Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive June 2014

AfC submission - 02/06

Draft:Lieb-Robinson bounds. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 03/06

Draft:Relativistic Global Non-Inertial Reference Frames. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Quantum with Quantization (physics)

There is a misguided proposal to merge Quantum with Quantization (physics) [1] by an editor who insists upon discussing the matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC).

Merge proposal has been withdrawn. Advice often given to editors is: don't edit an article unless you have a good understanding of its subject-matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

Past

The past is a stub unlike the future. As the future has a significant physics section, I would think the past would as well? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Schrödinger-Newton equation

I reviewed the article Schrödinger–Newton equation which is currently rated as Start-Class. I think it can be rated up to C or B now, but since I am new as an author I have no idea what the right procedure is to do this? Xaggi (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The procedure is very simple. If you think an article meets the criteria for B or C class, you simply change the rating in the WikiProject template on the talk page. No further actions or consultations required. :) TR 10:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 05/06

Draft:Anton-Schmidt equation of state. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Electromagnetic induction with Faraday's law of induction

More opinions would be helpful.Constant314 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Link please. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC).

Half way down This topic? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

Graphical timelines

Graphical timeline from Big Bang to Heat Death has an {{Unreferenced}} tag dating back to October 2006, which is as far back as Category:Articles lacking sources goes. A large part of the problem is the HTML markup, which won't allow you to insert a citation into the table. I like the idea of a graphical timeline in principle, but maybe it should be formatted more like Template:Geologic time scale? This question also applies to Graphical timeline of the universe, Graphical timeline of the Big Bang, and Graphical timeline of the Stelliferous Era - all unsourced since December 2009. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In the cosmology timelines, the vertical scale is supposed to be meaningful; for the geology one, each age just takes up however much vertical space the text fills up. I think that it would be undesirable to break that. If the HTML markup doesn't allow it to be done automatically, one option would be to number the citations manually. (This is a fairly theoretical suggestion - so far nobody has put any references in at all, so the question of relating any given fact to a specific reference doesn't arise!) Djr32 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If there is a way to add citations into such graphics, no one who created timelines in Category:Graphical timelines or Category:Articles which contain graphical timelines seems to have found it. I think the best solutions for these articles may be to convert them into templates and add them to the appropriate non-graphical article or timeline in a collapsible form. That way they will be right next to textual material that (we hope) is properly sourced, and it is more likely the timeline will be kept up to date. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 08/06

Draft:Time Dependent Viscosity and Draft:Neutral grounding resistor. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Draft:Magnetic Gear. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Both are written in an insufficiently encyclopedic manner. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

Wrong category name?

Please express your opinion here. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Gorshkov

Eyes would be useful here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haze meter

Dear physics experts: I think that light diffusion comes under physics, so I am reporting this old abandoned AfC submission here before it's deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Not worth keeping. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

of course it has no interest as far as physics itself is concerned; its an instrument using physical principles un various technical and scientific fields. It is not a stale draft for G13 purposes at this point, but of course you can always ask for deletion at MfD. I shall argue there as I have in the past that we should not delete anything with promise to make a WP article if any editor is actually interested in trying to work on it, either themselves, or in hope that someone else will. I have also once or twice moved a draft nominated under MfD to mainspace, which would then require a discussion at AfD, where the standards are stricter but the degree of attention greater. The role of G13 is only if nobody expresses an interest. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Opinion needed on article by expert

An expert opinion is needed on what should be done with Magnetoquasistatic Fields. I came across it on new page patrol. Delete/merge, or let it persist? Antrocent (♫♬) 00:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Better still, with Magnetoquasistatic field. I think the topic deserves an article of its own, it's worth keeping and I have added it to Category:Magnetism. Despite the poor quality of writing it is a genuine enough technology, using the magnetic near-field of radiating and receiving antennas. In the past it has mainly been used for underground or even submarine communication, though the awful buzzword name is after my time. I have no sources on that any more, but I will add a hook to the article and request citations - it can't make the article any worse than it is at the moment. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Physics At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Relative standard uncertainty wrong?

At Template talk:Table of physico-chemical constants § Relative standard uncertainty wrong?, I've requested comments on a possible problem with some of the relative standard uncertainty values in the tables in Physical constant. Additionally, I've asked about merging it and the other table templates (that are only transcluded in this article) with the {{CODATA2010}} (currently) template, to avoid maintaining values in two places. Please comment here. (Posted here because of the small number of users watching those pages ) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Null and Non-null electromagnetic fields

Dear physics experts: Here's an old draft that was never finished. Is this a notable topic, and, if so, would anyone who understands the topic care to work on it? It will be deleted soon as a stale draft unless edited. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic. Leave it to be deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

I concur. It fails notability, is evidently OR, and has no references. Let it die. —Quondum 00:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; it's gone. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion

A Request for Comments is in progress at Talk:Cold fusion concerning which of the WP:ARBPS categories of research (unquestionably pseudoscience, generally considered pseudoscience but with a following, widely accepted but considered pseudoscience by critics, alternative scientific formulations) should be associated with cold fusion, also known as low-energy nuclear reactions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox hydrogen at TFD again

{{Infobox hydrogen}} is up for deletion again. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 28#Template:Infobox hydrogen. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Predetonation &
1969 US unilateral Nuclear weapon test moratorium

I came across the term Predetonation re nuclear weapons at Nuclear chain reaction and noticed it had no sources about the term at all. In fact it seemed that though the term is used in several places on WP it was not sourced anywhere. I have therefore added this source (section 4.1.5.3) from nuclearweaponarchive.org in this edit. If there is any problem with this source, please let me know.

I also came across mentions of the October 2, 1992 nuclear US unilateral testing moratorium by Pres. George H. W. Bush. In searching for more info, which was very scanty, I found it listed in a table at Nuclear weapons testing#Treaties against testing but un-sourced (and no WP page) so I added a source here from armscontrol.org. It's a fairly oblique reference, but the only one I could find. Any other/ better source would be of interest. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 05:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)