Template talk:Standard model of particle physics

Reason for box

There are many scientists who contributed to the development of the standard model, and they deserve some recognition. Not all of them were interested in quantum field theory. Also, QFT is too general to get bogged down in standard model stuff. Renormalization group and statistical stuff is just as important.Likebox (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Feynman Diagram

I'm not an expert on it, but in the Feynman Diagram shouldn't the vertical axis be the time axis here? It seems to me that the horizontal axis is an x axis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.75.119.59 (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JSquish recent change

JSquish massively expanded the template:

I personally prefer the old version. I think the new version so many links that it readers will not know what is important, and it will take up a disproportionate amount of space in an article, filling it with links to marginally-relevant topics. For example, there is no reason that someone reading about magnetic photon should need a direct link to the completely-unrelated article valence electron. (We already have Category:Particle physics for people who want to see a list of every single article.) What do other people think? --Steve (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also prefered the old picture, mainly becouse it is more "lively" and also becouse it pretty well reflects what the theory describes - scattering of elementary particles and conversion into others, etc. --Falktan (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the picture will not be changed back, there should certainly be done something with the Particle physics article. At the moment there is the same picture in it twice. --Falktan (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objections, I reverted everything... --Steve (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]