Template talk:X10^

This template is intended to facilitate and uniformise scientific notation numbers. To render:

3.14×10⁻¹²

instead of writing:

3.14×10⁻¹²

you can write simply (and much more legibly):

3.14{{e|−12}}

which yields:

3.14×10⁻¹²

Urhixidur 20:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Copying this to the template page under Usage. (It'll be much more helpful there.) — SheeEttin {T/C} 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Should this be moved, deleted, or left alone?

I'm coming from Category talk:Chemical element symbol templates#Standard, and there is a discussion there about creating a standard chemical symbol template which applies to all elements. This template, however, needs a name, and {{element}} is already taken. Since the next logical name, {{e}}, is already used by this template, I would suggest a move of this template to Template:10^ (valid title) or something else, but I noticed the {{sn}} template, which seems to make this template redundant. Since either this or the {{sn}} template is redundant, I suggest that this template be replaced with the element template (see a working example in my sandbox) and the {{sn}} template be used instead of, or replaced by (replace the wikicode there with), this one. Please comment. :) Nihiltres 17:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Without any response, I'm going to go ahead (being bold) with a move to replace {{sn}} with this template, change all links here to go to that template (edit: subst every instance of this template, including the insane ones), and add the element template here. If you don't agree, please say so now and leave me a message on my talk page - I'm going to go ahead after placing this note. Nihiltres 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

i think i disagree. this exponential notation is very useful and i believe will be more widely used than the chemical template for a non-existant element that you want to create. r b-j 02:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

also, did you notify User:Urhixidur about this? i don't think he would like what you're doing either. r b-j 02:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Excess line break

I've noticed that when using this template, a line break is added between the preceding number and the e template. For example, 5{{e|-5}}, yields:

5
×10⁻⁵ I've added a br post-fix to show original problem -- SGBailey 08:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This interrupts the flow of articles and infoboxes where this template is used. Can this be fixed? --Volcanopele 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Still not fixed (or explained) -- SGBailey 08:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully nobody depended on the earlier, broken behavior. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed behaviour - 5×10⁻⁵ -- SGBailey 08:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

cs:

Add interwiki to cs:Šablona:Scinum. Thanks. --User:DJ Jeri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.187.45 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

MOS breach: spacing of the × sign

See also Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Common_mathematical_symbols:_spacing.

Please note that MOS requires spaces on both sides of the multiplication sign. I wonder whether someone can fix this technical glitch (it has come up at WP:FAC). Tony (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be fixed in order to conform with the MoS.—RJH (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I added   on both sides.--Patrick (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you indeed, Patrick. Tony (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this change. While it might be appropriate to put spaces on either side of a times symbol in an equation, it should not be spaced when it appears within a number in exponential notation, since the number is a single entity. These spaces should be removed. (2×10⁴ vs 2 × 10⁴).--Srleffler (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this change as well. It is not appropriate to include spaces when using × as part of scientific notation. While there are no formal guidelines for use of white space like this, it should be used where it assists in readability. The number written in scientific notation should be easily viewed as a single unit, with space between it and other operators (since the multiplication is part of the number and is not being emphasized as an operation). An except would be in an article explaining how scientific notation works; one might use space there to emphasize the multiplication. I’ve changed the template back. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This kind of arrogance gives mop-people a very bad name. So now, in the first article I looked at in the "linked to" pages, we have this squashy rubbish:

e = 1.60217653×10^-19 C

Nice one. In fact, that page is littered with many of these gobbledygooks. I don't know why you think you had consensus to move back this template so that it breaches the Manual of Style, but your actions just suck. I think the proper spaced version should be reinstated and that you should argue it out at the MOS talk page, as anyone else with a scrap of decency would. Tony (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is hardly arrogant to revert a change to a template back to its original behavior. I think the “squashy rubbish” you cite is the preferable version. I don’t know why you thought you had consensus to change a widely used template. The Manual of Style provides guidelines, not overarching requirements for all possible cases. I see no need to argue it out at the MOS talk page, as you seem to be the only one there arguing for the spaced version, but I will be happy to add my voice. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you're happy for all FA candidates to be knocked back for not following MOS in this respect, fine. It's because of this mismatch between MOS and the template that the issue was raised by RJH, followed by my voice here. You've acted improperly by not discussing the matter in relation to the MOS guideline, which is mandatory for FAs to follow. I'll ensure that until it's worked out properly at MOS, FA candidates wait. You're call. Tony (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The example shown with e looks exactly right. As a constant, it should not have spaces within it. I have substituted the template above so the text will remain the same for purposes of this discussion, even if the template changes again.--Srleffler (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this version (no spaces) looks better, and looking through some published texts that style seems pretty typical. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• OK, so the template is no longer acceptable in FAs. Tony (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)