Talk:Cross-polarization

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy

Physics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Funny Acronym

Given the more conversational and accessible tone that wiki likes to deal with, this page seems particularly clinical and dances around the fact that some undergrads chose PENIS as a funny acronym. Alex Bradner (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not undergrads - they were grad students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.176.84 (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article really should mention the acronym; I know Alex Pines was very proud of it when he invented the technique. 207.237.243.185 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sooo. . . why exactly do we want to make atoms spin at different rates? (hint, hint) 131.151.90.222 (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck with all you people?

I've had enough with all this sh*t. You talk about it, but nothing happens. I am making the acronym edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObiwanLostToBarney (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym

I've reinstated the recent re-addition of the acronym, since I believe it to have been a good-faith edit. Clearly, looking at the talk page and the article history, it seems to have been a topic of some debate. The simple fact is that Wikipedia is not censored, and on any other article, a relevant acronym would be cited; we should do the same on this one. – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should "cross-polarization" redirect here?

The article mentions that this technique is "more commonly known" as cross-polarization, though at the moment, that term doesn't redirect to this article. I'm not an expert on this field, so do any of you think it should redirect here? 128.151.150.17 (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there should be a disambiguation or hatnote to distinguish between this article and Polarized light microscopy, which is where Cross-polarized light currently redirects. (That is, either "cross-polarization" should be a disambiguation page, or it should redirect to one or the other article with a hatnote placed at the target.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear induction spectroscopy

In addition to being called Cross-Polarization, I believe I've also seen the "PE" dropped from this technique's name. However, I'm not an expert in this field. Can someone confirm (or refute) that "PENIS" is sometimes just "NIS"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.105.159.81 (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regular old NIS predates PENIS. See https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.118.3068.425. Might be interesting to mention as a background. Artoria 2e5 🌉 13:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be extend protected?

People always edit this page to make Penis jokes. To prevent vandalism, should this page get extend protection?

PENIS citation

The Oshiro paper (https://doi.org/10.2172/5193797; https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1055119/m2/1/high_res_d/5193797.pdf) was a valid source. I don't see why it was removed—I don't think the person responsible actually took a single look at the paper itself before removing it.

That is strange! I've re-added the acronym as it's supported by a reliable source. I think a PhD thesis on the DOE's website is probably as much confirmation as we can get that it's an intentional acronym. @Zorlaki: - I saw you were the one who removed the source, do you have any other concerns with this? If so we should discuss them here. - car chasm (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carchasm:The acronym was not used in the original paper describing the cross polarisation, which is why I removed it. Besides, cross polarisation can come from other nuclei (e.g. fluorine, or 13C in a double CP), so "PENIS" is only a particular case of CP. To my knowledge, this was the only instance of this acronym being used (at least in textbooks and in literature from the past 20 years), and no one is using this this acronym in the field of solid state NMR, so I don't really see the point of including it apart from putting some discredit on the page. I could too make up a silly acronym in my thesis, but that doesn't mean it should be included here as I would be the only one using it as it doesn't reflect the actual science world... (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please provide the acronym for Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy. thank you. Jaysonjaysonjayson (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cross-polarization not mentioned in sources?

I've looked through the sources, and I can't see "cross-polarization" mentioned at all. This may be because I'm restricted from viewing some of the articles, but I just don't see it. I went ahead and removed rhe acronym CP, since I also couldn't see that, but before removing the page's title, I think a consensus should be established. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 16:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that, at least for me, source #3 redirects back to the article. Of all the issues regarding citations, I feel like making sure the rest of the article is intact is more important than focusing on a potentially vulgar acronym. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 16:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]