| Revision as of 11:43, 15 November 2024 editLdm1954 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers11,259 edits →Page rating: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:26, 24 December 2024 edit undoZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,172 edits →Good article reassessment for Fizeau experiment: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 289: | Line 289: | ||
| == Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"? == | == Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"? == | ||
| I recently joined Misplaced Pages and my first suggested edit was to ]. My guess is that this article would belong better as a subsection of the article on ]. The help article ] suggested that I draw some attention to it, since the article is a bit obscure. | I recently joined Misplaced Pages and my first suggested edit was to ]. My guess is that this article would belong better as a subsection of the article on ]. The help article ] suggested that I draw some attention to it, since the article is a bit obscure.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)</small> | ||
| == |
== White dwarf at FAR == | ||
| I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!--Template:FARMessage--> ] (]) 14:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Second opinions on Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I would like some second (third, fourth) opinions on ]. My feeling is that the current page implies that this approach is a viable alternative to standard electrodynamics. (It has other issues such as being a textbook and long sections without sources which are thus OR.) It looks like it was accepted on AfC in good faith by an editor who is not a physics expert, so might not have been aware of the issues. | |||
| I found this obscure article ] thinking it was going to be about electroamagnetism or a best a generelization of fluid dynamics theorems to different areas of physics, or even generalizations into complex analysis. However I just found neurobiology explanations. Should this article be renamed into something neurobiology related? Should it be kept or deleted? What do you think? ] (]) 13:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In the interim I have added a few tags to it. Maybe some clear edits to indicate that it is not fully adequate, or something harsher. ] (]) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I responded at ] which I think is a better choice for a discussion. ] (]) 14:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Google Scholar search for only returns a few articles from a single author with a small number of citations{{emdash}}mostly self cites{{emdash}}so the subject seems to fail ]. ] (]) 14:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Now at ].--] (]) 17:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Based on a recent negative episode I experienced, I strongly encourage everyone to move this discussion to ]. Our discussions should include editors focused on that article who may not attend this page. ] (]) 15:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Done, I copied everything with the exception of John's suggestion. There should be a way to link as is done with GA and other nominations, if someone knows how to please let me know. ] (]) 15:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Does this really merit a separate article? Is it something that is conceptually distinct from the ]? {{u|Utopes}} seems to ] so. —] 12:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background:#FFFFFF; border:2px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: 100%" | |||
| :The main figure of ] has in the caption "Casimir force", which does question a difference. In addition a strange reference has been added of what might be an interesting paper on dark matter, but is too soon. Since you did a delete/redirect in March 2023 I suggest going to a RfD or similar. ] (]) 15:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| :'''Speedy merge:''' Casimir force is by definition a pressure calculation, you get a force per unit area unless you multiply by the surface of the plates. I do not think it deserves a separate article. ] has a single reference to a not cited paper that is on hypothetical dark matter particles, not notable.--] (]) 15:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |] | |||
| ::Note that @] did a merge that was reverted, so it has (I believe) to go to discussion. ] (]) 15:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hello,<br>Please note that ''']''', which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the ''']'''. The article is ] to appear on Misplaced Pages's ] in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! <!-- Substituted from Template:AFI project notice --><br /> | |||
| ::{{re|ReyHahn}} I added that citation yesterday because the article (previously) existed as an unreferenced page since 2009-2023, and was ]'d because Misplaced Pages is ]. I agree. But the article shouldn't be BLAR'd into a page where the topic isn't discussed either, so alternative means should have been used when dealing with this page, and I was reverting the BLAR. In order to not have it pop up on the unreferenced-pages again though, I added a citation to a journal where Casimir pressure was discussed, as it seemed. I don't feel strongly about the reference, but figured it was better than no reference at all. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 20:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <sub>Delivered by <!-- mbsig --><span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <b>] <sup>]</sup></b></span><!-- mbdate --> 00:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team</sub> | |||
| :::{{ping|Utopes}} Thanks for clarifying. I think that you are right, I will proceed to merge ] content into ] and redirect it. Would that be ok?--] (]) 20:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| ::::That would be fine. The best thing to do (from my POV) would be to have the redirect point to an ] at the target page, so that people who type in ] are taken to the section in ] where "Casimir pressure" would be discussed. Thank you for the help! <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 20:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ::::I just did the merge, adding in the lead two well cited papers that use the term interchangeable with effect. ] (]) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you! Noting the term in the lead is definitely suitable, so targeting to the full page works here. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I encourage editors to post on ] to avoid excluding editors interested in that topic. ] (]) 16:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :]'ing the article into a title that doesn't mention "Casimir pressure" in the slightest (with the only mention of "pressure" being a reference to "producing 1 atm of pressure") is an inappropriate way of redirecting/removing content, {{u|Quondum}}. I don't have a strong opinion whether or not the page should exist, just that it should ''not'' be redirected to ] in the latter article's current state, where reader's questions about a "Casimir pressure" are not answered or addressed. Take to AfD if you must, or merge content to substantiate a redirect if desired. {{re|Ldm1954}}, there was no merge. No edits to ] by Quondum since 2022, and the BLAR occurred in 2023. <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 20:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks all – this seems to have led to a good result. On my side, I should have just pointed to the talk page here and started the discussion there. It always helps to have people who a comfortable with the subject matter involved. —] 23:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == Lead of ] == | ||
| The IP at ] seemed to bring up a good point, should the lead paragraph of ] read {{xt|] and energy may also be converted to one another}} instead of {{xt|] and energy may also be converted to one another}}? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 23:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Can you believe that 20 years in, we have had no article on the concept of an object being sharp, in the sense of being able to initiate cuts through other surfaces? | |||
| :Having found the ], I've decided to cross my fingers and be bold pending broader approval. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 23:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have started ], but it currently has more geology and biology than physics, and it could probably benefit from the does of the latter. I understand that there exist formulae for defining sharpness as inversely proportional to an edge radius, but this is not my field, so I defer to the experts to write further on that aspect. Cheers! ] ] 13:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: That statement started out bad, and that in no way improved it. It perpetuates the layman's misconception that anything is "converted" into or from energy: energy simply changes form (it is strictly conserved), and mass is just a manifestation of energy. I'll take a look at rewording it. —] 00:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:Infobox interpretation of quantum mechanics == | |||
| :::Thank you. My goal was to avoid making it more annoying to fix! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just had a look, and to my surprise in the whole article there is only one mention of ], with zero useful information, none of ] or ] and there are 11 of ]. That seems a bit unbalanced to me. ] (]) 02:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Good observation. This would need a subject matter expert (presumably with a chemistry background) to improve. —] 16:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Is X17 real enough? == | |||
| A newly created {{tl|Infobox interpretation of quantum mechanics}} has been added. I am opposed to adding it to articles. Please comment here: ] ] (]) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| There is a stub page ] which is currently justified based upon the discovery of the ]; created by a relatively new user on Dec 2nd and I tagged it as part of ]. I am skeptical about the Attila page, particularly as the editor (@]) added today a misrepresentation of a CNN article (which I corrected). I don't know enough about HEP to know if the simple route of redirecting the Attila page to the X17 page is the right course, I think there are others here who have forgotten more about HEP than I know. (The X17 page itself may also be an issue.) ] (]) 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Help on ] == | |||
| :I happen to have visited Atomki. They still believe in the X17 particle. Nobody else does, though. ] (]) 15:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm working on improving the ] article, however, I'm not familiar with best practices. I've added a discussion topic in the Talk page over there, but so far no comments. | |||
| ::People want to believe anything these days. The fact that we have a B-class ] article shows how scientists and non-scientists are desperate to believe in something revolutionary independently of the data. Aside from ranting: I do not know what to draw from this, but Misplaced Pages golden rule is: if notable sources cover it, it is worth it.--] (]) 15:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Right, whether it's "real" or not is not the test. We have articles on all sorts of things that don't actually exist. --] (]) 01:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: We may have an ]-] editor who does not seem to be interested in interaction, including ] (including on biographical articles). Would this be a case of ]? Their talk page seems to be a testament to this. —] 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Let's not jump that quickly. Everyone has to learn, the account was created in Aug 2024 so some errors is not unusual. I reverted the latest and sent a specific level 1 warning. Hopefully they will respond appropriately. If not then a level 2 warning then protection if needed. Be gentle to the newbie! ] (]) 16:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I'm glad that there are people around who are wiser and more patient than I am :) —] 18:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Wiser....nah. ] (]) 18:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Nobel laureates in physics by nationality? == | |||
| If you can, can you help improve the article? Or, can anyone offer general advice for some direction: topics, sources, etc.? ] (]) 03:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A section called "Nobel laureates in physics by nationality" was added to ]. Is this section notable? See ] ] (]) 00:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] content issue == | |||
| :: That was my thought as well. The term "physical object" is so familiar that we lose sight of the fact that it is a term that has an intuitive meaning in everyday use but resists definition. Humans have an impulse to categorize, but the article as is tries to stretch the idea way beyond everyday use. In WP, equivalents such a '']'', '']'', '']'', etc. seem to be equally absent, diffuse or pointless. Without good sources, it seems pretty contrary to the principles of WP. —] 16:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I also doubt that this article needs to be written. The concept is so vague. Is an elementary particle a physical object? Is a field one? ] (]) 21:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC). | |||
| ::::The book | |||
| ::::* {{Cite book |title=Interpreting bodies: classical and quantum objects in modern physics |date=1998 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-01725-9 |editor-last=Castellani |editor-first=Elena |location=Princeton, NJ}} | |||
| ::::contains articles by physicists includining ], ], ], ], ] as well as philosophers of science including ] and ]. | |||
| ::::It seems to me that the simplest common name for "classical and quantum objects in modern physics" would be "physical object". Surely this amounts to a notable source. ] (]) 16:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That seems like a great source to bridge physics and philosophy. 👍 ] (]) 05:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| @] and I have agreed on a change. @] has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on | |||
| : "Physical object" is an important topic in philosophy, in the contexts of ontology and metaphysics. See for instance the ] entry for and the book . Psychologists also consider the topic, e.g. . I haven't seen much written on the topic from the point of view of physics, however. As with everything WP, I would stick with summarizing expositions about the topic in reliable sources to develop the article. --<code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 09:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] ] (]) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That page looks like a heap of ] waffling: various editors over the years spouting off their own thoughts based on however much physics they know (or think they know), rather than starting with sources. I am not convinced that the article needs to exist. If we are to have it, the right way to go about it would be to start with physics textbooks, see how/if they define what they mean by "object", survey the philosophy of physics literature for the same, etc., and then write an organized summary of the references found. ] (]) 18:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| ::Ad ], and ]. I think that the notion of a 'physical object' is of great philosophical importance. I think that physics textbooks are not the right way to start. Physics textbooks are written from a point of view that their whole Universe of Discourse is entirely exhausted by physical objects (except for some highly esteemed nuts who shall be nameless who make out that quantum mechanics requires a proper living person to be its "observer"). Physics textbooks hardly question the notion of 'physical object'. | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| =="{{noredirect|failed star}}"== | |||
| ::For myself, I prefer the term 'enduring physical object', but that is neither here nor there. The notion of a physical object is close to synonymity with Descartes' 'res extensa'. Perhaps that should call for a link or redirection rather than a separate article. I don't intend to try to work on this topic.] (]) 23:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| FYI {{la|failed star}} has been nominated for deletion -- ] (]) 21:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Notices of the American Mathematical Society article on Misplaced Pages editing. == | |||
| ::: In philosophy, there will be a spectrum of definitions. Chjoaygame's comments here do not motivate the existence of the article to cover the general concept, beyond the article '']'' that already exists. —] 13:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This was posted on ] but it mostly also related to physics: | |||
| ::::I see the potentially covering article as ] more than as ].] (]) 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * {{citation|title=''Princ-wiki-a mathematica'': Misplaced Pages editing and mathematics|first1=D.|last1=Eppstein|first2=J. B.|last2=Lewis|first3=Russ|last3=Woodroofe|author4=XOR'easter|journal=Notices of the AMS|volume=72|issue=1|pages=65–73|year=2025|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202501/rnoti-p65.pdf}}. —] (]) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: That could be (which might suggest retargeting the redirect '']'' or even a philosophy-specific article '']'', suitably sourced) – but this is not my area. The point remains that an article that tries to define it from the perspective of every discipline as this one does is not appropriate, and an absence of a physics-specific article seems to make sense. —] 16:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In my opinion we don't need to artifically limit the ] of the article. ] considerations and the lack of sources which would provide in-depth physics discussion should naturally focus the article on philosophy if all the synthesis and original research is removed. If I am wrong, and there actually are reasonable source about physics, then there is no problem since the discussion can be based on those. ] (]) 16:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There are countless physics sources talking about physical objects, just not commonly about their existence / an all-encompassing definition. As far as I know, physicists don't usually doubt their understanding of what an object is, however, they have quite a lot to say about their properties and classifications. ] (]) 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I agree with your main point that there are sources. On: | |||
| ::::::::* "physicists don't usually doubt their understanding of what an object is" | |||
| ::::::::A large part of physics is devoted to this subject so maybe a better way to express what I guess you are saying is "physicists often use simple models containing abstraction of physical objects". Some doubts are due complexity (water?, fire?, air?, earth?) and some are fundamental (photons). We just need to be careful to find sources that discuss "objects" rather than sources which are only about things we think of as objects. ] (]) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If you want to write a 95% philosophy article with 5% on ] and ] definitions that is fine -- it is always good to cross-pollinate. However, I strongly disagree with your proposal in ] which includes "types of properties, emphasizing measurability and interaction", some aspects of which appears to be spilling over here. Those topics are covered in a vast number of articles, see both ] and ]. I still feel that what is needed is to add a few sources to the ] section. (I will add that a '''''brief''''' section beyond physics is needed, e.g. life sciences.) | |||
| ::::::::N.B., I don't understand why the page ] is listed as a Level 5 vital article. ] (]) 18:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's because ] currently contains 1170 articles out of quota of 1200, and anyone can still freely add anything they consider "vital" (I added ] a while back). Only when the quota is full, is there any need for discussion. So this is one editor's opinion of what is vital. ] (]) 05:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| == Consensus to remove an unsourced image. == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have removed an unsourced and incorrect image twice but these changes have been reverted. Please comment on ] ] (]) 17:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Delete ] == | |||
| Does anyone want to defend this stub of a template (which I noticed is used in ]. Unless I hear a willingness to make this useful, as against a 1-line template, I will do an AfD. ] (]) 18:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Not I (it appears to be squeezing fuzzy reality into overly-tightly defined hierarchical classifications that apply in a narrow range of conditions). For info, it is used in: | |||
| :* ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
| : —] 19:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No, also how subatomic particle is less than physical objects? Are particle not physical objects? Is matter not a physical object? Why is cell here?--] (]) 08:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 09:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Your input is requested @ ] regarding the relationship between {{tl|WikiProject Glass}} & {{tl|WikiProject Physics}}. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">] (] ⋅])</span> 19:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Merge ] and ]? == | |||
| I am not sure this merge was totally obvious so I proposed a merge dicussion at ] to merge ] into ] (currently a stub). ] (]) 12:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Page rating == | |||
| I have noticed that at least two enthusiastic editors (with not that many edits to date) are going alphabetically through unrated articles. Almost all science (including physics) they look at end with a "Low-importance" rating. I can't fault this, since if this project does not rate one of its articles then by default it is not an important one. Alternatively some of us might want to review the project ratings... | |||
| Just a thought. ] (]) 11:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:26, 24 December 2024
| WikiProject Physics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WikiProject Physics Main / Talk |
Members | Quality Control (talk) |
Welcome | ||
Shortcuts
 | This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011 |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"?
I recently joined Misplaced Pages and my first suggested edit was to Megasonic cleaning. My guess is that this article would belong better as a subsection of the article on Ultrasonic cleaning. The help article Help:Introduction_to_talk_pages/All suggested that I draw some attention to it, since the article is a bit obscure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielittlewood (talk • contribs) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)
White dwarf at FAR
I have nominated White dwarf for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Current sources and sinks
I found this obscure article Current sources and sinks thinking it was going to be about electroamagnetism or a best a generelization of fluid dynamics theorems to different areas of physics, or even generalizations into complex analysis. However I just found neurobiology explanations. Should this article be renamed into something neurobiology related? Should it be kept or deleted? What do you think? ReyHahn (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I responded at Talk:Current sources and sinks which I think is a better choice for a discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Now at Talk:Current source density analysis.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
Lead of Energy
The IP at WP:RFED seemed to bring up a good point, should the lead paragraph of Energy read mass and energy may also be converted to one another instead of matter and energy may also be converted to one another? Remsense ‥ 论 23:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Having found the original diff, I've decided to cross my fingers and be bold pending broader approval. Remsense ‥ 论 23:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- That statement started out bad, and that in no way improved it. It perpetuates the layman's misconception that anything is "converted" into or from energy: energy simply changes form (it is strictly conserved), and mass is just a manifestation of energy. I'll take a look at rewording it. —Quondum 00:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. My goal was to avoid making it more annoying to fix! Remsense ‥ 论 00:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I just had a look, and to my surprise in the whole article there is only one mention of free energy, with zero useful information, none of enthalpy or Gibbs free energy and there are 11 of entropy. That seems a bit unbalanced to me. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good observation. This would need a subject matter expert (presumably with a chemistry background) to improve. —Quondum 16:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- That statement started out bad, and that in no way improved it. It perpetuates the layman's misconception that anything is "converted" into or from energy: energy simply changes form (it is strictly conserved), and mass is just a manifestation of energy. I'll take a look at rewording it. —Quondum 00:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Is X17 real enough?
There is a stub page Attila Krasznahorkay which is currently justified based upon the discovery of the X17 particle; created by a relatively new user on Dec 2nd and I tagged it as part of WP:NPP. I am skeptical about the Attila page, particularly as the editor (@Vazulvonal of Stockholm) added today a misrepresentation of a CNN article (which I corrected). I don't know enough about HEP to know if the simple route of redirecting the Attila page to the X17 page is the right course, I think there are others here who have forgotten more about HEP than I know. (The X17 page itself may also be an issue.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I happen to have visited Atomki. They still believe in the X17 particle. Nobody else does, though. Tercer (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- People want to believe anything these days. The fact that we have a B-class LK-99 article shows how scientists and non-scientists are desperate to believe in something revolutionary independently of the data. Aside from ranting: I do not know what to draw from this, but Misplaced Pages golden rule is: if notable sources cover it, it is worth it.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right, whether it's "real" or not is not the test. We have articles on all sorts of things that don't actually exist. --Trovatore (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- We may have an edit-warring editor who does not seem to be interested in interaction, including omitted or improper edit comments (including on biographical articles). Would this be a case of inadequate interactive competence? Their talk page seems to be a testament to this. —Quondum 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Let's not jump that quickly. Everyone has to learn, the account was created in Aug 2024 so some errors is not unusual. I reverted the latest and sent a specific level 1 warning. Hopefully they will respond appropriately. If not then a level 2 warning then protection if needed. Be gentle to the newbie! Ldm1954 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad that there are people around who are wiser and more patient than I am :) —Quondum 18:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wiser....nah. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad that there are people around who are wiser and more patient than I am :) —Quondum 18:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Let's not jump that quickly. Everyone has to learn, the account was created in Aug 2024 so some errors is not unusual. I reverted the latest and sent a specific level 1 warning. Hopefully they will respond appropriately. If not then a level 2 warning then protection if needed. Be gentle to the newbie! Ldm1954 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- We may have an edit-warring editor who does not seem to be interested in interaction, including omitted or improper edit comments (including on biographical articles). Would this be a case of inadequate interactive competence? Their talk page seems to be a testament to this. —Quondum 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Right, whether it's "real" or not is not the test. We have articles on all sorts of things that don't actually exist. --Trovatore (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- People want to believe anything these days. The fact that we have a B-class LK-99 article shows how scientists and non-scientists are desperate to believe in something revolutionary independently of the data. Aside from ranting: I do not know what to draw from this, but Misplaced Pages golden rule is: if notable sources cover it, it is worth it.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Nobel laureates in physics by nationality?
A section called "Nobel laureates in physics by nationality" was added to Nobel Prize in Physics. Is this section notable? See Talk:Nobel_Prize_in_Physics#Nobel_laureates_in_physics_by_nationality Johnjbarton (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Principle of locality content issue
@ReyHahn and I have agreed on a change. @Tercer has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on Talk:Principle_of_locality#Fixing_an_issue_in_the_QM_section. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Noctilucent cloud
Noctilucent cloud has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
"failed star"
FYI Failed star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Notices of the American Mathematical Society article on Misplaced Pages editing.
This was posted on WT:MATH but it mostly also related to physics:
- Eppstein, D.; Lewis, J. B.; Woodroofe, Russ; XOR'easter (2025), "Princ-wiki-a mathematica: Misplaced Pages editing and mathematics" (PDF), Notices of the AMS, 72 (1): 65–73. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Johnjbarton (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Fizeau experiment
Fizeau experiment has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: