![]() | 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. |
Dear physics experts: Here's another one of those abandoned Afc submissions. Is this a notable physicist, or should the page be deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear physics experts: This page has just been submitted at Afc and may be of interest here. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
One person's theory?! IMHO deletable... -- Pjacobi ( talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete as gobbledegook (formally OR). Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC).
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hidden states of matter. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please have a close look at what's going on at Double-slit experiment and Talk:Double-slit experiment#de Broglie's wave mechanics. A wp:spa user MPC755 seems to be adding some content with possible wp:SYNTH and wp:UNDUE related problems. Perhaps even wp:FRINGE. - DVdm ( talk) 15:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I think there is an issue regarding the explanation of symbols in Vis-viva equation#Vis viva equation. The symbol v does not denote the speed of orbiting body relative to the central body, but the speed of the orbiting body along its orbit. -- Pyrometer ( talk) 08:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Am I missing something, or is WP? While editing an article in astronomy, I found the article Radio wave very useful as a link target. Now I would like to have the same for Optical wave (or "Visible wave" or some such), as well, but I do not find any. Each band of the spectrum has its own uses and applications, many in astronomy alone, so it seems reasonable to me that there should be articles for each. What think you all? Evensteven ( talk) 20:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI, there's a notice at WT:ASTRONOMY about Draft:Cosmic age problem -- 70.24.250.235 ( talk) 04:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear physics experts: Is this old Afc submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved (maybe by changing it to be about the KATRIN project instead of the more general title) instead of being deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
It seems like information is extremely sparse when it comes to trace and tensors. At least, I haven't been able to find anything useful. Yet, the physics literature is full of expressions like "traceless", "extracting traces", etc. I have an idea about what things mean, but I don't have enough knowledge to write an article or write a section in trace myself. What I'd like to see is information about
I'd like to see a component form formulation instead of some category theory style super-general abstract nonsense, but that's me.
Does anyone agree that we need this? Or do we perhaps have it already? YohanN7 ( talk) 10:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The LHCb experiment has confirmed the existence of exotic hadrons - I've added one simple sentence citing Cern's press release, but I'd appreciate if someone knowledgeable about particle physics could synthesisze the sources and update the article accordingly - it was only discovered yesterday, so lets keep enwp on top of current scientific developments! Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 13:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe one of you can have a look at this series of edits. They strike me as good-faith edits but they totally mess up the article; I hate to roll them back and it's best if an expert has a look. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 14:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Suggesting that continued discussion be taken over to Talk:Elastic recoil detection#Initial discussion. Evensteven ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
To all those who've taken this on: Good work! It's good to see that we can take the work of an enthusiastic and knowledgeable new editor and combine it with WP-expertise to create a much improved article. Djr32 ( talk) 21:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 03:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
User Magravat seems to be putting a lot of work in an article about his own "research" at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Time correction. I have no idea how to let him know that it's not going to work. To me it looks like extreme nonsense. Two reviewers already rejected it but I don't think they really knew what it is about. Does someone know how to prevent this user wasting his time here? See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Article on time correction - DVdm ( talk) 14:51, 28 April 2014 (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. |
Dear physics experts: Here's another one of those abandoned Afc submissions. Is this a notable physicist, or should the page be deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear physics experts: This page has just been submitted at Afc and may be of interest here. — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
One person's theory?! IMHO deletable... -- Pjacobi ( talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete as gobbledegook (formally OR). Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC).
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hidden states of matter. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please have a close look at what's going on at Double-slit experiment and Talk:Double-slit experiment#de Broglie's wave mechanics. A wp:spa user MPC755 seems to be adding some content with possible wp:SYNTH and wp:UNDUE related problems. Perhaps even wp:FRINGE. - DVdm ( talk) 15:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I think there is an issue regarding the explanation of symbols in Vis-viva equation#Vis viva equation. The symbol v does not denote the speed of orbiting body relative to the central body, but the speed of the orbiting body along its orbit. -- Pyrometer ( talk) 08:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Am I missing something, or is WP? While editing an article in astronomy, I found the article Radio wave very useful as a link target. Now I would like to have the same for Optical wave (or "Visible wave" or some such), as well, but I do not find any. Each band of the spectrum has its own uses and applications, many in astronomy alone, so it seems reasonable to me that there should be articles for each. What think you all? Evensteven ( talk) 20:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
FYI, there's a notice at WT:ASTRONOMY about Draft:Cosmic age problem -- 70.24.250.235 ( talk) 04:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear physics experts: Is this old Afc submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved (maybe by changing it to be about the KATRIN project instead of the more general title) instead of being deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi!
It seems like information is extremely sparse when it comes to trace and tensors. At least, I haven't been able to find anything useful. Yet, the physics literature is full of expressions like "traceless", "extracting traces", etc. I have an idea about what things mean, but I don't have enough knowledge to write an article or write a section in trace myself. What I'd like to see is information about
I'd like to see a component form formulation instead of some category theory style super-general abstract nonsense, but that's me.
Does anyone agree that we need this? Or do we perhaps have it already? YohanN7 ( talk) 10:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The LHCb experiment has confirmed the existence of exotic hadrons - I've added one simple sentence citing Cern's press release, but I'd appreciate if someone knowledgeable about particle physics could synthesisze the sources and update the article accordingly - it was only discovered yesterday, so lets keep enwp on top of current scientific developments! Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 13:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe one of you can have a look at this series of edits. They strike me as good-faith edits but they totally mess up the article; I hate to roll them back and it's best if an expert has a look. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 14:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Suggesting that continued discussion be taken over to Talk:Elastic recoil detection#Initial discussion. Evensteven ( talk) 18:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
To all those who've taken this on: Good work! It's good to see that we can take the work of an enthusiastic and knowledgeable new editor and combine it with WP-expertise to create a much improved article. Djr32 ( talk) 21:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 03:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
User Magravat seems to be putting a lot of work in an article about his own "research" at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Time correction. I have no idea how to let him know that it's not going to work. To me it looks like extreme nonsense. Two reviewers already rejected it but I don't think they really knew what it is about. Does someone know how to prevent this user wasting his time here? See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Article on time correction - DVdm ( talk) 14:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)