![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Greetings WikiProject Physics/Archive December 2016 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a BLP of a physicist at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC).
Please assist the draft author to get this draft into acceptable shape. It seems to be a notable topic but the main problem is the apparent lack of independent sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have a small problem in Wikidata about classification of matter. Currently Antimatter is a subdivision of matter. Is it correct ? If yes, is there a name for the subdivision of matter which is not antimatter ? From my understanding antimatter and matter should be at the same level and we need a concept which integrates both matter and antimatter in a whole. Then what's about exotic matter ? Can we say that exotic matter is part of the subdivision of matter which is not antimatter ? Or exotic matter is at the same level as matter and antimatter and is part of a concept without name (something like the big whole) ? Thank you for your comment. And I don't say anything about dark matter. Please, can someone create a relation system between this concept using only "subclass of" relation ? Snipre (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated Representation theory of the Lorentz group for good article rating. Partly because I think it might be good enough, but mostly to see whether a technical article actually can achieve GA status. YohanN7 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)