Talk:Strange B meson
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Rename
[edit]I think Strange B mesons would be a better name for this page.Headbomb (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Recent changes
[edit]Recent changes were badly worded, the layout was crappy and it was obviously in the wrong section. I have no problem with changes to the page, but please make good changes, not bad ones. Feel free to reapply the changes once you make sure they are coherent, easy to read, comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style and put them in the right section. — SkyLined (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- It would also need an decent source. The analogies there were ... not so great. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Box Diagram?
[edit]The link to box diagram leads to a page called Neutral Particle Oscillation which doesn't even mention box diagrams. I don't know why it goes to that article, perhaps it USED to have a section about box diagrams, or perhaps there is some other connection that I don't understand, but it seems either broken, or at the very least not well explained. Am I missing something? DJsunkid (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It is Complicated
[edit]I'm do not agree with the premise that this article is too complicated for most readers. I believe that the topic itself is too complicated for most readers. It would be possible, but not desirable, to remove all the mathematics and make this yet another National Enquirer grade piece of fluff. The subject itself is complex, and anyone who is visiting Wikipedia and looking at "Strange Bs Meson" pretty well has to believe that the topic will be complicated.
Perhaps the approach should be to add a paragraph at the beginning that explains that the article covers a complicated topic in complicated detail. The math -is- the topic, and complex or not, it should stay. Norm Reitzel (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)