![]() | 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. |
Someone linked to Quantum Master Equation with capital initial letters. It was a red link, so I made it a redirected to quantum master equation with lower-case initial letters. Someone else had redirect that latter page to Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra. Then someone took me to task for redirecting Quantum Master Equation to Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra, although I never did that. But the person who did that never suggested a better target for that redirect. Perhaps someone here can do that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 12:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Longwave radiation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Outgoing longwave radiation -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 08:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear physics experts: Here's an old AfC submission that was declined because Elasto-capillarity is already in mainspace. Is there anything useful in the draft that should be transferred before the draft is deleted as stale? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The uses of Particulate, Particulates, Particulate matter is under discussion, see talk:Particulates -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A user has crated the article List of arguments for a young Earth, which is a clear POV-fork of the existing article age of the Earth. I'll probably AfD it, but decided to take it here first just to get some opinions on it. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 20:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
EmDrive and Quantum vacuum plasma thruster could use some clean-up and perhaps might benefit from a merge.
jps ( talk) 14:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Article put up for deletion yesterday - comments at deletion page appreciated! Una Laguna Talk 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Should the article be called Nat (unit) or Natural unit of information? Please opine at Talk:Nat (unit)#Rename article?. — Quondum 23:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Template:Material properties (thermodynamics) has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
11:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking for someone to double-check the physics at James Chadwick, which is at FAC at the moment. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 11:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Physics experts, do you know if Draft:NewFasant is notable? -- Cerebellum ( talk) 15:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Could someone pls have a look at the talk page? I do not have so much experience in dealing with illiterate editors who behave like if they are Nobel Prize winners. Thanks in advance.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello once more, physics experts. Is this old AfC submission about a notable physicist? I couldn't find a Google Scholar report. Should the draft be kept and improved? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The EmDrive article could do with some attention. Firstly, it currently details not just the EmDrive but also the (somewhat related) Cannae drive, which seems off-topic. Secondly, some rewriting may be required to better incorporate the results by NASA, and it's rather short on reliable sources for the claimed violation of conservation of momentum (the company manufacturing it says in its FAQ that the drive doesn't violate conservation of momentum, but their explanation seems bogus to me). Huon ( talk) 16:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
The article entitled " Code V" does not have sufficient reliable sources to be considered notable and merit inclusion. In the edit history, an editor recommended merging the article to the company that markets this product - Synopsys.
But, I don't really see a place for it in that article. This is because doing so would seem to be promoting a trivial subject by giving "Code V" its own section, when compared to the notable material already in "Synopsys" article. It doesn't fit with the tone of that article.
So, I am inclined to AFD the "Code V" article. However, I am looking for alternate opinions or solutions, so that is why I am posting this here. Thanks in advance.
I am also posting this on the WikiProject Computing Talk Page. -- Steve Quinn ( talk) 17:35, 25 August 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. |
Someone linked to Quantum Master Equation with capital initial letters. It was a red link, so I made it a redirected to quantum master equation with lower-case initial letters. Someone else had redirect that latter page to Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra. Then someone took me to task for redirecting Quantum Master Equation to Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra, although I never did that. But the person who did that never suggested a better target for that redirect. Perhaps someone here can do that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 12:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Longwave radiation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Outgoing longwave radiation -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 08:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear physics experts: Here's an old AfC submission that was declined because Elasto-capillarity is already in mainspace. Is there anything useful in the draft that should be transferred before the draft is deleted as stale? — Anne Delong ( talk) 12:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The uses of Particulate, Particulates, Particulate matter is under discussion, see talk:Particulates -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A user has crated the article List of arguments for a young Earth, which is a clear POV-fork of the existing article age of the Earth. I'll probably AfD it, but decided to take it here first just to get some opinions on it. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 20:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
EmDrive and Quantum vacuum plasma thruster could use some clean-up and perhaps might benefit from a merge.
jps ( talk) 14:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Article put up for deletion yesterday - comments at deletion page appreciated! Una Laguna Talk 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Should the article be called Nat (unit) or Natural unit of information? Please opine at Talk:Nat (unit)#Rename article?. — Quondum 23:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Template:Material properties (thermodynamics) has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
DH85868993 (
talk)
11:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking for someone to double-check the physics at James Chadwick, which is at FAC at the moment. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 11:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Physics experts, do you know if Draft:NewFasant is notable? -- Cerebellum ( talk) 15:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Could someone pls have a look at the talk page? I do not have so much experience in dealing with illiterate editors who behave like if they are Nobel Prize winners. Thanks in advance.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello once more, physics experts. Is this old AfC submission about a notable physicist? I couldn't find a Google Scholar report. Should the draft be kept and improved? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The EmDrive article could do with some attention. Firstly, it currently details not just the EmDrive but also the (somewhat related) Cannae drive, which seems off-topic. Secondly, some rewriting may be required to better incorporate the results by NASA, and it's rather short on reliable sources for the claimed violation of conservation of momentum (the company manufacturing it says in its FAQ that the drive doesn't violate conservation of momentum, but their explanation seems bogus to me). Huon ( talk) 16:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
The article entitled " Code V" does not have sufficient reliable sources to be considered notable and merit inclusion. In the edit history, an editor recommended merging the article to the company that markets this product - Synopsys.
But, I don't really see a place for it in that article. This is because doing so would seem to be promoting a trivial subject by giving "Code V" its own section, when compared to the notable material already in "Synopsys" article. It doesn't fit with the tone of that article.
So, I am inclined to AFD the "Code V" article. However, I am looking for alternate opinions or solutions, so that is why I am posting this here. Thanks in advance.
I am also posting this on the WikiProject Computing Talk Page. -- Steve Quinn ( talk) 17:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)