![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is a problem that has been discussed elsewhere and was the main incentive for creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics (besides the fact that it didn't exist yet). Now this is probably the best place to continue the discussion. A short summary of the pending discussion follows:
There have been discussions in several places on the structure of some subcategories in Category:Physics. Specifically, we are concerned with basic, general, and introductory phsysics articles. There is already a quite populated Category:Introductory physics, which probably gives a good overview of the most rudimental physics topics to the layman; so there is probably no point in changing it. During the big cleanup in May Category:General physics topics was created and populated by articles that were in the top level Category:Physics and didn't fit too well anywhere else. This category was then largely unpopulated and recently emptied and seems to have lost its purpose. Now there is the question whether we are actually in need of a new, similar category, which might be named Category:Basic physics concepts and would group together basic (fundamental) articles, such as time, space, vector, tensor, matter, energy, interaction, and so forth, which are now somewhat disperssed among various physics categories (please notice the difference between general and basic). If there is more positive feedback for this idea, we can either rename the existing Category:General phsyics topics or delete it and create a new one. The is also an idea about making something like Category:Mathematical tools in physics, which would encompass the mathematical concepts used in physics. Karol 11:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) Note: This is a summary of the posts found in Category talk:Physics#General Physics Topics subcategory, Category talk:Physics#Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Category:Physics: general/basic/introductory concepts.
---
I have just created Category:Fundamental physics concepts and added some basic articles to it. Karol June 28, 2005 17:30 (UTC)
---
Some time has passed, so I nominated Category:General physics topics for deletion. Everyone intersted please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:General_physics_topics. Karol June 28, 2005 20:12 (UTC)
I suppose I finally have an appropriate place to ask people to look at World Year of Physics 2005. I had originally thought it'd be a great idea to have it up to featured standard by the end of the year, but it hasn't really attracted any other editors recently and I feel like without feedback of other editors I may have taken it in a wrong direction (right now it mostly summarizes Annus Mirabilis Papers). So take a look if you're interested. -- Laura Scudder | Talk 15:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As there were voices that List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories is unsuitable in the article namespace, I've moved the physics section to the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. -- Pjacobi 15:08, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
I misunderstood the purpose of the list. Lets change the name to The list of articles that attract crank edits. This is a list of (mostly) legit articles on (mostly) noteworthy topics, (most of which happen to be noteworthy crank topics), that, unfortunately, tend to get vandalized in subtle ways. The name change would completely resolve my initial discomfort on reading the list. We can add over unity and Wilhelm Reich to the list. We can add legit science topics to the list, if they happen to be topics that attract inappropriate attention and edits. linas 1 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
Yikes! Surely what you understood when you read what I wrote can't possibly be what I meant when I wrote it?? We can add Afshar experiment and the entire Category:Quantum measurement; some of these articles are already subjects of long-running edit battles; note even User:Afshar is an active editor. linas 1 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)
Has anybody a reference and quote what Einstein said about the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment? Reich's view and those of the "over unity researchers" are already presented. -- Pjacobi June 30, 2005 08:19 (UTC)
I've reverted a bulk copy [1] from Talk:Aetherometry/Archive2#Reich-Einstein experiment. -- Pjacobi July 5, 2005 08:49 (UTC)
Can please someone check Generalized theory of gravitation and put it on his watchlist? -- Pjacobi July 5, 2005 18:30 (UTC)
I'm currently having an edit war on that page with the tradiational tesla-phile anons. Please make sure you check which version yuo're looking at... here is a diff from my version to the anons [2]. I think the anon is being too specific: from reading Pais, it seems to me that there is no one version of Einsteins theory, just a succession of papers looking for a theory. William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 09:24:25 (UTC).
I've tried to make this a real page on the early history of unified theories, as the title is appropriate for such an attempt. Salsb 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
I placed Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience as a subproject here, if anyone on the physics project objects please say so Salsb 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
The foundation of a good article should be good references or at least a reference. The following major articles in Physics don't have any references:
Some good, modern references can be found on the Physics page. Perhaps those are a good starting point. JabberWok 22:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)In some branches of physics links are references. JabberWok: please note that some of your (well meant) edits which separate out references from external links do not reflect this. Maybe it would be better to go back to those edits and check whether indeed the separation is meaningful. Bambaiah 11:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I created a Chemical physics category as a subcategory of applied and interdisciplinary physics. I was browsing through physics stubs and decided such a category was needed for some of the stubs. I then noticed that there was a Physical chemistry subcategory. The differences between Physical Chemistry and Chemical physics are hard to pin down, but, for example, a paper from the Journal of Chemical Physics paper is quite distinct from a Journal of Physical Chemistry A/B paper. What are peoples thoughts on having both categories, or should I ask for the category to be deleted and put any articles into Physical Chemistry? Salsb 00:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Physical Chemistry used to include a discussion of thermodynamic potentials and the like (Gibbs and Helholtz free energy, fugacity, enthalpy, free enthalpy and so on.) There are (or were) good texts on it and topnotch physicists such as Arnold Sommerfeld and Michael Faraday built it and kept it alive. Unfortunately, some modern physics texts skip most of that stuff to do a lot of statistical mechanics, transport theory (usually idealized, for example so as to avoid dealing with excitation of different states of the colliding molecules, which are imagined to be elastic spheres). Wikipedia would offer a good place to keep up interest in physical chemistry or chemical physics. Obviously, practising chemical, solid state, and plasma (and so on) engineers know about these topics and many more advanced ones. Well, I see that some of the classical stuff is sketched under Physical Chemistry but it needs more development. Abstract equations are provided on some of the links, but little or no idea of how to use the quantities mentioned, and practically none on where to look for tables, or any guideline as to when recourse to tables and measurements is needed (most cases of real gases, liquids and I suppose solids - I am out my area with solids.) Pdn 17:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Astrophysics is currently nominated to be improved by on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you are interested, you can vote for it there.-- Fenice 13:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, there is a vfd in progress of several related math/physics/recreational-math interface pages (written mainly from the recreational math aspect):
I draw your attention to this because I think (for some of the pages at least) a delete is a little unjustified. I choose to use this page in the hope that, like me, many other inhabitants were drawn into physics partially through recreational maths. -- Bambaiah 08:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that the articles are up for VFD as neologistic categorisation by Karl Scherer. Coupled with a distinct lack of non-categorisation content, existing only to fluff the categorisation enough to have an article for each class. The 100+ that have already been VFD'd were done so for predominantly the same reason.
Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and not something to push your POV of how things should be categorised. Neither is it a collection of all information under the sun. ~~~~ 22:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
We've got a new stub at nonlinear magnetic field from an anon. I would've marked it for speedy deletion, but didn't know if it quite qualified. -- Laura Scudder | Talk 23:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have nominated it for deletion as it seems to be one author reinventing x-ray damage. Please comment on the deletion page if appropriate. Ldm1954 ( talk) 22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is a problem that has been discussed elsewhere and was the main incentive for creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics (besides the fact that it didn't exist yet). Now this is probably the best place to continue the discussion. A short summary of the pending discussion follows:
There have been discussions in several places on the structure of some subcategories in Category:Physics. Specifically, we are concerned with basic, general, and introductory phsysics articles. There is already a quite populated Category:Introductory physics, which probably gives a good overview of the most rudimental physics topics to the layman; so there is probably no point in changing it. During the big cleanup in May Category:General physics topics was created and populated by articles that were in the top level Category:Physics and didn't fit too well anywhere else. This category was then largely unpopulated and recently emptied and seems to have lost its purpose. Now there is the question whether we are actually in need of a new, similar category, which might be named Category:Basic physics concepts and would group together basic (fundamental) articles, such as time, space, vector, tensor, matter, energy, interaction, and so forth, which are now somewhat disperssed among various physics categories (please notice the difference between general and basic). If there is more positive feedback for this idea, we can either rename the existing Category:General phsyics topics or delete it and create a new one. The is also an idea about making something like Category:Mathematical tools in physics, which would encompass the mathematical concepts used in physics. Karol 11:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) Note: This is a summary of the posts found in Category talk:Physics#General Physics Topics subcategory, Category talk:Physics#Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Category:Physics: general/basic/introductory concepts.
---
I have just created Category:Fundamental physics concepts and added some basic articles to it. Karol June 28, 2005 17:30 (UTC)
---
Some time has passed, so I nominated Category:General physics topics for deletion. Everyone intersted please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:General_physics_topics. Karol June 28, 2005 20:12 (UTC)
I suppose I finally have an appropriate place to ask people to look at World Year of Physics 2005. I had originally thought it'd be a great idea to have it up to featured standard by the end of the year, but it hasn't really attracted any other editors recently and I feel like without feedback of other editors I may have taken it in a wrong direction (right now it mostly summarizes Annus Mirabilis Papers). So take a look if you're interested. -- Laura Scudder | Talk 15:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As there were voices that List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories is unsuitable in the article namespace, I've moved the physics section to the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. -- Pjacobi 15:08, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
I misunderstood the purpose of the list. Lets change the name to The list of articles that attract crank edits. This is a list of (mostly) legit articles on (mostly) noteworthy topics, (most of which happen to be noteworthy crank topics), that, unfortunately, tend to get vandalized in subtle ways. The name change would completely resolve my initial discomfort on reading the list. We can add over unity and Wilhelm Reich to the list. We can add legit science topics to the list, if they happen to be topics that attract inappropriate attention and edits. linas 1 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
Yikes! Surely what you understood when you read what I wrote can't possibly be what I meant when I wrote it?? We can add Afshar experiment and the entire Category:Quantum measurement; some of these articles are already subjects of long-running edit battles; note even User:Afshar is an active editor. linas 1 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)
Has anybody a reference and quote what Einstein said about the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment? Reich's view and those of the "over unity researchers" are already presented. -- Pjacobi June 30, 2005 08:19 (UTC)
I've reverted a bulk copy [1] from Talk:Aetherometry/Archive2#Reich-Einstein experiment. -- Pjacobi July 5, 2005 08:49 (UTC)
Can please someone check Generalized theory of gravitation and put it on his watchlist? -- Pjacobi July 5, 2005 18:30 (UTC)
I'm currently having an edit war on that page with the tradiational tesla-phile anons. Please make sure you check which version yuo're looking at... here is a diff from my version to the anons [2]. I think the anon is being too specific: from reading Pais, it seems to me that there is no one version of Einsteins theory, just a succession of papers looking for a theory. William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 09:24:25 (UTC).
I've tried to make this a real page on the early history of unified theories, as the title is appropriate for such an attempt. Salsb 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
I placed Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience as a subproject here, if anyone on the physics project objects please say so Salsb 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
The foundation of a good article should be good references or at least a reference. The following major articles in Physics don't have any references:
Some good, modern references can be found on the Physics page. Perhaps those are a good starting point. JabberWok 22:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)In some branches of physics links are references. JabberWok: please note that some of your (well meant) edits which separate out references from external links do not reflect this. Maybe it would be better to go back to those edits and check whether indeed the separation is meaningful. Bambaiah 11:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I created a Chemical physics category as a subcategory of applied and interdisciplinary physics. I was browsing through physics stubs and decided such a category was needed for some of the stubs. I then noticed that there was a Physical chemistry subcategory. The differences between Physical Chemistry and Chemical physics are hard to pin down, but, for example, a paper from the Journal of Chemical Physics paper is quite distinct from a Journal of Physical Chemistry A/B paper. What are peoples thoughts on having both categories, or should I ask for the category to be deleted and put any articles into Physical Chemistry? Salsb 00:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Physical Chemistry used to include a discussion of thermodynamic potentials and the like (Gibbs and Helholtz free energy, fugacity, enthalpy, free enthalpy and so on.) There are (or were) good texts on it and topnotch physicists such as Arnold Sommerfeld and Michael Faraday built it and kept it alive. Unfortunately, some modern physics texts skip most of that stuff to do a lot of statistical mechanics, transport theory (usually idealized, for example so as to avoid dealing with excitation of different states of the colliding molecules, which are imagined to be elastic spheres). Wikipedia would offer a good place to keep up interest in physical chemistry or chemical physics. Obviously, practising chemical, solid state, and plasma (and so on) engineers know about these topics and many more advanced ones. Well, I see that some of the classical stuff is sketched under Physical Chemistry but it needs more development. Abstract equations are provided on some of the links, but little or no idea of how to use the quantities mentioned, and practically none on where to look for tables, or any guideline as to when recourse to tables and measurements is needed (most cases of real gases, liquids and I suppose solids - I am out my area with solids.) Pdn 17:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Astrophysics is currently nominated to be improved by on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you are interested, you can vote for it there.-- Fenice 13:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, there is a vfd in progress of several related math/physics/recreational-math interface pages (written mainly from the recreational math aspect):
I draw your attention to this because I think (for some of the pages at least) a delete is a little unjustified. I choose to use this page in the hope that, like me, many other inhabitants were drawn into physics partially through recreational maths. -- Bambaiah 08:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that the articles are up for VFD as neologistic categorisation by Karl Scherer. Coupled with a distinct lack of non-categorisation content, existing only to fluff the categorisation enough to have an article for each class. The 100+ that have already been VFD'd were done so for predominantly the same reason.
Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and not something to push your POV of how things should be categorised. Neither is it a collection of all information under the sun. ~~~~ 22:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
We've got a new stub at nonlinear magnetic field from an anon. I would've marked it for speedy deletion, but didn't know if it quite qualified. -- Laura Scudder | Talk 23:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have nominated it for deletion as it seems to be one author reinventing x-ray damage. Please comment on the deletion page if appropriate. Ldm1954 ( talk) 22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)