Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Latest comment: 1 day ago by Jähmefyysikko in topic Uuno Öpik
WikiProject Physics
Main / Talk
Members Quality Control
(talk)
Welcome

WikiProject iconPhysics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Nomination of GRSI model for deletion

edit
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GRSI model is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRSI model until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The discussion is over. "The result was merge‎ to Alternatives to general relativity.". JRSpriggs (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request to merge "megasonic cleaning" into "ultrasonic cleaning"?

edit

I recently joined Wikipedia and my first suggested edit was to Megasonic cleaning. My guess is that this article would belong better as a subsection of the article on Ultrasonic cleaning. The help article Help:Introduction_to_talk_pages/All suggested that I draw some attention to it, since the article is a bit obscure.

Sun FAR

edit

I have nominated Sun 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. 750h+ 01:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Virgo interferometer FAC

edit

Hello everyone, I have submitted the Virgo interferometer article to FAC recently, and it has not attracted too much attention yet (perhaps due to the technicality ?). I would be happy if anyone was willing to take a look; you can find the candidacy page here. Thanks! Thuiop (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Academic notability

edit

Hi everyone! I usually write articles on physics topics, but I've been thinking about starting to write a bit more about people as well. For this reason I'm trying to get a feel for crierion 1 on Wikipedia:Notability (academics). What exactly qualifies as "highly cited". I've asked this question in the Teahouse, but I think its better to ask here since this community would have a better feel towards this physics niche case. The cases presented here are not obviously super stars since I'm also interested in what the lower bound is on this criterion.

For example, consider the following Professors at the University of Oxford:

  • Andrei Olegovich Starinets: He has a MASSIVE impact on AdS/CFT hydrodynamics with his top cited papers have 2.9k, 1.7k, 1.6k, 1.2k citations each, which is pretty insane, so I'm baffled how he doesn't already have a page.
  • Subir Sarkar: Cosmologist who is now Emiratus Professor at Oxford with a non-collaboration paper with 1.3k citations. His impact is however more due to his fundamental contributions to various collaborations such as IceCube and the Particle Theory Group and his most cited papers are from there. This is exemplified by the fact that his retirement had the department hold a 2-day conference called Subirfest https://subirfest.web.ox.ac.uk/home.
  • John March-Russell: Discovered the axiverse (1.8k citations) (this is a very big thing due to the increadible popularity of axions to string theory), and has another important paper on FIMP thermal freeze with 1.1k citations.
  • Joseph P. Conlon: He discovered the Large Volume Scenario with over 1k citations (this is the second most important mechanism for stabilising moduli in string theory, with the first most famous one being KKLT. These mechanisms are genuinely vital in constructing realistic string theory models and so are super important and comes up in standard string theory textbooks for example) and is a prominent string phenomenologists.

I'm not necessarily aiming to create articles for all (or even most or any) of them, cause, well, effort. But understanding if they are all indeed notable would help me in the future. Any thoughts? Thanks!!! OpenScience709 (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

In my personal opinion, the notability criteria adopted for biographies is far below common sense. A large number of citations is a sign that the work itself is notable and we should invest articles about that work. The citations do not make the author notable. A notable author will have a biography written by someone other than a wikipedia editor, eg a historian or a scientist writing about history. The remaining criteria are even weaker, leading to many many Wikipedia vanity "resumes". I don't think these are interesting or knowledge, sorry. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can agree with the sentiment that "The citations do not make the author notable" per se. But the issue with making the bar so high that every wikipedia biography needs to have a whole biography by a historian or scientist writing about history may be too strict. Mainly because these biographies usually only come about when someone retires, or when they die (or later), despite them being notable for a while beforehand. There is utility in these more contemporary figures which are notable in their respective fields, but no one yet bothered to write their history (since its still being written). On the other hand, using Wikipedia as "vanity resumes" is indeed annoying. Exactly why I'm trying to figure out the bar for genuine notability. OpenScience709 (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just to be clear: I am not advocating that the bar be changed (see Don Quixote). Rather I am suggesting a way to make choices on which articles to invest in. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's really not possible to say anything based on citation counts alone, without at the very least comparing to typical profiles for the field. XOR'easter (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussion has been closed with a consensus to merge to Dynamical mean-field theory. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Ceiiinosssttuv" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

  The redirect Ceiiinosssttuv has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 13 § Ceiiinosssttuv until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 14:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Helium Featured Article review

edit

This discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

RfC on meaning of nonmetal

edit

There is a RfC on this topic at Talk:Nonmetal#RfC_on_meaning_of_nonmetal which may be of interest. Is the primary use of the term nonmetal for elements in the periodic table, see discussions in Talk:Nonmetal and also at Talk:Nonmetallic compounds and elements. Editor Sandbh is arguing that this is the case, with some other additions. Editors Johnjbarton, Ldm1954 and YBG have questioned this, and both Johnjbarton and Ldm1954 have questioned the scientific accuracy.Ldm1954 (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Uuno Öpik

edit

Does anyone here have an opinion on whether Uuno Öpik meets our notability criteria? It looks a little questionable to me, at least based on the sources cited in the biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think WP:NPROF is not satisfied. His h-index is 13 [1], and he had two highly cited articles about Jahn-Teller effect (~1000 citations each) with co-authors that have higher h-indices (between 33 and 55). The next highest cited papers have 91 and 66 citations. He worked in UK, so he did not have any significant local effect on physics in Estonia either.
Perhaps also fails WP:GNG, although he is apparently mentioned in
  • Estonian scientists in exile. Tln., 2009. P. 75-76.
  • Estonian researchers abroad. Stockholm, 1984. Pp. 148.
  • Estonian Voice (London, England), 2005, June 3, no. 2230, p. 4. Obituaries.
I have access to none of these sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply