User talk:Edgar.bonet

Thank you for updating the formula on the Tuning Fork page! I'm making a set for hobby, and working with the formula as had been previously stated was giving me problems. (I suppose I should have realized that it can't be affected by the perpendicular length on a rectangular cross-section, because when it's vibrating properly there are no forces in that direction and you could just cut it into two tuning forks, but I didn't.) --Shortgeek (logged out right now)

Solar day on Mars
A: The term sol is used by planetary astronomers to refer to the duration of a solar day B: The term sol is used by planetary astronomers to refer to the duration of a solar day on Mars The text above is a comparison of two contested edits on the page Timekeeping on Mars. B causes confusion, and is inaccurate, as solar day or Sol will be used for other planets and not just the first that we visit. A is concise clear, and links to an intermediary article for further reading.


 * ⇒ Moved the discussion to Talk:Timekeeping on Mars

Your edit to "Atomic clock"
In this edit you introduced a citation template into an article that has a mixture of Citation style 1 templates (like cite book and cite journal) and hand-formatted citations. It is not desirable to mix these two different styles of templates because they render the citation a little differently. Granted, the article's citations are in a far-from-ideal state, with the mixture of Citation style 1 and hand-formatted templates, but adding a Citation template makes the citations even less consistent. If you want to improve the citations in that article, I'm afraid a more comprehensive effort is needed, rather than just playing with one or two citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit was about replacing cite web with something more suited to citing an article in a scientific journal. I did not think about consistency of styles. I will replace that right away with cite journal. — Edgar.bonet (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)