Talk:Alpher–Bethe–Gamow paper

Untitled

Reasons for wanting to delete this page:

1. There is not such theory. There is such a paper however.
2. The paper predicts the cosmic background radiation. Other works describe the cosmic origins of chemical elements.
3. Even if renamed to Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper, the best thing to do would be to make it a redirect to cosmic background radiation.

In short, this is an incorrect article with an incorrect title. Please remove it ASAP. --EMS | Talk 04:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Would a redirect really be the best option? A cursory search of the CMB articles doesn't reveal any mention of the paper, which is certainly significant in and of itself to be worthy of an article. I agree theory is the wrong title, and it should probably be changed to paper or some such thing (prediction?). --WilyD 11:44, 29 September 2005 (EST)

The paper is probably worthy of an article. Suppose we renamed to Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper, talked about the paper and how it got its name, maybe a brief summary of what was said in the paper and a link to cosmic background radiation. DJ Clayworth 15:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth That sounds like a reasonable plan to me. The paper is historically significant and the events surrounding it (such as the inclusion of Bethe as an author) are historically interesting, if of debatable significance. For the moment, anyhow, I made a minor edit to clarify a point I felt was misleading. I also wonder if "Shortcomings of the Theory" is NPOV or not. --WilyD 11:50, 29 September 2005 (EST)

AfD Mark II

A second AfD decided to move Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory to Alpher-Bethe-Gamow Paper. The pre-move version of the aritcle can be found here. A history merge may or may not be appropriate. Alphax ^τεχ 07:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Bad Footnote

Footnote 1 apparently is intended to link to a Discover Magazine article, but discover.com belongs to the credit card company. --Dolohov (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why the en-dashes?

Why is the title spelled with en-dashes instead of hyphens? I would think it should be "Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper". Is there a good argument for this? SpectrumDT (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it is the correct typography. Endashes indicate that Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow are three different persons. Compare with Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula, the endash tells you it's two different person, named Gell-Mann and Nishijima. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alpher–Bethe–Gamow paper. 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/20050223174312/http://davidappell.com/archives/00000143.htm to http://davidappell.com/archives/00000143.htm

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) 01:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)