Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Physics: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:39, 1 July 2005 editLinas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled25,539 edits The list of science articles that attract crank edits← 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 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Tabs}}
== ] - general/basic/introductory concepts ==
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive %(monthname)s %(year)d
|algo = old(25d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 3
|minthreadsleft=5
}}
{{shortcut|WT:PHY|WT:PHYS|WT:PHYSICS}}
{{tmbox | text = '''This WikiProject ] on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 2 May 2011''' }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Physics}}
}}
{{archive box|
{{hidden|header=Big Bang – 2005 |content= <br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2006 &mdash; 2019|content=<br>
{{hidden|header=2006|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]


# ]
''This is a problem that has been discussed elsewhere and was the main incentive for creating ] (besides the fact that it didn't exist yet). Now this is probably the best place to continue the discussion. A short summary of the pending discussion follows:''
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2007|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2008|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2009|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2010|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2011|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2012|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2013|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2014|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2015|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2016|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2017|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2018|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2019|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
}}
{{hidden|header=2020|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2021|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2022|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2023|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
{{hidden|header=2024|content=<br>
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
}}
|search=yes
}}
__TOC__


== Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"? ==
There have been discussions in several places on the structure of some subcategories in ]. Specifically, we are concerned with basic, general, and introductory phsysics articles. There is already a quite populated ], which probably gives a good overview of the most rudimental physics topics to the layman; so there is probably no point in changing it. During the big cleanup in May ] was created and populated by articles that were in the top level ] and didn't fit too well anywhere else. This category was then largely unpopulated and recently emptied and seems to have lost its purpose. Now there is the question whether we are actually in need of a new, similar category, which might be named ] and would group together basic (fundamental) articles, such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and so forth, which are now somewhat disperssed among various physics categories (please notice the difference between ''general'' and ''basic''). If there is more positive feedback for this idea, we can either rename the existing ] or delete it and create a new one. The is also an idea about making something like ], which would encompass the mathematical concepts used in physics. ] 11:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) <small>Note: This is a summary of the posts found in ], ], and ].</small>


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">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:55, March 30, 2024 (UTC)</small>
:I think things like tensors should be in mathematics categories, but it would be great if they would contain some physics examples. Otherwise we're going to have to make 2 articles about every applied mathematical thingy. Also because one of the things that is seriously lacking from mathematics articles is good motivation and intuition-stimulation I think we should cooperate more.--] 14:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== White dwarf at FAR ==
::I think ] would be easily confused in purpose with ]. Since you used the word fundamental, I think that ] would be more appropriate as it makes clear that the topics aren't necessarily basic in the sense of simple.


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)
::I'm sure that physics students looking here would appreciate a ] or some such category to cluster all the things we use everyday but don't own. --] | ] 05:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


== ] ==
:::Wild idea here - what if there was a ] (or something suitably similar) that contained a lot of redirects to math pages. Of course, if that happened, it would be nice if those math pages contained physical examples.--] 09:57, 22 Jun 2005 (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)
:My suggestion is similar to what has been written above. We need to separate the introductory concepts, which should be accessible to a lay person, from the basic concepts, which generally are not. For example, you can talk about ]s without talking about ]s. I also think we only need two categories, ] and ]; general topics can be left on the main ] page..--] 09:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


:I responded at ] which I think is a better choice for a discussion. ] (]) 14:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, you put it very clear - the introductory topics should be differentiated from the fundamental ones. For starters, I would identify fundamental topics (looking at ]) as: ], ], ], ], ], and so on. So it seems we have a group of people that agree on this point. My mixed feelings remain only as to whether some of these articles should actually not appear in ]; after all, not much will be left... ] 21:52, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Now at ].--] (]) 17:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


== One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! ==
---


I have just created ] and added some basic articles to it. ] June 28, 2005 17:30 (UTC)


{| style="background:#FFFFFF; border:2px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: 100%"
---
|-
|]
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">&mdash; <b>] <sup>]</sup></b></span><!-- mbdate --> 00:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team</sub>
|-
|}


== Lead of ] ==
Some time has passed, so I nominated ] for deletion. Everyone intersted please see ]. ] June 28, 2005 20:12 (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">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 23:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
== World Year of Physics ==


: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">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 23:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I suppose I finally have an appropriate place to ask people to look at ]. I had originally thought it'd be a great idea to have it up to featured standard by the end of the year, but it hasn't really attracted any other editors recently and I feel like without feedback of other editors I may have taken it in a wrong direction (right now it mostly summarizes ]). So take a look if you're interested. --] | ] 15:21, 21 Jun 2005 (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)
== The list of science articles that attract crank edits ==
:::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">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</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? ==
As there were voices that ] is unsuitable in the article namespace, I've moved the physics section to the subpage ]. --] 15:08, 2005 Jun 24 (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)
:That list is not exclusively about bogus physics theories. Even if it was I wouldn't want it associated with physics in any way. Please remove that again. The physics portal is not the place for it. --] 17:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


:I happen to have visited Atomki. They still believe in the X17 particle. Nobody else does, though. ] (]) 15:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:<s>Yes, please remove this list. Above all, WikiProjects are not intended to host subject articles, including original research. ] 18:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)</s>
::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? ==
::Ugh. multiple problems with this list. 1) some of the theories are pure crackpot, e.g. timecube. 2) some of the topics are highly speculative but academically acceptable (possible changes in fine structure const, etc.) 3) some topics which are records of historical fiascos (]) or were once taken seriously but are not any more (]). ] 19:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


A section called "Nobel laureates in physics by nationality" was added to ]. Is this section notable? See ] ] (]) 00:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Of course, most of these theories are pure crackpot. For this reason, they are on the list. And the list is here, so that we can watch, what's going on there. Isn't the task of WikiProject Physics to ensure the correct presentation of physics in Misplaced Pages? --] 20:10, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)


== ] content issue ==
:::And BTW, ] is leaking out of its article. I've just spotted it in ]. What's your opinion on that? --]


@] and I have agreed on a change. @] has reverted us both. Please help us resolve this on
:::: I think that it would be desirable for part of the wikiproj to be helping keep dodgy psuedoscience in check. So if the list could be restructured to contain *only* the wacko psuedoscience, and a suitable header put on, would that be OK? ] 21:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).
] ] (]) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
::: The way you guys put it makes it sound reasonable :) that is to have such a repository for monitoring pseudophysics topics. ] 23:41, Jun 24, 2005 (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. ] (]) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


=="{{noredirect|failed star}}"==
:The list should be split into the different categories that linas identified. List 1) shouldn't be part of this project. What we need to keep in check is what is supposed to be physics and what is not. The other two lists would be very welcome. --] 10:34, 25 Jun 2005 (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. ==
I misunderstood the purpose of the list. Lets change the name to '''The list of science articles that attract crank edits'''. This is a list of legit articles on noteworthy topics, that, unfortunately, tend to get vandalized in subtle ways. The name change would completely resolve my initial discomfort on reading the list. We can add ] and ] to the list. ] 1 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)


This was posted on ] but it mostly also related to physics:
== 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment ==


* {{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)
Has anybody a reference and quote what Einstein said about the ]? Reich's view and those of the "over unity researchers" are already presented. --] June 30, 2005 08:19 (UTC)
] (]) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
:There are only 4 google hits in this regard.--] 30 June 2005 13:56 (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)

== 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.

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)

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:
WikiProject iconPhysics
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. 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

Archives
Big Bang – 2005


  1. Antiquity – September 2005
  2. October 2005 – October 2005
  3. November 2005 – December 2005
2006 — 2019


2006


  1. January 2006 – February 2006
  2. February 2006 – April 2006
  3. April 2006 – May 2006
  4. May 2006 – July 2006
  1. September 2006
  2. September 2006 (part 2)
  3. October 2006
  4. November 2006
  5. December 2006
2007


  1. January 2007
  2. February 2007
  3. March 2007
  4. April 2007
  5. May 2007
  6. June 2007
  7. July 2007
  8. August 2007
  9. September 2007
  10. October 2007
  11. November 2007
  12. December 2007
2008


  1. January 2008
  2. February 2008
  3. March 2008
  4. April 2008
  5. May 2008
  6. June 2008
  7. July 2008
  8. August 2008
  9. September 2008
  10. October 2008
  11. November 2008
  12. December 2008
2009


  1. January 2009
  2. February 2009
  3. March 2009
  4. April 2009
  5. May 2009
  6. June 2009
  7. July 2009
  8. August 2009
  9. September 2009
  10. October 2009
  11. November 2009
  12. December 2009
2010


  1. January 2010
  2. February 2010
  3. March 2010
  4. April 2010
  5. May 2010
  6. June 2010
  7. July 2010
  8. August 2010
  9. September 2010
  10. October 2010
  11. November 2010
  12. December 2010
2011


  1. January 2011
  2. February 2011
  3. March 2011
  4. April 2011
  5. May 2011
  6. June 2011
  7. July 2011
  8. August 2011
  9. September 2011
  10. October 2011
  11. November 2011
  12. December 2011
2012


  1. January 2012
  2. February 2012
  3. March 2012
  4. April 2012
  5. May 2012
  6. June 2012
  7. July 2012
  8. August 2012
  9. September 2012
  10. October 2012
  11. November 2012
  12. December 2012
2013


  1. January 2013
  2. February 2013
  3. March 2013
  4. April 2013
  5. May 2013
  6. June 2013
  7. July 2013
  8. August 2013
  9. September 2013
  10. October 2013
  11. November 2013
  12. December 2013
2014


  1. January 2014
  2. February 2014
  3. March 2014
  4. April 2014
  5. May 2014
  6. June 2014
  7. July 2014
  8. August 2014
  9. September 2014
  10. October 2014
  11. November 2014
  12. December 2014
2015


  1. January 2015
  2. February 2015
  3. March 2015
  4. April 2015
  5. May 2015
  6. June 2015
  7. July 2015
  8. August 2015
  9. September 2015
  10. October 2015
  11. November 2015
  12. December 2015
2016


  1. January 2016
  2. February 2016
  3. March 2016
  4. April 2016
  5. May 2016
  6. June 2016
  7. July 2016
  8. August 2016
  9. September 2016
  10. October 2016
  11. November 2016
  12. December 2016
2017


  1. January 2017
  2. February 2017
  3. March 2017
  4. April 2017
  5. May 2017
  6. June 2017
  7. July 2017
  8. August 2017
  9. September 2017
  10. October 2017
  11. November 2017
  12. December 2017
2018


  1. January 2018
  2. February 2018
  3. March 2018
  4. April 2018
  5. May 2018
  6. June 2018
  7. July 2018
  8. August 2018
  9. September 2018
  10. October 2018
  11. November 2018
  12. December 2018
2019


  1. January 2019
  2. February 2019
  3. March 2019
  4. April 2019
  5. May 2019
  6. June 2019
  7. July 2019
  8. August 2019
  9. September 2019
  10. October 2019
  11. November 2019
  12. December 2019
2020


  1. January 2020
  2. February 2020
  3. March 2020
  4. April 2020
  5. May 2020
  6. June 2020
  7. July 2020
  8. August 2020
  9. September 2020
  10. October 2020
  11. November 2020
  12. December 2020
2021


  1. January 2021
  2. February 2021
  3. March 2021
  4. April 2021
  5. May 2021
  6. June 2021
  7. July 2021
  8. August 2021
  9. September 2021
  10. October 2021
  11. November 2021
  12. December 2021
2022


  1. January 2022
  2. February 2022
  3. March 2022
  4. April 2022
  5. May 2022
  6. June 2022
  7. July 2022
  8. August 2022
  9. September 2022
  10. October 2022
  11. November 2022
  12. December 2022
2023


  1. January 2023
  2. February 2023
  3. March 2023
  4. April 2023
  5. May 2023
  6. June 2023
  7. July 2023
  8. August 2023
  9. September 2023
  10. October 2023
  11. November 2023
  12. December 2023
2024


  1. January 2024
  2. February 2024
  3. March 2024
  4. April 2024
  5. May 2024
  6. June 2024
  7. July 2024
  8. August 2024
  9. September 2024
  10. October 2024
  11. November 2024
  12. December 2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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,
Please note that Volt, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Misplaced Pages's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot 00:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

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)

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)

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:

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: