Talk:Metrication in Australia

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Metrication in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Clean up

This article needs some serious cleanup. For example, the paragraph about bolts is not specific to Australia, and should not be included. Captain Jackson 16:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've tidied it up considerably but suggest that it still needs specific sections on temperature and currency. Cleanup tag is removed, but feel free to replace. -- I@n ≡ talk 13:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

£ & $

Can someone explain what does currency have to do with metric system? Metric system ISOs (ISO-31, ISO-1000 and ISO-80000) are not recommendations of currency system, don't even mention that possibility. In fact, attempts to apply metric system rules to currency (k$?) would break the rules of metric system usage.

Nothing. J ɪ m p 00:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, decimalising the currency, if not already done, is done before weights and measures. This is to get people to get used to the new numbers and ideas. Money is indeed part of a nation's measurement system, even if it is not part of metrics. In any case, metrics is much more than SI ir ISO. Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, part of the national measurement system it may be but it's not part of the metric system. Interesting point though, that decimalising of the currency gets people used to the decimal nature of the metric system. Of course, this point would need to be referenced before adding (back) to the article. JIMp_talk·cont 02:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion song

In come the dollars, in come the cents, to replace the pounds and the shillings and the pence...

I always thought that it was two replace the pounds and shillings and the pence --TrogWoolley 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stone weight measurement

I am from Australia and was surprised to see in the "metric system" article that australia was listed as being converted to metric only in the 1980s. But seeing this article explains why. I was born in 1987 so I may not be the one to say exactly when it converted, but it should be noted somewhere in this article that although some imperial things remain...it is very much metric. It's true that people often talk about feet and inches for height, but for anythign else I have no idea how long 15 feet is for example without trying to mathematically convert it to meters in my head. The same is true for the average aged australians I think. And some hardware products being in imperial units is interesting, but i guess just the american influence really. Noone at all thinks in imperial units except for height.

Most importantly, the "stone" weight measurement is certainly not used in australia. I have heard of it, and my parents recall the measurement being used when they were younger but they don't have any sense of how heavy someoen who weighs a given amount of stones is today. And i have never seen it written anywhere or spoken anywhere other than from my parents in australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino015 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us remember using 'real' money, which was abandoned in 1966. That was last century though.

One gives weight in stones and pounds just as two numbers, eg 8-0 or 7-7. A stone is 14 lbs. or 6.35 kgs. The equity of 11 st. = 70 kgs, is about what you can put in a wheelie bin. One might find childrens football teams as being like 'under 8's', meaning under 8 stones (50.8 kgs.). USA does not use stones, just decimal pounds. UK does though. It's a 1/8 of a cwt, so if the ton is listed at 2240 lbs, then you can be pretty sure that stones were in use.

Hardware shops do sell things in imperial and metric, since on of the features of australian metric is that soft-conversions were to be kept to a minimum. Something like a 5-8 nut will not fit an 16 mm thread etc, even though 5/8 is pretty much 16 mms (160/256 vs 160/254). Still, you could use a 5/8 SAE on a 16 mm bolt, but not the other way around. You can buy metric threads, these are pretty much as common as regular ones.

Timber panels are sold in sizes that run in multiples of 300 mms., which is the metric 'foot'. So you can get 2100 mms but not 2000 mms.

In any case, one uses cups and spoons, and pints and quarts, and dispense with this mill nonsense. Wendy.krieger (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can always tell a metric hater in the crowd. They have nothing better to do with their time then to research obscure and nonsensical examples of imperial hangovers. Mostly in examples that people rarely encounter. Metric education was wasted on Wendy. She obviously failed the part about unit symbols never being pluralized. People like Wendy try to avoid the overwhelming metric around them by isolating themselves from the general population. I'm sure she has no choice as others would laugh at her for being so old school in a modern country. 68.105.199.216 (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the person insulting 'Wendy' - a person he probably does not even know - do you realize how you are coming across? 205.177.176.242 (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale provided Alex Sims (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Usage

here are some examples of current usage of imperial units in Australia:

Older Australians usually still refer to height in feet and inches
Televisions, computer screens, etc. are usually given two measurements (one in inches, one in centimetres) and are based on imperial measurements (eg. 17", 19", etc. computer screens) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.149.134 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section, now entitled "Variations in usage" appears to me to break a number of Wikipedia rules:

It gives undue weight to the exceptions to metrication (violoation of WP:UNDUE)
It does not quote any authorities, buyt is a colelction of random facts. It appears to me to be a synthesis using original research. (violation of WP:SYNTH and of WP:OR).

I noticed User:Michael Glass's attempts to rectify some of the WP:UNDUE problems, but may I put the proposition that this section breaches so many of the Wikipeidia principals, that the whole section should be deleted rather than patched piecemeal as doing the latter will not remove the WP:OR element. It can be rewritten at a later stage quoting relevsant authorities rather that newspaper snippets. Martinvl (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Perhaps re-write it to say that "although metrification is considered a complete success there are many instances where imperial measurers are still used. This ranges from traditional usage through to the influence of other countries where customary or imperial units are still used." Any ideas? Ozdaren (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has 27 references. Of these, 22 are devoted to the section "Variations in use". Are deviations from metric useage really that common? Finally, Wikipedia editors should use secondary sources from reputable soruces - most of the 22 references are primary sources. Martinvl (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section really does pose a challenge for editors. It is true to say that Australia is now a metric country. However, the old units are sometimes used and though this can be documented, any list of exceptions does tend to give undue weight to the exceptions rather than the rule. For example, if you went into a fruit market, things would be priced and weighed by the kilo. Buying groceries is the same, where the groceries would be labelled with the weight in metric terms. However, if you went through the store you might find a few imported items that had duel markings and you might even find one or two articles where the weight in ounces or the volume in US fluid ounces came first. By now, most furniture would be described in metric terms, but electronic screens are very often listed with the diagonal measure of the screen in inches. Even more puzzling, most personal weights are in kilos, even with weights of babies. However, people still may give the birth weight in pounds and ounces! In other cases, heights of balloons and aircraft are given in feet. In yet other cases, we might use A4 paper but the quality of the printing would be calibrated with dots per inch. Or, the news reports would be in metric terms but documentaries from the UK or the USA could well refer to miles, acres and other old measures.

I have done my best to remedy the problem of undue weight, but simply to give the impression that Australia was now totally metric would not be accurate, either. Michael Glass (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the above suggestion (that the list of exceptions is a violation of WP:UNDUE) made me think "this [[WP:UNDUE]] is a bad policy, it violates sound principles of pedagogy, I must go to that page and argue for its abolition." However, having read it in detail, [[WP:UNDUE]] is OK. It is just being misunderstood; it does not apply at all to this article. [[WP:UNDUE]] is about balancing the NPOV policy against the fact that there an infinite variety of POVs, most of which are held by very few people. Consequently it requires that Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view.

Well, that is fair enough, but totally irrelvant to this article. We are not airing the polemical views of anti-metrication radicals; the list of exceptions is simply a discussion of actual practice. It has nothing to do with views. For example, I am an Australian who strongly supports metrication; yet, like great majority of people in this country, I know my height in feet and inches as well as in centimetres. (Unlike my parents, I do not know my weight in stones; and while it is indeed universal to quote the weight of a neonate in pounds and ounces, I always convert it to kilos -- and then still have no idea of the significance!) So why should Australians continue to quote heights in both metric and Imperial units whilst overwhelmingly adopting metric units? I have a hypothesis, but that would be WP:OR. Regardless of the reason, it is an interesting fact, germane to the article, and probably quite useful to the people who actually find this article important. If you were, say, a Liberian government official planning to adopt metrication, this section would actually by the most important!

So, leave the article as it is. The organisation already follows sound pedagogical principles: cover the most general cases first, and procede to exceptions as the student advances (in as much detail as required.) So, we already have many pages on metrication; we have several articles on countries which metricated relatively recently; and we have one section on exceptions in Australia. It is fine; leave it as it was.

Of course, all the specific claims need to be supported by cites. (Although we should go easy on them; as nearly all exceptions will be folk practices, they are unlikely to be documented in any sort of official document unless someone has done a thesis on the subject.) -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the section "Extent" because it seems to me that this better describes the topic, i.e. the extent to which metrication has been achieved in Australia as opposed to the variations in the use of ... of what exactly? As for whether it's a violation of WP:UNDUE, I would say that it's not. The section is not biased; that metrication is nearly but not fully complete is a matter of fact not opinion. A list of exceptions to metrication (including examples of replacing of imperial standards to rounded metric approximations) belongs here. These are facts not opinions and they are very relevant. JIMp_talk·cont 08:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dot point removal

One dot point about steel pipes had a reference that did not support the point being made. Therefore I removed the dot point, especially as this reference <http://www.steelpipes.com.au/products.html> suggested that usage is totally metric. Michael Glass (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remark about UK metrication

"Australia's largely successful transition to the metric system contrasts with the ongoing opposition to metrication in the United States, the United Kingdom, and to a lesser extent Canada."

Admittedly, metrication is almost fully complete in Australia while in the UK road distances, beer, and milk are still presented in imperial units; along with the height and weight of persons especially when dealing with the over 40s.

But pretty much everything else in the UK is metric. The UK's "metric martyr" opposition is more to the attempt to prevent the use of imperial units rather than opposition to the adoption of metric units.

Metrication in the UK isn't opposed in anything like the same way as in the USA, where so-called "English" "customary units" still dominate. Speaking as a UK mid-40s ex maths/science teacher, I know the younger generation in the UK mostly cannot think in units other than metric (except for miles and pints).

Science and engineering are done exclusively in metric in the UK (except where old - pre 1970s - instrumentation is still in use; particularly pressure gauges), and almost all weights and measures are presented in metric. The UK uses metric paper sizes, metric fuel dispensing, metric weights and measures for almost all business and official purposes - the most notable exception is where miles (and subdivisions) are still used for distances. Even that's severely anomalous: the re-triangulation of the UK's mapping which started in the 1930s was done in metric.

So: perhaps the comment I'm singling out could be changed? I suspect the UK's reluctance to go fully metric is closer to the Canadian situation than the US situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.175.237 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only problem with the statement about ongoing opposition to metrication is that it isn't referenced. As to opposition to metrication in Britain, one only has to look at the British Weights and Measures Association [[1]] . For America, the opposition to using metrics is patently obvious. Michael Glass (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are links to the relevant Wikipedia articles in the text. The blue text takes you to articles on metrication in the countries highlighted. Michael Glass (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to rain on anyone's parade but polls consistently show a British support of Imperial measures and as such they are used almost exclusively in conversation and other matters but where there is forced metrication then metric units do get used. I would suggest that British people using metric as a result of force isn't a good gauge of it's popularity. It is also reported that younger Britons are more inclined towards imperial preference than any other age group except the very old. 205.177.176.242 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metrication achieved by rounding imperial values

Says the article

In some cases metrication was achieved by changing rounded Imperial values to rounded metric values, as with horse racing (the old furlong is very close to 200 metres) or the size of beer glasses (rounded to the nearest 5mL).

I'd call "achieved" too strong a word here. We clung to the old measures, messed them up a bit and put new labels on them. The midi and pint were rounded up but the ounce was rounded up more (and renamed a nip) so there now are 19 ounces (nips) to the pint and 9+1⁄2 to the midi. The schooner was rounded down from 15 imperial ounces to 14+1⁄6 nips so four schooners are now a little short of three pints. They ought to have either just rounded the ounce to 30 ml and everything else accordingly (i.e. keep the ratios intact, which was good enough for milk) or scraped the whole thing entirely (as with bottles and cans).

What was achieved is what I like to call "mismetrication", Vegimite comes in 910-gram jars (not 1-kilogram) that's just two pounds in disguise (but they are owned by Americans, ay). JIMp_talk·cont 03:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

conversion on the roads occurred without incident

Just wanted to note that the (typically self-lauditory goverenment publication) is wrong to pretend that "conversion on the roads occurred without incident". Clearance signs for bridges over roads were converted from imperial to metric on schedule, as planned, then retro-fitted with imperial annotations. The imperial annotations were added because, at the time, trucks were running under bridges. This was happening because, at the time, AUS truck drivers did not know the metric height of their vehicles. (Note that height was almost the last place where imperial units remained in wide use).

Fortunately this appears to be the only use of that reference.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Metrication in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090704090143/http://www.docep.wa.gov.au/ConsumerProtection/Content/Trade_Measurement/Schools/Introduction_of_the_metric_sys.html to http://www.docep.wa.gov.au/consumerprotection/Content/Trade_Measurement/Schools/Introduction_of_the_metric_sys.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Metrication in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090930121354/http://www.measurement.gov.au/AMS/Pages/SignificantachievementsandthehistoryofmeasurementinAustralia.aspx to http://www.measurement.gov.au/AMS/Pages/SignificantachievementsandthehistoryofmeasurementinAustralia.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Metrication in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metrication in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aussiepunter.com/thoroughbred/melbourne-cup/history
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822070427/http://www.scrooz.com.au/blog/what-screw-size-and-thread-measurements-do-we-use/ to http://www.scrooz.com.au/blog/what-screw-size-and-thread-measurements-do-we-use/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currency

The first sentence of the lead mentions currency decimalisation. Although related in that they are both decimal systems, the Australian dollar is not part of the metric system. SI does not include monetary units and other decimal-based systems, such as bytes (when used in the context of hard disk size), are also not part of the SI, despite using metric prefixes. I think this statement should be removed. Wcp07 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket commentary

It should be mentioned that cricket TV commentary appears to be largely in imperial ("the ball's missed the bat by a good couple of inches", "the ball's landed about 3 feet away from him", "they're standing some 20 yards from the pitch" etc.). This is something of an anomaly because commentators of Australia's other major sports - AFL, rugby leauge and rugby union - all now use metric units. I assume this is the case because measurements and dimensions in cricket, unlike the other mentioned sports, continue to be specified officially in imperial units. It would be good to add this to the list of exceptions, however I am unsure if a reliable source for this exists. Wcp07 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]