Thank you for updating the formula on the Tuning Fork page! I'm making a set for hobby, and working with the formula as had been previously stated was giving me problems. (I suppose I should have realized that it can't be affected by the perpendicular length on a rectangular cross-section, because when it's vibrating properly there are no forces in that direction and you could just cut it into two tuning forks, but I didn't.) --Shortgeek (logged out right now)
A: The term sol is used by planetary astronomers to refer to the duration of a
solar day
B: The term sol is used by planetary astronomers to refer to the duration of a
solar day on
Mars
The text above is a comparison of two contested edits on the page
Timekeeping on Mars.
B causes confusion, and is inaccurate, as
solar day or
Sol will be used for other planets and not just the first that we visit.
A is concise clear, and links to an intermediary article for further reading.
- ⇒ Moved the discussion to Talk:Timekeeping on Mars#Meaning of sol
In this edit you introduced a {{ citation}} template into an article that has a mixture of Citation style 1 templates (like {{ cite book}} and {{ cite journal}}) and hand-formatted citations. It is not desirable to mix these two different styles of templates because they render the citation a little differently. Granted, the article's citations are in a far-from-ideal state, with the mixture of Citation style 1 and hand-formatted templates, but adding a Citation template makes the citations even less consistent. If you want to improve the citations in that article, I'm afraid a more comprehensive effort is needed, rather than just playing with one or two citations. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- The edit was about replacing {{ cite web}} with something more suited to citing an article in a scientific journal. I did not think about consistency of styles. I will replace that right away with {{ cite journal}}. — Edgar.bonet ( talk) 16:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for updating the formula on the Tuning Fork page! I'm making a set for hobby, and working with the formula as had been previously stated was giving me problems. (I suppose I should have realized that it can't be affected by the perpendicular length on a rectangular cross-section, because when it's vibrating properly there are no forces in that direction and you could just cut it into two tuning forks, but I didn't.) --Shortgeek (logged out right now)
A: The term sol is used by planetary astronomers to refer to the duration of a
solar day
B: The term sol is used by planetary astronomers to refer to the duration of a
solar day on
Mars
The text above is a comparison of two contested edits on the page
Timekeeping on Mars.
B causes confusion, and is inaccurate, as
solar day or
Sol will be used for other planets and not just the first that we visit.
A is concise clear, and links to an intermediary article for further reading.
- ⇒ Moved the discussion to Talk:Timekeeping on Mars#Meaning of sol
In this edit you introduced a {{ citation}} template into an article that has a mixture of Citation style 1 templates (like {{ cite book}} and {{ cite journal}}) and hand-formatted citations. It is not desirable to mix these two different styles of templates because they render the citation a little differently. Granted, the article's citations are in a far-from-ideal state, with the mixture of Citation style 1 and hand-formatted templates, but adding a Citation template makes the citations even less consistent. If you want to improve the citations in that article, I'm afraid a more comprehensive effort is needed, rather than just playing with one or two citations. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- The edit was about replacing {{ cite web}} with something more suited to citing an article in a scientific journal. I did not think about consistency of styles. I will replace that right away with {{ cite journal}}. — Edgar.bonet ( talk) 16:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)