Template talk:PhysicsParticle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Forced bold?

I applaud the idea of having standardized templates for all subatomic particles, but it looks like the current version of {{PhysicsParticle}} always displays the particle's symbol in a bold font, which is distracting in most contexts. In particular, since this template is used in {{SubatomicParticle}}, we get particle names like e− (electron) or γ (photon), which is rather uncommon in my experience. Perhaps the default should be non-bold, but with an optional parameter for requesting bold/italic symbols? Hqb (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. I originally made them bold because the page I based the first version off was using bold. These templates are there to facilitate making all physics pages have the same look and feel and the Category:Nuclide templates aren't bold either, so neither should this one.
There should be no need for make it available as an argument, as it is simpler to use single quotes like so: ''{{SubatomicParticle|electron}}'' -> e− and '''{{SubatomicParticle|electron}}''' -> e−.
My TODO list includes rewriting the various Category:Nuclide templates to use this template as well, making it possible to change the look and feel of everything in one place. That should save vandals a lot of work :)
- SkyLined (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Hqb (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent: link= parameter?

The support for link= was recently removed by this edit, but it's still listed in the documentation. And though {{SubatomicParticle}} does not use link=, several other templates, such as {{Element}} do, and are currently broken (i.e., do not create a link even when asked for). Consequently, several WP articles (such as Radium) are missing useful links.

Clearly something needs to be fixed, and quickly. I'd revert the change above, but I'm not sure that having a link= argument to PhysicsParticle is really the right approach in the first place. Are there situations where {{PhysicsParticle|link=pagename|...}} is supposed to behave differently than [[pagename|{{PhysicsParticle|...}}]]? If not, it seems both simpler and more efficient to let the caller of PhysicsParticle (which will almost always be another template, such as {{SimpleNuclide}}) create the link directly, instead of passing the request off to PhysicsParticle. Hqb (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to have the link be made by the caller - I don't recall why I added it in the first place. I will revert the changes now to restore proper links. Then later I will modify all callers to stop using the link parameter and add their links themselves. I'll check to make SURE that nobody's using it before I remove it again.     — SkyLined {talkcontribs 05:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, and sorry for the problems my edit seems to have inadvertently caused. I was working fast to resolve this problem, and so I wasn't able to check my actions as thoroughly as I would have liked. My checking process basically consists of using AWB to scan the text of all pages transcluding the template, to look for characteristic syntax (in this case, |link=yes). For some reason, this usually reliable method seems to have failed to pick up on the use of this feature in templates like {{element}}, so sorry for causing this disruption.
The preprocessor-node-count issue on List of baryons highlights the extent to which these templates could do with overhauling. They serve a very important, even vital, purpose in wikipedia articles, but do so very inefficiently and with considerable redundancy and duplication of function. I think when I have time I would like to go through the whole system and see if it would be possible to create a more manageable and streamlined set of templates. How many templates are involved in the display of symbols like this? I am aware of {{SubatomicParticle}} and its subpages, {{PhysicsParticle}}, and Category:Nuclide templates. {{su}} is also related. Are there any others? Happy‑melon 16:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one who started all this, anything I did is on my main page, have a look there for a list. A lot of this could be done more CPU efficient by not including sub-templates, but that would seriously impact maintainability: Everything I needed to do more than once, I created a sub-template for, so that if I needed to make an adjustment, I only needed to make it in one location ({{su}} is vary good example of this). If there was a way to output a <TABLE> without wikipedia automatically putting <P> tags around stuff (which messes up the layout), we could replace {{su}} with a simple inline table, which would simplify and speed things up a lot.     — SkyLined {talkcontribs 05:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photon symbol should be a gamma

The symbol generated for a photon by this template is |photon=γ
It looks like a "Y" instead of a gamma.
The gamma generated by the math template...γ would be much better.--Vectorboson (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In my setup, your two examples actually look identical (both use the Unicode "Greek small letter gamma" character of the default browser font). I assume you have your math preferences set to "Always render PNG", which forces Computer Modern (or whatever <math> is configured to use). But that is not generally recommended, because it's quite a bit more resource-intensive (WP now has to generate and transfer an entire bitmap image instead of just a single character). It can also look really odd, when the symbols for other particles (electrons, protons, etc.) use the standard browser font. Maybe you could configure your browser to use another font, in which &gamma; looks less like a "Y"? Hqb (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Browser-wise I run Safari and I tried changing my default encoding to Unicode (UTF=8) and that didn't help. I tried changing my Wiki-math-preferences away from the default that were set when I joined (tried "Recommended for modern browsers" and also "MathML if possible") but that didn't help either. Really though the issue isn't what I see on my browser, rather it should be what the average user sees on his browser...and the average user should see a gamma and not a Y.--Vectorboson (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know much about what I'm doing...but here is some additional info to help you analyze. When I view the html source of this page here is what I see... for the one that shows up like a Y...
γ
and for the one that shows up like a gamma...

γ
You will have to view the source for this page to see the difference in html--Vectorboson (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, indeed. It's exactly the same character "γ" in both cases, but the latter one is inside a <span class="texhtml">γ</span>. The standard WP CSS definition for "texhtml" apparently reads,
span.texhtml { font-family: serif; }
which happened not to make any difference in my browser, but I can certainly see how it might do so for others. Still, I guess there's no guarantee that any particular choice of font will look optimal for everyone. How do text-mode ν vs. math-mode ν for the neutrino look to you? Hqb (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As you might expect, the text mode looks like a "v" while math mode looks like a nu. I agree that we can't guarantee what it will look like on someone's browser but there is a minor point that we should shove them out with the same html so they look the same. Now that I understand this is primarily a browser problem, I leave it to wiser heads as to whether it is worth a lot of trouble.--Vectorboson (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The font does suck, but that is not wikipedia's fault. I liked your suggestion and tried it out, only to find out it messed up the layout when the symbol had an overline (on Opera). I'm hoping to find a way to use <TABLE> to generate the sup/sub text, which might resolve this problem and allow us to use class="texhtml"     — SkyLined {talkcontribs 05:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)