User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/November

Reverts on theta meson, tauon and kaon

Hi, can you please give a single good argument for your reverts on theta meson and tauon ? Thanks. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just noticed that you moved the information into the kaon page. But still, I think it has to be also on the theta and tauon articles, since when you read some old article, you don't know a priori that it's the old name for kaon, so if you happen to look on WP, you will look on the theta and tauon pages. Assuming you will agree on this point, I undo your revert. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The only context one would look for τ–θ as kaons would be in the τ–θ puzzle, not on the articles for theta mesons / tauons. A hat note is perhaps warranted, but it's very out of place in the lead. Reverting, with hat notes this time. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. Anyone reading a 60 years old article without knowing that these particles refer to kaon would look directly to the tau and theta articles, and wouldn't have a clue about the whole thing. Anyway, I'm happy with the hat notes. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about WikiPhysics Project

I was wondering if it would be okay to send you a link to a web page that has a lot of valuable information associated with optics? I don't know the protocol so I didn't want to send it directly to you. Any information that you could give me going forward would be a great help.Nikolas09 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You might as well post it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. If you are affiliated with the website, there shouldn't be too much problem as long as you keep your message non-promotional. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

NA48/2

Hi, I added the NA48/2 start/end dates as a member of the collaboration. Do I understand correctly that start/end dates refer to the start/end of the data taking, as suggested by the other table entries? Concerning the references, here is the graph of SPS beam availablity on the T4 target in 2003, taken from my homepage: http://goudzovs.web.cern.ch/goudzovs/Beam_T4.pdf -- the start date is evident from it (however you must still believe that the data taking started in 2003!). Could we use it as a reference? I will also look for possible sources for the end of run in public domain. Cheers, Goudzovski (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not entirely sure what exactly I'm seing on that chart to be honest (nothing's labeled NA48/2 for starters), but if that's what you're going from, then it should definitely be referenced (at least until something better can be found). The start/end dates are those taken from the SPIRES database. I'm not sure of what CERN/SPIRES consider to be start dates, as the Grey Book and SPIRES information rarely match. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox bibliographic database

Hi, some time ago you said that you might perhaps be able to help me creating an infobox for bibliographic databases. I have made a list of parameters that I think should be included here. I have looked into the editing of infoboxes a bit and it looks rather daunting... Any help you can give will be highly appreciated! --Crusio (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgetten about it, I'm just kinda busy recently. I'll take a look during this week hopefully. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

3rd component of isospin

I looked in the literature and T₃ seems more popular. All my QFT books (Cheng & Li, Kaku, Itzykson & Zuber, Leite Lopes, Sterman) use either T₃ or I₃, not T_z or I_z. Nishijima's original paper uses I₃. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Heisenberg came up with isospin, not Nishijima...? The point is WP:ENGVAR. It wasn't broken before, so there's no need to "fix it". Switching to I_3 all-accross wikipedia will be a pain in the ass and is something that warrants discussion between more than just us two. I'm reverting again, and I'll start a thread on WP:PHYS asking for opinions. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather you started the thread first. BTW if you do revert first, bear in mind that all (AFAICS) the images have "3" not "z", so you will have to do more than just revert. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did just that. (I was going to update reply, but we editconflicted). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Physics and Book-Class

Having seen some of your comments elsewhere, I've edited {{Physics/class}} so the banner can use Book-Class:

I've set it so that pages in the Wikipedia talk namespace will default to Book-Class where the page title begins "Wikipedia talk:Books/" (I'm assuming that's a naming standard), or Project-Class for all other pages in that namespace. You might also want to ask for Book-Class to be added to {{cat class}}. Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. It is indeed the standard naming although I do not think it's necessary to have the recognition (but it can't hurt). And yes I was planning to add it to {{cat class}}, there's just a LOT of little things to do so it doesn't get done all at once (thanks for the reminder however). 17:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

bot request fulfilled- did you see it?

Did you see that I wrote out this bot? Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 32#New books alert. Haven't heard back from you on WPBR. tedder (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Optics

The Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics has shortened its name to the Journal of Optics. I'm not sure I follow the technical details, but I'd appreciate any help. Journals88 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

signpost

Hi! thanks so much for your signpost article. I think we should run it in news and notes, so it can go together with the article assessment milestone -- what do you think? best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wrote it hoping it would be in its own section. Perhaps in one of the "special stories"? This would greatly help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as well as the adoption of the book-class amongst WikiProjects. In the "news and notes" several people would probably skip over it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is just my preference, I'm not categorically opposed to the News & Notes option. However the current title is misleading, since there is no "book-class assessment project". I'll switch to the old title, at least for now.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)