| Revision as of 14:41, 25 October 2024 editJähmefyysikko (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,030 edits →Second opinions on Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics: edit 2Tag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:27, 25 October 2024 edit undoJohnjbarton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,019 edits →Second opinions on Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 355: | Line 355: | ||
| :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) | :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) | |||
Revision as of 15:27, 25 October 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.
AFD notification
ie, that is.
User @100julian has been systematically changing i.e. -> "that is" in many articles. Very annoying. Is there any consensus to make such a change? Johnjbarton (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- For anyone reading this thread, the user in question has now been blocked. Sgubaldo (talk) 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.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think that both are acceptable. More prescription would be instruction creep.Xxanthippe (talk) 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. Johnjbarton (talk) 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.--Srleffler (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Guidance on such abbreviations is of course in the MOS. See the table in Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Other, also in MOS:LATINABBR. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}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 diff. Dolphin (t) 08:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Guidance on such abbreviations is of course in the MOS. See the table in Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Other, also in MOS:LATINABBR. --
- 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.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Content dispute on Rutherford scattering experiments
@Kurzon has insisted on incorporating a detailed description of Thomson's beta scattering paper of 1910 into the article on Rutherford scattering experiments. I disagree and believe that content belongs in Plum pudding model.
Please join the discussion at Talk:Rutherford_scattering_experiments#Put_plum_pudding_stuff_here Johnjbarton (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Notable Cyclotrons List
There is a discussion on the talk page for Cyclotron on whether the Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre should be included on the "list of notable cyclotrons." PianoDan (talk) 19:06, 1 October 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. PianoDan (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- If we split the article to create List of Superconducting Cyclotrons then link the list in Cyclotron 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. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Nobel 2024
As in last year, I am trying to make this year Nobel prize related articles better, specially the biographies as we have a WP:BLP 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 John Hopfield so articles related to polaritons need a help (specially since we have a lot of them exciton-polariton, phonon polariton and so on. In particular, Hopfield dielectric has just one primary source. Any help is welcomed. ReyHahn (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Did you look at 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics? That looks very odd to me, particularly the statement about "controversial" with one source looks very non-WP:NPOV. I wonder about a PROD as Wp:! Ldm1954 (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the sentence and opened a discussion in the Talk page. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think that page should be removed entirely we do not have individual Nobel prizes pages so far.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the sentence and opened a discussion in the Talk page. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Merge
Per refusal to remove the article by the author. It has now become a merge discussion here: Talk:2024 Nobel Prize in Physics.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
ScholarGPS
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? ReyHahn (talk) 08:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please give a link to ScholarGPS. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC).
- Oh sorry! Here is an example from John Hopfield article: .--ReyHahn (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with that data base but it looks reputable. Xxanthippe (talk) 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".--ReyHahn (talk) 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 removed it from the article but am willing to discuss it further. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- That was my impression I will remove it from other articles too.--ReyHahn (talk) 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. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- That was my impression I will remove it from other articles too.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:05, 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 removed it from the article but am willing to discuss it further. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 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".--ReyHahn (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with that data base but it looks reputable. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC).
- Oh sorry! Here is an example from John Hopfield article: .--ReyHahn (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I've never heard of it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Earth's magnetic field
Earth's magnetic field 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) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
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 Talk:Eurasian Plate#Requested move 6 October 2024 a few days ago. Editors here may have an interest in participating before it closes. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Second opinions on Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics
I would like some second (third, fourth) opinions on Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics. 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.
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. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Google Scholar search for "Weber–Maxwell Electrodynamics" only returns a few articles from a single author with a small number of citations—mostly self cites—so the subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Based on a recent negative episode I experienced, I strongly encourage everyone to move this discussion to Talk: Weber-Maxwell electrodynamics. Our discussions should include editors focused on that article who may not attend this page. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)