User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2008/April

Peer review for the list of baryons/Val template

 * &lt;SkyLined&gt;Moving this to your talk page - it was on my user page&lt;/SkyLined&gt;

I just asked for a Peer Review of the List of baryons. I've contacted just about everyone with an interest in Particle physics in the Physics project to give help with that page. So I suggest we move forward with the template to seperate things with spaces instead of commas, especially since that is what the SI strongly recommends. Headbomb (talk · contribs) 21:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to decide which way to go without getting concensus - otherwise we may have to undo a lot of our work. We can leave that page as is and replace those values with val later - I'm talking to somebody who owns a bot to see if it's possible to replace values automatically. For the time being, I would suggest you use "&amp;thinsp;" as a seperator - that way it's easy to recognise the complete value automatically later and replace it.--  (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep that in mind when fixing things.

Re: List of baryons
I'm just a first year but i plan to pursue Particle Physics as my major. I have my exams right now until the 2nd of May. After that I'll do all I can. Σαι ( Talk ) 02:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My interest in Particle Physics is really just an interest, as in, I haven't studied much about it at all. The article, unfortunately, contains more than I don't know than what I know. I'm sure I have the "book" resources to investigate further, but my time is "booked" (haha) for thesis work (not-so-haha) at this time. I will be back in a big way once that's done, though! --Qrystal (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Heading to the Talk page :-D Tatonzolo (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

top-containing baryons
i noticed you recently added a lot of baryons containing top quarks. I should tell you, these baryons don't exist, as in they cannot exist. the top quark decays too quickly for it to form strong bonds with other quarks, so, in essence, there is no, say, triple-topped omega. they stop at bottom, and most of those still remain unconfirmed. i think it would be wise to hold off expanding the article until these particles listed are actually scientifically discovered (for those that even exist). Wing gundam (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

as an afterthought, i don't believe it is necessary to cite every single particle, especially since they're all from the exact, same place, and located in the same list. Marking the proton with a small reference link to the PDG page from which they were all obtained from should more than suffice the need to source. frankly, these citation marks clog the article, detracting from both its asthetic quality, and its actual readability and information quality (which, cutting through a mile of BS, is the primary goal of this encyclopedia!!!). Wing gundam (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the top quark containing baryons in the isospin section so it was clear where they would be, would the t quark have a decent lifetime. I wouldn't be opposed to slashing them down from that list, but I feel that t quarks should still have some sort of mention somewhere in the article, sort of like magnetic monopoles have in electromagnetism.


 * References were done this way because I find that it is much more useful to have the relevant document directly linked (in the relevant section no less) so people can easily check the references to see that what is written is accurate and to get more info about that particular particle. Linking to the PDG main page will make things more difficult to find for people who don't know where to look. At worse it's a minor ugliness, but it shows that proper referencing was done and that data is reliable, and saves a lot of trouble to those who wants to read more. Benefits greatly outweighs the drawbacks IMO.Headbomb (talk · contribs) 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)