Talk:Metrication in the United States/Archive 3

This is not a forum
As a courtesy to other editors, would the editors here please observe that talk pages on Wikipedia are not a forum and exist only for discussion of improvement of articles. Other editors who wish to get insight into the editing history will have to sift through a lot of material that is not relevant to this article. Kbrose (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We are slowly working towards a solution. Meanwhile... I've heard of Kilometers and Kilograms. How much is a Kilobrose? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The "21st Century" section needs to be reworded. I'll make the changes after I find the proper sources. KentuckyFriedRamen (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Table?
There's a lengthy amount of prose to wade through if you want to try to get a clue about the extent to which the USA has "gone metric". One editor above said that it would be difficult to get a percentage of what's been done and what hasn't. That's probably true, since the method for calculating such a percentage could be slippery. But is there any kind of standardized metrication "checklist" that could be converted into a table indicating Converted = YES / NO / MIXED or something like that? I, as a reader, would be curious to see such a quick reference. (I wouldn't be too curious to create the table itself, as I'm terrible at that stuff.) One example is track meets where international events would use meters and kilometers for races. I don't really follow track and field. For strictly internal US events, do they still use yards and miles, or do they use meters and kilometers? There you have some criteria: national vs. international, crossed with type of usage (sports, commodities, agriculture, etc.) That might be easier to get one's head around than just the prose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Precious metals & bullion values
Greetings from Australia;

I was wondering if there should be a notation about the price of precious metals and bullion values as they are quoted world wide in dollars per ounce? Today (08/10/10) gold is trading at (approx) US $1,325 an ounce and silver at (from memory) US $ 22.00 per ounce. Given the Australian dollar is almost at parity ( AU 99.02 c to the US dollar ) there is increasing demand on Australia's Perth Mint for gold and silver "rounds" - one ounce of either metal produced as a coin (but without a monetary value - unlike similar 1 oz coins produced by the Royal Australian mint which carry a nominal face value not reflected in their base metal content).

Having said that, the Perth Mint has been minting rectangular gold coins coins in 2.5grams, 5grams and 10grams with nominal face values of $15, $20 & $25 respectively. Already the 2010 series http://www.perthmint.com.au/catalogue/2010-dolphin-dreaming-10g-2_5g-gold-coins.aspx has discontinued the 5gram $20 "coin". Almost paradoxically the silver coin in the same dolphin series is a one ounce of silver rectangular coin http://www.perthmint.com.au/catalogue/2010-dolphin-dreaming-1oz-silver-coin.aspx with a nominal face value of $1.

Advertisements in various places such as "Coin World" ISSN 0010-0447 will sometimes list their buy and sell values as being eg 37c above spot (the spot price of silver in this example)

It would seem the one ounce silver coin will be with us for quite a while regardless of it's 100+ year use as a bullion coin and attempts at metrication with the Perth Mint using it as the backdrop to it's colourised coins (the 'Tuvalu' 2006 "Red-Back Spider" from the "Deadly and Dangerous" Series now fetching upwards of US $1,250 per coin - well above it's silver content an example).

I've come to this page originally because I was trying to find out (through Wikipedia naturally) how many grams to a modern ounce to then convert how much in Australian dollars the above three gold coins are for their gold value alone (about half of what the Perth Mint is asking for them as it turns out - the rest no doubt their mark-up).


 * Oh and I've noticed on the article page 'litre' has been repeatedly spelt 'liter' - not sure if this is an America-centric thing or merely a typo??


 * Regards, Timelord2067 (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * About "liter". The US Secretary of Commerce has the authority to interpret SI in the United States and has declared the NIST Special Publications |330 and |811 to be the official interpretations. These publications use the spelling "liter". Jc3s5h (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the article is about metrification of the USA, it kinda makes sense that the article would be America-centric, yes? When I see these things spelled "metre" and "litre", I'm inclined to pronounce them "meet-ray" and "lit-ray". :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

MythBusters
I am a mature aged Australian fan of MythBusters, comfortable with both types of units because used Imperial here when I was young but are now very metric. I am intrigued by the fact that of the two "teams" of presenters in that program, the older team, Jamie and Adam, seem to use US customary units in their "experiments", while the younger team, Tori, Kari and Grant, tend to use metric. Is there a message of any kind here? HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure there is - that younger Americans are more accustomed to metric units. I'm sure the USA will go metric eventually; in fact, it already has, where there's a perceived need to. My guess is that the USA will go metric around the time that soccer becomes a major sport here. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, do older viewers of shows like that get confused, or do they actually understand metric stuff, and just not want to use it themselves? Here is Oz, my purely metric son complains that he doesn't know how heavy 20 punds of explosives is. (Those guys do blow up a lot of things!) HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell him a pound is about half a kilogram, so 20 pounds would be about 10 kilos. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I know that! It's 'cos I'm old and have worked successfully with both systems. But I was wondering if young folks in Australia are like older folks in the USA and quite ignorant of the "other" system. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sufficiently old, but I still understand the metric system. It was used in science classes even when I was a youth. The trouble is, the feeble "voluntary" efforts to introduce it in the 70s accomplished very little other than to introduce the multi-liter-bottle of soft drinks. We understand metric, we just don't see any reason to switch to it. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

French subtitles
I don't think it's particularly strange that the French subtitles convert Imperial to Metric, I'm Swedish and subtitles for American movies and TV programs generally convert Imperial to Metric, since that's the measures people generally are most familiar with. Actually, I'm not sure if it even deserves mention... 惑乱 分からん 14:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be strange enough for Imperial measures to be used in American movies and TV. The U.S. has two systems (U.S. Customary and SI) and two are enough.mcornelius (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor do I find that strange. Sometimes I watch American movies with Japanese subtitles.  I tend to glance down at the metric conversion rather than figuring it out in my head.  Jimp 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly is strange to Americans watching an overseas version of the movie. You know that scene in The Fugitive movie where Tommy Lee Jones goes, "What I want from each and every one of you is a hard-target search of every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in that area. Checkpoints go up at fifteen miles. Your fugitive's name is Doctor Richard Kimble." Well, I was watching that on Czech TV, and not only did they dub over Tommy Lee Jones, but they changed 15 miles to howevermany kilometers! I'm sorry, but that is completely out of character for a straight-talking federal marshal with a rural drawl. It would be like putting James Bond in a Chevy for American audiences. -- Mwalcoff 05:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? Most of us can't be bothered converting the measurements in our heads when we're watching a movie with subtitles. I have come across some instances where they convert it wrong, or don't convert at all - and it does my head in. Imagine if metrics were used in american tv and movies, how much would that ruin it for you? My guess is, a lot. --85.166.48.224 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to convert any measurements -- the actual distance in the script, whether 5 or 10 or 15 miles, doesn't really matter. It's not a movie about cartography. If I was watching a movie about the RCMP, I would expect them to use kilometers -- to have them talk in miles would not be consistent with the characters. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is. My Czech flatmate has no idea how far a mile is -- she's never used them. She might know they're similar to 1km, but are they smaller? Larger? A straight-talking marshal in the Czech Republic, after all, would use kilometres. I don't really know how much a gallon is. It's more than a litre, but I can't visualise it. If it's important, I'd like a conversion ƕ (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we won't hold that against you. I'm American and I don't even know exactly what a gallon is. That being said, I do know how to use it without needing to visualize it's absolute proportions. Like you said, your flatmate already knows miles and kilometers are similar, so she can kind of figure what 15 miles is and therefore the point will get across to her no matter what. The same can be said vice-versa if it were a foreign character reciting kilometers in an American movie. Point being if someone is describing something that is universal across cultures then comparing measurements really isn't important especially in your friend's case where she already has a general idea. I'm not sure what you mean by "A straight talking marshall in the Czech Reppublic" because that is not who Mr. Tommy Lee Jones is portraying. If he was, he would use kilometers, but in the context of the movie, miles would simply make more sense irregardless of the audience.Rodiggidy (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BMI
The article included the statement "For body mass index, the derived metric unit of kg/m2 (mass by square of height) has been widely adopted [ Citation needed ] by American healthcare workers and patients."

The citation introduced does not support that statement for numerous reasons:
 * 1) That website is not targeted at healthcare workers and patients, but the general public at large.
 * 2) It does not mention the derivation of the BMI, but only links to a [BMI Calculator, which defaults to [[US customary units]], not SI.

If the point is being attempted that BMI is a derivation, rather than it being thought of in terms of its derivation, then all US customary units are metric, as they are defined by relation to metric counterparts and have been for some time. As it is, most doctors' scales in the U.S. use English units, and BMI can as easily be (and is) calculated from: $$\mathrm{BMI} = \frac{703w}{h^2}$$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcornelius (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. The general public at large includes the patients and health workers. Since it is the only unit shown in this government site, one may assume that it is the one used in communication generally.
 * 2. The values of the BMI are stated in the page. For example 25 is the start of obesity. The makes clear that the unit used is indeed the kg/m2, which is by definition a (derived) metric unit. The term "derived" in SI has a special meaning, of being a straight combination of metric units. Having a conversion factor (not being powers of 10) as in 1 inch = 2.54 cm (exactly) does not qualify. It does not matter how the value is calculated (e.g. from pounds and feet plus inches) the resulting value is expressed in a metric unit.
 * &minus;Woodstone (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The general public at large is not the claim made.
 * Derived units
 * SI defines a derived unit as products of powers of base units. I don't know what a “straight combination” is, but it sounds nonsensical.
 * A coherent derived unit is defined in SI as products of powers of base units that include no numerical factor other than 1. I think that's what you meant.
 * SI definition is irrelevant, because the implication is that the unit is calculated from SI units, when it most often isn't.mcornelius (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Since both the kilogram and the metre are SI base units, the kg/m2 in which the BMI is expressed, is a "coherent derived unit" according to the SI definition as shown above. It is of no importance how it is measured or calculated. The resulting value is expressed in a metric unit. I have modified the text to reflect general public. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The result is not a metric unit. For it to be a metric unit according to SI, it must be stated in the form of a base unit, not a calculation of them.mcornelius (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote from the SI brochure: "The complete set of SI units, including both the coherent set and the multiples and submultiples of these units formed by combining them with the SI prefixes, are designated as the complete set of SI units, or simply the SI units". So there is no doubt that kg/m2 is an SI unit. Measurements of a quantity are expressed as a value times a unit. In this case the quantity is the BMI, the unit is the kg/m2 and an example of a value is 25 for the threshold of obesity. Expressed in any other unit, this value would not be 25. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A PR publication is not a standard. A derived unit is expressed in terms of the relation between units. kg/m 2 is a non-coherent derived unit. BMI is not, as its derivation is not necessarily from SI base units, but an abstract relation between mass and height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcornelius (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The standard is very clear that any combination of powers of base units is a coherent derived unit and as such an SI unit. So kg/m2 definitely qualifies. If you stick to your view, also m/s would not be an SI unit, which I cannot seriously assume you accede. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * m/s is expressed from base units. If you called m/s a speed index (and calculated it formulaically as often from non-SI units as from SI-units), it wouldn't be. But it's not discussed that way; it's BMI, and discussions of kg/m2 are avoided. mcornelius (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the quantity with the unit it is expressed in. Speed is a quantity that can be expressed in the unit m/s. Similarly the quantity BMI can be (and according to the ref is usually even in the U.S.A.) expressed in the unit kg/m2. It is irrelevant how it is measured or calculated. The value stated is the ratio between the observed instance of the quantity and the unit. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you two are missing the bigger picture. What's relevant to this article is whether the current measure of BMI represents a step toward metrication. Was there an old BMI equivalent based on US customary units that has been replaced by one based on SI units? If so, it's relevant. If not, it's not. -  Ne ll  is  19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The section is called "Current usage" and contains a subsection "Electricity and energy" containing:
 * There are no U.S. customary units for electric current, potential difference, or charge since these concepts were developed after the international adoption of metric in science. The metric units ampere, volt, ohm and coulomb are the only units used.
 * Clearly for newly introduced concepts, the adoption of metric units is considered relevant to the article. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But no metric units have been adopted for this purpose: metric units have been explicitly avoided by creating body mass index, which is not a type of measure as you keep putting into the article, but an abstraction arithmetically derived any system of mass and length (height). See Units of measurement. Units must be a definite magnitude of a physical quantity. You don't have, weigh, mass, or measure 25.0 BMIs (even though you may weigh 25 kilograms per square meters of height (even though square meters are defined by SI as only a measure of area and this square usage of a linear measurement is nonstandard)). mcornelius (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a fundamental misconception. You indeed don't measure 25 BMI's, but you measure a BMI of 25 kg/m2. Just as you do not measure 25 "speeds", but a speed of 25 m/s. The value 25 has only meaning if the unit in which it is expressed is defined. If another unit is used (let's say pounds/square foot), the same physical quantity (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 would be 5.1 lb/sq in. The standard explicitly says that new combinations or new physical interpretations of combinations will arise as newly defined quantities are measured. But let's reverse the question: what unit do you think the BMI is expressed in? And where does the conversion factor 703 come from? &minus;Woodstone (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to other articles here at Wikipedia Belgium converted to the metric system in 1820, and Body mass index was invented by a Belgian between between 1830 and 1850. --Boivie (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected
Just letting you know that I have fully protected the article due to the revert war going on. Please take this time to discuss the changes you wish to have made. Also, I wish to remind you of the three revert rule for the future, although I will not be making any blocks in this case. Thanks,  Malinaccier ( talk ) 18:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One would think there could be sources that could answer the question currently being debated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Mayo Clinic calculator comes out the same whether you use American or International units. Not surprisingly, American system is the default setting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

 * Earlier I thought User:Woodstone was trying to say that SI redefined unit to be broader than its normal meaning, which I could not find any source for, and some of their material contradicts that. (Which defines a unit as “a particular example of the quantity concerned which is used as a reference.” Units exist specifically to measure things precisely, something for which BMI is infamously inadequate. What is it supposed to measure?
 * Unless you can find a credible source saying that most people in the U.S. derive BMI from SI units, it cannot be stated that metric-derived BMI is used without extreme dishonesty and misleading readers.
 * If you want to work on unit (measurement) or redefine unit, go there to do it (but cite your sources!).
 * If you want to redefine body mass index as a unit (rather than an heuristic)), go there to do it (but cite your sources (and get torn apart by a much more frequently-visited page's watchlist)).
 * Saying that the metric unit [sic] of kg/m2 is commonly used is just disingenuous or misinformed, and at this point, unscrupulous, dishonest, and trolling. mcornelius (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hard telling if this site is totally reliable, but it shows the BMI being calculated as a function of Metric units, and also as a function of "Imperial" units multiplied by the factor of 703. I'm not sure if Imperial units = American units in this case (I know for stuff like gallons they are not equivalent), but the indication is that the original formula devised a couple of centuries ago was based on Metric and they bring in a factor for non-Metric units in order to yield the same index result. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what it's computed from and what it originally was, and that's not the argument (and Imperial pound is almost meaningless; there's more than one, but avoirdupois is the one meant). The point is that BMI is not a unit used to measure anything; it is a heuristic to guide to a healthy body weight but it is imprecise (the very thing that units of measurement must, by definition, not be!). One could devise a formula to estimate caffeine in an energy drink by the height and mass of the can, but the resulting computation would still not be a unit of measurement. mcornelius (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what you state above, I am not claiming that the BMI is a unit. It is a "quantity", which needs a "unit" in order to make its "value" meaningful. A quote from the SI brochure:
 * The number of derived quantities of interest in science and technology can, of course, be extended without limit. As new fields of science develop, new quantities are devised by researchers to represent the interests of the field, and with these new quantities come new equations relating them to those quantities that were previously familiar, and hence ultimately to the base quantities. In this way the derived units to be used with the new quantities may always be defined as products of powers of the previously chosen base units.
 * In the case of BMI, the chosen unit is kg/m2. It can be calculated directly from mass in kilogram and height in metre. Alternatively it can be calculated by mass in pounds and height in inches. However in the latter case a conversion factor of 703 is needed to come to the same numerical value.
 * The statement in the article is not that people in the U.S.A. derive the BMI from metric units, only that the resulting value of the computation is relative to unit kg/m2.
 * The BMI itself is not a heuristic, but a clearly measurable quantity. Its meaning to healthiness is heuristic.
 * Of course, neither in nor outside the U.S.A. the actual unit is normally written explicitly. People just say a BMI of 25. The unit is left implicit. However, the globally quoted heuristic number of 25 as limit of (unhealthy) overweight is only meaningful relative to the implicitly defined metric unit of kg/m2.
 * A reference showing that in the U.S.A. the unit commonly used is kg/m2 (and the relation to customary units) is already given in the article.
 * &minus;Woodstone (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (P.S. I did not violate 3RR)
 * kg/m2 is not used and now you're just being moronic. That it is related to that is not disputed. That it is the same is. It is not used to measure anything, but as a heuristic. How it's used, not how it's obtained, is a defining characteristic of both. That the number of derives units is endless is irrelevant. Argue against the point made, and quit fabricating bullshit to argue against. mcornelius (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't go into personal attack. And please read up in SI on what "quantities" and "units" are and how they differ. As far as I know and can find in literature BMI is always expressed in kg/m2, never any other unit. If the primary measurements are taken in U.S.A. customary units, a conversion factor (703) is applied to obtain a metric result. Again, please explain: in what unit do you think BMI is expressed? &minus;Woodstone (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The sites I looked out don't use a unit with BMI, they simply state what it is. Often an entity called an "Index" doesn't have a unit displayed with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't like comments on your inability to reason, don't demonstrate it. BMI is never expressed in any unit. That it is a quantity is, nor has ever been, questioned by me. BMI is defined by by alternate formulae equally, by the CDC. 703 is a constant, but it's not a conversion factor, any more than 16 is in s=16t2 and 4.9 not in s=4.9t2. Not every multiplicand in a formula is a conversion factor (even if the result derived is the equal quantity).
 * You have introduced no source or substantiation for kg/m2 ever being expressed and BMI is an index, not a measure. mcornelius (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Although the name of the BMI contains the word index, it is not a dimensionless quantity. It is calculated as a mass divided by the square of a distance (height). The units used for those dimensions influence the numeric result of the calculation. If kg and m are used, the result is the number commonly used. If pounds and inches are used, a completely different number comes out. In order to go to the standard unit, a conversion factor of 703 is applied. I never stated that the (metric) unit is explicitly written. Just that the numbers shown are relative to the metric unit.
 * 1 lb / (1 in)2 = 0.4536 kg / (0.0254 m)2 = 703 kg/m2, that shows the conversion factor.
 * &minus;Woodstone (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So wait a minute, now you're saying a close approximation is an exact unit? Because BMI is prescriptively defined as either and 703w/n2 ≠ m/h2, which a little algebra would show. (My BMIs calculated from SI units and US customary units differ by almost 1%.) mcornelius (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like the BMI is just a number, with ranges indicating various levels of concern. What its "unit" would be is really not relevant. It's the ranges that are relevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

More accurately the conversion factor is 0.45359237/0.0254^2=703.06958, or less than 0.01% different from the rounded 703. You must have introduced other rounding errors. Since neither weight nor height can be measured very precisely, this factor 703 is good enough. See for explicit mention of the metric unit the U.S..A. government publications and .&minus;Woodstone (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. (That was a typo above, but different formulae that differ by 0.01% can generate results that are much more different than 0.01%.) Your claim is that it's a conversion, and it's not and the claim you've placed into the article that we're arguing about is whether or not it is commonly used as that. And one of the sources you just linked to specifically called the SI formula “an alternative.” If you had said it's an approximation of kg/m2, it wouldn't be a problem, but you deliberately introduced factually incorrect information into the article to make a claim that is not founded by the English lexicon (look up conversion, equal, measurement, formula, and unit), basic algebra, and prescriptive definitions by regulatory bodies to govern the specific uses of terms in the industry.mcornelius (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is quite common for appproximate conversion factors to be used. A rounded factor does not make it less a conversion. You seem to be overlooking the many places in the references showing explicitly examples as 25 kg/m2. And denoting the scale in the graphs as such. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is common, but not when something is explicitly defined in a particular way by the agency which propagates the term, which explicitly states that it is the number produced by either formula, with no unit. It is not evidence of further metrication as you perverted the article to say, and is not derived from metric units as you claimed. You have relied on fallacy after fallacy and ignorance of the English language to make your argument and now you're arguing from repetition, having failed to answer a single objection raised to your misdefinition and dishonest misportrayal. mcornelius (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2010 (UTCq)

The last given very authoritative source repeatedly quotes BMI's like 25 kg/m2. Your vicious ranting only shows you are running out of reasonabe arguments. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That last given source is not authoritative (is not definitive), explicitly states that it's the number derived the formula (i.e., not an expression of magnitude), and the kg/m2 is an alternative after giving the US customary formula. You have not answered a single point made against you in this, and have not edited body mass index to say what you want it to say, you have repeatedly vandalized this page to make a point, against every source that even you have found, on the basis of your fundamental miscomprehension of the English language and 9th-grade algebra. mcornelius (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This page does not intend to display a complete set of all metric usages in the United States but only to show examples of usage and mixed usage. As this particular instance is so controversial, let's just avoid it. It isn't necessary to the article and is hurting the further development so long as the article must remain locked. So why don't we just skip it? Rmhermen (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There would be no objection to it saying it is approximately kg/m 2, so long as it is not worded in a way that falsely implies that it's the commonest way it's calculated in the United States, and that both formulae are given the same weight (no pun intended) by public health authorities, even given their inexactitude. mcornelius (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BMI itself is an "approximation", not an exact science. Merely an indicator of whether one might be over or underweight. It's also an index that yields the same results whether you enter height and weight in metrics or American. It's also really minor. I'm inclined to agree with Rm and say "skip it". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BMI Inclusion
There seems to be no objection to excising mention of BMI from the article. (At least none in the last four days.)
 * Done. Please revert/ping me if I got it wrong, or if there are serious objections. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  05:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a pity, since it's one of the few areas where the U.S.A. is and has always been completely metric, although evidently not consciously by most. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Visually balanced reference frequencies
I've read the article; and I'm not happy about the "citation needed" kind of tags, especially in the section Current usage. The problem is that a number of statements about using metric units are tagged; but a multitude of statements about using US customary units are neither tagged, nor inline sourced. A typical example is the sentence
 * Soft drink containers of 1 and are sometimes sold alongside 12 fl oz, 16 fl oz, 20 fl oz, and 24 fl oz (355, 473, 591 and 710 ml) sizes.

However, it is not any single sentence that bothers me, but the overall impression, which I find loop-sided.

Now, I've checked old discussions; and I'm well aware that the subject of the article is controversial (or at least that the texts describing the subject are). This in general is a good reason for keeping to well-sourced facts. However, facts may be sourced by references comprising larger sections, or at least whole paragraphs, or they may be broken down to separate footnotes for each minimal discernible statement. In general, I favour the former variant, since very often the same single or few sources are used repeatedly within a whole section or paragraph, and then there is really no good reason to clutter the text with footnotes for each particular usage. I'm prepared to make exceptions; and the more controversial the facts themselves are, the greater the reason to have many footnotes with detailed references.

However, with this article, the result would be rather strange. Assuming that the factual statements with "citation needed" (like the usage of 1/2 litre bottles) may be substantiated to the same degree as the other statements, we would get an article with lots of detailed citations showing that the metric system is employed, interspersed by longer and seemingly unsolicited texts about the usage of US customary measures.

To be concrete, in the quoted sentence, a reader would be able to see one reference to the usage of 0.5 litre bottles, possibly also covering the 1 litre ones (which would rend this a high degree of credibility), followed by seemingly unsupported claims that also 12, 16, 20, and 24 oz bottles may be found. This would yield a rather queer impression. JoergenB (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that this article is pushing the boundary between common knowledge and original research. The broad premise, that metric units continue to creep in everyday usage in the US is valid and deserves mention, but the article attempts to catalog every instance, often relying on editors' observations, rather than secondary sources, leading to the "prove it" citation needed tags. For what it's worth here are some items that I found searching for Coca-Cola today on PeaPod Stop&Shop, an on-line supermarket. Note that 16.9 oz = 500 ml.

Coke Diet - 12 pk 12 OZ CAN ($.03 / OZ) $4.33

Coke Diet 2 LTR BTL ($.03 / OZ) $1.69

Coke Diet - 6 pk 16.9 OZ BTL ($.03 / OZ) $3.00

Coke Diet Mini Sleek Can - 8 pk 7.5 OZ CAN ($.07 / OZ) $3.99

Coca-Cola Classic Glass Bottles - 6 pk 8 OZ BTL ($.10 / OZ) $4.99

Coca-Cola Zero 20 OZ BTL ($.08 / OZ) $1.59

Is this a valid source? Also some of the examples in the article are very weak, e.g. the section on meteorologists. I'd be inclined to trim the less necessary stuff and remove the cite tags where the assertions are easily verified.--agr (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI
http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/pub814.cfm#act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_Conversion_Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.94 (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Kilowatt Hour
It should be specified in the article that kWh is a derived SI unit, since 1 W = 1 J/s, while the article makes it sound like the two units are rather unrelated. Doriphor (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

i noticed this also and was going to comment on it in this quote "Energy is often measured in watt-hours, BTUs, therms or calories rather than the SI joule". probably should be reworded. Nickmista (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. bd2412 T 19:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Metrication in the United States → Metrification in the United States – The term "metrication" is unusual in the United States; the more recognized term is "metrification". In the spirit of WP:TIES, this US-specific article should be in American English. Trovatore (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ngram viewer. Tony   (talk)  07:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support though I think Metric conversion in the United States would be probably even better. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I could support that. --Trovatore (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. But I agree that Metric conversion in the United States would be even better per WP:COMMONNAME.  "Metric conversion" generates 436K Google hits compared to only 36.8K hits for "metrification".  Msnicki (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Being British, I'm really surprised to hear that "metrification" is now more common in the U.S.. I notice that NIST generally uses metrication and that the Ngram Tony1 presented above shows metrication is still more common. So do we need to go beyond the personal experience of WP editors before switching to "metrification" and as usual seek verifiability? Is there clear evidence in reliable sources or online counts that metrification is more common? Is it preferred by style guides? Do American English dictionaries show metrication as outdated and superseded by metrification? (All I've been able to find, with nothing but free online access, is that metrication is unambiguous but metrification can also have to do with writing poetry, which even turned up as the main meaning.) Is usage segmented at all - worst case, do opponents of conversion prefer one term and supporters prefer the other? And yes, sadly, similar questions arise with switching to "metric conversion". NebY (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Tony's ngram is actually quite surprising and has to be acknowledged (though I'm not sure how far I trust Google ngrams as a measure of what constitutes recognizable speech in a linguistic variety). I don't recall hearing "metrication" anywhere but WP, and I assumed it was a result of the general overrepresentation of Commonwealth speakers on Wikipedia.  However, it's not that "metrification" is exactly everyday speech either; I had to strain to remember what did sound more familiar.  How about adoption of the metric system in the United States? --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I too am surprised with Tony's NGRAM. But I can't argue with statistics.  The only WP:OR comment I might make is the crowd that is so opposed to "metrification" is a largely illiterate, anti-science group, so you might not find the product of their work in the learned writings of books.  Whichever way we choose to name the article, the other suggested phrases, unless already in use, could serve as redirects to get people to this (currently oddly titled) article. Trackinfo (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but would propose to rename to "Metric units in the United States", which avoids the spelling issue and is more neutral as well.&minus;Woodstone (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly relevant :-) The word can also, according to The Ultra-Complete Maximegalon Dictionary of Every Language Ever, mean the noise made by the Lord High Sanvalvwag of Hollop on discovering that he has forgotten his wife's birthday for the second year running. Since there was only ever one Lord High Sanvalvwag of Hollop, and he never married, the word is only ever used in a negative or speculative sense, and there is an ever-increasing body of opinion which holds that The Ultra-Complete Maximegalon Dictionary is not worth the fleet of lorries it takes to cart its microstored edition around in. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Metrification? Yuk. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, to me, it's "metrication? yuck". I was thinking about it and I think the reason is that change-of-state verbs, for the most part, don't end in -ate, so the verb "metricate" sounds distinctly inelegant.  Change-of-state verbs normally end in -ify or -ize, so it should be "metrify" or "metricize".  "Metricize" is probably better given that we want to be able to use it intransitively, but that leads to the awful "metricization", so better to go with "metrify" and "metrification".  That's just to my ear, but I would expect that most Americans would hear it similarly. --Trovatore (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Elongate, truncate, populate.... Or does American English now use elongify and truncification? NebY (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know then. All I can tell you is, "metricate" sounds truly awful.  --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't visit Australia then. We had an incredibly successful, government driven Metrication program in the 1970s. (See here for the formal government history and use of the word "metrication" beside 1901 in the second list.) I was working at the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia's government weather service, at the time and was heavily involved in the changes Everyone who was around then, and obviously all who came after, calls it "metrication". So as well as being the formal name of the program, it's a natural part of the language here. What other common words ending in "-ification" are there? HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the standard nominalization of verbs ending in -ify. Petrification, qualification, clarification, mystification, electrification, etc etc etc. --Trovatore (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you say "metrify"? I don't recall having ever heard it? HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly common, but it sounds more familiar than "metricate", yes. --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Online dictionaries tell me that yes, "metrify" exists, but its meaning is "To put into or compose in poetic meter; versify.". A lot to do with poetry. Nothing to do with converting to the metric system. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose on several counts.
 * No evidence for predominant common use of "metrification" beyond personal experience and recollection.
 * Evidence for predominant use of "metrication" as shown in the ngram produced by Tony1 above (of course, this must be interpreted with care as it includes, for example, all uses of "metrification" in its original sense of writing a metrical composition).
 * Metrication is the long-established term used by institutes, industry bodies, government departments and federal law such as
 * National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for example in Recommended Agency Procedures for Implementing Federal Metric Policy (NISTIR 4855) and the Construction Metrication Council
 * Department of Commerce, e.g. Metric Conversion Policy for Federal Agencies, Department of Commerce, The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America, and in the very name of the Metrication Operating Committee (a committe subordinate to the Interagency Committee on Metric Policy)
 * SAE International, formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers Metrication and SAE
 * Metric Conversion Act 1975... I could go on and on.
 * Compatibilty within Wikipedia with articles on Metrication, Metrication in Canada,Metrication in the United Kingdom, Metrication in Chile, Metrication in Sweden, Metrication in Peru and six others.
 * The vocabulary of Wikipedia should always be wider than that of any one editor, and this should be a source of delight rather than something to be corrected.
 * Yuck :) NebY (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatevs. I seem to have only my own reaction to go on; though there's evidence that other American editors respond the same way, I apparently can't prove it.  To me "metrication" sounds like a made-up word, sort of inherently neologistic if you get what I mean, and I think I'm not alone in hearing it that way.  But do whatever you want with the article; if I've made a few people aware how bad the word sounds to at least some American ears, well, at least that's something, I guess. --Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not just American, Canadians used "metrification" as well. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the ONLY dictionary definition of "metrify" is to do with poetry, not converting to the metric system, how did this come about? HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like a pretty natural extrapolation. Electric, electrify, electrification.  Acidic, acidify, acidification. --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, see the second defn here. --Trovatore (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. That dictionary also lists "metricate" with virtually the same meaning. My spell checker doesn't like "metrify" (it wants to correct it to "petrify"), but it's quite happy with "metricate". HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt your spellchecker is set to American English. Just a guess. --Trovatore (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good guess. Normally true. But I tried it with it set to both American and Australian English in turn. It rejected "metrify" AND "metrification" in both cases. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that the freedictionary entry for "metrify" in the relevant sense is sourced to AHD, whereas for "metricate", it's sourced to Collins. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support both this move or a longer-form title. "Metrication" is not good American English. Red Slash 06:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is an article about the United States and should be understandable by the people who live there.  Almost no one in the US will have even heard the word metrication.  ("Is that something to do with teaching the metric system in public schools?")  Precisely because we are not on the metric system, people here do not know the associated vocabulary.  They probably won't know metrification, either, but they can at least probably figure that one out.  The phrase they'll recognize, the one Americans actually use is "metric conversion".  Even if there's an argument to be made (and I haven't seen it) that metrication is the "official" word, WP:COMMONNAME asks that we prefer the most frequent name over the official name.  Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. A no-brainer, if that's what the Americans call it, then our feelings of what they should call it are irrelevant. (But to call Australian metrication successful is a bit bizarre... go to any hardware store here and you'll find ten BSW bolts for every metric, and for good reasons... the ISO standard fastener threads are just too fine to hang the back gate or a stage lighting luminary, and for many other purposes too. And nobody seems in any hurry to tell ISO that, or perhaps they just aren't listening. Either way, the pragmatic answer has prevailed, and we now just ignore ISO.) Andrewa (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even though the subject itself may be about the efforts in the US and follow American English, evidence (from the ngram and by Neb) is that "metrification" is not more common in the US than "metrication". It's not really an issue of following WP:ENGVAR or WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody is opposed to the article itself being written in American English, or referring to or defining the term as "metrification"; there is no common name for the concept "Metrication in the United States" – called simply "metrification" or "metrication" in the US. Wikipedia's articles on a theme generally have a coherent and unified naming convention that once established are expected to apply to other similar articles. And as it seems that the majority of all such articles occupy namespaces with "metrication" in them, this article should stay aligned with the others. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Here's the n-gram chart that really tells the story:  metrication v. metrification v. metric conversion.  Case-insensitive makes more sense here.  Notice that metric conversion is far more popular in the US than either of the other terms.  I'll say again:  An article about the US should be written for Americans in American English.  Msnicki (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See ngram. Tony   (talk)  04:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It doesn't appear that anyone has provided any support for the proposition that "metrification" is the preferred term in America. The ngrams and my computer's American English dictionary suggest the opposite. Agree generally with NebY, above. -  Ne ll  is  10:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support "Metrication" sounds like an incorrect shortening of an unusual word, metrification.  The Ngram indicated "metrication" is a 1965 neologism that took off.  I am not eager to accept the ngram results as gospel, because I don't thing it weights reputable sources appropriately.  An encyclopedia should try to be formal, and formal favours the correct, and metrification is more correct, even if less frequently used.  However, I Support more Metric conversion in the United States or Conversion to Metric in the United States as more natural, and more recognizable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be that "metrification" is the neologism, or at least that its use to mean to mean metrication is neologistic. I've tried probing the ngram with searches such as this. Every early snippet I've seen is using "metrification" in its original context of writing verse. I'm wondering if what we're seeing in this discussion is that familiar process in which, faced by a choice of two formal or technical words, an English-speaker that's unfamiliar with both will naturally assume that the more elaborate is the more correct. (I'm sure there's a technical term for it but instead will offer the rather unfair example of Annenberg's "discomfiture".) I wish we could see some evidence that "metrification" is the dominant word for switching to the metric system. NebY (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The evidence for formal usage seems to favour "metrication". As I noted above, it's used by US federal law, government departments, institutions and industry bodies. Is there such extensive evidence for the formal use of "metrification"? "Metric conversion" is used formally, but has some problems for us. First, it's a little ambiguous: "metrication" is specifically used for switching national or industry usage to the metric system but we use "conversion" also to describe more eveyday processes such as translating some particular measurement - "take 1 lb (450g) of flour". Second, as argues, Wikipedia shouldn't shy away from using the correct formal term. Third, as  points out, we try to maintain article naming conventions within Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The verb is metrify. The process of -ifying is -ification.  Meter means measure, including timing of verse, or measurement in general.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The" verb? Metrify is a verb. Metricate is another. Generally speaking, the process of -ating is -ation e.g. inflate/inflation, elongate/elongation, metricate/metrication. (Digressing slightly, English is full of exceptions and your -ifying/-ification rule has many: "liquefy" gives us "liquefaction", "terrify" doesn't give us "terrification", and "horrification" would be just horrid.) NebY (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we agree on Metric_conversion_in_the_United_States and let this horrificaction of the language die? Both metrication and metrifiaction are horrid words that normal people don't use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...except, in the case of "metrication", almost everywhere else in the world but the United States. (One doesn't have to American to be normal.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ...except that this is an article about the United States. Who do you think should decide what it's called in the United States?  Is this really an international decision?  Should we ask the Brits what they think we should call it?  Should they write the article and use British spelling as well?  This makes no sense whatsoever.  I think we should call it what people in the US actually call it, even if everyone else in the English-speaking universe regards this as yet another example of how Americans are destroying the language.


 * An n-gram analysis demonstrates that the Americans who've contributed to discussion aren't making this up: It really is called metric conversion, not something else in the United States.  This is the term Americans understand.  They don't use these other terms.  This should not be hard.  Msnicki (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oooh, a bit sensitive there, methinks. Just re-read the final, bracketed sentence of my post. Of course American opinions on what to call it matter the most, but never entirely. This a global encyclopaedia, and we must always write for a global audience. "Metrification" would be very rare outside the USA. "Metric conversion" works though. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I could agree that easily, given more evidence than a single ngram and a few editors asserting that as they're not familiar with the term, it can't be a properly formed word, or can't be a term in normal use or the proper term, or must be un-American. Some judicious rewriting of the article would then be required. Alternatively, if the discussion's closed without a rename, any of us could immediately set up a redirect from Metric conversion in the United States - I'd have done that already if I didn't fear it would pre-empt the close. NebY (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We have a whole category of articles all called metrication. no need to make this one exceptional. Rmhermen (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick look though the references to various metrication articles shows neither metrication nor metrification used in the referenced text. Looks like the metrication articles generally should be renamed. Renaming the categories is easy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Medication"? Spellchecker out of control? HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * musta. Fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "metrication" and "metrification" are WP:JARGON so all the articles and categories should use "metric conversion" -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If "metrication" is jargon, it's extremely common jargon among lots of the common people all around the world. See Category:Metrication by country. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also historical, falling more and more into the dustbin of history as most of the world has been converted over, and it is no longer a word that needs to be used in the everyday press. In the United States, it isn't used that much, so also just jargon. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Both terms "metrication" and "metrification" are made up words, with no strong reason to prefer one over the other, though both should be mentioned in the lede. Metric conversion in the United States would be clearer and preferable.--agr (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Rlsheehan (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Oxford English Dictionary says that metrication is the preferred term (as described here). Ultimately though, I think we ought to follow the naming convention set out by articles such as Metrication. -Thunderforge (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Burma uses the metric system
So the fact that "the US one of the three countries that has not adopted the metric system as their official system of weights and measures. (Burma and Liberia are the other two.)" is not true any more. See Burmese_units_of_measurement.

Dominik Moritz (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That article says that in 2013 "the country was preparing to adopt the metric system". Until it has happened, we probably should shouldn't say they have adopted the metric system. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think intended "we probably shouldn't say". I'd agree with that until we have reliable sources that the adoption has taken place. NebY (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Gasoline sold by the liter in the late 1970s/early 1980s
I remember gasoline being sold by the liter after the oil shocks of the 1970s, not for metrication but for purely practical reasons, as the mechanical gas pumps of the era couldn't go beyond 99.9 cents per unit. I have found the following reference, unfortunately undated but apparently from 1980: Half gallon, liters: confusion at gas pump. But I'm not sure where in the article this might be appropriate. BruceME (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it was published January 22nd, 1980. 63.155.161.60 (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

About the image "Valencia Rd. 500m"
This image says "500 m". Does anyone know if this refers to Miles or Metres? It would be smart to clarify this soft of thing, since that's what the article is supposed to be about. Does lowercase "m" stand for mile or metre? And uppercase "M"? HuGo_87 (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"m" is the international symbol for metres. It is encoded in universal standards and laws. As far as I know there is no standard symbol for miles. It is an obsolete unit so why would anyone bother create a standard symbol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.207.69  (talk • contribs)  16:16, December 28 2011 (UTC)


 * The abbreviation, not symbol, is "mi." Please take your universal foreign arrogance, and ignorance, out of this discussion. 63.155.161.60 (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Context suggests metres for the signpost. Anyone got the time to check it out on Google Street View? HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It means meters. First of all, I've never seen miles abbreviated to "m" on a road sign. Secondly, it's an exit sign, which appear at most a handful of miles before an exit -- the idea of an exit sign five hundred miles before the exit is ludicrous. As for a capital M on a road sign, I'd have to see it to explain it. -  Ne ll  is  10:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As a non-American, I must apologise for not using US spelling for meters. Obviously that would be the correct form here. HiLo48 (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you travel past the exit (using Google Maps), you can see a sign that says "Exit 98 - Irvington Rd - 2 km". Given their antipathy towards illegals, it's kind of surprising that Arizona would be using a foreign measurement exclusively. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Allegedly one of the reasons they are so antipathic is because there are a lot of them. And I believe also allegedly that since they're illegals they don't see the need to integrate and be true Americans. So they've probably brought all their nasty habits like metric and Mexican food with them in to poor old Arizona. Unfortunately as with Mexican food, this one is too good to pass up. Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is quite common to see metric road signs in the border regions of the USA (both for Northern border with Canada as well as Southern border with Mexico). Also, Arizona was formerly part of Mexico and became a US state after the Mexican-American War and Tucson is less than 100 km from the current border with Mexico, so no surprise to see metric road signs there.
 * Enquire (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Height
Quote: Further, anthropometric measurements such as height are commonly given in centimeters.[38]

That's not true. I've never heard a person describe their height in centimeters in my life, and I don't know what my height in centimeters is. Uncertain if medical professionals use centimeters. 63.155.161.60 (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The section heading for that is "science and medicine", so the statement should be taken to mean that anthropometric measurements in centimetres are sommon in science and medicine. --Boson (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I offer no opinion on whether the statement is true, but either way the citation provided does not support the statement. The CDC provides both a metric and an English set of calculation instructions. At best this indicates that some people who use the CDC website (not necessarily just Americans) are more comfortable using metric units—it indicates nothing about height being "commonly given" in metric in America. I've removed the citation. - Ne  ll  is  18:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Manufacturing in the USA; why the metric system still struggles.
3 observations on why both old and new designs for manufactured hard goods in the USA remain frozen in inches instead of migrating to metric units:

Machine tools are most often directly geared to generate motion. Hence on common machine tools, such as mills, lathes, and grinders, they can be ordered with a full revolution of a drive screw or gear to move in either an even Imperial unit, such as 0.200 inches per revolution, or Metric, such as 5.00 mm per revolution. While these two values are very similar, they are not close enough to each other allow them to be interchangeable. Machine tools often have useful lifespans of more than 30 years, so replacement with metric drive machine tools while existing inch machines are still viable is often not considered. Even with digital readouts that convert inch to metric, there still are productivity losses associated with motion that is not even segments or revolutions on manually operated equipment. To cut costs and increase productivity, inch-geared machines are still ordered in large numbers even today.

Legacy engineering drawings are paper blueprints and there is no inexpensive way to reliably change them into metric if they were drawn in inch. Even though new designs are created almost exclusively in CAD (Computer Aided Design), and CAD drawings are cheap and easy to convert between units, to maintain compatibility with the machine tools and legacy drawings they are often dimensioned in inch to this day.

Due to supply and demand, disposable cutting tools have 2 pricing levels: Inch and Metric. A look at a very popular cutting tool distributor's website, McMaster-Carr, shows this very clearly. Metric drill bits average roughly 15% more than a similar sized inch drill bits. Other cutting tools show the same problem, usually with a larger price gap.

71.9.92.222 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Patrick McSwain, founder of Quality Inspection. Over 35 years experience in the areas of machining, precision measurement, CAD software use, and computer programming. Firm believer in the metric system, yet very aware of the existing situation with designing and manufacturing to inch specification. We have 11 new products submitted to us by various US companies that we are inspecting today. Sadly only 3 these new products are designed in metric. We have inspected over 35,000 US projects in the last 21 years, and have witnessed first hand the ratio of new products designed in inch vs. metric.

Proposed Oregon State Senate Bill 166 - Proposes to switch Oregon's system of measurements to the International System of Units
Hi, I have been following the movement towards Metrication in the United States, and I have read some recent news. There is a proposed bill in Oregon to require State agencies to use the International System of Units by January 1, 2018, if the bill passes. I strongly suggest that this bill and movement in Oregon is mentioned somewhere in the article, because if this bill passed, it would really mix things up about Metrication in the United States. Here is more information about the proposed bill in Oregon. Also, I suggest the map of the U.S. (image below), be split into 50 states, with Oregon highlighted as Yellow (instead of grey), meaning a proposed bill could switch the system of measurements to the International System of Units. Here is another link to the Oregon International System of Units bill. Thanks!  CookieMonster755  (talk)   23:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Snore zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I couldn't find any mention of this in reliable secondary sources, even in Oregon newspapers, so this is probably DOA. - BilCat (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you could be nicer to me about it BilCat. Here is a source from the Oregonian.  CookieMonster755  (talk)   04:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that. I was referring to the bill itself as snore-worthy, not your comments. - BilCat (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Some questions
This article is nominally about metrication in the United States. What do other nations (Myanmar and Libya) have to do with this topic? Also, the metric system is, by law and as mentioned in the article further along, the prefered system of weights and measures. All other customary measures are defined in terms of SI units, and have been so defined since 1893. How does this fit with a statement that the US have not adopted the metric system? Because it is not madated as the sole system to be used? Is there Federal legislation mandating the use of customary units without reference to metric equivalents? If so, is there an exception for such legislation with regards to the Metric Conversion Act of 1975? Is the problem that the status as the 'prefered' system of weights and measures is not the same as an 'official' system of weights and measures? Is there or has there ever been an 'official' system of weights and measures for the US? Random Internet User 98.140.207.76 (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Myanmar and Libya are mentioned to remind readers of how backwards the citizens of the US are for not using only the highly-superior metric system, never mind that other nations don't completey use metric either, including the UK. ;) - BilCat (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

kilowatt hour
Considering that Joule and not kilowatt hour is the metric unit for energy and that therefore in this specific case the US is no less metric than others, then perhaps you would like to reconsider this edit. Lklundin (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right. The Kilo part on kW fooled me. I've reverted. Perhaos the fact that kilowatt hour isn't metric needs to be clarified? And yes, we do need to be honest once! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with your edit summary that in the sentence it could be more clear that the kilowatt hour is non-metric and that therefore in this specific case the US is no less metric than others. Since the previous sentence says that joule is SI and watt hour not, I was just thinking to insert one or two words, but could not find any. Lklundin (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Doorstep delivery in the UK in lead
That's wrong, it's optional for reusable containers. Doug Weller  talk 15:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Metrication in the United States. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/forumdir.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible Bias
The sources all seem to be advocating the metric system -TheSpaceFace Let's Chat 02:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Metrication in the United States. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20111113000612/http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/4858.cfm to http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/4858.cfm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/column_metricsystem_marthahome/Whatever_Happened_to_the_Metric_System.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626151052/http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/sd10final.pdf to http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/sd10final.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=36
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528070253/http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/2007_Update_to_the_2005_Forum_Report.pdf to http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/2007_Update_to_the_2005_Forum_Report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929013417/http://www.nazarian.no/wep.asp?id=287 to http://www.nazarian.no/wep.asp?id=287
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807045824/http://www.hemi.com:80/hemi.html to http://www.hemi.com/hemi.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821211324/http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table8.html to http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter4/table8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metrication in the United States. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070206182651/http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/EUMetricDirective2010.pdf to http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/EUMetricDirective2010.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hemi.com/hemi.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) 17:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metrication in the United States. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140202145447/http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=14287&flag=1 to http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=14287&flag=1

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) 04:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Intro concluding sentence dispute -- extent to which US uses the metric system
BilCat I disagree with your edit and have undone it again but I would like to see what other people think before opening a formal dispute. Originally the article's introduction was rather short and stated only that the United States is 1 of 3 countries not using the metric system. In addition to several other cleanups I added a second paragraph which states SI is in fact used is in several places. However, after a few edits people on both sides got it to conclude by saying... "yet many Americans remain unfamiliar with the sizes of certain metric units in the context of daily life." I feel this is an important point to make in the intro. By leaving in basic examples of where SI is used but taking out where it isn't, it changes the meaning of the whole article. The user Spaceface already mentioned issues of bias in this article and I think this is a major example of it. I myself am a big supporter of the metric system and I would love to see it implemented in the US. Yet, as a matter of fact I accept that there are a significant number of people in the US who are unfamiliar with the "certain aspects of metric system in the context of daily life". This is not stereotyping or just an opinion. It is also implied in the cited section describing attempts to get people to think metric. If you believe otherwise, try going on the street and ask Americans how many centimeters tall they are or how many kilograms they weight? I guarantee a sizable percentage of them will be unsure. In the end, Wikipedia is about giving people a global perspective on an issue. The article already includes many many examples of things sold in metric sizes. Given this, I feel it is appropriate to prominently indicate the issues facing metric adoption in the US. Without this, skimming readers from other countries will likely end their reading thinking America's metric conversion has already happened. Comment on this talk board. Let's Chat 18:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC) SCBY (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, going on the street to ask Americans how many centimeters tall they are would constitute original research. I think the sentence would be fine as written if we had a reliable source backing it up. - Ne  ll  is  00:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean although I was mainly saying that to make a point. Will look into finding a source. SCBY (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Inserted a good, peer reviewed journal source for the claim. SCBY (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

5.56mm NATO <>.223 Remington, 7.62x51mm NATO <> .308 Winchester, contrary to our article
Our article presently says:

"The U.S. military, reflecting its need to ensure interoperability with its NATO allies, uses metric measurements for almost all weapons calibers, even when for calibers that originated as or were derived from a different measurement (e.g. 7.62 mm rather than .308, or 5.56 mm instead of .223)."

This might lead an incautious reader to believe the 7.62x51mm NATO chambering is identical to the .308 Winchester and the 5.56x45mm NATO chambering and cartridge are identical to the .223 Remington.

Neither of those statements are true.

From our article 5.56x45mm NATO:

"5.56mm NATO versus .223 Remington

The exterior dimensions of the 5.56mm NATO and .223 Remington cartridges are identical.[11][54] While the cartridges are identical other than powder load, the chamber leade, i.e. the area where the rifling begins, is cut to a sharper angle on some .223 commercial chambers. Because of this, a cartridge loaded to generate 5.56mm pressures in a 5.56mm chamber may develop pressures that exceed SAAMI limits when fired from a short-leade .223 Remington chamber."

From our article 7.62x51mm NATO:

"Although not identical, the 7.62×51mm NATO and the commercial .308 Winchester cartridges are similar enough that they can be loaded into rifles chambered for the other round, but the Winchester .308 cartridges are typically loaded to higher pressures than 7.62×51mm NATO cartridges.[3] Even though the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) does not consider it unsafe to fire the commercial round in weapons chambered for the NATO round, there is significant discussion[4][5][6] about compatible chamber and muzzle pressures between the two cartridges based on powder loads and wall thicknesses on the military vs. commercial rounds. While the debate goes both ways, the ATF recommends checking the stamping on the barrel; if one is unsure, one can consult the maker of the firearm.[7][8]"

I propose we change the sentence in question to read:

"The U.S. military, reflecting its need to ensure interoperability with its NATO allies, uses metric measurements for almost all weapons calibers, even when for calibers that originated as or were derived from a different measurement (e.g. 7.62 mm rather than .308, or 5.56 mm instead of .223). However, civilian rifles chambered for .223 Remington may load military 5.56mm ammunition but not fire it safely because 5.56mm NATO ammunition is loaded to create greater chamber pressure than .223 Remington, potentially causing damage to the weapon and injury to the shooter. Controversy exists whether this is true for civilian rifles chambered for .308 Winchester ammunition using 7.62mm NATO ammunition."

The change is required to prevent a reader who's unaware of the differences in chambering in military and civilian rifles chambered for these rounds from assuming that ammunition made for military use may safely be used in civilian rifles. loupgarous (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)