Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics: Difference between revisions

Physics Project‑class

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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Antiquity – September 2005 October 2005 – October 2005 November 2005 – Dececember 2005 January 2006 – February 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 September 2006 September 2006 (part 2) October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Found this page (Isometries_in_physics) while on WP:CLEANUP duty. I had a look at it, but I'm way out of my depth. So I thought I'd throw it to you guys to see if anyone here can adopt it. Manning (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that request for help. We need someone who knows something about this to help us out. Please? Unschool (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to User:Reuben, who responded to our request, and has improved the article many times over! Unschool (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plate tectonics 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.

Hello - We've been having a discussion on the talk page of a new page - Configuration integral (statistical mechanics) concerning editing style and we need some outside opinions. Thanks! PAR (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hm, that article has, as least stylistic, problems. knowledgable folks may wanna have a look. Mct mht (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In particular, the editor uses a coding style that is idosyncratic and may need to be changed to make the article accessible to other editors. PAR (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to help a bit tomorrow. However, it seems to me that the article is far, far, far too long, and has huge sections that might be better off not existing. For example, why is there a derivation of the 1D time-indep Schrodinger eq in there? The article really looks like something that would might be great as an essay or possibly even as part of a Wikibook, but not as an encyclopedia article. --Philosophus ^T 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at first glance it's got more problems than just that. the whole things reads like someone's very detailed notes and the material is not necessarily presented in the most sensible way. for example, arguably the simplest system is one of non-interacting and indistinguishable particles. but this is placed at the end of a pretty long article and what should be an obvious result is treated in a non-concise way. the motivation section is also idiosyncratic. Mct mht (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only had a very quick first glance, so it's quite probable that you're right. Has anyone considered just afding it? Is there any content that isn't already covered elsewhere? --Philosophus ^T 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't want to afd it until I looked at the content closely, but what I am concerned about is the coding, the way that it is written in the edit mode. There are many many carriage returns, /displaystyle is used rather than \, etc, etc and it is difficult to edit. The author justifies this because its convenient to do on his/her vim editor, and asks that it not be changed, and to concentrate on the content. But as an editor, "concentrate" means to edit! This is a new author who, I think, does not fully understand how things work, that a page is not only designed for the readers, but for other editors as well. I don't want to begin editing these things out until the author understands that its not just my arbitrary ideas about how an article should be written (encoded) but rather that there are agreed upon conventions that most technical editors conform to. If I am wrong, well, thats ok, too, but I don't want to get into a one-on-one discussion anymore because its not very productive. If anyone could put in their two cents on that talk page, I would appreciate it, because if i am right, it will be easier to modify the page, and if Im wrong, well, Ill back off. PAR (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the coding issues are the least of our worries. The article seems to be written as an attempt at an essay, not an article, and actually appears to discuss the configuration integral itself only very briefly. Most of the content consists of derivation of a huge portion of basic statistical mechanics from scratch, which is completely unnecessary, and I can't really understand the organization and point of the whole thing. Vql needs to understand that we're writing an encyclopedia here, not a textbook or collection of essays. Each article should only pertain to its subject, with a minimum of extra material required for understanding. I think that while there probably should be an article on the topic, the current article is essentially unsalvageable and will need to be completely redone. I'll look around at some sources if I have time. It's unfortunate that Vql went to all the trouble of painstakingly writing this, but it just isn't right for Wikipedia. --Philosophus ^T 00:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, now it appears that I've pushed the new user away and deleted the page... Does anyone want to add information about the configuration integral into Partition function (statistical mechanics)? --Philosophus ^T 08:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roche limit 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.

There is a CFD discussion underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_15#Category:Physical_sciences regarding the relationship between, and possible merging of, two Categories: Category:Physical sciences and Category:Natural sciences. Thus far the discussion has attracted very few comments and it has been relisted. Two editors suggested asking for input from this Project, but as far as I can see there was no follow-through on that -- until now. So please give this some thought, and then share your thoughts at the CFD linked above. Thanks! --Bduke (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just made a significant alternative proposal. Please take a look and add your comments to this important discussion. Cgingold (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vital for the survival of science textbooks as reliable sources about scientific statements:

Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?#RfC: Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie even if the textbook is not about the movie and doesn't mention it? Does this violate WP:NOR policy?.

Please comment. We need to get consensus on this matter.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just posting notification of another somewhat relevant RfC:

Talk:Kilometres per hour#RfC: Should titles of article on units of the form "X per Y" be singular or plural?.

Oli Filth^(talk) 23:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read through about 50 of the articles in Project Physics, and I have some suggestions. Hopefully, the rest of you won't mind if I incorporate some of them into the articles. The content is excellent in the articles I've read so far, although there are some serious problems with readability in a good percentage of them. I think one major source of the readability problem is the method of incorporation of the mathematical equations. Many of the articles use mathematical symbols and methods that are far above the comprehension of the average reader (which is understandibly necessary considering the complexity of the topics discussed), but do not provide adequate explanation of even what type of mathematics is being used (vector calculus, linear algebra, complex analysis, differential geometry, etc.), to say nothing of the conventions being employed in the equations (vector, matrix and tensor notations, differentials, compact summations, complex numbers, etc.). I would like to insert cross-references to math articles on a lot of these, at least directing the reader where to begin if they wish to decipher the math, and perhaps add some more intuitive explanations to complement the mathematial ones, where appropriate. If there are any objections, please feel free to discuss/revert as you all see fit.Kevin Borland, Esq. (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, if it can be done without breaking the flow of the article too much. The rarity of such explanations now is not due to any policy against it, but rather to a lack of enough available time for those expert enough to do it. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working on it. I started a little bit with Angular momentum operator.Kevin Borland, Esq. (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, especially the bit about cross-references to math articles. My only concern would be that you might dumb things down or add too much verbiage to articles where obscure symbols and gobs of equations are necessary and appropriate. It's all judgement calls, of course. Gnixon (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the LHC article has come to the attention of a certain W.L. Wagner and a few others in the same way as the RHIC did. I would appreciate the input of members of this project on the safety concerns section, I am trying to be objective with regards to the fears, but I'm seeing more and more original research and unproven bunkum being added. I am now being accused of censorship, conflict of interest and have been threatened by supposed media interests. Please see the talk page and any help would be appreciated. Cheers ^Khukri 09:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We meed people willing to push back against New Age psuedoscience pushers at Talk:Consciousness causes collapse. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]