Talk:Cold fusion

Latest comment: 1 day ago by Andrewa in topic off topic
Former featured articleCold fusion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2004.
On this day... Article milestones
August 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
January 6, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
June 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 19, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 26, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 28, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 23, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 23, 2012, March 23, 2014, March 23, 2017, and March 23, 2019.
Current status: Former featured article

Article issues and classificationEdit

The article fails the B-class criteria #1 and #4. There is a March 2021 "citation needed" tag and a November 2015 "clarification needed". There are unsourced (yet untagged) paragraphs, subsections, and sections. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cultural referencesEdit

It's a bit silly the way some people don't want the reference to cold fusion being in a video game to be included, methinks. But I'm not bothered at all, it's just a pity that my time taken adding the link to it was wasted. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could be okay if the source actually supported the text. Bon courage (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

off topicEdit

I was working in the biology dept at MIT when the news 1st broke my boss, a very smart man and a biophysicist came in and said: I was talking to people in physics and they say that the theory says that Pons and Fleischman are off by 23 orders of magnitude by boss, a famous scientist not adverse to new ideas, looks down and quietly says: 23 orders of magnitude is a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not off-topic at all. It is however unsourced. If we can source it, it should be added to the article.
Have a look at which seems to be heading in the same direction. Andrewa (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]