Talk:Massive compact halo object
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
Hey does anyone know for sure if MACHO is a backronym? That is, the abbreviation (MACHO) was created before the definition (Massive compact halo object). I just listed it on the apronym page and I have a sneaking suspicion that it's also a backronym too. See the backronym and apronym pages to see what I'm talking about. -Hyad 07:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the lack of citations in this article. The article mentions groups, but neither names them, nor cites their papers. Rocklaura 03:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Citations?
I'm also concerned by the lack of citations in this article. Frankly, MACHOs are just as pseudoscience-y as Dark Matter itself... No wonder they can't find any in the universe. One would think we could at least list a few citations of where the pseudoscience was published? Mgmirkin 00:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article could indeed use some citations. I have added one. You might also consider reading the papers before dismissing the work of others as pseudoscience. Or if you have already read them - how about some help in adding citations to the articles?. FYI, some MACHOs have been found, just not enough to dominate the mass of the galactic halo. --Reuben 02:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What the acronym stands for
After looking at several listings for 'MACHO' on dictionary.com, it would appear to me that it stands for Massive astrophysical compact halo object. Should the "astrophysical" be included in the subject of the article? Im.a.lumberjack 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
