Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 16

message: 74.211.85.99 (talk • contribs • &cache=off&email=on WHOIS • &cache=off&email=on RDNS • RBLs • block user • [ block log]) seems to be aggressively editing Talk:Theory of everything, pushing their own pet model of how "1/0" explains all things, and deleting any responses they don't like. I've given them a vandalism warning for repeated deletion of others' comments, and am close to 3RR. This page needs watching in case of additional damage. --Christopher Thomas 05:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:3RR#Exceptions includes "Reverting simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking ...". So if he is deleting or clearly changing the meaning of the comments of others, then 3RR does not apply to your reverts. Have you tried asking for the talk page to be protected? JRSpriggs 09:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fully aware that reverting vandalism is an exception to 3RR; I've just found that there's a lot less kicking and screaming if you don't have to invoke the exception (and there's always the remote chance that I'm incorrect in classing this as vandalism, which more eyes would catch). --Christopher Thomas 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below., "Is this project moribund?". This kind of b.s. is exactly what makes anyone serious about physics roll thier eyes and heave off to do something else. linas 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems at [[Talk:Theory of everything]] 

message: There's a thread at Talk:Dark energy (under the old "rewrite" thread) where a user is suggesting that the article be revised to be more understandable to people without a scientific background. I've expressed doubt that this is possible without making the article completely inaccurate, as it looks like there's already been considerable effort taken to avoid confusion. Additional opinions would be helpful. --Christopher Thomas 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This still needs comments. I've given my 2 cents worth already in the thread. --Christopher Thomas 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dark energy]] 

message: * 3 April – Boil water in a paper cup (discussion)
* 3 April – Electro-gravitic propulsion (discussion)
* 3 April – Yun Wang (discussion)
* 3 April – Scientific data withholding (discussion)
* 4 April – Alternative physics (discussion)
* 4 April – The seventh earth (discussion)
Enjoy.  Anville 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More articles on AFD 

message: See here (self-declared mild conflict of interest) 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem to be any problem here.  I commented at the talk page.  Gnixon 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments at Big Bang Nucleosynthesis 

message: Quantum computer has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum computer FAR 

message: I have recently created a new article Diagrammatic notation which I found to be talking about the same thing as a duplicate article (but by an unexpectedly different name) Penrose graphical notation. So I suggested to combine them. Please help/comment. --Freiddie 21:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea.  Both stubs need more graphical examples.  Would be helpful to discuss history of their use.  Gnixon 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So which one is the better name for it? Or should another name be used? --Freiddie 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I'd previously heard of it as penrose graphical notation.  I have no idea which is more commonly used.  --Starwed 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging my new article - Comment please 

message: A few people have been categorizing astronomers by religion; see :Category:Astronomers by religion.  I have nominated the category tree for deletion.  I personally think this is a bad idea, as religion has no influence on the careers of any astronomers that I know.  Please go voice your opinion here.  Dr. Submillimeter 09:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it occurred to me that the astronomers I have known at the Vatican Observatory are probably influenced by religion more than average, although they are exceptions.  Still, for the vast majority of astronomers that I know, religion generally does not influence their careers.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know a Muslim astronomer who wrote a book on how to calculate the day on which the lunar month begins for religious purposes. Religion is a driving force and has a large effect on some astronomers. JRSpriggs 11:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the religion is only a driving force for some astronomers but not all, yet someone could and probably will use these categories for all astronomers.  An arbitrary "use this category only if X is important to the subject" inclusion criteria does not work to filter out articles where the cross section is irrelevant.  I have seen it in other categories.  (See :Category:Jewish scientists for example.)  Dr. Submillimeter 12:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is a good point, over categorization is always a problem. And in this case, it would be driven to an extreme by religious bigots. In your example, both anti-Jewish and pro-Jewish bigots (for different reasons) might put want to put some scientists into :Category:Jewish scientists despite their desire to avoid such an identification. JRSpriggs 04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of astronomer by religion 

message: Quantum electrodynamic threshold. . . your thoughts?  I'm inclined to merge the information to magnetar.  Anville 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and if you ever want to feel depressed, just check out what links to "quantum".  We've got Poetic transrealism, psychogeography, Stéphane Lupasco, holonomic brain theory, ontic, Dakini, mindstream. . . .  Anville 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added a discussion section at magnetar and a mergefrom template in the appropriate section, which should get discussion rolling. --Christopher Thomas 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  If the people's voice remains unanimous, I'll probably effect the merge later today.  Anville 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I went ahead with the merge, also rewriting the text because it was a copyvio from Scientific American.  Anville 20:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum electrodynamic threshold 

message: I wouldn't recommend wasting effort on reverting ED's edits at Postulates of special relativity.  That article is pretty much junk, anyway, as far as I can tell, and should just be deleted altogether.  Gnixon 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried nominating it for deletion.  Not sure if I got it right---the proces is a bit confusing.  Help from experienced editors would be appreciated.  Thanks, Gnixon 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Postulates article

message: Being of an analytical mind, could I request that on the table of the status of physics related articles shown on the project page a percentage be included at the end of each column and row to show how the project is doing in relation to percentage of articles at B-Class etc. Thanks. Shrub of power 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That table's automatically updated by User:WP 1.0 bot, which is operated by User:Oleg Alexandrov for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It's based on a standard template. You'd need to ask someone at the end of those links to have percentages added to it. Mike Peel 07:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of articles 

message: Hey everyone I added this a few days ago, the intial article was not up to par so I went ahead and re-wrote and added more citation (good citation at that hehe) and now I wanted to see if others could help out to!  If your a Nikola Tesla fan I think you will like this article! (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Teslascope]] 

message: Hi there,
Could someone take a look at this article and maybe clean it up or clarify it a little? It's been on the cleanup list since 2005! Truth be told, I don't even know if this is a 'physics' topic for this group but it sure isn't a topic for this English major ot be messing around with! Thanks!--killing sparrows 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there are problems with the article, and have described these in more detail on the talk page. I also fixed links, adjusted templates, and added a stub template. Long story short, has potential, but desperately needs references, and could probably do with a reorganization. --Christopher Thomas 06:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Just the tweaks you gave it have at least brought it to the point of readability. I'm going to remove the cleanup tag and leave expansion, refs and possible merge to others. By the way, of the dozen or so similar messages I've left on other Project pages, your response has been the quickest and most helpful, the note you left on the talk page outlining your suggestions is particularly useful for anyone seeking to improve it!--killing sparrows 07:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I changed enough to justify removing the "rewrite" tag I added. The best things to do now are either add references, or discuss changes on the talk page with other interested editors. I'm not in a position to do much more with this article myself (I'm not an aerospace engineer). --Christopher Thomas 20:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: [[Trajectory optimization]] 

message: ...to improve equipartition theorem before it heads off to FAC.  It's in scientific peer review right now.  Adding your thoughts and insights probably won't take much of your time, but it will help significantly in bringing another physics article to Featured Article status.  Thank you, thank you, thank you! :) Willow 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now's your chance!

message: A couple of physicist categories have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 20.  Please go voice your opinion.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update So far, everyone who has commented wants to merge :Category:Electroweak Theory physicists and :Category:Electromagnetism physicists into :Category:Physicists on grounds that they are the result of over-categorization. JRSpriggs 10:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physicist category at WP:CFD 

message: Hi, I thought folks here might be interested to know that Energy is the current core topics collaboration.  Unfortunately it looks like there have been some edit wars and name calling recently, but in such cases a larger number of people can often help the article reach the point of consensus.  If you can help out, please do, this is an important topic. Thanks, Walkerma 06:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy is the new Core Topics collaboration 

message: Hello. The categorization taskforce is trying to find WikiProjects interested in using the bot of Alai to identify physics stub articles which do not currently have a category (besides the stub category of course). If the project is interested, we could create something like :Category:Uncategorized physics stubs (amounting to roughly 350 articles) which could then be categorized by people knowledgeable in the subject, thus reducing the risk of improper categorization. Please let us know on the taskforce's talk page if you're interested. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 00:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An invitation to categorize uncategorized physics stubs 

message: I did a copyedit to this article as it was written in a lecture/speaking style, could someone look it over and be sure I have not changed the meaning? Maybe that is the way you folks write all your articles, if so feel free to revert. If I have inadvertantly solved some obscure physics quandry I want credit on the paper. :) Thanks!--killing sparrows (chirp!) 05:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: [[Delta potential well (QM)]] 

message: Mathematical landscape has been nominated for deletion.  Comment as you see fit!  Anville 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied the above comment from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. The article mentioned is about dimensions used in various physical theories. So I felt that the physicists should also comment on whether to delete it or keep it. JRSpriggs 10:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD:  [[Mathematical landscape]] 

message: Dear fellow members of the Physics WikiProject, 
Please allow me to encourage you to review Equipartition theorem, which is a Featured Article candidate.  I'm sure that the article would benefit from your insights.  Thank you very much for your time and trouble, Willow 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DO IT NOW

message: I think that the magnetic field article is not in good shape, and needs some attention.  Thoughts? --Starwed 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Magnetic field]] article 

message: System is a key concept in physics, with a rather specialised meaning, explained well at the beginning of thermodynamic system. There is also an article physical system which is linked to from Energy, and a general article on system. These pages all have some drawbacks as links from physics pages like Energy:
* system uses an engineering-type definition, refering to the "objective" of the system.
* physical system is quite eccentric. I edited it a bit to make the lead sensible, but most of the (short) article describes a definition of "complexity", which is not the focus I'd expect, (and the definition given looks a lot like OR).
* thermodynamic system starts with a definition which could be trivially adapted to apply to all physical systems but rapidly specialises to thermodynamics.
Complicating things is a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems which has an agenda I can't fathom and a stake in at least the first two articles above. If it was up to me I would just replace the current physical system with a slightly edited lead section of thermodynamic system; maybe merging the examples lists (I wrote the one in physical system to emphasise some counter-intuitive possibilities).  What do other people think? PaddyLeahy 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Systems was created by two people who are strongly involved with systems research and/or who believe in categorizing things identified as systems.  The project formed after the deletion of :Category:Systems  Other than an extended discussion on :Category:Systems and some subcategories, I have not been involved with the group.  I suggest contacting the project (or the two members) to discuss your concerns.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, WikiProject Physics, Paddy Leahya and Dr. Submillimeter. I noticed this new point of discusion, because of earlier discussion about this, see  on the talk page of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. I'm a member of that project, and we from our side are going to look at this situation also. It would maybe be nice to talk about this together and exchange some ideas. Greetings - Mdd 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systems 

message: Big Bang has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
LuciferMorgan 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Bang FAR