Talk:Hindhead Tunnel/Archives/2012/February

External link

Hi, I added an external link from this page to the blog at http://www.a3tunnel.co.uk/ It was deleted on the basis of WP:EL but I believe it should be included, what do others think? There was a brief dissussion with the person who deleted it here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Regan123#Hindhead_Tunnel_.28A3.29 My rationale for thinking it should be included is:

that it contains unique information

it is a link to a collection of pages that are on the subject of the article

there are a lot of photos of the construction progresses which are not available anywhere else

Mike.hinson 19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

as there have been no adverse comments I am restoring the link to http://www.a3tunnel.co.uk/Mike.hinson (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos

We could really do with some better photographs - photos of the construction work at either end. The current photographs don't seem all that relevant. --Zundark (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a photo of the southern end on geograph. The CC-by-sa license means we could use it here, I think. --Zundark (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tunnel meeting point

Unfortunately the BBC report is fundamentally incorrect. The meeting point for the tunnel excavations was actually about 250m from the southern portal and 1.4km from the northern one. Hardly the middle! I obtained the following from the HA website late on the 26th for use on another website :-

On 1 February 2009 There were 59 metres to go to breakthrough on the northbound tunnel and 141m in the southbound tunnel.

	Southbound bore	Northbound bore
North Portal	1409m of top part of the tunnel	1394m of top part of the tunnel
	1215m of bottom part of the tunnel	395m of bottom part of the tunnel
South Portal	240m of top part of the tunnel	287m of top part of the tunnel

Unfortunately the page has been updated since then and the figures are no longer shown so I can't use them on the main page as a citation.

Most of the work is being done from the north side as that is where the spoil is being used for an embankment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.145.110 (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Map and link

A map resembling that on http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/3834.aspx would be of interest.

The "press release" link fails.

82.163.24.100 (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Open day music

I agree that the world premiere of a piece of music for the open day might be relevant/notable if a citation can be provided. We do not need the age of the band or the composer - these, if independently noteworthy, should be elsewhere. It would help if the IPs adding this information could please try to do more than just promote this one piece of news without discussion. I'm going to look for a WP:RS to cite for this but in the meantime it would really be great to not just keep adding in the ages etc, I feel. DBaK (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There was significant coverage of the open day, if the music was notable it will be mentioned somewhere. Whether including this detail to the article will assist a reader interested in the tunnel seems unlikely to me, but I do agree that if it's going in it needs a source. Exok (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I've stuck in a local newspaper story, the Petersfield Post. I do know what you mean about the level of detail but it seems to me that it does carry some weight about the feel of the open day, community support (I think it is the local brass band etc) and the vibe in general. Just a bit of infilling in the historical picture. I agree that it is not leading-edge but I do think it comes in as interesting and relevant local background to this rather large project. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The composer is a member of the band and not a significant published composer in his own right. User:esnodgrass

I found it comical and not at all encyclopedic. Other than mentioning the date and the person who cut the ribbon, opening ceremonies generally are not notable, because they're staid and formulaic. This feels like a wp:coi to me. 213.246.126.251 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Tunnel length

Yesterday I quoted the tunnel length in kilometres with miles in parentheses. Today somebody changed them around - wrongly. I have had to sort it out.

The mess came about because the source document gave the length as 1.83 km (1.2 miles) which is not a correct conversion. If one reads the source, it is apparent that the correct value is 1.83 km and that the 1.2 miles was an afterthought. In reality 1.830 km = 1.137 miles, so the afterthought was wrong. Martinvl (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The cited reference ([1]) states: "The tunnel is 1.2 miles (1.83km) long...". The miles are primary, and are given as 1.2 not 1.14. In the km conversion they mistakenly give 1.83 rather than 1.93. I think we should change it back to 1.2 miles - the HA figure. -- de Facto (talk). 14:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The reference actually states "The tunnel is 1.2 miles (1.83km) long comprising about 1 mile (1.77km) of bored tunnel and approximately 98 ft (30 metres) of cut and cover at either end."

Now do the maths. Using metric units: 1.77 km + 30 m + 30 m gives 1.83 m which is consistent with the the value quoted in the source. On the other hand 1 mile + 30/0.9144 yd + 30/9.144  does not give anything like 1.2&bnbsp;miles - it gives about 1.037 miles. Something is wrong somewhere. I believe that the metric values are the correct values and the imeprial values were any old rubbish that would keep the whingers in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express off the backs of the Highway Agency (who work in metric units - see Driver location signs). Martinvl (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside your opinion of those who wish to protect and preserve British customs and culture; what you "believe" and what your OR calculations arrive at, or what units the HA use in-house or whether the tunnel is actually 1.83 or 1.93 km long isn't relevant here. What is relevant is what the reliable sources say, even if it is untrue (see WP:VER). So, given that the article is using imperial units and given that the HA say it's 1.2 miles here and here, the BBC here, ITN here, Natural England here, the Daily Telegraph here and Auto Express here then I think we can safely say it's 1.2 miles long too. Let's change it back and either hard-code the metric length or let the converter put it at 1.93 km - either way, as it isn't relevant to the article it doesn't matter. -- de Facto (talk). 16:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest that we quote the HA verbatim and put a note in the reference. Martinvl (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And all the other reliable sources, including those that give it as 1.9 km and those that give it as 1.1 miles. -- de Facto (talk). 17:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We could just say the length is somewhere between 1.1 and 1.2 miles, and give sources for each. -- de Facto (talk). 17:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I made the changes, then saw your comment. Martinvl (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I added the dimensions of the tunnel using figures taken straight from a "learned journal" which happened to be metric units and probably the units used for the design (my house plans were certainly in metric units). talk added the imperial equivalents, putting the metric units in parenthesis after the imperial units. I checked WP:MOSNUM for guidance and the text there says:

Use the following guidelines when choosing which unit is the main one and which is converted:

• US-related articles: generally US customary units (22 pounds (10 kg)).
• UK-related articles: generally metric units (10 kg (22 pounds)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including:
  • miles for road distances, miles per hour for road speeds, and miles per imperial gallon for fuel consumption;
  • feet/inches and stone/pounds for personal height and weight measurements;
  • imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.

Some editors hold strong views for or against metrication in the UK; in this respect, it is preferable to leave articles in their long-standing state (usually imperial units) if the alternative is an edit-war. Discuss the matter on the article talk-page and/or at MOSNUM talk, and move on if no common ground can be established. Note the style guides of British publications such as Times Online (under "Metric").

The Times online guidance also states that miles should be used for road distances, but has the caveat that engineering and scientific articles should use metric units. In order to comply with WP:MOSNUM, we should be using metric units to describe the tunnel dimensions, apart from its length, but if we go deeper and look at the Times online guidance, we need to ask "Is this a scientific/engineering article or is this a description of a bit of road?" The article itself is still far from complete - additional material will describe the rock formations through which the tunnel was bored, sites of special scientific interest and so on. In short, if we want consistency, then we should use metric units as primary units throughout as much of the new source material will come from "Learned journals". Moreover, since this is new material, I would like to change the ordering of the units to give consistency with WP:MOSNUM. Martinvl (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevant and clear advice there being to leave it in imperial units: "Some editors hold strong views for or against metrication in the UK; in this respect, it is preferable to leave articles in their long-standing state (usually imperial units) if the alternative is an edit-war." (my underlining).

This isn't a scientific article, it is an article about a road tunnel using everyday language to describe it in general terms. Why try to metricate it just for the sake of it? -- de Facto (talk). 08:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is an article about a bit of road, and distance should be in imperial. For consistency the other dimensions should also be in imperial first. If the source documents give figures in metric, then the "disp=flip" option of the convert template should be used. e.g. if a source gives the length as 1.83km then we'd used {{convert|1.83|km|disp=flip}} which gives: 1.14 miles (1.83 km). Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- de Facto (talk). 20:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Scope creep

Is this article about the new Hindhead bypass as a whole, or about just the tunnel component of that larger project? If the former then it probably needs renaming. If the latter then we need to be careful not to introduce too much irrelevant content about other aspects of the larger project. I've just re-removed some information which is about the larger project because I believe the scope is creeping too far away from that encompassed by the title. -- de Facto (talk). 20:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

These ancillary works are largely dictated by the building of a tunnel on that route and the embankment to the north is the spoil from the tunnel bores. I see no problem with briefly mentioning these but as prose writing. A table is certainly not needed.--Charles (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and the ones that are related, such as the cuttings for the portals, are already mentioned in the prose in the same section. -- de Facto (talk). 21:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This does not add up

The bored part of the tunnel is 1770 metres long. Tunnelling started in 2008 (date not specified). Breakthrough was 26 February 2009 (422 days after 1 January 2008). The digging therefore took 422 days or less. The rate of digging was about a metre/yard a day. Assuming that they worked at the same rate from both ends, they could only have dug half the tunnel in the time specified. However, an earlier editor on this talk page noted that the tunnel from the Northern portal was about 1.4 km and the southern part was 250 m. This means that the Northern part was dug at a rate exceeding 3.5 metres per day. Martinvl (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Units

The relevanrt section from WP:UNITS reads:

In non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit (44 kilogram (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including:

1. miles for road distances, miles per hour for road speeds, and miles per imperial gallon for fuel consumption;
2. feet/inches and stone/pounds for personal height and weight measurements;
3. imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.

All other articles: the main unit is generally an SI unit or a non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI.

In this article, road distances are certainly used and road speeds are used. According to WP:UNITS, imperial units may be used for these quantitites. The artcile makes no reference to fuel consumption, personal height and weight measurements, draught beer/cider or bottled milk. Moreover, if you look at most of the sources which decribed the tunnel dimensions, you will see metric units, if you look at the DfT document that gave the length of the tunnel, you will see that the distance in miles was a rounded value, if you look at the firgure for the rate of digging, it is patently unreliable - digging a 1800 metre tunnel at the rate of one metre a day form each end means that it would have taken two and a halof years to dig the tunnel and it took a lot less - do the maths yourself! So why did DeFacto revert it - or is he unable to read WP:UNITS? Martinvl (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Metric units have been the official UK system for a very long time, with the above exceptions for the sake of us old farts, and they should be used first for tunnel dimensions, boring rates, etc.--Charles (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl has correctly identified the conflict with WP:UNITS, i.e. that for UK-related non-scientific articles, the primary unit is metric except for, in this case, miles and mph. Please explain how it is consistent with this guidance to use cubic yards, imperial gallons, yards and feet as primary units. Mixsynth (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The style guide, of which WP:UNITS is just one small section, places more emphasis on consistency than on metrication for the sake of it. This UK road related article rightly uses miles and mph and, for the sake of consistency, also uses imperial units as the primary units for other measures.

There is no good reason to change this. The full guideline is very specific on this point in the second paragraph:

• "...consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise."
• "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style..."

Further on the guideline recommends:

• "Avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures."

I suggest that, without a "substantial reason" for change that, for the sake of consistency, we leave imperial as the primary measurement system for this article. -- de Facto (talk). 19:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

With respect, you are treating the general guideline to avoid mixing systems of measurement as if it mandates using either all-metric or all-imperial primary units in any one article. By that logic, any UK-related article mentioning miles even once would have to use entirely imperial primary units for every other measurement, even if those measures were obscure to most in the UK, e.g. Fahrenheit for temperatures, imperial fluid ounces for liquids, long tons for weights, etc. Indeed, cubic yards and imperial gallons as used in this article are very rarely used in the UK.

As already quoted above, the section of WP:UNITS under "which units to use" is fairly clear that a non-scientific UK-specific article should use primarily metric primary units with imperial used for the specified exceptions, in this case miles and mph, which necessarily requires some degree of system mixing. Since this is a non-scientific UK-related article, metric and imperial should be mixed as described. Mixsynth (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As per above discussion, I have realigned the article with WP:UNITS. I have also taken WP:CONVERSIONS into account regarding the design speed in the info box. Martinvl (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Good. I hope this will now be left alone. Mixsynth has hit the nail on the head as we do have very specific and circumscribed legal exceptions to metric units in the UK and these do not justify changing engineering and construction data which is worked in metric units. I consistently drive a few miles to fill the car with litres of petrol. While there I might buy a couple of pints of milk. I can go to the pub and buy a pint of beer but cans of beer from the shop will be in millilitres. This is the UK system and UK articles should follow it.--Charles (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There may be some legal limitations on which units of measure can be used for certain trading activities, but there are certainly no restrictions on which units can be used in writing about road tunnels. I suggest that as this article was stable for some time with imperial as the primary units, and as imperial units are the traditional measures used in everyday life in the UK, and as public opinion surveys show a preferrence amongst the general UK population for imperial units, that we leave imperial units as the primary units for this article. Metric can remain as secondary units of course, for the benefit of those who prefer them. -- de Facto (talk). 19:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You have not provided any good reason to keep the article using inappropriate imperial primary units other than the fact that it went unchallenged for a number of months. In fact, the article was stable for a longer period using metric primary units until one anonymous editor changed them round in July this year.

Neither "public opinion surveys" (whose?) nor your own personal preference for imperial have any bearing on Wikipedia's established guidelines. Mixsynth (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The onus for providing the "good reason" is on those wishing to change the article; not on those wishing to preserve it as it was. The units were consistent and metric conversions were included. The "established guidelines" in WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers make it very clear that change to another system needs a "substantial reason" - what is that reason? I agree that my (or your) preference have no bearing (and I have never stated my preference anyway), however, common usage rightly plays an important part, and I don't think there is any doubt what the common usage measurement system is in the UK when discussing road related matters - it is the imperial system. -- de Facto (talk). 22:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted as no "substantial reason" for the change of primary unit was provided (as per WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers) - it looked like a change for change's sake, from one system to another. Also, as there were no direct quotes affected, MOS:CONVERSIONS was incorrectly invoked as an excuse for change. -- de Facto (talk). 19:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you; the "substantial reason" is that this article does not use appropriate primary units for a non-scientific UK-related article as per WP:UNITS -> "which units to use".

By my count we have three editors in favour of bringing the article into line and one who wishes to preserve the status quo.

I have restored the correct order once again (but preserving "75 mph" instead of "120 km/h" as this is a slightly different issue). If you revert again in spite of the clear guidance on this subject and in spite of the majority view, then I suppose we can refer this to the Mediation Cabal. Mixsynth (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The "correct order"? The "clear guidance" is that no change is required - which is why I restored the original. According to the guidelines: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style..." Please restore the article content or provide a "substantial reason" for the change which is unrelated to mere choice of style. -- de Facto (talk). 22:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

With no "substantial reason" for the change having been provided, I've restored the original content. -- de Facto (talk). 21:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If you visit [2], you will see that the "standard" design speeds are 120 km/h, 100 km/h, 85 km/h, 70 km/h, 60 km/h and 50 km/h. In view of this I would liek to reinstate "120 km/h" as the "design speed" with a note referencing the standard design speeds. Martinvl (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that the common usage unit of road speed in the UK is mph and that 75 mph is as close as makes no practical difference to 120 km/h, and the coversion is given anyway, why exactly do you want to change the content as you describe? -- de Facto (talk). 12:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNITS states Nominal and defined values should be given in the original units first, even if this makes the article inconsistent. In this instance the 120 km/h design speed is a nominal unit, not a measurement which is why it should be in km/h. Martinvl (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - it makes sense to put the km/h for that value first. But given the supporting ref, why do you want to elaborate and describe the other design speeds in this article? -- de Facto (talk). 13:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Johnb78 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I haven't done anything to affect the km vs mile or gallon vs litre debate above, but somebody had reverted the other measurements from the government leaflet to converting the wrong way round, which should unequivocally be in SI first, to imperial first - this I have fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnb78 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 January 2012‎ (UTC)

I've reverted as that change to the long-standing stable version needs a "substantial reason" to justify it - as per WP:MOSNUM. Also there is a discussion about this at Hindhead Tunnel - I'm not sure why that wasn't mentioned here by the editor who raised it there. -- de Facto (talk). 18:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Given the current state of turmoil in the WP:MOSNUM article, and the ongoing discussions on its discussion page, perhaps we should suspend this discussion here until a stable and usable version of the guidelines has emerged. -- de Facto (talk). 15:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The "turmoil" in the guidelines you describe was, as I see it, initiated solely by you by attempting to change them from their long-established state. But I agree, we should indeed wait to allow consensus to prevail there, which I hope should not take long. Mixsynth (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Mixsynth, initiated "solely" by me??? I had never edited it until another editor removed the "Avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures" clause earlier today (a clause that was one of the reasons I questioned the changes to this article). The turmoil, I believe, started at the end of last year when you removed "(usually imperial units)" in this edit and wasn't helped when you added "non-scientific UK-related articles" as an exeption to the "Avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures" clause here. -- de Facto (talk). 16:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, mine was perhaps a poor choice of language. No antagonism intended. My own edits are not at issue here; you will note that my first edit (removal of "usually imperial units" as POV) stood unchallenged while my second edit was rightfully reverted as it did not fully address the problem (i.e. potential straitjacketing of articles into one main unit system or another irrespective of context). Neither was involved in fundamental changes to "which units to use", the very section relevant to this article. Mixsynth (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC: main units

According to WP:UNITS guidelines, should this article use mostly metric main units (except for for miles/mph) or entirely imperial main units? 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Use the official units of the location of the tunnel - which I think is metric except road signs in inches/feet/miles/mph and beer in pints. Jojalozzo 01:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Jojalozzo, why "official units" (which may be interpreted by some to mean "metric units" - which are extremely controversial in the UK) rather than the traditional or customary units which may be in more (or at least equal) common and widespread use in the location"? -- de Facto (talk). 09:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The request is to interpret the guideline. By my reading, it calls for "main units" which, for non-scince UK articles, it says, is metric except for inches/feet/miles in a few special cases like road distances and widths - that's the same as the "official units". My answer to the request's question is "yes". Jojalozzo 03:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jojalozzo, thanks for the clarification. I find it very illuminating that you too chose to interpret: "the main unit is generally a metric unit ... but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including:" to mean: "is metric except for inches/feet/miles in a few special cases". You appear to have overlooked the actual context and ignored other parts of the same guidelines including: "Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise", "take account of what is likely to be familiar to readers", "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style". -- de Facto (talk). 07:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, You have referred to the following phrases in Mosnum:

1. "take account of what is likely to be familiar to readers"
2. "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style".
3. "Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise"
4. "In non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit (44 kilogram (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts..."

You have then interpreted the first three phrases to negate and overrule the fourth phrase.

This appears to be an example of playing policies against each other. Michael Glass (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael , not at all! What I was doing was attempting to apply the whole guidline in proper context, rather than cherry-picking just one sentence and applying a narrow (unwritten) context to it. Using your numbers: #4 allows metric or imperial in the contexts in this article (particularly if you take account of #1), #3 implores consistency where there are (as in this case) options available, #2 points out that changing from one option to another (as has been attempted here) requires a sustantial reason.

There was also "Avoid mixing systems of measurement used for primary measures", but that has been removed since this debate started.

My point is that we should apply the guidline as a whole, in spirit and in letter, and not just the one sentence that can best be interpretted to suit a particular agenda. -- de Facto (talk). 07:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, DeFacto. Here are my replies:

• I believe that in a context where conversions are applied, and where metric measures are widely used in the UK for engineering and architecture, point 1 is moot, because both metric and Imperial measures are familiar to people in the UK, and in any case, conversions are available.
• Point 3, as you have said, implores consistency. This could be either metric (with he exception of miles - a classic good reason ) or Imperial, so this measure applies to both options.
• The trouble comes with points 2 and 4, where under your reading of the rules, point 2 negates point 4. I believe that this is problematical, and it could be argued that setting these two points against each other is a form of gaming the system WP:GAMETYPE, or that one or other of the points have been misapplied or that they are indeed at odds with each other.

To get past these problems we need to look at point 2, which on your reading, demands a good reason for change. I believe that there are good reasons for a change.

1. The first reason for change is for accuracy of information. As has been pointed out already, 1.2m is not the same as 4ft, and as the tunnel was built to metric dimensions, these, the most precise measures, should come first. This alone is a good enough reason for changing the order of the units. It's like what happens in Australia when dealing with obsolete measures. Early land grants were in acres, and so in the Australian Dictionary of Biography puts acres first, even though Australia switched to the metric system over 30 years ago. See [3] Remember that accuracy is not just a matter of mere style.
2. Another reason for changing the order of measures to metric first is for consistency between articles. I think if you look at most descriptions of modern UK buildings in Wikipedia you will find that most are metric first. There is no good reason for Hindhead Tunnel to be any different.
3. A third reason is that putting derived measures first has the potential to confuse readers. 3m is not the same as 10 ft, even though this is a close enough approximations for most purposes. If you put 10ft first, many readers would assume that this was the original measure. Putting the derived figures in brackets makes it clear that these are derived figures.
4. Of course it may be argued that as the sources of the article are divided in their usage. This is true, but there are two kinds of sources, one of PDFs, which give precise metric measures, and the others are of media reports, which may be expressed in Imperial measures. Once again, the most precise information is in metric terms.

For all these reasons I believe that metric first is the way to go, because these measures are the most accurate. Michael Glass (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note for contributors: discussion of this issue has already taken place above and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard here. It might be helpful to take arguments already expressed there into consideration. Mixsynth (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Another note for contributors: the applicable sections of the WP:MOSNUM guidelines are in turmoil at the moment, with at least 8 edits having been made to it since the change triggering this discussion around the issue in this article took place and there are active discussions over content which is relevant to this discussion on its talkpage. -- de Facto (talk). 14:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Mostly metric because it is an article on a civil engineering project. What units do civil engineers use? Metric, of course. They use kilometres too during their projects, and only convert to miles when that's required in roadsigns etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Itsmejudith, if, as you claim, the civil engineering work is in metric, can you explain why the carriageways are 7.3 metres, rather than 7.0 or 7.5 metres wide or why the tunnel is 5.03 metres and not 5.0 metres high or why the verges are 1.2 metres and not 2.0 or 2.5 metres wide. I'm sure that if I was working in metric I'd use round numbers. Or could it actually be that the carriageways are 24 feet (7.3 m) wide, the tunnels 16.5 feet (5.03 m) high and the verges 4 feet (1.2 m) wide - round numbers in imperial units (suggesting that they were designed in imperial)? -- de Facto (talk). 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

British engineers work in metric. They have inherited some standard sizes from the old days. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So the tunnel and road measurements are imperial then as I suspected. Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 20:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the measurements are metric, it's just that the engineers have inherited some unusual standard dimensions to work to due to conversions when construction regulations were metricated. If you look at the original HA source for most of the figures, the imperial figures by and large do not accurately convert to the metric figures but do convert in the other direction, and the imperial figures are not the same as those in this article but the metric figures are; this is because the imperial figures are rounded conversions of the original metric values, and the conversions are rounded differently here than in the source text. Mixsynth (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A 4-foot verge is a 4-foot verge whether it's written in a HA press release as 4-feet, 1219.2 mm or 1.2 m. You have to remember that UK government agengies are legally required to communicate such information in metric, regardless of the units used when the standards were defined. We are not legally restrained in that way, we can tell it as it is, in the native language of the region, and in the original units of definition - we have no political agenda (do we?). -- de Facto (talk). 09:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@DeFacto. Do you seriously think that the surveyors on the tunnel were setting out verges at 4 feet or 1219.2 mm? Of course not. They use metric equipment and would mark them at 1200 mm. These are metric equivalents of older imperial standards but they are not the same. 19.2 mm is a big difference to an engineer.--Charles (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

For crying out loud. Why not simply follow the sources and provide conversions? The measurements are not about road distances. Michael Glass (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael, the sources don't necessarily reflect the common usage of the area concerned. What if the sources use kilometres for British road distances? -- de Facto (talk). 14:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Then, except for nominal figures, we use miles instead – as per WP:UNITS. But for everything else, use SI unless there is a clear and universally agreeable reason imperial would be more appropriate, e.g. inches for screen dimensions, feet for aircraft altitude, etc. As you must by now realise by reading through all discussion here so far, this is not one of those cases. Mixsynth (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You agree then, that we don't necessarily use the units that are used in the source. We now need to establish then in which contexts we should always use metric units, rather than imperial units. With the UK being traditionally an imperial unit user, I favour defaulting to imperial unless near universal metric usage can be proven, rather than your apparent, and unsupported, preference for a metric presumption. -- de Facto (talk). 10:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, I accept that your personal preference is for UK articles to default to Imperial.

1. However, do you accept that this is at odds with MOSNUM, which says: "In non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit (44 kilogram (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts..."?
2. Do you also accept that the Hindhead Tunnel was constructed to metric dimensions?
3. Do you therefore accept that metric measures would be more accurate in this context?
4. Do you also accept that the majority of editors who have expressed their opinions here have disagreed with you on the order of units?
5. Finally, have you considered that your one-man campaign might not be universally appreciated?

I would be interested in reading your replies. Michael Glass (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael, it isn't a matter of what my (or your) personal preference is (and I've never discussed mine), it's a matter of what the policies and guidelines say. Now, in the same order as you questions:

1. I disagree that it's at odds with MOSNUM. The guidelines specifically state "imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts". A general article about a British road scheme is surely a member of the group "some contexts", especially as the guidelines were specific about not mixing main units when the change that I reversed was made.
2. I'm sure that a government civil engineering project was conducted using metric units, yes.
3. Metric measures more accurate in what context? Or do you mean more appropriate? If the latter, then no, for the reasons given at "1". Roads may well be built to metric specifications, but as imperial is still in common usage in the UK, then imperial should, of course, be the main unit in these type of articles - as supported by MOSNUM. Also, it is perfectly obvious from the "coincidental" roundness of the imperial conversions of some of the "metric" numbers, that the origins of those numbers was in imperial anyway.
4. It seems to me that "most editors" have either misunderstood or ignored the advice given in MOSNUM. You can see that from the discussion here, and from the unanswered questions. MOSNUM seems perfectly clear to me.
5. I agree that there seems to be an unwillingness by some to accept that it is imperial, not metric, that is in common usage in the UK.

-- de Facto (talk). 17:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, on your two main arguments throughout this discussion, i.e. that road-related articles should "surely" be imperial-first and that imperial is the "common language" of the UK: you have already stated these opinions on this talk page several times without anyone else agreeing with you. I think maybe now is the time to recognise that you're not going to convince anyone on these points. Mixsynth (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, Thanks for numbering my points, and for your response to each one. I'm glad we agree on point 3, but concerned that you do not see its implications. I will, however, comment on each one of your points in reply.

1. When it comes to roads, MOSNUM only mentions three things: road distances, road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel. Therefore it's a bit of a stretch to say that everything else has to be Imperial just because the article mentions miles. Reading it your way seems to me to be a prime example of using the exception to negate the general rule.
2. We agree on point 2. This agreement has implications for point 3.
3. I certainly mean more accurate. In the detailed description of the tunnel, the actual dimensions should be treated as nominal values, as with the speed limit standard that the tunnel was built to.
4. Please consider that if you read MOSNUM one way and most people read it differently, it doesn't mean that you alone are right and all the rest are wrong. It could be that the wording is ambiguous. If that is the case it is important that the wording should not be interpreted in such a way that one point negates another. Your interpretation, which appears to negate the general rule, is a prime example of questionable interpretation.
5. This isn't a matter of general UK usage, but how the tunnel was designed. In this situation when educated usage is arguably different from general usage it's better to go with the primary units in which the tunnel was built. As equivalents in Imperial measures are supplied, this is not too much to ask of readers. Michael Glass (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael, it's good to 'talk', but we do seem to be going round in circles a bit. The problem as I see it isn't so much that MOSNUM is ambiguous, or of others not agreeing with my interpretation of it; but that there is an incomplete understanding as to what extent the UK has incorporated metric units into common usage. My point in #1 isn't so much that it is an article about roads, but that it is a British related article about roads, and that majority common usage in the UK is still imperial for general everyday circumstances. And that's what matters. An article about a British French-conversation club would still be written in English, despite the fact that most of the club's activities were conducted using the French language. Evidence that the UK has shifted from majority imperial preference to majority metric preference for certain contexts might help justify metric use in those certain listed contexts, but for contexts without that evidence, we must surely stick with imperial. -- de Facto (talk). 09:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article about a road it is about a tunnel. It is about a tunnel built using metric units.--Charles (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

But a UK related tunnel. Road, tunnel, whatever it is, under MOSNUM, the fact that it is UK related is the key that provides the context here for which unit system to use. If you have evidence that metric units are the prefered and most commonly used units in the UK for particular distance, length, height, volume, capacity, speed, weight, mass, or whatever, measurements, then please provide it. Until such evidnce is provided we can only assume the traditional units are still more commonly prefered than the metric ones. -- de Facto (talk). 10:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you openly advocating that we should abandon WP:MOSNUM? Martinvl (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, what on earth prompted you to ask that? -- de Facto (talk). 13:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Martin's question seems quite appropriate. You think that UK articles should default to imperial with metric exceptions. WP:MOSNUM (WP:UNITS specifically) advises that UK articles should default to metric with imperial exceptions. Your view is in conflict with the guidelines. Perhaps you could answer me this: do you think it's fair to block application of the guidelines, against consensus, just because you don't agree with them? Mixsynth (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mixsynth, you misrepresent MOSNUM. It doesn't say there are imperial "exceptions", it clearly and explicitly says: "... imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including...". My view is not in conflict with the guidelines. My understanding is (and no-one has provided evidence to the contrary) that imperial units are favoured over metric units in UK common use in the context of this article so, to comply with the MOSNUM clause I quote above, the article needs to use imperial as the main units. I do also believe that MOSNUM could be made clearer and avoid confusion by, perhaps, changing the clause to something like: "imperial units are generally used as the main units in most contexts, but where it can be demonstrated that netric is in near-universal use, then metric should be used as the main unit." - but that is a different discussion for elsewhere. I am NOT blocking application of the guidelines, I am attempting to ensure that the appropriate main units are used as recomended in the guidelines. -- de Facto (talk). 07:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it says "some contexts", but that still means the default is metric ("the main unit is generally a metric unit") unless there is clear consensus that any particular context calls for imperial. Where is that consensus here? Mixsynth (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Charles, this isn't the "Surveyors' Journal", it's Wikipedia - it should use the common language of the people of the region concerned and not just the language of one particular sub-group. -- de Facto (talk). 14:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a comic, so it should adhere to standards one would expect to find in an encyclopedia, or at least the language that is found in school text books. Martinvl (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, let me ask you a question. If I was to write an article in the English Wikipedia about a certain notable French-language text book used in British schools to teach the French language to British children, what language do you think that article should be written in? -- de Facto (talk). 13:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If the concepts that you are putting across in such an article are meaningful to the population at large, then it woud be appropriate to use a level of language that would be taught at GCSE level (Year 11), using the correct terminology such as "verb", not "doing-word". If the concepts being discussed were such that a GCSE student would not grasp them , then use the language of accademia. Martinvl (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask what "level" of language, I asked what language (hint: English, French, etc.) -- de Facto (talk). 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance of your question to this RFC. Martinvl (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to understand the basis for the argument that you are offering to support the assertion that the main unit system for the tunnel measurements should be the metric system. So which is it, English or French or some other? -- de Facto (talk). 16:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, are you implying that putting metric measures first in an article is equivalent to writing that article in a foreign language? Michael Glass (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I was wondering how far Martinvl was prepared to take his argument that an article should be written in "the language that is found in school text books". Then, if he stopped short of expecting French in the scenario I posed (the question was to clarify this), I was going to explore why he accepts common usage (the English language) in that scenario but not common usage in the present article (imperial units in the absence of evidence to the contrary), and where exactly he thinks the line should be drawn, and why. Currently my imression is that it relies on personal POV, rather than evidence-based objectivity, as no evidence has been offered that metric has now superseded imperial in common usage in this context. The context, less we lose sight of it, being the description of lengths, widths, heights, depths, speeds, volumes and capacities in relation to a non-specialst article on a UK road scheme. -- de Facto (talk). 09:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that common usage is a bit of a red herring. I see it more as an issue of accuracy. If the source uses metric measures, that's OK with me, provided that Imperial equivalents are supplied; if it uses Imperial measures, that's OK provided that the metric equivalents are supplied. Naturally, if the sources are divided in their usage, then choices would have to be made for the sake of consistency. In the case of the UK, where usage is divided and often inconsistent, this approach could help to increase the accuracy of articles without taking sides in the acrimonious debate between those who are pro and anti metrication. In this particular case it would have the advantage of complying with MOSNUM, which your proposal does not. Michael Glass (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael, common usage in not a "red herring", it underpins MOS recommendations. On the other hand, "accuracy" might be seen as one, as it doesn't make any difference to accuracy whether we put "16ft 6in (5.03 m)" or "5.03 m (16ft 6in)". Relying on sources for our choice of units to use could lead to a battle of who could find the most sources using their favourite units, and lead to heavy over-referencing to reinforce ones point. Better to have unambiguos guidance which delivers a consisent result. The debate (as far as I'm concerned anyway) isn't a pro or anti metrication one, or even a pro or anti freedom-to-choose one, it is one over whether we should recognise the customs, traditions, conventions and preferences of the UK people, or potentially override them. -- de Facto (talk). 10:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, sometimes you are right about accuracy, such as in the example you have picked. In other cases, the conversion factor is quite rough and ready, such as 4ft (1.2m). Better to err on the side of caution and follow the sources. A battle to find the best references is not necessarily a bad thing. If it turns up better information, all the better. The trouble with your position comes with defining "the customs, traditions, conventions and preferences of the UK people". This is either asking us to go back to the 1950s or further, in which case we are ignoring modern usage. Alternately, it throws us to the mercy of editors who have sharply differing - and undocumentable - ideas of what is modern British usage. (Even the style guides of the major newspapers don't agree with each other.)

No system is going to give total consistency because British usage is inconsistent. I think the best you can do is to follow the sources and try to be consistent. Yes, sometimes this is impossible, because reliable sources differ, and so a choice has to be made, but many times a look at the sources can resolve the issue of which unit to put first. Michael Glass (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the argument for using the source's choice of units is best discussed at WT:MOSNUM. WP:UNITS currently makes clear recommendations about main unit use in UK articles irrespective of the sources' choices, and it is the application of these guidelines that we are discussing. Arguments concerning "customs", "traditions" and "preferences" of the UK are also more relevant to WT:MOSNUM. Mixsynth (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion about source usage belongs elsewhere, but the customs, traditions and preferences are all part of the UK context of this article that makes imperial the clear choice for main units - as per MOSNUM. -- de Facto (talk). 10:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This RfC closes on the 13th of February; I would kindly ask all editors to agree to acknowledge the overall consensus at that time and allow any corresponding changes to stand without reversion. Mixsynth (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, the needs of people who relate better to cubic yards than cubic metres and so on are provided for by the conversions. Where is one scrap of evidence that anyone in Great Britain would be disadvantaged if the original figures were put first? If the figure was about road distances you might have an argument, but as it's about other measurements I can't see why you're going on about it. Several other editors have disagreed with you and in this particular thread you are in a minority of one. You talk about the common language of the people, but your take on what is common language has not convinced the other editors. Remember, this is Wikipedia, not the British Weights and Measures Association. Michael Glass (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is still only a start-class article. If it is to improve, what content will be added? If additional information is going to be technical, then are we going to have this argument again? Martinvl (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We will go with the consensus that is found when this RfC ends and any further reverts will be treated as disruptive.--Charles (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think the article should be metric with imperial conversions. That being said, I can't believe so many words have been devoted to something that the vast majority of readers will simply convert in their heads. I just don't see what the big deal is.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine, why do you think that we should not follow the WP:MOSNUM guidelines which specifically exclude UK articles, such as this one, where the context dictates imperial main units? -- de Facto (talk). 20:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not read WP:MOSNUM before posting my comment. I am offering what would make sense to someone from outside the UK. Let that be of what ever value in this conversation it may. Cheers!!Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification Elmmapleoakpine. -- de Facto (talk). 22:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, please do not misrepresent the guidelines. As has been pointed out to you time and time again, WP:MOSNUM does not "specifically exclude UK articles" from a metric default in any context; it specifically mentions half a dozen particular types of measurement where imperial main units are appropriate and advises metric main units for all others.

Elmmapleoakpine is correct in that too many words have been devoted to this. The only reason that it has rumbled on so long is that fairly uncontroversial edits to apply WP:UNITS to this article were repeatedly reverted by one editor who appears to disagree with the guidelines. I trust that on conclusion of this RfC that overall consensus will prevail and a re-instatement of the original edit will finally be allowed to stand without further reversion so that we can all get on with other things. Mixsynth (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this has gone on far too long. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mixsynth,

1. Please do not try to suggest that because my understanding of the guidelines is different to yours that I am misrepresenting them. Had it occurred to you that you may be misreading them? The WP:UNITS section of the guidelines clearly uses the word "including" and not the word "exclusively" which your interpretation implies. Your insistence that only those contexts prefixed as "including" use imperial is misleading. And to say that the guideline "advises metric main units for all others" is so blatantly false - the reality is there in black and white - and it does NOT say that. That same section clearly states that "...imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts," and one such context is clearly the description of a road scheme outside of official or establishment-sanitised documents. We know that UK common usage is traditionally and customarily imperial, and without evidence that the UK people now actually use metric units when describing lengths, heights, widths and capacities of road-sized features, then this is a classic example of where imperial units should be the primary units.
2. You are confusing the reluctant acceptance of metric units by those who are legally obliged to use them with common everyday usage. Of course the metricated civil engineering industry will use metric units in their company publications when their office standards and procedures inevitably mandate it, even if the measurements are clearly conversions from imperial. However, other than those who trade by weight, size or capacity or those who work in some public administration departments, or whose company standards dictate that they do, no-one is obliged to use metric units, so the majority (we've been shown no evidence to the contrary) don't. So unless you can show that the majority of the public at large, in their everyday language and dealings, now use metric units, then we can only assume that they don't. Why would we assume that such a change in habits would pass by undocumented?
3. Don't try and suggest that the edits that I reverted complied with WP:UNITS, when quite clearly according to my interpretation they didn't.
4. Please don't suggest that just because the same mistake has been made by the majority of those participating in this discussion that somehow that proves them to be correct. That is a fallacious argument, and as such should be disregarded.
5. Re-read the guidelines literally, without inserting assertions which are not present and with an open mind - cast aside any prejudices or preconceptions about idealised units of measurement, and see if you still believe what you wrote rather than what I wrote. Be honest with yourself.

-- de Facto (talk). 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, with every respect to your strongly-held beliefs, please don't assume that when people disagree with you, they are acting out of ignorance or in bad faith. Please read carefully what I have written above. I strongly believe that your interpretation sets one part of the MOS against the other. Michael Glass (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael , my above comments were specifically addressed to Mixsynth, who had implied that I "misrepresent the guidelines". I will robustly defend myself against such outrageous allegations. Would you characterise him remarks as being in good faith? -- de Facto (talk). 08:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that DeFacto has misrepresented the guidelines. This whole exercise in POV-pushing is getting very tedious, verging on disruptive editing.--Charles (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to attempt to justify that serious allegation with, at least, how you allege I represented it. Otherwise it's yet another unfounded allegation. -- de Facto (talk). 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with CharlesDrew - I have found DeFacto very exhausting to work with in the past and he is repeating himself yet again wasting a lot of time. When will he grow up? Martinvl (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, who is CharlesDrew, and what did he say that you agreed with? You have been on the losing side of an argument where I was on the winning side before; is that why you find me "very exhausting to work with"? -- de Facto (talk). 16:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My appologies to Charlesdrakew, but I stand by what I said about DeFacto. Martinvl (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

De Facto, with the greatest of respect, you did misrepresent the guidelines, and you continue to repeat the same misrepresentation in your further responses below. You said that the guidelines "specifically exclude UK articles, such as this one, where the context dictates imperial main units". They certainly do not exclude whole articles from metric use depending on the article's context. The context of the article has nothing to do with the choice of main units for individual measurements, other than determining whether or not the article is UK-related and non-scientific. What the guidelines do exclude is certain contexts of measurement, such as road distances and speeds, personal heights and weights, etc.

Much of what you say in your numbered list above reads like a political manifesto promoting the imperial system and, as I have suggested on numerous occasions, would be more appropriately aired at WT:MOSNUM. We are not talking about rewriting the guidelines here or debating the rights and wrongs of metrication. We are forming consensus as to the interpretation of Wikipedia style guidelines as they stand in relation to this article. Making as much noise as possible and continuously restating ones view long after it should have become clear that it is not accepted by others is considered to be a form of disruptive editing. Mixsynth (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool, dispassionate and logical analysis of what the guidelines say

The question at the top of this RfC discussion is: "According to WP:UNITS guidelines, should this article use mostly metric main units (except for for miles/mph) or entirely imperial main units?"

Let's work through the WP:UNITS clauses one by one, as in a flowchart.

Q1) Is the article science related? Yes->main unit is generally metric, No->go to Q2.

Q2) Is the article US related? Yes->main unit is generally US customary units, No->go to Q3.

Q3) Is the article UK related? Yes->go to Q4, No->main unit is generally metric.

Q4) Is the context of the article one in which imperial units are still used as the main units? Yes->main unit is generally imperial units, No->main unit is generally metric.

I arrive at Q4, as I assume everyone else does. So the issue is whether the context of the Hindhead Tunnel is one in which imperial units are still used as the main units.

Did I do that correctly, or is there a misrepresentation of the guidelines in that "flowchart" somewhere? -- de Facto (talk). 17:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "main unit" is done on a unit by unit basis, not an artcile by article basis, so where road distances are quoted, the main unit is miles (unless there is good reason to the contrary), while the main unit for tunnel diameters is metres (again unless there is good reason to the contrary). Martinvl (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, yes, we assume we pass through the above "flowchart" for each unit. Assuming that, is the logic correct? If it is, we ask the same question, Q4, for each unit. Yes? -- de Facto (talk). 12:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and for the unteenth time, where road distances are quoted, the main unit is miles (unless there is good reason to the contrary), while the main unit for tunnel diameters is metres (again unless there is good reason to the contrary). Do you have trouble understanding that? Martinvl (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, first we need agreement on the representation of what WP:UNITS requires, and it seems we now have that. For each measurement mentioned in the article we need to establish: is the context of the article one in which an imperial unit is still used as the main unit for that measurement? -- de Facto (talk). 13:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As Martinvl has already pointed out, Q4 is incorrect. The question should be: "Is the context of the measurement one in which imperial units are still used as the main units, such as [list of exceptions]". The context of the article does not come into it. Mixsynth (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mixsynth, as for your comment on Q4; you are attempting to dance on the head of a pin - the context of the measurement is within the context of the article - if the article isn't in the context of the UK, then we don't need to even consider the context of the measurement. Examples of where the main unit is beyond doubt are just that, examples, and a red herring in this argument. We need to examine each and every measurement in the overall context of the article. Otherwise we could provide a definitive list of which measurements should be in imperial and which in metric - and we don't. -- de Facto (talk). 08:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct: the main reason to consider the context of the article is in deciding whether or not it is UK-related and non-scientific. Other than that, the guidelines do not advise that you should take the subject matter of the article into account when deciding on the unit order for each measurement in a UK-related, non-scientific article.

When you say "we need to examine each and every measurement": no, 'we' do not. Everyone else in this discussion so far has no problem with metric units with miles and mph exceptions. The objection to this and the apparent need to continue arguing against consensus are yours alone. Mixsynth (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNITS for non-science UK articles states: "... imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts," (my emphasis). Now, given that the historic UK units are imperial, unless you can find evidence that those units have been superseded in the contexts found in this articles, then surely those contexts are ones for which imperial units are still used as the main unit. Or are you expecting us to accept the unsupported assertion that imperial units aren't still used in these contexts - if so why should we?

As we know, Wiki doesn't do unsupported personal POV, whether it's the personal POV of 1, 2 or 10 editors. That the unsupported and therefore unverifiable personal POV of a handful of editors here is that for these contexts imperial units are no longer still the main units for those measurements is not an acceptable reason to bulldose those changes into the article. If imperial units are not still the main units in those contexts then, presumably, there will be evidence to support that somewhere - we need to see that evidence to inform this debate, before we can accept that assertion. Why hasn't that evidence been brought forward do you think? -- de Facto (talk). 21:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your only argument that imperial is still the UK's primary system is that it was the UK's primary system at some time in the past. It is impossible to demonstrate to you that metric units have since superseded imperial for next to everything because you apparently will not consider any 'official' sources for your own political reasons (i.e. "they were 'forced' to use metric"). The only sources you will seem to accept are the press, and then only those publications and stories where imperial units are used.

As for the consensus here, it appears impossible to reason with anyone who has decided that consensus doesn't matter because "everybody else's opinion is wrong".

A clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Mixsynth (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mixsynth, please do no insult me by alleging that I have a political agenda here. The only agenda I have here is to ensure that Wiki content is accuarate and reflects the reality. If anyone here has a political agenda, it is those attempting to assert, without any evidence, that imperial has been superseded in the UK in common usage, and who are attempting to bulldose metric into this article by misrepresenting WP:UNITS. You need to support your position with evidence and logic, not with personal attacks against those with a different agenda to your own. Why do you expect anyone to accept your assertion withouta evidence? And what are the "official" sources you allege that I will not accept? Consensus cannot be used to force through, what is effectively, a denial of fact. -- de Facto (talk). 18:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool, dispassionate and logical analysis of what the main unit for each measurement should be

Despite Mixsynth's allegation above that I misrepresented the guidelines, no-one has come forward with a challenge to my representation of the WP:UNITS guideline in the section above.

So now it would appear that we need to ask the following question for each measurement in the article: is the context of the article one in which an imperial unit is still used as the main unit for that measurement?

Going by the usage of the 'convert' template, we have the following measurements to consider:

• Speed limit
• Design speed
• Road length
• Tunnel diameter
• Tunnel lining thickness
• Road carriageway width
• Traffic gauge height
• Road verge width
• Cross passage interval length
• Volume of earth excavated
• Volume of diesel fuel used per day
• Volume of concrete used
• Length of cable in the tunnel
• Fire tank capacity

Before we can answer the question for each of those measurements, we need to agree on the context of the article. To help with that, here is the Oxford Dictionaries definition of "context": "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood"

Let's discuss that first, shall we, and try and agree the context of this article. Then we can attempt to answer the question for each of the measurements.

My proposal for the context is:

• The presentation of the details of a UK road tunnel scheme in a general, non-specialist publication. The audience is self-selecting, so we cannot assume anything other than the "average" population will be looking at it.

-- de Facto (talk). 14:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOS has already defined the audience. Now just be a good boy, follow WP:MON WP:MOS and its subsections and stop arguing. Martinvl (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please try to cooperate. You agreed with my representation of the guidelines; offer an alternative proposal to mine for what you think the context is. Then we can attempt to decide on the appropriate units for each measurement. And what's with the the Mongolian name thing (WP:MON)? -- de Facto (talk). 15:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, thanks for correcting your error above. I've read through most of WP:MOS before. Which particular part do you believe conflicts with my proposal of article context above? Do you disagree with my proposal of context? How do you propose we choose the units if we don't yet agree on the context - it is a pre-requisite to answer the question? -- de Facto (talk). 16:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto, it might be even more helpful if you would cut to the chase, put your cards on the table and repeat the above list of measurements showing in each case the units of measurement you consider appropriate. Then we can see what, if anything, remains to be disputed and in those cases you can show how you arrive at your conclusion. Otherwise we may go through a protracted process in which you may be seen - given all the heated argument to date - to be attempting to lead us through a carefully designed process to a destination of your own choosing, and in which every step is treated with extreme suspicion by the disputants. NebY (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Using my unchallenged context then, I propose the following main units for each measure (secondary units should be the metric customary units for the measure):

Measurement	Main unit	Reasoning/Comment
Speed limit	mph	UK customary unit for this measurement**
Design speed	km/h	It's a 'nominal' figure from the specification
Road length	miles	UK customary unit for this measurement**
Tunnel diameter Road carriageway width Traffic gauge height Road verge width	feet	UK customary unit for this measurement**
Tunnel lining thickness	inches	UK customary unit for this measurement**
Cross passage interval length Length of cable in the tunnel	yards	UK customary unit for this measurement**
Volume of earth excavated Volume of concrete used	cubic yards??	I'm not sure what the UK customary unit for this measurement is (it might be as mass in tons), or whether it has been superseded by a metric unit
Volume of diesel fuel used per day Fire tank capacity	gallons	UK customary unit for this measurement**

^** There has been no reliable evidence produced that, in UK common usage, this unit has been superseded by a metric unit. Assertions about usage of metric units have been made, but these have been based on personal experience or regulatory requirements for certain trading or public administration activities or what happens inside metricated industries, and not on what actually happens in real-life UK everyday usage.

-- de Facto (talk). 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your choices don't come as a surprise given everything you've said to date, but I suppose mine won't either:

Measurement	Main unit
Speed limit	mph
Design speed	km/h
Road length	miles
Tunnel diameter Road carriageway width Traffic gauge height Road verge width	metres
Tunnel lining thickness	mm
Cross passage interval length Length of cable in the tunnel	metres
Volume of earth excavated Volume of concrete used	cubic metres
Volume of diesel fuel used per day Fire tank capacity	litres

Let's clarify one thing before moving on. You said earlier: "[WP:UNITS] clearly states that '...imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts,' and one such context is clearly the description of a road scheme". Do you now recognise that "some contexts" refers to the context of the measurement (i.e. what is being measured) and not the context of the article? Mixsynth (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't you put your reasoning alongside each choice of main unit in your table? As it stands it is nothing more than "personal POV", and we all know that personal POV doesn't carry any weight.

We are discussing this article, and the context of the measurements in this article is in the context of a UK road scheme. -- de Facto (talk). 08:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My table is based on a metric default with exceptions for miles/mph, as per WP:UNITS. There is no need to state a reason for each choice as we are interpreting the guideline, which is more than clear that they should be metric units except for miles/mph. Although the wording of the guidelines does allow editors to agree exceptions to this, there is still no consensus that the measurements in this article are such an exception.

Your own 'reasoning' is not an interpretation of the guidelines but simply a reflection of your well-aired POV, i.e. that imperial units are still the "customary" units in the UK; as per the Metrication in the United Kingdom article and as should be clear from discussions at WT:MOSNUM involving yourself, this has not been established to be the case and should have no bearing on applying the guidelines to this article.

On your continuing claims of this article's subject matter calling for imperial main units, please point out the relevant section of WP:UNITS that states:

1. that the choice of individual main units in an article is dependent on the subject matter of the whole article (apart from whether or not it is UK-specific and non-scientific) and
2. that a UK road scheme is a subject that calls for entirely imperial main units.

Mixsynth (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting WP:UNITS, it does NOT say that non-science UK articles should default to metric units. Have you actually read it? It says for such articles that "imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts,..." (my emphasis). So the contents of your table is based on a misreading or misrepresentaion. You need to justify each unit choice by providing evidence that imperial is not still in common usage in those contexts. "Consensus" does not remove the need for evidence when, as in this case, it's a matter of fact and not of a balance of opinion. The incontrovertible fact is that the UK traditionally uses imperial units and any assertion that for some context that is no longer the case needs evidence to support it.

My reasoning is nothing to do with my POV about unit choice, which I've never discussed on Wiki so you can't know it. I have described my reasoning over and over - do you want me to reiterate it yet again?

The onus isn't on me to prove that the UK's long-standing customary use of imperial hasn't been superseded by metric, the onus is on those who asert that it has.

-- de Facto (talk). 21:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that you have not answered either of my closing questions. Yes, the onus is on you to prove that this is a context where imperial is more appropriate, because the WP:UNITS rule in the absence of consensus to the contrary is that "the main unit is generally a metric unit". Your points on proving metric use in the UK are largely covered by my response above from 18:31, 11 February 2012. Mixsynth (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Please re-state any outstanding questions, and if they are about previous remarks you allege I have made, please reference those remarks.

2. WP:UNITS says no such thing.

3. You have never provided evidence that the use of imperial for these contexts has been superseded.

-- de Facto (talk). 19:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNITS says:

"In non-science UK-related articles: the main unit is generally a metric unit (44 kilogram (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including:

• miles for geographical distances, miles per hour for speeds, and miles per imperial gallon for fuel consumption;
• feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements;
• imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk."

so "generally a metric unit" is the starting point. If contexts other than those listed are to use imperial, a justification needs to be given. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think that a justification is required to use the traditional unit, yet not for the assertion that the traditional unit has been superseded? And what sort of justification? -- de Facto (talk). 20:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A justification is required if you wish to deviate from the convention in WP:MOSNUM. We are well aware that you disagree with the MOS and that you'd like to change it, but unless and until a consensus is reached to change WP:MOSNUM, that is the MOS which we are using. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the guideline couldn't be worded more clearly, to avoid this sort of protracted discussion, but I don't want to deviate from it - I want it rigorously applied. It states that imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts - all I want is evidence that the measurements in question in this article are no-longer (as there is no doubt that imperial units are the traditional units in the UK) mainly described in imperial units in UK common usage.

Otherwise we are left with the untenable position that for each unit used (other than those that that are in the examples list of imperial usage, presumably) we have to prove the negative. Are we really (given Wiki's stand on verifiability elsewhere) expected to assume, without any evidence whatsoever, and accept without question, that imperial has been superseded in common UK usage by metric, unless we can prove that it hasn't been! That's like expecting UK articles to be written using all French words, because there are some French words used in English, unless proof can be supplied that a non-French alternative is more commonly used. -- de Facto (talk). 09:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Units used in other UK tunnel articles

RfCbot asked me to come back again. After skimming over the past month's discussion, I don't see mention of how other articles on UK tunnels (and bridges too perhaps) have handled this question. I'd appreciate it if someone who regularly works in this area could inform me. Thanks. Jojalozzo 14:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For all the other articles included in "Category:Road tunnels in England":

Article	Comment
Bell Common	The only measurement included is tunnel length in metres with no imperial equivalent
Blackwall Tunnel	Mostly imperial main with metric secondary, although there are a few the other way around
Dartford Crossing	Metric main with imperial secondary other than for road lengths
Heathrow Airside Road Tunnel	Metric only, including road lengths
Heathrow Cargo Tunnel	An apparently random mix, including in the infobox
Kingsway Tunnel	Imperial main, metric secondary
Medway Tunnel	No measurements
Queensway Tunnel	All metric main with imperial secondary, including road lengths
Rotherhithe Tunnel	All imperial main with metric secondary
Saltash Tunnel	Two measurements: a speed limit in imperial with no metric and a length in metric with no imperial
Southwick Hill Tunnel	One metric-only measurement
Tyne Tunnel	Mostly imperial main with metric secondary, although there is one in the lead and one further down the other way around
Weston Hills Tunnel	The only measurement included is tunnel length in metres with no imperial equivalent

I made every effort to represent the contents fairly and accurately, but I don't guarantee anything! -- de Facto (talk). 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha! (edit conflict)

Primary units used for length and width in articles in Category:Road tunnels in England

Structure	length	width
Bell Common	m	-
Blackwall Tunnel	ft	-
Dartford Crossing	m	-
Heathrow Airside Road Tunnel	m	m
Heathrow Cargo Tunnel	m	ft
Hindhead Tunnel	mi	ft
Kingsway Tunnel	mi	ft
Medway Tunnel	-	-
Queensway Tunnel	km	m
Rotherhithe Tunnel	ft	ft
Saltash Tunnel	m	-
Southwick Hill Tunnel	m	-
Tyne Tunnel	ft	ft
Weston Hills Tunnel	m	-

Summary: 8 metric lengths, 4 Imperial lengths, 2 metric widths, 4 Imperial widths

This isn't all that informative, except to point out a lack of consistency. Perhaps why no one familiar with the topic put this together. Jojalozzo 23:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing that occurs to me is that, generally, those that use Imperial units are older and the ones that use metric are newer. The units for these various tunnels are likely determined by the age of the structure which determines the units used in sources. That would suggest a) that the units of other articles must be considered in historical context and b) that articles on new tunnels like Hindhead use metric. Jojalozzo 05:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It does indeed make sense that older structures built using imperial are shown as such to avoid imprecise metric conversions as the primary unit. For modern civil engineering it makes more sense to use the SI units in which they are designed and built. This likely to better follow the sources. Civil engineering is a science and like other science articles should mostly use SI units.--Charles (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Charlesdrakew, do you suppose that common usage in the UK varies by age of tunnel? How precise does the dimension of the thickness of the concrete lining need to be for a general readership? What are the tolerances when it is made anyway? Even so, you can make the conversions as precise as you like (eg. 8 inches (200 mm), 7.9 inches (200 mm) or 7.87402 inches (200 mm) - 8 inches (205 mm), 8 inches (203.2 mm) or 8 inches (203.20000 mm)). The units used by the sources don't necessarily match the units in common usage in the UK - a US source might use US customary units whilst an Australian source might use metric units. However, the UK common usage would invariably be imperial units. Civil engineering is an engineering discipline, and in the industry's journals metric may well be used, but that is a red herring in this argument because this is not an engineering joural, it is Wikipedia. -- de Facto (talk). 20:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion of RfC

This RfC has now ended, with a total of 6 additional editors, whom I would like to thank for their participation, having added their comments.

I believe that the general consensus at this moment in time is that, according to WP:UNITS, this article should use mostly metric main units except for for miles/mph (nominal km/h measurement in infobox excepted).

As per WP:BRD, I have edited the article accordingly. I would request the help of other editors party to this discussion who agree with the edit to help ensure that it is not unilaterally reverted for the same stated reasons that have already been discussed and rejected here. Mixsynth (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a consensus that "this article should use mostly metric main units except for for miles/mph (nominal km/h measurement in infobox excepted)", but I do not agree that the consensus is that this is "according to WP:UNITS". I believe that the consensus is based on personal opinion, and despite what it says in WP:UNITS. It is clear from both the answered and unanswered questions in the discussion above that the wording of WP:UNITS was either disregarded, misunderstood or misrepresented by some respondents. I therefore think that the article should be restored to its previous, long-standing and consistent condition, until at least we have a clear, informed, and compelling consensus to change it. -- de Facto (talk). 13:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the consensus is already clear, informed and compelling. Jojalozzo 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And as I understand your original comment and answer to my subsequent question to you, you thought that the main units should be metric because they are the "official" units (not even because you thought they were the common-use units there) in the location concerned, and not based on the WP:UNITS guidelines. Based on your rationale there, I assume that you would like to see body weight in UK articles expressed in grams and kilogrammes as they are the "officail" units for that in the UK. Why would you imagine that the "official" status of a unit has any bearing on the advice to consider context given in WP:UNITS? You have not convinced me that the consensus was rationally based. -- de Facto (talk). 07:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

For this article the location is the context. In that context the guideline advises use of the official units which are SI for everything except road distance and speeds. Most if not all the other modern tunnel articles use SI. I stand by my interpretation. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees. That you remain unconvinced does not justify non-consensus wording. Jojalozzo 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that there wasn't a consensus to use metric, I've already acknowledged that. I'm arguing that the advice in the guidelines wasn't heeded (possibly because it wasn't understood) by some of those who contributed to the discussion. You use the word "except" above - that is a mistaken interpretation of what the guidelines say - they say that "imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including:..." (my emphasis) and "including" does not mean "exclusively".

Also, I don't believe that the fact that a unit is the "official" unit for trading by length or that it has to be used when writing new regulations concerning length, automatically implies that that unit, and not another unit which is probably in more widespread and common use in that length context, is the correct unit to use in Wikipedia for all contexts where length is used. Wikipedia should follow common use, not attempt to pre-empt, prejudge or influence common usage, and should certainly not side with the establishment or official view of what units should be used where there is no evidence that those units are the main unit of choice for the majority of the inhabitants of the region concerned. -- de Facto (talk). 22:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)