Talk:Conventional superconductor
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Untitled
editI suggest this article be merged with superconductivity Jdedmond 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Conventional ≠ Type-I
editConventional superconductor should not be merged with Type I superconductor. Conventional means "explained by the BCS theory", not Type-I. I don't have a particular reference handy, but a Google search for the phrase "conventional Type-II superconductor" yields hits from several hits from books, aps.org, iop.org, etc., as do variations of "BCS Type-II superconductor". Eynar (who did the merge) and I have briefly discussed the issue and agree a final solution might be to re-organize the articles the classify superconductors, but in the meantime I feel it is important to make the content correct. Spiel496 (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Perhaps the article should be changed to "BCS superconductor", with a re-direct from "conventional superconductor". Can an optional link be provided for those people who type in "conventional superconductor", but actually want "type-I superconductor"?
Merging proposal deleted as discussed on the corresponding pages. "Conventional" has nothing to do with "type-I". "BCS superconductor" is appropriate, but there is a nice symmetry between "conventional supercondtor" and "unconventional supercondtor", and there is no good alternative for the latter. The discussed aritcles should gradually evolve from stubs to GAs. NIMSoffice (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)