Template talk:Particles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


What about to add Positronium and in what category ? Any Ideas ??

It looks strange to have the positron listed, since it is just the anti-electron, yet we don't list all the other anti-particles. Any objection to removing it?--Michael C. Price talk 11:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I somewhat agree that it looks strange, but due to the importance of the positron, e.g. the beta+ decay, PET and the fact that there is an own article for the positron, it should be mentioned in the template.

electron, mu, and tau signs=

I propose to remove the signs for the mu and tau electron, as the articles cover both, matter and antimatter, (yes I know, the electron article too ... ;)

I prefer consistency to avoid confusion. How about we state on the template that the anti-particles are implicitly, but not explicitly, listed? The positron is accessible from the electron page. --Michael C. Price talk 13:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added the mu+ and tau+ pointing towards the mu and tau articles, similar to how it was already done for the neutrinos. Is that OK with both of you? Mike Peel 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Even worse :-( Should we list the anti-quarks, anti-neutrinos? Perhaps even each of the quark / anti-quark color states? --Michael C. Price talk 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the antiquarks and antineutrinos should be added. Then we have a complete set of the known fundamental particles, all of which are certainly notable. Obviously, only the notable quark/anti-quark colour states should be listed. Mike Peel 19:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the anti-muons and anti-taus were linking the same page as the muons and taus I compacted the notation with the ± symbol.--Michael C. Price talk 19:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
So where does that leave the Positron article, which now isn't linked to from the template? Mike Peel 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
High and dry, I admit -- although it is linked to from the electron article. I don't see any solution that is perfect. The problem is that there is no common collective noun for the electron and the positron -- except "electron", if we adopt the term "negatron", but that has never really caught on. --Michael C. Price talk 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to remove the ± symbols, because it is inconsistent, we will have to add antiparticles too, which is not so easy in notation any more in case of the neutrinos as it was with electrons and more important it would blow up the template (Remember it is/will be also included in Solid state physics articles (because of Phonons, Magnons etc.)). The other choice is to split the templates and just mentioned particles just important in elementary particle physics, but this will lead to a template, where I click on the let's say anti-muon-neutrino and get directed to the general neutrino page. So I prefer the first choice. Let's drop the positron, but highlight the importance of it somewhere in the electron article. Sheliak 14:20, 4 July 2007
Agreed, drop the ± (except in the case of the W±?). One change that would be nice would be to group the quarks and leptons together, to emphasize the three quark favors and associated three lepton families. Long term splitting the template into elementary particles and solid-state quasi-particles is probably also a good idea.--Michael C. Price talk 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Particle Physics

The new link to Particles Physics does only cover HEP particles and not Quasiparticles, so we should either extend the Particle physics article or link back to the list of particles, I prefer the latter. (Sheliak (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Regarding templates

It would be better w/o templates since using templates results with links to the redirects.

There is no need to link to antimuon and antitauon, since they redirect to muon and tau lepton respectively, to each flavor of neutrino (electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino) since they all redirect to neutrino, and to W boson and Z boson separately since they redirect to W and Z bosons. In second (neutrino) and third (W&Z) case there is another drawback that there would be no bold unlinked name of the current article shown in the template when used on neutrino and W and Z bosons articles, so reader can't instatnly see to which group of particles do neutrinos and W and Z bosons belong by looking the template, while this is possible with other particles and it is always posible on the old way (w/o templates).

On the other hand, there is no clear advantage of using the templates. --antiXt (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I used the template because it is simpler to update the particle templates and have the change spread across wikipedia than to individually change each link in each page where a particle appears. For instance, if one day there is a page specially dedicated to muon neutrinos, then all you have to to is go in the template for muon neutrino and change the link there and all of wikipedia would be updated. Same if people decides that W bosons should have a separate entry than Z bosons.
If there are redirects in the template, then let's just edit the templates to link to the correct page (for example the positron redirect to antielectron).
Also, if it's better to bulk-link neutrinos together, then let's just do something like ν
(or with nowiki [[Neutrino|{{SubatomicParticle|Electron neutrino}}.{{SubatomicParticle|Muon neutrino}}.{{SubatomicParticle|Tau neutrino}}]] , but if we do things my way, then when people highlight the particle, they get the name of that specific particle, which IMO is better than knowing with what "group" of particle it is associated. If people are curious about an electron neutrino and wonder what the relation with muon and tau neutrino is, then they will click on the link and they will be directed to the neutrino page that will explain things (or maybe a specific electron neutrino page in the future).
I'll go back with templates and I'll check what redirect could be avoided. Headbomb (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Higgs and Graviton

Should they be included, especially since the Higgsino and Gravitino are included?Headbomb (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They are included. --antiXt (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I'm blind as a bat.Headbomb (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just found an instance of the "Particles" template that still has the Higgs as "Not yet observed". It was in the article Photino (double-checked & confirmed; I really saw it). I don't know how to modify templates, yet... help? Hrttu523 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


Should the proton/neutron lose their charge sign? What about the W and Z? Should they both or neither have charge signs?Headbomb (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops nevermind what I just said, I read it incorrectly. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


It appears dubious to list (Fadeev-Popov-)Ghosts as particles. In fact, they are just a "formal" device in the quantization of gauge theories. I would propose to remove it from the list of elementary particles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree --TriTertButoxy (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. --Michael C. Price talk 17:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

B & D Mesons

Should links to the B Meson and D meson be added? There are these pages and its on the list of mesonsUniversehjc (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the B, D, phi, eta, and eta prime mesons.Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Version with more visible left-to-right hierarchy

Hello. I spent some time using the Navbox and Navbox_subgroups templates to create the following, which I find easier to read left to right:

I just noticed there's also "Navbox with collapsible groups" template which might improve the above by arranging the collapsible groups to be "Elementary particles" and "Composite particles" or "Known particles" and "Hypothetical particles". (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I like it. --Michael C. Price talk 08:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I like it too. I'll make it the main template. BTW anonymous user, how about you register and join the Physics Project? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ds and Bs mesons

Should the Bs and Ds mesons be included into the template separately? In the B meson article, Bs are mentioned as sub-type of B meson, however a separate article "strange B meson" exists. My attempt to add Bs into the template was reverted. Goudzovski (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll start a more general thread at Talk:Hadron for this. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Magnetic monopole

Shouldn't it be included? The table lists far more dubious hypotheticals, such as X and Y, Tachyons, etc. The magnetic monopole, as a hypothesis, has a long-established mainstream history, and is still under consideration. AFAIU, the magnetic monopole, if it exists, has a lowercase m symbol and is a lepton--not that it matters, as it would be included in the table under the Hypothetical heading, rather than under Leptons. Freederick (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

OBJECTION: The ¨NON-existence of "magnetic monopole" as a particle is indisputable. Therefore it should not be quoted even as "hypothetical" (which is confusing). PROOF: Any magnetic phenomenon is bound to the MOTION OF ELECTRIC CHARGES (spin, electrons orbiting atoms, conduction electrons, free electrons in vacuum, Lorenz force between moving electric charges). CONCLUSION: "magnetic monopoles" should be excluded from the list of particles, even as hypothetical. (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Zobac

You wrote the word "proof" in capital letters. It made me tingle with anticipation. So where is the promised proof? I'm still waiting. Freederick (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of reasonable discussion (I do not regard the shouts of "indisputable" and "PROOF" as discussion), I am putting the monopole on the list as hypothetical elementary particle. Freederick (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


Not sure how to fix this because I'm no expert, but aren't there also Composite fermions? So why would fermions be confined to the Elementary section?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fermions are not confined to the elementary section. The composite particles include both bosons and fermions; they are simply not classified in this way in the template. Spacepotato (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. Everything to the right of the Elementary group heading should be "elementary", so technically, fermions and bosons should also be listed in the Composite group. But that would be untenable. The classification in the template should follow classifications in reality, yes? If they don't, isn't that misleading the readers?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The composite particles don't fit neatly into fermions and bosons. For example, a carbon-12 nucleus, 12C, is a boson, but a carbon-13 nucleus, 13C, is a fermion. Spacepotato (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess the answer to your confusion may be that, traditionally elementary particles are split in 'elementary fermions' and 'elementary bosons'. To be completely clear the template could repeat the word elementary for those two entries, but I think for brevity's sake the current option is clearer. TimothyRias (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I truly appreciate both your attempts to clarify this for me. But I'm just your average reader, little if any training in particle physics. This is what I see...
Can you see why it's confusing? It's as if the fermions and bosons should be on a higher level, each with their own "Elementary" and "Composite" subgroups, or something like that. Am I just falling prey to the circular complexities of quantum mechanics? Maybe the Navbar just needs an explanatory footnote?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JamesWilliamRowell, 27 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} For completeness, please include the antiquarks along side the quarks in the Fermion row.

JamesWilliamRowell (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. →GƒoleyFour← 01:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


Should axions be added as hypothetical bosons? - PianoDan (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, whoops - there it is. Never mind! - (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


I was wondering if holes should be added since they are so often used in Solid State. Zak.estrada (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC).

Added. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the vibron is neither mentioned in this box or on wikipedia itself. It is rather a rare gourmet, but real, quasiparticle, but no one who knows anything about it seems to bother editing wikipedia. See for yourself: http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/ti:+vibron/0/1/0/all/0/1


I added them. Im almost positive they should be included but Im not quite certain yet exactly where, since these are both hypothetical exotic baryons (where I put it for now now) and experimentally observed topological quasiparticles as well. Id love to learn more so perhaps this mention will give that wiki article some love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isocliff (talkcontribs) 16:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Additions to hypothetical particles

Should the following be added?

I ask because everything in Category:Hypothetical composite particles is already featured. — MK (t/c) 09:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

E(38) boson

I think E38 boson should be added to the list. (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Inflaton and/or Instanton

Possible additions to the template? (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons License