Talk:Form factor

Not a dismbiguation page
I removed the tag that indicates a dismbiguation page because the page is not "a list of articles associated with the same title". --A bit iffy 12:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Corrected btx link
Updated link for BTX since the page has been moved. --  RND    T    C   17:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Form Factor equation for fluid dynamics
The link in to Fluid Dynamics isnt very useful, as there is no mention of form factor in fluid dynamics. It'd be great to expand with a brief definition/explanation of what it means here.

Form Factor and Motherboard
A line explaining the relationship between these two terms would be very helpful. I think, in this sense, that a form factor is a motherboard in a particular shape and size. But I'm not an expert in this area. Gil Gamesh 12:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ins't that all covered at Motherboard form factor? Ewlyahoocom 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved Fuortu (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Form factor (disambiguation) → Form factor – To undo this move from earlier this year, which was done without community consensus that Form factor (design) is primary for listing at the base name. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per pageviews. No primary topic. — Gorthian (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Now how did this manage to get done without a notification to Talk:Form factor (design)? I suppose perhaps a gap in my bot's notification algorithms?

But then again, the result of this was to not only pull Form factor (design) off of primary topic status, but to completely remove it from Form factor (disambiguation) as well! I'll fix that. This should have been done as part of post-move cleanup. MOS:DAB. wbm1058 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I usually do that but I forgot this time. Fuortu (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I also disambiguated three links, but I see you were working on that. All good. wbm1058 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

nuclei
There should be an article on Nuclear form factor, similar to the Atomic form factor but for the nucleus. This is used to determine the charge distribution and charge radius of nuclei. Gah4 (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Created as a redirect from subtopic, add content as you please: nuclear form factor. Paradoctor (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is a redirect to Atomic form factor. I suppose that isn't so bad, but it really needs its own. I am not sure what a redirect from subtopic is. Gah4 (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can find info on "subtopic" at Summary style, including on if and when to break it out into its own article. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, now I got it. The thing is, nuclear physics is not a subtopic of atomic physics. Nuclear form factor is not a subtopic of atomic form factor. (At least it isn't supposed to be.)  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. Maybe a see also would be about right. The math isn't a lot different, though the probes used to experimentally measure it are different. Gah4 (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can find info on "subtopic" at Summary style, including on if and when to break it out into its own article. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, now I got it. The thing is, nuclear physics is not a subtopic of atomic physics. Nuclear form factor is not a subtopic of atomic form factor. (At least it isn't supposed to be.)  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. Maybe a see also would be about right. The math isn't a lot different, though the probes used to experimentally measure it are different. Gah4 (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, now I got it. The thing is, nuclear physics is not a subtopic of atomic physics. Nuclear form factor is not a subtopic of atomic form factor. (At least it isn't supposed to be.)  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. Maybe a see also would be about right. The math isn't a lot different, though the probes used to experimentally measure it are different. Gah4 (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, now I got it. The thing is, nuclear physics is not a subtopic of atomic physics. Nuclear form factor is not a subtopic of atomic form factor. (At least it isn't supposed to be.)  That doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. Maybe a see also would be about right. The math isn't a lot different, though the probes used to experimentally measure it are different. Gah4 (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I pointed it there as "nucleus" is clearly a subtopic of "atom". As long as there is no actual content on it, that seems good enough. If you say the topic is notable on its own, well, WP:BE BOLD. Paradoctor (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)