Template talk:Nuclear physics
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
‹See TfM›
| ||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Suggest removal (or substitution) of CNO cycle image from template.
editUsing an image of nuclear fusion to represent nuclear physics becomes misleading when using this template on pages which are not discussing fusion, such as the Nuclear Fission page. I suggest we either remove the fusion specific image or change it to something less specific. Otherwise maybe we should call into question the overall usefulness of the templates themselves, as I believe this is an excellent case to point out how confusing and misleading templates can be for the general user. ~ Luminaux (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I used to argue about the use of images on templates but unfortunately, the elites here at Wikipedia disagree because they like them to look pretty. I have argued, argued, argued, and argued some more and all it does it piss me off and allow them to create clans to bully and gain control. I reverted your edit, but I think the image is misleading too. The template just looked terrible without it. Go ahead and take the image out. Use WP:ICONDECORATION as a rationale if you want.
- I think templates can prove to be useful, but not in all circumstances. I do not agree that they are all misleading, but the image problem is obnoxious and causes more confusion than it’s worth. User:Gnevin has won a few cases of removing images from templates, but so many editors fight to the death to keep the misleading and ambiguous images on there. Check his talk page. Cheers! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree to having the image of cooling towers like representation of nuclear physics. It represents rather power plant technology than physics. I am trying to figure out about some suitable one, but I will be happy for any suggestions here. --Michalsmid (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry for not giving you time to answer, I already made my suggestion. It is part of the CNO cycle (without labels), but I think it represents nuclear physics in general. For most users it just depicts 'some nuclear reaction', which should be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalsmid (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 31 July 2012
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
a scientist is missing , Otto Hahn, ´lease i need to edit 177.40.185.142 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done: He is there!! Mdann52 (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Largely a duplicate of our sidebar, with deeper focus on nucleosynthesis. Capt. Obvious suggests the merger. Another possible solution is to convert “Nuclear processes” navbox to a navbox for nucleosynthesis only, instead of one for “processes” in general (that are covered by “Nuclear physics”). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)