Talk:2004 in science

Gravity Probe B

Hey, is GP-B a topic under the heading of Physics or Astronomy? I'm torn... Right now it's in both, due to me thinking it belongs to Astronomy, and not looking at the Physics section. Awolf002 15:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

See Also

Hey guys. I changed the see also to a table to look more like the main 2004 page. [1927 in film]] also looks like this. I personally like it, but I'd like to get some "buy in" before making too many changes. Let me know what you think. Queson 04:17, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

The new table looks better to my eyes. Awolf002 16:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cool, I'm going to see if I can figure out how to get a template working. If not i'll just be doing alot of copy/paste. Any objections? Queson 18:15, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Title sentence

Ok so i started to make the see also changes and I noticed another inconsistency in the "title sentence" here are some we have

The year 2004 in science and technology included many events, some of which are listed below The year 1930 in science and technology included many events, some of which are listed below The year 2000 in science and technology consisted of many events, some of which are included below. The year 1998 in science and technology had many significant events, some of which are included below. The year 1983 in science and technology observed many events, some of which are included in the list below. The year 1988 in science and technology

Does anyone have an opinion? Should we include "and technology" in the bold'ing? Should the years by links? How should the 2nd part of the sentence read?

Here's my proposal

The year 2000 in science and technology included many significant events, some of which are listed below.

Any objections? Suggestions?

Queson 00:09, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Births & Deaths

Should we add these to all the pages even if we don't have any to list yet? 2004 births might seem a little odd, but there are alot of older pages (e.g. 1931 in science) that don't have births listed. I'm sure this is just because no one has thought of any yet. I think we should add the sections too all pages (births only before 1980?) even if we don't have anything to list. We need to keep the pages consistent and adding the headers early will help "hit and run" editors by letting them know what our format is. The counter argument is that we are adding headers with no information in them. Maybe we can put "There are no known births of deaths for this year." Maybe "please add one" with a link to the edit page for the year?

Queson 00:14, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed another inconsistency. Some of the pages use the † symbol in the births to indicate the year of the persons death but others simply say "died". Some pages use * to indicate born in the deaths to indicate the year of the persons birth, but others simply say "born". I prefer the † for "died". I think its a relatively accepted standard... Queson 02:16, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC) Any objections?

I dunno, I would prefer it without such symbols. The simple "two dates with a mdash" was the structure I chose for biographies I started, and I don't think it is unclear what it means. Any other comments, anybody? Awolf002 20:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we can use teh simple (birth-end) format here because we already have one of those years. It seems redundant to me to put them both in there. Queson 04:29, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I did not mean to exactly use that format. I just noted that this is an example that does not use † symbols and is still quite readable. Awolf002 15:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

SO just put the death date? I've been seeing just (b. 1925) and (d. 2003). That seems pretty clear to me. If we just put the year with no modifications I'm concerned people might think it goes with some award or achievement like

April 12 Some guy (2003) Nobel laurate in blah blah.

Admittedly I think everyone will get it, but they'll have to think about it for a second. Adding the † which actually looks like a cross, I think that's why its there, or 'd.' would be pretty obvious and would read as "died". I know this is totally nitpicking, but I'd rather get some agreement now instead of after too many changes have been made.

Queson 00:56, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

The current version looks good. Just (b. <date>) should be easy to understand. Awolf002 16:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bad Nature URL

The URL for the Nature article is bad: "http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038%2Fnature02999" must be replaced or deleted Awolf002 20:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2004 in science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021080125/http://www.planta.cn/forum/files_planta/the_limits_to_tree_height_995.pdf to http://www.planta.cn/forum/files_planta/the_limits_to_tree_height_995.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)