![]() | 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. |
Dimension10 ( talk · contribs) just did the following moves
I'm not sure this is an entirely good idea, as per our naming conventions Standard Model should redirect to The Standard Model of Particle Physics, but this is almost never the intended target. I'd much rather have Introduction to the Standard Model moved back to its original location (per WP:COMMONNAME amongst other rationales) and The Standard Model of Particle Physics moved to Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model, i.e.
What's the feeling on those two articles? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
For purposes of input form other editors apart form Dimension10: the moves are entirely unnecessary. Page moves should only be done sparingly if at all. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 15:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
This newly created template entitled Not-technical-enough does not appear to agree with Wikipedia's intent, conventions, policies, and guidelines. For the uninitated please see: please make technical articles understandable, please make topics understandable to as many readers as possible, and we should always put our readers first. As an aside, are such templates supposed to be approved by consensus, before being deployed for use on articles? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Time-challenged When 4 ½ hours go by in what seems like 10 minutes, that is in the field of physics and not psychology. Maybe those of you who have access to physics journals know something about time anomaly affecting personal success.-- Truexper ( talk) 08:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
should be splitted into Residue (chemistry) and residue (molecular biology) since everything after "In biochemistry and molecular biology, a residue ..." is definitely totally different from the rest!.-- 141.58.45.38 ( talk) 11:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I am curious about [2]. It is certainly not a useful edit, but I never saw this as a form of vandalism. Could somebody rollback it? I am tired of accusations about biting newcomers. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 15:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know important the selection at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Physics.2C_270 is in practical terms (probably not much), but if someone has the time, that list could use some attention. The actual discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Physics. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 01:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Are the following two (brand new) articles useful to WikiProject Physics: List of things named after Paul Dirac, and List of things named after James Clerk Maxwell? --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
There seems to be an article request at talk:hyperloop for Kantrowitz limit -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking of a PROD for " Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics". I checked Google Scholar to get an idea of citation rates. The first article on Google Scholar is entitled "Consciousness as a research tool into space and time" with 33 cites. I now question this journal's reliability besides its notability. I am wondering if some members of this project could look through enough of the articles listed on Google scholar to give an opinion pertaining to its reliability. Besides a few articles, I feel that I don't have enough knowledge about the subjects covered to make a judgement. The other stuff, WikiProject Academic Journals can handle. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Delphenich ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding a lot of links to translations of older physics papers to a number of pages. I'm sure they mean well, but I'm inclined to mass-revert. Thoughts? a13ean ( talk) 13:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no problem in linking to both the primary and secondary source. Martinvl ( talk) 04:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a borderline AfD, would appreciate input. a13ean ( talk) 13:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The article " Atomic Dielectric Resonance" seems to be psudescience to me. According to the article "Conventional science says that electromagnetic energy can only penetrate solid ground to a depth of centimetres to a few metres ...[however] Dr Stove was surprised to find that he was imaging the water table several metres below the surface of the beach," and so on.
Also, the "Background" section appears to be a word for word copyvio anyway from here. I suspect that most or all of the article is a copyvio.
OK, well, I decided to request a speedy delete. I am seeing too much wrong with this article. My rationale for speedy delete is as follows:
I have started a discussion of the {{ Science}} template at WikiProject Science. RockMagnetist ( talk) 00:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Since I'm about to submit a paper on the topic, I took the liberty to update our article on the Gell-Mann–Okubo mass formula. I don't believe anything I wrote in there is remotely biased, controversial, or original research, but I'd rather be open about things and have others vet what I wrote rather than be accused of WP:COI or WP:OR. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
have been nominated for deletion (these will not appear on article alerts, since they are not FFD nominations) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 08:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Physics - Skysmith ( talk) 11:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Flame is rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Combustion is not even included into WP:PHYS. This is illogical, actually combustion physics is a very rich branch of physics, and flame is just one aspect of combustion. Yes, I'm a combustion physicist and I'm willing to help with the article (see ru:Горение for a somewhat better outline of the subject). However, I'm not a native speaker. -- Fedor Babkin ( talk) 18:13, 30 August 2013 (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. |
Dimension10 ( talk · contribs) just did the following moves
I'm not sure this is an entirely good idea, as per our naming conventions Standard Model should redirect to The Standard Model of Particle Physics, but this is almost never the intended target. I'd much rather have Introduction to the Standard Model moved back to its original location (per WP:COMMONNAME amongst other rationales) and The Standard Model of Particle Physics moved to Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model, i.e.
What's the feeling on those two articles? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
For purposes of input form other editors apart form Dimension10: the moves are entirely unnecessary. Page moves should only be done sparingly if at all. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 15:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
This newly created template entitled Not-technical-enough does not appear to agree with Wikipedia's intent, conventions, policies, and guidelines. For the uninitated please see: please make technical articles understandable, please make topics understandable to as many readers as possible, and we should always put our readers first. As an aside, are such templates supposed to be approved by consensus, before being deployed for use on articles? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Time-challenged When 4 ½ hours go by in what seems like 10 minutes, that is in the field of physics and not psychology. Maybe those of you who have access to physics journals know something about time anomaly affecting personal success.-- Truexper ( talk) 08:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
should be splitted into Residue (chemistry) and residue (molecular biology) since everything after "In biochemistry and molecular biology, a residue ..." is definitely totally different from the rest!.-- 141.58.45.38 ( talk) 11:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I am curious about [2]. It is certainly not a useful edit, but I never saw this as a form of vandalism. Could somebody rollback it? I am tired of accusations about biting newcomers. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 15:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know important the selection at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Physical sciences#Physics.2C_270 is in practical terms (probably not much), but if someone has the time, that list could use some attention. The actual discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Expanded#Physics. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 01:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Are the following two (brand new) articles useful to WikiProject Physics: List of things named after Paul Dirac, and List of things named after James Clerk Maxwell? --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 20:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
There seems to be an article request at talk:hyperloop for Kantrowitz limit -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking of a PROD for " Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics". I checked Google Scholar to get an idea of citation rates. The first article on Google Scholar is entitled "Consciousness as a research tool into space and time" with 33 cites. I now question this journal's reliability besides its notability. I am wondering if some members of this project could look through enough of the articles listed on Google scholar to give an opinion pertaining to its reliability. Besides a few articles, I feel that I don't have enough knowledge about the subjects covered to make a judgement. The other stuff, WikiProject Academic Journals can handle. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Delphenich ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding a lot of links to translations of older physics papers to a number of pages. I'm sure they mean well, but I'm inclined to mass-revert. Thoughts? a13ean ( talk) 13:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no problem in linking to both the primary and secondary source. Martinvl ( talk) 04:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a borderline AfD, would appreciate input. a13ean ( talk) 13:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The article " Atomic Dielectric Resonance" seems to be psudescience to me. According to the article "Conventional science says that electromagnetic energy can only penetrate solid ground to a depth of centimetres to a few metres ...[however] Dr Stove was surprised to find that he was imaging the water table several metres below the surface of the beach," and so on.
Also, the "Background" section appears to be a word for word copyvio anyway from here. I suspect that most or all of the article is a copyvio.
OK, well, I decided to request a speedy delete. I am seeing too much wrong with this article. My rationale for speedy delete is as follows:
I have started a discussion of the {{ Science}} template at WikiProject Science. RockMagnetist ( talk) 00:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Since I'm about to submit a paper on the topic, I took the liberty to update our article on the Gell-Mann–Okubo mass formula. I don't believe anything I wrote in there is remotely biased, controversial, or original research, but I'd rather be open about things and have others vet what I wrote rather than be accused of WP:COI or WP:OR. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
have been nominated for deletion (these will not appear on article alerts, since they are not FFD nominations) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 08:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Physics - Skysmith ( talk) 11:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Flame is rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Combustion is not even included into WP:PHYS. This is illogical, actually combustion physics is a very rich branch of physics, and flame is just one aspect of combustion. Yes, I'm a combustion physicist and I'm willing to help with the article (see ru:Горение for a somewhat better outline of the subject). However, I'm not a native speaker. -- Fedor Babkin ( talk) 18:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)