I thought about the "picture of actual person" thingy, but it gets a bit complicated, and could be confusing – in my mind, the picture should relate to the template's point, not the person in question.I like your final "Based on" referency thing above, and reasons for it.Gennaro Prota 13:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Gennaro, fair points. Please, express your opinions about each point. What about something like "SI unit named after a person" or "SI unit name in honor of"? Finally this template is really poorly named.Should we add something like: "see SI writing style for more details"?.So, if you native speakers find a way to include it without too much burden I would prefer that. On the other hand it make the whole a bit dull reading. One one hand I would like to leave it, so that we give the user the complete, exact, naming convention. I have not a strong opinion about the "degree Celsius" part.Ironically, I find it less intrusive there than on the middle, where it is also more likely to screw up formatting. I think the template should expand at the beginning of the article.Is there any way to specify a default value for a template parameter, which would be used as a fallback if the user doesn't specify the image name? Another alternative could be specifying the image filename as a template parameter so that for each unit we can have the image of the corresponding scientist (Volta for volt, Faraday for farad etc). I like both the Ampère image and the brochure cover (but are we sure there's no copyright problem with it?).Based on The International System of Units brochure, 7th edition, section 5.2. In the meantime what about something like this (note that it doesn't have the scientist name parameter and so doesn't duplicate the etymology): As to the duplicated information I thought to that too, but I think we should first wait and see if the template has wide acceptance if so we can decide what to do about the duplication. Let also wait for others to express their opinions.
Heron 19:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Hmm, I have looked at the Volt and Sievert articles and I must say that the box looks a little ugly in that position (besides almost overlapping the TOC box). You will also have to fix the problem that the etymology of each unit is now mentioned twice, once in the spelling box and once again, often with more context, in the article. The spelling box therefore belongs lower down in the article, so I moved them all for you. The most important information about an SI unit is not the fact that it is written in lower case it is its meaning, definition and use. PS: What about the degree Celsius article? Should we add something there too (maybe not this template, but a simple, ad-hoc note at the beginning)? Please, tell me what do you think about them.īTW, do you think a link to SI writing style is in order too?Ĭiao, Gennaro Prota 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC) It is useful and instructive and will save us from a lot of errors.
0 kommentar(er)
