Talk:Stop squark: Difference between revisions
Christian75 (talk | contribs) Assessment: +Physics: class=Stub (assisted) |
Assessment: Physics: importance=Low (assisted) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject Physics |class=Stub}} |
{{WikiProject Physics |class=Stub |importance=Low}} |
||
==Sources== |
==Sources== |
||
Revision as of 12:00, 19 January 2015
.jpg){kind=small} | Physics Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Sources
Also, links should be added at the bottom to connect it with the other squarks. Dgiraffes (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. It would be nice to add more phenomenology information. Perhaps in the first paragraph one could outline a more non-physicist idea of what it is, then in following paragraphs the actual properties in various SUSY models could be described as well as dominant decays or production methods. Dgiraffes (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This article needs sources as well as substantial expansion.--Jakebathman (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Name
Should it not be “stop” or “top squark”? --Petermahlzahn (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The literature is not consistent on this. "top squark" seems to be the most common in publications while "stop" is more common in speech and informal writing. However, "stop squark" is used in publications and is accurate. Changing the article name to "top squark" may be warranted based on word frequency
The hyphenation of "top-squark" vs "top squark" is also highly inconsistent in the literature (example). Pulu (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)