Talk:2004 in science

message: 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)
thread_title: Gravity Probe B

message: 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)
thread_title: See Also

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bad Nature URL 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified