![]() | 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. |
For some reason, the Physics quality statistics table did not link to the category:unrated-importance_physics_articles page. After a quick and dirty fix it now does. (The bot generating the table automatically links to the unknown-importance category if it exists, so I created that and redirected to the already existing unrated-importance category. This way I was pretty sure nothing would get broken by my meddling with things.)
We can now search through that heap of 3000+ articles with a rating but no importance for those high and top priority article we were missing. Yay! ( TimothyRias ( talk) 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC))
Cool and thanks! Now we'll have to destroy the
Category:Unrated-importance physics articles and update {{
physics}} accordingly. And it's more like a 6000+ articles.
Headbomb {
ταλκ –
WP Physics:
PotW}
16:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made a poll to gather feedback on various WikiProject Physics-related things. I would appreciate it if you took some time to
answer it. The whole poll is rather long, but you can just pick the most interesting questions if you don't feel like spending too much time on it. I will contact have contated all members of WikiProject Physics who've said on the
member list that it was OK to contact them soon (probably tonight).
Headbomb {
ταλκ –
WP Physics:
PotW}
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.
See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.
The Transhumanist 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me, it's got my support. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've seen that there is no article about the Kapitza-Dirac effect, so there is some expert to write it? I can give some help but... I should study it before ;D. If you want you can leave me a message on my talk page in Italian Wikipedia, here. Goodbye -- CristianCantoro ( talk) 09:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what that is. Sorry. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
From here:
Not sure if the rest of the article is useful or not; it appears to be a review paper, but is in the quant-ph arxiv and so might only cover things from that angle. -- Starwed ( talk) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well you could create a stub for now. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
A new tactic being advocated is that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to Cold fusion. I started a request for comment on the subject. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2008-07-07 : This week's articles are:
Delta baryon, Density, Electroweak interaction, Elementary charge, Experimental physics, Field_(physics), Geiger-Marsden_experiment (Rutherford's Experiment), Geophysics
Happy editing! Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added a category table, (see front page, PotW, Current status...). Makes it easier to pick a particular quality/importance bunch of articles Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we need them? I've kept them and re-wrote the section as it was in the old code, but is it really necessary? I mean there's the talk page for that... Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing a bit of editing at elementary charge (one of the "projects of the week"!), and I think it could use a brief section on how it's measured. I know, in principle, how to measure the charge of an electron with (a) Drops of oil, and (b) Shot noise, but these are both pretty crude, and I doubt that's how it's done in modern standards-setting AMO laboratories. Anyone know what the better methods are? Thanks!! -- Steve ( talk) 05:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've reapplied for request for Adminship. Since I want to be an Admin because of this project, I figure I should (same as last time) let you guys know that I've applied for it, so you can give your opinions. If you comment, please indicate that your are a WikiProject Physics participant. Feel free to not support me. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a good case can be made for wikipedia to be carved up in different sectors (a general sector, a politics sector, a science sector), all with their own variants of the wiki rules. Admins should be appointed based on dscussions within the relevant sector. In this case Headbomb's RFA would be decided by the wikiproject physics members. Count Iblis ( talk) 13:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Headbomb, as I said on your last RfA, being an administrator isn't really necessary for working on WikiProject Physics. For adminship, the community expects a broad understanding of the rules and procedures on Wikipedia, almost none of which have anything to do with improving physics articles. The tools that come with being an admin, correspondingly, don't help very much with working on physics in particular. Yes, obviously it's nice to be able to delete redirects to move a page, or to block vandals, but you already have people who can help with that as the need arises. The way you link adminship with being head of this project will cause people to imagine you view administration as a prestige position; in fact, it means access to a set of tools. True, you have to be knowledgeable and trusted by the community to get access to those tools, but they don't confer any special authority — or anyway, we all agree they shouldn't, even if the reality is sometimes a bit more complicated.
I like the work you're doing in organizing the WikiProject, as I've said before, and I am very happy to see you focusing on that rather than RFA's and RFArb's and AfD's and RfC's and all the other acronyms associated with Wikipedia culture and administration. -- SCZenz ( talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
On July 1 someone redirected blue shift to redshift. 70.51.9.237 ( talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I would like to request that an expert take a look at Talk:Heat sink#Heat Sink Color and try to provide an answer to the question of whether a dark/black heat sink should perform better than a naturally-colored one. Preferably, with scientific sources so that the information can be cited in the article, especially if it is contradictory to what the manufacturers are claiming. Thank you. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw the article is rated as High-importance for this project. I have stumped onto a problem and I posted a sort of poll on its talk-page. Please leave your opinions. Thanks! Nergaal ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a substitution template we can use somewhere to welcome newcomers to the physics working group. I am looking for something that will have a quick welcome message plus links to useful sites including how to join the work group and tips and tricks for the newcomer with a bits that I can personalize.
TStein ( talk) 05:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've started to write a template {{ WP Physics Welcome}} (or will soon if you see a redlink). Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
2008-07-16 : This week's articles are:
Note: There are a bit less than usual since it's later in the week, and last week's articles didn't get much attention. Hopefully fewer articles means more attention.
Sorry for the delay. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
For some reason the "physics articles by importance" categories list a large number of articles under the "T" (of talk I presume.) I suspect a problem with the physics template. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 09:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC))
Yes I know. I still haven't been able to figure it out. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So... every category should be like [[Category:Users who like apples|{{PAGENAME}}]]? If you confirm, I'll make the changes. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik ( talk) 13:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
And they say scientists don't have a sense of humour. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
John Gamble Kirkwood (1907-1959) was a physical chemist who was on the faculty at Yale a relatively short time before he died. His gravestone, roughly 6 feet high and 2 112 feet wide, includes some twenty lines describing his many accomplishments and achievements.
Lars Onsager (1903-1976) was in the chemistry department at Yale at the same time as Kirkwood. Onsager was J. Willard Gibbs professor of chemistry. His gravestone is just to the right of that of Kirkwood, and is a little wider but not quite so tall. The Onsager stone has minimal information:
Gibbs Professor
Nobel Laureate*
An asterisk following the Nobel listing refers to a footnote at the bottom of the stone with the mere notation: Etc. Evidently Onsager thought the Nobel award was sufficient to substantiate his stature.
Some sections are in dire need of a rewrite. If you could take a look at things it would greatly help. I'd do it myself, but I'm currently going through physics articles with AWB and that's taking a while. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you think this would be a good idea to recruit more people? Would a text similar to
be excessive?
Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The article Memristor needs to be assessed. — C M B J 19:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
An article linked to magnetic field lines, so I created a redirect with that title, pointing to the singular magnetic field line. But that turned out to be a red link. It ought to redirect to something, but I am uncertain about which article it should point to. Probably someone here can attend to that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) To Firefly322: A lightly concealed slam against what? I had no such hidden intention. I thought that the word "line" in "Magnetic field line" was, perhaps, not being given enough weight. Due to quantum mechanics, these lines exist at least when magnetic fields begin to penetrate
superconductors.
To Steve: I am not aware of any difference between a field line and a line of force. JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Barak Sh ( talk · contribs) has been giving some rather odd assessments to physics articles. For example, assigning "top" to obscure parts of general relativity and "low" to the Magnetic potential. Also rating Friedmann equations as "stub" which it is not. JRSpriggs ( talk) 11:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Could I get some eyeballs on HiPER? I'd like to clean it up as much as possible. I can't really go for FA because the project is currently entering the late design phase, but that's no excuse for not having the best possible article on it in the meantime. Also, if anyone has the original 1994 paper on fast ignition, could they shoot me a copy? Maury ( talk) 12:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty annoyed by reading things like "Force is mass times acceleration" when it should (IMO) read like "Force is the product of mass and acceleration". Would you agree that the former is weaker and innacurate and that the these should be prescribed by the MoS?
A plus B --> Addition of B to A (or A to B) / Sum of A and B
A minus B --> Subtraction of B from A / Difference between A and B
A times B --> Multiplication of A by B / Product of A and B
A divided by B --> Division of A by B / Quotient of A and B
Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If you could give your feedback on the talk page, that would be helpful.
Main issues are:
Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:39, 24 July 2008 (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. |
For some reason, the Physics quality statistics table did not link to the category:unrated-importance_physics_articles page. After a quick and dirty fix it now does. (The bot generating the table automatically links to the unknown-importance category if it exists, so I created that and redirected to the already existing unrated-importance category. This way I was pretty sure nothing would get broken by my meddling with things.)
We can now search through that heap of 3000+ articles with a rating but no importance for those high and top priority article we were missing. Yay! ( TimothyRias ( talk) 13:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC))
Cool and thanks! Now we'll have to destroy the
Category:Unrated-importance physics articles and update {{
physics}} accordingly. And it's more like a 6000+ articles.
Headbomb {
ταλκ –
WP Physics:
PotW}
16:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made a poll to gather feedback on various WikiProject Physics-related things. I would appreciate it if you took some time to
answer it. The whole poll is rather long, but you can just pick the most interesting questions if you don't feel like spending too much time on it. I will contact have contated all members of WikiProject Physics who've said on the
member list that it was OK to contact them soon (probably tonight).
Headbomb {
ταλκ –
WP Physics:
PotW}
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.
See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.
The Transhumanist 10:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me, it's got my support. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I've seen that there is no article about the Kapitza-Dirac effect, so there is some expert to write it? I can give some help but... I should study it before ;D. If you want you can leave me a message on my talk page in Italian Wikipedia, here. Goodbye -- CristianCantoro ( talk) 09:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what that is. Sorry. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
From here:
Not sure if the rest of the article is useful or not; it appears to be a review paper, but is in the quant-ph arxiv and so might only cover things from that angle. -- Starwed ( talk) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Well you could create a stub for now. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
A new tactic being advocated is that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to Cold fusion. I started a request for comment on the subject. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2008-07-07 : This week's articles are:
Delta baryon, Density, Electroweak interaction, Elementary charge, Experimental physics, Field_(physics), Geiger-Marsden_experiment (Rutherford's Experiment), Geophysics
Happy editing! Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added a category table, (see front page, PotW, Current status...). Makes it easier to pick a particular quality/importance bunch of articles Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we need them? I've kept them and re-wrote the section as it was in the old code, but is it really necessary? I mean there's the talk page for that... Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm doing a bit of editing at elementary charge (one of the "projects of the week"!), and I think it could use a brief section on how it's measured. I know, in principle, how to measure the charge of an electron with (a) Drops of oil, and (b) Shot noise, but these are both pretty crude, and I doubt that's how it's done in modern standards-setting AMO laboratories. Anyone know what the better methods are? Thanks!! -- Steve ( talk) 05:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've reapplied for request for Adminship. Since I want to be an Admin because of this project, I figure I should (same as last time) let you guys know that I've applied for it, so you can give your opinions. If you comment, please indicate that your are a WikiProject Physics participant. Feel free to not support me. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a good case can be made for wikipedia to be carved up in different sectors (a general sector, a politics sector, a science sector), all with their own variants of the wiki rules. Admins should be appointed based on dscussions within the relevant sector. In this case Headbomb's RFA would be decided by the wikiproject physics members. Count Iblis ( talk) 13:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Headbomb, as I said on your last RfA, being an administrator isn't really necessary for working on WikiProject Physics. For adminship, the community expects a broad understanding of the rules and procedures on Wikipedia, almost none of which have anything to do with improving physics articles. The tools that come with being an admin, correspondingly, don't help very much with working on physics in particular. Yes, obviously it's nice to be able to delete redirects to move a page, or to block vandals, but you already have people who can help with that as the need arises. The way you link adminship with being head of this project will cause people to imagine you view administration as a prestige position; in fact, it means access to a set of tools. True, you have to be knowledgeable and trusted by the community to get access to those tools, but they don't confer any special authority — or anyway, we all agree they shouldn't, even if the reality is sometimes a bit more complicated.
I like the work you're doing in organizing the WikiProject, as I've said before, and I am very happy to see you focusing on that rather than RFA's and RFArb's and AfD's and RfC's and all the other acronyms associated with Wikipedia culture and administration. -- SCZenz ( talk) 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
On July 1 someone redirected blue shift to redshift. 70.51.9.237 ( talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I would like to request that an expert take a look at Talk:Heat sink#Heat Sink Color and try to provide an answer to the question of whether a dark/black heat sink should perform better than a naturally-colored one. Preferably, with scientific sources so that the information can be cited in the article, especially if it is contradictory to what the manufacturers are claiming. Thank you. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw the article is rated as High-importance for this project. I have stumped onto a problem and I posted a sort of poll on its talk-page. Please leave your opinions. Thanks! Nergaal ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a substitution template we can use somewhere to welcome newcomers to the physics working group. I am looking for something that will have a quick welcome message plus links to useful sites including how to join the work group and tips and tricks for the newcomer with a bits that I can personalize.
TStein ( talk) 05:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've started to write a template {{ WP Physics Welcome}} (or will soon if you see a redlink). Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
2008-07-16 : This week's articles are:
Note: There are a bit less than usual since it's later in the week, and last week's articles didn't get much attention. Hopefully fewer articles means more attention.
Sorry for the delay. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
For some reason the "physics articles by importance" categories list a large number of articles under the "T" (of talk I presume.) I suspect a problem with the physics template. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 09:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC))
Yes I know. I still haven't been able to figure it out. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
So... every category should be like [[Category:Users who like apples|{{PAGENAME}}]]? If you confirm, I'll make the changes. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik ( talk) 13:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
And they say scientists don't have a sense of humour. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
John Gamble Kirkwood (1907-1959) was a physical chemist who was on the faculty at Yale a relatively short time before he died. His gravestone, roughly 6 feet high and 2 112 feet wide, includes some twenty lines describing his many accomplishments and achievements.
Lars Onsager (1903-1976) was in the chemistry department at Yale at the same time as Kirkwood. Onsager was J. Willard Gibbs professor of chemistry. His gravestone is just to the right of that of Kirkwood, and is a little wider but not quite so tall. The Onsager stone has minimal information:
Gibbs Professor
Nobel Laureate*
An asterisk following the Nobel listing refers to a footnote at the bottom of the stone with the mere notation: Etc. Evidently Onsager thought the Nobel award was sufficient to substantiate his stature.
Some sections are in dire need of a rewrite. If you could take a look at things it would greatly help. I'd do it myself, but I'm currently going through physics articles with AWB and that's taking a while. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you think this would be a good idea to recruit more people? Would a text similar to
be excessive?
Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The article Memristor needs to be assessed. — C M B J 19:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
An article linked to magnetic field lines, so I created a redirect with that title, pointing to the singular magnetic field line. But that turned out to be a red link. It ought to redirect to something, but I am uncertain about which article it should point to. Probably someone here can attend to that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) To Firefly322: A lightly concealed slam against what? I had no such hidden intention. I thought that the word "line" in "Magnetic field line" was, perhaps, not being given enough weight. Due to quantum mechanics, these lines exist at least when magnetic fields begin to penetrate
superconductors.
To Steve: I am not aware of any difference between a field line and a line of force. JRSpriggs ( talk) 06:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Barak Sh ( talk · contribs) has been giving some rather odd assessments to physics articles. For example, assigning "top" to obscure parts of general relativity and "low" to the Magnetic potential. Also rating Friedmann equations as "stub" which it is not. JRSpriggs ( talk) 11:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Could I get some eyeballs on HiPER? I'd like to clean it up as much as possible. I can't really go for FA because the project is currently entering the late design phase, but that's no excuse for not having the best possible article on it in the meantime. Also, if anyone has the original 1994 paper on fast ignition, could they shoot me a copy? Maury ( talk) 12:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty annoyed by reading things like "Force is mass times acceleration" when it should (IMO) read like "Force is the product of mass and acceleration". Would you agree that the former is weaker and innacurate and that the these should be prescribed by the MoS?
A plus B --> Addition of B to A (or A to B) / Sum of A and B
A minus B --> Subtraction of B from A / Difference between A and B
A times B --> Multiplication of A by B / Product of A and B
A divided by B --> Division of A by B / Quotient of A and B
Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If you could give your feedback on the talk page, that would be helpful.
Main issues are:
Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)