This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
please add some dates for the experiments.Nergaal (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Nergaal,
the experiments are in chronological order, I think additionally adding dates for the experiments would mess up the template and would not really give you an impression, 'cause the running time of these tests vary from couple of months to over 10 years. I prefer a simple, good looking and good for browsing, but not so much informative template with the running time information mentioned in the specific articles. (Sheliak (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I am not from this field and since the tempalte is full of acronyms it does not tell me anything this way. I am thinking the launch year of the publication year would suffice. Nergaal (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your position. But I look at e.g. Template:Fusion_experiments where the same applies (acconyms of experiments ...) where they have no starting dates in the template. I also wrote a template, see Template:Cray computers, where manufacturing dates would be also informative. Unfortunately this would blow up the template, complicate browsing and at the end would be contraproductive. But this is my opinion, I seek for consistency across Navigation, Templates. If you (AND others) think it should be included, I will add them (in both!). (Sheliak (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I removed a few entries: RGWBT (same as BICEP1); FOCUS (redeployment of QUIET receiver, for which status is not clear); and Gubbins (joke?). Feel free to re-add FOCUS with appropriate sourcing if available. --Amble (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, Gubbins is described at [1] - although I don't think it ever made any observations. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, thanks! Silly me for missing it, there are even papers on the instrument development [2]. Not sure how I failed to find them. It's an interesting idea. What are your thoughts on inclusion criteria for the template? --Amble (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On inclusion: this is a navigation template, meant for navigating between Wikipedia articles, so I'd go with the inclusive approach of 'topics related to CMB that have Wikipedia articles'. I'd actually include cancelled experiments that have articles in this, perhaps in their own row. However, it's worth noting that this template doesn't get displayed when you access articles on a mobile device, so I'm not sure how useful it is to most readers. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you not think that would result in an over-large navbox, essentially the same as the list page? --Amble (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, not really. The list page provides extra details that aren't needed here, and a series of links takes up less space than you might expect. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I don't mind if you re-add the entries for the canceled expts, although it does seem like RELIKT, COBE, WMAP, Planck are much more useful links to someone exploring the field than SPORT. --Amble (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
