Talk:Metrication in Canada

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Measurement (defunct)

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

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Expand : Add Legislation section describing current laws and regulations and their history

Daily use of imperial

I think this article makes it sound like Imperial is used more on a day to day basis than it really is. I was born in the 70s and only learned metric. I understand imperial for human height and weight, and for cooking but that's about it. I know how far a mile is, but not 100 miles, or how fast 50 miles and hour is. I think the main point of confusion is food - groceries that need to be weighed are often signed in imperial, but rung in in metric, and cooking is a mix of all manner of methods - cups, grams, tablespoons, etc. etc. with cookbooks coming from various locations and some ovens imperial and other metric.

I think this article makes it sound like there's a veneer of metric (like in the UK, where road signs still have distances in imperial), but it's more than that in Canada. We do actually mostly live in metric - with some odd exceptions and eccentricities, and some generation gap issues. I buy milk in litres, run in km, know speed in km/h, know that it's 1c today and like to splurge on 100g of bulk foods. -- unsigned

Yes, we use metric. Yes, we drive in kms per hour, measure road distances in kms and buy gasoline in litres. Yes, we use Celsius for the temperature. We measure snow depth in centimetres (until there is a lot and then maybe in feet). We buy meat in kgs. At least that is what it says on the package but the sign by the meat in the store has the price per pound in much larger size than the price per kilogram (because the older generation cannot see as well?). But we order our steaks in restaurants in ounces. We order our beer in pints or quarts (but not the same as Imperial pint or quart) and the shot glass for measuring liquor in mixed drinks is in ounces. We usually cook with cups, ounces, tablespoons and teaspoons and set the oven temperature in Fahrenheit. Our height is in centimetres on our driver licences but we probably give our height in feet and inches. We probably give our weight in pounds. We measure our houses or apartments, its rooms and the land around it in feet and square feet. We buy lightbulbs for it measured in watts. We buy two-by-fours (roughly 2 inches by 4 inches), plywood in 4 by 8 foot sheets, etc., for construction. (We do buy paint for it by the litre but the paint store calls that 4 litre can a gallon.) The specifications on our cars will be mostly be metric but, for example, the wheel size will be in inches. If you mess around in boats, you give boat lengths, beam and drawing depth in feet and speed in knots. The engines on our outboards are measured by horsepower. The reality is we use both systems. For some things us older folks a little more than our kids. I could go on. But for all of us it is much more than just height, weight and cooking. Hebbgd (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the tone of this article. Growing up in the 70s and 80s in Canada, I was always acutely aware of 355ml can or the 500ml bottle or pop. I don't think this article has a neutral point of view. --Zaurus (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the above (re we're more metric than this presents us as). The article makes it sound like we use imperial much more than we do. I'm 45, my education was entirely in metric. I only use imperial for the height and weight of people, and Fahrenheit for cooking because we have (I guess) an American oven. But re cooking, it depends on the recipe or cookbook whether we use cups and oz, or grams or ml - we do all of these! Even my most elderly relatives use celsius for temperature. I live in metric with a few residual imperial quirks. I don't really understand the imperial system beyond those quirks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.132.8.224 (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial vs. US

The article is somewhat confusing for the uninitiated. On the one hand it says "there is still significant use of non-metric units and standards in some sectors of the Canadian economy, mainly due to the close proximity to the United States". But on the other hand, Canada previously used Imperial units rather than U.S. customary units, as the examples dealing with fluid measures make abundantly clear. In some passages, the term "Imperial units" is more or less mistakenly used to reference the U.S. system. Could somebody clean this up and clarify Canadians' actual understanding of these issues? —Naddy 11:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We refer to the "other" system as "Imperial" with no real distinction made between the original UK version and the modified US version (though we do know the measurements are different we don't ever use the term "US customary units." Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if most Cdns don't know there are two imperial systems.

Metric in Canada

As an engineer who works in Canada I deal with this mess every day. We are taught metric in school, almost like it is a religion, the "pure" and "perfect" system. However, it is rarely used in industry. Right now I am working on a mechanical system design for a large meat processing plant. I can tell you 100% of the design has been done in IMPERIAL, not US or metric. Flow rates are in igpm, air handlers are being built based on flow rates of cubic feet per minute. I have done a fair amount of work in Alberta and they tend to use USgals a lot due to their attachment to the USA and the oil industry.

I would say that the scheme of everyone using metric has not been overly sucessful, seeing as how professionals and tradesmen still overwhelmingly use imperial.

Prior to becoming an engineer I worked in the automotive trade, same thing... the only metric used was on import cars.

Also of note, I am six foot three inches tall, one hundred ninety pounds. There are 32.2 pounds in a slug, 12 inches in a foot, 16 tablespoons in a cup, &c...

One final note of failure: I was born in 1978, and graduated university in 2004.

I would imagine that a scientist or government regulator might argue that Canada is fully metricated, but spend 5 minutes on a construction site, a garage, or grocery store, and you will have your answer. --Mf135gas 03:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is very interesting. It is exactly the opposite in the UK. Engineers and all exports are in pure metric and have been for decades. Where imperial is used, it is in traditional service industries or just in conversation. An example I recently discovered in the UK is that it is illegal to sell bottled or canned beer in imperial measurements, while (Because of the influence of traditionalists) it is illegal to sell draught beer in metric measurements. The media generally quotes most measurements in a mixture of imperial and metric. Weather reports will say wind speed in miles per hour, while temperatures are in celcius. Road signs in the UK are all imperial by law, and there are fanatics here who go around defacing any signs they find with metric measurements on them. Its very interesting that Canadian industry uses imperial, while ordinary people have converted. How old is the machine you use? Could it predate metrication. Seabhcán 09:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much left that predates metrication. I recall my father telling me that his high school texts were converted to metric in the late 1960s. All of my math and physics texts in high school were 100% metric. It wasn't until university that I was academically exposed to the Imperial system. I recall someone asking as to why were going to learn imperial in a first year Dynamics class. The answer was, correctly, because no one in the "real world" uses metric. In university, about 1/2 of our problem sets/exams were metric, so I am entirely fluent. I must say though, that since I entered the working world, the only metric I have seen is while working with a Dutch supplier. I also run across it in the National Building Code.One of our suppliers on a current job is from the south of England. They gratefully supplied me some mechanical loads in Imperial, but I think were a bit shocked to find that we weren't going to use metric. It is a strength to be entirely fluent in both systems, one of the advantages Canada has. However, I think one will always feel more comfortable in one as opposed to the other. Personally, I use the Imperial system because I have a very good grasp of physical end of it, eg: I can indentify a pound of hamburger, but I cannot visualise a kilogram of hamburger. Abstractly though, I prefer dealing in metric because given Joules (energy) I can find a related rate kilowatts (power) easier than I can do with BTUs and horsepower. Ultimately though, I will convert the end result of the calculation into imperial because the electic motor, or whatever it is will be sized in horsepower. Perhaps on a more social end though, I think there are reasons worth discussing why the UK has embraced metrication while Canada has not. Some of it has to be trade related with the United States, however most Canadians will clearly indicate that being more American is not the motivation. --Mf135gas 03:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for UK industry's use of metric is simple - 90% of exports go to purely metric countries (The article Metrication in the UK has details) - but outside of industry imperial is sometimes used. Ireland is a better example because we have metricated virtually everything. Imperial units are now only refered to in vague references - "It's about a mile away" (When it could be anything from 1-3 km). When precision is required, metric is always used. Cookery books are an exception as they are usually in dual measurements - even though food is sold in metric now. I did a physics degree in Limerick university in Ireland and imperial units were never mentioned (Even though we had lecturers from the the US, UK, India and other places) Here in the UK where I'm doing a PhD, I have never encountered imperial in my work (but supermarkets and road signs use it) although a friend in Low Temperature physics had to learn what 'psi' is because the UK manufacturer of a piece of equipment used it for some reason - but it is rare. I think the reasons why the UK still used imperial in daily life is down to anti-europe feeling, which doesn't exist in Ireland. Seabhcán 09:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd offer some extra information here. My father is on staff with the largest accrediting organization of roofing companies in BC, and he tells me that centimetres are being used more and more often in measurements. Since 2×4s are no longer 2 anything by 4 anything (and so forth), a lot of the trades are starting to use centimetres simply because they are smaller units and therefore easier to measure and add than small fractions of inches. Also, there isn't a set of wrenches out there these days that doesn't have both metric and Imperial sockets, and it seems like millimetres are being used in the sheet metal industry. I have a feeling it will become more and more metric as time goes on, though our close trading relationship with the States makes complete metrication difficult. Jon VS (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption by ordinary people

This article does a good job of explaining how metric is used by Canadians but doesn't quite explain why.

It's clear that the federal government of the 1970s used its power over labeling laws and the like to push metric. But education and road signage would be provincial and local responsibilities, not federal. Was there some kind of federal-provincial agreement on a metric timetable? And what about the media? I can understand if the government's weather service decided to switch to metric in 1975, but I would have figured that the media would have kept using the old system its readers and listeners were then used to? Was there an agreement between the government and big media companies? Oddly enough, Environment Canada allows users of its website to get temperatures in both Fahrenheit and Celsius. -- Mwalcoff 06:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution gives the feds sole jurisdiction over "weights and measures", so the feds could regulate the introduction of metric in all aspects of the economy. As for the switch from farenheit to metric, I highly doubt that there was any agreement between the government and media companies. In fact, as a kid I remember television weather reports using both farenheit and celcius during the 1970s. As people become more familiar with celcius, farenheit was eventually dropped over time, but it was a decision of the media outlets themselves. As for Environment Canada (http://weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/canada_e.html), most of the site is in celcius, but one can convert some pages to farenheit. I'm sure there is still some demand, particularly among older Canadians. I heard once that the sole remaining segment of the Canadian population that really wants their weather in farenheit are the snowbirds (retirees who spend the winter in the south U.S.); apparently, spending all that time in the States makes them think in the old system. Skeezix1000 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The feds may regulate weights and measures, but would that apply to a speed-limit sign on a provincial highway? I'm sure it wouldn't apply to schools. Interestingly enough, I just saw a weather report taped in the late 70s from a U.S. television station, and they reported the temperature in Celsius first and Fahrenheit second (although they did not use Celsius in the forecasts for succeeding days). Nowadays, no American media outlet bothers reporting the temperature in Celsius. -- Mwalcoff 01:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yes, the constitution allows the feds to regulate weights and measures, whether it involves a butcher selling pork chops by the gram or a province installing road signs with speed limits in kilometres. Even where the federal government and a province each pass legislation in their respective spheres of jurisdiction, and the two statutes overlap or conflict, the doctrine of paramountcy results in the federal law prevailing over the provincial law. Skeezix1000 15:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Back in 1975, CP (Canadian Press) suppied weather information for most newspapers. CPs official policy at the time was to use the units supplied by Environment Canada, so on April 1, there was no more Fahrenheit in newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.48.150 (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

"To confuse matters, supermarkets will often advertise foods such as meats and produce "per pound", since such prices may appear lower to consumers than prices advertised by kilogram. However, virtually all supermarket scales are metric, and the products advertised by the pound in a supermarket flyer are inevitably weighed and sold to the customer in the store based on a price "per 100 grams" or "per kilogram"."

Why do supermarkets advertise per pound if items are sold by the kilo? Aren't most consumers confused by this?

The same happens here in the UK. It may partly be for the older generation who tend to prefer arrogantly using obsolete systems (typewriters, circular-dial telephones etc.) out of some sort of "principle" (you know the old "But it was like this when I was younger so it must be the best" line). I think the main reason though is the same reason as why virtually everything in supermarkets these days is now priced X.99. Products being 1 decimal shy of a whole number obviously makes shopping slightly more confusing and must create a lot of hassle for the supermarket's employees and would be virtually impossible without electronic tills, so why do they do it?

Simply because their studies show in both cases, some people will think it's cheaper even though in reality it's not and just causes confusion. Canderra 13:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this sentence is hyperbole. I just deleted an earlier sentence that was even worse but will just post a comment for this one. Does anyone have any actual facts to back up the reasoning that supermarkets do this "since such prices may appear lower to consumers than prices advertised by kilogram"? If that is the case then why don't they advertise the price of seafood per gram instead of per ounce? It would seem super cheap!

The reason has more to do with consumer friendliness. I know how much meat costs per pound. I know that $2.00 / pound is a decent price for lean ground beef. If a store started advertising their price per kg, I would have no idea what was good vs. what was not, and probably would not shop there. Thus, in order for metrification for this kind of thing to happen, all stores would have to agree to do it at the same time. Of course this will never happen.

This I believe is the REAL reason behind this situation. If anyone has actual evidence pointing to the sentence in the article I will stand corrected. Jasonkeirstead (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The metrication in germany started more than a century ago but people still use pounds for food measures in everyday speech although it now means exactly half a kilogram. I assume the reason is that a whole kilogram is beyond the amount of food you normally buy at once so it's harder to imagine than a pound and to say "pound" is much faster than to say "half kilogram" or "five hundred grams".--77.187.191.139 (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transport agencies

when did all the transport agencies in Canada metricate?

Actually, most haven't!

Rail: this one is very traditional-50 ft boxcar, 23,000 gallon tank car, 70 ton truck. This occurs because Canadian and Americian Railways are interconnected, and US customary measures are used.
Trucking: Trailers are measured in feet, and loads in pounds. But distances are in kilometres, as are speeds. (highway traffic is done in metric.)
Airlift/airlines: IF Americans built it, the measures are in US customary. If airbus built it, measures are metric. Airports themselves use metric, by law-they are a federal responsability.
Shipping-This one, where Canadian ships exist, uses both: loads, dimensions, etc, are given in BOTH systems. Great lakes vessels use US customary, as that fleet is integrated.
Pipelines-use US customary in operation, and metric to register designs. Again this is to make Feds happy.
Hope this helps!--216.208.38.26 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)trainman2[reply]

Appearance cleaned up. Peter Horn User talk 15:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engineers?

Since there are a multitude of different types of "engineers", perhaps this section should more specifically mention mechanical engineers or one of the other fields of engineering? j-beda 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Height

So there is no section in this article discussing height. That's odd since it is one piece of Canada that is, no matter how hard they try, very imperial. I have never once seen anyone in Canada use centimeters, if they measure height they do it in feet and inches. I can't say that in the article because that would be OR but it'ts damn true. No one else in the world seems to realize this which is why I hate it when someone converts height into metric for my benefit. TostitosAreGross 17:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does say "Canadians typically calculate their personal height and weight in feet/inches and pounds respectively, although these measurements are usually converted to metric on official forms." I don't know that much more than that needs to be said. Skeezix1000 18:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. When getting a driver's license for example they ask for your information, it's given in imperial and they convert it, it's listed on the license in metric. We weigh and measure people in imperial, but pretty much nothing else. Hence, if people list distance in feet, I picture people lying down in a row! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.199.227 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity

The line about using volts and amps just confuses me - is there a different imperial and metric unit for electricity - I was under the impression that both used volts and amps?

Voltage and current (amperes) have no other measurement system other than some technical definitions. The statement "Electricians in every country use metric units such as volts and amperes, but motors..." should be removed as it is moot (to this article) and causes confusion.

99.251.114.120 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public opposition

I had taken the liberty of trying to improve this article, and most of my verified additions were removed -- such as the continued opposition to full and final metrification in Canada. I am going to revise this article again because it is factually inaccurate and grossly irresponsible to discount the heavy public opposition witnessed during the 1980s to full metrication. This kind of opposition was precisely why the Mulroney government came up with their 'compromise.' The fact is public opposition to full metrication, which led to Mulroney's compromise, is responsible for Canadians' continued use of pounds, inches, Fahrenheit for body temperature, etc. If people can not accept what the facts state, then I suggest seeking professional help -- I do not make things up. But please do not erase something I have taken the liberty to research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.193.74 (talk • contribs)

The source you use for information about opposition to metrication is a Wikipedia mirror, meaning the article is a direct copy of this one, or an earlier version of this one. It is an invalid source, equivalent to using this article itself to support the claim. I am not disputing the claim (nor supporting it), only the source used - find a better source. Until then, the claim cannot stand. (Aside: the link to the CBC site isn't a valid ref either, as it is just a landing page for a group of articles about the subject; citations should be to references that unequivocally support the claim, so you'd be better off using direct links to Full-scale metric rebellion, for example (or Fighting metric in the meat market amongst others). Mind matrix 14:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just ask you, why hasn't Canada fully made the transition to the SI system? Why do you think there was even the need for a 'compromise'? Why do you think a group of MPs opened a gas station selling gas ONLY in imperial units (during the transition phase)? These are all questions that you, and any other sceptic of the notion of public opposition to full and final metrication in Canada, need to ask yourself. Take a country like Australia where even young Australians measure their weight in kilograms and height in metres/centimetres. This is most definitely NOT the case in Canada. Shoe sizes, for example, are always given in Imperial units -- as opposed to the Metric centimetre common throughout the world. Why does Ontario mandate the use of the imperial system in its schools? Why does Saskatchewan use imperial units on its driver's licences? These last vestiges of the Imperial system are still in use today, because of the public opposition that was witnessed in the 1970s and 1980s. As a young Canadian (I'm 27) I use imperial units for body temperature, cooking temperature, measurements for medications (tsp as opposed to mm), height, weight, shoe size, when I go to the grocery store, etc. I use metric units for distances, speed, and outside air temperature. This use of both systems is unheard of in most other countries and we owe its continued use to the public opposition to full and final metrication in Canada -- especially during the 1980s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.193.74 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on my talk page - I object to the sources, not the content. Please distinguish between the two. You can cite all those examples in the text of the article, but please provide reliable sources. Why is this so difficult to understand? (And as I've said about the CBC landing page - it is not a valid ref; please use one of the articles to which it links instead.) I'm going to revert your change yet again if the ref isn't updated. Mind matrix 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it appears that the message on my talk page was left after the one above, so I'll assume you're already working on updating the ref. (If so, ignore my previous comment.) Mind matrix 15:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks have passed, and the CBC metrication landing page is still being used as a ref. I've replaced it with {{|tl|Citation needed}}, for reasons I've already explained above. Mind matrix 14:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commerce/Retail Sections

Is there a reason there are sections both for Commerce and for Retail? Much of the content is duplicated between both of them. It would probably be more encyclopaedic to consolidate the two sections into one. Jon VS (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec

The article says: "However unlike in the rest of Canada, metrication in the Francophone province of Quebec has been fully implemented and metric measures are more consistently used in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada." This is inaccurate as measurement systems and their definitions are defined at the federal level of government -- not provincial. Canada (as a country) has not completed the metrication process, and therefore neither has Quebec (as a Canadian province). The fact that metric units may or may not be used more frequently by the people of Quebec is irrelevant to the system's full legal status in the province and indeed country. 173.180.196.28 (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, this entire article is slanted in such a way that makes it seem like Imperial measurements are only ever used for marketing purposes in Canada. This could not be further from the truth, yet I presume the reason for this slant is that people simply do not want the world to know that Canada actually "officially" uses both systems. It seems some have a problem with reality. The "Commercial usage" section is a fine example to corroborate my beliefs: "Supermarkets will often advertise foods such as meats and produce "per pound", since such prices may appear lower to consumers than prices advertised by kilogram. However, virtually all supermarket scales are metric..." Most supermarkets advertise "per pound" because people simply have an innate feeling for "a pound." Do European countries advertise the price "per pound"? No, they have no reason to, despite the fact that prices would look smaller if they did. Supermarket scales always metric? I know for a fact that ALL grocery stores (in my area at least) have dual unit scales. In fact, Whole Foods Market (Western Canada) ONLY has Imperial scales. Also, how is it known that "US cooking" measurements are used in Canada? "Imperial" measurements have always traditionally been used in Canada. "Though traditional units are commonly used for height and weight, and are often used for length, a general understanding of traditional units does not generally go much beyond that unless perhaps the user has spent a significant amount of time in the United States." Complete hearsay. Did you know that trains in Canada are completely Imperial (miles, mph, feet, inches, etc)? Why is there no mention of this in the article? This article needs a lot of work (and needs to be impartial and reflective of the reality that Imperial measurements are still VERY common in Canada -- mainly because Canadians are comfortable with them). 173.180.196.28 (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact a branch of Centre des Viandes F Iasenza Inc[1] in the Marché aux puces Saint-Martin [2] - Laval, Quebec sells meat and fowl per pound and not per kilo. Their scales can not even be converted but can only weigh in pounds. My wive and I purchase there at times. Peter Horn User talk 03:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 03:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 00:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 01:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial units drivers license

Do New Brunswick and Nova Scotia really still use imperial measures on their drivers licenses? Peter Horn User talk 02:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New Brunswick drivers licese ie metric, see Drivers license. Peter Horn User talk 01:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farm tractors etc

John Deere [3] has used metric fasteners since time immemorial. Peter Horn User talk 22:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

metrification

I may be corrected on this, but I'm sure the term "metrification" was far more widely used during the debate in the 1970s and 1980s, than was "metrication." Perhaps this should be mentioned -- it might be a Canadianism. CaperBill (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly also used in the United States, so is likely the North American preference. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed from article

This article has clearly been written by someone over 70 yrs of age. All of Canada uses the metric system quite inclusively including mainstream society and the sciences. This is the problem with Wikipedia... no citations, completely inaccurate. Sad. --75.164.248.53

This time I didn't actually revert the edit. I have been seeing quite a bit of commentary in articles lately. I wish the editors would address their concerns somewhere more appropriate but you do what you can. Can anyone comment on this latest one? The comment seems legitimate, if badly placed and unsourced. Cathfolant (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 06 January 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: article moved as proposed Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metrication in Canada → Metric conversion in Canada – "metrication" is WP:JARGON, and "metrification" is found in Canada, so a better non-jargon-y title is better. 76.65.128.112 (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Strong support either the proposed title or Metrification in Canada Red Slash 06:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 13 April 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Xoloz (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metric conversion in Canada → Metrication in Canada – The preceding move request that led to the current title had limited participation and was misinformed. "Metrication" is the correct term for "the conversion to the metric system of weights and measures", and it is no more "jargon" than a term such as "freight transport", which we would (hopefully) never rename to "goods movement". In addition, the current title suggests an altogether different scope: conversions between units in the metric system (e.g., from kg to g, or m to cm) in Canada, as if the metric system in Canada was somehow different from the metric system in other countries. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as detailed in the OP's clear request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose it is clearly jargon-y, and "metric conversion" is the more recognizable term. It is not a term used in the everyday, since conversion is pretty much finished in most of the world, and therefore is falling out of use. "metric conversion" is widely used [4][5] even used by the government of Canada. Further, use of "metric conversion" 147k G-hits is more than metrication 64k G-hits -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above (there was limited participation in previous move and we should not fear to use proper terms especially when "simpler" terms are markedly ambiguous) and also for consistency with other articles: Metrication, Metrication in Australia, Metrication in Chile, Metrication in Peru, Metrication in Sweden, Metrication in the United Kingdom, Metrication in the United States and six others. Also, "metrication" is the main term used within Metric conversion in Canada itself. NebY (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It's quite confusing to have the article about metrication in Canada use a different term than all the other articles about metrication in history. When I hear "metric conversion" I instinctively think of the process of converting from metric to imperial or vice versa, and I'm quite surprised that "metric conversion" is used to mean "metrification", though it appears that is indeed the case. If anything, I would refer to "metric conversion" as being "jargon-y", but that's just my subjective impression. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Great rationale that uses the proper term. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 18:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency with the names of similar articles. JJada (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Metrication in Canada. 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/20100724200113/http://lamar.colostate.edu/%7Ehillger/internat.htm to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm

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]

Railroading: another area still using customary units?

I recently added some material to another article using this rail accident report from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, and I noticed that, despite being written in 2003, it used entirely English units save for the ambient temperature, given in Celsius. So I wondered, is it official Canadian government policy to allow railroads to use English units? I can see several reasons why:

Interoperability with the US rail network,
Railroads were probably surveyed and laid out using miles, so it probably made sense to keep the mileposts rather than create potentially dangerous confusion by renumbering control points and such; and
Most importantly, Canada has the same structural issue the U.S. does: the vast distances across the country made it more efficient to use longer cars and create longer trains, therefore measuring train length in feet and, when long enough, miles, makes more sense, especially where the track distances use miles.

Is there anything official on this we could add as a source? Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Metrication in Canada. 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) 04:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Metrication in Canada. 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) 21:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Standards

Canadian building and engineering standards still frequently imperial measure, due to being within close proximity of the United States, which accounts for 20% of imports, and as a result the Canadians still use equipment manufactured to the North American standards. One topic that hasn't been explained is how Canada deals with standards which use US Customary volume, which differs from imperial volume. For instance, let's say a North American standard pipe with a 1" inner diameter is rated at 39 US gallons per minute. In Canada, would the standard for that pipe be modified to be 32 imperial gallons per minute?

Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]