![]() | 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. |
Gyroscopic Motion Machine is back. I prodded it in November (Discussion here), but the user recreated the article by moving a sandbox copy back into mainspace.-- Srleffler ( talk) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I spent my lunch break dithering over which course of action would be the most clarifying here; maybe somebody else can see what's best. From 1964 through 1968, the American Physical Society published a journal that was officially known as Physics. The intent was to print papers of interest across all the subfields. Only four volumes, containing fewer than 100 articles in total, were published; the journal is probably best known for being the home of Bell's theorem. And in providing citations to Bell's paper, a pesky little issue came up. Internally, the articles all say the name of the journal is just Physics, but the covers of the printed issues gave the title in a stylized way, as Physics Physique физика. Presumably in consequence, the journal is sometimes catalogued and referenced as Physics, Physique, Fizika (for example, in WorldCat). A couple years ago, the APS scanned all the issues and put them online (free to read!), retitling the journal Physics Physique физика. Doubtless this was done to avoid a collision with Physics, the website (2008–) that runs summaries and editorials about highlighted research.
How should we refer to this journal, and where should it be described? Currently, Physics Physique физика is a redirect to Physical Review, where the journal is briefly described. Is there precedent for how best to handle citations to journals whose names have changed — do we use the name at the time the cited article was published, the current name, or both? I've argued with myself about what option would be least confusing, but to little effect. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
A group of editors working at Litre has identified the following closely related articles.
We feel there is too much duplication in these 5 articles. We also see a need for a new article Metric units. That new article could usefully include summaries of
Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 18:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
History of the metric system is a good article (and also WP:GOOD), it shouldn't be deleted. Merging it together with Metric system would make the resulting article too big. Outline of the metric system plays well its role as an outline, we definitely shouldn't remain without an outline of the gigantic metric system. I think there's a case for merging Introduction to the metric system together with Metric system, and rewriting the resulting article to emphasize the metric system in general, instead of the SI specifically as it currently does. That is just duplicating material from International System of Units.
As for Metric units, I think the article you need is just Metric system rewritten as above. Tercer ( talk) 08:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Tercer: Metric system does not even come close to describing the concept of metric units. For example, it does not mention basic metric units in widespread use like the litre and hectare, or any CGS units. Instead it focuses almost exclusively on the SI. It should be deleted and its contents merged with International System of Units. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 09:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Hello, there is a discussion for merging effective permittivity and permeability to effective medium approximations. Best regards, Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
If I may ask a stupid question, what makes a journal "predatory"? Is it just the degree of incompetence of the editing? Or are they intentionally exploiting the desire of crank (person)s to get published? Or what? JRSpriggs ( talk) 01:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The article Scale relativity is pretty amazingly bad. It is entirely an advertisement for a fringe theory that barely anyone has even paid attention to as such. The explanations of actual science are terrible, most of the references are to the inventor himself, the claims of what it explains are impossibly wide-ranging and grandiose, and the few criticisms aren't even reported properly. I'd suggest burning it to the ground, but it survived AfD in 2008 after what strikes me as a very superficial discussion. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:27, 1 February 2020 (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. |
Gyroscopic Motion Machine is back. I prodded it in November (Discussion here), but the user recreated the article by moving a sandbox copy back into mainspace.-- Srleffler ( talk) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I spent my lunch break dithering over which course of action would be the most clarifying here; maybe somebody else can see what's best. From 1964 through 1968, the American Physical Society published a journal that was officially known as Physics. The intent was to print papers of interest across all the subfields. Only four volumes, containing fewer than 100 articles in total, were published; the journal is probably best known for being the home of Bell's theorem. And in providing citations to Bell's paper, a pesky little issue came up. Internally, the articles all say the name of the journal is just Physics, but the covers of the printed issues gave the title in a stylized way, as Physics Physique физика. Presumably in consequence, the journal is sometimes catalogued and referenced as Physics, Physique, Fizika (for example, in WorldCat). A couple years ago, the APS scanned all the issues and put them online (free to read!), retitling the journal Physics Physique физика. Doubtless this was done to avoid a collision with Physics, the website (2008–) that runs summaries and editorials about highlighted research.
How should we refer to this journal, and where should it be described? Currently, Physics Physique физика is a redirect to Physical Review, where the journal is briefly described. Is there precedent for how best to handle citations to journals whose names have changed — do we use the name at the time the cited article was published, the current name, or both? I've argued with myself about what option would be least confusing, but to little effect. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
A group of editors working at Litre has identified the following closely related articles.
We feel there is too much duplication in these 5 articles. We also see a need for a new article Metric units. That new article could usefully include summaries of
Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 18:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
History of the metric system is a good article (and also WP:GOOD), it shouldn't be deleted. Merging it together with Metric system would make the resulting article too big. Outline of the metric system plays well its role as an outline, we definitely shouldn't remain without an outline of the gigantic metric system. I think there's a case for merging Introduction to the metric system together with Metric system, and rewriting the resulting article to emphasize the metric system in general, instead of the SI specifically as it currently does. That is just duplicating material from International System of Units.
As for Metric units, I think the article you need is just Metric system rewritten as above. Tercer ( talk) 08:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Tercer: Metric system does not even come close to describing the concept of metric units. For example, it does not mention basic metric units in widespread use like the litre and hectare, or any CGS units. Instead it focuses almost exclusively on the SI. It should be deleted and its contents merged with International System of Units. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 09:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Hello, there is a discussion for merging effective permittivity and permeability to effective medium approximations. Best regards, Myxomatosis57 ( talk) 15:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
If I may ask a stupid question, what makes a journal "predatory"? Is it just the degree of incompetence of the editing? Or are they intentionally exploiting the desire of crank (person)s to get published? Or what? JRSpriggs ( talk) 01:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The article Scale relativity is pretty amazingly bad. It is entirely an advertisement for a fringe theory that barely anyone has even paid attention to as such. The explanations of actual science are terrible, most of the references are to the inventor himself, the claims of what it explains are impossibly wide-ranging and grandiose, and the few criticisms aren't even reported properly. I'd suggest burning it to the ground, but it survived AfD in 2008 after what strikes me as a very superficial discussion. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)