Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:24, 29 September 2011

	Measurement (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement

From the perspective of the European continent, the UK and its old-fashioned system of measurement from the time of the ancien régime appears now like a funny exotic village of Asterix inside the European Union. The recent statements of Mr Verheugen on that matter are simply amazing and show the complaisance for ultra-nationalistic British lobbies in Brussels. But here only a small questions to the Britons who read this page: is metrication better accepted in parts of the country like Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (the Republic of Ireland has indeed got totally rid of the "Imperial" (!) system)? --Hubertgui 10:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think most people only care about the pint, and only because beer/cider is traditionally sold in pints. The media is responsible for most of the anti-metric sentiment, presenting it as a loss of tradition and an imposition from the EU. Most young (<30) can use the SI system, and wouldn't have any difficulty following a recipe given in metric (though imperial measurements are usually given afterwards in British books). I don't think Scotland/Wales are any different, but I don't know for sure.

This page only provides aruments for metrification in the UK, it devotes insufficient space to the arguments against. They are a sentence or two at most

Please feel free to add them, although please be careful to cite sources when you do, especially as this could be a controversial issue! The POV tag is generally added only if there is substantial disagreement between people who can't agree - you might want to consider taking it down when you've made a change, since I don't think there is any conflict at this stage. Trollderella 02:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any arguments for metrication, only a description of the status quo. If nobody can say what's wrong with the article then I'm going to remove the tag, as it's not helping. --Heron 10:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I must add (totally my POV) that some of the "arguments against" are downright hilarious. A kilo too heavy for a housewife to carry? Did new mothers in the 1960s require pulleys and levers or some other mechanism to lift their newborns? 222.155.212.98 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported addtions to the list of legal exemptions

The list of legal exemptions includes references to the text of UK law. I have deleted mention of aircraft parking bays and ammunitiion calibre because these are not mentioned in the legal text. Bobblewik 18:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops - I did not notice that the list was legal exemtions - the fact is that the UK military still uses fractions of an inch to measure amunition caliber - where should that fact go? Thanks! Trollderella 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure where it should go. There is a lot of colloquial and legacy stuff around. Some people misunderstand that metrication can mean merely changing a label on existing non-metric products or it could mean new designs being fully hard metric. Perhaps there already is a section on that. If not, perhaps there should be. Keep up the good work. Bobblewik 18:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Trollderella. You added the text The UK military continues to use fractions of an inch to measure amunition caliber.. I searched the British Army website (http://www.army.mod.uk/) and it looked to me like they use mm by default. I could only find one instance of fractions of an inch. That was for a heavy machine gun with calibre described as .5 inch or described as 12.7 mm.

Which weapons were you referring to? Bobblewik 22:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you are right - they are describing .5 inch as 12.7mm, I am speaking primarily of spoken usage, which may lag, for example, the 50cal you talk about is imperial, but they are now 'officially' 12.7mm, while 51mm mortars are nominally 51.25mm, they are reffered to as 2inch mortars (which, indeed, they are). The same is true of 81mm mortars, and what is called on their web page a 7.62mm general purpose machine gun is clearly a .3cal, while the .2cal machine gun is now a 5.56mm. Trollderella 18:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In common usage among soldiers I have never heard of a "2inch" morter, all calibres are quoted in mm. Perhaps its different amongst the older guys though..but i've never come across it. Bensonby 16:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Metrication in the UK more likely than in the US?

Unlike in the US, it seems that more daily things in the UK are metricated. Does full use of the Metric System seem inevitable to you British?

not really in the forseeable future,as culturally it is so entrenched. Even though children are taught in metric in schools their parents generation (including the school teachers)still ostensably think in imperial, thus bring their children up to think that way. Most people still measure their height in feet, distance in miles and of course, drink pints of beer....metrication only really seems to have taken hold in official documents and correspondence etc. when people often need a conversion into metric! Perhaps in the long run it will take hold through the efforts of government. Who knows? Bensonby 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete metrication does seem inevitable in the UK to my generation. I'm 18 years old and whilst most people my age measure their height in feet and inches they would always give short distances and measurements in either metres or centimetres. The same goes for weight, while most weigh themselves in stone very few people my age understand pounds and ounces and would always weigh food at the supermarket in kilograms and grams. And while they do drink pints of beer at the pub its litres of spirits and 75 cl of wine. Its just a matter of time before we are completely metric. marsbar_man 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Metrication in the UK does seem to have slowed down. Although we use metric units for most things nowadays, I can't see any sign of traditional units disappearing from the few specific contexts in which they are still used, such as: fresh milk, draught beer, road distances and speeds, prices of oil and precious metals, sizes of TV and computer screens, resolutions of printers and scanners, a person's height, and probably a few other things I've forgotten about or are outside my experience. I could mention the sizes of floppy discs, but the discs themselves have almost disappeared. The way a person's weight is measured is perhaps something that is currently changing. There are still plenty of 30-year-olds who use stones and pounds for that, though I'm over 40 and would strongly prefer kilograms. 217.140.96.21 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Pint

The article states:

Draught beer and cider are the only goods that may not be sold in metric units in the United Kingdom; the only legal measures for these drinks when sold on draught are 1/4 pint (190 ml) (rarely encountered), ½ pint (284 ml) and multiples of the latter.

1/4 pint is 142 ml; 190 ml is nearly equal to 1/3 pint. What is it in fact, 1/4 or 1/3 ?? LHOON 13:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1/3rd (a noggin)

Article cleanup

This article needs a serious looking at, the information is duplicated throughout and some bits seem a little bit biased.

Telegraph

The Telegraph still appears to be fairly anti-metric: there was a recent article quoting a weight as 2.2lbs - a figure which is uncannily close to 1kg. Perhaps a rough conversion by an anti-SI journalist?

82.21.250.171 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MetricbritainLogo.gif

Image:MetricbritainLogo.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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Metrication a condition of accession? Unlikely!

I've marked this as dubious, because later events seem to contradict it. If its true, then why was there any need for the Council to issue a Units of Measure Directive? It's timing suggests that it was to achieve a common system of weights and measures to further the aims of the European Single Market. Does anyone have a citation that confirms or denies either position? --Red King (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section to put it into context. -- MLV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.23.173 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The decision to convert to metric was announced to the UK Parliament on 24 May 1965 (Hansard Cols 32-33), eight years before the UK's accession to the EEC. As the accession negotiations were not conducted until 1970-71, the decision in 1965 could not have been influenced by any terms of accession.

Moreover, the 1972 White Paper includes the following passage at paragraphs 30 and 31:

"30. In October 1971 the Council ratified a directive on units of measurement (4). This provides for the exclusive use by 1 January 1978, of a prescribed system of metric units of measurement over a wide area, including the economic field, the field of public health and safety, and administrative activities. This is firmly based on the International System, though it also includes certain additions and other special arrangements, some temporary and some permanent.

31. This directive would apply to the United Kingdom as a member of the EEC. But we have reached agreement with the Community on adaptations to take account of our use of imperial units. It has been agreed that a list of imperial units used (5) in our legislation shall be added to the directive and that decisions should be taken by agreement before 31 August 1976 into which chapters of the Annex to the directive these imperial units should go. Those on which no decision is taken by then will automatically remain authorised for use until 31 December 1979. The Community have also agreed that it will be possible to extend the period of use where special considerations justify it."

Subsequently, Directive 80/181/EEC included extensive derogations permitting the UK and Ireland to retain imperial units for as long as they wished, and in 2008 these derogations have become permanent.

From this it is clear that the EEC has always been and remains willing to accommodate any requests to retain imperial units for particular purposes. Except where measurement units affect cross-border trade, there never has been any pressure from the EEC or EU for the UK or Ireland to adopt metric units.

The fourth sentence of this article is therefore inaccurate and should be deleted. The same applies to the first sentence of the section headed "UK metrication and the European Union.Pqr456 (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"glass" in Ireland

A comparison with Ireland, where metrication is complete, indicates that this is not true. Beer is still sold by the pint, but this is officially described as a 'glass of beer'.

A "glass" in Ireland is a half-pint, not a pint. - Francis Tyers · 13:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Statistics with no source

The following was added in a series of edits 5 April 2009:

Great efforts are made to abolish the imperial system completely. One is in schools. Children are only taught in metric systems, and never in imperial. In year 6, children start to learn the metric-imperial conversion, as they do in secondary school. But even in secondary school, text book references are in metric. But there's only one problem. Many parents use imperial measures with their children, so what happens is that the children use imperial to measure the height of people, which they discuss with their parents, but metric to measure other things. The same happens with weight, but isn't as common, as most children still use kilograms to measure the weight of people. But in capacity and temperature, metric is always used. The only thing that can be done about this is to encourage parents to only use metric measurements with their children. In all total measurements, around 70% of children use length entirely in metric except for long distances, in which case 70% of children would use miles. 80% use weight entirely. 95% use capacity and temperature entirely.

These statistics should not be in the article unless a reliable source for them can be provided. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have re-instated a small portion of the above with a reference to the National Curriculum in which at least one inaccuracy is corrected. -- MLV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.23.173 (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Accepted units

Is it true that the UK does not accept the use of convenient units like hecto(gramme)s, decilitres and decimetres? If so I think it should be stated in the article.--Pieter Kuipers (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not true in the sense they are illegal, but they are very rarely used. It is more a question that in scientific engineering sytems, e.g. for SI or whatever, these units are not used; and, I imagine, since these were the first areas largely to adpot metric systems, it probably caught on from there. SimonTrew (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. As someone who grew up with these units, I think they are indispensable, and I can almost sympathize with the anti-metric position if they aren't around. If you don't calculate in hectos, I'd prefer pounds to 100s of grammes, and if you don't calculate in decimetres, inches seem better than 10s of centimetres.--Pieter Kuipers (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hectares (ha) are certainly used in the United Kingdom. In addition, a number of items (eg special cheeses) are priced per 100 g. Martinvl (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. A kilogramme is very roughly 2 pounds (and in fact in many European countries a pound has been legally defined as exactl 500 g for about a century), so there isn't a big difference. If anything, the hectogramme would compete with the ounce, but since the metric system has so simple conversion factors you can just as well work with grammes, as most European countries do. (Actually, in Austria they use dekagrammes.) As to decimetres/inches, why not simply use centimetres like everybody else in Europe? The centimetre is closer to the inch than the decimetre, and it's printed on all the yardsticks sold in the UK nowadays. Hans Adler 11:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, priced per 100 g. But not per hectogram. Hectare is a bit of an oddity as an are is 100 square metres so hectare is 10,000 square metres; but nobody uses are: probably, again, because it is within reasonable bounds of converting from an acre (though personally I have really no idea how big a hectare is, except by converting it to acres). It may also be to do with the fact that "are" may be seen as a mistype for "acre" or for the second person of the verb "to be".

I don't think it is "anti-metric" as such, just we don't use those units. User:Hans Adler is probably the best to give his opinion here because he as come from using metric to using British measure (I use the word British advisedly, i.e. the odd mix of the two). SimonTrew (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Road Signs

I'm not sure that the use of "110 yds" in a road sign is necessarily a measurement of a metric distance - it also happens to be exactly one-sixteenth of a mile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDaveHPP (talk • contribs) 17:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think on Road signs in the United Kingdom it says they are actually at 100 metre intervals, so it is kinda a back conversion. SimonTrew (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning sign intervals are specified and measured in metres in the regulations but the signs themselves have to display distances in converted yards, according to the DfT's transport manual (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/trafficsignsmanualchapter4.pdf (p. 10)) Wcp07 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Weather Reporting

I deleted "Most newspaper weather forecasts provide fahrenheit equivalents in brackets for all temperatures" from the original article. Before doing the deletion, I checked the paper version of my daily newspaper (The Times). In its weather forecasts, The Times has an all-celsius map with a celsius-fahrenheit conversion table. In yesterday's copy (2009-08-29) the expected temperatures at the various pop festivals was given in celsius only. The online version of the Daily Telegraph was celsius-only with no fahrenheit option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 07:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC) (Amended) Martinvl (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Space (nbsp) before a unit abbreviation - clarification

I'm not quite sure why all unit abbreviations must be preceded by an 'nbsp' space - e.g. '454 g' instead of '454g'? Is this a Misplaced Pages convention, and if so, surely it only applies to metric units, not Imperial/customary ones (which are, after all, a lot less standardised than the units of the metric system - particularly when it comes to writing abbreviations)?

Also, does 'imperial' (as in, 'the imperial system') really have to be spelt with a capital 'I', or are both spellings acceptable? After all, metric is not spelt as 'Metric'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eljay* (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The spacing is defined at Misplaced Pages:MOSNUM#Unit_symbols. No exception is made for nonmetric units.

MOSNUM uses "imperial" in the lower case throughout, but does not define that it must be used that way. So, I imagine, we should follow that by implication and say "imperial" except, of course, at the starts of sentences.

Hope that helps. SimonTrew (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The space between the value and the units is specified in the definitve SI brochure which is published by the BIPM. Martinvl (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

...which of course MOSNUM follows where not ridiculous for a general-purpose encyclopaedia. But that is necessarily quiet about units in other systems of measure, which was part of the question. MOSNUM makes a blanket statement that it should be used for all symbols.

Fully written units need not have non-breaking spaces since the reader is unlikely to be mislead by a unit symbol dangling on the next line. SimonTrew (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedometers

Is there a law mandating compulsory dual speedometers (ones that measure both mph and km/h) in British cars? If so, that would address a major argument against completing metrification - that converting the UK's road signs would be dangerous for drivers whose cars only display mph. Wcp07 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes - It is an EU requirement that all speedometers must be able to display km/h - this has been the case since avout 1980. On some cars, such as mine, the units can be switched, but the vehivle must be stationary to enable the driver to do that. Finally, I do not believe it to be dangerous to convert to km/h when some cars display only mph - South Africa did it in the 1970's (I was living there at the time, so I speak from experience), so did Australia. Martinvl (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Australia did change all the road signs at a time when most cars displayed only mph. We had little stickers to put on our speedometers, but we learnt the conversions needed. One of the educational videos can be seen on Youtube at .Michael Glass (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm from my experience that conversions (the other way round) aren't a big problem. But of course if people interpret a 50 km/h (30 mph) sign as 50 mph then that's more dangerous than the opposite mistake. And these things do happen. (The other day I crossed a street in Vienna in order to cycle on the left-hand side of the road. I had to cross it again.) Hans Adler 09:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Frequently, for the first couple of days when abroad, I tend to look the wrong way when crossing the street, and I know my contintental friends do the same when in England. At least we tend to put "LOOK LEFT" and "LOOK RIGHT" on the pavement or on signs, how thoughtful of us! (And according to an essay "Traffic" by Ian Parker in Granta 65 "London", they are the worst ones to paint.) Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/4142730/Weather.html Daily Telegraph weather forecast

Tesco milk

I don't often shop at Tesco so perhaps I am mistaken, but noticed that their plastic bottles of milk very prominently display a "1", "2", "4" or "6" indicating the quantity in pints. I haven't one to hand, but I think this is more prominent than the metric measure. I presume they can do this because it does not say "1 pint" for example but just "1".

Under the EU Units of Measure Directive, Milk in returnable containers, draught beer and cider may be dispensed by the pint.Martinvl (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to check this online, but to buy groceries online one must have a clubcard (or sign up for one), which I refuse to do (or any other supermarket loyalty card.) So, perhaps someone else can confirm or deny this. I just mention it in passing. Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, MartinV1 is right. The one I bought earlier today has a big 2 on the front and on the side has "2 pints/1.136 litres". (It's interesting that small shops sell in 0.5l and 1l containers, perhaps to hide how much more they are charging than the big supermarkets. --Red King (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

MartinV1 is right, but I don't see the relevance here. These containers are not returnable in a common sense of the word, which I would take to mean that they are reused (at least some of the time), not just recycled. Anyway, my point was not that they were sold in pints, but that the numbers were more prominent than the metric measures — though I think they do not have the unit of measure (which seems to be confirmed by what you say), which may be how they remain legal because although it may be obvious to you or me that it means 1 pint, 2 pints etc it just says 1 or 2. As I say, I cannot check this readily (Tesco is a very long walk from here), but I imagine other editors could. I don't mind being wrong, I just thought it was vaguely interesting if there is a loophole that providing one puts just the number and not the unit of measure, its prominence does not apply.

I guess it would also mean, they could call a 750 ml measure "1" and a 500 ml measure "2" and a 1000 l measure "3" and so on, i.e. they could claim that the numbers purely indicate a particular size and is only coincidentally related to any existing units of measures, and they could change the design of the label in any way at any time providing it meets the statutory requirements. Si Trew (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Undiscovered Scotland

I notice that an editor removed the link to the weights and measures article of Undiscovered Scotland as a promo link. Perhaps that editor could explain in more detail what he found objectionable about the link. How is it more a promo link than links to the British Weights and Measures Society or the UK Metric Association? Michael Glass (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the primary purpose of that website is obviously to promote Scotland, but that particular page of the site is almost exclusively about weights and measures. As a person of Scottish ancestry now living on the opposite side of the globe, I found it very educational, and having read it, I am now no more or less likely to visit Scotland. I'd be happy with that link. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The page looks excellent to me on first sight. I was prepared to see the frequently mentioned dubious claim that there was a "Scottish inch" which was slightly more than an English one. (As Connor showed, this is very likely a misconception that arose a long time after the genuine Scottish units fell out of use.) I was delighted to see that they don't even mention it. Very sensible; it looks as if this was solidly researched.

I am in favour of restoring the link, for the description of the current state of metrication in the UK. Hans Adler 11:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This text is now a reference rather than an external link. Martinvl (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there enough on the widespread usage of Imperial in the article?

With the use of the Imperial unit being widespread in the UK; body height (measured in feet, inches).. body weight (measured in pounds, stone).. road sign distance (measured in yards, miles).. car speed (mph)... beer/milk (measured in pints).. petrol (gallon).. etc etc. Its a misnomer that the UK‎ has "officially adopted the metric system"..because Imperial is used throughout (for example its illegal to have road signs in metric). The only thing the UK has agreed to (to appease Europe) is to allow metric appear ALONGSIDE imperial measurements in SOME cases... but everyone uses imperial anyway. Does the article show enough of the general usage of Imperial???StiffyAdams 19:14 Feb 15, 2010 (UTC)

Reinstatement of 16 February 2010

I have reinstated a large amount of material that was removed. Although the section on "Legal situation" had no references, a simple "References required" would have sufficed. The section on road signs was properly referenced. The section about which shops sold what was unreference, but was retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the information was by accident. Basicly I added some more information as the section on cream was incorrect, this edit was reverted by someone claiming it was unreferenced. However the original was not referenced either and was incorrect, hence I changed it back and in the process I deleted the other sections by accident. I apologies for the deletion and shall edit to include the information I added whilst retaining the other information. DanielR235 11:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Specification of railways.

The current text reads "most of Britain’s rail network is still specified in miles and chains and speeds in mile per hour.". I seriously doubt this. I don't believe that Railtrack or Network Rail have ever written a specification for track or bridges in miles and chains. To do so would be completely out of step with civil engineering standards and practice for the past 20 years or more. Likewise, trains are always specified in kph but translated by the PR people to mph when brought into use– see Pendolino for example. Citation needed! --Red King (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I travel to London by train every day. The bus stop at my station is 36 miles 44 chains from London - there is a sign to this effect of which I made a mental note this evening. The speedomoeters on the mainline trains that I use display mph - I have checked. However, the speedometer and distance markers on the underground train that I use are in metric units. Again I have checked. Martinvl (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this is how they are still reported. But it is not how they are 'specified'. This is equivalent to saying that distances on the UK roads are specified in miles, when they clearly are not. Yes, the road signs for public use are in miles but the road signs for technical use are in km and the road projects are specified in metres. Likewise, all modern European and Japanese cars are specified in metric, but have an MPH speedo for UK customers. You would need to produce an engineering specification to convince me otherwise. Meanwhile, I'll change 'specified' to 'given'. --Red King (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have access to the designs but I am quite happy for you to reword tings to imply that there is a Very British Mess here. I am reluctant to do so myself because I made a few small contributions to that publication. Martinvl (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture in lede

I decided to move picture of the Eurostar into the lede as I beleived that it caption summarised the metrication dilemma in the UK. Martinvl (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Information about Royal Usage

I note that information about Royal usage of the metric system and the Imperial measures was removed from the article. I would like to make the following points:

• The Royal family is of some importance in British life.
• The information is fully documented.
• The information is about both metric and non-metric use by the monarchy.
• The information has now been augmented with further information about metric and non-metric usage on the Royal Estate at Sandringham and Prince Charles's Rainforest Project, plus appropriate links.
• The presentation of the information is concise and non-judgmental.
• If there is any problem with the wording, the documentation or the subject matter, please take it to the talk page. Michael Glass (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Pfainuk wrote in the edit summary that this article shouldn't be a list of all UK sources that use metrics. Perhaps not every local council, although I'm not sure even that wouldn't be useful. It is of great interest to our readers to know exactly what the state of play is. Here, even summary style should probably encompass the details likely sought by visitors to the page. Tony (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

While Phainuk might be right in saying that this article should not be a list of all UK sources that do or do not use metric units, maybe he should look at the section Current Useage. That section reeks of original research. If he is concerned about the quality of the article, he should tidy that section up before ermoving a section that is at least properly referenced. Martinvl (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well let's start with the basics. You assert that the information is properly referenced. In fact what it says is not backed up by its sources, so no, it is not properly referenced. The section claims to reflect royal usage. The sources do not back that up. Instead, they demonstrate usage on websites connected to the royals, which is not the same thing at all. Any further claim - as implied by the title - is pure speculation. It claims that "Prince Charles's Rainforests Project uses metric measures." While this is eminently plausible, it is not referenced. The sources demonstrate nothing more than that four webpages connected to the Rainforest Project use metric units. Anything more is pure speculation on the part of the author.

But even if it were well referenced, that is not, in and of itself, enough to justify inclusion. If I tried to put a sentence on this article saying "Swiss cheese has holes in it" or "The Great Pyramid is in Egypt", it would not belong in this article regardless of how good the referencing was. It wouldn't be relevant.

In this case, you argue that it should be included because "Royal family is of some importance in British life". It would be possible to turn this entire article into a list of every institution, person or place that meets that standard. Trouble is, there wouldn't be room for much else and all told it wouldn't tell the reader very much about metrication in the UK at all. Just as this section tells the reader very little about metrication in the UK. All it is is irrelevant and badly referenced waffle.

Finally, Martin. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm talking about this section now. If the rest of the article needs work (and it does) then it needs work, but this section also needs work. Pfainuk talk 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I welcome Pfainuk's edits to the wording of the article and the fact that he has improved the wording instead of deleting it. Michael Glass (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC). Wording tweaked. A check of the Prince's website showed that it consistently uses metric measures. I have changed the wording to reflect this fact. Please double check if in doubt. Michael Glass (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that I approve of its being here. The section is and remains completely pointless, serving no benefit to the encyclopædia whatsoever and should be deleted. Pfainuk talk 06:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as being any more or less pointless than a lot of the other examples the article is cluttered with. Maybe we need to look at all of them and choose a representative "handful". HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have merged the section on the British monarchy into its parent section. I have removed most of the references as I believe them to be excessive and at risk of WP:OR, I have added a little analysis as to which websites adopt which model in respect of units of measure. I trust that this change makes use of User:MichaelGlass’s research and addresses the comments made by both User:HiLo48 and User:Phainuk Martinvl (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Jubilee Greenway

Perhaps only one point should be made in addition to what has already been said. There are now plans for a 60km walking trail to be opened to mark the Queen's diamond jubilee in 2012, one kilometre for each year of the reign. See the following link: It might be appropriate for this to be mentioned.Michael Glass (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Greenway does get a mention, but there's a bit of disagreement whether Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions applies to the footpath signs being used on the Greenway. If anyone reading this lives close enough to check, could you get out and see if the signs are the white-on-green type specified by TSRGD (with the little "man walking" icon), which would currently force the use of miles and yards on those signs - despite, as pointed out all over, the Greenway was designed to be 1km per year of HMtQ's reign. Steve Hosgood (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Two points.

• The Silver Jubilee Walkway is denoted by markers in the pavement of the type shown on the right.
• The TSRGD regulations only apply to "finger posts". If distances are not shown, the TSRGD is irrelevant.

Martinvl (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the old (1977) Jubilee walkway! I'm talking about the signage on the Jubilee Greenway. Maybe it isn't even open yet, but if it is, and if it is signposted with the green fingerposts that I mentioned earlier, then because those fingerposts are part of the TSRGD (weird, but true), then they also have to be in miles and/or yards. Which was what I was hoping some Londoner could tell us about. If the Greenway is actually signed by those in-road studs illustrated above (thanks, Martinvl) then they could validly indicate distances in km (though the one pictured doesn't show any distance indicator). Steve Hosgood (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Eurostar Image

Does the image of the Eurostar with the caption "Eurostar - Speed 300 km/h or 186 mph?" actually add anything at all to the article? I can't see any reason for the image to be there. A picture of a ruler with metric and imperial on it would be far more suitable. Beaver225 (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the aim here is to show that the km/h is a nice round figure (even though it's not the maximum speed of which the train is capable) wheras the mph is not. That being said, I would have thought that a picture of a truck "limited to 56mph" (i.e. 100km/h) might make the point better. Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Eurostar image at the top of the article with its current caption is confusing. There is nothing in the image that shows measurement except a small yellow sign (much too tiny to be read at thumbnail) which says "81 km". It would be better to have no lede image than this. Jonathunder (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - I thought that the caption was self-evident, but apparently it was not. I have updated it to get the point across that I was originally trying to make. Martinvl (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Current usage

This section is strong on claims but weak on citations. Perhaps a UK national would be in the best position to remedy this situation. Michael Glass (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a ref to the Weights and Measures act 1985, as a start. Si Trew (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Revocation dated 6 November 2010

The EU directive on units of measure (Directive 80/181/EEC) permits either metric or imperial units on Britain's road. British statute permits the Secretary of State to make orders regarding road signs. The current set of orders (TSRGD 2002) lists signs that are permitted, but has the over-riding clause that the Secretary of State can make any exceptions that he sees fit - after all the Secretary of State published the TSRGD in the first place. In the case of Driver location signs, he has seen fit to do so. The signs are therefore 100% legal. Martinvl (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

1970 debate

Does the section on the "farce" of a debate on the metric system, complete with some very outlandish (cherry-picked?) quotations, really meet our NPOV guidelines? Surely there must have been some more rational objections raised to metrication. Right now this section frames the issue as though anyone opposed must be daft or acting in bad faith. 71.205.185.26 (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Costs

In accordance with normal Misplaced Pages standards, I have deleted an arbitrary figure given for the cost of change, since it has been waiting for over two years (since Nov 2008) to be suppoerted by citation. At this stage, we have to regard that assertion as at best POV and worst mischief or vandalism. If a source (which predates Nov 2008) can be found, then the text may be reinstated. --Red King (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tracked down the original editor and asked him is he has the source. Martinvl (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hectare is metric

The hectare is a metric unit officially defined as one hectometre square (i.e. 10 000 square metres, see Table 6 of the SI brochure edited by the BIPM). However the article seems to imply that it is an imperial one… Sogrünwieeinstern (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course. That's a sensible change you have made to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. The point of the section is to note fairly random mixed usage - sometimes imperial and sometimes metric. So the fact that Sandringham uses miles and hectares relates directly to topic. I have reinstated, albeit with 'but' rather than 'and' to ensure that readers are clear what point is being made. --Red King (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Olympic Games - purely metric

The Olympic Games are going to be a very high profile story in the UK for the next twelve months. Is it worth mentioning in the Sport sub-section that measurements for the Games are entirely metric? HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not unless this is unusual, either for the Olympics or for equivalent UK-based tournaments in those sports. This is an article about metrication in the UK, not about sport in the UK or events in the UK. The relevance of the Olympics is not demonstrated. I note, incidentally, that the claim is not backed up by the source provided anyway: the source only mentions the metric system in the context of games that took place over 200 years ago. Pfainuk talk 17:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Either your comprehension of this matter is lacking or you simply don't want evidence in support of metrication in the article, which is unacceptable POV behaviour. Yes, the article is about metrication in the UK, but the SECTION is about sport in the UK. And I must point out that the modern Olympic began much more recently than 200 years ago. Anyway, the fact that the Olympic is all metric really is unarguable, so probably doesn't need a source. You are losing this debate badly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources (and lack thereof)

The statement:

is currently included in this article without source. So, the specific claim is that usage on websites associated with the monarchy reflect British usage. It is claimed that the sources later in the paragraph back up this claim. However, having looked through those sources, I note that none of them make any claim whatsoever connecting the usage of units on websites connected to the Royal family with British usage more generally. This claim seems to be the whole point of including this section, but no source backs it up.

Per WP:V, all material challenged or likely to be challenged requires a source. No source currently backs up this claim. Please provide a source that connects usage of units on websites connected to the Royal family with British usage more generally or else remove this claim from the article. Pfainuk talk 17:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement in question is the first of three sentences in a paragraph. The second sentence shows how royal sites that are not government hosted tend to use imperial units, while the third sentence shows how royal sites that are government hosted tend to use metric units. Thus the second and third sentences verify the first. The preceding paragraphs in the article state the same thing. As far as I am concerned, this statement is properly verified. I have again removed the flag. Martinvl (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, because none of them make any claim whatsoever regarding British usage. The claim that these pages demonstrate "the way in which Britain uses units of measure" is unsourced and unverified. The claim (in sentences four and five) that those sites use those specific units as a matter of policy (as opposed to in specific instances) is original research, as the pages that we're directed to do not mention the choice of units made by the websites concerned.

If similar claims are made elsewhere based on similar evidence, then they too are unsourced and/or original research. All such statements should be appropriately sourced or removed from the article. Pfainuk talk 20:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A fully sourced paragraph has been added to the lede of the section in which this statement appears. Martinvl (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This has now changed, but it now says:

So, it's not now doing anything at all. Why does the reader care? Why do we go through websites of the British monarchy, and not (for example) websites about the City, or Loch Ness, or the World Bog Snorkelling Championships? The point now seems entirely superfluous. Pfainuk talk 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if the British monarchy is of equal importance in British life as the City, Loch Ness or the World Bog Snorkelling Championships. Michael Glass (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

ASDA

At the best of times, survey are primary sources and also are suspect until proved otherwise. The survey to which de Facto refers was ASDA’s own survey which automatically makes it suspect. Why did ASDA sponsor the survey? Is it trustworthy? Did they take a truly representative sample of their customers or did they only survey pensioners? Would the survey stand up in court? How were “don’t care” answers handled – were they discarded? Unless the survey was conducted by a reputable independent firm, it cannot be taken seriously. In my opinion, the survey cannot therefore be said to be encyclopaedic.

Is it representative of the UK as a whole? Given Asda’s down-market image, the answer to the latter is a very loud “No”.

In conclusion, I think that all references to this survey should be removed from the page. BTW, in real life I some qualifications in statistics. Martinvl (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a similarly strong view on survey results. They should never be used here unless we also tell the readers the exact question(s) asked, who was asked, and the context in which they were asked. In this case we are told none of these things, so the text should be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A survey report itself may well be a "primary source", as will be the report of any kind of research. However, the survey itself isn't cited - a reliable secondary source reporting the survey is used - as is generally preferred for Wiki articles. Whether we believe or trust the survey is irrelevant - all that is relevant is whether what is said about it is supported, as in this case, by a reliable secondary source. Our job is to include all relevant reliably sourced information, and not to suppress it. Our duty is to achieve balance - regardless of our personal opinion of the class of people who hold the views or of the organisation that collects the views. Given the status of Asda as the UK's second largest supermarket chain, the survey is certainly notable, and is certainly relevant to this article. -- de Facto (talk). 22:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether we believe or trust the survey is completely relevant. At this point, I don't trust the survey. That secondary source tells us what ASDA said about it's survey. That's not good enough. The source for the now added Tesco survey is just as bad. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence in WP:VER supports what I wrote about inclusion: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." -- de Facto (talk). 09:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

These are surveys about ASDA's and Tesco's customers - in the case of Tesco, 11 year-old data. Given the lack of independence in the data gathering, neither can be clssed as being encyclopeadic and both shoudl be removed. Martinvl (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Our job isn't to analyse the data - that is prohibited under WP:OR - our job is only to provide verifiable information - as per WP:VER, such as this data about the surveys. -- de Facto (talk). 09:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We can judge the quality of sources. If a source about a survey doesn't tell us the exact question(s) asked, who was asked, and the context in which they were asked, it's not a quality source in that instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 10:41:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That "judgement" is nothing more than personal opinion though. The sources are established RS sources, so can be used to support what they write. Our duty is to write what is reliably supported - not speculate, synthesise or opinionate about what isn't supported. If there is reliably sourced criticism or comment about the surveys then we should include that too. -- de Facto (talk). 10:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a nonsensical thing to say. It's not just personal opinion. Like the first poster here I too am qualified in statistics. I have precisely described my standards for inclusion. It's what is needed to justify the inclusion of survey results in any article. (I have successfully made this point in many other places.) And a source that is generally regarded as reliable doesn't retain that badge for everything it says. HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It was reliably sourced - it doesn't matter what your opinion of it is. It was written - that's all that matters. -- de Facto (talk). 13:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line with surveys is that someone has to pay to have the survey done - as a result any survey is dubious unless it is knownm why the survey was commissioned. The first question to be asked is "If they paid for the information, why are they giving it away?. Surely their competitors could use it as well". One should remember Disreali's comments about "lies, damned lies and statistics" and take into consideration that the work on standard deviations etc was developed well after Disreali's time. Martinvl (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

However, as with all other reliably sourced information in any article, we can leave the reader to check the references and draw their own conclusions. Our job is to neutrally comment on the subject, with support from reliable sources, not to twist, re-interpret or supress what they say. We must present it as we find it - and leave the readers to decide the value of it. -- de Facto (talk). 13:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what your background is in real life, but both User:HiLo48 and myself have received a certain amount of training in assessing this type of data and we are both of the opinion that it is not reliable, thereby negating your entire argument.Martinvl (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion though does not trump the reliable sources. Sources are deemed reliable, not on the whim of whether you agree with or support what they report, but because they have a record of integrity, fact checking, editorial control etc. What your, HiLo48's or my opinion is of what a reliable source reports is of no relevance whatsoever. -- de Facto (talk). 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It can be of total relevance. In Australia "The Australian" newspaper is generally regarded as a reliable source. It not long ago published a political article which was soon shown to contain totally inappropriate and inaccurate content. Wiser folk pointed this out, both here and in other places, and that article from an otherwise generally reliable newspaper was not accepted here as a reliable source. You are trying to use a garbage articles to justify poor content here. many other examples can be presented. In the UK some newspapers are excellent sources for football scores, but not so on political matters. HiLo48 (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The surveys undoubtedly took place. The reliable sources reported that the surveys took place and conveyed their declared findings. Do you dispute any any of that? -- de Facto (talk). 15:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources conveyed the findings in very summarised form, a form intended to justify a particular action. The sources did not tell us the exact question(s) asked, who was asked, and the context in which they were asked. Without such information we are only seeing a biased presenter's conclusion. Don't you want the more accurate information? HiLo48 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So you agree that the sources are reliable then? -- de Facto (talk). 16:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the surveys took place, but there is insufficient eveidence to give them any credibility. How many people were surveyed? How many stores took part in the survey? What steps wer taken to ensure that the sample was not biased? Are they still valid (the Tesco survey took place 11 years ago and the Asda one 4 years ago)? In my experience of journalists, the average run-of-the-mill journalist, (and for that matter man or woman in the street), is insufficiently skilled to be aware that they need to ask these questions let alone know how to interpret the answers. The result is that without skilled statisticians being invovled, the survey must be of a dubious quality and certainly not encyclopeadic. Martinvl (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The arguments against the inclusion of this survey are all apparently based solely on claimed editor superior knowledge and therefore should be rejected. They only claim, at most, to know it's not true (because they know more than everyone else). (Actually, the claim is weaker, they claim that it might, in there own experience, be false). Apparently, the opponents have no reliable source to add to the article, and no other objection based on Misplaced Pages policy, and therefore no standing to change the content, as they are unwilling, unable, or too uninterested, to form a proper objection, or to properly propose additions to the article's content. If you have a personal policy against surveys reported by the media, fine, get it enacted as a blanket prohibition in Misplaced Pages but don't try to enact it by fiat, or expect other editors to agree to it, on a talk page. And don't edit, or urge others to edit, according to your personal claims.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A few points in response to the last poster:

1. All the "superior knowledge" that I have quoted can be backed up by any undergraduate textbook on statistics. I suggests that he at least reads the article sampling theory and maybe he might learn something.
2. I have no reliable source to add to the article regarding public opinion, because as far as I am aware no such source exists.
3. I have a problem with the use of surveys that are not properly conducted. Does the previous poster have a problem with that?
4. I would point out that in the UK, all public opinion polls in the run-up to an election quote the number of people questioned, how they were selected, when the questioning took place and what questions were asked. These were all absent from the Tesco and Asda surveys.

This should make is quite clear that I am not just acting from what the previous poster has called "personal claims", but from sound statsitical practice.

Martinvl (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for admitting that you can't be bothered to back up your personal claims with a reliable source (which, in case you are unaware, Misplaced Pages articles are not.) Nor have you explained how your criticism is relevant to the sourced content, which concerns a grocery store doing an experiment based on a survey. Your assertion of following some "practice" is still unvarified, and thus irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

How about

Mulholland, H; Jones, C R (1968). Fundementals of Statistics. London: Butterworth. ISBN 0 408 49200 7.

Are you happy now?

If you check the dates on these reports, you will see that the Tesco report is 11 years old and the Asda one 4 years old. Read the Tesco report, then go to your local Tesco and check whether what is written is still valid. I can tell you right now that as of a few days ago (when I last wento to a Tesco) Tesco prices all of its fresh produce by the kilogram with the imperial equivalent in smaller lettering. The article says otherwise, so things have changed. If you read the Asda report, you will see that the writer of the Which report is not convinced by the Asda assertions. These are further grounds for removing the references from the article. Martinvl (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• That book doesn't mention the Asda survey, let alone criticise its methods.
• The fact that Asda, the supermarket chain with the second largest market share in the UK, believes (as of May 2011) that 70% of its customers prefer imperial units is notable in the context of this article, and it is covered by reliable secondary sources - so needs including. Whether Asda's methodology in reaching that conclusion was scientifically sound, or not, is unimportant - unless you can produce a reliably sourced notable opinion to the contrary (i.e. not personal OR).
• As for the dates - all the news items on the Asda survey are from May/June 2011. What makes you say the survey is 4 years old? The Tesco (who have the largest market share) survey, albeit from 2000 (and that fact is clearly stated in the article), is also notable and covered in reliable secondary sources and relevant in the context of this article.

-- de Facto (talk). 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mrtinv1-What would make me happy is if you would stop parading your personal experiences (like your grocery tales) as if it matters to this article because it does not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Most media style websites these days, particularly those for tabloid newspapers, conduct daily polls on matters of "importance", like "Who should be next Prime Minister?" (The election in my country is two years away!) We would never use such poll results in Misplaced Pages because of the shallowness of the questions and the obvious self-selected nature of respondees. So, there are some polls and surveys that are OK, and some that are not, despite the fact that we can reference them to normally reliable sources. Nothing yet convinces me that these surveys are OK. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've come here from the verifiability not truth discussion. I'm really not clear what the objection to the material is. Could HiLo and Martinv clarify something? Which of the following do you have a problem with (either or both):

• The Asda and Tesco surveys show that consumer support for imperial measures is high.
• Asda and Tesco have stated that they are considering/have considered changing their approach to the use and display of imperial weights and measures in response to survey results that indicated support for the use of imperial measures was high.

These are two different pieces of content, but I wonder if they're getting confused here. I would say the first is too strong for the sourcing we have, but the second is fine. Regarding Tesco's policy, there is this report of a Which survey in 2004 suggesting that Tesco were indeed giving prominence to imperial in loose produce sales. So whatever Tesco does now, it clearly did change towards favouring imperial for some goods as it said it would. I suspect trading standards may have had a word at some point, but I can't find anything more recent than 2004.

Regarding the reliability of the surveys, we simply don't have enough details on the methods for us to be able to apply basic statistical knowledge to see if the surveys are faulty. We cannot presume that the market research organisations involved are incompetent in survey methods without evidence (proper ones employ professional statisticians). So I don't see why having the numbers stated in some form is risky - we clearly state our sources. However, as we can't also confirm they've been done by good organisations, I don't see the problem in attributing the results to company-commissioned surveys without necessarily stating the results as fact. The current language leans a bit too far towards crediting them as demonstrating something true about the world, and could do with tweaking. The Tesco move was reported overseas too.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The first wording is bad because it implies information that we don't have from the sources. Both wordings are bad because the word "high" is imprecise, demanding interpretation by readers according to their own biases. Even the second wording does not tell us the exact question(s) asked, who was asked, and the context in which they were asked. And who says market research organisations were involved? As I said above, every day we get online surveys from media websites (therefore from reliable sources) that we wouldn't dream to use here because we know they are rubbish and meaningless. Really, without more details, any mention of these surveys is deceptive at best. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK - in that case I think you've got two issues confused. The first statement, as I said, is bad. But look again at the second version and at the sources. Tesco and ASDA both take the surveys as showing that support for using imperial measurements was high (90% is high for pity's sake, and the secondary source for ASDA describes the results as "plenty") and they both stated they would take action. Nowhere in that second statement does it say that it is genuinely true that support for the use of imperial measures is high. We don't know about the survey methods, and perhaps Tesco and ASDA have completely misunderstood the results. But it's clearly the case that they felt the results were high enough to issue press releases and change policy. To be honest, it looks like you're criticising Tesco and ASDA for how they have responded to, and reported on, survey results. That the surveys were biased and hopelessly done would be worth including, but only if you have actual RS material on that. (Martinv's citing of a general stats textbook only makes his qualifications look somewhat meagre. He could have cited Marketing Research (Routledge, 2006) which I understand is well thought of and has a nice chapter on sampling - which is probably one of the most likely problems in accessing customer views, or a whole number of books a bit more on the nail when it comes to the problems of this kind of research.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't know if the surveys were well conducted and the results properly interpreted, not do we know that they weren't, and that's the primary point here. We don't enough about them for the claimed results to deserve any mention at all here. BTW - here's a radical perspective. Both stories are about the stores surveying their customers. If a business wants to improve market share, it will survey those people who are not customers, yet. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't know whether or not they were interpreted correctly. But we do know that they were interpreted (or are you denying that?). And we know the supermarkets acted on that interpretation. What exactly is your objection to content as it stands? Your last sentence indicates your beef is with Tesco and ASDA, not with wikipedia content.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Including the claimed survey results implies that they were valid. We have no evidence of that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't, not with proper attribution. Which?, the BBC and other news organisations have all reported these results - we'd need more than a misspelt undergraduate stats book as counter evidence that we were somehow misleading by saying "Tesco said X and Asda said Y". It's quite hard to fathom why you would even want to censor the information that they saw in these surveys evidence of high support for imperial measures.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Using the word censorship to describe the actions of someone saying some content is not acceptable is very unethical. If you can convince me the surveys were properly done and really did deliver the findings claimed, I would have no objection to their inclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you read the whole of the Which article about Asda, you will see that the writer is actually questioning the validity of the Asda rersearch, but doing it in such a way as not to open herself up to an expensive defense if Asda were to bring a case of libel against her. This tells me that the section on Asda was taken ourt of context from the original article in such a way that it should be removed from the article. Martinvl (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I had indeed read the whole of the article. Have you read WP:original research? Where does it say she's avoiding libel? The writer does not question the research itself, she questions the wisdom of reintroducing imperial alongside the obligatory metric information. She also identifies as someone who is not accustomed to imperial measures. And crucially, she does not deny that ASDA commissioned a survey, or that the understanding of the results by Asda was that 70% of shoppers were confused by metric and would prefer things in imperial, and that ASDA is responding to this. There is a big difference between questioning research and questioning how one responds to it. That won't be in your stats textbook ;-) It doesn't mean she embraces the methods, she simply doesn't comment on them.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And there in that post we have a classic example of how survey results become distorted. You said that Which said that Asda said that "70% of shoppers were confused..." What Which actually said that Asda said was that "70% of its shoppers were confused..." By leaving out the "its" you have now made a statement that could have quite a different meaning, i.e. all shoppers, or some undefined larger group of shoppers, were confused. It probably won't be, but in some contexts your sentence could be copied on to other places, attributing a very different result to Asda's survey. I know it wasn't deliberate, and you will probably say that precision doesn't matter here, but that's really where we disagree, isn't it? (Oh, and BTW, our article says "customers", not "shoppers" as in the source, again not quite the same thing. People ARE careless, aren't they?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, you're really, truly grasping at straws. Was I proposing what I wrote as text to be included in the article? Err...no. So that was a waste of time, wasn't it? As for "customers", feel free to change that to "shoppers". This is wikipedia, after all.

Neither you nor Martinv has actually shown any systematic problem with market research surveys done by either of these companies, let alone a specific problem with these ones sufficient enough for us to hide specific information from our readers for fear they might go away sorely misled and confused about the "true"(TM) state of mind of these companies' shoppers. Unless, that is, you're going to argue that no one should be allowed to read about surveys unless they've had as much edyoocashun as the two of you - which, to be frank, is what you're verging on implying at times. (Does it really take a course in stats to understand that surveys can sometimes be cooked or abused for PR reasons?) If you're worried about the poor reader being led astray by naughty supermarkets, why not go looking for other surveys from dependable organisations and let people make their minds up? I found this 2007 Mori poll which asks about metrication in general (rather than shopping behaviour and views) that puts opposition at 56%, with 22% undecided. And of course, this is a different survey population, not being limited to Asda shoppers, in addition to being a different question - but we can explain that in the text, wherever we put the content. This very brief NOP 2002 survey about how people think of distances between places might also be worth including too. We don't have a section regarding public opinion on metrication, which is surprising, although it doesn't appear to be an often-surveyed topic, at least judging by my own internet searches. There are the British Weights and Measures Association sponsored surveys, but there would be genuine prima facie RS and NPOV concerns for their quality given the BWMA is an advocacy group. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets get to the point. Goods, such as fresh produce, sold by the pound appear to be cheaper than good sold by the kilogram and for this reason unscrupulous merchants might well prefer to price their goods by the pound rather than by the kilogram. Given this situation, it is quite reasonable to ask whether or not these articles are really disinformation being put out by the stores in question in order to justify a switch to using pounds and ounces (a serious charge) or a lesser "charge" of seeking to drum up cheap publicity "spam". If either of these are the case. Since the burden of proof of reliability lies with the person posting the article, I challlenge User:DeFacto to demonstrate that this in not disinformation and not spam. In answering, would he please also demonstrate why Criticism of Walmart is not relevant to his argument (Walmart is the owner of Asda). Martinvl (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)