![]() | 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. |
Would it be possible if an expert in physics cleanup the content section for The Order of Time? I added a contents section, but it's poor and needs clarifying, as I don't have much background in physics. I've also posted this thread in Wikiproject Books. VickKiang (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I just created the page for the Su–Schrieffer–Heeger model (SSH chain). The article could benefit more if somebody could create some images of the band gap/edge states. Any feedback is welcome. ReyHahn (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of similarity in recent edits to physics articles referencing Planck units and similar, for example at Natural units, when compared to a previously banned user who showed a marked persistence in this space. Note what looks like reverts to early contested versions, then (after page protection) the appearance of a new user whose edits fill the edit history. If this involves the same individual as before, early admin/checkuser action may prevent a lot of pain. I am merely bringing this to the attention of the physics editors here; I do not have the energy to get involved in what promises to be a frustrating process. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure who this previous user was or why you're so keen on undoing my edits (which took a fair amount of effort and weren't based on any previous versions of these articles), but this is the only account I've had and from what I've read (e.g. the Good Articles standard) the impression I got was that Wikipedia wanted comprehensive articles, not just brief summaries, and quite frankly this episode is making me much less enthusiastic about helping to improve this website. As for making many small edits well, sorry, I didn't realise that was considered a faux pas around here, generally I find it easier to spot where to make tweaks if I'm looking at the main article rather than the source code.Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Another context where this relationship becomes intuitive is in the case of a pump or a water turbine..., or the dialogue here. That can be fine in a textbook, but it isn't generally suitable for Wikipedia. Anything said here has to be said somewhere else first. For a lengthier exposition on this theme, see here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
On the suitability of English on WP such as "The units of mass are kilograms" and related, opine at Talk:Electric field#Where is it customary to pluralize a unit? (rhetorical) - 172.82.46.195 (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Lorenzo Iorio has been transferred from draft to mainspace by User:Missvain. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC).
I am beginning my Ph.D program at the University of Houston and am seeking to take the next week to go improve the article Hypernucleus and perhaps also Hypertriton. The only problem right now is that none of the Template:Nuclide family of templates currently supports the standard notation for hypernuclei, in which the hyperon(s) are identifed in the left-hand subscript, e.g. 7
ΛLi
or 13
ΛΛBe
.[1]
Template:Nuclide and Template:ComplexNuclide already use the lower left space for explicitly presenting the atomic number, but Template:SimpleNuclide is free. Hypernuclei are too short-lived (comparable to the free Λ lifetime of 2.63×10−10 s)[1] to bother integrating into Template:Chem2. Should hypernuclear functionality be incorporated into the existing templates using a new hyper=
parameter, or should I create a new template called Template:HyperNuclide which is specialized for this purpose? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
References
List of crystals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) currently redirects to List of gemstones by species. I find this situation odd, since there are many crystals that are not gems and several gems that are not crystalline. Additionally there are other "crystals" like time crystals which are completely different classes of thing -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Anonymous user 172.82.46.195 (talk · contribs) has been making a whole pile o' changes to pages on physical units. Some of them seem justified, others... somewhat idiosyncratic? The one I have the most doubts about is on Planck constant, where they deleted an entire column from the table of values.
1. In general, folks might want to review the overall pattern - there's definitely been some pushback on individual pages.
2. I'm going to start a discussion on the talk page for the Planck constant about whether the missing column should be restored.
PianoDan (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I would be grateful for an expert opinion on Draft:Quantum Rate Theory. Should I accept it? Cerebellum (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
the transmission probability of individual quantum channels [...] at a given chemical potential state μin the article with
the transmission probabilities across individual quantum channels at a given chemical potential state μin [1], for example. And the whole paragraph beginning
The simplest settingis lifted from [2]. XOR'easter (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
PRODded... but now at AFD for those who care. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to discuss some categorization issues with certain sections, in particular the Quantum field theory (QFT) category, but this applies more generally, such as to the Particle physics category. My point is that, MoS stipulates that articles should only belong to the most specific category, with inclusion of the parent category being needed only when that parent offers notable things that the daughter category does not. In the case of QFT, this has a lot of articles in its subcategories, but generally these should not get the QFT category, despite being QFT topics. Their inclusion in QFT is indicated by the fact that they are in its subcategories. For example, the article gauge fixing should only belong to the Gauge theories category, not the QFT category, since the only parent category of gauge theories is the QFT category itself, so the fact that it is a QFT topic is implied. Bringing this up after a discussion with User:Xxanthippe about this issue. Not to say that all the QFT articles belong to some QFT subcategories; many articles do not since they are very general QFT concepts that do not fit nicely anywhere else. Some articles can belong to both a category and its parent, such as the Wilson loop article, which is a gauge theories concept, but has a notable application in QCD. But my point is that when there is a subcategory in a category that captures all the features of the article, it belongs there, and only there, not to its parent. So, I was wondering what other peoples thoughts are; in particular concerning the gauge fixing and Uehling potential pages which I would argue do not belong to the QFT category, since they are gauge theories and QED articles primarily, which presume QFT. OpenScience709 (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor is proposing rewriting the article. His large changes have been reverted and we are discussing it at Talk:Particle physics. Input from other editors would be very helpful. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Wind for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Talk:RF (disambiguation)#Requested move 21 July 2022 to turn RF, which is currently a redirect to Radio frequency, into a disambiguation page. Further comments welcome there. SpinningSpark 20:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)