Talk:Atomic mass unit

VFD archive for Amu
No trek mention. The only things that link to it are certain tables on element pages, which could be called into question how distanced they are from trek, but that's not the point. Also, this is an abbriviation, so if it's not deleted at the very least should be moved to Atomic mass unit, and redirected. - AJHalliwell 21:39, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * I vote for the "moved to Atomic mass unit, and redirected." Its just so people know what amu is i mean you have a page for Kelvin so whats the problem? oh an di am pretty sure they talk about atomic mass in some Star Trek episode i mean its a staple of chemistry and physics and this is a sci-fi show.Kahless 05:22, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Kelvin has cited sources (in this case, and ) in which those terms had specific uses, whereas "amu" does not. Granted, it is a scientific term, but that does not necessarily warrant an article here on MA. And while one would think such a term would have been mentioned somewhere on Trek, there's a possibility that may not be the case. However, deleting it may not be necessary, at least not right now. A move to "Atomic mass unit" and the posting of a pna-cite tag should be sufficient. --Shran 03:23, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see that some scientific articles - such as proton, electron, deuterium, and tritium - don't have sources cited either. If these types of articles are allowed, then I, too, fail to see the problem with having an article for Atomic mass unit. For this reason, I now vote to keep. --Shran 03:28, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Can we cite it? Citing it with a valid source gives it a 50% better chance of keeping the article. --Alan del Beccio 23:28, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to make it official I vote to Keep -- Kahless 00:22, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Yet, no one can cite it, so how can you (or anyone else) even back up such a vote. Seems to my like a rather blind vote. --Alan del Beccio 00:38, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * OKay I have all seasons of Trek Except TAS and season 2,3,4 of ENT, and the movies give me a year to watch them all and I'll see if they have mention atomic mass. Kahless 00:45, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * Update: I have a lead they might mention or show it in Rascals gonna watch that horrid episode now.


 * Update: this site http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/quickref/particles1.htm#a lists almsot everypartical radiation element and what not that has been mentioned in a trek episode i cant watch them all because they mention one or mroe in every episode but maybe we can split up the work load?


 * Was not mentioned in to my knowledge -- and therefore is not yet citable. However, proton (4 eps reference to this), electron (1 ep references to this), deuterium (7 eps reference to this), and tritium (2 eps reference to this) have been mentioned and are citable. So far amu has not and cannot be cited and should be deleted. IF someone does find a citable source for it, it can always be restored. --Alan del Beccio 22:18, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not home now but i have one more lead that B'elana extracts .75 amu of anti-protons in Voyager Threshhold Season 2


 * OKay home and watched the episode she does say AMU in Voyager Threshold Season 2 Disc 4 time index 0:35:37


 * Good job! I'll add a note about it, but you need to replace that note with what occured in the episode (i.e., why B'Elanna extracted the anti-protons and from what). --Shran 02:47, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

2006 de ja vu
Same problems as in 2005 - no ST references in the text. Also, this is a verbatim copy of the Wikipedia article entry. Jim 14:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we know it is mentioned in one episode, Voyagers "Threshold" (however horrible it may be). I will look at the transcrpt today or tomorrow, and re-write the article. I will also keep any RELEVENT info from the wikipedia article, but re-write it so that it is not a copy from wikipedia. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  15:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Wikipedia verbiage and added a Voyager citation. The initial definition is still worded strangely (and redundantly) and could be improved. Also, as noted, Torres' use of the term AMU doesn't exactly match the definition provided - this might have been a loose use of technobabble. If others are OK with the cite and definition maybe the pna can be removed? --Jim 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)