Template talk:SI light units

message: the term "SI"  is used but not defined in this article, nor does a content search of Wikipedia define this term. Will someone who knows what this means please add it to this article, or place a link here to another area of Wikipedia that defines this? 68.62.20.247 01:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See SI. Dicklyon 03:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: SI is short for Le Système international d'unités, or in English the International System of Units. It is what is commonly called the metric system. Note that this is not an article, but rather a template to be used inside articles. Articles that include this template should normally have a link to the article on SI. A content search for "SI" does produce the correct article, but note that searches are case sensitive.--Srleffler 04:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SI

message: Unlike the name of the template, this is actually a collection of "SI photometry units", as per the table's caption.  Compare to the table at Light intensity (as current at this time).  
Should radiometric variables be included, or the title of the template amended?  
It is inconsistent/incomplete as it stands now.   —DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The radiometric quantities are in Template:SI radiometry units. The title of this template is inaccurate, but this isn't really important since the title is only relevant to editors, not readers.--Srleffler (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I changed that. These are NOT SI Units. Nor Base nor Derived. They are Photometric Quantities (or magnitudes, variables, etc) expressed in SI Units (Base or Derived). The only two SI units are the Lumen (lm) and the Candela (cd). I leave the title SI Photometric Quantities, and the label on the table Quantity.  Hyprwfrcp (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about radiometric quantities? 

message: FWIW, I created a template named Template:SI photon units in analogy to Template:SI radiometry units and SI photometry units aka Template:SI light units. It's still "raw", but perhaps useful to some. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for having that template (see my question above) so long as these are actually SI units. Can you provide a reference that these are "real"? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template SI photon units 

message: I have no personal preference but I changed the order of dimension symbols back to MLT rather than LMT as almost all examples I could find use this order (this is also why I used this order originally). Even the English dimensional analysis and the German :de:Dimensionsanalyse articles have it this way (until partially changed recently by Quondum). Does someone know the reason for why most examples are given as MLT? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to answer this: the SI brochure, which is really the source and reference, uses the LMT order (when referring to dimensions, as opposed to units – SI seems to be blind to this subtlety).  I do not particularly like that order, but if there is to be a convention on the order of dimension symbols, it seems to me that the SI is the only one that will ever have traction.  Note that units are more complex, since there are also derived units.  Though if we want to synergize the order of base units and dimension symbols, I'd be happy to support this as a proposal for a MoS principle.  —Quondum 16:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: in the 9th edition (2019) the order of dimensions has been changed to T,L,M,... - similar to the base units, which are now s,m,kg,...  (see SI Brochure 9th edition chapter 2.3.3) -- Wassermaus (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimension symbol order MLT or LMT? 

message: I'm a little confused by .  I did not remove the footnote; I merely moved it to the top of the column and generalized it.  Repeating it on the first few examples instead seems inappropriate; it really does apply to the entire column.  —Quondum 16:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice the change in footnote text; I was responding just to the change in location. The reason the footnote appears on the first three occurrences of J rather than just the first one is that hard experience has taught that readers will miss it and complain that the dimension of luminous flux or luminous intensity is given as "Joules". We can try it and see, though. The layout of the table has improved since the early days; maybe that is enough.--Srleffler (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I guess there is always the tension between the understandability for first-time readers and uncluttered exposition for reference.  I haven't tracked (and cannot remember) whether some footnotes were present before the queries.  As you say, we can see whether the problem still manifests.  If it really continues to be a problem, I'd suggest adding mouse-over text to each symbol instead of the more obtrusive repeated footnote, for example: T⋅.  —Quondum 19:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positioning of footnote