Template talk:Infobox unit

Confusing template!!

Coulomb
Unit system:	SI derived units
Unit of...	Electric charge
Unit conversions
1 C expressed in...	equals...
↘SI base units	↘1 A s
↘cgs	↘2997924580 statC

I find this template very confusing because of poor wording and layout. Here are a few suggestions:

• Standard: here means "What unit system is this a part of?" That's a very unusual and unexpected definition for the word "standard". I suggest changing to Unit system:

• Quantity here means "What sort of physical quantity does this measure?" (mass, charge, force, etc.). When people see the word quantity they think "how much", so the "quantity" for one lightyear would be "the distance light travels in a year", not just "distance". I suggest changing to Unit of... or Measures... or something like that.

• Expressed in looks like an informational item, with the entry "1 C =", which is completely confusing on both ends. Actually expressed in is a heading for the next few left-column items, and "1 C =" is a heading for the next few right-column items! Therefore the formatting is wrong. It needs to look like a heading and be labeled much more clearly. I tried something on the right but I'm not quite sure what's best.

Here's my humble attempt on the right -->

What do y'all think? Thanks! :-) --Steve (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Quantity" vs "Unit of ...", again

Earlier, the template used the word "Quantity" to mean "What sort of physical quantity does this measure?" (mass, charge, force, etc.). As I said in the previous section, When people see the word quantity they think "how much", so the "quantity" for one lightyear would be "the distance light travels in a year", not just "distance". I changed it to "Unit of ..." which in my opinion is much easier to understand.

MatthiasPaul has changed it back, with the edit comment: "Changed "Units of..." back to "Quantity:", as this is the proper term for it." What does that mean? Has some authority declared that "Unit of ..." is not "proper"? Professional physicists and physics textbooks use the term "unit of time", "unit of area", etc. very frequently. I have never heard anyone say it was not "proper" to use that terminology.

On the other hand, I have never heard a professional physicist or physics textbook say something like "The quantity of a joule is energy." I think most people would find that sentence to be confusing nonsense.

Therefore I am changing it back to "Unit of ...". --Steve (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleting "Dimension" parameter

The dimension parameter has two big problems:

(1) It is redundant with expressing the unit in SI base units.

(2) There are no standardized symbols for dimensions, therefore editors are encouraged to make them up. M,L,T for mass length time seems pretty straightforward, but M could also be confused with meters (by non-experts), L could be inductance, etc. Much worse is when you get to electromagnetism. For example, take Coulomb. Someone put in that its dimension is I * T (current times time), but will readers know what the letter I means? Why isn't the dimension of Coulombs just Q for charge? What makes current and time more "fundamental" than charge? Aha, I see, amp is an SI base unit while coulomb is not. So that's the secret: It's actually exactly the same as SI base units, but replacing "m" by L and "s" by T and "A" by "I". So it's not only redundant with an expression in SI base units, it's an obfuscated copy of the expression in SI base units.

Therefore I will delete that part of the template. Just because something can be put in an infobox doesn't mean it should! --Steve (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"Name" should be optional

I don't understand why Name is required (earlier there was an error message if you don't specify a name; now it will default to the article title). For example, if the article title is "Pascal" and there's a template right at the top, then it is blindingly obvious to every reader that this is a template about the Pascal. So it's a waste of space to include the big bold text "Pascal" in the template. Shouldn't the writers of each article have the freedom to decide whether or not to include the name? I think it should be an optional parameter. --Steve (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a valid point about the redundancy, but this is more an issue of consistency: all infoboxes on wikipedia, to my knowledge, begin with a "Name" parameter, and 99% of the time this is identical to the article's name. The whole point of infoboxes is to display basic information in a standardized format, and this includes the name. One potential benefit of this standardization is to facilitate machine-readability of infobox content. In light of this, I'm returning the name to a "semi-mandatory" property: it needn't be provided explicitly except for those rare cases where it does differ from the article's name. This is consistent with other infoboxes. If you or others believe that this is a bad design practice, I believe it should be raised and changed at a more general level rather than this one particular infobox. Xiaphias (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: capitalization rule for name parameter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the documentation for the name parameter be edited to indicate what the capitalization rule is for unit names (and the examples edited to agree)? Should the capitalization of the name be similar to the title of an article or section (e.g. "Watt") or as it would be if the name appeared mid-sentence (e.g. "watt")?

Unit name capitalization discussion

As the proposer of this RfC, I favor capitalizing unit names as they would be capitalized if the unit name appeared mid-sentence (e.g. "The watt is a unit of power"). I observe that editors frequently capitalize the name of units which are named after people when the unit appears mid-sentence; using mid-sentence capitalization would help to reduce this error. It would be similar to the way dictionaries are written; a dictionary entry is capitalized as if it occurred mid-sentence, even though it is the first word in the entry. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point about the added clarity that it would add to use lower case, but it would be different from the rest of Wikipedia. Infoboxes and article titles should start with capital letters except in the rare examples where a proper noun is lower case (e.g. iPod). I think framing the first sentence so that the word is not capitalized as at Watt "The watt (symbol: W) is ..." is enough clarification.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree with proposal. Use mid-sentence capitalization in all situations except for the first word in a sentence. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• lowercase like k.d. lang (unless the unit itself is capitalized). EEng 21:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • But not all unit names are lowercase in mid-sentence; several begin with capital letters.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, with a very few exceptions (none of which I can think of at the moment) unit names all start with lowercase, though some unit symbols start with a capital. I know that sounds backwards, but it's true. EEng 17:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

EEng is correct. There are not many exceptions to this nearly universal rule. The only example I can think of myself is the Rayl. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• title case (capitalized) like we do for everything else, although I don't feel very strongly about this one. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Use the same case that would be used in mid-sentence, otherwise the infobox will be misleading and confusing for every single case of units that don't normally begin with a capital.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Initial cap like all other infobox titles/headings. The box with lowercase watt at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Watt looks distinctly wrong. Everyone knows that we use "sentence case" (first word capitalized) in titles and headings, of things that might be lowercase in a sentence; there's no compelling case for this particular kind of topic to have its own rule. Alternatively, use mid-sentence case for ALL topics, not just units, with the same logic as the original proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Lowercase, seems to be a pretty universal rule. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  With respect to what universe? If sounds different from all other infobox conventions. Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Capitalize - 1. No more misleading or incorrect than it is in article titles and section headings. Are we going to propose changing them too? 2. Re the k.d. lang example, I note that the article title is also k.d. lang. The infobox heading matches the article title, per widespread convention. 3. Per SchreiberBike, the correct mid-sentence form is clearly shown in the article's first sentence (if there are any cases where that is not true, it's an easy and uncontroversial fix). Readers who can't find the time to read at least that far will, regrettably, remain ignorant about how to write the unit name in mid-sentence. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• 1. Infobox title: capitalise for being a title.

2. In the infobox: in defined (midsentence) case, in a data row 'Unit name' (to be added). This data row best be near the top. Together, would not break any rule. -DePiep (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse of symbol parameter

We need a separate (new) parameter for use where a unit does not have a formal symbol. This may be noticed in the article describing something as an abbreviation (e.g. "The yard (abbreviation: yd) is an English unit of length, [...]" in Yard). SI formalizes symbols, but most traditional systems have no such mechanism/standard, and the abbreviations, while useful, should be described as such ("Abbreviation", not "Symbol") in the infobox. Failing that, it would be appropriate to delete the use of the symbol parameter from the template invocation in all those articles in which there no formally accepted symbol. I am aware that SI and ISQ do assign symbols to several of these (e.g. d (day), h (hour), min (minute), ′ and as (arcsecond), Np (neper), Sh (shannon), o (octet) and so on). —Quondum 18:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the IEEE (see IEEE Std 260.1-2004) also defines unit symbols for non-SI units. The IEEE symbols for the yard, pound-force, grain etc are yd, lbf, gr ... Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This leaves my original point open: a way of dealing with cases that have no official symbol. I wish I has access to the standard you mention, since providing references for specific symbols would be great. —Quondum 22:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, your point is a valid one - I do not dispute that. And the IEEE standard is certainly no panacea, as it conflicts in places with the ISQ (e.g., it uses the symbol b for bit). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I made a stub for IEEE Std 260.1-2004 with a small number of examples to give you a feel for the ground covered. Perhaps someone else with access to the standard (with more time than I have available) can expand the article further. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks: I was thinking along those lines too. As this stub gets expanded, it is going to become a massively useful resource for managing these details in other articles, and in particular for knowing whether this can be used as a reference for a symbol. —Quondum 01:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I weakly support the idea of having an option to replace the word "Symbol" by "Abbreviation" in the template. I didn't know—and still remain to be convinced—that there is a distinction between symbol and abbreviation, and that "symbols" are always by definition formal & standardized, and that "abbreviations" are always by definition not. I thought symbol and abbreviation are more-or-less synonyms, and I personally would use extra adjectives like "universal" / "non-standard" / "endorsed by BIPM" / whatever as appropriate to describe those concepts. I could be wrong. But I support this idea anyway because it's just adding an option, and I trust each page's editors to choose the appropriate word. --Steve (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think my own position seems to be weakened, since it seems (from the above) that even if we define a symbol as something endorsed as such by a semi-respectable body, the number of non-symbol abbreviations may be vanishingly small. If this is the case, it may be better to simply recommend in the template documentation that |extralabel= and |extradata= be used for abbreviations (though display after "Named after" is not ideal). There may be multiple symbols for a unit (already supported by the template). Your idea of qualifications (possibly via footnotes) makes sense. —Quondum 01:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I support the idea of having a new field for abbreviation and reserving the "symbol" fields for SI symbols. We could have a field for IEEE symbol too, if that's also the terminology they use. In fact, I hadn't read this when I changed the label for "symbol" to "SI symbol" (which was swiftly reverted by Sbyrnes321). I'm not sure it is helpful to have "acre" itemised as the symbol for acre, when there is no SI symbol for it and no recognised abbreviation. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

OK sure, it's arguably silly to list "acre" as the symbol for acre, though I personally find it helpful because it tells readers that there isn't any shorthand like "ac" or whatever. From this page, I count ~50 non-SI unit pages, most of which have (non-SI) symbols. Examples include "au or ua" for astronomical unit, "' or arcmin" for arcminute, "E" for Erlang (unit), "in" for inch, "M, NM, or nmi" for nautical mile, "yd" for yard, "u or Da" for Unified atomic mass unit, and on and on. If you want to edit the template and then spend three hours checking and (if necessary) fixing every one of those 50 pages, I guess that's OK with me, but I think you should try to get consensus here before you embark on that. I am particularly interested to know how those 50 pages are going to end up looking, after all your changes are done. --Steve (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are international agreements on standard symbols beyond the SI. First in line is the International System of Quantities which defines the erlang (symbol E), and I have already mentioned IEEE 260.1 for customary units like inch or yard. In case I have not made it clear I strongly support the proposal to distinguish between symbols and abbreviations, and further propose we adopt the ISQ and IEEE 260.1 as a basis for doing so. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're suggesting. Can you be more specific? Do you want to want to keep the text as "Symbol:" on the template? Or replace it with an "SI symbol:" line and an "IEEE 260.1 symbol:" line and an "Abbreviation:" line? Do the template users need to pick one of these or do they need all of them? Is just plain "Symbol:" still an option? Can you give an example of something which you believe is an abbreviation but not a symbol? And what is your basis for that belief? What would you like the template to look like on the page Bohr radius, to take just one example?

As I mentioned above, I weakly support the option of replacing or supplementing the word "Symbol" with an arbitrary settable label, or multiple arbitrary settable labels, or one of a list of possible labels, as long as it is done in a back-compatible way (unlike your recent change which inappropriately pushed "SI symbol" onto the template for inch etc.). I tend towards decentralization more generally. There are 100 pages that use this template, and the editors on each of those pages generally know more about what's appropriate for their particular page than we do here. I don't think we here should be declaring a policy like "You are forbidden from calling something a Symbol unless it's endorsed by one of the following three standards documents...", as if standards documents could never ever possibly be incomplete or out-of-date or have typos. My default preference is to let each page's editors decide for themselves. --Steve (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

First I have no clue what edit you are referring to. Second, I thought we were talking about units, not quantities (Bohr radius is a quantity). I am suggesting that for units a clear distinction be made between symbols and abbreviations. This is not my idea, but is the norm in international standards. For a simple example, it is quite common to see the abbreviation “sec.” used for the second (SI unit of time), while the international standard symbol for this unit is “s”. If you want a non-SI example try the cubic inch, for which the abbreviation “cu. in.” is in use, but its international standard symbol is “in³”. For a couple of important differences between symbols and abbreviations:

• Abbreviations are language dependent; symbols are agreed internationally
• Symbols are intended for use in equations (t = 10 s); abbreviations are intended for use in written text (elapsed time was 10 sec.)

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry for saying "your edit" when it was actually De Facto's edit, I got confused who I was talking to! :-D

The Bohr radius is regularly used as the unit of length in atomic physics calculations. That's why this template is currently being used in the Bohr radius article. See the Atomic units article for background and context.

If you want to edit the template so that there is a new option for an "Abbreviation" label directly after the "Symbol" label, where either or neither or both can be used, then I don't object, as I said above. The "s" vs "sec." example was helpful for me, thank you for that.

If you have the further opinion that "Symbol" should be reserved for things endorsed by IEEE or BIPM or whatever, well OK you can have that opinion, but I'm not sure how you plan to enforce it in a centralized way. If, on the other hand, you plan to go through each and every page that uses this template, and on the pages where you think the template is being filled out in a misleading way, to change it, well then I think that's fine too. And then if someone changes it back, you can debate the merits in the appropriate specific context. --Steve (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Dondervogel 2 on this. I made that edit in good-faith because I assumed the difference between "abbreviation" and "symbol" was clear. I wasn't aware of symbols other than the SI ones though - do IEEE use the term "symbol" for symols other than those defined in the SI?. An additional field for "abbreviations" would be good, and plural because some units have more than one abbreviation. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. A good example is the pound-force per square inch, the IEEE 260.1 symbol for which is lbf/in², and whose abbreviation is psi. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The question of whether it is better to describe "psi" as a "symbol" vs an "abbreviation" for pounds per square inch is by no means obvious, in my opinion. I think that there are good arguments and reliable sources pointing towards either of those choices. However, this is a question to be debated at the pounds per square inch talk page, not here. --Steve (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I was asked whether IEEE 260.1 distinguishes between symbols and abbreviations, and perhaps I should clarify further. While this standard makes the distinction it focuses primarily on symbols. However, it mentions "psi" as an abbreviation for "pound-force per square inch", whose use as a symbol for this unit is deprecated. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Are we agreed then that the least we need is a new field for abbreviations? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I support the change proposed by DeFacto to include a field for abbreviations. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This discussion again

I've just been editing foot (unit). The abbreviation for foot is "ft", the symbol for foot is ′ (prime). This is (almost) verbatim the opening phrase of the article, contradicting its own infobox. If I correct the infobox to say Symbol = ′, the result is the unintelligible 1 ′ in ...     is equal to .... From the discussion above, the solution is aleady obvious and seemed to have had consensus three years ago: provide the option to give an alternative word – for example, Symbol = ft|alt=abbreviation (without the bold obviously, {{code}} and {{xt}} can't handle the embedded pipe). So why hasn't it been done? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of abbreviations, I would say the symbol for the foot is "ft". That is also the symbol required for use on wikipedia by MOSNUM ("'" is deprecated). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Also I see later in the article "The international standard symbol for a foot is "ft" (see ISO 31-1, Annex A)." so looks like this batsman retires hurt. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Official definition fields

I dislike the new "official definition" fields, and propose that we remove them. This level of detail should be covered in the body of the article, not in the sidebar. What I particularly don't like is that for SI base units, the definition is an entire paragraph of text—too long and too detailed to be properly covered in a sidebar. Also, the fields "defining event" and "effective since" end up being misleading. For the SI base units, these are now set to "2018 General Conference on Weights and Measures" and "Effective since 20 May 2019", respectively. This would seem to imply that the SI base units have just been newly created. If we are going to provide a date in the sidebar, it should be the date the unit was first created, not the date when the definition was last tweaked. Really, though the sidebar is not the place to try to cover information that is this detailed and which requires context (explanation of definitions, history of creation and redefinition).--Srleffler (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100%. --Steve (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I will revert the addition of the "official definition" fields.--Srleffler (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears they weren't removed from the documentation. I'll take care of that, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Year created

The field is ambiguous; since the definition of kilogram has been changed twice, should we use the date of the original definition or the date of the current definition? The /doc file was also changed recently to reflect the unjustified addition of the field, and to make other changes not consistent with the original intent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed per similarity to the removed "adopted" field; it was never added to the documentation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

fields no longer work

I tried adding the CGS equivalent under units4 in an article but nothing displayed, despite the description here saying up to units6 is supported. I then changed the US conversions to units_us1, so I could bump the CGS equivalent up to units3, but units_us1 doesn't display anything either. Currently, the table in the pascal article does not have room to cross-ref the barye. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it was just a typo in the parameter name. I changed it to inunits5 instead of inunites5, and it's displaying now. Indefatigable (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggest better names for recently added parameters

Since nosymbolspace and formulaconvert are rather cumbersome and unclear, I'll wait a little for suggestions for better names before beginning to use them.

Search links for the parameter names in wikitext:

• nosymbolspace
• formulaconvert

--wqnvlz (talk | contribs) 00:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's set "unit system" to "International System of Units" in the templates

The SI base units and the SI derived units are not themselves 2 distinct systems of units, they're both components of the SI, which is the system of units (It's in the name!). For context "Meters" has been going around setting article pages back to "SI base unit" after other people changed it to the more accurate "International System of Units" and citing the templates here as justification, so I'd like to put a stop to this at the source. If I don't get any responses here after a few days, I'll take it as tacit endorsement and do it myself, but I would prefer for it to be clear that there's community agreement on this point. Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I undid the articles to the long-standing usage (many years for the articles I checked) which agrees with the examples given in Template:Infobox unit and Template:Infobox_unit/doc. You changed one article five months ago, and one person (not people, as you claim) made all the other changes in the last day or so. That person made the changes based on your one edit and has stated that he is not going to make any further such changes.

The current usage is how the template has been used for more than a decade. If we agree to change the usage, that's fine with me, but we're not going to do it simply because you think it makes more sense. This needs to be discussed, and your statement that you will take a lack of response as tacit approval is rather odd, considering that you are the one attempting to change the long-standing usage, and that you know full well that someone has objected. Meters (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Me plus one other makes 2, which is plural. And as it happens, many other pages have listed the unit system as "SI", "SI unit", or "metric" well before I created this account, e.g. square metre (by "116.14.93.41" in December 2021), microgram, cubic metre and metre per second squared (all by @Xena_the_Rebel_Girl in May 2019), Pascal (unit) (by "2405:205:2212:B775:99D2:56B5:F29A:94B3" in May 2019), metre per second (by @Hadron137 in July 2018), hectometre, decametre, decimetre, micrometre, nanometre, picometre, and femtometre (all by @Jimp in June 2016), centimetre (by Jimp in January 2014) and kilometre (by @Xiaphias in April 2013). I also changed the pages for mole (unit) and ampere around the same time as the kelvin, which has received no objections so far and "172.82.46.195" (@LaundryPizza03) very much isn't just mindlessly copying me, as a look at some of our past interactions would show.

Going even further back @TimothyRias made the original draft of this page 13 years ago (possibly to the day, depending what time zone he's in). This is the closest thing I can find to an endorsement of the present system and it wasn't at all clear his intention was to say that the unit system should only be given as "SI base unit" or "SI derived unit" and never as "International System of Units", "SI", or whatever, certainly no positive argument was given by him or by else I've seen to that effect.

And, yes I'm trying to change it because the current "usage" is quite plainly confused, at least 8 people have already used something like my suggestion, countless people have seen it used and not objected, and I haven't seen anyone (no, not even you) dispute the substance of my criticism or present any argument, or even express a preference, for of keeping the format as is. All I've seen is the original draft include this feature, nobody comment on it, for or against, for a really long time, and one person insisting that change "needs to be discussed" simply because of how long you guys have already waited to make it official, despite that person emphasising that they personally have no objections to changing the rules.

And to anybody else reading this, could you please add your opinion here. I know "discussing" such a simple and obvious point really feels like a waste of everyone's time, but it's apparently the only language this guy understands. Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW, hopefully it goes without saying I'd also be fine changing it to "SI". Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what this dispute is about. Can someone explain, with an example of before and after so I can express a preference? 06:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC) post by user:Dondervogel 2

I wrote If we agree to change the usage, that's fine with me (emphasis added). Stating that I will accept whatever consensus is reached is not saying that I "personally have no objections to changing the rules". This is an attempt to make a blanket change that contradicts the SI examples that have been in the template for more than a decade, and have been in the articles I edited for many years. If this is to become the new norm then we need to change the template documentation as well as correct these articles and any others that have this issue. So, yes, this needs to be discussed.

You may have found some other articles that disagree with the usage as given in the template. So? We already know there is a consistency problem in the template examples and how the template is being used wrt some SI units. There are many editors who have edited the multiple articles recently modified by 172.82.46.195 who have not complained about usage which followed the template example for years. Shall I ping all of them, and all of the editors who originally used the template that way? Meters (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. I also didn't say that LaundryPizza03 was "mindlessly copying you". The recent changes that I undid were actually by an IP, not by LaundryPizza03. I misremembered what the IP wrote on my page. He actually said that he thought these changes were likely to happen again, because of having seen your change, not that the made the changes because of your edit [1]. Meters (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dondervogel 2: Start with the examples in Template:Infobox unit. The template's "standard" field displays as "Unit system". The template's examples use SI base units and SI derived units. The "standard" field for these is filled in with SI base unit or SI derived unit as the field value rather than SI. This usage is how the template documentation has stood for more than a decade, and how many of the SI unit articles have used the template for many years. As Ava Eva Thornton points out, some SI articles have been changed to use SI rather than SI base unit or SI derived unit, some years ago. A few days ago, in multiple SI articles, an IP changed SI base unit or SI derived unit to SI in the system field of the template. I undid these and we're discussing how to handle the discrepancy between wording of the template documentation and the usage in some articles. Our usage should be consistent between articles and with the template documentation. See [2] for a base unit example, and [3] for a derived unit example. Ignore the change in capitalization of the "quantity" field. That's a valid change and was retained. Meters (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So, using the example from metre, it's about whether the info box should read "Unit system = SI" and "Unit system = SI base unit". I think it should say "Unit system = SI" because "SI base unit" is not a unit system. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I just happen to have noticed this. I am the IP referred to above. I do not have a particular preference, other than that the inconsistency should be removed between the label in the infobox and the item of information that is given. "SI base unit" and "SI derived unit" are not unit systems, making "Unit system = SI base unit" undesirable. It is this inconsistency that made me think that editing problems would recur. Given that the usage has been relatively consistent with the template examples with "SI base unit", this suggests that the template label should change, or alternatively, that "SI base unit" should change to SI as suggested by Dondervogel 2. Does anyone have suggestions for changes to the label "Unit system"? Perhaps "Unit group"? 172.82.46.195 (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Well put, and thank you for pointing out this inconsistency. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

An afterthought: I should add that post-2019, the SI no longer distinguishes between base and derived units other than to label seven units as a minimal subset, selected by convention, in terms of which all units may be expressed (and they point this out at length). To maintain a distinction in the infobox seems to be at odds with the SI and the intent of those who architect the system. This is also diminishes the weight of the argument of "long usage", since the SI change is more recent than the usage referenced. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

P.P.S This option didn't really occur to me at the time, but yes, I would also be OK with changing the label, though I will point out that currently this label hyperlinks to the article titled "System of measurement", so we don't want to introduce a new incongruity there. Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If it's true that SI no longer distinguishes between base and derived units, our articles on SI and SI base units need a lot of work. --Srleffler (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd quite like to seen the primary source for this claim, certainly the (post redefinition) 9th edition of the SI Brochure (https://www.bipm.org/documents/20126/41483022/SI-Brochure-9-EN.pdf/2d2b50bf-f2b4-9661-f402-5f9d66e4b507) and the BIPM website (https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/si-base-units) refer very frequently to base units and derived units. And to quote section 1.2 (Motivation for the use of defining constants to define the SI) of the Brochure: "This description in terms of base and derived units is maintained in the present definition of the SI, but has been reformulated as a consequence of adoption of the defining constants" and from section 2.3 (Definitions of the SI units) "Prior to the definitions adopted in 2018, the SI was defined through seven base units from which the derived units were constructed as products of powers of the base units. Defining the SI by fixing the numerical values of seven defining constants has the effect that this distinction is, in principle, not needed, since all units, base as well as derived units, may be constructed directly from the defining constants. Nevertheless, the concept of base and derived units is maintained because it is useful and historically well established, noting also that the ISO/IEC 80000 series of Standards specify base and derived quantities which necessarily correspond to the SI base and derived units defined here." Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thornton has quoted enough to substantiate my claim, though some may argue against the rephrasing that I chose above. The preface also says 'The meeting introduced a new approach to articulating the definitions of the units in general, and of the seven base units in particular, by fixing the numerical values of seven “defining” constants.' It should be clear (including from the deliberate scare quotes and the mention of "units in general" ahead of "base units") that the base units no longer have a clear defining role. One can also point to "[The named units] form the core of the set of SI units. All other SI units are combinations of some of these 29 units." to show that the base units do not carry special weight.

While this does imply that claims of the definitional role of the base units, where they appear, may need rework, I think the implication for WP articles is mostly limited to removing emphasis on the base units as a privileged ("more fundamental") set of units, where the usage of this template may be an example. This does not mean that the SI does not distinguish base units (note my prior qualification "other than to ..."): they have simply been given a far more minor role than they had before, one which is primarily for convenience (i.e., not much would change if the categories of base and derived units were to be merged). 172.82.46.195 (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

So can we to come to a conclusion please? It looks like nobody likes the status quo and everyone is either agnostic about what to do about it or in favour of making something like the change I suggested. And right now this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The present situation does not make sense to me. I support a change to "Unit system = SI". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Support --Srleffler (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Support – 172.82.46.195 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd say this discussion has run its course, and should be considered closed with consensus support for the suggestion as restated by Dondervogel 2 just above. I see one (Meters) calling for discussion, which has been had, and everyone else appears to support. An appropriate course of actions would be to first update the examples in this template's documentation accordingly, as pointed out my Meters. Once this is done, anyone should feel free to update the infobox parameter in any article accordingly. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

While changing infoboxes to "Unit system = SI", Ava Eva Thornton has also removed "International System of Units" from many lead sentences (many others didn't have it anyway). I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#"International System of Units" or "SI" in leads of unit articles, touching also on whether it's useful to readers to have eg "the derived unit of force" rather than "the unit of force" in the first sentence. Notifying here as this discussion was mentioned in edit summaries and participants here may indeed be interested. NebY (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)