Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:58, 20 October 2005

Revision as of 04:34, 20 October 2005

Line 1,253:

:::::::::: Yes, quantum-mechanics- and quantum-field- would both make sense, and maybe quantum-field- could take a lot of stuff that would otherwise have gone in particle-theory- (or maybe such articles would just get counted as both). As for splitting theory, it's the big one, so I thought it made sense to give the best idea I could for dividing it. The splits on experiment would be beneficial, at least in terms of thinking how small a list would need to be before I (as an experimentalist) would actually go down the list and try to fill things in. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] 01:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Yeah, I assumed theoretical would be way too big to be useful. I counted everything that would reasonably fit in theoretical physics (there's actually a good number of stubs on named condensed matter theories). All those I counted as theory I also counted in their respective fields of physics. I didn't make experiment/theory splits by subfield (particle theory stuff got lumped with accelerators), and I think that's best for the stubs, too, as it's rather how the field (and Wikipedia's physics categories) work. — [[User:Laurascudder|Laura Scudder]] | [[User talk:Laurascudder|Talk]] 04:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

::would subatomic-physics-stub be useful, or too vague, or too broad? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<font color=green><small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?''</small></font>]] 09:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)