Editing Encyclopedia:Measurements Debate (section)

== Units of measurement ==

Why not use metric units of measurement ( the international norm) rather than the idiosyncratic system still in use in the USA? I find it very time consuming converting inches , degrees fahrenheit and so on.
Martin Pierard 
Melbourne Australia

:I agree that metric should be included in every mention of measurement.  There's a number of us Americans who are including both American and metric units in our work.  It's a simple thing to use my calculator and convert everything.  For example, see [[Ohio public lands]]. [[User:Jaknouse|jaknouse]] 06:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:Well, we want people to understand the articles we write, so for the time being we're going to have to use both systems since there are people who have no knowledge (or instinctive understanding) of metric, and others who have no understanding of imperial.  Wikipedia is supposed to reflect usage, not try to force change.  Personally, I find http://www.onlineconversion.com very handy.  [[User:Fabiform|fabiform]] | [[User talk:Fabiform|talk]] 17:25, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:Google is pretty handy for it. See [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=4+square+feet+in+square+meters here] for an example. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 17:28, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

:This is not seen as an issue where it is possible or desirable to enforce uniformity. People in the United States, reading articles about things in the United States, written by editors living in the United States feel that it is natural and comfortable to use U. S. customary units. International unit conversions ''should'' always be provided in such cases, but (cough) a lot of us forget to do it. This is definitely an area where, if you do calculate the conversion yourself, you would be doing everyone a favor by adding the conversion to the article. It should be an ''addition,'' though; to ''remove'' a U. S. Customary unit from a page on a U. S. topic would be perceived as annoying and an assertion of a non-neutral point of view. 
:(Speaking for myself, I'd add what should be added should be "translations" rather than "conversions," meaning that in an article that is not scientific or technical in nature in general it should be translated to the ''most culturally equivalent'' unit. That is, "pounds" used as a unit of weight should be converted to "kilograms," not "newtons;" "acres" to "hectares," not km². That is my expression of my personal point of view and others may well disagree). 
::I fully agree with all that has been said. Another question would be whether to provide imperial conversions for information about metric countries. I don't think this would be as needed as the reverse, considering that metric is the world standard and imperial the minority exception. I have no set idea about it; perhaps the main numbers should be dubbed in imperial for the convenience of Americans and Canadians. [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 06:55, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::There's nothing that I see wrong with adding an Imperial/US conversion where appropriate (no fractions of inches for atomic diameters, please).  An Encyclopædia should be readable to people brought up on either side of the fence.
:::I agree, absolutely that conversions (either way) should be additions not replacements.  Imagine a situation in which there were an edit-war with one editor after another removing a measurement in one system and putting the conversion in its place.  Like a message in game of Chinese Whispers the measurement will become less and less accurate until it would become simply wrong.  Each conversion introduces error.
:::However, should pounds-force be translated into kilograms?  Kilograms are a measure of mass not force.  Conversions ... or if you prefer 'translations' still have to be correct.  Hectares vs. km²?  Whichever is better of the order of magnitude regardless of the original unit.  [[User:Jimp|Jimp]] 15Jun05
:Another minor issue is that such a translation should try not to suggest a higher decree of precision, i.e. "Dr. Atkins weighed 18 stones at death" should become "18 stones (over 110 kg)," not "18 stones (114.3 kg)". [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:58, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

::Well, I for one think that everything you say there is extremely sound, and we should adopt it as policy.  I also think that what you call a minor point can be generalised into a very important one: don't try to be accurate where accuracy isn't known. Often, measurements are given to the nearest "round number", and are intended as a ball-park figure only; so "18 stone" might as well be labelled "(110 kg)", even though this is not technically the same quantity. Obviously, this requires a bit of judgement on the part of the editor, to determine the accuracy originally intended - "6 feet", can be considered a round number in that it is the height of a fairly tall human male...
::I'm thinking also that this applies equally to currency conversions, where statements like "5 million Altairian Dollars" crop up frequently, and might be "translated" to US Dollars via a highly fluctuating exchange rate. In such cases, precise conversions would be doubly inaccurate, since they would imply that both the original figure and the exchange rate had that level of precision. - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] 12:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

:::Well, this really is the only correct way to do a conversion.  Converting 18 stone to 114.3 kg would in fact be wrong.  Adopt it a a policy?  Sure, I guess there're people out there who don't realise this.  [[User:Jimp|Jimp]] 15Jun05

I'm one person who hates the metric system precisely because of the attributes its advocates admire:'''the system is too simple to have any character!''' And I think it speaks volumes that virtually the only reason metric has ever been adopted anywhere is that governments prohibited the use of systems people preferred to use.--Louis Epstein/12.144.5.2/le@put.com

:I don't see how it speaks volumes. Obviously, on questions like this, people must have an incentive to change in a coordinated way: you don't want to be the only person working in metric in a town of people working with another system. More relevant is, I think, the lack of comprehension of most people in many metric countries for other systems they find cumbersome and complicated.[[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 11:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

: 'That is, "pounds" used as a unit of weight should be converted to "kilograms," not "newtons;" '. You have inadvently high-lighted one of the many short comings of the imperial system. Kilograms are not the same as as newtons, although at sea-level 1 Kg is roughly 1 N. As far as I'm aware, the imperial system has no unit of mass.

:::Just a correction: 1 kg (not Kg) of stuff weighs about 9.8 N at sea level (the acceleration due to gravity is approx. 9.8 ms<sup>-2</sup> at sea level). [[User:Jimp|Jimp]] 15Jun05

::It's a myth that "the imperial system has no unit of mass", perpetuated by many junior high science teachers (including at least one who taught me).  The pound is primarily a unit of mass, and only secondarily a unit of force.  See [[pound]], [[pound-force]], and [[weight]] for details. [[User:Indefatigable|Indefatigable]] 22:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
:{{reply|User:Jaknouse}} You mentioned the use of a calculator to make conversions. Please don't, but use [[template:convert]] instead, whether converting from imperial to metric or vice versa. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 20:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:Ah yes, a note for those who hate the metric system because '''"it has no character"''' (see above) etc. well a dollar with 100 cents has no character either. The founding fathers were wise in adopting decimal coinage. What did have character was the former British coinage of 20 (?) [[shilling]]s to a [[pound sterling]] and 12 [[pence]] to a shilling, etc. The Brits kept the pound, but now there 100 pence to a pound. Obviously less '''colourful''', but infinitely more manageable and practical. The imperial systems, be it of the US variety or the British imperial variety are unmanageable and what makes it more 'interesting is that there are two different [[gallon]]s and two different [[ton]]s. A dog's or pig's breakfast. [[User:Peter Horn|Peter Horn]] [[User talk:Peter Horn|User talk]] 00:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
----