Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive May 2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Microscope vs microscopy in article titles

It seems technical editors are entirely on the outs and have been for some time on Wikipedia, so I assume this will not be seen by anyone.

Nonetheless. It seems that there should be a single high level article about the instrument, then technique articles.

Example:

  • Electron microscope
    • Transmission electron microscopy
    • Scanning electron microscopy
  • Microscope
    • Optical microscope
      • Fluorescence microscopy
      • Dark field microscopy
  • Scanning probe microscope
    • Atomic force microscopy
    • Scanning tunnelling microscopy

Are there existing guidelines on this?

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:5D (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. You seem to be suggesting that there is something called an "electron microscope" which is "the instrument", and then TEM and SEM are two "techniques" which you use for that instrument. If by "instrument" you mean "physical apparatus", then that's not right. In most labs I've used, there is an apparatus called an SEM, which is not used for TEM, and there is a different apparatus for TEM, which is not used for SEM. The same is true for AFM vs STM, and often for different types of microscopes. So, what do you mean by "the instrument"?
There are guidelines like WP:MERGE, but generally you use common sense. Why are electrical resistance and conductance just one article rather than two? Because the two concepts are so closely related that the text would entirely (or almost entirely) overlap, i.e. each section that belongs in an article about electrical resistance also belongs in an article about electrical conductance and vice-versa. On the other hand, partial overlap between articles is fine, and indeed inevitable. Also think about who the readers are and what they are likely interested in. Also avoid "prerequisites", i.e. if there is a "scanning probe microscope" article, you should not expect that readers will only read STM after reading "scanning probe microscope". They will not. They will go straight from google to the STM article. Therefore, articles should stand alone as much as possible. Sorry if this is all obvious to you. :-D
I haven't looked at any of those articles recently but (from past experience) I would suggest that your time is almost definitely better spent improving the existing articles one-by-one than reorganizing them. Besides, if each article is as good as it can be, then it will be easier to reorganize later. BTW, if one article has a terrible explanation of X, and another (partially overlapping) article has a great explanation of X, don't be afraid to just overwrite the former with the latter. --Steve (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about article titles. For example TEM is at transmission electron microscopy, but SEM is at scanning electron microscope. Is there some guideline on which is correct?
Your reply is very confusing. I am afraid I made myself unclear. For example there is both a microscope and a microscopy article. You claim there is no such physical apparatus as a microscope and that TEMs aren't used to do SEM and vice versa, and I would like to clear up what I wrote that seems to be asking about that.
There are apperati called microscopes and disciplines for using them. It seemed that Wikipedia dealt with this by putting a high level article at the instrument with redirects from the discipline, and this seemed a logical way to focus the history of development of the instrument. But with the TEM and SEM articles, maybe it is random. That is what I am asking, not anything about TEMs being used for SEM or vice versa.
--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:5D (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry if I misunderstood. For "transmission electron microscopy" vs "transmission electron microscope", one is a discipline and the other is an instrument, but the two things are so closely related to each other that an article about one would be essentially identical to an article about the other. (For example, the history of development of the TEM instrument is very on-topic in a "transmission electron microscopy" article too, if you think about it.) So I would say that those two possible article titles are more-or-less equally good, and functionally equivalent. :-D --Steve (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
So, I'm writing three new microscope articles, and, according to Wikipedia policy I can randomly use either microscope or microscopy?
Just to be clear, I am not trying to understand the difference between microscope and microscopy. I am trying to figure out how to name articles. I have used the wrong article title before, and the community response was tiresome. There are rigid policies on so many things on Wikipedia, and it's so difficult to ask any question.
So, the question is about consistency. Even Wikipedia has consistency policies. Is there one about article titles? --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:A2 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't think there is any policy that applies here that would prefer one over the other. Of course the title needs to be consistent with the content of the article. (if the article is primarily about a (type of) apparatus it should be called " XXX microscope", if it is primarily about the underlying physical principle and the surrounding scientific field it should be "XXX microscopy". Some further things to keep in mind: 1) if "XXX microscope" redirects to "XXX microscopy" then both terms should appear (in bold) in the lead section. 2)It is very bad form to use the same acronym for both terms in the same article. I.e. in a single article "SEM" should stand for either "scanning electron microscope" or "scanning electron microscopy". (Many of the articles you mentioned above currently violate this, and could use some work.TR 16:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Many of the articles do worse than use TEM for both TEmicroscope and TEmicroscopy. (I do this. So do Williams and Carter, which was my entry level text, so it comes naturally. I agrre it is not good form, though.)
The microscope article, and there is a microscopy article too, talks mostly about microscopy, and editors at that article, who aren't actually editing the article, fight against aligning the article to talk specifically about microscopes, and leave the field as a whole to the other article. It makes sense for the very highest level articles to have a history of the instrument. Or the article should honor its title and focus on the tool. Or they should be merged. But the current situation of two articles, different titles, same topic, isn't good. --2601:648:8503:4467:8EE:48D4:D702:5880 (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Representation theory of the Lorentz group -- a good article nomination

Representation theory of the Lorentz group is currently a good article nominee, nominated by YohanN7. I have started reviewing the article, but there is a fundamental disagreement here: the article is, in my opinion, much too long and covers topic in a level of detail that should better be deferred to related articles. YohanN7, of course, is of a different opinion, stated here.

Can someone please have a look and weigh in at the nomination talk page? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Archive May 2017/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Physics.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Physics, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nano-FTIR

Please check the above article, newly accepted by AFC, for any problems or issues. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense alert...

... at Relativity of simultaneity and Criticism of the theory of relativity. I have reverted enough now, and had reported at AIV for persistent addition of unsourced content. Now they have come with a silly source. This could need some eyes. - DVdm (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge request help

Can someone help with the following GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC):

BOLD revert of Spacetime - Discussion on Talk page

I have performed a bold revert of the article Spacetime and have entered in comments on the Talk page of this article: BOLD revert of Spacetime for discussion Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_May_2017&oldid=790786098"