![]() | 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. |
Comments on Talk:Bell's_theorem#Seeking_consensus_to_exclude_the_disproof_of_Bell.27s_theorem will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 00:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated the templates {{
Ununquadium}}
and {{
Ununhexium}}
for deletion; see
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Ununquadium. --
Lambiam
03:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouryya Ray.
Is this person notable?
Are the news media's claims about him true or merely sensationalist exaggerations that help sell newspapers?
Opine at the page linked to above. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is a poor duplicate of Quasistatic process. It should be redirected to there. Any objections? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 22:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The Stephen Hawking article has been put up for Peer review as part of a long-term plan to return to FAC. Thought you guys might like to comment :) (turns out that it's the page on the project that gets the most hits ( Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Popular_pages) and it would be great if someone could make sure that the physics stuff is absolutely tight). Thank you very much in advance… Fayedizard ( talk) 10:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The List of scientific constants named after people may not be notable, according to a recent tag put at the top of the article. Apparently what is needed is a literature citation showing that the topic of scientific concepts named after people has received attention from the authors of refereed publications. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I am very uncomfortable with High energy physics being just a redirect to the particle physics page. I feel HEP deserves an article by itself, being one of the largest sub-fields of physics. However, I'm having trouble finding good, comprehensive reviews/sources to start the article off with. I have started a "proto-article" in my userspace and I'd really appreciate if anyone could help with expansion (I'll take it "live" as soon as it looks viable). Any new ideas are welcome.
Thanks, SPat talk 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a new article first
requested for creation by a new editor
Hcrater, then declined, then Hcrater wrote it anyway, citing to his own sources i.e.
WP:OR. It was painfully vague and genuinely nonsense - I tried to
clear it up, remove the OR refs and tagged it as OR. A link on
Dirac equation was
added to link there - evidently promotion of work. If anyone can find references, please add them, and continue to clarify the article. There is one that does not seem to be OR. I have also warned the user of this on
his talk page. Thanks.
F =
q(E+v×B)
⇄ ∑ici
14:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that you would need to make the wave function depend on at least seven continuous independent variables: x1, y1, z1, x2, y2, z2, t. But the article says nothing about what independent variables are used. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
These templates are currently in the database as unused: for ⟨ see p.6 no 5579 and for ⟩ see p.9 no 8935. Recently after reworking them (and wasting a silly amount of time messing around with aligning things, which shouldn't have happened), I added them to ⟨|⟩.
Aesthetically they look ok (sort of), but the concern is they may cause spacing irritations, due to the glyphs in the template (but these are the closest ones matching angular brackets).
What do others think? Any objections to usage? If not I plan to implement them mainly in QM articles. WikiProject Mathematics has been notified. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 12:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Some comments at
are appreciated. Thanks. -- D.H ( talk) 14:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Are Lotus effect and Superhydrophobe talking about the same thing? Should they be merged? Please comment at Talk:Superhydrophobe. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering if this recent edit by an anonymous IP at Finite-difference time-domain is appropriate. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Article Fluid-structure interaction states that "reed makes sound because the equations governing it have oscillatory solutions". I beg to differ. The reed knows nothing about equations which are just something humans use to understand nature. Instead the reed could just be presented as an example of fluid structure interaction without further ado about why it happens to make sound. Also statements like "equations that govern nature" in other articles should be rephrased so that they don't imply that humans decide how things work.
BR, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 ( talk) 13:46, 26 June 2012 (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. |
Comments on Talk:Bell's_theorem#Seeking_consensus_to_exclude_the_disproof_of_Bell.27s_theorem will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 00:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated the templates {{
Ununquadium}}
and {{
Ununhexium}}
for deletion; see
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Ununquadium. --
Lambiam
03:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shouryya Ray.
Is this person notable?
Are the news media's claims about him true or merely sensationalist exaggerations that help sell newspapers?
Opine at the page linked to above. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is a poor duplicate of Quasistatic process. It should be redirected to there. Any objections? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 22:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The Stephen Hawking article has been put up for Peer review as part of a long-term plan to return to FAC. Thought you guys might like to comment :) (turns out that it's the page on the project that gets the most hits ( Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Popular_pages) and it would be great if someone could make sure that the physics stuff is absolutely tight). Thank you very much in advance… Fayedizard ( talk) 10:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The List of scientific constants named after people may not be notable, according to a recent tag put at the top of the article. Apparently what is needed is a literature citation showing that the topic of scientific concepts named after people has received attention from the authors of refereed publications. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I am very uncomfortable with High energy physics being just a redirect to the particle physics page. I feel HEP deserves an article by itself, being one of the largest sub-fields of physics. However, I'm having trouble finding good, comprehensive reviews/sources to start the article off with. I have started a "proto-article" in my userspace and I'd really appreciate if anyone could help with expansion (I'll take it "live" as soon as it looks viable). Any new ideas are welcome.
Thanks, SPat talk 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a new article first
requested for creation by a new editor
Hcrater, then declined, then Hcrater wrote it anyway, citing to his own sources i.e.
WP:OR. It was painfully vague and genuinely nonsense - I tried to
clear it up, remove the OR refs and tagged it as OR. A link on
Dirac equation was
added to link there - evidently promotion of work. If anyone can find references, please add them, and continue to clarify the article. There is one that does not seem to be OR. I have also warned the user of this on
his talk page. Thanks.
F =
q(E+v×B)
⇄ ∑ici
14:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that you would need to make the wave function depend on at least seven continuous independent variables: x1, y1, z1, x2, y2, z2, t. But the article says nothing about what independent variables are used. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
These templates are currently in the database as unused: for ⟨ see p.6 no 5579 and for ⟩ see p.9 no 8935. Recently after reworking them (and wasting a silly amount of time messing around with aligning things, which shouldn't have happened), I added them to ⟨|⟩.
Aesthetically they look ok (sort of), but the concern is they may cause spacing irritations, due to the glyphs in the template (but these are the closest ones matching angular brackets).
What do others think? Any objections to usage? If not I plan to implement them mainly in QM articles. WikiProject Mathematics has been notified. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 12:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Some comments at
are appreciated. Thanks. -- D.H ( talk) 14:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Are Lotus effect and Superhydrophobe talking about the same thing? Should they be merged? Please comment at Talk:Superhydrophobe. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering if this recent edit by an anonymous IP at Finite-difference time-domain is appropriate. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Article Fluid-structure interaction states that "reed makes sound because the equations governing it have oscillatory solutions". I beg to differ. The reed knows nothing about equations which are just something humans use to understand nature. Instead the reed could just be presented as an example of fluid structure interaction without further ado about why it happens to make sound. Also statements like "equations that govern nature" in other articles should be rephrased so that they don't imply that humans decide how things work.
BR, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 ( talk) 13:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)