Talk:Nobel Prize in Physics
Catalog
What about using {{r|Marie Curie||1903: }}? This would give
1903: Marie Curie [r]: (1867-1934), Polish-French physicist (Nobel Prize in 1903) and chemist (Nobel Prize in 1911), famous for her work on radioactivity. [e]
But since the year is invariably also stated in the definition, we might as well leave it out in the front column, just use it for ordering:
{{r|Marie Curie||}} would give
Marie Curie [r]: (1867-1934), Polish-French physicist (Nobel Prize in 1903) and chemist (Nobel Prize in 1911), famous for her work on radioactivity. [e]
--Daniel Mietchen 13:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do I understand correctly that you want definitions in the table? That's against what I'm trying to do. I try to keep the table as compact as possible (I'm now adding the reasons why the Nobelists got the prize, and that is already quite long in some cases). IMHO in the table there is no space for definitions.--Paul Wormer 14:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The reasons, the year, the field and the nationality are generally included in the definition, so what I had in mind was deleting the "For the discovery of" and nationality columns and possibly the year column too, and replace the name column with an {{r}}-formatted definition. This would avoid having to enter (and maintain) the same information both in the catalog and in the definitions. --Daniel Mietchen 14:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see. It would probably be a good idea if we had (almost) all Nobelists covered in articles and definitions. As it is now, there are only a few blue entries in my table. In one shot I have now all Nobelists in physics, and the layout of my table is more strict than a bunch of definitions piled on top of each other. --Paul Wormer 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The good thing about this sparsity is that we can now easily format the missing definitions in a uniform way. So once you are done with the "For the discovery" part, I will reformat this the page as suggested above, and the only thing remaining to be added would be the biographical dates. Even if we revert the formatting in the table, the info will then still reside in the definitions. --Daniel Mietchen 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see. It would probably be a good idea if we had (almost) all Nobelists covered in articles and definitions. As it is now, there are only a few blue entries in my table. In one shot I have now all Nobelists in physics, and the layout of my table is more strict than a bunch of definitions piled on top of each other. --Paul Wormer 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The reasons, the year, the field and the nationality are generally included in the definition, so what I had in mind was deleting the "For the discovery of" and nationality columns and possibly the year column too, and replace the name column with an {{r}}-formatted definition. This would avoid having to enter (and maintain) the same information both in the catalog and in the definitions. --Daniel Mietchen 14:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think there are good arguments to keep the table independent of the definitions. Definitions can be (and probably will be) changed without any relation to this table and might disturb it. The focus of this table is on the Nobel prize, so the date and the reason are important. For the definition the biographical dates are needed, but not necessarily the exact reason for the prize. Therefore, simple links are better. Of course, the table is useful for initial definitions.
The same problem occurs if one wants to use definitions as a glossary: the glossary definition one has in mind may not always coincide with the topic definition. Peter Schmitt 15:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think there are good arguments to keep the table independent of the definitions. Definitions can be (and probably will be) changed without any relation to this table and might disturb it. The focus of this table is on the Nobel prize, so the date and the reason are important. For the definition the biographical dates are needed, but not necessarily the exact reason for the prize. Therefore, simple links are better. Of course, the table is useful for initial definitions.
- OK, so I will just use the r template while starting the definitions (help very welcome!), and then return back to the current format. --Daniel Mietchen 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Long term
I'm not sure where this article is going in the long term but it could exist at Nobel Prize/Catalogs/Physics. If this is the preferred home then possibly it could be transcluded at the Nobel Prize/Catalogs/Physics page so that navigation tabs in the subpages header will remain in the Nobel Prize article. Chris Day 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. --Daniel Mietchen 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[
- A direct link from Nobel Prize/Catalogs and (perhaps, but not necessarily) an additional redirect from [[[Nobel Prize/Catalogs/Physics]] would serve the same purpose. Or vice versa. Peter Schmitt 19:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- One has to consider where the reader arrives from. If they are reading the "Nobel Prize" article then navigate to Nobel Prize/Catalogs/Physics then they might expect the tabs at the top of the page to still be for the "Nobel Prize" cluster rather than for "Nobel Prize in Physics" cluster. One thing for sure is we only want one table to exist. Chris Day 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have no clear opinion about it, but don't forget Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine that has a table (on the main page) which inspired me to create a similar one for physics.--Paul Wormer 07:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Table
As far as I'm concerned the table on the Catalogs subspace is finished. I prepared it from scratch (mainly cut and paste), so there may be typos. --Paul Wormer 09:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the table still needs links to the concepts mentioned in the reasoning. Gave it a start, will come back later. --Daniel Mietchen 11:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)