| Revision as of 09:57, 12 October 2006 editKittybrewster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,052 editsm →Name change← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:58, 12 October 2006 edit undoKittybrewster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers45,052 editsm →Name changeNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| I don't understand why the congruency sign is used instead of the equals sign in many places. I hesitate |
I don't understand why the congruency sign is used instead of the equals sign in many places. I hesitate globally to change them because there may be a mathematical reason for one being more correct. Does someone know? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small> | ||
| : It’s usually used with the defining term, although that might not always be a clear choice. ] 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | : It’s usually used with the defining term, although that might not always be a clear choice. ] 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:58, 12 October 2006
Name change
Shouldn't this page be renamed Metrified English unit (rather than Metrified Imperial system)? The system(s) described here are quite different from the Imperial system. The difference is more marked than that between the Imperial system and the American system, yet these have two distinct names (you don't talk of any Americanised Imperial system). Adopting such a system would be to replace the two. Jimp 15Jul05
There being no argument this is what I'm doing. Jimp 9Jul05
-- "Mass, weight"? Should we go for newtons first since we're coming from pounds? Maybe, but when pounds were first defined, was there a difference between weight and mass?
I don't understand why the congruency sign is used instead of the equals sign in many places. I hesitate globally to change them because there may be a mathematical reason for one being more correct. Does someone know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beetlenaut (talk • contribs) .
- It’s usually used with the defining term, although that might not always be a clear choice. Christoph Päper 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Totally wrong title and total lack of sources and references
Someone has had a lot of fun creating this article, but anyone reading it will be very confused, as the lead states:
"A metrified Imperial system is a proposal for a metrication and unification of the English systems of measures. Usually the inch is set to 25 mm, the pint to 500 ml and the pound to 500 g and the rest accordingly. Nowadays all Imperial units are defined in terms of their metric/SI equivalents, but mostly with quite odd factors. This choice was made to ensure largest possible continuity, but over time there have been several proposals to round off the values, which is thought to ease transition towards the metric system."
After that intriguing lead, leading one to expect information about some ongoing attempt by some British luddites to avoid the introduction of the foreign metric system, the story turns into a history lesson about attempts in the past to simplify, change or decimal the many different English measuring units, accompanied by long conversion tables of dead measuring units. It talks about something called the "Royal System", supposedly suggested by William Huskisson in the 1820's, and it mentions Thomas Jefferson's proposals for new units in the USA after the Independence, but nowhere can one read about the proposal mentioned in the lead: who the people behind it are, what the proposal consists of; when it was proposed; and where it stands today.
Also, when googling "Royal System" with "William Huskisson" you get nothing but copies of this article on various Misplaced Pages spin-offs, and there is no mentioning of it in the William Huskisson article.
This article possibly talks about attempts to maintain some Imperial units in a metric world, by changing their values to the nearest acceptable metric value, so people can call half a kilo a pound. This, however, should not be referred to as metrication, as metrication means the adoption of the SI system and nothing else.
The main problem is that most of the text is about about other things and, most of all, that there are no references anywhere. The long conversion lists may be of some interest, but only if they are properly explained. Thomas Blomberg 05:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Finally someone checked that Huskisson information, which is indeed completely made up. This article should now be split up into one for the Jeffersonian system and the rest may be deleted or merged with approximate conversion between English and metric units. Except for this article there never, to my knowledge, has been a consistent formal proposal for a metrified English system of measurement comparable to mesures usuelles. -- Anonymous
- I've failed to find anything to cite. I've tagged the article. I'll ask around to see whether anyone else has anything to back the claims of the article up. If there's nothing to support the article, I guess it'll have to be tossed ... well split/deleted/merged as above. Jimp 09:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC) I suppose that whatever happens to the Royal System section, the Isolated section should be merged with Approximate conversion between English and metric units. Jimp 09:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)