This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox physical quantity template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I have updated the infobox with several parameters which may be useful.
I also have my reservations about the "derivations=" parameter. The type of formulas used here typically are dependent on the context. Most of the useful information added with this parameter can also be entered using the new "dimension=" parameter. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 09:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC))
I've changed the label that gets generated for the unit field from "Measured in" to "Expressed in." My sense of the semantics is that we do a lot more with, say, momentum than measure it: we also record it, we predict it, we describe it, ... And all of those involve expressing the quantity.
Note, too, that this is the way user:TimothyRias had done things in his first draft of the template (as documented here).— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 03:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
SI literature, as far as I can see, does not specify whether (for example), an electric charge quantity should be written using the symbol Q or q or x or ξ or anything else. Therefore there is no such thing as an "SI symbol" for a physical quantity. I am replacing it with "Common symbol(s)". The "(s)" is because often more than one symbol is commonly used, like q and Q for charge, or V and φ for electric potential. -- Steve ( talk) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason "name" should be mandatory. If the infobox is at the top of the article, and the name of the quantity is the same as the title of the article, then there is no reason to rewrite it. I edited the template accordingly. -- Steve ( talk) 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This template needs an option for specifying whether the physical quantity is a scalar or a vector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theemathas ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the "SI dimension" content is taken from wikidata, but its formatting is different there and here. For example, for pressure it is rendered using <math>
formatting
in wikidata, but as unprocessed TeX markup
in WP. What controls this, and how the situation can be corrected (without breaking something else)? —
Mikhail Ryazanov (
talk)
00:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
L^{-1}MT^{-2}
here. In wikidata:
pressure (Q39552) (\mathsf{L}^{-1} \mathsf{M} \mathsf{T}^{-2}, ),If I look at, for example Power (physics), the 3rd line is "In SI base units kg⋅m^2⋅s^−3", and the 4th line is "SI dimension L^2MT^-3". These two lines are obviously redundant, and indeed I think the 4th line is actively harmful to the article's pedagogy, because most readers would have to stop and ponder whether M means "meter" or "mass" or "metric" or whatever, and if they can't figure it out they'll click on the link to "SI dimension" which actually goes to Dimensional analysis, a long article in which these L,M,T abbreviations are deeply buried, and which also doesn't explain what "SI dimension" actually means (beyond a synonym of just "dimension").
The entries of this infobox are the most valuable real estate in the entire article—the only thing many readers will read—and it seems to me that we are wasting one of those lines to say something which is somewhere between useless and actively harmful to readers' being able to quickly and effectively learn about the article topic.
I feel strongly that "SI dimension" should be turned off by default. If the editors of a certain article think that it's very important, let them add it in! And then people can debate whether or not it's helpful in the context of that specific article. (Not just "helpful" but "so extremely helpful that it merits its share of the most prominent real estate in the entire article".)
I would be even happier with "SI dimension" deleted entirely from this template, which I believe was the status quo as recently as last year. I think "SI dimension" is no more than a pedagogically-inferior synonym of "in SI base units". But I don't feel too strongly on that point and I am OK with it as an off-by-default option.
(I don't know template syntax / wikidata well enough to turn it off by default myself.) -- Steve ( talk) 14:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
| label5 =
SI dimension
.
Primefac (
talk)
15:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)a dimension is not literally the same as a unit, merely redundant: no, no no!. Don't say 'not literally', don't say 'redundant' at all: they are actually, by definition, and for all understanding and purposes: Not The Same. Read the manual of physics. And from there it is you misunderstanding, so I can't go into 'can you ...'. This is about "physical quantity", and you need to accept & understand that, and follow its consequences. - DePiep ( talk) 02:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
"SI-dimensions" is nonsenseis wrong. I illustrated that there are viable non-SI dimensional sets (VE...), that you admitted that E is a dimension while not being SI, etc etc, and while your were splitting hairs and claiming sense yourself (against & disproving your own non-sense statement) you did not contribute a single syllable to the discussion. No a single syl-la-ble. - DePiep ( talk) 03:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox physical quantity template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I have updated the infobox with several parameters which may be useful.
I also have my reservations about the "derivations=" parameter. The type of formulas used here typically are dependent on the context. Most of the useful information added with this parameter can also be entered using the new "dimension=" parameter. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 09:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC))
I've changed the label that gets generated for the unit field from "Measured in" to "Expressed in." My sense of the semantics is that we do a lot more with, say, momentum than measure it: we also record it, we predict it, we describe it, ... And all of those involve expressing the quantity.
Note, too, that this is the way user:TimothyRias had done things in his first draft of the template (as documented here).— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 03:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
SI literature, as far as I can see, does not specify whether (for example), an electric charge quantity should be written using the symbol Q or q or x or ξ or anything else. Therefore there is no such thing as an "SI symbol" for a physical quantity. I am replacing it with "Common symbol(s)". The "(s)" is because often more than one symbol is commonly used, like q and Q for charge, or V and φ for electric potential. -- Steve ( talk) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason "name" should be mandatory. If the infobox is at the top of the article, and the name of the quantity is the same as the title of the article, then there is no reason to rewrite it. I edited the template accordingly. -- Steve ( talk) 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This template needs an option for specifying whether the physical quantity is a scalar or a vector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theemathas ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the "SI dimension" content is taken from wikidata, but its formatting is different there and here. For example, for pressure it is rendered using <math>
formatting
in wikidata, but as unprocessed TeX markup
in WP. What controls this, and how the situation can be corrected (without breaking something else)? —
Mikhail Ryazanov (
talk)
00:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
L^{-1}MT^{-2}
here. In wikidata:
pressure (Q39552) (\mathsf{L}^{-1} \mathsf{M} \mathsf{T}^{-2}, ),If I look at, for example Power (physics), the 3rd line is "In SI base units kg⋅m^2⋅s^−3", and the 4th line is "SI dimension L^2MT^-3". These two lines are obviously redundant, and indeed I think the 4th line is actively harmful to the article's pedagogy, because most readers would have to stop and ponder whether M means "meter" or "mass" or "metric" or whatever, and if they can't figure it out they'll click on the link to "SI dimension" which actually goes to Dimensional analysis, a long article in which these L,M,T abbreviations are deeply buried, and which also doesn't explain what "SI dimension" actually means (beyond a synonym of just "dimension").
The entries of this infobox are the most valuable real estate in the entire article—the only thing many readers will read—and it seems to me that we are wasting one of those lines to say something which is somewhere between useless and actively harmful to readers' being able to quickly and effectively learn about the article topic.
I feel strongly that "SI dimension" should be turned off by default. If the editors of a certain article think that it's very important, let them add it in! And then people can debate whether or not it's helpful in the context of that specific article. (Not just "helpful" but "so extremely helpful that it merits its share of the most prominent real estate in the entire article".)
I would be even happier with "SI dimension" deleted entirely from this template, which I believe was the status quo as recently as last year. I think "SI dimension" is no more than a pedagogically-inferior synonym of "in SI base units". But I don't feel too strongly on that point and I am OK with it as an off-by-default option.
(I don't know template syntax / wikidata well enough to turn it off by default myself.) -- Steve ( talk) 14:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
| label5 =
SI dimension
.
Primefac (
talk)
15:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)a dimension is not literally the same as a unit, merely redundant: no, no no!. Don't say 'not literally', don't say 'redundant' at all: they are actually, by definition, and for all understanding and purposes: Not The Same. Read the manual of physics. And from there it is you misunderstanding, so I can't go into 'can you ...'. This is about "physical quantity", and you need to accept & understand that, and follow its consequences. - DePiep ( talk) 02:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
"SI-dimensions" is nonsenseis wrong. I illustrated that there are viable non-SI dimensional sets (VE...), that you admitted that E is a dimension while not being SI, etc etc, and while your were splitting hairs and claiming sense yourself (against & disproving your own non-sense statement) you did not contribute a single syllable to the discussion. No a single syl-la-ble. - DePiep ( talk) 03:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)