Talk:Technicolor (physics)

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Technicolor (physics) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Technicolor (physics) was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 9, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

Regular quantum numbers?

You don't say whether the technifermions carry regular (QCD) color or any other SM quantum numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeyondSM (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's model dependent. AnonyScientist (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name?

How about an explanation as to why its called "technicolor"? It's a rather weird name for a breed of physics models and the article makes no attempt to explain the name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.189.253 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Technicolour is a play on colour from the colour charge of QCDPhoenix1177 (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing (Author please identify yourself!)

Someone anonymous completely rewrote the page in a single edit. It is now much longer, though I haven't read it to tell if it is better. The citations are of the style of a physics journal, but have a few problems. First, they don't have the wikipedia linked references done correctly. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources). Second, there are a few oddities, such as the first reference to "Ken Wilson, private communication".

Unless the wikipedia author was speaking to the actual Ken Wilson, this is probably just a citation mistake by the author. It looks like the citation was copied from the seminal technicolor paper "Mass without Scalars" [1] by Dimopoulos and Susskind. In both that paper and this wikipedia article, the Ken Wilson citation is attached to a comment about fine-tuning.

I suspect that this paper was written by a master's or grad student or the like for a class. I'm going to revert the article back in the hopes that the author will check it and come to this discussion page. If you are the author and are reading this, could you confirm that you are releasing the text under the GFDL, and maybe provide a bit of proof (such as the original TeX/Office file) that you wrote it yourself? (Otherwise, people will suspect that it has simply been ripped from another paper without the author's knowledge.) If so, I'll be happy to have the page changed back and will thank you for the contribution to wikipedia. Njerseyguy (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New version information

This version written by T. Appelquist, K. Lane and R. Wijewardhana. 128.36.107.47 (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing good article review comments

There are seven concerns raised in the good article review page (and another at WikiProject Physics) that I've started to address. Those concerns used to be transcluded on this talk page, but apparently should have been removed or archived once the good article review was completed. I've now removed them from this page, but they're still accessible through the links above.

Introduction: I've added a lede by moving the "summary" section to the start of the article and expanding it to add context.
References: The references look pretty comprehensive, the main issue being that they tend to be cited only where particular work is specifically mentioned in the text. Relevant sources for currently-unreferenced text are generally already included, and just need to be moved around. I know a couple of more comprehensive reviews that should also be added per WP:RS ("Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available").
Sections and hierarchy: As I mentioned above, the "summary" section is now gone, and adding subsections shouldn't be hard (see point 5, below).
Citation style: This should be simple to fix, though it may take a while to go through the whole list. I've started, and just need time to finish.
Accessibility/comprehensibility: This is the biggie. Making things clear to non-experts will probably require expanding and rephrasing paragraph-by-paragraph -- during this process some more hierarchy can be added.
Formatting: Lower-level formatting should be fixed at this point, though the amount of mathematical notation in the article may be excessive. The article's appearance may be improved by reformatting/rephrasing/replacing some of this math.
WP:NPOV: The summary, and article as a whole, is actually a good, neutral review of the topic -- not proposing or promoting research programs or pet theories. Hopefully this will be easier for non-experts to see once the text is more accessible/comprehensible.
WP:COI: As in the previous point, I'm confident there's no boosterism going on here. The folks who rewrote the article really were (and are) major figures in the development of technicolor, over the course of decades. The citations and discussions look like reasonably accurate reflections of contributions to the subject. There's always room for improvement and new developments, but I don't see any problems with conflict of interest.

I'll keep working on this (perhaps intermittently), and would appreciate any assistance, comments, feedback, etc. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject physics

After failing the Good Article nomination for this article, I got concerned about the rewritten version and I have left a message here, at the Physics WikiProject, asking for another editor to come in and evaluate the article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find some time to help out with this. I think there are many significant improvements in the new version, though tone, formatting and style will need some work to come into line with Wikipedia standards. WP:COI statement: I work with a couple of the authors of the new version; I'll try not to be too hard on them. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 03:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal references

Am I not correct in assuming that a reference to 'Personal Communication' is a no-no in Wikipedia. Such a reference is the first reference in this article, and that seems to me to be a glaring thing that should be fixed. --Dumarest (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reference "1. ^ K. Wilson, private communications." is inappropriate since there is no way that a reader can check whether it supports the text which it claims to support, and private communications do not qualify as reliable sources under WP:RS. So it should be replaced by a "citation needed" template. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead-in paragraph

Shouldn't dark matter get at least a passing mention in the opening paragraph? --Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want. While technicolor models can easily accommodate dark matter, there aren't any striking predictions (certainly nothing comparable to the "WIMP miracle" of the MSSM). So dark matter considerations haven't played much of a role in the development of technicolor, though that may be changing at the moment under the influence of preliminary results from the LHC. Cheers, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

redirects

techniparticles & techniparticle & technicolor physics & technicolor force & technicolour physics & technicolour force & techniquark & technilepton & technifermion & technigluon & techniquarks & technileptons & technifermions & technigluons & technicolor interaction & technicolor interactions & technicolour interaction & technicolour interactions & technicolor field & technicolor fields & technicolour field & technicolour fields should redirect here as valid search terms -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R disagrees. Huon (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are unlikely to get articles of their own, since each of them is an element in multiple theories, so should be covered in a general article on technicolor physics, and that article is this article. Especially redirects for technicolor physics. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the anon; these are useful redirects. And re: "WP:R disagrees" -- no, it doesn't. —Lowellian (reply) 22:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Techni-higgs?

There are lots of news stories at the moment reporting a paper that raises the possibility that the Higgs particle discovered at CERN may have been a "techni-higgs" particle, made of "techni-quarks".[2] This is presumably technicolor-related, but beyond that I have no idea what it means. Does anyone here know what they're talking about, and can we have an article about it, please? -- Impsswoon (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what they're talking about, and find it odd that anybody in the media became interested. This "light composite [techni-]Higgs" is already mentioned in passing in section 5 of this article. There is no need for a separate article. What would be beneficial is to update this article (most of which dates from 2009--2010) to account for the discovery of a 125-GeV Higgs particle at the LHC in 2012. I don't have the time or inclination to do so immediately. Cheers, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Technicolor (physics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]