![]() | 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. |
There are vast categories of pages on pseudoscientific topics. Many of these pages are recognized with "original research" or "lack of citation" tags. Unfortunately, these tags are also used on legitimate articles that actually are lacking citation. Is there a specific tag for denoting pseudoscience? If there isn't, I believe one should be created, as merely adding it to to the category "pseudoscience" may not alert readers. Beast of traal T C _ 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal
Beast of traal
T
C
_
02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal
I don't think we need a template. If the lead text is clear, the reader will understand. Also, we do have categories for pseudoscience articles. -- Itub 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi
At the solar power page, rated as B-class for this project, we are talking about whether the page should be renamed solar energy. There are various views and more input would be appreciated. Clarifying for readers the distinction in physics theory between power and energy is one issue at stake. Another is which term best reflects everyday language usage of the concepts discussed in the article. Itsmejudith 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deo here, i was learning about emission spectums in school so i went on wikipedia and looked up the stuff i was learning in class, which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectroscopy, and i realized the pages are missing pictures so i thought it would make it cooler if a picture could be added. I'm not sure where to put the picture so ill leave it up to you people:
-- Deo Favente 23:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Both Physical phenomena and phenomena cover the same concept. Additionally, Observable universe and Hubble volume cover the same concept. I put tags on the later about a month ago, and am wondering what a follow up would be? Thanks Beast of traal T C _ 13:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal
You would have come to this conclusion much sooner if you had read what I have been saying. Thank you, I will now proceed to move the information to the correct pages. Beast of traal T C _ 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal
Please see Gabriel Oyibo. -- Pjacobi 11:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I am proposing the merge of a number of related pages into Frictional pressure drop Bluap 17:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been updating this page, since I am researching this for personal stories. Anyhow, I did some major updates including separating the Aluminum cluster and added a Platinum cluster as well as other clusters. There is also a proposed 3D Periodic Table that I could not get any significant citation, ie.
But many site mention that the 3D table is becoming a reality and have pictures on one of the link in the External Link section. Just thought is someone could take a look and see if I made any significant errors. Thanks, Marasama 22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if people could have a look at the Entropy (disambiguation) page, where I'm in a dispute.
It seems to me that that this previous version was a lot more helpful than the current edited one for users trying to find their way to the article they need.
In particular the older one
The latest edit -- removing Introduction to entropy from the page completely -- seems to me particularly user-unhelpful, verging on WP:POINT.
But I'd be grateful for third party input on this, as maybe I'm too close to what's been edited before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Radiation of sound is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! -- B. Wolterding 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to create a relativity taskforce as part of Wikiproject Physics. Some time ago, I created a relativity wikiproject proposal, but was encouraged by some editors to make this a taskforce of Wikiproject Physics. I have mulled over this and agree with their suggestion. I have a proposal, which will be renamed. I wanted the views of other editors before I embark on this. I'm also new to the business of creating taskforces so any help in this area will be much appreciated!. Thanks. MP ( talk• contribs) 11:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics is listed as inactive on the Physics WikiProject main page. Template:Inactive was added to the Fluid dynamics WikiProject in July 2005 and subsequently removed in January 2006 and currently is not affixed to the WikiProject. Should the inactive statement on the Physics main page be updated? (I am not a participant in either WikiProject) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added {{Topic|Physics}} to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science, suggesting that deletion notifications related to this WikiProject are appropriate to post there. Is this consistent with the wishes of the participants of this WikiProject? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was recently promoted to GA, and it's daughter article
gamma ray burst progenators ran on the home page as a
did you know? item. GRB is rated high importance by this WikiProject. Would anyone like to help with
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gamma ray burst? -
Jehochman
Talk
04:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I added Wikipedia:WikiProject Relativity to the WProject Physics page some days ago. Forgot to mention it. MP ( talk• contribs) 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
See Deriving the Schwarzschild solution ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Do we usually have articles on derivations, in this way? I thought it was considered a how-to. Cruftbane 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on choosing measurement systems has been changed from:
Into:
Comments on this change are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement. Thank you Tim Vickers 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sadi seems to have got into all kinds of trouble over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sadi Carnot. I make no comment on this as I have no direct evidence myself. I have always found him to be a useful editor. Nevertheless, some project participants might want to get involved. I have only just got back from a wikibreak caused by a trip half way round the world, so I'm still jet-lagged. -- Bduke 07:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
My input in this discussion was that it was mostly a failure of the editors who did not notice anything or intervene. They noticed the unacceptable edits far too late and they are blaming Sadi for vandalism. But because of the way wikipedia works, a single editor cannot possibly have such much influence unless he is the only editor. Also, what Sadi did is certainly not vandalism. His views on certain issues are simply wrong, but he does believe in his own views. I don't think we can say that he was deliberately corrupting the contents of wikipedia. Banning Sadi will do little good. The editors of the biochemistry articles need to recruit more experts, otherwise this problem could repreat itself (in a different way) again.
In case of other controversial wikipedia articles there are a lot of editors who behave in a much worse way than Sadi did. They do not get banned unless they repeatedly violate 3RR or use sockpuppets or violate some of the core wikipedia rules repeatedly. POV editing using sources in a misleading way etc. is never seen as a valid reason to ban people.
Example: just consider the various wiki articles relating to global warming. Take a look at the way User:Iceage77 edits those articles. Then ask yourself what would have happened if editors like User:Iceage77 had free reign like Sadi apparently had :) If all such editors were banned by some new wiki policy, then wikipedia would no longer perceived to be a free encyclopedia that everyone could edit. So, while it would have been more convenient not to have such editors, on the long term the credibility of the articles would have suffered. People who are neutral or leaning toward the skeptical side on climate issues would have said that "skeptics are banned from editing, so we cannot trust that the contents represents the facts in a neutral way". The only people who are complaining now are the hard core skeptics like User:Iceage77 whose edits almost always get reverted. Count Iblis 14:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Edward Teller is currently being subjected to a Featured Article Review. If you want to contribute to this discussion, please do. Regards, Daimanta 20:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Edward Teller has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the best way to present mathematical proofs and derivations in articles? Hooke's law uses Show/Hide boxes which seem quite neat but other articles do not. Is there any consensus or style guide on this? Thanks Andeggs 12:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There are only 7 articles left in Category:Cleanup from November 2005 and two them are physics articles which are unlikely to be fixed by the average editor. Can someone knowledgeable about physics look at these?-- BirgitteSB 19:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've got a general question about dealing with a vandal. There has been a continuous problem with vandalism with the theoretical physics article from people adding Gordon Freeman and other references to the game Half-Life to the article. This is probably going to happen forever, or at least until they stop making Half-Life games, but there is a particularly egregious editor, IMNTU, whose edit history indicates that vandalism(including some things way more offensive than this half-Life hoax) is about all he/she does on WP. This person has shown no good faith and I don't feel the need to assume it any longer; how do I get this joker banned? Joshua Davis 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A discussion about changing the COI guideline to improve expert retention has begun at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Scientists_and_Experts. Comments are welcome. - Jehochman Talk 15:31, 31 October 2007 (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. |
There are vast categories of pages on pseudoscientific topics. Many of these pages are recognized with "original research" or "lack of citation" tags. Unfortunately, these tags are also used on legitimate articles that actually are lacking citation. Is there a specific tag for denoting pseudoscience? If there isn't, I believe one should be created, as merely adding it to to the category "pseudoscience" may not alert readers. Beast of traal T C _ 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal
Beast of traal
T
C
_
02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal
I don't think we need a template. If the lead text is clear, the reader will understand. Also, we do have categories for pseudoscience articles. -- Itub 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi
At the solar power page, rated as B-class for this project, we are talking about whether the page should be renamed solar energy. There are various views and more input would be appreciated. Clarifying for readers the distinction in physics theory between power and energy is one issue at stake. Another is which term best reflects everyday language usage of the concepts discussed in the article. Itsmejudith 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Deo here, i was learning about emission spectums in school so i went on wikipedia and looked up the stuff i was learning in class, which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectroscopy, and i realized the pages are missing pictures so i thought it would make it cooler if a picture could be added. I'm not sure where to put the picture so ill leave it up to you people:
-- Deo Favente 23:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Both Physical phenomena and phenomena cover the same concept. Additionally, Observable universe and Hubble volume cover the same concept. I put tags on the later about a month ago, and am wondering what a follow up would be? Thanks Beast of traal T C _ 13:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal
You would have come to this conclusion much sooner if you had read what I have been saying. Thank you, I will now proceed to move the information to the correct pages. Beast of traal T C _ 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Beast of traal
Please see Gabriel Oyibo. -- Pjacobi 11:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I am proposing the merge of a number of related pages into Frictional pressure drop Bluap 17:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been updating this page, since I am researching this for personal stories. Anyhow, I did some major updates including separating the Aluminum cluster and added a Platinum cluster as well as other clusters. There is also a proposed 3D Periodic Table that I could not get any significant citation, ie.
But many site mention that the 3D table is becoming a reality and have pictures on one of the link in the External Link section. Just thought is someone could take a look and see if I made any significant errors. Thanks, Marasama 22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if people could have a look at the Entropy (disambiguation) page, where I'm in a dispute.
It seems to me that that this previous version was a lot more helpful than the current edited one for users trying to find their way to the article they need.
In particular the older one
The latest edit -- removing Introduction to entropy from the page completely -- seems to me particularly user-unhelpful, verging on WP:POINT.
But I'd be grateful for third party input on this, as maybe I'm too close to what's been edited before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Radiation of sound is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! -- B. Wolterding 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to create a relativity taskforce as part of Wikiproject Physics. Some time ago, I created a relativity wikiproject proposal, but was encouraged by some editors to make this a taskforce of Wikiproject Physics. I have mulled over this and agree with their suggestion. I have a proposal, which will be renamed. I wanted the views of other editors before I embark on this. I'm also new to the business of creating taskforces so any help in this area will be much appreciated!. Thanks. MP ( talk• contribs) 11:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics is listed as inactive on the Physics WikiProject main page. Template:Inactive was added to the Fluid dynamics WikiProject in July 2005 and subsequently removed in January 2006 and currently is not affixed to the WikiProject. Should the inactive statement on the Physics main page be updated? (I am not a participant in either WikiProject) --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added {{Topic|Physics}} to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science, suggesting that deletion notifications related to this WikiProject are appropriate to post there. Is this consistent with the wishes of the participants of this WikiProject? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This article was recently promoted to GA, and it's daughter article
gamma ray burst progenators ran on the home page as a
did you know? item. GRB is rated high importance by this WikiProject. Would anyone like to help with
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gamma ray burst? -
Jehochman
Talk
04:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I added Wikipedia:WikiProject Relativity to the WProject Physics page some days ago. Forgot to mention it. MP ( talk• contribs) 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
See Deriving the Schwarzschild solution ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Do we usually have articles on derivations, in this way? I thought it was considered a how-to. Cruftbane 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on choosing measurement systems has been changed from:
Into:
Comments on this change are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement. Thank you Tim Vickers 18:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Sadi seems to have got into all kinds of trouble over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sadi Carnot. I make no comment on this as I have no direct evidence myself. I have always found him to be a useful editor. Nevertheless, some project participants might want to get involved. I have only just got back from a wikibreak caused by a trip half way round the world, so I'm still jet-lagged. -- Bduke 07:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
My input in this discussion was that it was mostly a failure of the editors who did not notice anything or intervene. They noticed the unacceptable edits far too late and they are blaming Sadi for vandalism. But because of the way wikipedia works, a single editor cannot possibly have such much influence unless he is the only editor. Also, what Sadi did is certainly not vandalism. His views on certain issues are simply wrong, but he does believe in his own views. I don't think we can say that he was deliberately corrupting the contents of wikipedia. Banning Sadi will do little good. The editors of the biochemistry articles need to recruit more experts, otherwise this problem could repreat itself (in a different way) again.
In case of other controversial wikipedia articles there are a lot of editors who behave in a much worse way than Sadi did. They do not get banned unless they repeatedly violate 3RR or use sockpuppets or violate some of the core wikipedia rules repeatedly. POV editing using sources in a misleading way etc. is never seen as a valid reason to ban people.
Example: just consider the various wiki articles relating to global warming. Take a look at the way User:Iceage77 edits those articles. Then ask yourself what would have happened if editors like User:Iceage77 had free reign like Sadi apparently had :) If all such editors were banned by some new wiki policy, then wikipedia would no longer perceived to be a free encyclopedia that everyone could edit. So, while it would have been more convenient not to have such editors, on the long term the credibility of the articles would have suffered. People who are neutral or leaning toward the skeptical side on climate issues would have said that "skeptics are banned from editing, so we cannot trust that the contents represents the facts in a neutral way". The only people who are complaining now are the hard core skeptics like User:Iceage77 whose edits almost always get reverted. Count Iblis 14:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Edward Teller is currently being subjected to a Featured Article Review. If you want to contribute to this discussion, please do. Regards, Daimanta 20:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Edward Teller has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the best way to present mathematical proofs and derivations in articles? Hooke's law uses Show/Hide boxes which seem quite neat but other articles do not. Is there any consensus or style guide on this? Thanks Andeggs 12:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There are only 7 articles left in Category:Cleanup from November 2005 and two them are physics articles which are unlikely to be fixed by the average editor. Can someone knowledgeable about physics look at these?-- BirgitteSB 19:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've got a general question about dealing with a vandal. There has been a continuous problem with vandalism with the theoretical physics article from people adding Gordon Freeman and other references to the game Half-Life to the article. This is probably going to happen forever, or at least until they stop making Half-Life games, but there is a particularly egregious editor, IMNTU, whose edit history indicates that vandalism(including some things way more offensive than this half-Life hoax) is about all he/she does on WP. This person has shown no good faith and I don't feel the need to assume it any longer; how do I get this joker banned? Joshua Davis 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A discussion about changing the COI guideline to improve expert retention has begun at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Scientists_and_Experts. Comments are welcome. - Jehochman Talk 15:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)