| Revision as of 17:28, 21 July 2005 editDirectorstratton (talk | contribs)980 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:03, 22 July 2005 edit undoBambaiah (talk | contribs)933 edits particle classificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| == Crap == | == Crap == | ||
| I don't edit science articles on purpose. It just makes me mad. Come to think of it, almost everything on wikipedia anymore just makes me mad. ] 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC) | I don't edit science articles on purpose. It just makes me mad. Come to think of it, almost everything on wikipedia anymore just makes me mad. ] 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == particle classification == | |||
| The category "subatomic particles" is catch-all: analogy is to the main data tables in the particle data book (although there is no need to be so inclusive). The categories "fermion" and "boson" I believe are useless categorizations and should be removed. Particles can be in more than one category. | |||
| It's not totally clear to me whether one should go for a lepton/hadron classification or a elementary/composite classification. The 1st has the advantage that it already exists, and although there are particles which may not be either, the spillover can always be acccomodated into "subatomic particles". The 2nd makes more sense within the standard model (or its extensions), and with the article that you are writing/have written. The composite category can easily be subdivided into things like "hadron", "nuclear isotopes" etc. | |||
| I was wondering whether this discussion should be initiated in the wikiproject: particles, but that seems to have been started by some undergrads, and is anyway defunct. If you and one or two others are willing to revive it in order to put this discussion on record, then it may be useful. --] 09:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:03, 22 July 2005
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
- If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also Misplaced Pages:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
Particles
Good work. I see that you and Xerxes have pretty much done the clean up that I thought I would do. I'd begun to remove the totally unnecessary pages on every antiparticle. Thanks for pitching in and especially for redoing the particle template. Bambaiah 13:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Crap
I don't edit science articles on purpose. It just makes me mad. Come to think of it, almost everything on wikipedia anymore just makes me mad. DirectorStratton 17:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
particle classification
The category "subatomic particles" is catch-all: analogy is to the main data tables in the particle data book (although there is no need to be so inclusive). The categories "fermion" and "boson" I believe are useless categorizations and should be removed. Particles can be in more than one category.
It's not totally clear to me whether one should go for a lepton/hadron classification or a elementary/composite classification. The 1st has the advantage that it already exists, and although there are particles which may not be either, the spillover can always be acccomodated into "subatomic particles". The 2nd makes more sense within the standard model (or its extensions), and with the article that you are writing/have written. The composite category can easily be subdivided into things like "hadron", "nuclear isotopes" etc.
I was wondering whether this discussion should be initiated in the wikiproject: particles, but that seems to have been started by some undergrads, and is anyway defunct. If you and one or two others are willing to revive it in order to put this discussion on record, then it may be useful. --Bambaiah 09:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)