Talk:Thermal transport in nanostructures

It is requested that a physics diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

The article looks like a copy of a journal paper. Figures and tables are yet missing. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

Whoever constructed this page thought that Thermodynamics was short for Thermal dynamics. It is not even close. The article should be renamed Thermal transport in nanostructures. I will leave this here for a week for comments before doing anything. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was renamed

Thermodynamics of nanostructures <- Thermal properties of nanostructures

Your title is better, go for it. Refs would back up you title:

Hoogeboom-Pot, Kathleen M.; Hernandez-Charpak, Jorge N.; Gu, Xiaokun; Frazer, Travis D.; Anderson, Erik H.; Chao, Weilun; Falcone, Roger W.; Yang, Ronggui; Murnane, Margaret M.; Kapteyn, Henry C.; Nardi, Damiano (2015-04-21). "A new regime of nanoscale thermal transport: Collective diffusion increases dissipation efficiency". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112 (16): 4846–4851. doi:10.1073/pnas.1503449112. ISSN 0027-8424.
Chernatynskiy, Aleksandr, David R. Clarke, and Simon R. Phillpot. "Thermal transport in nanostructured materials." Handbook of nanoscience, engineering, and technology. CRC Press, 2018. 568-595.

Johnjbarton (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal transport in nanostructures seems the most adequate.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edits

Dear @MicrobiologyMarcus, sorry but your recent edits are scientifically incorrect -- that is not the definition of thermodynamics. Also removing those tags is highly inappropriate. Please restore them, or argue here why you believe standard tags should not be used as they are on thousands of main pages. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ldm1954, that's fine, I was being bold in my edits to do some cleanup. You'll recall that's one of our central tenants, much like WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith.

In regards to the tags, I found {{sources exist}} redundant as I hadn't seen any indication of challenged notability. Seeing as the article at the time had 30 references, this tag was not needed. Further, the {{afc comment}} is not, in fact, a standard tag. You'll note that on the template page: This template is used for articles submitted through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, when you have a comment for the submitter. Using that tag populated the page into the category for monitoring submitted WP:AfC drafts.

In regards to the intro I'd written for the lead, feel free to rewrite in. I was doing my best to make a succinct summary for the lead, seeing as the one that existed before made it sound like an essay, as was tagged by yourself. That's explicitly allowed as part of when to remove the tag.

I will also point out that in your above section, you can either move the page yourself if you feel it is uncontroversial, per WP:BEFOREMOVING. But if you think it is controversial or potentially controversial, as you've indicated above, you are required to use the talkpage template per WP:RSPM to allow notice for discussion. That allows for the actual 7 day discussion.

Cheers, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 01:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]