reply to the Rfc placed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Location (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

8. "New SI"
The present text indicates: "The CIPM did however sponsor a resolution at the 24th CGPM in which the changes were agreed in principle and which were expected to be finalised at the CGPM's next meeting in 2014."

That Resolution 1 of the 24th meeting of the General Conference on Weights and Measures (24th CGPM, 2011) is entitled “On the possible future revision of the International System of units, the SI”. It “takes note of the CIPM intention”. This expression cannot be correctly reported in the article as "the changes were agreed in principle". The decision is still fully open to any solution, also in consideration of the Resolution of the 23th meeting in 2010. Frpavese (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to wikipedia, User:Frpavese! I see this is your first-ever edit, and I hope there are many more to come.  That being said, I'm not seeing the problem here.  "Agreed in principle" and "still fully open to any solution" seem perfectly harmonious to me.  Garamond Lethe t c  20:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013
There is a potential copyright problem on this page. See explanation on WT:MEASURE. Please make the following edits urgently:

1. Insert the following template to the top of the article:  

2. Add this template:   after each cite of the following:
 * http://ukma.org.uk/sites/default/files/met1972.pdf (it appears three times)
 * http://ukma.org.uk/sites/default/files/met1980.pdf (it appears once)

212.183.128.212 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What part of the article is in violation, and what are the copyright statuses of the sources? Garamond Lethe t c  21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The following appears on the Copyright page related to these articles.
 * "You may use and re-use the information featured on this website (not including BIS logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence."
 * I got to the above copyright page from the BIS Archive index page.
 * I got to the above BIS Archive index page from the DTI Consumer & Competition Policy page.
 * The DTI Consumer & Competition Policy page is noted in the title line of the articles on the UKMA page.
 * This audit trail tells me that the copyright is OK
 * Martinvl (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * [Moved into chronological order and indented by Martinvl at 22:10] See the explanation of the potenetial copyright problem on WT:MEASURE. 212.183.128.212 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am closing this edit request as protection of this article has expired. Per the closure of the discussion at WT:MEASURE, feel free to revert disruptive changes and/or request additional protection as needed. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)