![]() | 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. |
Would someone familiar with the subject matter please take a look at this edit to Rainbow Gravity theory and determine whether it is appropriate? Thanks. TJRC ( talk) 19:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Could I get some input from someone more familiar with this topic? I don't have the time to check properly but Qchao attempted to fix the oscillator strengths equations so that the A21/B21 relation worked. From a quick check it doesn't appear to correctly give F(v) but I might be missing something and I'm pretty sure the relations are correct. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello WP:PHYS,
A network of over 200 experts in the field of quantum thermodynamics (the European Commission-funded COST Action MP1209 "Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime") has been working hard to overturn the judgement handed down on the "quantum thermodynamics" article submitted several months ago. It appears now that the situation has stagnated, with the advice on the draft page being that it is the specialist editors here who can overturn that decision. To add insult to injury, the current article is one sentence long: "Quantum thermodynamics is the application of quantum information theory to thermodynamics." Whilst this is more accurate than the redirect to the article on quantum statistical mechanics that was in operation some time ago, this is an insult to those of us who took the time out to pen an article that is in their field of specialisation (for information's sake: Prof Ronnie Kosloff and his group), only to be told that the matter is already covered elsewhere when it most definitely is not. I would understand the behaviour of the editors if there was some scientific motivation for their actions, but there is none: There is full consensus in the field for what "quantum thermodynamics" refers to, and it is not the same as "quantum statistical mechanics".
Could you please advise on the best way forward? Andre Xuereb ( talk) 14:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Nonlinear wave groups on deep water. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The article has been accepted at AFC, but it has several major deficiencies that need expert attention. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, there is a discussion going at Talk:Fermi's golden rule about whether or not an editors additions are considered WP:OR. It would be great to have a few people from this page weigh in with their thoughts, as I'm no expert and cannot dissect the material. Garchy ( talk) 14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Many physics and science related articles lack references entirely or in parts, or have no inline references - often just containing a further reading section or references manually added to the reference section. My impression is that these articles should be tagged for references, where it applies. However, what if people revert these tags pointing to references at the end of the article. prokaryotes ( talk) 23:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
There is some deep background to this. People have discovered over the years (I have been editing WP for 9) that legal vandalism is quite possible: namely, to narrowly, but disingenuously and unevenly, hew to WP guidelines to, at the same time, trash articles, insert inappropriate references, and conduct extensive bullying personal attacks, while flying under the radar through splattering random reports to gum up the dysfunctional WP bureaucracy. WP is relatively helpless when, e.g., an obvious 48 hour rampage mentioned is not formatted to negligent administrators' satisfaction. I am sure most of you have experienced analogous dysfunctions. Over the years, I have dealt with frustrated readers who lack the technical background to understand an issue, and launch sour defacement campaigns, like the ones Yohan mentions, trashing content, eliminating html templates, and splattering inappropriate templates of all sorts on the article, converting popular articles, visited by hundreds of people every day to unseemly "pardon the inconvenience, we are renovating!" shantytown construction sites. Then the incidental IP vandals move in.
You guys appreciate that reasoned appeals in the Talkpages for more references, etc... are a better way to address this; and, frankly, if one perceives a lack of references, one should try to redress it himself, instead of giving peremptory orders to unnamed volunteers and strutting around bossily brandishing their SturmAbteilung armbands, wagging their fingers, and flinging WP directives on each other. Missing citations are usually evident, and as clear to the reader as to hundreds of others; and many of us constantly try to improve articles, so it is kind of peremptory to shout: "Work harder Mugs!"; "Vandals! Broken glass here--Break another one?". This is what it's all about, and I would assume most experienced editors would recognize what I am describing. When the vandals are dropouts from a technical subject, their animus is concentrated and are more energetic at it. The plodding WP mechanisms are sadly ill-equipped to handle these cases, cf. my one link here, mostly because outsiders without technical training cannot immediately grasp which way is up, and , by habit of mind, stick to pedantic legalisms and side issues--anything to have a say without knowledge. They end up concluding things a bunch of physics undergraduates, even, would not. I could provide links to such past sad sagas with IPs, on request.
What is common in all cases in this discussion (and others you identify by the rampage reported for Aug13-14), is that, demonstrably non-coincidentally, they all relate to my latest edits, reverting weeks of my work and no one else's, apparently to teach me a deranged "lesson", with maximal vituperative ugliness. So the issue is most definitely not suboptimal references and not a constructive effort to improve technical articles, in case your perusals let you lose view of this central fact. Behold! Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 11:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I believe this is the right place. The issue is proper citations; and, clearly, volunteering work, and appealing in the talk page for citations is quite appropriate.
This needs repeating? For the reader's benefit, Yohan's article development work is the all-time prototype of completeness and meticulous inline citation in math articles, e.g., this one. Technical articles are not tutorials, but they are meant to be accessible to minimally prepared readerships, e.g. undergraduates, and are meant to provide insights the average graduate student might not find in one single book. A colleague of mine regularly quotes WP articles in his papers and this is a good thing---you really don't want a takeover by C-students to make this less routine.
Plastering multiple articles in a rampage with tendentious and inappropriate templates, however, is not---and abuse of such templates to bully is even less so. Misrepresenting the issue as one of equanimous scholarship should not be acceptable. Interested readers must get to the bottom of the concerted loose-cannon rollbacks of Aug 13 in the appropriate venues. This discussion is but a diversionary footnote to these broader issues. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 14:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
No, there is just divergence of opinion. Primarily, a technical article is not automatically excluded from WP if no more than 10% of its habitual readers fully understand it. Ideally, the lede summarizes facts nontechnically for everyone, so at least everyone appreciates what area the article is on. But an article written for technical readers from another field, undergraduates, or graduate students and experts, is also quite welcome in WP, and its quality should not be compromised in the elusive quest of universal comprehensibility, which the heated argument is really about. This is clearer in math than in physics articles, since a broader swath of the audience believes they understand physics adequately. The big brother of WP is Scholarpedia, of course, but I truly applaud WP pages that have, in point of fact, surpassed their Scholarpedia brethren! Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
At long last we are in agreement on something. Yes, yes, yes!, by all means, I am encouraging you and all to provide more understandable explanations. It is the deletion of references and material that is too technical that is at issue, in an ill-construed effort to somehow "protect" the untrained reader. Any reader would instantly appreciate if an article is too technical for him or her, and go elsewhere. Again, and yet again, desisting from providing badly needed technical information because someone, somewhere, doesn't get it, is magnificently ill-advised. In fact, the WP page mentioned Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable#Don't oversimplify is just making my very point. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 21:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, WP is a collective effort. My omissions can always be filled in by others, and I am grateful to them. I do not know what i imply in terms of comprehensibility. Few students have accused me of being obscure, so far... are you sure it is me implying and not another editor? However, deleting serious, indeed, the most prestigious!, references I adduce, as in scale invariance, and then asking for references in a template, on top of it, does baffle one. How does elimination of references assist the perplexed reader? Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 00:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, especially you admins and higher charges, I'm not at the high level as the other debaters around, but do not want to miss to remind you all of the expulsion of the extremely proficient and knowledgeable user "linas", who was driven away by some mandarin, getting support by sufficiently many paper shufflers, who found that verbal derailment caused by ongoing ignorance and insisting on "rules" in a heavily bureaucratic way weighs more than the addressed professionality.
The exuberant plastering of high level parts of articles with requests for detailed citations by a person who is evidently not sufficiently literate on the relevant topics should not be backed be referring to whatever rule in Wikipedia.
I plead for ending these calamitous activities based on hypocritical and blissfully ignorant bureaucracy by
prokaryotes deteriorating high level components of Wikipedia.
Now go, search my contributions and "improve" them by requesting citations and sue me for personal attacks.
Purgy (
talk)
07:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Purgy kid, don't let the bullies silence you, or worse, dampen your momentum. Your contris are valuable. This is not a traffic stop by a Philadelphia cop. Even blocked, you could contribute as one or other IP. The war on common sense has never stopped, and never will... but there are always lulls. Live and learn. Go out on your window and watch the armband bullies shaking their fist at the rain,
commanding it to stop, and hurling rain manuals at it.
Cuzkatzimhut (
talk)
14:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Prokaryotes: You should better understand that some wikipedia guidelines are the minimal requirements for any wikipedia article (even a 1-sentence stub), while other guidelines are aspirational guidelines for great wikipedia articles. Verifiability and notability are almost the only thing in the first category, while the second category includes things like having good footnotes and references, writing accessible prose for non-experts, good writing style in general, etc.
From my experience, I would guess that out of the ~16,000 physics articles on wikipedia, probably 10,000 have terribly inadequate footnotes and technical accessibility for non-experts, another 5,000 have merely inadequate footnotes and technical accessibility, and the remaining 1,000 have room for improvement in footnotes and technical accessibility. (I have never seen a technical article on wikipedia (or anywhere else) that didn't have room for improvement in clarity and accessibility.)
It's not only common, but actually desirable, for people to add content to physics articles in such a way that the new content has inadequate references and inadequate technical accessibility. Unless you believe that the new content is actually incorrect (when I say "incorrect", I mean "contradicted by reliable sources"), or is non-notable. If the new content is making the article more correct and comprehensive, then it's an improvement for the article. It doesn't make the article perfect—obviously we still want the footnotes and accessibility to be introduced sooner or later—but it does make the article less bad. (Of course there are extreme cases where something is so extremely inaccessible, unreferenced, and poorly written that it's worse than nothing at all, despite being correct and on-topic. But that's pretty rare, and I don't think that's the case here.)
You're welcome to spend your time adding refimprove and technical templates to some or all of the 10,000 physics articles that desperately need improved references and more accessible prose. I don't personally think this is a very productive use of your time (because I think it's already obvious to everyone, just no one has had the time to do it). But it's your time, you can spend it that way if you want.
I think your time would be much better spent actually adding references, or flagging content that you actually believe to be incorrect (as "dubious", not just "citation needed"), or stating on the talk page the specific aspect of a technical article that you find confusing, or better yet resolving your own confusion by reading other sources and then editing the article accordingly.
I do think it's inappropriate to delete OK references in the hope that someone will later add a great reference, just as it would be inappropriate to delete OK prose in the hope that someone will later add great prose, etc. -- Steve ( talk) 15:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, warm thanks. I read and read and read. Nobody would be sticking the same references used throughout the article after each paragraph! If the issue becomes pressing, you state, in words, as i did in scalar field theory where each section came from/can be "checked" (!?) at. The central statement of the section, though, is, really: " one or two authoritative sources (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked ". Enter Scholarpedia. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 17:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
If a Polish-speaking psychoceramicist appeared out of nowhere and started to bless Wikipedia with their remarkable new theories, would it ring any particular bells in anyone's sock drawer? Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This article [1] caught my eye. There's not a complete list of articles worked on, but from what I can see it was a bit less productive that that article might suggest - and it's not clear that the participants have done any follow-up. Snori ( talk) 05:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
References
I just stumbled upon Planck angle, for which the entire article seems to be a two-line description of an equation. Merge this somewhere? bd2412 T 17:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
See RfC here: talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Your input is appreciated! Iran nuclear weapons 2 ( talk) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a Request for Comment going on at Talk:Electronic oscillator over whether crystal oscillators are used as fixed-frequency oscillators. Outside opinions are needed. Please drop by and express your opinion at Talk:Electronic oscillator#Request for Comment: Additional wording on crystal oscillators as fixed-frequency oscillators. Thanks. -- Chetvorno TALK 16:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this too stupid to be an article:
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in helping out with Hastatic order? It needs some TLC to flesh it out and make it a little less technical. The person who created the article ( Dwight25) is someone I'm mentoring and I can help him out with general stuff, but he could definitely use some additional help when it comes to technical details with physics related articles, since there are some things that only physics-savvy editors will catch that I'd miss. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent edits of " Superdeterminism" need attention of physicists (I think so). See discussion. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:51, 20 August 2015 (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. |
Would someone familiar with the subject matter please take a look at this edit to Rainbow Gravity theory and determine whether it is appropriate? Thanks. TJRC ( talk) 19:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Could I get some input from someone more familiar with this topic? I don't have the time to check properly but Qchao attempted to fix the oscillator strengths equations so that the A21/B21 relation worked. From a quick check it doesn't appear to correctly give F(v) but I might be missing something and I'm pretty sure the relations are correct. Thanks, Sam Walton ( talk) 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello WP:PHYS,
A network of over 200 experts in the field of quantum thermodynamics (the European Commission-funded COST Action MP1209 "Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime") has been working hard to overturn the judgement handed down on the "quantum thermodynamics" article submitted several months ago. It appears now that the situation has stagnated, with the advice on the draft page being that it is the specialist editors here who can overturn that decision. To add insult to injury, the current article is one sentence long: "Quantum thermodynamics is the application of quantum information theory to thermodynamics." Whilst this is more accurate than the redirect to the article on quantum statistical mechanics that was in operation some time ago, this is an insult to those of us who took the time out to pen an article that is in their field of specialisation (for information's sake: Prof Ronnie Kosloff and his group), only to be told that the matter is already covered elsewhere when it most definitely is not. I would understand the behaviour of the editors if there was some scientific motivation for their actions, but there is none: There is full consensus in the field for what "quantum thermodynamics" refers to, and it is not the same as "quantum statistical mechanics".
Could you please advise on the best way forward? Andre Xuereb ( talk) 14:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Nonlinear wave groups on deep water. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The article has been accepted at AFC, but it has several major deficiencies that need expert attention. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, there is a discussion going at Talk:Fermi's golden rule about whether or not an editors additions are considered WP:OR. It would be great to have a few people from this page weigh in with their thoughts, as I'm no expert and cannot dissect the material. Garchy ( talk) 14:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Many physics and science related articles lack references entirely or in parts, or have no inline references - often just containing a further reading section or references manually added to the reference section. My impression is that these articles should be tagged for references, where it applies. However, what if people revert these tags pointing to references at the end of the article. prokaryotes ( talk) 23:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
There is some deep background to this. People have discovered over the years (I have been editing WP for 9) that legal vandalism is quite possible: namely, to narrowly, but disingenuously and unevenly, hew to WP guidelines to, at the same time, trash articles, insert inappropriate references, and conduct extensive bullying personal attacks, while flying under the radar through splattering random reports to gum up the dysfunctional WP bureaucracy. WP is relatively helpless when, e.g., an obvious 48 hour rampage mentioned is not formatted to negligent administrators' satisfaction. I am sure most of you have experienced analogous dysfunctions. Over the years, I have dealt with frustrated readers who lack the technical background to understand an issue, and launch sour defacement campaigns, like the ones Yohan mentions, trashing content, eliminating html templates, and splattering inappropriate templates of all sorts on the article, converting popular articles, visited by hundreds of people every day to unseemly "pardon the inconvenience, we are renovating!" shantytown construction sites. Then the incidental IP vandals move in.
You guys appreciate that reasoned appeals in the Talkpages for more references, etc... are a better way to address this; and, frankly, if one perceives a lack of references, one should try to redress it himself, instead of giving peremptory orders to unnamed volunteers and strutting around bossily brandishing their SturmAbteilung armbands, wagging their fingers, and flinging WP directives on each other. Missing citations are usually evident, and as clear to the reader as to hundreds of others; and many of us constantly try to improve articles, so it is kind of peremptory to shout: "Work harder Mugs!"; "Vandals! Broken glass here--Break another one?". This is what it's all about, and I would assume most experienced editors would recognize what I am describing. When the vandals are dropouts from a technical subject, their animus is concentrated and are more energetic at it. The plodding WP mechanisms are sadly ill-equipped to handle these cases, cf. my one link here, mostly because outsiders without technical training cannot immediately grasp which way is up, and , by habit of mind, stick to pedantic legalisms and side issues--anything to have a say without knowledge. They end up concluding things a bunch of physics undergraduates, even, would not. I could provide links to such past sad sagas with IPs, on request.
What is common in all cases in this discussion (and others you identify by the rampage reported for Aug13-14), is that, demonstrably non-coincidentally, they all relate to my latest edits, reverting weeks of my work and no one else's, apparently to teach me a deranged "lesson", with maximal vituperative ugliness. So the issue is most definitely not suboptimal references and not a constructive effort to improve technical articles, in case your perusals let you lose view of this central fact. Behold! Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 11:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I believe this is the right place. The issue is proper citations; and, clearly, volunteering work, and appealing in the talk page for citations is quite appropriate.
This needs repeating? For the reader's benefit, Yohan's article development work is the all-time prototype of completeness and meticulous inline citation in math articles, e.g., this one. Technical articles are not tutorials, but they are meant to be accessible to minimally prepared readerships, e.g. undergraduates, and are meant to provide insights the average graduate student might not find in one single book. A colleague of mine regularly quotes WP articles in his papers and this is a good thing---you really don't want a takeover by C-students to make this less routine.
Plastering multiple articles in a rampage with tendentious and inappropriate templates, however, is not---and abuse of such templates to bully is even less so. Misrepresenting the issue as one of equanimous scholarship should not be acceptable. Interested readers must get to the bottom of the concerted loose-cannon rollbacks of Aug 13 in the appropriate venues. This discussion is but a diversionary footnote to these broader issues. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 14:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
No, there is just divergence of opinion. Primarily, a technical article is not automatically excluded from WP if no more than 10% of its habitual readers fully understand it. Ideally, the lede summarizes facts nontechnically for everyone, so at least everyone appreciates what area the article is on. But an article written for technical readers from another field, undergraduates, or graduate students and experts, is also quite welcome in WP, and its quality should not be compromised in the elusive quest of universal comprehensibility, which the heated argument is really about. This is clearer in math than in physics articles, since a broader swath of the audience believes they understand physics adequately. The big brother of WP is Scholarpedia, of course, but I truly applaud WP pages that have, in point of fact, surpassed their Scholarpedia brethren! Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
At long last we are in agreement on something. Yes, yes, yes!, by all means, I am encouraging you and all to provide more understandable explanations. It is the deletion of references and material that is too technical that is at issue, in an ill-construed effort to somehow "protect" the untrained reader. Any reader would instantly appreciate if an article is too technical for him or her, and go elsewhere. Again, and yet again, desisting from providing badly needed technical information because someone, somewhere, doesn't get it, is magnificently ill-advised. In fact, the WP page mentioned Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable#Don't oversimplify is just making my very point. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 21:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, WP is a collective effort. My omissions can always be filled in by others, and I am grateful to them. I do not know what i imply in terms of comprehensibility. Few students have accused me of being obscure, so far... are you sure it is me implying and not another editor? However, deleting serious, indeed, the most prestigious!, references I adduce, as in scale invariance, and then asking for references in a template, on top of it, does baffle one. How does elimination of references assist the perplexed reader? Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 00:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, especially you admins and higher charges, I'm not at the high level as the other debaters around, but do not want to miss to remind you all of the expulsion of the extremely proficient and knowledgeable user "linas", who was driven away by some mandarin, getting support by sufficiently many paper shufflers, who found that verbal derailment caused by ongoing ignorance and insisting on "rules" in a heavily bureaucratic way weighs more than the addressed professionality.
The exuberant plastering of high level parts of articles with requests for detailed citations by a person who is evidently not sufficiently literate on the relevant topics should not be backed be referring to whatever rule in Wikipedia.
I plead for ending these calamitous activities based on hypocritical and blissfully ignorant bureaucracy by
prokaryotes deteriorating high level components of Wikipedia.
Now go, search my contributions and "improve" them by requesting citations and sue me for personal attacks.
Purgy (
talk)
07:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Purgy kid, don't let the bullies silence you, or worse, dampen your momentum. Your contris are valuable. This is not a traffic stop by a Philadelphia cop. Even blocked, you could contribute as one or other IP. The war on common sense has never stopped, and never will... but there are always lulls. Live and learn. Go out on your window and watch the armband bullies shaking their fist at the rain,
commanding it to stop, and hurling rain manuals at it.
Cuzkatzimhut (
talk)
14:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Prokaryotes: You should better understand that some wikipedia guidelines are the minimal requirements for any wikipedia article (even a 1-sentence stub), while other guidelines are aspirational guidelines for great wikipedia articles. Verifiability and notability are almost the only thing in the first category, while the second category includes things like having good footnotes and references, writing accessible prose for non-experts, good writing style in general, etc.
From my experience, I would guess that out of the ~16,000 physics articles on wikipedia, probably 10,000 have terribly inadequate footnotes and technical accessibility for non-experts, another 5,000 have merely inadequate footnotes and technical accessibility, and the remaining 1,000 have room for improvement in footnotes and technical accessibility. (I have never seen a technical article on wikipedia (or anywhere else) that didn't have room for improvement in clarity and accessibility.)
It's not only common, but actually desirable, for people to add content to physics articles in such a way that the new content has inadequate references and inadequate technical accessibility. Unless you believe that the new content is actually incorrect (when I say "incorrect", I mean "contradicted by reliable sources"), or is non-notable. If the new content is making the article more correct and comprehensive, then it's an improvement for the article. It doesn't make the article perfect—obviously we still want the footnotes and accessibility to be introduced sooner or later—but it does make the article less bad. (Of course there are extreme cases where something is so extremely inaccessible, unreferenced, and poorly written that it's worse than nothing at all, despite being correct and on-topic. But that's pretty rare, and I don't think that's the case here.)
You're welcome to spend your time adding refimprove and technical templates to some or all of the 10,000 physics articles that desperately need improved references and more accessible prose. I don't personally think this is a very productive use of your time (because I think it's already obvious to everyone, just no one has had the time to do it). But it's your time, you can spend it that way if you want.
I think your time would be much better spent actually adding references, or flagging content that you actually believe to be incorrect (as "dubious", not just "citation needed"), or stating on the talk page the specific aspect of a technical article that you find confusing, or better yet resolving your own confusion by reading other sources and then editing the article accordingly.
I do think it's inappropriate to delete OK references in the hope that someone will later add a great reference, just as it would be inappropriate to delete OK prose in the hope that someone will later add great prose, etc. -- Steve ( talk) 15:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, warm thanks. I read and read and read. Nobody would be sticking the same references used throughout the article after each paragraph! If the issue becomes pressing, you state, in words, as i did in scalar field theory where each section came from/can be "checked" (!?) at. The central statement of the section, though, is, really: " one or two authoritative sources (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked ". Enter Scholarpedia. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 17:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
If a Polish-speaking psychoceramicist appeared out of nowhere and started to bless Wikipedia with their remarkable new theories, would it ring any particular bells in anyone's sock drawer? Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This article [1] caught my eye. There's not a complete list of articles worked on, but from what I can see it was a bit less productive that that article might suggest - and it's not clear that the participants have done any follow-up. Snori ( talk) 05:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
References
I just stumbled upon Planck angle, for which the entire article seems to be a two-line description of an equation. Merge this somewhere? bd2412 T 17:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
See RfC here: talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Your input is appreciated! Iran nuclear weapons 2 ( talk) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a Request for Comment going on at Talk:Electronic oscillator over whether crystal oscillators are used as fixed-frequency oscillators. Outside opinions are needed. Please drop by and express your opinion at Talk:Electronic oscillator#Request for Comment: Additional wording on crystal oscillators as fixed-frequency oscillators. Thanks. -- Chetvorno TALK 16:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this too stupid to be an article:
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in helping out with Hastatic order? It needs some TLC to flesh it out and make it a little less technical. The person who created the article ( Dwight25) is someone I'm mentoring and I can help him out with general stuff, but he could definitely use some additional help when it comes to technical details with physics related articles, since there are some things that only physics-savvy editors will catch that I'd miss. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent edits of " Superdeterminism" need attention of physicists (I think so). See discussion. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)