| Revision as of 13:49, 27 October 2024 editBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,449,588 edits →Sharpness (cutting): new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:06, 25 December 2024 edit undoLaundryPizza03 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,754 edits →Nomination of Gravitomagnetic for deletion: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| (74 intermediate revisions by 20 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) | |||
| == ie, that is. == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| User @] has been systematically changing i.e. -> "that is" in many articles. Very annoying. Is there any consensus to make such a change? ] (]) 00:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :For anyone reading this thread, the user in question has now been blocked. ] (]) 14:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Banning aside. It would be nice to know if there is some policy about it. "That is" is preferable for accessibility to non academic people, many may not know what '''id est'' means, much less its abbreviation.--] (]) 16:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that both are acceptable. More prescription would be instruction creep.] (]) 22:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC). | |||
| :::Personally, I try to avoid both of these forms. To me they mean one of two things: 1) I told you what the ref said, now I am going to correct it, or 2) my first explanation sucked, so here is another lame try. ] (]) 01:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Years ago there used to be a guideline or an essay that discouraged use of latin abbreviations in favour of english alternatives. I haven't seen that in a long time and did not find it in a quick search, so perhaps that point of view has been deprecated.--] (]) 03:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Guidance on such abbreviations is of course in the MOS. See the table in ], also in ]. --<code>{{u|]}} {]}</code> 03:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am deeply suspicious of any sentence that contains either "i.e." or "that is". Show me a sentence that contains either and I will show you a sentence that needs to be rewritten, either to turn it into two sentences or to eliminate some duplicated ideas. For an example, see my . ] ''(])'' 08:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I responded at ] which I think is a better choice for a discussion. ] (]) 14:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Content dispute on ] == | |||
| :Now at ].--] (]) 17:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! == | |||
| @] has insisted on incorporating a detailed description of Thomson's beta scattering paper of 1910 into the article on ]. I disagree and believe that content belongs in ]. | |||
| Please join the discussion at ] ] (]) 02:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background:#FFFFFF; border:2px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: 100%" | |||
| == Notable Cyclotrons List == | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| 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 /> | |||
| <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> | |||
| |- | |||
| |} | |||
| == Lead of ] == | |||
| There is a discussion on the talk page for ] on whether the ] should be included on the "list of notable cyclotrons." ] (]) 19:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :This has now turned into an entire list of "Superconducting Cyclotrons". There is a discussion of whether such a list is necessary, which would be nice to have a few more contributors. ] (]) 16:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we split the article to create ] then link the list in ] the effect is to create a somewhat complicated See Also. That would allow fans of Lists to list away and Cyclotron can stay focused. As a reader that would be an improvement since I never look at List of articles. ] (]) 16:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Nobel 2024 == | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| As in last year, I am trying to make this year Nobel prize related articles better, specially the biographies as we have a ] rule and many people visit them. However there are always other articles that need help. This year the physics prize is about artificial networks, I know just a little about that but one of the laureates is ] so articles related to ]s need a help (specially since we have a lot of them ], ] and so on. In particular, ] has just one primary source. Any help is welcomed. ] (]) 17:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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? == | |||
| :Did you look at ]? That looks very odd to me, particularly the statement about "controversial" with one source looks very non-]. I wonder about a PROD as ] ] (]) 22:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I removed the sentence and opened a discussion in the Talk page. ] (]) 23:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that page should be removed entirely we do not have individual Nobel prizes pages so far.--] (]) 07:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::👍 ] (]) 10:11, 17 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) | |||
| === Merge === | |||
| Per refusal to remove the article by the author. It has now become a merge discussion here: ].--] (]) 07:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I happen to have visited Atomki. They still believe in the X17 particle. Nobody else does, though. ] (]) 15:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ScholarGPS == | |||
| ::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? == | |||
| In recent Nobel Laureates articles people have used ScholarGPS to indicate that the laureates are highly cited per that source. Is that source reliable or important in any sense? ] (]) 08:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Please give a link to ScholarGPS. ] (]) 08:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC). | |||
| ::Oh sorry! Here is an example from ] article: .--] (]) 08:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not familiar with that data base but it looks reputable. ] (]) 10:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC). | |||
| ::::Should it appear in a least of awards? Is it notable? Example:" In 2023, he was named a Highly Ranked Scholar by ScholarGPS for lifetime".--] (]) 10:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No; assigning an arbitrary number to someone's citation index and calling them "highly ranked" (on the group's own website) isn't much more relevant than Facebook giving a "verified" check mark. This isn't an award, it's a piece of flair. I've ] from the article but am willing to discuss it further. ] (]) 12:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That was my impression I will remove it from other articles too.--] (]) 14:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It is very marginal. I checked two living people I know and their h-factors were about correct. Then I checked two others who passed away with the last few years and it was a disastrous underestimate. Maybe it will get better, but at the moment I would not want to trust it. ] (]) 21:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, I've never heard of it. ] (]) 20:22, 17 October 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) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| ] 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. ] (]) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] content issue == | |||
| ==Lowercasing of all tectonic plates discussed in a relisted RM== | |||
| A discussion of lowercasing the titles of all tectonic plates on Misplaced Pages was relisted at ] a few days ago. Editors here may have an interest in participating before it closes. ] (]) 14:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| @] and I have agreed on a change. @] has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on | |||
| == Second opinions on Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics == | |||
| ] ] (]) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] 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}}"== | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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. == | |||
| :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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| This was posted on ] but it mostly also related to physics: | |||
| == ] == | |||
| * {{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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ] (]) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| :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) | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| ::{{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) | |||
| :::{{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) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <div class="afd-notice"> | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| 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? | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> This one was missed by Article Alerts, likely because it doesn't have a talk page. –] (]]) 23:06, 25 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) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:06, 25 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)
Nomination of Gravitomagnetic for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gravitomagnetic is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gravitomagnetic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.This one was missed by Article Alerts, likely because it doesn't have a talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: