Talk:Capillary length

message: This article:
*Contains (almost) nothing that is not in Young-Laplace equation#Capillary action in general;
*Is not a big enough idea to be expanded;
*Cats can be protected (and needed expanding in any case) under redirects;
*Is only linked by one article, Young-Laplace equation.
There is one bibliographical ref and an (unreferenced) quote of a typical value which I have saved in the Young-Laplace article.
I am therefore going to redirect. Cutler 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: Hi , discuss here if you do not agree with any of the changes, I tried to adapt the content you made with the WP:Manual of style. Do not revert the articles again, please see this Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule. We can discuss here. --MaoGo (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, MaoGo,  I am in the middle of conducting an extensive physics project into this topic and related pages. I am only trying to improve the pages and it will be continuously added too, so please refrain from deleting my work if possible. Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Surrey Physics (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . Wikipedia works by certain guidelines and collaboration. I sincerely appreciate that you are expanding this topics (Capillary length and Jurin's law). However, there is no such a thing as "your work" in Wikipedia, some style has to be assured and if we disagree about a certain topic we should try to discuss and solve it together. Tip1: do not capitalize concepts like Capillarity Length (it should be capillarity length unless it starts a paragraph (in that case the C is the only letter in uppercase). Tip2: do not use the title of the article in the section headings. Tip3: do not have a section with just images and no description. --MaoGo (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello MaoGo, I understand this but feel that the information that iam adding is very beneficial. I took on board your comments about the capital letters of capillary length and the titles of the sub headings. I also feel that my derivation on jurins law is simpler and explained better, and my peers agree. This is a large project that i am undertaking and it has been set for me by my university, and i will be editing the page continuously, so please allow me some time to finish the page properly over the next couple of weeks before reediting it again, as it will get better. Thank you, please discuss here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Surrey Physics (talk • contribs) 13:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  remember to sign your comments when you write on the talk pages. Concerning capillary length article I don't understand why do you have to erase all my edits when it is just style modifications. Are you creating the article offline? You can also create a user draft and publish when is finished, I think it is the best option. If not, if you wish to continuously modify the article at least add Template:In use. Concerning Jurin's law, I do no think your version is better. According to the manual of style we have to avoid the use of bullets list when normal paragraphs can be provided and in your hydrostatic pressure subsection is not at all clear which surfaces and pressures you are defining. Abstain from editing Jurin's law until we have cleared this up. --MaoGo (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

text:  you added an Template:Under construction but you don't seem to want people interfering so I don't see what's the point of it. --MaoGo (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions 

message: the theoretical derivation of the capillary length has a problem. There are \pi factors missing. It would be wiser to recall vertical pressure variation P=mgh. --MaoGo (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theoretical derivation