Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 26

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 25 March 27 >

March 26 edit

Template:Properties of mass edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed this template from several physics articles, such as Mass, and now it is orphaned. It consists of a figure with caption, I don't see why this should be a template to start with. It represents a series of relations between equations where mass appears, whose relevance seems to be only in the author's head. It's WP:OR, and the caption is WP:FRINGE. The removal was briefly discussed at WT:PHYSICS. Tercer (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unsalvageable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons laid out above and at WT:PHYSICS. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I concur with the above; any such material in WP must be sourceable and encyclopaedic; this is neither. —Quondum 01:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Delete, this is a rather confusing image that might lead to many misconceptions.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I don't think it's even factually correct. Although you could find some of the suggested formulas in some textbooks, its a bit of a category error to suggest that they are all somehow talking about "the same thing", namely "mass". Each individual formula is valid only within a specific domain. Those domains mainly don't overlap; it would be wrong to use one of the formulas where it does not apply. Mass is subtle; this is not the correct explanation for it. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is completely wrong. Not only is it wrong to describe these as "properties of mass", the summary of each quantity is wrong as well.
  1. The Schwarzschild radius does not [represent] the ability of mass to cause curvature in space and time. It is the radius of a black hole with a particular mass.
  2. The standard gravitational parameter is the representation of the quantity in natural units with G=1. The template describes it as the ability of a massive body to exert Newtonian gravitational forces on other bodies.
  3. Inertial mass (m) represents the Newtonian response of mass to forces is rather jumbled. Mass parametrizes an object's resistance to acceleration, but it is wrong to juxtapose mass itself with inertia, a qualitative property of mass.
  4. Rest energy (potholed to Mass–energy equivalence) is claimed to [represent] the ability of mass to be converted into other forms of energy. Rather, it quantifies the mass as a form of energy.
  5. The Compton wavelength represents the quantum response of mass to local geometry: I cannot make any sense of this statement. The Compton wavelength gives the scale of wave functions for a massive particle, like in the Dirac equation.
  6. There is no explanation of the bottom-right formula, which is the frequency of a photon. That has nothing to do with mass. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this doesn't make any sense. --mfb (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Obsoleted by Module:ConvertNumeric edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old subtemplates of Template:Cardinal to word and Template:Ordinal to word which are obsolete to Module:ConvertNumeric. This is not to say that Module:ConvertNumeric has to be used directly: the wrapper templates are fine but the templates nominated have or had limits on the numbers they could convert. User:GKFXtalk 12:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:String on page edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and this is now a simple task to carry out with Module:String. User:GKFXtalk 11:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Count on page edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and this is now a simple task to carry out with Module:String. User:GKFXtalk 11:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Sri Lanka NFT results edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed now as it has already been covered by the Sri Lanka NF template. HawkAussie (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Kuwait NFT results edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Izno (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed anymore as all of the yearly results have either been merged into the Kuwait national football team results or the Kuwait national football team results (2010–19) page. HawkAussie (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_26&oldid=1015777922"