![]() | 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. |
Hi Physics enthusiasts. There is a discussion on Talk:Quantum mechanics about splitting the article to Quantum Physics. The split has been already made. However, it did not garner much discussion and I think the discussion would benefit from a wider participation. Cheers, Polyamorph ( talk) 09:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, in going over physics categories, I found in physics textbooks the article Physical Science for Christian Schools and in the expert needed category I found Route dependence. I have nominated both for deletion. I nominated the pseudo-science book several days ago and no one has commented, route dependence was just nominated. Route dependence could be merged with path dependence (physics), but there is nothing to merge and I do not believe the term itself is notable. I wanted to invite you all to make comments. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, to clarify on the textbook, I did not nominate it because it is pseudoscience, but because it has no notability. It has never been reviewed and a search of citations reveals only a handful, all of which were on Christian topics. Ultimately, the article is an advertisement for a non-notable book. I am not sure what will happen if no one else votes, so I would appreciate a few comments. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 22:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, could I get some comments on what to do with the article An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything? I was going to nominate for deletion, but want to check what others opinions are first. There are plenty of references but none of the ones discussing the paper are published and most are by the author of the original paper. There are no official published rebuttals or reviews of the work and it was never published, which can only be assumed as a failure to pass peer-review given the initial excitement. There are options such as renaming it to include the paper "A Geometric Theory of Everything" with it or putting the whole story in the author's article. Ultimately, though, I think we should be a little more careful of what is called a notable journal article on Wikipedia, the author was and is an independent researcher without an academic position, that sums up all you need to know of its standing in the scientific community. At the very least, that should be made perfectly clear in the article, which is not tagged as fringe at all. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 11:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Edit: I am arguing that it fails GNG, as it received significant coverage, but not in reliable sources that were also independent of the author. Also, my mistake on saying it failed peer-review, it was not submitted. Footlessmouse ( talk) 11:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. The article set off several of my red flags but I was not familiar enough with the topic to determine what should be done, so I was asking here for comments. I was not sure what counted as "significant coverage", all the popular news articles about it did not provide the in-depth coverage needed to write the article with reference to only secondary sources. Also, so many articles get picked up by news sites all over the world, but most are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, although I can see this one got picked up more than most. Anyways, thanks again. Footlessmouse ( talk) 18:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I would recommend cropping the section with the details of the model, the model itself is not notable or worthy, only the popularity and backlash.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 20:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I was working on Spinor spherical harmonics and I noticed that it links to Spin-weighted spherical harmonics, does anybody know how the two are related? (or at least confirm that these subjects are not related). Secondly, all the books I have looked so far define the spinor spherical harmonics for systems with spin-1/2, should our definition be for any spin or just keep the properties for spin 1/2? -- ReyHahn ( talk) 20:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Some assistance might be welcome at an almost escalating dispute between user Footlessmouse and anon 47.202.49.36 at Talk:Relativity priority dispute#Restore the September 24 version immediately and the (three) preceding sections. - DVdm ( talk) 18:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
This AfD is possibly of interest to the community here. (The article did come up here a few months ago.) XOR'easter ( talk) 18:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a really weird article that is supposed to be about the occurrence of the Lie group SU(6) in physics. It lists two essentially unrelated uses in particle physics, one without any sources. What should be done with it?
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, the three lists of textbooks we have, List of textbooks in electromagnetism, List of textbooks in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, and List of textbooks on classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, have notability issues as stand-alone lists and I think I have an alternative that would allow for cohesive wholes: Create two new articles List of undergraduate physics textbooks and List of graduate physics textbooks and merge all the contents there, along with all the fields neglected by these articles. I have already began working on an outline/rough draft where I have added in books from the other lists User:Footlessmouse/Graduate textbooks. I also started a conversation at Talk:List of textbooks on classical mechanics and quantum mechanics#Proposal for deletion referring to deleting that page as part of the process, but I think a wider audience might be appropriate when altering multiple pages. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 23:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This looks like fringe space-drive fluff, supported by sources that superficially look reliable but aren't. Comments welcome. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:01, 21 October 2020 (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. |
Hi Physics enthusiasts. There is a discussion on Talk:Quantum mechanics about splitting the article to Quantum Physics. The split has been already made. However, it did not garner much discussion and I think the discussion would benefit from a wider participation. Cheers, Polyamorph ( talk) 09:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, in going over physics categories, I found in physics textbooks the article Physical Science for Christian Schools and in the expert needed category I found Route dependence. I have nominated both for deletion. I nominated the pseudo-science book several days ago and no one has commented, route dependence was just nominated. Route dependence could be merged with path dependence (physics), but there is nothing to merge and I do not believe the term itself is notable. I wanted to invite you all to make comments. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, to clarify on the textbook, I did not nominate it because it is pseudoscience, but because it has no notability. It has never been reviewed and a search of citations reveals only a handful, all of which were on Christian topics. Ultimately, the article is an advertisement for a non-notable book. I am not sure what will happen if no one else votes, so I would appreciate a few comments. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 22:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, could I get some comments on what to do with the article An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything? I was going to nominate for deletion, but want to check what others opinions are first. There are plenty of references but none of the ones discussing the paper are published and most are by the author of the original paper. There are no official published rebuttals or reviews of the work and it was never published, which can only be assumed as a failure to pass peer-review given the initial excitement. There are options such as renaming it to include the paper "A Geometric Theory of Everything" with it or putting the whole story in the author's article. Ultimately, though, I think we should be a little more careful of what is called a notable journal article on Wikipedia, the author was and is an independent researcher without an academic position, that sums up all you need to know of its standing in the scientific community. At the very least, that should be made perfectly clear in the article, which is not tagged as fringe at all. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 11:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Edit: I am arguing that it fails GNG, as it received significant coverage, but not in reliable sources that were also independent of the author. Also, my mistake on saying it failed peer-review, it was not submitted. Footlessmouse ( talk) 11:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments. The article set off several of my red flags but I was not familiar enough with the topic to determine what should be done, so I was asking here for comments. I was not sure what counted as "significant coverage", all the popular news articles about it did not provide the in-depth coverage needed to write the article with reference to only secondary sources. Also, so many articles get picked up by news sites all over the world, but most are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, although I can see this one got picked up more than most. Anyways, thanks again. Footlessmouse ( talk) 18:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I would recommend cropping the section with the details of the model, the model itself is not notable or worthy, only the popularity and backlash.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 20:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I was working on Spinor spherical harmonics and I noticed that it links to Spin-weighted spherical harmonics, does anybody know how the two are related? (or at least confirm that these subjects are not related). Secondly, all the books I have looked so far define the spinor spherical harmonics for systems with spin-1/2, should our definition be for any spin or just keep the properties for spin 1/2? -- ReyHahn ( talk) 20:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Some assistance might be welcome at an almost escalating dispute between user Footlessmouse and anon 47.202.49.36 at Talk:Relativity priority dispute#Restore the September 24 version immediately and the (three) preceding sections. - DVdm ( talk) 18:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
This AfD is possibly of interest to the community here. (The article did come up here a few months ago.) XOR'easter ( talk) 18:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a really weird article that is supposed to be about the occurrence of the Lie group SU(6) in physics. It lists two essentially unrelated uses in particle physics, one without any sources. What should be done with it?
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, the three lists of textbooks we have, List of textbooks in electromagnetism, List of textbooks in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, and List of textbooks on classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, have notability issues as stand-alone lists and I think I have an alternative that would allow for cohesive wholes: Create two new articles List of undergraduate physics textbooks and List of graduate physics textbooks and merge all the contents there, along with all the fields neglected by these articles. I have already began working on an outline/rough draft where I have added in books from the other lists User:Footlessmouse/Graduate textbooks. I also started a conversation at Talk:List of textbooks on classical mechanics and quantum mechanics#Proposal for deletion referring to deleting that page as part of the process, but I think a wider audience might be appropriate when altering multiple pages. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 23:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This looks like fringe space-drive fluff, supported by sources that superficially look reliable but aren't. Comments welcome. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)