This 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. |
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Technical requests. -- Trevj ( talk) 11:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC) → Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Member Navbox. Thanks. -- Trevj ( talk) 11:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello physicists! The above article is scheduled to be deleted as a stale draft. It does have a couple of references which are not showing because of bad formatting. I don't want to edit it (and this delay its demise) to uncover them unless the topic itself is a legitimate one. Can someone here comment? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The article and discussion watchlists that are linked in the tab at the top of the project page have not been working for months (the account of their host, tim1357, has expired). Unless we have some reason to think that they will be revived, we should remove those links.
Meanwhile, I have added a link at the bottom of the Current status of physics articles box that watches the 500 most popular physics articles. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
This should probably be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/BPH but that page seems fairly inactive.
If possible, some opinions on the talk page of this new article would help, concerning a move from Lajos Jánossy -> Jánossy Lajos. Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 06:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, there's a discussion some of you might be interested in going on, here. It's about superheavy elements will be called in future. In short, the discussion as is today is leaning toward ditching the IUPAC system in favor of one used in science today. Nuances are also being discussed. Please take part.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's another relevant article. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Additional opinions would be welcome at Talk:György Paál. -- Amble ( talk) 16:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
UNESCO proclaimed the
"International Year of Crystallography 2014". It can be an important opportunity for wikipedians to contribute in an international initiative, spreading the scientific knowledge, in particular about crystallography.
These are my proposals to participate to this event:
Do you have any other opinion or suggestion? -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 10:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. — Cirt ( talk) 17:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at what's going on with the edits by 50.184.42.155 ( talk · contribs), at Jack Sarfatti and perhaps also at Susskind-Glogower operator, specially this and also this by what seems to be another instance of same? Thx. - DVdm ( talk) 19:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no interest in the subject of Plasma cosmology, but a newbie started out by deleting large portions of the article, and is demanding that he recreate it from the ground up, apparently without interference from the earlier editors ("The current ring of editors really have no business in the editing process for this article." [1]). I'd rather let others with more knowledge of the subject deal with this person.
Maybe they have a lot to bring to this topic, but they know nothing about collaborative editing, ownership, and edit warring. They aren't listening to advice. Here are some relevant links. Their contributions is a good place to start:
Brangifer ( talk) 00:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody help me gathering sources and editing Nuclear forensics. It was recently greatly expanded, but is somewhat of a rough draft. The topic is really interesting, but there is a lot of literature out there, and I only know two analytical methods well enough to write about them. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated Binary star for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a professional scientist, so someone might review my edit. 2601:8:B500:862:DDBE:B5D5:2AD5:B5CC ( talk) 16:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I just did a major rewrite of our article on the Wu experiment (which established P-violation) old version. It's a very interesting topic/experiment, but it would be nice if someone could double-check if I got anything wrong/if I muddied the waters. I've trimmed lots of materials and details from the old version, mostly because it was either unclear or had the effect of hiding a forest behind trees (i.e. mundane details). The mechanism and consequences section is the one which I feel needs the most attention from someone who can handle the mathematics of P-violation/weak interaction.
If you have sources for the various citation needed, feel free to add them. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
A quite well-written description of the Goldhaber Experiment is available on the German Wikipedia. Anybody care to take a hand at translating it? 173.57.52.219 ( talk) 07:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I find the following statement to be disturbing: "The parity violation observed in this experiment resulted from the W and Z gauge bosons of the weak interaction only interacting with left-handed matter particles and right-handed antimatter particles." Is this statement true for the Z boson? 173.57.52.219 ( talk) 08:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Please check my "Materials and methods" description. Thanks. 173.57.52.219 ( talk) 11:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Cleanup listing, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Acoustics/Cleanup listing, and so on, may have been very useful in their time, but are now three years out of date. The automatically generated CleanupListing fills much the same role and is always nearly up to date. Yet multiple links to the former are prominently displayed on the project page while a link to the latter is tucked away at the bottom. Is it time to get rid of the old pages and display the CleanupListing box more prominently? RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Another collection of obsolete pages is Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Classical physics and other lists of pages needing attention. Some have been marked with a {{ historical}} tag, but such a tag is really intended for old policies and guidelines (see WP:HISTORICAL). RockMagnetist ( talk) 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
One other issue: on some of the taskforce pages there are new article alerts like this one linking to pages of a blocked user. Can these be replaced by functional alerts, or should they just be deleted? RockMagnetist ( talk) 18:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
AspaasBekkelund ( talk · contribs) has been changing our current images for baryon structure from
to |
and
to |
Since these would affect a large number of high-visibility articles, I revert them so we could discuss if this was appropriate or not. I don't have any strong qualified opinion either way, although it do think the older image looks nicer. Also if we choose the new version, we should probably update the current image rather than create a new one. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This will be a short response since I have to leave soon, but I will come back for more discussions soon. I can agree that the previous image might look nicer, but I don't feel it shows how the gloun flux tubes is connected. Since with a still image it is very hard to represent what's actually happening, I would like to create a .gif instead which will make it easier to show what is happening. Something like what Hank Green has done in this video(starting at 2:30). What are your thoughts on that?
Thanks for the feedback - AspaasBekklund ( talk) 14:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
This 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. |
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Technical requests. -- Trevj ( talk) 11:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC) → Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Member Navbox. Thanks. -- Trevj ( talk) 11:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello physicists! The above article is scheduled to be deleted as a stale draft. It does have a couple of references which are not showing because of bad formatting. I don't want to edit it (and this delay its demise) to uncover them unless the topic itself is a legitimate one. Can someone here comment? — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The article and discussion watchlists that are linked in the tab at the top of the project page have not been working for months (the account of their host, tim1357, has expired). Unless we have some reason to think that they will be revived, we should remove those links.
Meanwhile, I have added a link at the bottom of the Current status of physics articles box that watches the 500 most popular physics articles. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
This should probably be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/BPH but that page seems fairly inactive.
If possible, some opinions on the talk page of this new article would help, concerning a move from Lajos Jánossy -> Jánossy Lajos. Thanks, M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 06:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, there's a discussion some of you might be interested in going on, here. It's about superheavy elements will be called in future. In short, the discussion as is today is leaning toward ditching the IUPAC system in favor of one used in science today. Nuances are also being discussed. Please take part.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 17:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's another relevant article. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Additional opinions would be welcome at Talk:György Paál. -- Amble ( talk) 16:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
UNESCO proclaimed the
"International Year of Crystallography 2014". It can be an important opportunity for wikipedians to contribute in an international initiative, spreading the scientific knowledge, in particular about crystallography.
These are my proposals to participate to this event:
Do you have any other opinion or suggestion? -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 10:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. — Cirt ( talk) 17:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at what's going on with the edits by 50.184.42.155 ( talk · contribs), at Jack Sarfatti and perhaps also at Susskind-Glogower operator, specially this and also this by what seems to be another instance of same? Thx. - DVdm ( talk) 19:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no interest in the subject of Plasma cosmology, but a newbie started out by deleting large portions of the article, and is demanding that he recreate it from the ground up, apparently without interference from the earlier editors ("The current ring of editors really have no business in the editing process for this article." [1]). I'd rather let others with more knowledge of the subject deal with this person.
Maybe they have a lot to bring to this topic, but they know nothing about collaborative editing, ownership, and edit warring. They aren't listening to advice. Here are some relevant links. Their contributions is a good place to start:
Brangifer ( talk) 00:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody help me gathering sources and editing Nuclear forensics. It was recently greatly expanded, but is somewhat of a rough draft. The topic is really interesting, but there is a lot of literature out there, and I only know two analytical methods well enough to write about them. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated Binary star for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a professional scientist, so someone might review my edit. 2601:8:B500:862:DDBE:B5D5:2AD5:B5CC ( talk) 16:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I just did a major rewrite of our article on the Wu experiment (which established P-violation) old version. It's a very interesting topic/experiment, but it would be nice if someone could double-check if I got anything wrong/if I muddied the waters. I've trimmed lots of materials and details from the old version, mostly because it was either unclear or had the effect of hiding a forest behind trees (i.e. mundane details). The mechanism and consequences section is the one which I feel needs the most attention from someone who can handle the mathematics of P-violation/weak interaction.
If you have sources for the various citation needed, feel free to add them. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
A quite well-written description of the Goldhaber Experiment is available on the German Wikipedia. Anybody care to take a hand at translating it? 173.57.52.219 ( talk) 07:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I find the following statement to be disturbing: "The parity violation observed in this experiment resulted from the W and Z gauge bosons of the weak interaction only interacting with left-handed matter particles and right-handed antimatter particles." Is this statement true for the Z boson? 173.57.52.219 ( talk) 08:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Please check my "Materials and methods" description. Thanks. 173.57.52.219 ( talk) 11:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Cleanup listing, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Acoustics/Cleanup listing, and so on, may have been very useful in their time, but are now three years out of date. The automatically generated CleanupListing fills much the same role and is always nearly up to date. Yet multiple links to the former are prominently displayed on the project page while a link to the latter is tucked away at the bottom. Is it time to get rid of the old pages and display the CleanupListing box more prominently? RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Another collection of obsolete pages is Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Classical physics and other lists of pages needing attention. Some have been marked with a {{ historical}} tag, but such a tag is really intended for old policies and guidelines (see WP:HISTORICAL). RockMagnetist ( talk) 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
One other issue: on some of the taskforce pages there are new article alerts like this one linking to pages of a blocked user. Can these be replaced by functional alerts, or should they just be deleted? RockMagnetist ( talk) 18:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
AspaasBekkelund ( talk · contribs) has been changing our current images for baryon structure from
to |
and
to |
Since these would affect a large number of high-visibility articles, I revert them so we could discuss if this was appropriate or not. I don't have any strong qualified opinion either way, although it do think the older image looks nicer. Also if we choose the new version, we should probably update the current image rather than create a new one. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
This will be a short response since I have to leave soon, but I will come back for more discussions soon. I can agree that the previous image might look nicer, but I don't feel it shows how the gloun flux tubes is connected. Since with a still image it is very hard to represent what's actually happening, I would like to create a .gif instead which will make it easier to show what is happening. Something like what Hank Green has done in this video(starting at 2:30). What are your thoughts on that?
Thanks for the feedback - AspaasBekklund ( talk) 14:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)