![]() | 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. |
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that an article like Second law of thermodynamics is kind of crufty, but it could use attention. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
In an effort to update and de-clutter the main article about the German accelerator lab DESY I have made many edit proposals to existing articles connected to the lab and its research facilities, most of which have been implemented (thanks to everybody who was involved for their feedback, support and guidance!).
Here are now two suggestions on my Sandbox page for articles to be created about the last two DESY accelerators that don't have their own pages yet:
User:Redactrice at DESY/DESY (particle accelerator)
User:Redactrice at DESY/DORIS (particle accelerator)
I've also created a Sandbox page with suggested edits to the main DESY article to update it as described above:
User:Redactrice at DESY/DESY revised
I have declared my conflict of interest on my user page and I hope I have followed all the rules of good wiki practice.
I'd be very grateful for your help and feedback. Thanks in advance! Redactrice at DESY ( talk) 09:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that all further discussion on this should be at Talk:DESY § Edit and page creation proposals: DESY lab, DESY accelerator and DORIS accelerator; interested editors can navigate there using this link. — Quondum 19:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I have tried to reconstruct this page so it is a three-way balance between being moderately understandable, rigorous and also inclusive. Not so easy, as simple ideas such as Bragg's Law, de Broglie wavelength are not enough. Plus balance between the competitors such as TED/LEED/RHEED matters.
I would be interested in comments...
N.B., at some stage a proper page on dynamical electron diffraction is needed. Ldm1954 ( talk) 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Over at Matter wave and its talk page, we've been discussing miscellaneous possible improvements. Comments welcome. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Continuous or discrete spectrum was recently created by merging "Continuous Spectrum" and "Discrete Spectrum." It strikes me as weird title for a weird article, but what do others think? PianoDan ( talk) 05:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics its say a Goal is
But what ever the link points to is no longer. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Just putting the {{ resolved}} template at the top or bottom of the thread would probably work better in this context. — Quondum 11:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on whether to use hypothetical or theoretical to describe experimentally unproven but generally accepted concepts like strings and gravitons? Fermiboson ( talk) 13:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)During reviews of several gravitation articles, I've noticed what looks like inappropriate self-promotion by User:Benur6991 (who seems to be (Redacted)). One example is Reissner–Nordström metric another at Compactification (physics) another is Hawking radiation. The cited papers have all been published in refereed journals, and so appear to be "valid" results; however, they give undue weight to the author's results, as compared to the thousands of other papers published on these topics. For example:
My current plan is to notify this project, and do nothing more. Think of this as a mini RfD for certain sections of these articles. But if I find myself in some ugly, unhappy, cranky emotional state some days or weeks or months from now, I might take it upon myself to delete this content. Maybe, maybe not. (Poor-quality articles make me angry, but expressing anger is not socially acceptable, and so I bottle it up, like all enlightened souls.) If someone else can deal with this, that would be great! 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 05:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Replying specifically to User:Benur6991, I want to spell out some important basic assumptions. More or less every physics article on wikipedia covers topics which have thousands of published journal articles that touch on that topic (these are called "primary sources"). There are dozens or hundreds of textbooks or popular review articles that touch on the topic (these are "secondary sources"). As a general rule, Wikipedia articles should cite secondary sources, not primary sources. Primary sources are OK, when they are historically significant or seminal in some way. Otherwise, picking out just one article, out of thousands, gives undue weight that, in general, is not deserved. Put it more rudely and bluntly: why should your articles be cited, and not those of Ed Witten or Gerard 'tHooft? Surely their work is far broader and deeper and more important?
Wikipedia is meant to provide a coherent development of topics, not unlike what one might hear in a seminar or a classroom. They should be surveys or reviews. What you've done is to come in, spray-paint some graffiti, and then leave. This is a misdemeanor; this is not helpful editing. It puts a burden on us to clean up that graffiti. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 00:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts looks like a categorized community TODO list of some sort. Is there any documentation on the meaning of the entries, how they are created, progress, and resolve? Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I wonder how to interpret WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY for physics pages. If I go by what I read there literally then I would end up with one reference to a review article for many topics. Then the page will appear to be under-referenced or repeatedly reference the same review. This also forces the very interested reader to read the review and sort out the primary.
But the alternative is to reference the primary publication.
Is a reasonable compromise to reference both, that is the review for the larger category and the primary at the sentence level? I think this is in the spirit of the guidelines as the review provides the "provides thought and reflection". Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
A user has here offered to provide illustrations, and initially expressed interest in astrophysics. If anyone knows of articles in need of illustrations, you may want to contact that user. -- Bensin ( talk) 19:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Editors interested in the categories and colors of the periodic table are invited to participate in a discussion at WT:WikiProject Elements § RfC on the classification of chemical elements on the periodic table. YBG ( talk) 14:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
--- Sandbh ( talk) 07:52, 31 May 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. |
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that an article like Second law of thermodynamics is kind of crufty, but it could use attention. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
In an effort to update and de-clutter the main article about the German accelerator lab DESY I have made many edit proposals to existing articles connected to the lab and its research facilities, most of which have been implemented (thanks to everybody who was involved for their feedback, support and guidance!).
Here are now two suggestions on my Sandbox page for articles to be created about the last two DESY accelerators that don't have their own pages yet:
User:Redactrice at DESY/DESY (particle accelerator)
User:Redactrice at DESY/DORIS (particle accelerator)
I've also created a Sandbox page with suggested edits to the main DESY article to update it as described above:
User:Redactrice at DESY/DESY revised
I have declared my conflict of interest on my user page and I hope I have followed all the rules of good wiki practice.
I'd be very grateful for your help and feedback. Thanks in advance! Redactrice at DESY ( talk) 09:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that all further discussion on this should be at Talk:DESY § Edit and page creation proposals: DESY lab, DESY accelerator and DORIS accelerator; interested editors can navigate there using this link. — Quondum 19:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I have tried to reconstruct this page so it is a three-way balance between being moderately understandable, rigorous and also inclusive. Not so easy, as simple ideas such as Bragg's Law, de Broglie wavelength are not enough. Plus balance between the competitors such as TED/LEED/RHEED matters.
I would be interested in comments...
N.B., at some stage a proper page on dynamical electron diffraction is needed. Ldm1954 ( talk) 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Over at Matter wave and its talk page, we've been discussing miscellaneous possible improvements. Comments welcome. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Continuous or discrete spectrum was recently created by merging "Continuous Spectrum" and "Discrete Spectrum." It strikes me as weird title for a weird article, but what do others think? PianoDan ( talk) 05:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics its say a Goal is
But what ever the link points to is no longer. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Just putting the {{ resolved}} template at the top or bottom of the thread would probably work better in this context. — Quondum 11:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Is there a consensus on whether to use hypothetical or theoretical to describe experimentally unproven but generally accepted concepts like strings and gravitons? Fermiboson ( talk) 13:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)During reviews of several gravitation articles, I've noticed what looks like inappropriate self-promotion by User:Benur6991 (who seems to be (Redacted)). One example is Reissner–Nordström metric another at Compactification (physics) another is Hawking radiation. The cited papers have all been published in refereed journals, and so appear to be "valid" results; however, they give undue weight to the author's results, as compared to the thousands of other papers published on these topics. For example:
My current plan is to notify this project, and do nothing more. Think of this as a mini RfD for certain sections of these articles. But if I find myself in some ugly, unhappy, cranky emotional state some days or weeks or months from now, I might take it upon myself to delete this content. Maybe, maybe not. (Poor-quality articles make me angry, but expressing anger is not socially acceptable, and so I bottle it up, like all enlightened souls.) If someone else can deal with this, that would be great! 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 05:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Replying specifically to User:Benur6991, I want to spell out some important basic assumptions. More or less every physics article on wikipedia covers topics which have thousands of published journal articles that touch on that topic (these are called "primary sources"). There are dozens or hundreds of textbooks or popular review articles that touch on the topic (these are "secondary sources"). As a general rule, Wikipedia articles should cite secondary sources, not primary sources. Primary sources are OK, when they are historically significant or seminal in some way. Otherwise, picking out just one article, out of thousands, gives undue weight that, in general, is not deserved. Put it more rudely and bluntly: why should your articles be cited, and not those of Ed Witten or Gerard 'tHooft? Surely their work is far broader and deeper and more important?
Wikipedia is meant to provide a coherent development of topics, not unlike what one might hear in a seminar or a classroom. They should be surveys or reviews. What you've done is to come in, spray-paint some graffiti, and then leave. This is a misdemeanor; this is not helpful editing. It puts a burden on us to clean up that graffiti. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 00:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts looks like a categorized community TODO list of some sort. Is there any documentation on the meaning of the entries, how they are created, progress, and resolve? Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I wonder how to interpret WP:PRIMARY vs WP:SECONDARY for physics pages. If I go by what I read there literally then I would end up with one reference to a review article for many topics. Then the page will appear to be under-referenced or repeatedly reference the same review. This also forces the very interested reader to read the review and sort out the primary.
But the alternative is to reference the primary publication.
Is a reasonable compromise to reference both, that is the review for the larger category and the primary at the sentence level? I think this is in the spirit of the guidelines as the review provides the "provides thought and reflection". Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
A user has here offered to provide illustrations, and initially expressed interest in astrophysics. If anyone knows of articles in need of illustrations, you may want to contact that user. -- Bensin ( talk) 19:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Editors interested in the categories and colors of the periodic table are invited to participate in a discussion at WT:WikiProject Elements § RfC on the classification of chemical elements on the periodic table. YBG ( talk) 14:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
--- Sandbh ( talk) 07:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)