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 articles
I don’t believe it is too soon since it is a concept/theory being developed. I do also have a question for
XOR'easter. In your edit, which simplified the article, you removed the universities involved in the theory/experimentation. For notability purposes, should we add those universities back into the article? Also since the head author, Egor, has a Wikipedia article, should we reference/wiki link him into the article as well?
Elijahandskip (
talk)
15:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Whether or not it's too soon for an article depends upon the depth of
reliable,
independent coverage of it. The paucity of such documentation is what gives us pause here. The list of affiliations of the recent papers' authors does nothing to establish
notability in the Wikipedian sense of the word. It's very possible to have a project involving people from multiple universities that is not wiki-notable; I've organized some of those myself. Authors who have articles can be linked in the reference using the author-link parameters.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Based on the expansion done to the stub, I am going to remove the notability tag, but I am leaving the sources tag so editors know to look for more sources.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
20:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Please: never, never cite press releases from phys.org. They are hype — advertising by the universities, in all but name — not reliable sources. In addition, the expansion was text
lifted from the press release with minimal modifications, basically to the point of copyright infringement, with references sprinkled in whose relevance to the topic is not clear.
XOR'easter (
talk)
20:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Well in this case, Phys.org actually has part of the history behind this theory, so it should stay as a reference. Also @
XOR'easter: if it is that bad of a source, why don't you start a discussion about it on the
Wikipedia Reliable Source list? Don't take this the wrong way, but I cannot see any real reason (Wikipedia wise) to not include it as a reference. It hasn't been deprecated yet, so in my mind, Wikipedia still considers it "reliable". If I have the wrong idea for that, I highly encourage you to start a discussion to deprecate it, because that website publishes a ton of science information, which a lot of people read.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
00:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply
It publishes a ton of unvetted "information" that is not
independent of the people it promotes. It's
churnalism. It doesn't need to be red-listed at
WP:RSP in order to fail our basic standards. And, in fact, discussion at the RS noticeboard
has found itmostly unusable. Press releases are hype. Even if they include "history", they don't show that reliable, independent sources care about that history, which is the standard that history needs to pass in order to be included here. Phys.org, EurekAlert and their ilk are simply unsuitable.
XOR'easter (
talk)
05:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply
To echo my comment from
WT:PHYS, time-reversal symmetry breaking in exotic superconductors is a pretty big topic of research (see
here for a review that looks decent, and
here for an observation that dates back to 1998). Maybe that's the broader setting in which this could be discussed.
XOR'easter (
talk)
06:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply
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 articles
I don’t believe it is too soon since it is a concept/theory being developed. I do also have a question for
XOR'easter. In your edit, which simplified the article, you removed the universities involved in the theory/experimentation. For notability purposes, should we add those universities back into the article? Also since the head author, Egor, has a Wikipedia article, should we reference/wiki link him into the article as well?
Elijahandskip (
talk)
15:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Whether or not it's too soon for an article depends upon the depth of
reliable,
independent coverage of it. The paucity of such documentation is what gives us pause here. The list of affiliations of the recent papers' authors does nothing to establish
notability in the Wikipedian sense of the word. It's very possible to have a project involving people from multiple universities that is not wiki-notable; I've organized some of those myself. Authors who have articles can be linked in the reference using the author-link parameters.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Based on the expansion done to the stub, I am going to remove the notability tag, but I am leaving the sources tag so editors know to look for more sources.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
20:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Please: never, never cite press releases from phys.org. They are hype — advertising by the universities, in all but name — not reliable sources. In addition, the expansion was text
lifted from the press release with minimal modifications, basically to the point of copyright infringement, with references sprinkled in whose relevance to the topic is not clear.
XOR'easter (
talk)
20:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Well in this case, Phys.org actually has part of the history behind this theory, so it should stay as a reference. Also @
XOR'easter: if it is that bad of a source, why don't you start a discussion about it on the
Wikipedia Reliable Source list? Don't take this the wrong way, but I cannot see any real reason (Wikipedia wise) to not include it as a reference. It hasn't been deprecated yet, so in my mind, Wikipedia still considers it "reliable". If I have the wrong idea for that, I highly encourage you to start a discussion to deprecate it, because that website publishes a ton of science information, which a lot of people read.
Elijahandskip (
talk)
00:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply
It publishes a ton of unvetted "information" that is not
independent of the people it promotes. It's
churnalism. It doesn't need to be red-listed at
WP:RSP in order to fail our basic standards. And, in fact, discussion at the RS noticeboard
has found itmostly unusable. Press releases are hype. Even if they include "history", they don't show that reliable, independent sources care about that history, which is the standard that history needs to pass in order to be included here. Phys.org, EurekAlert and their ilk are simply unsuitable.
XOR'easter (
talk)
05:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply
To echo my comment from
WT:PHYS, time-reversal symmetry breaking in exotic superconductors is a pretty big topic of research (see
here for a review that looks decent, and
here for an observation that dates back to 1998). Maybe that's the broader setting in which this could be discussed.
XOR'easter (
talk)
06:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)reply