Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics
Main / Talk
Members Quality Control
WikiProject Physics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elastocapillarity[edit]

Dear physics experts: Here's an old AfC submission that was declined because Elasto-capillarity is already in mainspace. Is there anything useful in the draft that should be transferred before the draft is deleted as stale? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article-for-creation is better than the one in main space. How about we do a full merger and let the editors of the article remove any redundant material? JRSpriggs (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with JRSpriggs, that seems the quickest way to get it out of the AfC area without wasting any of the work that either set of editors have done. Djr32 (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The editor was asked six months ago to move any relevant material and references to the mainspace article, and hasn't done so. At this point it is considered abandoned, so anyone who is knowledgeable is welcome to do it. The process is: (1) move and integrate the material, including the name of the draft creator (User:Amirrost) in the edit summary (2) move the draft to mainspace with the title "Elastocapillarity", and (3) change it to a "Redirect after merging" by deleting all of the text and replacing it with "#REDIRECT [[Elasto-capillarity]] {{R from merge}}" to maintain attribution of the original author. I can do steps 2 and 3 if a physics person will to step 1. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, if nobody has done anything in the next few days, I'll do a cut-and-paste merge. Djr32 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Done (a bit later than promised, sorry!). I should add that I know nothing about this topic, and have done little more than crunching the two articles together, so if anyone does know anything about the topic they should feel free to fix them. Anne Delong, feel free to complete steps 2 and 3 whenever you want. Djr32 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I have moved and redirected the draft. Thanks, Djr32. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Laura Mersini-Houghton[edit]

There's what seems to be some sort of POV editing going on at Laura Mersini-Houghton by a fluctuating IP editor. By their own admission they are not a native English speaker, and as far as I can tell they don't really understand the original research policy, despite my attempts to explain it. I don't want it to turn into a back-and-forth edit war here, so I think the best thing to do is to get a few extra eyes on the article to establish a proper consensus. The discussion is here. Thanks. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 07:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been keeping a bit of an eye on this article, as you might imagine, given that one of the editors there also works on Alan Guth and the discussion seems to have many issues in common with that page: a heavy focus on a particular scientific priority question, some apparent misunderstandings of the relevant Wikipedia policies, and rather confrontational treatment of those who disagree. I have a sneaking suspicion that neither you nor that editor would find me the most helpful person to show up and put in my 2¢ at this time, but if there's an eventual conclusion that the discussion will not lead to consensus accepted by that editor then I would be happy to pitch in with an edit or two. I think really the lede should be gracefully dodging the priority issue; part of the trouble is that, by itself, the idea in question (of "other universes" pulling on astrophysical objects) is not a very strong scientific claim. Its importance depends on the influence the idea had on others, and also on the degree to which it is made quantitative and tied to a wider model, and this is of course precisely why we rely on secondary sources rather than date stamps when we say who was first to have an idea! In any case, I do encourage other editors to have a look and see if they can find a way to weigh in helpfully. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: I support this edit, although I'd suggest "argued" --> "argues" in the last sentence. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
With a GS h-index of somewhere around 11 in a highly cited field this BLP might have a hard time passing WP:Prof#C1 at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
Indeed, it seems to have been a near thing: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laura_Mersini-Houghton -- SCZenz (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I see that I voted myself! Xxanthippe (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC).
I don't actually care for cosmology or that sort of thing, so I find it hard to judge exactly to what degree this is common, but she or her work (with her mentioned by name and quoted) seems to get profiled or covered in the mainstream media pretty frequently, so criterion 7 or just WP:GNG may apply. I only know this because for whatever reason there were about a dozen citations for the idea that she's a proponent of the multiverse theory, which spanned around a 7 year stretch, some of which explicitly mentioned her as being "well-known" or something like that. She was also featured in some BBC documentary as well, according to the article (I didn't watch the thing). Maybe that's a normal amount of media coverage for a cosmologist, though. Either way, seems like the "no consensus" result was primarily because while most people were in favor of a keep, they were lukewarm about it. Based on what I'm seeing here, I feel about the same way (weak keep).
By the way, SCZenz, I'm not sure that your presence over there would be disruptive or anything (I was glad to see your perspective about the priority thing), I can see an argument for avoiding accusations of some kind of recruiting or canvassing on my part (though it's not like we were on precisely the same side in the discussions over at Alan Guth, so it'd be hard to make a case for some sort of meatpuppetry/false consensus argument). I'd say it's entirely up to you - I would have no objections to your involvement.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 11:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Quantum master equation[edit]

Someone linked to Quantum Master Equation with capital initial letters. It was a red link, so I made it a redirected to quantum master equation with lower-case initial letters. Someone else had redirect that latter page to Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra. Then someone took me to task for redirecting Quantum Master Equation to Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra, although I never did that. But the person who did that never suggested a better target for that redirect. Perhaps someone here can do that. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you did anything wrong, some anon user decided to complain without having any idea how Wikipedia works. Unless they lodge an official complaint or repeatedly revert your edit, I wouldn't worry too much about it.Primefac (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

longwave radiation[edit]

The usage of Longwave radiation (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) is under discussion, see talk:Outgoing longwave radiation -- (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


The uses of Particulate, Particulates, Particulate matter is under discussion, see talk:Particulates -- (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

New article that is a POV-fork of an existing article[edit]

A user has crated the article List of arguments for a young Earth, which is a clear POV-fork of the existing article age of the Earth. I'll probably AfD it, but decided to take it here first just to get some opinions on it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment; any objections (which I think would be few) could be brought up in the AfD. It makes me think of the Planets beyond Neptune article, but that actually contains current research as well as historical information. This article is mainly debunked theories and bad science, and shouldn't have its own article. It might be able to be included in the early calculations section, but would require some serious cleanup. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk · contribs) has nominated it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
A better title for the article would be List of arguments used by young Earth creationists. Under that title I would see little problem the article as long as it clearly points out the flaws in the used arguments. Are these arguments bad science? Mostly (and when not it is out-dated sciences). However, that is not a measure for inclusion in Wikipedia. As silly as these arguments are, they do receive some matter of attention. Covering them in some way is probably a good idea. Inclusion in age of the Earth would be WP:UNDUE, I think. Inclusion in Young Earth creationism would be another option.TR 09:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reactionless drives[edit]

EmDrive and Quantum vacuum plasma thruster could use some clean-up and perhaps might benefit from a merge.

jps (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:EmDrive has a renaming request as well. -- (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boris Sharkov[edit]

Hello once more, physics experts. Is this old AfC submission about a notable physicist? I couldn't find a Google Scholar report. Should the draft be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a quite clearly notable physicist, head of ITEP and other projects in plasma physics. Hundreds of publications. However, he already exists with a slightly better article Boris Yuriyevich Sharkov (created by the same editor as the submitter of the AfC). Any relevant information and sources/links should be merged there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Headbomb, for finding that. The draft was a copy-paste remnant and had been blanked by the author, so I deleted it. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Boardman‎[edit]

Article put up for deletion yesterday - comments at deletion page appreciated! Una LagunaTalk 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion has got stale - the main other participant (IP) refuses to elaborate on their reasoning/address objections raised to their arguments and has instead started resorting to WP:ADHOM... could we get some fresh input please? Una LagunaTalk 13:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Name of article for natural unit of information[edit]

Should the article be called Nat (unit) or Natural unit of information? Please opine at Talk:Nat (unit)#Rename article?. —Quondum 23:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Material properties (thermodynamics)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Material properties (thermodynamics) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

James Chadwick[edit]

Looking for someone to double-check the physics at James Chadwick, which is at FAC at the moment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

Physics experts, do you know if Draft:NewFasant is notable? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


The EmDrive article could do with some attention. Firstly, it currently details not just the EmDrive but also the (somewhat related) Cannae drive, which seems off-topic. Secondly, some rewriting may be required to better incorporate the results by NASA, and it's rather short on reliable sources for the claimed violation of conservation of momentum (the company manufacturing it says in its FAQ that the drive doesn't violate conservation of momentum, but their explanation seems bogus to me). Huon (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Support - in my opinion the information about Cannae drive should be moved elsewhere as it seems off-topic in the EmDrive article. Agree with the opinion that rewriting and better elucidation of various views is required. I suggest that experienced physicists who are experienced editors on WP will take a look at it. Dmatteng (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Materialization (paranormal)[edit]

Could someone pls have a look at the talk page? I do not have so much experience in dealing with illiterate editors who behave like if they are Nobel Prize winners. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Solar activity, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Evad37 [talk] 00:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Code V[edit]

The article entitled "Code V" does not have sufficient reliable sources to be considered notable and merit inclusion. In the edit history, an editor recommended merging the article to the company that markets this product - Synopsys.

But, I don't really see a place for it in that article. This is because doing so would seem to be promoting a trivial subject by giving "Code V" its own section, when compared to the notable material already in "Synopsys" article. It doesn't fit with the tone of that article.

So, I am inclined to AFD the "Code V" article. However, I am looking for alternate opinions or solutions, so that is why I am posting this here. Thanks in advance.

I am also posting this on the WikiProject Computing Talk Page. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I am now thinking a good solution is to remove the content and make it a redirect. I think this is what the other editor actually recommended, not a merge. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This should be a disambiguation page. "Code V" is used in many different fields and subjects outside of physics. I would move the current page to Synopsys Code V, and then redirect it, to clear the edit history. Then rewrite "Code V" into a disambiguation page. (for instance: ATC code V , [1] , etc ) -- (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)