Talk:Charmed baryon

1) I'm not fully convinced that a distinct page for charmed baryons is needed, but I guess it can't hurt.

2) Should the title be "Charmed baryon" instead?

3) It feels like it needs some history. I wasn't around back then and it looks like a chunk of work to put down a timeline (given that a lot of the early observations had a very small number of events and/or were identified as excited uncharmed baryon states at the time). Maybe there's a nice review article somewhere...

4) How much depth is appropriate? Anything more than a superficial fly-over is going to be of interest only to a very, very small audience.

Physicsdog 07:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote for changing this to a redirect to Baryon, perhaps with an (relatively small) expansion of the paragraph starting "There are additional baryon states which contain heavy quarks." (Oh, and yes, if we kept the article it should be singular rather than plural). I guess my only doubt is about the large number of particles and how best to organize them, but I certainly don't know enough physics to make much of a recommendation about whether "charmed baryon" is a large enough category to be a good organizational tool. Kingdon 23:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]