![]() | 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. |
Not very familiar with editing about physics on the project, so could someone take a look at Oppenheimer–Snyder model? Figured it was notable enough to have its own article. WMrapids ( talk) 07:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
We are doing some pretty drastic work on wave-particle duality, with the general flavor of removing the pre-1926 history to make space for the post 1926 history (see Talk page) and substituting historic evidence (moved to new history) with clearer and more modern evidence. Please join and review. Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tercer ( talk) 13:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
A recent to Photon cited a post by "ACuriousMind". Based on the apparent quality of the answer and the considerable reputation (according to physics.stackexchange) of the poster, I guess the material is adequately correct. Also in my experience many answers on that site are adequately correct and easy to follow physics descriptions, though some are --of course-- bogus.
Ideally the same content would have an obviously reliable reference. But what we have is this edit.
Should this change be left? Johnjbarton ( talk) 20:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making a request for someone with AWB skills (or adding it as a bot task somewhere) that if an article is already tagged with WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Physics, to then add the bio=yes parameter to the Physics project banner if it's not already present.
Would that cause problems? Is it a reasonable idea? Thanks. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This was just a hypothetical example; I have no actual case in mind. But I am assuming that the editors make normal human errors such as forgetting a step (removing the old biography banner from the physics article) or avoiding changes outside their expertise (musicians and biographers not wanting to touch physics stuff). In this case, there would still be two articles at the end: one with just the physics and one with the music and biography. Hopefully, they would link to each other. JRSpriggs ( talk) 21:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Task completed, if anything got skipped it can probably be sorted manually. Primefac ( talk) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 18:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
By looking at this user history: [ Jerry Z. Liu contributions], I can see that the user add conduction zone to many see alsos of other articles. Can somebody tell me how to revert all those edits? If not can somebody with more admin powers do it? Conduction zone is proposed for deletion. ReyHahn ( talk) 09:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Physics,
I ran into the article conduction zone in AfD today. It appears to be a copy from this site, which hosts a not-peer-reviewed paper by an author of the same name as the page creator. You may see the AfD here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conduction zone.
The article definitely belongs to the scope of our WikiProject, so I am sending it here for some more opinions on the AfD. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 13:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
FYI, please see:
From the article: "The term conduction zone was introduced in the 'Unified Theory of Low and High-Temperature Superconductivity.'"
Feel free to provide your inputs as to what we should do with this article.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 13:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I just ran across the Electrostatics page. The first sections are OK, but then it decides to discuss static electricity. Indeed the current short definition is:
Am I the only person who thinks this needs work? (It also has few sources.) Ldm1954 ( talk) 23:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Force has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
University Physics, Sears, Young & Zemansky, pp. 18–38. Given the profusion of textbook editions, that's not really specific enough to be verifiable. The editions with only those three authors all seem fairly old, too; for example, the 12th edition (2008) also includes Freedman and Ford. (And the page range 18–38 is definitely not correct for that edition.) XOR'easter ( talk) 19:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I have put one in. I did most of the editing, trying to reach a balanced overview, with additional input from four senior colleagues in the field. Comments welcome. Ldm1954 ( talk) 06:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I have just put one in, comments welcome. My aim has been to balance:
I have received input from a few other experts in the field so I am happy that it is technically decent. Ldm1954 ( talk) 06:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I am looking for a picture of Immanuel Estermann, assistant of Otto Stern. There are some pictures on the web but what is the best way to find one that is copyright valid for Wikipedia? Can I just take them from AIP archives? ReyHahn ( talk) 12:15, 29 August 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. |
Not very familiar with editing about physics on the project, so could someone take a look at Oppenheimer–Snyder model? Figured it was notable enough to have its own article. WMrapids ( talk) 07:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
We are doing some pretty drastic work on wave-particle duality, with the general flavor of removing the pre-1926 history to make space for the post 1926 history (see Talk page) and substituting historic evidence (moved to new history) with clearer and more modern evidence. Please join and review. Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tercer ( talk) 13:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
A recent to Photon cited a post by "ACuriousMind". Based on the apparent quality of the answer and the considerable reputation (according to physics.stackexchange) of the poster, I guess the material is adequately correct. Also in my experience many answers on that site are adequately correct and easy to follow physics descriptions, though some are --of course-- bogus.
Ideally the same content would have an obviously reliable reference. But what we have is this edit.
Should this change be left? Johnjbarton ( talk) 20:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm thinking of making a request for someone with AWB skills (or adding it as a bot task somewhere) that if an article is already tagged with WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Physics, to then add the bio=yes parameter to the Physics project banner if it's not already present.
Would that cause problems? Is it a reasonable idea? Thanks. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This was just a hypothetical example; I have no actual case in mind. But I am assuming that the editors make normal human errors such as forgetting a step (removing the old biography banner from the physics article) or avoiding changes outside their expertise (musicians and biographers not wanting to touch physics stuff). In this case, there would still be two articles at the end: one with just the physics and one with the music and biography. Hopefully, they would link to each other. JRSpriggs ( talk) 21:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Task completed, if anything got skipped it can probably be sorted manually. Primefac ( talk) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej ( talk) 18:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
By looking at this user history: [ Jerry Z. Liu contributions], I can see that the user add conduction zone to many see alsos of other articles. Can somebody tell me how to revert all those edits? If not can somebody with more admin powers do it? Conduction zone is proposed for deletion. ReyHahn ( talk) 09:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Physics,
I ran into the article conduction zone in AfD today. It appears to be a copy from this site, which hosts a not-peer-reviewed paper by an author of the same name as the page creator. You may see the AfD here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conduction zone.
The article definitely belongs to the scope of our WikiProject, so I am sending it here for some more opinions on the AfD. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 13:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
FYI, please see:
From the article: "The term conduction zone was introduced in the 'Unified Theory of Low and High-Temperature Superconductivity.'"
Feel free to provide your inputs as to what we should do with this article.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 13:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I just ran across the Electrostatics page. The first sections are OK, but then it decides to discuss static electricity. Indeed the current short definition is:
Am I the only person who thinks this needs work? (It also has few sources.) Ldm1954 ( talk) 23:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Force has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 16:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
University Physics, Sears, Young & Zemansky, pp. 18–38. Given the profusion of textbook editions, that's not really specific enough to be verifiable. The editions with only those three authors all seem fairly old, too; for example, the 12th edition (2008) also includes Freedman and Ford. (And the page range 18–38 is definitely not correct for that edition.) XOR'easter ( talk) 19:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I have put one in. I did most of the editing, trying to reach a balanced overview, with additional input from four senior colleagues in the field. Comments welcome. Ldm1954 ( talk) 06:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I have just put one in, comments welcome. My aim has been to balance:
I have received input from a few other experts in the field so I am happy that it is technically decent. Ldm1954 ( talk) 06:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I am looking for a picture of Immanuel Estermann, assistant of Otto Stern. There are some pictures on the web but what is the best way to find one that is copyright valid for Wikipedia? Can I just take them from AIP archives? ReyHahn ( talk) 12:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)