User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2010/January

A kilobyte of boink, 1024 of them.

Happy new year. :) --Fnagaton 22:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing in List of baryons

The first entry in the first table is "0,938.272 029". What's the deal with the zero and comma? It should just be 938.272 029, right? The second entry has the same weird thing. (This may explain why someone was erroneously changing MeV to GeV earlier today.) :-) --Steve (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The zero is there for sorting purposes. Although that could probably be fixed using {{sort}}. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'm glad you changed it, it will be an especially big improvement for readers who are used to decimal comma instead of decimal point. Thanks! :-) --Steve (talk)

Protection templates

I saw four of your template sandboxes in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates as incorrectly proteced. Apart from the fact that in general there is no need to put the protection templates in userspace, this has become completely superfluous after the latest update to {{Documentation}}, which now adds protetion templates as needed automatically. Also I would advise you to use <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags at the beginning and end of the templates. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability for journals

Hi -- I'm seeing a tendency for new articles about journals to get hit with notability tags. In particular, I'm currently having to waste time arguing for the notability of Hippocampus (journal). Do you have a standardized justification I can use for the notability of journals published by major academic houses? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Notability (academic journals). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Books

Hey Headbomb, I see you updated the Wikipedia:Books page. I made a pretty major update to it earlier today, what do you make of it? Do you think it will be alright? — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to head on your talk page to thank you for your initiative. It looks much better this way. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I wasn't sure you'd like it, but I'm thrilled that you think it's good. Hope to continue working on bits and pieces like this. — Pretzels ^Hii! 20:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Walls of Recognized Content

I have nominated Category:Walls of Recognized Content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit at Economics

I'm not sure I follow the logic of your last edit at economics. It seems to have replaced a functional link with an irrelevant one. However, if you have good reason for doing so, please reinstate, but I would appreciate it if you could add a short note explaining. Thanks, LK (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. The template is the standard way to link to books (See Canada#See also, Calgary#See also, Prostate#See also, etc...) and it's the same book as before. If the link was relevant/functional before, then the current link still is relevant/function now, since it's the same page. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I clicked on the wrong link to check it. Thanks for the explanation, regards, LK (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Featured" book

Thanks for fixing that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional; WoRC Request

I've received an additional request for the WoRC bot task. I'd like to get some additional input before implementing. If you wish, please comment at this discussion. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Photon

Are you sure that wavenumber and this: frequency differs only by factor of 2Pi?????? I found that it is Spatial frequency that differs by such factor. Also it is written not clearly and may be interpreted "(or also to frequency)". I'm not physicist but I only spotted this confusing duality. That's why I wrote: --83.10.125.86 (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake, they differ by c, not by 2π. The full explanation is this:

In general, the relationship between wavelength and frequency is

${\text{wavelength}}\times {\text{frequency}}={\text{speed of propagation}}$

or using symbols (wavelength = λ, frequency = ν, speed of propagation = v_p)

$\lambda \nu =v_{\text{p}}$

photons propagate at the speed of light c (v_p = c)

$\lambda \nu =c$

re-arranging we get:

$\nu ={\frac {c}{\lambda }}$

1/λ is the wavenumber k, hence

$\nu =ck$

So something which is proportional to the wavenumber will also be proportionnal to the frequency. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rydberg matter

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rydberg matter, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rydberg matter. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Materialscientist (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Importance ratings for non-article classes

If you have a moment, I'd appreciate any thoughts you have about Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Importance_ratings_for_non-article_classes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your ce of refs on Speed of light

Hi, I noticed your copy edit of some refs I provided on Speed of light. In your edit summary you ask "ce refs, missing url?". In the version before your copy edit, as you can see, the first url without the page number parameter (... |url=http://books.google.be/books?id=g7YqMP9x9nwC}} ) points to the overview page of the book, whereas the second url with page number (... [http://books.google.be/books?id=g7YqMP9x9nwC&pg=PA227 Chapter 5, p. 227, 228] ) points directly to the quoted page. The overview page contains very useful information about the book, which, admitteldly, is of course reachable by clicking the overview link in the top left of the second url.

It's a matter of taste of course. Would you mind if I (partly) revert in order to, well, soft of fix this? Cheers, DVdm (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it's a bit unusual as far as I'm concerned, but I don't otherwise have a major problem with it. The "missing URL" part of my comment was concerning ref 109. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that clears things up. I was somewhat in dubio whether there was something wrong with the way I did it. I'll leave it the way it is now. A candidate FA always benefits from uniformity. Good job :-) DVdm (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Essay_Categorization_and/or_Classification

Greetings, Headbomb! I appreciate your edit to our WikiProject. You know, we don't have anyone over there with much experience with the coding side of setting up a WikiProject. Would you be willing to join our project and help out with that? For example, we actually have a project banner at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Essay_Categorization_and/or_Classification/Templates, but I hadn't moved it to /Project Banner because I didn't know that's where it was supposed to go until I saw your edit and did some investigating. I'm feeling my way along in the dark with the wikicode, and while I'm learning a lot, its not necessarily the most efficient way to learn. If you don't feel like joining our project, if you could just provide me some mentoring, that would be equally appreciated. Thanks! ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

International Journal of Applied Mechanics

Just to alert you, as a contributor, that an editor has placed a prod (proposed deletion) on the International Journal of Applied Mechanics article. You may wish to remove it. I have commented on the talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Book:Burger King

Thanks for helping me format this. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)