User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/April

Date autoformatting poll

Hi there, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Having one of these on your page should reduce the number of unwanted posts to your talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that discussions on a proposed replacement included specifications for a consistent format for unregistered users, as you mentioned. There was also talk (and a demo system, although no longer online) about allowing per-page defaults that would override the normal default. So your concerns are shared by the same people who were working to develop a replacement for the current autoformatting system. --Sapphic (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And some users may not like having their vote questioned like this, Sapphic. I'm sure this user read the statements perfectly well and made an informed decision. Tony (talk) 07:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

FDTF quality bar

Thanks for the handy quality overview bar on top of WT:FDTF! -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No probs.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are very lucky (to have no probs). But thanks anyway. -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about leaving you a mess with the template

Sorry about leaving you a mess with the template for the participants list. I was planning on fixing it this morning after some sleep. I am glad you were able to get it working. TStein (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No probs, I'm pretty good with template and you seemed to be struggling so I thought I'd help.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fermi & chemical potential

Hi, "It is chosen so [that?] f(μ) = 0.5;" is IMHO misleading. Chemical potential is defined in a different way (not specific to the type of the stat. distribution). It just happens to correspond to f = 0.5 in the case of fermions. Do you disagree?--Evgeny (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right, my bad. I meant μ is defined so $\int _{0}^{\infty }g(E)P(E,\mu )dE=N$. f(mu) = 0.5 is simply the consequence of the FD distribution being what it is. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How can a physics scholar say that???

I recently read your position to delete the "An Elegant Theory Of Time" wiki-entry from Damon Berry. I submited the article and the link for the website. I can understand the average person who has no understanding of physics saying they don't get it, but YOU, a scholar of physics to agree is very sad and disappointing. Everything cited in the article and on the website is founded on the principles of physics. Quantum mechanics and the General Theory Of Relativity outlines every assertion in the article and you still say the work is baseless? Your postion needs further articulation or you run the risk of being the one called a Kook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.164.114 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's crank science (I didn't even read the website in much detail), I'm saying the article did not meet the criteria for inclusion. See WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ISNOT and WP:OR for more information on why the article was deleted. Everyone can make a website about something, but not every websites are notable. Demonstrate that the website and the theories proposed in it are endorsed by the scientific community and it'll be included on wikipedia.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Metric measures and SI

There's no completely satisfactory way to refer to the mixture of SI and other metric measures that is commonly referred to as the metric system. Call it SI and it excludes some common measures as hectare, litre and tonne [1]. Call it the metric system and you are open to charges of imprecision of language. Refer to "SI and non-SI units accepted for use with SI" and you are open to charges of pedantry and clumsy writing. My solution is to use the generic term, "metric system"; what is yours? Michael Glass (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It should remain as is (SI and non-SI units accepted for use with the SI), IMO. There is more than enough latitude to use SI-derived units not accepted for use if the SI, such has hectares, liters, and the metric ton, when it's appropriate to do so. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, hectares liters and tonnes are all allowed to be used alongside the SI units, which is explicitly allowed by the MOS. What's your beef with it then?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem with what the MOS says, but I think that "SI and non-SI units accepted for use with the SI" becomes long-winded if repeated too often and SI as a term is not inclusive enough for hectares, litres and tonnes. My solution is to use "metric system" as shorthand for a rather unwieldy phrase on occasion. Michael Glass (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but metric is vague and ill-defined. BIPM approved (aka SI and non-SI units accepted for use with the SI) is specific and clear. I agree that repeated to often, it would be a problem, but right now it's used once. If it ain't broke... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Selected anniversaries (March 2008)

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Selected anniversaries (March 2008)]] to pages that belong in it.

I tagged the category. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of tagging and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to remove the tag if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion of the category if it remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine how creating empty categories would be painful. If you think creating them's a pain, you should try deleting them some time! :)

I'm also unclear when the categories are supposed to be populated. Will SA articles be tagged retroactively, for the current month, for future months, or some combination of the above? --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of rights of deletion means I can't try it :P. Painful might not be the word, but it would certainly be annoying. I don't really know what's going to happened with retroactive tagging, it really depends on what the bots can figure out I think. I'll sent to speedy deletions whatever category is unused after bots get involved, so you don't have to worry much about them.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I can't delete pages either; I just do all the preliminary legwork. I'll remove the tags for now, but reserve the right to re-tag the categories in the future; i.e. after I've forgotten this conversation. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All this have made me file the BOTREQ, would've expected that other people made one, but I guess not.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this moving forward. Thanks for your help. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Morcom article category

Hey Headbomb. I was thinking that the Christopher Morcom article should be in a computer science category rather than a physics one. I'm not quite sure tho. What do you think? 68.44.137.246 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and add {{WikiProject Computing|class=stub|importance=}} on the talk page. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find the physics welcome template

I know the physics welcome template exists somewhere, but I cannot seem to find it. I have done the normal template: name space search and have even went through the template categories. Can you point me to it please. TStein (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

{{WP Physics Welcome}}. I've tagged the template with the banner, so it should be easier to find in the future.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The WP in front threw me off. TStein (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bit unconventional. Feel free to move it to a better place.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Category-Class physics articles of Mid-importance

Hi Headbomb, do you really think these categories are useful? I can understand it for articles, but it seems a little excessive for categories, etc. Most categories will be assessed, be default, as NA-importance anyway ...

I've made a change to the Physics template whereby all the non-articles will use NA-Class for the purpose of the quality/importance category intersection. This means that only 11 x 6 = 66 categories are needed! Does that sound okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC) ]]

There were/are mostly used to make sure that someone doesn't place class=category importance=mid or similar things (same goes for class=project/template/etc...) [see Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Assessment categories for all cats and cross cats used]. I've reverted your edits because I think you've removed the full quality scale (and we do want start-class of low imp, etc...). I could live without the temp-class of low imp, etc..., but there's no real cost in leaving them there either.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Quark

What do you think: FAC or GAN? I've asked Army1987 too; I think you both should be consulted as the two of you are certainly key contributors. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Image formatting

Could you describe the problem you're having with having both images on the right? Does it mess up your display or something? All I can say is that, for me, having the beta decay on the left looks really bad – at least, on my monitor. It makes the math harder to read and is very distracting. Perhaps two images is just too many for that section? Which do you feel is more important? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with having them on the right, I have a problem with having them wrong section. It looks completely different and messes up all the [edit] buttons.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, they're in the right section now. Problem solved? And, on a related note, that grammar is good grammar, and I know that for sure – it's the form used when discussing the mathematical general case. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the <sub> and not the <math>? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Math uses a different typesetting which highly contrasts with regular fonts, and changes line spacing. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also, FWIW, I think you're right about that paragraph in "Mass". It wasn't a conclusion that needed coverage in the article. Sound call. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For your work on the Fluid Dynamics Taskforce

		The Original Barnstar
		For creating the Fluid Dynamics Taskforce, and your explosive action backstage to get and keep the task force running. — Crowsnest (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

w00t! Thanks a bunch!Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Tweaks

Sorry about conflicting with you again on the tweaks you're making. But I must say that I really think the structure you're proposing overcomplicates things. As I say, I think the article's previous structure was just right. The whole article itself was just right, and there were only a few things to address before FAC. We don't want to reintroduce the turmoil of several months ago. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh it's something I'm trying based on the suggestion of TStein. I think it was I who regrouped the weak/strong into properties a while ago. I did so based on the idea of charges <--> properties (electric charge <--> EM, weak isospin <--> Weak inter, color charge <--> strong inter). That structure now seems inappropriate for what the article has become (IMO). So I'm moving things around. I'm very open to the idea that the previous way of doing things is better, but I'm playing with things for now, see what people think, etc...

However, I think that there is a great advantage to placing weak/strong interacitons in their own section. I felt a lot less constrained by space, so I took the liberty to explain things in greater details, and expand some sections. The weak inter section IMO greatly benefitted from this, but it's possible that I'm the alone in thinking so. Let's see what others think (and find a compromise if need be). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I find TStein's suggestion here to be misguided and perhaps poorly informed. Weak and strong interactions are properties of quarks, and belong in that section in my true opinion. This new format is a bit all over the place, and the weak interaction section you're rewritten was difficult to understand, at least for me. It will also be confusing for the reader because you start out by saying "The most famous example of weak interaction..." before even explaining what weak interaction actually is. I have to say, I'm really becoming disillusioned with this article. It fails FA criterion 1 (e) shockingly, and is incredibly unstable. It's constantly changing format and being reshuffled when the previous format was fine. Fair enough, some content concerns need to be re-addressed and that's normal. But revamping the article like this again and again is impairing it. There are numerous section and content configurations that we could try; the old one was just fine. Also, when you reshuffle, content needs to be changed. You've made those changes in this case, but I feel that the changes you've made make things more confusing. Therefore, it is my very strong suggestion that we restore the old format, the format we were considering going to FAC with. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This would really be better on the quark talk page. More people would be able to comment.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Children's lit

Re: [2] - I just thought, since the workgroup designation is a different name than the template and WikiProject name... Cirt (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but the way the bot works is look for the template first. If you don't want it to look for a banner, you can bypass that by giving a category to look into instead. As far as the bot is concerned, if you have a banner, you're a Wikiproject. If you use another banner (say something like {{WikiProject Literature |children=yes}}), then you're a "workgroup" (or taskforce, or whatever), and then you have to specify a category. So since you have your own banner, no need for categories! Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Cirt (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Soliton

Please enter into dialogue to establish common ground for a workable integration of this citation within this article.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Chemformula

Should all be good until it's actually used. then the appropriate monthly cat will be needed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC).