Talk:Introduction to the metric system

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because this article and the article Metric system are a complimentary pair of articles - one for the specialist and one for the layman. I have made a substanial contributions to both. The article Introduction to the metric system was inspired by the article Introduction to special relativity which complements the article Special relativity. --Martinvl (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the speedy template. For related articles, see Category:Introductions. For an idea of how an AfD would probably go, see previous discussions. Melchoir (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Blanket undiscussed reversion
This blanket reversion of all the additions and improvements I've made to the article over the last 18 hours, or so, is not acceptable behaviour. Each of my 20 or more updates was carefully considered and fully explained. Of course, if another editor disagrees with or has a problem with any one of those edits, they should challenge it (on this talkpage preferably); but to undo the whole lot in one go is, I believe, a gross discourtesy. For that reason I have undone that reversion. I will, of course, be happy to discuss any particluar problem here. -- de Facto (talk). 08:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * DeFacto has introduced a considerable of errors wased on his pown WP:OR and/or WP:POV. In particular:
 * Removal of the text "The new system had a logical structure - the unit of length in the new system, the metre, was based on the dimensions of the earth and the unit of mass, the kilogram, was based on the mass of water having a volume one litre or one thousandth of a cubic metre." This is nothing more than vandalism - the metric system was designed during the Age of Reason to follow a logical system.
 * The introduction of a section "Traditional systems of units" is not only blatant POV, but is incomplete because it only addresses UK and US units. Furthermore, it is unneccessaary as this article is about the metric system.
 * The use of the wording "each based on a convenient unit size for the context in which it is used,..." in the section "Units" is WP:OR and/or WP:POV.
 * The addition of the word arbitrarily "not in relation to what they are used for, or common objects, but arbitrarily" is blatant POV - the sentence that follows disproves that.
 * The use of the word "convenient is the section "Prefixes" is POV.
 * rewriting the exiting wording as "To attempt to encourage consistent use of metric units in all countries, the SI standard published by the BIPM on behalf of the CGPM lays out rules for writing such units. Some organisations, such as the European Union, have incorporated these recommendations into their regulations for some contexts." is blatant POV.
 * The addition of the text "The standards are not widely adhered to though outside of strictly regulated environments, with non-SI-preferred terms being in widespread use: "kilo" for kilogram, "amp" for ampere, "k" for kilometre, etc." is WP:OR and/or WP:POV
 * Martinvl (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Martinvl, I may have inadvertently introduced some errors - sure - but they can be corrected if spotted, and some of what I've added may be incomplete - it can be added to; but I have also improved the content significantly by giving it a more neutral tone and by making it more comprehensive, and I resent my total effort being characterised as "OR", "POV" and even as "vandalism". You need to read WP:AGF I think.


 * On your numbered points:
 * 1) Whether the metric system is "logical" is highly subjective, and especially with the implication that previous systems were therefore illogical, and had not been discussed elsewhere in the article - so should not feature in the lead. And there is certainly nothing clearly "logical" about the basis for the sizes of the metric units, so that should not be added a a clause to that sentence. The removal of that sentence was clearly justified, and characterising it as "vandalism" was highly provocative.
 * 2) The renaming of the pre-existing section describing traditional systems of units to "Traditional systems of units" sounds like a valuable modification to me, and if it is incomplete then we can work together on completing it. If it was relevent under its old name, then it remains relevent under its new name. What is "blatant POV" about that?
 * 3) That they were convenient is self-evident I suppose, but I wouldn't call it OR or POV, redundant perhaps. Shall we reword that part of the sentence thus: "each based on a unit size with an order of magnitude matching the context in which it is used", or something along those lines?
 * 4) The choice of those unit names was arbitrary - it was unrelated to the quantities for which they were created to measure. How would you rephrase that?
 * 5) Do you think that they were defined as an inconvenient multiple? We can drop that word if you insist; it is self-evident anyway.
 * 6) You'll need to explain that one in more detail. The original wording left the impression that it was illegal in EU nations to write in any style other than the official SI defined one - which is, of course, complete nonsense. I reworded it to reflect more the reality of the situation. Feel free to offer an alternative wording for discussion here.
 * 7) That is an incontrovertible fact - surely? Do you believe otherwise?
 * -- de Facto (talk). 12:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is an Introduction to the metric system. The background section was there purely to put the metric system into context.  The interested reader can go to other articles Metric System or History of the metric system for a more detailed discussion. Please read and also Make technical articles understandable. Your promotion of the imperail/customary system of measurement is not needed in such an article. Martinvl (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, all I did was rename the section from 'Background', to something that better reflected the content. And not not so much "promotion" of as NPOV presentation of. The previous content was not acceptably neutral. Just because the article isn't about a particular subject does not mean you can present it in as biased a fashion as was there before.


 * I notice that someone else has culled out a large quantity of some of the previous content, as well as some of mine. Given your lack of replies to my responses to your numbered points above, I guess you are happy with the current content. -- de Facto (talk). 17:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * DeFacto wrote "Given your lack of replies to my responses to your numbered points above, I guess you are happy with the current content." Not neccessarily - I am working on things item by item. Martinvl (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

ALthought the Bastile was stormed in 1789, the King remained in place until 1791 and it was he who actually authorised the "metre expedition" after the matter had been discussed in the French Assembly. The next day he tried to flee France, but was arrested on the French border. It is debatable as to when the French Revolution ended - Napoleon's coup in 1799?, his proclamation of becoming emperor in 1803? It is debatable and is a good topic for a school examination question or project. Martinvl (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

When did the French introduce the metric system?
According to the Mesures usuelles article the metric system was introduced in France between 1795 and 1800. According to the French Revolution article that event took place between 1789 and 1799. For these reasons I amended the start of the second paragraph in the 'Origins' section from:
 * "During the early days of the French Revolution, a total reform of the system of weights and measure was put into motion..."

to
 * "Between 1795 and 1800, during the French Revolution, a total reform of the system of weights and measure was put into motion...".

I have been challenged on my talkpage to revert that change. Do we have a variation on those dates to support a revert? -- de Facto (talk). 16:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The metric system was authorised by Louis XVI after a debate in the National Assembly in 1791 and the measurements for the definitive metre started shortly afterwards in the name of the king.
 * Louis XVI executed January 1793
 * The actual introduction started in 1795
 * Since the artcile is an introductory one, I delibrately omitted these details - it is sufficient for the reader to know the approxmiate historic era. The are catalogued in History of the metric systemMartinvl (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So, without reliably verifiable precise dates, let's just say: "During the French Revolution, a total reform of the French system of weights and measure was put into motion...", shall we? -- de Facto (talk). 16:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It was put into motion by the king in 1791 at the request of the Assembly and then carried through by the revolutionary government after the king's execution - ie, it was non-political which is what I was saying in my original wording. Therefore, please revert. Martinvl (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But it wasn't "put into motion" during "the early days" of the revolution, it was initiated in the 3rd year (of 10 or 11) and implemented in the latter years of the revolution, and beyond. How about:
 * "During the early years of the French Revolution, a total reform of the French system of weights and measure was drawn up, and later implemented..."?
 * -- de Facto (talk). 16:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No - it is important to demonstrate the non-political nature of the metric system. It needed planning, that planning took a few years and it was during the planning phase that the king was executed, but this did not affect the planning. Now be a good boy and revoke your changes. Martinvl (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Offer a more accurately phrased proposal to reflect your POV for us to consider then. The original doesn't convey what you are now suggesting. -- de Facto (talk). 17:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My POV is implicit in the facts that I am presenting - the reader cn form their own opinion from the material that is presented to them. You are the one who is filtering out facts. I am prepared to discuss this any further, so please revoke. Martinvl (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Stated facts must be clear and accurate. The wording you demand is neither, so I do not support it. The current wording seems fine to me, but I'm happy to discuss any alternatives you might care to propose. -- de Facto (talk). 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the lede
I have reverted the lede to what it was before DeFacto started his changes - this is an introductory article and the lede should highlight the most significant features of the system as seen by the "lay reader". The bit about Mesures Uselles does not affect the average reader, so it has no place in the lede, never mind in the opening sentence. The bit about prefixes is fundemental to the metric system which is why it is in the lede. Martinvl (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As the lead is supposed to be a neutral summary of the subject I've had to re-apply some of the changes that I had previously made to that end, and some new ones to the extra content. -- de Facto (talk). 16:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added some references for Condorset's statement. I also removed the comments about the mesures usuelles from the lede because they were inaccurate - mesures usuelles only appled to the retail sector making the word "largely" inaccurate. I also corrected the text in the artcile itself and gave a citation. Martinvl (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The writing standards
I've restored the self-evident fact that the writing standards are not widely adhered to. To ensure that readers can verify that though, we need to find a way to reliably source it. Does anyone have any suggestions how we could achieve this? -- de Facto (talk). 16:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Revocation of 8-Mar-2012
I have revoked a number of changes. This article is targetted at novice users - it should stick as closely to the language of the SI Brochure as possible. Martinvl (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've restored all the edits of mine that were tendentiously reverted. If there is a particular problem with any particular edit or edits please explain it here. -- de Facto (talk). 12:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed references to abbreviations - they are out of place in an introductory article and moreover are not referenced, nor is there any indication of where they are used. I have also added the name of the body that allocates symbols. Martinvl (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the unsourced and UK-specific list of abbreviations with one reliably sourced and encyclopeadic abbreviation. Martinvl (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've restored the lost section and flagged where references are required. You know, as I know, that the abbreviations are in widespread use, so perhaps you will help find some reliable sources for them? Why can't we collaborate to achieve a neutral state for this article? Surely we don't want readers to think that abbreviations aren't used. -- de Facto (talk). 13:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course abbreviations are frequently used - that does not mean to say that we have to list them here. I woudl remind you that swear words are also commonly used in the English Language. Martinvl (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

1901 definition of the litre
This article is aimed at UK or US readers who missed out on being taught about the metric system while at school. The article deliberately makes minimal reference to the concepts of work and energy and minimal reference to any controversies unless they relate to everyday life such as the kilocalories vs the Calorie. For this reason I felt that the definition of the litre between 1901 and 1964 was too detailed for this article and I have therefore deleted it.

BTW, I felt that replacing "Imperial" with "Customary" was inappropriate, especially as the article is written in UK English. I have therefore reinstated the word "Imperial" alongside the word "Customary".

Martinvl (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, this makes sense. I used "Customary" to be more consistent (with the temp. table) and inclusive of US and Imperial conventions, but there's no harm in using both I suppose.


 * I agree that the obsolete definition of the litre is probably beyond the scope of this article, and the historical redefinitions of the metre, kilogram and litre in terms of one another are confusing and not directly relevant to the modern definitions of the units. I was trying to clarify that "1 litre = l kilogram of water" is no longer an exact relationship, because this is something that I had previously found confusing, but I guess it's not that important.


 * Archon 2488 (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No problems - I wrote that 1 litre ≈ 1kg.
 * On a different topic - I am not very happy with the picture of the pills as an illustration of a gram - do you have any suggestions? Would a picture showing a US cent, a British penny and a €0.01 coin be better (they are 3.1 g, 3.5 g and 1.3 g respectively)
 * Martinvl (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A paperclip or a pen cap are commonly used to illustrate the mass of one gram (e.g. gram). Perhaps an idea? Archon 2488 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Introduction to the metric system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/666iH0vl1?url=http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html to http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge to main article
I don't see the need for, or wisdom of, having an Introduction to the metric system, when this introduction appears larger than the main article metric system. Was it created just because someone didn't like what others wrote in the proper article? I am not placing a merge tag, yet, but rather invoke the suggestion. Kbrose (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The hatnote suggests its purpose ("This article is a non-technical introduction to the subject."), which might not be served as a well by a technical main article. However, I would suggest that the title of this article should be "Introduction to the SI", i.e. what is called the metric system, as opposed to metric systems.  The article Metric system is about metric systems generally, be they any of the CGS systems, MTS, SI or whatever, and is not really "the main article" corresponding to this article.  Metric systems generally are only relevant to the history of the SI, and should not be the focus of this article.
 * So, I'd suggest a rename of this article to make its specificity clearer, and a change to its hatnote to point to International System of Units, as well as adding a link here from a hatnote in that article. —Quondum 16:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:TECHNICAL, introductory articles are intended "[f]or topics which are unavoidably technical but, at the same time, of significant interest to non-technical readers". It makes it clear that these articles are to be kept to a minimum.

Of the over six million topics on Wikipedia, a total of fourteen have separate introductions on this basis:
 * Design of the FAT file system
 * Eigenstates
 * Electromagnetism
 * Entropy
 * Evolution
 * Gauge theory
 * General relativity
 * Genetics
 * Mathematics of general relativity
 * Metric system (actually SI)
 * M-theory
 * Quantum mechanics
 * Systolic geometry
 * Viruses

I think you could argue the toss on some of those (is systolic geometry really "of significant interest to non-technical readers"?) but this one sticks out like a sore thumb. I simply don't believe that an article on SI absolutely has to be so technical that it cannot be made accessible to non-technical readers. I therefore support a merge into International System of Units - which, as User:Quondum notes - is actually the main article for this topic. Kahastok talk 17:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Given the very readable ', and the argument above, I also support' a merge to International System of Units''. —Quondum 12:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)