Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 11

message: i don't know where to discuss this, but the stub orbital motion should probably redirect somewhere, i just couldn't figure out where? generally, the orbital and orbit (disambiguation) pages need some sorting out; at the moment planetary orbit has been nominated to be renamed to orbit (physics) (discussion here).. although, perhaps it should be renamed to just orbit? thanks, Mlm42 09:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[orbital motion]] 

message: See User talk:MathPhys/WikiProject Relativity. JRSpriggs 12:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-project for Relativity? 

message: The three lists of physics pages needing attention: Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Modern physics, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Classical physics, and Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Other physics topics, all have the instruction: "— Do not add text below this point — /  / ", but have not been updated since July 11, 2006.  --LambiamTalk 16:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those pages seem to be updated by . He was posed the question of whether or not he was still updating the PNA back on the 18th, which he hasn't yet responded to. Mike Peel 16:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like he's started updating them again now. Mike Peel 17:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics pages needing attention needing attention 

message: I have two requests concerning this article. One: I have submitted a peer review for it. Please have a look at the article and comment. The last four subsections in "theoretical status" need major work, and the article needs to be pared down a bit and sub-articles written, and technical things need to be better explained for the lay reader, but I think the article is at least quite accurate, well referenced (except in a couple places where I haven't dug something up yet) and clear. I'd appreciate hearing your comments.
Second, I've been having two long discussions with User:MichaelCPrice on the talk page. I don't see that they are going anywhere, and I'm having trouble seeing a way past the impasse. It seems like we're talking past each other. The first is about whether the concept of "gravitational energy" needs to be mentioned. My feeling is that it is an ill-defined concept seldom if ever mentioned in the technical literature on inflation and mentioning it in the article would introduce unnecessary details. MichaelCPrice's says that it is mentioned in Guth and Hawking's popular books, and needs to be in the article.
The second is about whether inflation can be past eternal. I feel like the weight of the literature is behind it not being past eternal, and that the issue is fairly and clearly represented in the article. Michael disagrees with this.
Any comments or advice would be greatly appreciated. –Joke 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cosmic inflation]] 

message: Hi all, I'm toying with the idea of submitting Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector as a Wikipedia:Featured article candidate.  Would you please look it over and make suggestions on what we might do to get it ready for FAC?  Thanks very much! Willow 17:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend passing it through peer review and/or Good Articles, at the very least so that the article gets more eyes over it before it goes to FAC. Mike Peel 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll be keeping an eye on the article, but it's not something I'm familiar with, so I probably won't be of much use regarding errors and omissions. Mike Peel 19:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector as an FA candidate?

message: Does anyone know whether we have articles on methods (heuristics) for upgrading: (1) a set of classical equations to special relativity; or (2) a set of special relativistic equations to general relativity; or (3) a set of classical equations to quantum mechanics? For example, to go from special relativity to general relativity, we replace "eta" by "g" and partial derivatives by covariant derivatives, etc.. JRSpriggs 08:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last point, see quantization and related articles on canonical, path integral and geometric approaches.  These articles do not look in particularly good shape, but they exist.  Blake Stacey 16:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrading equations to more more modern contexts 

message: Hi all, I've submitted the article Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector for scientific peer review.  Would you please look it over and make suggestions on what we might do to get it ready for FAC?  Thanks very much! Willow 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector in scientific peer review

message: An excellent editor of scientific articles, Opabinia regalis, is being considered for adminship.  Her work has primarily been in biochemistry, but she is broadly educated and scientifically discerning, which could catalyze the development of science articles on Wikipedia. As an example, O. regalis was really helpful in bringing Photon to FA status.  Please support her candidacy, if you feel as I do that she would an excellent administrator. Willow 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibly relevant Admin vote

message: ...but would there happen to be anyone who would be willing to review the Relative density article?  In a random google search, I stumbled on a claim that the article had been vandalized by injecting random-but-credible values into a table.  I don't know the subject, so I have no way to determine whether the claim is true.  I added a note to the article's talk page.  If this is the wrong place for this, is there another forum that would be more appropriate?  Thanks! -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This might not be the right place... 

message: There is now a new category for tagging non-mainstream proposals that the scientific community has ignored in the journals. Check out :Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation and tag it to appropriate articles. --ScienceApologist 12:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the hierarchical relationship with the category Pseudophysics and its subcat Fringe physics? Above / below / incomparable?  --LambiamTalk 18:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New category

message: Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches; but progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus. – Noetica 01:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The review of [[Physics]] continues at [[Talk:Physics/wip]]

message: Hey folks, could you have a look at :Category:Pages needing expert attention from Physics experts? More articles will be added to this category as the expert requests are sorted. Thanks much! WP:WERS. --Brad Beattie (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, many of the articles in :Category:Pages needing expert attention from Science experts have an important, often predominant, physics aspect.  --LambiamTalk 14:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts requested 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: From Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-11-27/Technology report:
:It is also now possible to undo edits other than the last one, provided that no intermediate changes conflict with the edit to be undone. The interface used is more akin to "manual revert" than rollback: on diff pages, an "undo" link should appear next to the "edit" link on the right-hand revision. When this link is clicked, the software will attempt to undo the change while preserving any changes since then, and will add the result to the edit box to be reviewed or saved. (Andrew Garrett, r17935–r17938, bug 6925)
There is a new button labelled "(undo)" which appears on the right under the edit summary when you look at the diff in a vandal's contributions. This allows you to remove a change without disturbing subsequent changes to the same page. I just found out about it. Have not had an occassion to try it yet. JRSpriggs 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New "undo" function

message: I started a biopgraphy on astronomer, William G. Tifft, and discovered one of the few sources of biographical information, and want to include it. But another editor disagrees. I would appreciate some input, described on the Talk:William_G._Tifft page. --Iantresman 17:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: William G Tifft