Talk:Metrication in the United States

Tire Sizing

I revised the sentance about tires in the "Consumer and retail" to indicate only that tread width is specified in milimeters and rim diameter in inches. The formerly, this sentance additionally indicated that tire diameter and tire width were specified in inches, when in fact neither measurement appears in tire size codes. I added a citation regarding tire sizing. (Bdentremont (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Old

The simpsons refrence to judge constance harm is off. Her judgement was that Bart stay 200 ft away, or 61 meters. Elfuegocaliente 02:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This page needs some work to make it encyclopedic in tone and NPOV. It looks as though it is a wikified advocacy document. "Our involvement", "the government", "our customary measurements" and similar US-centrisms need fixing. Some acknowledgement of the costs of and opposition to metrication would be useful too. Gdr 15:24, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

I worked on the NPOV a little. Did I miss any? Rmhermen 16:54, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

I have never seen a doctor use standard measurements for weight, on many occassions I have had doctors have to do the math on a scratch pad to convert weight from metric to pounds because they assumed I could not understand pounds. Those I know who work in the medical profession always use kilograms for weight, maybe the statement that doctors use pounds is incorrect, or no longer true? I did not want to edit the page based on my sole experiences.

Are you talking about doctors in the U.S. using metric? If so, where? It is certainly possible that it occurs in some area. I have never seen a scale in a doctor's office that measured in metric (except baby scales - which read both but only pounds were recorded on the chart). Rmhermen 00:53, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

When conversing with patients, who are assumed to be more comfortable with customary measures, U.S. doctors will use customary units, but internal records and conversations, especially in hospitals, are increasingly standardizing on metric units. Albanaco 11:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

lumber sizes

The article ends with the following statement: "The construction industry has been the slowest to adopt metric units where lumber still comes in standard 8- and 16-foot lengths and inch widths (which are not actual sizes)." I removed the part (which are not actual sizes). Maybe for the width and depth of lumber, the nominal size differs from the actual size, but for the length, it does not. You actually can get 2x4s in 8 foot and 16 foot lengths, and those will be the actual lengths. -Lethe | Talk 19:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

The phrase modifies the inch width statement not the earlier length statement or both statements together. Perhaps you have a better way of phrasing it? Rmhermen 23:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I tried a new sentence. What do you think? -Lethe | Talk 02:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Momentum

The article currently reads: "The United States has been gradually increasing its use of metric units for many years, but much of the momentum has been lost since the 1980s, except in schools and science."

I am not satisfied with this but not entirely certain how to improve it. While it is true that the mass media metric campaigns and the random metric roadsigns and simultaneous use of Celsius and Fahrenheit by television weatherman has mostly disappeared since the 1980s, other "public" uses of metric are vastly increased. No one thinks twice about buying a 2L of soda or a 1L or 250mL. The home mechanic doesn't bother to take out his English wrenches when work on his car. And on the flip side, I understand the metric push in school math programs is much lessened since the 80s, not increased as the sentence says now. Rmhermen 02:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Phasing out of bushels

The bushel article says "Government policy in both the United States and the United Kingdom is to phase out units such as the bushel and replace them with the metric system." What government policies, exactly, are being referred to? Is bushel explicitly named in some piece of legislation as a unit that is being phased out? What is the timetable for this? I am thinking the statement might really just be an overly broad assessment of the situation and is just using bushel as an example, but I want to be sure. — mjb 7 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)

In the United States, it isn't "legislation" at least dealing specifically with bushels. Rather, it is administrative rules or policy, whether or not it made it into the Code of Federal Regulations. Several decadess ago (in the 1970s, I'm pretty sure), the USDA stopped using bushels for international production figures and most international trade. If you check newspaper and magazine reports, as well as publications and web pages of the USDA, these figures are now reported in tons (always metric tons, whether identified as such or not, and only rarely with bushels conversions). Unfortunately, the phaseout hasn't gone much further than that, and USDA still routinely uses bushels only for domestic production and regulations affecting farmers.

As far as legislation goes, in more general terms the 1988 amendments (part of Public Law 100-418) to the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, which is still in effect, of course, did say:

• Sec. 3. It is therefore the declared policy of the United States --

• (1) to designate the metric system of measurement as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce.

Note that this doesn't apply just to international trade. Gene Nygaard 17:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Military?

No mention here of the fairly ubiquitous use of metric measurement in the U.S. military. So common that "click/klick" is widely understood to mean kilometer, 7.62 mm shell is standard, maps have elevation in meters, etc. This common usage is of course a result of measurement standardization for NATO.

While it is true that the use of NATO standard equipment as forced a bit of metrication on the US Military, I can assure you that the instances you stated above are the exceptions not the rule. Movementarian 16:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, 7.62mm is exactly 0.3 inches Seabhcán 10:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Navy undersea terms (kiloyards, knots, feet per second) were added to this section.

When I was a cadet (in the UK admittedly) we were told that as a rule of thumb automatic weapons used metric calibres such as NATO 5.56mm and 7.62mm and single shot weapons such as target and sniper's rifles used imperial calibres such as 0.22inch and 0.303inch - obviously there are exceptions such as a 0.50 calibre machine gun.

this sentence is making me crazy.

"Public and private sector metric transition slowed at the same time that the very reasons that the United States had begun to adopt the metric system—the increasing competitiveness of other nations and the demands of global marketplaces—made completing the conversion sped up."

Me too: very poor grammar and very unclean. Is it still here? I'll see whether I can find it. Jimp 03:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Seems like it's gone. Jimp 03:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sports?

How about the influence of statistics in sports? If the US tried to switch to the metric system, can you imagine the effect on football? Do you now gain 10 meters for a first down, or do you gain the metric equivalent of 10 yards ("First and 9.144")? How would you compare the career rushing leader, Emmitt Smith, to a player 20 years from now who has gained 10,000 meters rushing, as opposed to Emmitt's 16,000-odd yards?

Would we need to change it? We still use archaic units in other sports (when was the last time a furlong mattered outside of horse racing). We could certainly still use yards for football (This was what I thought a rather ridiculous anti-metric argument back in the '70s. There is no compelling reason to use meters over yards in football, even if we used them nowhere else. Even here on Wikipedia football articles are the only ones where we don't give metric equivalents to yards. There's no need to.

Note that the CFL still uses yards despite metric having been far more successful in Canada. Daniel Case 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I also don't know how international basketball rules have been altered by the metric system. I assume the basket is still 10 feet off the floor...is that just converted to meters?

Finally, baseball. It has often been remarked that 90 feet between bases is the perfect distance; a grounder hit to an infielder must be fielded cleanly and thrown on target to (usually) just beat the runner to the base. Upset the delicate distance, and the whole dynamic of the game changes. Are Americans really willing to start referring to this distance in some odd number of meters? Or would such severe opposition to this be met by the average ticket-buying fan that the professional leagues would never give in to using metric measurement? How do the Latin American countries handle this? How does Japan handle this? These are all questions I have about the total conversion to metric units. --BucInExile 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sure there are those who would maintain that 440 yards is the perfect distance length for a running track and that changing to 400 meters has ruined track and field...

As you observe, baseball relies on a precisely standardized playing field. If there were any difference in the distance between the left field wall and home plate at different stadiums, it would completely change fielding strategy from one stadium to another and would mean that home runs would be easier to get in some stadiums than in others. Oh, wait...

Steroid injections, of course, are always measured in drams. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Intersting questions. I've been doing some digging. It seems that for basketball, international regulations differ from US rules: International rules courts are about one metre shorter than US courts. I can't find anything about internatioal rules for American football or baseball. Its intersting that the US is one of the few countries in the world that plays field games different from any other country (except where it has be introduced, like baseball to Japan). Are US sports popular in Latin America? I thought they were all soccar fans there? Seabhcán 19:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Is baseball popular in Latin America? Absolutely not. Cuba didn't finish second in the WBC, and the Dominican Republic has never produced any good players. Venezuela isn't renound for its pitchers. R'son-W 08:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment sounds like sarcasm, but as an ignorant old-worlder, I have no idea if its true or not. Seabhcán 09:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to baseball, the only measured values regularly mentioned are pitch speeds and home run distance. I seem to recall the Canadian fields have metric distances on the outfield walls. No reason you couldn't leave the bases at 90 feet and just call it 27.432m. --Boone 20:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, the bases are 90 feet 9 inches apart, for a slightly better 27.66 m (The pitcher's mound is 60 feet 6 inches from the plate, for that matter ... 15.39 m) Daniel Case 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Our Spanish, German and Polish articles on baseball refer to 90 pies, Fuß and stóp, respectively. The German and Polish articles give approximate equivalents in meters. Baseball is very popular in parts of Latin America and is the national sport of Cuba and the Dominican Republic. The rules page on the National Football League's Mexican website gives measurements in "yardas." As far as switching to metric: Saying "The winning run is just 27.432 meters away!" just doesn't have the same ring to it. (Nor does "2.7432 meters and a cloud of dust.") -- Mwalcoff 04:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rugby League and Rugby Union both survived metrification throughout the world - for example the 25 yard line became the 22 metre line. --Parasite 04:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As an Australian who went through this decades ago can I say one thing. Do not worry! The Cricket pitch is 1 chain long. The length of the pitch is absolutely critical to the game and the slightest change simply could not occur. So the Cricket pitch is exactly 20.1168m long when the greenkeeper goes out to mark the lines each day - but for general commentary we say 20m.

In Australian Rules Football the 15 yard penalty became the 15m penalty. No big deal there for those of you who know the game. Golf holes are all in metres and it's fine. American Football would be an interesting one. Whilst I understand (and enjoy) the game I would not know if changing it from yards to metres would actually affect the game. If it wouldn't make much difference - then you change. If it would then you leave it. And still call it yards too. There is no big deal here.

Metric is about using a consistant system for measurement that is easy to use commercially and where accuracy is important. For that to happen everyone has to use it every day. But it is still ok to use old terms from a historic perspective. Phrases like "Give them an inch and they take a mile" do not get converted. I still order a pint of beer. I get 500ml. I know that. The bartender knows it. It's not a problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.12.144.21 (talk • contribs) .

Look at (real) football, nobody cares that the penalty point at eleven metres originally is 12 yards away, but that is probably due to the little difference (less than 3 cm) between these values. (What are the original measures of the 5- and 16-metre areas again?) Field sizes may, unlike in most other team sports, vary considerably and many probably have round metric values—in traditional stadiums they are fit into the oval 400-metre running tracks so there is not much of flexibility. Likewise many basketball baskets are probably mounted at exactly 3 m, not 4.8 cm higher. (Who would notice, who would remeasure, who would care?) OTOH the football itself, the goal and the minimum opponent distance at free shots (equal to the diameter of the center circle) etc. are actually defined in round English values, but learned in their odd metric conversion by (continental European) referees and green keepers. —Christoph Päper

Anyone playing basket would mind :o) The basket is - and shoud be - mounted 3.05 meters above the floor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball#Equipment (RipRapRob 13:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Actually there's been retrogression since the 1970s

Contrary to the statement in Metrication, in my experience there was a brief period--probably from 1975 (Metric Conversion Act) to 1982 (dissolution of the Metric board) during which it seemed to me Interstate road signs in many parts of the country gave distances in both miles and kilometers. My impression was that all new signage was carrying both. There were many of them in Wisconsin, which does not border Canada. Car speedometers were graduated in both sets of units, as were measuring cups used for cooking, tailors' tape measures, etc.

I'm not quite sure when television weather reports reverted to giving temperatures only in Fahrenheit. I believe they were given in both Fahrenheit and Celsius for a fairly long period of time.

This is personal reminiscence, but I'm sure the retrogression can be documented and ought to go in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to put a very upbeat tone to metric conversation. Except in a few instances which are given, metric is for the most part dead in the US. I believe the article should reflect this.--Looper5920 06:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am Canadian, and I was actually quite surprised at how often I encountered the metric system when I recently visited the United States. --70.82.50.67 22:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that metric is dead in the U.S., but rather that the U.S. has a bit of a split personality when it comes to metrication. In those areas (such as pharmaceuticals, nutrition, cameras, large soda bottles, spirits, etc.) which completed metrication in the 1970s in the U.S., Americans have continued to use the metric verbiage without giving it a second thought, even thirty years later. U.S. manufacturing, starting with the automotive industry, has continued to metricate more and more all the time since then. Increasingly, even consumer products such as shampoo and dental floss are increasingly being produced in round metric sizes, a reflection of the behind-the-scenes manufacturing changes. Where there hasn't been progress is in the public perception and usage of metrication. In particular, culturally sensitive areas such as distances in miles, Fahrenheit temperatures, and letter size paper show no sign of popular support for changing to the international equivalents any time soon. One reason that the proposed changes to the FPLA to allow optional metric-only labeling is so controversial might be that it would highlight the extent to which U.S. manufacturing has already metricated, which might lead to an uncomfortable policy debate on metrication in other areas. Albanaco 23:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that. That aptly describes how the US Military works as well. Only that which has to be metric is. Everything else has remained imperial. That being said, on a day to day basis though most Americans have no idea what 500 grams is equal to or how many Kms are in a mile. Also, there is a definite cultural aspect involved with not changing. Metric is seen as very European and most Americans, rightly or wrongly, don't like to be dictated to by other countries and take a perverse pride in not switching. I have another whole theory about the Metric System and Soccer being pushed by the same people. For 30 years they have been telling us that these are the next great things but we continue to ignore them just to spite them.

Enough of my mindless ranting--Looper5920 00:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If one were to ask average Americans on the street whether we should become metric or not, you would find that about 99% would say no. If you remind them that neither system has any legal dominance and that congress has yet to completely codify one or another, the average American would think about it for a while, and say that we should formalize the American system and outlaw metric. If you don't believe me, try it. R'son-W 09:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Statement

It would seem the line "However, as a result of traveling overseas and of exposure to the metric system in other countries, an increasing amount of citizens are intersted in & want metrication." is an opinion and can not be verified.

I'm not sure that this belongs here.

James084 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree unless a source is given, which seems highly unlikely. Movementarian (Talk) 05:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This assertion (which was tacked on to the original paragraph) could well be the case, but it should be supported by a positive attribution, if possible. Albanaco 11:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with James084; the statement is dubious and cannot be verified. The onus is on its contributor to cite sources to back that one up. Deleted. — mjb 07:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be the result of increased shipping (of merchandise and other manufactured products) that the American business sector is becoming more familiar with the metric system. (Then again, an argument could be advanced that businesses are becoming more familiar with base 16, and this is the reason why the metric system is losing its luster.) Either way, somebody needs to cite a source for either proposition to fly.

USA a founding state of the metre convention???

The United States joined the metre convention in 1878, full three years after the foundation of the metre convention. "In 1875, the United States solidified their commitment to the development of the internationally recognized metric system by becoming one of the original seventeen signatory nations to the Convention du Mètre." That sentence needs to be changed. source: BIPM States

Grandpa Simpson

That translates into 432 (beer) or 504 (wine) gallons per mile, or about 1.2 liters per meter.

Should that be 4.32 and 5.04? Captain Jackson 17:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Four hundred and thirty two and five hundred and four gallons. Seabhcán 20:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, his car is just ridiculously inefficient. Captain Jackson 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculously inefficent? It runs on BEER!

"with any non-metric" vs. "without metric"

An anonymous user just added this text to the article:

Japan and South Korea already have banned the importation of products with any non-metric indications on the label.

Can somebody verify this, i.e. give a source? I assume they only banned the import of products without metric indications on the label, but I may (happily) be wrong. Christoph Päper 01:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the context, I would assume the poster meant what they said. A source would be good, of course. However I doubt the regulation will have much impact on U.S. practice since products for export to those markets likely are labeled in Japanese or Korean, so there would be no reason to include non-metric units.--agr 02:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The European Union has repeatedly delayed, at the urging of the U.S. government, similar metric-only requirements; IIRC, the last delay was until 2009. Gene Nygaard 17:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI this EU issue is covered in the article under the Consumer and retail section. A51Abductee 02:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this paragraph

"A potential problem for proponents of metrication is that most Americans, thirty years after the 1970s metric push, are no longer really aware of the status of metric usage in the rest of the world. Daily life no longer features even dual usage of units such as Celsius for temperature, so most Americans, unless they deliberately follow international news and reporting (e.g., the BBC, CBC, and so forth), have no real awareness that the customary or Imperial system of units is not widely used elsewhere. (Although the UK continues to use Imperial measures for certain applications such as speeds, metric measures for weather reporting are essentially the norm otherwise.)"

I don't think it's that Americans don't know that the rest of the world uses metric (although that might be true). It's that they don't care. If Americans thought they had to follow the rest of the world in all things, they would also adopt soccer, proportional representation and diesel cars. Unless someone can come up with a source for the "fact" that American ignorance of global metric use has an impact on this issue, I think we should delete the paragraph above. -- Mwalcoff 01:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I reworked the paragraph per above. --agr 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I removed the following paragraph:

"Although the term "liter" is used extensively, the significance or meaning of the quantity might not be well understood by many Americans, for whom the phrase "2-liter bottle of Pepsi" can simply mean "a bottle with a large amount of Pepsi suitable for a party". Others (correctly) think of a liter as a bit more than a quart."

I don't know of anyone who's dim enough not to realize that if a 2-liter bottle is about a half-gallon and a 1-liter bottle about a quart, than a liter must be a unit of measurement. -- Mwalcoff 01:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding elitist, in my experience, the problem is even worse than that. It's surprising how many people I run into that have trouble dealing even with customary units, let alone metric ones. Whether the reason for that is apathy or ignorance is debatable, but it's amazing how many people have trouble with seemingly basic concepts (as viewers of Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments can attest). Albanaco 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segments are tailored for entertainment value, and not for use in statistics. In any case, the people he interviews are not representative of the man on the street any more than people planted there for the sake of the show. (If they really were representative of ordinary people just walking along, it only goes to show how many have nothing better to do than stand there and talk to him, ultimately signing a release form for XYZ dollars for subsequent repeat broadcasting on national tv.) 198.177.27.12 21:23, 24 March 2006

Jay Leno's segments are tailored for entertainment value, and they are also representative of the average person. They are probably not representative of the average Wikipedian, however. You can do your own experiment to prove that hypothesis: Stand on any street corner with a legal pad. Ask everyone who passes whether they have heard of Wikipedia and know what it is. You know as well as I do what the result is going to be (unless you stand outside a high-tech company, of course). Albanaco 08:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an American and don't watch Jay Leno. However I doubt you're right. While you're probably right about wikipedia, you have to consider what Jay Leno does. Do you really think he at chooses people at random, at a random locations (preferably double blind), with a completed predefined question list and shows you the entirety of every single segment shot? Or do you think he likely selects people who look like they will provide entertainment, in areas where he can expect there to be many such people, and leads the conversations/questions in a way to provide maximum entertainment and shows only the people and the parts of the interview which are entertaining. I can tell you it is almost definitely much much closer to the later then the former Nil Einne 21:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Having trouble with Imperial units is not a sign of ignorance or apathy. Frankly, the distinctions and conversions are so random, its surprising we Americans have hung on to them for so long. Most people just know about how much a gallon is, about a much a pint is, how much a quart is, etc. without thinking about them in relation to each other, which really isn't necessary for the Imperial system, anyway. Metric, on the other hand, is entirely based on relations, and so its users must learn about their units in realion to each other.12.17.189.77 22:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Frankly, WTF? You do realize no-one created our system of measurement, right? It came about organically over thousands of years. It's not like someone said, "Oh, I'll make eight ounces to the cup, 2 cups to a pint, 2 pints to a quart, and 4 quarts to a gallon!" These units came about after thousands of years of trade in Britain and hundreds of years of trade in America. The mile, for example, comes from one thousand (mille) steps of a Roman soldier. This stuff is ancient. R'son-W 09:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thats not true. The British Crown regulated and standardised what is now the US Measurement system. Before 1300 every town in england had a different number of sub-units per unit. The King passed laws. There were even riots and protests against it. In roman times there were 1000 paces in a mile. Today there are not. It was changed by Elizabeth I. Seabhcán 09:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cost to conversion

Anyone know, or know where to find info, about the cost of the USA converting to metric? Should probably be included in the article, considering that's one of the reason people don't want to convert(aside from learning a new system). Thanks Thmars10 06:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about the US, but the conversion costs are a big ussue in the Uk. No-one seems to be able to come up with an honest figure - opponents say billions, proponents say it can be done for free. Its a very hard thing to accurately estimate. Seabhcán 09:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There will be ways to count to even propose that it will be a cost benefit. As a start, you could stretch it to say that the Mars Climate Orbiter project's cost of $327.6 million should be drawn from the Imperial Unit account. (The project failed due to units mixup). ❝Sverdrup❞ 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

When?

When will the US join the 21st century (in terms of measurement) and convert to Metric? All the Pro-Metrication sites I've seen say "Very soon, the US will convert to Metric" but exactly how soon is "very soon"? Will we still be using our archaic Imperial system in 30 years?

I think the answer is "maybe never." There is very little political support for Metrication in the US. I think in 30 years many more consumer products will be sold in metric sizes. All cars will have automatic navigation systems that easily switch between English and metric units. Speed limits might even be communicated electronically and displayed in on the dashboard in the user's preferred units. Why spend money maintaining road signs at all? You'll get your weather reports on your implanted cell phone, C, F or K. Your refrigerator will figure out what you need to buy, check the Internet for the best prices and send off your order. In short, it will all be less of an issue. --agr 16:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Most of the people who actually benefit from the usage of metric (or, for that matter, any system of measurement) are already applying it (e.g., scientists, international manufacturers, etc.). Beyond that, the issue is more one of encouraging the "common man" to use metric, as well. Although it might be personally disturbing, the fact that signs are posted in miles instead of kilometers will not prevent most people, regardless of orientation, from carrying out daily activities effectively. You can easily buy your potatoes in pounds at the grocery store, then measure them in kilograms at home. It's all good and it all works. No one (seriously) suggests that everyone should speak the same native language (despite the benefits of knowing the common world language, currently English). For example, how one expresses temperature is basically more of a language issue than anything else (i.e., saying that the temperature is in the "seventies" is not taken numerically, but is mentally mapped through a verbal process to the concept of "warm"). Already, technology allows anyone to get the weather in any units preferred, and this process will obviously expand over time to other areas, as well. Albanaco 01:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? That would lead to so much confusion. Why can't we just do a clean switch to Metric and leave our old units behind? Why are Americans so worried about this? 68.192.158.42 01:21, 31 March 2006

Just to be clear, I personally prefer the SI units for most purposes, and I think that global communication would be enhanced by standardizing on their everyday usage as much as possible. Despite the rhetoric, however, the reality is that metric usage worldwide is not nearly so black-and-white as the Americans vs. the rest-of-the-world. For example, the worldwide preference among mariners (and aviators) for using knots and nautical miles pretty much forced SI to include those otherwise non-metric units as standard units. The United States was one of the first countries to get on the bandwagon of standardizing measurement units worldwide with their support of the Treaty of the Meter. Although the primary metric units did not themselves catch on, at least the U.S. eventually defined the inch in metric terms (exactly 25.4 mm, statute mile notwithstanding). In effect, the inch has become at least as much a "metric" unit as the nautical mile. Many other traditional units have "survived" metrication in other countries. Europeans still toke back "pints", while the Japanese still measure traditional housing using traditional units (which, oddly enough, closely parallel the foot and the yard in length and concept). Even in the sciences, SI units are not always applicable to every area of research. For example, astronomers and physicists use units such as the light-year and the parsec as extensions to otherwise using SI units. Many systems of measurement can comfortably coexist in the world, assuming that everyone is agreed on the convention in a given context. Of course, with that said, I think that American schools are remiss in not putting a greater emphasis on solid understanding of the international system of measurement, but the mitigating factor is that most people who benefit the most from such knowledge are usually also the best educated and the best able to pick it up along the way. Albanaco 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration's web page FAQ: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question3

Why don’t you put metric speed and distance signs on the Interstate System? In the 1970's, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) considered converting highway signs, such as speed limit signs, to metric units of measurement. After the proposal was made public, the agency received an unusually high number of comments—more than 5,000 comments, about 98 percent of which were negative. The idea was dropped. The recent effort to convert the country to metric units of measurement dates to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, which requires all Federal Agencies to use metric units in their procurements, grants, and other business-related activities except to the extent that it is impractical or likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to U.S. firms. Based on this requirement, the FHWA reconsidered the subject of sign conversion, but the public reaction was again overwhelmingly negative. To avoid a public backlash against metric conversion, the FHWA issued a policy statement in April 1994 indicating that the FHWA would not pursue sign conversion. The following year, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 prohibited the use of Federal-aid highway funds to convert existing signs or purchase new signs with metric units.

--agr 22:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Those comments didn't provide any scientifically-acceptable idea of what the entire American public thought of metrication in the 1970's. But then most of the American public prefers religion over science. --  Denelson83  06:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Most Americans prefer science in its place and traditional religion over the religious scientism many try to force on us.

When will the US join the 21st century - 20th Century called, they said most countries were already metric by the end of ww1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.7.133.79 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a two part theory as to why the US dosn't change to metric: 1) We have no incentive to change. If the government would do something like make road signs in metric, we would have a good reason to switch, but right now, we don't. 2) American's are lazy. We don't want to be bothered with learning two systems of mesurment when the first one they teach us works just fine.Kingjoey52a 14:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not lazy. We're one of the most productive societies on the planet. The perceived benefit to each individual is not sufficient to offset the perceived cost of changing and we don't like being told what to do.

The US has changed to metric for most industrial and scientific situations. Customary is now useful only for household and entertainment purposes. --Gerry Ashton 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is overstating things a bit. There are large sectors of the U.S. economy, e.g. agriculture, construction and transportation, where customary units dominate. --agr 22:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject...

I was considering adding statements concerning the fact that, with so many English-unit signs on such a vast American highway system, the sheer costs involved--for public and private signs--would have to be significant (and gives the status quo a momentum factor that probably also hampers considerations of metrication), but I don't know how to properly put it in a neutral tone. Perhaps this could be included with the explanation about negative sentiment about the subject in general (creating an impracticality and potential inefficiency that exempts sign conversion from the 1988 act), but like I said, I could use help putting the subject into NPOV before inserting it into the Transportation section of the article. --WhosAsking 23:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to research something similar when i came upon the FHWA quote above. A lot depends upon what counts as "metrication." If you have an exit sign that says "Fubar Street 1 Mi ahead", do you change it to "Fubar Street 1.6 km ahead" or move the sign and its supports to 1 km ahead? The latter would be hugely expensive, the former more confusing to drivers (who might miss the decimal point, for example). Currently, the interstate highway system is 46,876 miles long. (per same site) There are hundreds of thousands of miles of regular roads. It would be interesting to know what the UK did when it converted and what it cost. I don't think there is an POV problem in stating that the conversion costs in the large U.S. economy would be substantial and give highways as one example.--agr 10:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The UK, ironically enough, has not yet converted (although there are calls to do so before the 2012 London Olympics). When Canada converted, stickers with metric equivalents were prepared in advance. Over one holiday weekend, crews went out and pasted all the stickers with the new values over the text on the existing signs. Even today, although many new signs have been painted and posted with natural wear-and-tear, the side-effects of the original approach still linger. For example, where signs once were posted at and read "1/4 mile", "1/2 mile", "3/4 mile", and "1 mile", they now read "400 m", "800 m", "1200 m", and "1600 m" (not "1.6 km"...decimal distances are avoided for reasons of clarity) and are still posted at the same pre-metric locations. Albanaco 17:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

While costs for signage would be large, they are dwarfed by the cost of converting industrial tooling and equipment - which is proceeding slowly in order to compete overseas. Rmhermen 17:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Manufacturing is a separate question and one that is largely taking care of itself over time for companies that export. Albanaco comments about Canada's conversion suggest to me that cost, while a factor, is not a major obsticle for the road network. The Canadian economy and road network are similar enough to the U.S. that if they could afford to do it, so could the U.S. As the FWHA quote suggests I think there is strong, widespread opposition to metrication in U.S. daily life. That's likely the real reason for lack of progress. I might add the quote to the article. --agr 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

1-liter Bottles

Perhaps someone can help with some facts on the matter. At least from my perspective, it seems that cold sodas (those sold in refrigerated cases, etc.) are predominantly sold in two sizes--20 oz and 1 liter. Can anyone verify this information, since the commonness of 1-liter bottles can fit alongside the uniquity of 2- and 3-liter bottles in the article. --WhosAsking 23:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears to vary by market from what I've experienced. In some areas its only 20oz bottles, and I don't think I've ever seen a metric size vending machine anywhere. If we're going to talk more about beverage sizes, it might be worthwhile to note that apparently the vast majority of bottled water here in the states is in metric quantities (.5 or 1 liter). Non-metric bottled water seems to be more the exception than the norm. Does anyone else have any comments on this? --A51Abductee 12:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever seen a vending machine selling anything as large as one liter, and a quick search of Sam's Club shows bottled water available in several U.S. sizes for filling machines. Rmhermen 15:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just regular bottled water still seems to be sold in standard U.S. jug sizes such as a gallon (3.79 l). Many high-end "designer" waters are, however, starting to appear in sizes such as 750 ml or 1 liter (similar to how spirits are already sold). Over the past year or so, some soft drinks (in particular Coca-Cola) are starting to be sold in sizes such as 500 ml (also printed on the bottles as ".5 liter") and 1 liter sizes. The 500 ml (16.9 fl oz) size, in particular, seems to have been positioned (and accepted) as a "supersize" version of the traditional 12 oz (355 ml) "six-pack" can. (It is definitely more popular than the previous attempt to introduce a 250 ml minican.) Albanaco 05:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

500mL and 1 L have been around for a decade or more around here - they just aren't particularly common. Maybe they are new in your area. Rmhermen 12:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There's something in the main metrication article explaining that Pepsi and Coke both went to metric sizes in the early ,'80s when PET became the material of choice for plastic bottles. I remember at that time we all had a choice of one-, two- or three-liter bottles. The midrange became the market preference; as I edited the article generic soda is sometimes sold in three-liter sizes for parties, but the liter bottle seems to have been discontinued. Daniel Case 17:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

K usage

I took out: "although it is rarely written in lower case as it would be if the writer were considering his use of K as conected to SI (in the SI, K stands for kelvin); there would also be a space between the 1000 and K if the writer were considering SI." The fact that the public isn't precisely following the minutiae of SI writing guidelines hardly proves the use of K in the U.S. is independent of the metric prefix. Many metric users get this stuff wrong. --agr 11:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

mL vs. ml

There was just a little back-and-forth over whether the abbreviation for liter should be capitalized. For what it is worth I checked around my kitchen and bathroom (I'm in the U.S.) and almost every package that is labeled by volume is marked either "mL", "L" or "LITER". I found just one "ml". --agr 04:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What I've heard when I was in school was that the SI authorities wanted to change all basic unit abbreviations to uppercase in the long run, and for some reason they started with the liter... (Don't ask me what they'll do when they get to the kg. =]) Either way, "L" is clearly prevalent currently where I live. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 11:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion of l vs L in the liter article itself that gives a different explanation. --agr 21:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In Russian schools taught that there is a simple rule: if the unit is named after a person, its abbreviation is capitalized (A for ampere, Wb for weber, etc.) and is written in small letter otherwise (lx=lux, lm=lumen, l=litre). I don't know is it a formalized rule or an only rule of thumb. But I've never heard about uppercasing all abbreviations. The problem is, for example, that kG was used (and is used sometimes still now) instead of kgf for kilogram-force in some countries (particularly in Russia).--80.92.251.206 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing in Ireland. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitals for abbreviations of unit names derived from the names of people & lower case otherwise. Yes, it's the general rule. The litre, however, is an exception. Either "l" or "L" is acceptable. Originally there was only "l" but because this can easily be mistaken for a "1" "L" has also been allowed. This is explained here as Agr points out. Jimp 03:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Science, engineering etc

My impression is that most scientists, engineers etc generally dislike the current dual-system usage and would much like the US to undergo full metrication. I haven't seen any quoteable/referenceable sources but at least this is the impression I get. This is probably not surprising since the benefits of metrication are clear for most scientists, engineers etc and most are also forced to use both since they use SI when working and communicating with others in their field but need to use US customary units when communicating with general public etc which most appear to (not suprisingly) find annoying. If what I say is true, I think some info needs to be added since all that seems to be mentioned at the moment:

The United States has been gradually increasing its use of metric units for many years, but much of the public momentum has been lost since the 1980s, except in schools, science, and manufacturing.

Nil Einne 21:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't (as you can) speak for all of manufacturing. However, I can assure you that the vast majority of units in the US oil and chemical industries are reported in customary fashion. Yes, this includes science and engineering. There is no real disadvantage in using customary; actually, the familiarity of manufacturing personnel with units at work is tantamount to their safety (i.e. 50 gpm vs. 50 m³/hr). Perhaps this should be included in the article.

Par1420 22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This entire section is wishful thinking

Look...I'm all for metrication. But this article reads like something out of a Euro ex-pat's wet dream. Science does indeed use the SI, but as we all know, the vast majority of America hates and distrusts science anyways, so that usage is hardly indicative of a larger movement to come. I just think that the article should reflect the reality in the US, which is to say that there is no common-usage movement towards metrication PeteJayhawk 07:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the 21st Century section is pretty negative about the prospects for metrication in the U.S. Maybe the point could be more clear, but we can't make POV statements like "ain't gonna happen."--agr 15:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks reasonable neutral (and generally negative with regard to the near-term prospects for metrication) to me. I don't see where it suggests there's any "common-usage movement towards metrication." There are pro-metrication efforts, that's true enough. And metric measurements are used in common usage in some contexts, and the article documents that... quite neutrally, I think.

I haven't heard anyone mention car engine displacement in cubic inches in a long time, and I'm pretty sure the running track at our local high school today is not one furlong ("the four-forty") long, as it was when I went to high school. How many grains of aspirin are in a standard aspirin tablet? I don't know and I'll bet you don't either, but that's how they were labelled not all that long ago.

As for "ain't gonna happen," who knows? Things can change in a big hurry when a society reaches a "tipping point." In 1950 would anyone have expected the UK to be on a decimal currency system by 2000? In 1995 would anyone in Massachusetts have expected gay marriage to be legal by 2005? With our balance of trade being what it is, it wouldn't surprise me if things did change.

The opposition to metrication is grassroots and widespread, but I don't think it is terribly deep. I see many graffitti in public restrooms but I have yet to see anyone defacing the "3.8 lpf" legend next to the "1 gpf." It's like the old guy in "Nineteen Eighty Four" in the pub complaining because "'I likes a pint,' persisted the old man. 'You could 'a drawed me off a pint easy enough. We didn't 'ave these bleeding litres when I was a young man. 'A 'alf litre ain't enough. It don't satisfy. And a 'ole litre's too much. It starts my bladder running. Let alone the price.'"

We'll become metric when corporations see it as being profitable to become metric. If they can get consumers to accept RFID and DRM, metric units should be a snap. As I say, the resistance isn't very high. And a lot of the resistance will die off as baby boomers die off.

Anyway, I don't see any metric "wishful thinking" in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that we're on the fence when it comes to metric, and when it comes time for America to choose a standard measurement system for all its commerce instead of half-and-half, I'll bet good money they won't choose metric. That's just my opinion, of course. R'son-W 09:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Metrication won't happen in America unless the general public is given a reason to believe it's worth it. A changeover would be extremely costly to taxpayers and businesses. So why do it? How would the average American stand to benefit? The pro-metrication side has yet to come up with a compelling argument. 69.137.220.179 18:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact there is no compelling argument. Metric is pretty dead in the US. In the past the argument was that 1. manufacturing needed it for world-wide competitiveness and 2. it eased conversion between orders of magnitude. Well in fact manufacturing process have hidden all of the complexity of the underlieing units of measurement of the components. JIT manufacturing, regional subcontracting etc have removed the old model where all items are made in a single plant in Ohio and then the same item is shipped everywhere. Its easier than ever to customize a product for a local market.

Computers have removed SI's value of ease of conversion. If you have a spreadsheet anyway, its just as easy to convert between any unit of measure. You want to save me converting 791in^2 to square yards? Thanks but I wasnt going to do that calculation on paper anyway.

So why is anyone going to convert? There is zero momentum.

And WTF is this "vast majority of America hates and distrusts science anyways". Not only is that untrue, it pathetic in the face of Europe's un-scientific GM-phobia. Most European environmentalism is infact unscientific and is nothing more than Gaia-worship.

It might be fair to say that "many Americans distrust scientific pronouncements" but frankly they are wise to do so, at least for the reasons that Feynman outlined in his talk on Cargo Cult science.

When designing new manufactured goods, one could design to US customary units if all the product is self-contained and every bit of it is newly designed. But if using pre-existing components, or if the new product will interface with older products, it will be easier to use the units of measure of the older products. If the older products were designed in metric, it will be easier to design the new product in metric. Since a great deal of manufacturing is done in metric, it will often be easier to design in metric.

Furthermore, engineers don't use computers with built-in unit conversion software all the time; pocket calculators and steel rules are still in use. SI is the native language of engineers, and they will use SI whenever they can avoid the wretched customary units. --Gerry Ashton 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

altitude measured in feet

The article says Domestic airline flights are assigned altitudes in feet. This is true, but seems a bit misleading, because I think that flight altitude is one of the (rare) cases where the whole world is still using the (non-metric) unit of feet. Am I right? --Aleph4 23:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

According the the flight level article China, Mongolia, Russia and many CIS countries use metres. The fact that the rest of the world uses feet probably deserves mention here tho.--agr 02:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture

I like the Simpsons as much as the next guy, but there should be examples from other shows (or songs?), and not just a laundry list of Simpsons quips. 69.137.220.179 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but the Simpsons seems to mock the metric system, and parody Americans hatred for it more than any other TV show. --70.82.50.67 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How about the scene from Pulp Fiction where Vincent and Jules are talking about the European name for a Quarter Pounder with cheese? "...No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what a Quarter Pounder is..." It's legendary. 85.177.195.156 12:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you hate ii, when you don't care about it?

I-19

The sentence "One exception is Interstate 19 in Arizona, which is almost completely signed in metric, except for speed limit signs; although, signs are being converted to miles as they are replaced. " was recently changed, as part of what seemed to be a copy-edit effort, to "One exception is Interstate 19 in Arizona, which is almost completely signed in metric, except for speed limit signs; which are being converted to miles per hour as they are replaced." This is a very different meaning. Which is correct?--agr 11:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The first is correct. Speed limit signage on I-19 is in miles per hour. Distance signage is nonstandardly metric ("Avenue St. 6000m" instead of "Avenue St. 6km" for instance), and is being replaced as needed with signage in miles, presumably due to the 1995 legislation referred to elsewhere here and in the artlce. --Scheinwerfermann 19:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hybrid units

The examples given under Hybrid units are pretty obscure. I wouldn't even count kiloyards. Microinches are common as well. There are many posssible examples in "metric" counties as well, e.g. kilowatt hours instead of megajoules. Maybe this section should just go/--agr 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• What's hybrid about "kilowatt hours?" It's not SI, but it's metric. As far as I know, seconds, minutes and hours are perfectly legitimate units of time in the metric system and I believe that in most contexts even scientific writing, when referring purely to time durations, uses hours (or days or years) when those are the appropriately-sized unit, not kiloseconds or megaseconds. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Gun calibers

The paragraph about gun calibers in the 20th century section was edited to say that the caliber of almost all firearms is measured in fractions of an inch except for European calibers. I edited the paragraph to avoid saying "almost all", because there are so many different ways to define "almost all". If you made a list of all the cartridges that can be bought in the US, would almost all of them have a caliber in inches? If you counted each and every military and civilian firearm in the US or used by US armed forces (not the type, each individual gun), would "almost all" of them have a caliber in inches? Since "almost all" is ambiguous I edited it out. --Gerry Ashton 20:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The content here seems to be reduced to 'the US measures guns in inches except when it doesn't.' There is a separate section on Military use and I've moved most of the substance there.--agr 15:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Illicit drug traffic

... as in Arlo Guthrie's song lyric, "Comin' into Los Angeles/Bringin' in a couple of keys/Don't touch my bags if you please/Mr. Customs man." Should the article mention this? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sohntimeters?

In the 1970s, doctors, at least in Madison, Wisconsin, when refering to centimeters, invariably seemed to pronounce the word centimeters with an approximation to a French pronunciation, like the coin "centime." That is, the first syllable was pronounced to as rhyme with the name John. Is this still true and is it widespread? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Car engines

"Automobile engines, formerly having been named after their displacement in cubic inches (e.g. the 426 Hemi), are currently named after their rounded measurement in liters (e.g. the 6.1 L Hemi). Engine displacements are given both in cubic inches and cubic centimetres. The specifactions for the SRT-8 6.1 L Hemi state the displacement as 370 cubic inches (6,059 cc)." I would say this last part is basically a false statement. Besides Chrysler oddly trying to market the Hemi with cubic inches (which I wasn't even aware of them doing), I never see cars, American or otherwise, mention their displacement in anything but metric. The previous generation Corvette, for example, was always said to have a 5.7L V-8 instead of a 347 (or 350)—the new one a 6.0L V-8 instead of a 366. Chrysler's odd marketing of this one engine aside, I don't think this point even needs to be mentioned as current—car engine displaces have been converted to metric for the American population. RobertM525 07:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Electro-Motive Diesel, who manufacture large diesel engines for locomotives, still class their engines by their displacement in cubic inches, i.e. the EMD 567, 645, and 710 series engines. Conversely, their main competitior, General Electric, classes their engines by displacement in litres, i.e. GE 7FDL.

Jb17kx 04:49, 21 July 2007 (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)

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)

Hertz

The Daily life section states that "The more common SI prefixes are widely known, but not necessarily in connection with the metric system. For example, computer speeds are measured in gigahertz and a lottery is named Megabucks." This implies that hertz is not part of the metric system. However, the Electricity and energy section states "The SI term hertz has completely replaced the older term cycles per second as a unit of frequency." This clearly states that hertz is part of the metric system. Which is it? It seems to me that the second statement is correct and the first should be corrected, though simply removing the gigahertz example from the first sentence leaves it only with the somewhat unconvincing Megabucks example. - Nellis 23:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nellis is right. We could use an example such as megabyte, but unfortunately in computing a megabyte may be either 1,000,000 bytes or 1,048,576 bytes. --Gerry Ashton 00:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of hertz and added ggabyre for hard drives, where it generally means 1,000,000,000, not 2^30. I also added kiloton and megaton.--agr 03:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Screens

TV and computer screens are measured in inches in the USA and elsewhere.

And resolution is in DPI. It is unfortunate that such outdated non-metric units wind up getting adopted by the rest of the world just because one country is too lazy or believes it's too important to conform. 85.177.197.109 13:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Blood pressure

A recent edit indicated (correctly) that blood pressure is measured in millimeters of mercury (mmHg), and described this as a non-metric unit. One problem with the edit was that it was under the Star Trek heading, but there are more substantial problems. First, one could argue that mmHg is metric, although certainly not SI. Second, this article is about metrication in the U.S., so this fact does not belong in the article unless U.S. practice is different from other countries. Do other countries also measure blood pressure in mmHg? --Gerry Ashton 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Blood pressure article says that it's universally recorded in mmHg. No source for it, but I'm pretty sure it would say otherwise if it weren't. I trust it. Either way, it wouldn't belong in this article. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

US-American

What's this American/US-American argument? I read the article on United States and it is quite clear that "American" means someone from the United States of America. Is every copy of the word "American" in Wikipedia going to be changed to "US-American"? I don't think so. I think it should be reverted back and will do so unless I get "enlightened". Jim77742 12:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not much. The user was being hyper-sensitive. Technically American could be applied to all people from North and South America. But nobody is going to be confused by using "American". -Fnlayson 13:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a clear point of US centrism and should not be in an international encyclopedia. @ Jim, what you should read is American, to look up the meaning of the word "American" in the article "United States" is one more indicator of US-centrism. NoGringo 13:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • OK I've done some reading and I can see your point. And to be honest I'm in sympathy. However, I have to wear the NPOV hat. I'm from the other side of the world and "US-American" to me is a tautology. "American" means a person from the United States. Not from South America or any other parts of the "Americas". US-American doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry. So again with the Wikipedia NPOV hat on it - it has to go back to American. Get the style guide changed and you'll be right. Me - I'd like to delete every single imperial unit in all general Wikipedia articles (not specific ones on say the foot) and have metric as the only unit. After all, only 4% of the population are not metric so that's a minority. Do we quote cubits in brackets after all length measurements? But I can't because the style guide says so. Jim77742 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just use "US"? That is unambiguous. ... Seabhcan 14:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason that we call you Irish and not Republican or R.o.I. Rmhermen 14:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"US" is used as an adjective all the time, eg "US Government", "US President", "US Army", etc. ... Seabhcan 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This debate is silly. The United States of America is the only nation that has the word "America" as part of its title, and it is very clear that "Americans" refers to citizens of that country. Who refers to Canadians as "Americans"? Jkp1187 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad Link for first reference

The first reference links to:

http://beta.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/greenwoodd/pdf/UtahConst.pdf

but this is a bad link. Should it be removed? mdkarazim (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• In general try to find a replacement or use Archive.org copy. Here's Utah Constitution of 1895 a replacement. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If a link in the "External links" section goes bad, and can't be fixed, it's OK to remove it. Links in the "References" or "Notes" section should not be removed, even if broken and unfixable, to show that there was a reference for information at the time it was introduced. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the case of the latter, use the archive.org copy of the link as suggested on a wiki policy page. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in the second case, if the reference is not available from archive.org or any other backup site, it should still be left in the article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you know when to leave it in the article? What if the link was never a good link, rather just someone using an invalid citation from the original posting? mdkarazim (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Once an editor has claimed a valid reference existed at the time the editor made a change, it would be up to you to show that either the reference never existed, or find a better reference showing that the change was incorrect. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Section 'What to do when a reference link "goes dead"' in Wikipedia:Citing sources covers this as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live

The April 24, 1976 episode of Saturday Night Live did a sketch on the metric system, extending it to the alphabet, creating the “Decabet”. ShermansPlanet (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Metricanmc.jpg

Image:Metricanmc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Metrication-US-logo.gif

Image:Metrication-US-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Highway signs shot up?

I seem to recall stories about metric highway signs getting shot up in the 1970s when the first push toward metrication was made. Anyone have a source for these stories? I was surprised that it wasn't mentioned in the main article at all, seems that it should be... Jkp1187 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Shooting up highway signs is pretty common in parts of the U.S. See [1] for some recent examples. I think we'd need a basis for saying shooting up metric signs was even more common, not just some newspaper report observing shot up metric signs at the time.--agr (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Audio Plugs

I've observed since moving to the US a few months ago that audio plugs here are sold as 3.5mm plugs. At home in Canada, they're always 1/8inch. I don't know if there's a good way to incorporate that into the article without it being trivia. jbailey (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Military use of SI

An anonymous editor correctly edited the article to reflect that the military's use of SI units was due to the system's general superiority for military and scientific uses. Although this is most certainly accurate, no citation was provided, and the edit was correctly reverted. However, it was reverted to an earlier version which was equally POV and also not cited - not to mention blatantly incorrect. It is unfair to revert the anonymous editor's contribution as being uncited POV while leaving the "interoperability" wording intact. It fails the same ineligibility requirements. Simply requesting cites for this blatantly false wording is not sufficient. I am following WP:V and boldly removing this false statement. Bulbous (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Either you have your statement backwards here - or you are claiming that calling the metric system superior is not POV. I am sorry but that is clearly POV and it is a bit odd to revert "interoperability" as blatantly false. If I run out of bullets on a NATO mission I would clearly want my European ally to hand me some that will work in my gun. So clearly not "blatantly false". Do you have any sources to support your claim that the U.S. discontinued all traditional sized weapons for a reason other than interoperability? Rmhermen (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am claiming that both statements are equally unsupported and POV. There is no justification for reverting one and retaining the other. I am in no way suggesting that the US has adjusted bore sizes in favour of SI - that allegation is ridiculous. They could simply have matched the bores/ammunition without measuring it in SI units. This in no way explains how the army measure distances in Kilometres, for example. Bulbous (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"SI units was due to the system's general superiority for military and scientific uses. Although this is most certainly accurate," Your words-your POV, I think. Rmhermen (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

" This in no way explains how the army measure distances in Kilometres, for example." Yo, Dutch soldier move 1/4 mile forward. Response - huh? I think it does explain interoperability. Rmhermen (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That explains it... but in no way defends the uncited statement. What you are proposing is WP:OR and you should know better. In addition, your "hand me some that will work in my gun" argument is absurd when you consider that the US had switched to 5.56mm when the rest of NATO was using 7.62mm. Do some research. Bulbous (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref added. And the small arms issue is not as clear cut as you claim see both catridges articles. Rmhermen (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

With all sincerity, thank you for investing your valuable time into doing some research. I have read the document that you provided several times. I fail to see where it is mentioned that the US military has adopted SI units for the purposes of interoperability. Can you please point this out? Bulbous (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Page 3: "Since the purpose of metric is usually to achieve international standardization or interoperability, rather than metrication per se..." Rmhermen (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha... you've left out the last part of the sentence: "in these areas". You've taken one single sentence, which applies to a very specific circumstance, of a large off-topic document and applied it completely out of context. Nice try. Bulbous (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Federal highways?

Some members of Congress attempted to ban use of the metric system on federal highways in 1992 and 1993.[8][9]

What exactly is this supposed to mean? The vast majority of the highways in the U.S. (including Interstates and U.S. Routes) are owned and maintained by the state governments. I think the only roads actually maintained by the federal government are those in national parks and military bases. Surely they didn't write a bill to ban the National Parks Service from using metric?—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The constitution gives Congress the authority to establish post roads. Using that and other authority, Congress gives massive amounts of aid to states to build and maintain major roads. Congress from time to time makes the states fulfill certain conditions in order to receive this aid, such as establishing a 55 MPH speed limit, making 21 the minimum age to drink alcoholic beverages, etc. I believe the restriction mentioned was along the line that the aid from the federal government to the state governments could not be used to erect signs with metric units. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it says later on in the article that the 1992 ban on use of the metric system was rejected, but the NHS Designation Act banned money from the federal-aid trust fund from being used on metric signage. Was the proposed 1992 ban intended to block the agency from drawing any money from the trust fund (as the National Maximum Speed Limit and drinking age did)? In any case, the article needs to be reworded, since there's not really anything called a "federal highway". —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)