![]() | 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. |
Would be great if someone can incorporate links to Leonid Leibenson from appropriate articles as it is currently orphaned. Shyamal ( talk) 07:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, the new article Fock's sphere in theory of hydrogen atom appears (to my non-physicist's eye) to be a rewrite of Fock symmetry in theory of hydrogen. This was discussed and redirected a year ago, following discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_August_2021#Fock_symmetry_in_theory_of_hydrogen. If this new article is a rewrite, then is it better than the original? Can and should the two be merged? Thanks, Storchy ( talk) 10:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Again someone is trying to delete my user page. If you have an opinion on that, please express it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JRSpriggs (2nd nomination). JRSpriggs ( talk) 02:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitational coupling constant — Quondum 18:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know all the details of the papers on this topic, but this section of the page about the muon should at least be updated to reflect the details given at Proton_radius_puzzle. It currently only goes cites things to 2015, and quite a bit has changed since then. The Proton_radius_puzzle also feels out of date, being phrased as if this is still a significant issue, whereas I believe it's mostly resolved as of ~2020. - Parejkoj ( talk) 08:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This was an interesting discussion at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent posting of original research and pointless chat at Talk:Gravity. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
We have an article titled Slip bands, which is terrible, and doesn't even define what they are. We also have an article titled Lüders band, which is much shorter, but is better written.
Are these the same thing? Should they be merged? Is there a difference? This is WAY out of my area of expertise, and I'm having trouble even making a dent in trying to wrap my head around the topic. PianoDan ( talk) 17:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I cannot seem to find any notability guidelines on academic subjects (as opposed to academics). A highly technical subject would be unlikely to meeet WP:N because nobody writes articles about, say, Gibbs free energy, but it is certainly a notable subject; on the other hand, applying WP:N to sources such as textbooks also doesn't quite work (something mentioned across several well-renowed but specialised textbooks, such as Method of virtual quanta, is clearly non-notable). There does not seem to be a clear equivalence that can be drawn from the existing policy. Is there any separate consensus to this matter (and if so is there a place where people can look it up)? Sorry if I'm butting into a discussion that's been had thousands of times.
Separate issue - a lot of physics or mathematics articles have sections of derivations or calculations marked with original research tags. While in many cases it would be possible to find a textbook in which the exact derivation is repeated, it should probably not be necessary to do so (as anyone who understands the derivation would be able to verify it). Is there any consensus as to the threshold for this either? Fermiboson ( talk) 21:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I have created Draft:Method of virtual quanta, and would appreciate anyone more knowledgable in the topic to make the article more accurate/concise and sound less like Jackson. Fermiboson ( talk) 11:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
What do others feel about the tendency to create a separate article for each variant of something instead of a redirect? It is not as though there is much to say about tera-, ronto-, quecto-, etc. (twenty-four of these in total!) that cannot be said at Metric prefix. These stubs also introduce a lot of duplication. Further, any examples that these might provide belong in the order-of-magnitude articles. — Quondum 20:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Density (energy or power) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniaxial crystal Fermiboson ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I've put this off for a few months now, but I am getting the final touches done on the article Hypernucleus. One sticking point is that I am as yet undecided on the use of names vs. symbols for meson and baryon names. For example, when referring to the lambda baryon in text, should I use:
The symbols will still need to be introduced to shorthand more complex symbols, such as Σ+ vs. "sigma plus". – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:21, 26 November 2022 (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. |
Would be great if someone can incorporate links to Leonid Leibenson from appropriate articles as it is currently orphaned. Shyamal ( talk) 07:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, the new article Fock's sphere in theory of hydrogen atom appears (to my non-physicist's eye) to be a rewrite of Fock symmetry in theory of hydrogen. This was discussed and redirected a year ago, following discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_August_2021#Fock_symmetry_in_theory_of_hydrogen. If this new article is a rewrite, then is it better than the original? Can and should the two be merged? Thanks, Storchy ( talk) 10:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Again someone is trying to delete my user page. If you have an opinion on that, please express it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JRSpriggs (2nd nomination). JRSpriggs ( talk) 02:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitational coupling constant — Quondum 18:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know all the details of the papers on this topic, but this section of the page about the muon should at least be updated to reflect the details given at Proton_radius_puzzle. It currently only goes cites things to 2015, and quite a bit has changed since then. The Proton_radius_puzzle also feels out of date, being phrased as if this is still a significant issue, whereas I believe it's mostly resolved as of ~2020. - Parejkoj ( talk) 08:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This was an interesting discussion at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent posting of original research and pointless chat at Talk:Gravity. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
We have an article titled Slip bands, which is terrible, and doesn't even define what they are. We also have an article titled Lüders band, which is much shorter, but is better written.
Are these the same thing? Should they be merged? Is there a difference? This is WAY out of my area of expertise, and I'm having trouble even making a dent in trying to wrap my head around the topic. PianoDan ( talk) 17:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I cannot seem to find any notability guidelines on academic subjects (as opposed to academics). A highly technical subject would be unlikely to meeet WP:N because nobody writes articles about, say, Gibbs free energy, but it is certainly a notable subject; on the other hand, applying WP:N to sources such as textbooks also doesn't quite work (something mentioned across several well-renowed but specialised textbooks, such as Method of virtual quanta, is clearly non-notable). There does not seem to be a clear equivalence that can be drawn from the existing policy. Is there any separate consensus to this matter (and if so is there a place where people can look it up)? Sorry if I'm butting into a discussion that's been had thousands of times.
Separate issue - a lot of physics or mathematics articles have sections of derivations or calculations marked with original research tags. While in many cases it would be possible to find a textbook in which the exact derivation is repeated, it should probably not be necessary to do so (as anyone who understands the derivation would be able to verify it). Is there any consensus as to the threshold for this either? Fermiboson ( talk) 21:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I have created Draft:Method of virtual quanta, and would appreciate anyone more knowledgable in the topic to make the article more accurate/concise and sound less like Jackson. Fermiboson ( talk) 11:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
What do others feel about the tendency to create a separate article for each variant of something instead of a redirect? It is not as though there is much to say about tera-, ronto-, quecto-, etc. (twenty-four of these in total!) that cannot be said at Metric prefix. These stubs also introduce a lot of duplication. Further, any examples that these might provide belong in the order-of-magnitude articles. — Quondum 20:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Density (energy or power) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 04:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniaxial crystal Fermiboson ( talk) 05:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I've put this off for a few months now, but I am getting the final touches done on the article Hypernucleus. One sticking point is that I am as yet undecided on the use of names vs. symbols for meson and baryon names. For example, when referring to the lambda baryon in text, should I use:
The symbols will still need to be introduced to shorthand more complex symbols, such as Σ+ vs. "sigma plus". – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)