Talk:Nano-

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

"The nano is a technology chip that is very small" <-- what does this mean? --JWSchmidt 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either. It was added by 64.229.236.114 on 11/14/05, which was that editor's only contribution. Art LaPella 06:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nanimite[edit]

Could you say nanimite to those small mechanical robots, in fiction said to serve as weapon and/or aider?

Can't find anything like that on Google. Did you mean nanites? Art LaPella 03:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

iPod nano and the nano text editor[edit]

Those have absolutely nothing to do with the meaning of nano in this article (I know they have nano in their names because they claim to be compact, but that's not the meaning of nano here), so I removed the links under the See Also section. iPod nano and the nano text editor are already mentioned on the disambiguation page (and that's what disambiguation pages are for; See Also sections should contain information on related topics. --Bernard François 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for revert of redirect?[edit]

Paintspot, on your revert: (Aside from the minor technicality that I obtained three affirmative and no negative responses at WT:PHYS, not "only [...] ONE other person", and mentioning it in WT:PHYS ensures that it will be seen by several people who are science experts.) What seems particularly notable about this one to you? —Quondum 22:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, totally miscounted the number of other participants in that discussion — genuinely my bad on that front. Anyway: In my opinion, what makes this entry more notable than "pico-" and "zepto-" and the like, is how widely it's used as both a numerical metric prefix connected to unit names, but also in relation to the field of nanotechnology (see pages like nanoscience, "nanobots", etc). Quite frankly, it's definitely at least on par with tera- in terms of notability, if not MORE notable than tera-. While tera- is ONLY used with the meaning of "10^9" and only really exists in the context of "a prefix to be added onto a unit" like most metric prefixes, the prefix "nano-" has also managed to break into the public consciousness so much that it's taken on its own additional sub-meaning where it no longer has to be connected to any sort of numerically-quantifiable unit name (and can be connected to a variety of other nouns, including an entire field of science). Almost every other unit prefix is simply ONLY a unit prefix — except "nano-". So, I'd argue that if "tera-" has its own page, its counterpart "nano-" (which I'd argue is MORE notable) should probably have one too. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean "giga-" rather than "tera-". As you may have noticed from the WP:PHYS discussion, it was my intention to eliminate the remaining prefixes as well: none of the prefixes should have an article to its own; they should all be covered in Metric prefix. That aside, it sounds rather like you are arguing for havong an article for 'nano-' on the grounds that it is a prefix with a meaning. Which is going squarely against WP:NOTDICT. At best, 'Nano-' would end up being a DAB page; the article for "nano-" would presumably be 'Nanotechnology'; in any event, what is in it now on that topic amounts to a hatnote. —Quondum 14:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]