Talk:KATRIN

Some of the information in importance doesn't seem to hold a NPOV. - December 3, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.88.179 (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Add to article?
71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why Karlsruhe? The experiment is taking advantage of the tritium production facilities set up there for ITER.
 * The electron detector, located after the spectrometer tank, was built at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Question about citation template usage
I noticed that you replaced cite conference with cite journal. Given that I had just added that, I'm curious to understand whether I made a mistake in the first place. I had understood Template:cite conference to be more specific than Template:cite journal and so preferable if both applied. And since this was a conference presentation, I used. Can you help me understand how to use them better? Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The choice is somewhat arbitrary, but given that the proceedings are published in a journal (Physics Procedia/ Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements) I feel it makes a bit more sense to cite those as journals. cite conference is more designed to cite proceedings published as standalone books. It's not particularly 'wrong' to use cite conference for this, but from personal experience it's a real pain to track down books compared to journals.


 * The cite conference parameters are also very prone to not being filled correctly (and this was indeed the case here). For instance date is the date the proceedings were published, not the date of the conference, and location is the location of the publisher, not the location of the conference. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ah, okay. So what is the right way to cite a presentation given at a physics conference?  For example (and I made the same date and location errors):
 * Video available at.
 * There is a corresponding arXiv paper, but my source was the video and presentation slides linked above. I find such presentations are often more accessible for Wikipedia-level information.  They're both less bogged down in experimental details than the full papers, and the presenters often summarize the field, thus acting as secondary sources, rather than referring to long lists of other papers.  (Reliable because they're giving the talk in front of an audience that includes the primary sources they're summarizing, who would jump on them in the question period if they seriously misrepresented something.)
 * In physics, it's quite common to present significant findings at conferences first, with the arXiv paper following, and then the refereed publication being a relatively unnoticed formality happening months later. (I exaggerate somewhat for rhetorical purposes; referees do commonly catch problems.)
 * 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Date of image incorrect
The image's date says:

"25 November 2006 (original upload date)

(Original text: 25.11.2006)"

This is obviously incorrect. I can't correct it, though, because I don't know the correct date. McGucket (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)