Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 16

This is the archive "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive 16". It is for April 2007.

Linearized gravity needs your help

Howdy, physics folks. The short article Linearized gravity is tagged as "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" and has been tagged "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards" since October 2005. ("The oldest cleanup requests are the highest priority, to prevent embarrassing problems from going unfixed for an indefinite length of time." [1]) IMHO, there's nothing in this article that to my layperson's eye obviously "needs cleanup". Could you guys please take a look at this, fix what needs fixing, and get those rotten tags removed? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 05:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Related articles flagged for cleanup/vetting:

• Linearised Einstein field equations
• Gravitomagnetism
• For reference, pre-merge version of Weak-field approximation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A quick scan of the articles involved suggests that only minor tweaks should be necessary, but I'm not an expert. If a few of the lurkers here feel like looking them over and posting approve/disapprove-because messages on the talk page, that should clear up the tags very quickly.--Christopher Thomas 05:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

CH left behind a list of tasks for Linearized gravity, most of which decidedly require expert knowledge. However, I didn't notice any obvious errors in the article itself. Most of all, it needs a slightly longer lead section to provide at least a sense of context for less-than-expert readers (in this case, one geared to the undergraduate level should be enough). Anville 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems at Talk:Theory of everything

74.211.85.99 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) seems to be aggressively editing Talk:Theory of everything, pushing their own pet model of how "1/0" explains all things, and deleting any responses they don't like. I've given them a vandalism warning for repeated deletion of others' comments, and am close to 3RR. This page needs watching in case of additional damage. --Christopher Thomas 05:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR#Exceptions includes "Reverting simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking ...". So if he is deleting or clearly changing the meaning of the comments of others, then 3RR does not apply to your reverts. Have you tried asking for the talk page to be protected? JRSpriggs 09:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that reverting vandalism is an exception to 3RR; I've just found that there's a lot less kicking and screaming if you don't have to invoke the exception (and there's always the remote chance that I'm incorrect in classing this as vandalism, which more eyes would catch). --Christopher Thomas 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See below., "Is this project moribund?". This kind of b.s. is exactly what makes anyone serious about physics roll thier eyes and heave off to do something else. linas 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this WikiProject moribund?

So, in the new and updated version of Relativity on the World Wide Web, Chris Hillman has the following to say about WikiProject Physics:

WikiProject Physics at one time boasted dozens of Ph.D. physicists, but (in a phenomenon which has been extensively discussed within the Wikipedia community) most of these have been driven out by the frustration of struggling to deal with ignoramuses and vandals. It is important to understand that absolutely no attempt is made by Wikipedia to verify credentials claimed by users; in my experience, most Wikipedians who claim to have earned a Ph.D. in physics are not making this up, but this could have changed by the time you read these words, and possibly not for the better! This said, if you think you spot a cranky physics article, you can try to report it on the talk page for this project. Unfortunately, however, as of March 2007, WikiProject Physics appears to be virtually moribund, the physics-knowledgeable population having been largely driven away by the frustration and danger of trying to reform Wikipedia from within.

I realize that asking the project's talk page if the project is moribund has a certain paradoxical, "nobody here but us chickens" air to it. However, if anyone does happen to be watching, I'd like to know what you think. Anville 15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There are still those working who prefer to avoid the struggles (and there is enough to do outside the disputed articles) -- it would be hard to make any near-extensive list of this type of contributors. Then there are those who still are on crank-patrol, like User:ScienceApologist and User:Femto. And there are occasional guests like User:Lumidek -- a somewhat atypical specimen, proofing that credentials alone don't guarantee that there's no trouble with a user.

Besides POV-pushers, anti-gravity and free-energy fans, etc, there also has been the side show of requesting inline-cites for every sentence, which exploded to some minor scandal in the GA process. Note that Citizendum, in its effort to be totally different from Wikipedia, takes up this point too.

Pjacobi 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, a lot of the old guard resurface periodically, so I'd hesitate to declare this wikiproject dead. However, I'm speaking as an outsider (I'm not a member of the wikiproject, as I don't have the expertise to thoroughly evaluate QM or GR articles). Your mileage may vary. My opinion is that, while this is a legitimate problem, Hillman is overreacting somewhat due to his own bad experiences.--Christopher Thomas 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We've gotten three physics articles to Featured Article status over the past six months (Photon, Redshift and Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector) after a long hiatus, so we're not completely moribund. There are a lot of really smart people here, too. However, it's a little disappointing that those people aren't willing to work on basic physics articles, or help out with peer reviews, like the one going on now for Equipartition theorem. For comparison, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology is producing a featured article every few weeks on fundamental topics; can't we be inspired to do just as well? Willow 16:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As a person with a Ph.D. in astronomy, I have seen two phenomena related to how people with Ph.D.s are treated on Wikipedia. First, people with Ph.D.s have had problems convincing other people with odd viewpoints that these other viewpoints are rather strange. This is not necessarily restricted to fringe science and pseudoscience. For example, I have had problems trying to communicate to the people working on eclipse cycle that the article delves into too much esoteric detail that really is not very interesting to the average. (Read the article and tell me if it really needs to discuss calculating these cycles.) Also, recall the incident with User:C. Trifle and Planck's law, where C. Trifle found a very strange way to discuss the Boltzmann distribution.

The other problem that I have seen is that some other people with Ph.D.s in hard sciences approach Wikipedia with the attitudes that their viewpoints are better than the masses, without realizing that other people in the masses may also have Ph.D.s. The best example I can think of is the Irish guy who was upset over the name of Halley's Comet. As a professional astronomer myself, I saw no problem with the name of the article, but this guy left Wikipedia because of this debate. Dr. Submillimeter 16:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree both are serious problems that I've witnessed. Gnixon 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, this project is moribund, at least if compared with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics which has much more activity. JRSpriggs 09:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that traffic on article talk pages has plummeted over the last year. For example, I remember when Physics was actively edited. Now it seems like nobody's home except a handful of editors who ignore the main page and work sporadically on a major-overhaul subpage. If the main page is generating no improvements (and it certainly needs a few!), I doubt there's enough of a community to improve more specialized articles. Gnixon 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Specialized articles might be more attractive to the community, since they're more rigorous (less arguing over subjective details) and less of a target for vandals. Equipartition theorem is such a specialized article and I really hope that we will review it thoroughly before bringing it to FAC. Better for us to work out the bugs early, no? :) Now would be a very good time for you all to voice your concerns and offer suggestions — thanks! Willow 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly the case for me. I remember getting a request from a college freshman to fix some article (possibly quantum number, I don't quite remember). I fixed it up, adding missing info, clarifying parts, etc. Within 24 hours, the fellow who requested the fix decided that he didn't like this version, completely wiped it out and replaced it with incoherent speculation concerning one of his homework problems. This certainly changed my attitude about trying to fix up introductory articles.

There needs to be some sort of moderation system to avoid this kind of stuff; it takes too much energy to be on constant patrol. Sometimes, I think that the articles on core topics are in deep disarry. At other times I notice that they seem to slowly get better. I doubt citizendium is the answer, but it would be nice to have more scientific data on the spoilation of articles. Its been noted that FA articles, when not actively defended, seem to "decay" over time. What can be done about this? I'd like to see real experiments start up with things like moderation, as I deeply distrust the motivations of Citizendium's founders (who, the older crowd may recall, wrote a number of crank physics articles here on WP, got in many arguments over pseudophysics, and eventually were roundly AfD'ed. It was after some lurid diatribes about the electric universe and scientific suppression and what not, that, in a snit fit, that they decided to build a hen-house that would be thier own). linas 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to use this project both for monitoring of core articles and for the more pleasant task of editing specialized articles. If everyone does just a little of that monitoring, it will help a lot. Gnixon 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

While there are occasional bursts of activity here, there are also dead periods. For example, there were no edits AT ALL to this page (using UTC) on: March 21, 25, 26, 27, April 1, 3, or 7. JRSpriggs 07:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dark energy

There's a thread at Talk:Dark energy (under the old "rewrite" thread) where a user is suggesting that the article be revised to be more understandable to people without a scientific background. I've expressed doubt that this is possible without making the article completely inaccurate, as it looks like there's already been considerable effort taken to avoid confusion. Additional opinions would be helpful. --Christopher Thomas 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This still needs comments. I've given my 2 cents worth already in the thread. --Christopher Thomas 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

More articles on AFD

• 3 April – Boil water in a paper cup (discussion)
• 3 April – Electro-gravitic propulsion (discussion)
• 3 April – Yun Wang (discussion)
• 3 April – Scientific data withholding (discussion)
• 4 April – Alternative physics (discussion)
• 4 April – The seventh earth (discussion)

Enjoy. Anville 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments at Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

See here (self-declared mild conflict of interest) 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Poessel (talk • contribs)

Doesn't seem to be any problem here. I commented at the talk page. Gnixon 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Quantum computer FAR

Quantum computer has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Physics

There has been very little activity at Physics over the last few months, even though it is no longer even rated a "Good article." That's a shame. Gnixon 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find the GA delisting discussion. Are you sure it was delisted in process? There is only a single user's statement:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Physics/Archive_3#.22Good_article.22_delisting

Pjacobi 20:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, I forgot I was the one who delisted it. Thanks for pointing that out. Anyway, it could still use some work, and virtually nobody has been there for months. Gnixon 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you (even it is the umpteenth time, sorry) make specific what exactly the 1b (logical structure) and 4a (NPOV) problems of the article are? --Pjacobi 21:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we discuss this on Talk:Physics? I'll start a discussion topic there. Gnixon 21:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a whole separate physics "Work in progress" page at Talk:Physics/wip/development article. I was involved for a little while but it seemed like there were only a handful of dedicated editors with very specific points of view and I kinda fell out of it. Anyway, their plan is to eventually do a wholesale replace of the main physics page(presumably after a wikiproject vote) when they are done with their article. So if you want to start working on physics, it might be best to join with that group or start integrating their work with the main page. Otherwise, all of your work will get overwritten at some point. -Joshua Davis 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to combat just that attitude. If they come up with material that can be used in the article, great, and if they can actually come up with a better version from scratch, I'll support that, too. But I'm far from convinced that Talk:Physics/wip will ever be an acceptable replacement, and I'm extremely disappointed that it seems to have stifled improvements to the main page. Let me make something clear: Talk:Physics/wip will not replace the current article unless there's consensus that it's better. Frankly, I think improving the current article is more promising, and I encourage editors come join those efforts. Gnixon 23:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I pretty much agree with you. If I get some time, I'll try to put in some work on the main page. -Joshua Davis 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, creating WIP pages is a big mistake. Incremental evloution of an existing article is much better. Whole-sale replacement leads to arguments and schisms. linas 17:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your help with those incremental changes would help. Gnixon 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Marinov

Anybody silly enough to have a look at Stefan_Marinov#Research and Talk:Stefan_Marinov? --Pjacobi 09:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Owwwwww. At least you warned me. . . In a similar spirit, here are the latest AFDs:

• 9 April – Abraham (Avi) Loeb (discussion)
• 10 April – Dipole antigravity (discussion)
• 10 April – Free energy suppression (discussion)

Anville 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bullet Cluster

So I happened across the Bullet Cluster article just a little while ago, and I noticed this text stuck at the end:

It is a known fact that MOND does not work very well beyond galactic scales. The Bullet Cluster does show that the missing mass is collisionless matter, but it is still not necessarily cold dark matter as proposed in the Lambda-CDM model. This collisionless matter could be massive neutrinos. MOND proponents have long believed that ~2eV neutrinos are needed to explain Cluster data and WMAP data[2]. [3] explains the Bullet Cluster based on ~2eV neutrinos. It could be that cold dark matter explains the MOND phenomenology or a new theory explains it, possibly Tensor-vector-scalar gravity.

Brownstein and Moffat astro-ph/0702146 have also provided an analysis of the Bullet Cluster using a different theory of modified gravity, MOG, claiming that the latter explains the data without dark matter.

First, I don't think we should be citing papers which only exist as arXiv preprints. Second, as Jowr (talk · contribs) pointed out on the Talk page, the sum of the neutrino masses is currently constrained to be less than 0.66 eV, a third of what MOND requires. Is mentioning this OR — i.e., does somebody who knows the literature better than I know a place where this implication is already spelled out? Otherwise, should I just nix the whole thing? Anville 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You may want to leave a post on this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects.

I heard Doug Clowe talk about this cluster at Steward Observatory. The cluster of galaxies actually formed from the merger of two smaller clusters. The dark matter in the collision behaved a bit strangely; it was not collisionless, but the dark matter from the two progenitor clusters did not collide like the gas did. As a result, the distribution of the dark matter neither follows the galaxies nor the gas, which is why it is used as proof against MOND.

I am not particularly familiar with the new article citing neutrinos. However, neutrinos have been out of favor as a dark matter candidate for a long time because the large scale structure predicted by such models do not match what is observed. In particular, the models predict that large scale structures will form before smaller objects (e.g. superclusters will form before small groups of galaxies), whereas the opposite is actually observed.

I agree that the citation to the preprint (which has only been submitted and not accepted) is highly suspect. I suggest removal of the passage until the paper is accepted. Dr. Submillimeter 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is another recent preprint on this subject see here Count Iblis 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is another "submitted" article, not another "accepted" article. If preprints are going to be used as references, they should at least be accepted articles. Dr. Submillimeter 22:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging my new article - Comment please

I have recently created a new article Diagrammatic notation which I found to be talking about the same thing as a duplicate article (but by an unexpectedly different name) Penrose graphical notation. So I suggested to combine them. Please help/comment. --Freiddie 21:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Both stubs need more graphical examples. Would be helpful to discuss history of their use. Gnixon 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So which one is the better name for it? Or should another name be used? --Freiddie 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd previously heard of it as penrose graphical notation. I have no idea which is more commonly used. --Starwed 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of astronomer by religion

A few people have been categorizing astronomers by religion; see Category:Astronomers by religion. I have nominated the category tree for deletion. I personally think this is a bad idea, as religion has no influence on the careers of any astronomers that I know. Please go voice your opinion here. Dr. Submillimeter 09:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it occurred to me that the astronomers I have known at the Vatican Observatory are probably influenced by religion more than average, although they are exceptions. Still, for the vast majority of astronomers that I know, religion generally does not influence their careers. Dr. Submillimeter 10:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know a Muslim astronomer who wrote a book on how to calculate the day on which the lunar month begins for religious purposes. Religion is a driving force and has a large effect on some astronomers. JRSpriggs 11:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the religion is only a driving force for some astronomers but not all, yet someone could and probably will use these categories for all astronomers. An arbitrary "use this category only if X is important to the subject" inclusion criteria does not work to filter out articles where the cross section is irrelevant. I have seen it in other categories. (See Category:Jewish scientists for example.) Dr. Submillimeter 12:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point, over categorization is always a problem. And in this case, it would be driven to an extreme by religious bigots. In your example, both anti-Jewish and pro-Jewish bigots (for different reasons) might put want to put some scientists into Category:Jewish scientists despite their desire to avoid such an identification. JRSpriggs 04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quantum electrodynamic threshold

Quantum electrodynamic threshold. . . your thoughts? I'm inclined to merge the information to magnetar. Anville 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you ever want to feel depressed, just check out what links to "quantum". We've got Poetic transrealism, psychogeography, Stéphane Lupasco, holonomic brain theory, ontic, Dakini, mindstream. . . . Anville 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a discussion section at magnetar and a mergefrom template in the appropriate section, which should get discussion rolling. --Christopher Thomas 21:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If the people's voice remains unanimous, I'll probably effect the merge later today. Anville 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead with the merge, also rewriting the text because it was a copyvio from Scientific American. Anville 20:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Postulates at special relativity again

Could a handful of the GR/SR types lurking here please check the recent history of Special relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Enormousdude (talk • contribs) has a passage he keeps adding, despite it being reverted many times by other editors in the past. If it's demonstrably an edit against consensus, he can be flagged for disruption, but a quick check of the archives has trouble establishing that this is the case.

Checking, it turns out that similar edits have been made to Postulates of special relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --Christopher Thomas 19:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's vandalism. Just revert it whenever it pops up. Gnixon 19:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I want demonstrable consensus that it's vandalism before treating it as vandalism. Hence, the request here. --Christopher Thomas 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that was a good idea. I think it's clearly vandalism. Others might disagree. Gnixon 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming an edit war. We need people other than EMS and Gnixon looking at the edits in question, as additional uninvolved opinions. Any takers? --Christopher Thomas 22:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I didn't look closely at Postulates of special relativity. The article is full of mistakes and devoid of useful content. One could imagine simply merging it with Special relativity, but I don't see any content worth merging. I'd suggest deleting it. Gnixon 22:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The edits of User:Enormousdude to Special relativity look wrong to me. When complaining about this, it's always good to have a citation, though. The absence of inline citations from many math and physics articles is truly a disadvantage in arguing back against editors like User:Enormousdude. Someone (or some group of people) would have to find citations for the statements in the article. One option, given that no-one is going to reform the article that quickly, would be to have a straw poll at Talk:Special relativity on whether User:Enormousdude is correct in his claim.

The claim that it's vandalism is probably going to cut no ice elsewhere, for instance at WP:AN/I. They will just dismiss this as an editing dispute. It's up to the editors working on that page to build up a usable record on the Talk page, to show that Enormousdude is in the minority. EdJohnston 23:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know whether Enormousdude intends to vandalize Special relativity. But I think that his position is certainly wrong and tends to undermine the significance of the theory. JRSpriggs 11:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

His edits are so blatantly ridiculous that I think even the casual observer would recognize them as such---coupled with his editing habits, lack of discussion, etc., I think an uninvolved admin at ANI would agree it's vandalism. But others may disagree. Gnixon 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his position goes against every standard understanding of SR. It is hard to judge his intent when he won't discuss on the talk page, though. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Next time file a report here after giving him a warning. Count Iblis 14:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a note at User talk:Enormousdude, saying that he needs proof for his statement that SR is true by definition. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Enormousdude likewise insists on inserting the following line into the Magnetic field article: [The magnetic field] is a relativistic manifestation of the more fundamental electric field. --Starwed 16:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That one is closer to the truth, but it's also not the best way to describe things. The amounts of electric vs. magnetic fields depend on your frame of reference, so it's not totally crazy to say there's only the electric field, but it's much better to say that the electric and magnetic fields are separate, but closely related. One could say that there's only an "electromagnetic" field, but that's not the usual language because it only makes sense in tensor formulations that not everyone is familiar with. This user seems to get a big kick out of finding deep truths in definitions. His user page is interesting. Our best response may be to encourage him to discuss things on the talk page, and until he does, to immediately revert any of his wrong edits as vandalism. bGnixon 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually believe E and B are separate things. Whenever you see one, "without" the other, it's only because you're in one privileged inertial frame, and you need only move in any direction at any velocity, to see the other appear. It's rather as though you had a cube with "E" on one face and "B" on another, and the only way you see just one is to look at the cube from ONE particular angle, JUST right. Move at all, and the cube rotates and you have a mix (of course, this is a relativistic effect, and you see the same thing with time and space). They don't call it the EM field for nothing!

My own problems with ED is that he doesn't recognize that EM fields that don't involve EM radiation (such as near-fields, induction fields, and static fields) are composed of virtual photons in the QED view. He "gets" this for static E fields, but thinks static B fields are something different! Can't have it both ways. SBHarris 18:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a post at ED's user page that will hopefully clear up the confusion about postulates of relativity. Gnixon 18:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: After having his edits reverted for many months, he's finally looked up a few references that indicate that his version is described in at least some published literature. Can we tone down the revert-war and discuss this now, please? --Christopher Thomas 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should try to tone things down. I'm posting a message at User_talk:Enormousdude based on some other sources. Hopefully we can all resolve this amicably if we avoid provoking each other. Of course, the issue of editing style still needs to be resolved. Gnixon 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Postulates article

I wouldn't recommend wasting effort on reverting ED's edits at Postulates of special relativity. That article is pretty much junk, anyway, as far as I can tell, and should just be deleted altogether. Gnixon 18:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried nominating it for deletion. Not sure if I got it right---the proces is a bit confusing. Help from experienced editors would be appreciated. Thanks, Gnixon 05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC?

As problems have continued at Special Relativity, and as some indications of problems are seen elsewhere, and as I doubt threads like this will foster a negotiated solution, I'd like to float the idea of a user-conduct RFC regarding Enormousdude (talk • contribs). The purpose of this RFC would be to formally ascertain (via the RFC process) whether Enormousdude's editing approach is causing problems. If the answer is "yes", then further steps in WP:DR would be pursued. The reason I propose this is that I feel we're at an impasse now.

Thoughts regarding this proposal? --Christopher Thomas 18:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's surely a better idea than trying to debate him, but I wonder whether content-qualified and uninvolved editors will be available to comment. Alternatively, I could also get behind a last effort by us, as a group, to discuss the issue with him in a polite way without inflaming further debate. I'd point out that he claims to have some valuable qualifications with respect to physics, and much of this debate could be part of a language barrier. A polite, detailed, artfully composed message would be required, which any of us who agree could sign without further comment beyond "agreed". Given the history of my interactions with him, I couldn't volunteer to write it. Gnixon 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The point of the RFC is to go through due process for WP:DR. Behavior as an editor is distinct from content concerns, so I feel there would be a large number of useful comments despite physics-oriented editors likely already seeing the discussion here. By all means, the WPP crew should continue trying to talk to him in parallel, but I have doubts about this producing an agreement. Ideally, some more of the GR types here would de-lurk and take a stab at this, but most appear to be on sabbatical.

To clarify, I'm looking for "good idea"/"bad idea" comments re. starting an RFC. If I see "good idea" responses greatly outweighing "bad idea" responses, I'll set one up. However, if the rest of you here think it would be counterproductive, I'd rather find that out before, instead of after, starting a conduct RFC.--Christopher Thomas 20:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Didn't mean to change the subject. Gnixon 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I like due process. Anville 00:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. EdJohnston 02:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Update - I haven't forgotten about this, but have had a busy week. Tentative plan is to set up the RFC on the weekend, if nobody beats me to it. Two key principles, either way, are "be civil" and "provide diffs or it didn't happen".--Christopher Thomas 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Update to update: For several reasons, I'm having to go on WikiSabbatical again. Create or don't create the RFC as you see fit. Sorry for vanishing in the middle of this, but other demands on my time are taking priority for the time being. --Christopher Thomas 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Table of articles

Being of an analytical mind, could I request that on the table of the status of physics related articles shown on the project page a percentage be included at the end of each column and row to show how the project is doing in relation to percentage of articles at B-Class etc. Thanks. Shrub of power 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That table's automatically updated by User:WP 1.0 bot, which is operated by User:Oleg Alexandrov for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It's based on a standard template. You'd need to ask someone at the end of those links to have percentages added to it. Mike Peel 07:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Teslascope

Hey everyone I added this a few days ago, the intial article was not up to par so I went ahead and re-wrote and added more citation (good citation at that hehe) and now I wanted to see if others could help out to! If your a Nikola Tesla fan I think you will like this article! (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 20:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Trajectory optimization

Hi there,

Could someone take a look at this article and maybe clean it up or clarify it a little? It's been on the cleanup list since 2005! Truth be told, I don't even know if this is a 'physics' topic for this group but it sure isn't a topic for this English major ot be messing around with! Thanks!--killing sparrows 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: If it looks fine, just remove the tag, thanks.--killing sparrows 04:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are problems with the article, and have described these in more detail on the talk page. I also fixed links, adjusted templates, and added a stub template. Long story short, has potential, but desperately needs references, and could probably do with a reorganization. --Christopher Thomas 06:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Just the tweaks you gave it have at least brought it to the point of readability. I'm going to remove the cleanup tag and leave expansion, refs and possible merge to others. By the way, of the dozen or so similar messages I've left on other Project pages, your response has been the quickest and most helpful, the note you left on the talk page outlining your suggestions is particularly useful for anyone seeking to improve it!--killing sparrows 07:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I changed enough to justify removing the "rewrite" tag I added. The best things to do now are either add references, or discuss changes on the talk page with other interested editors. I'm not in a position to do much more with this article myself (I'm not an aerospace engineer). --Christopher Thomas 20:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Now's your chance!

...to improve equipartition theorem before it heads off to FAC. It's in scientific peer review right now. Adding your thoughts and insights probably won't take much of your time, but it will help significantly in bringing another physics article to Featured Article status. Thank you, thank you, thank you! :) Willow 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Physicist category at WP:CFD

A couple of physicist categories have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 20. Please go voice your opinion. Dr. Submillimeter 17:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Update So far, everyone who has commented wants to merge Category:Electroweak Theory physicists and Category:Electromagnetism physicists into Category:Physicists on grounds that they are the result of over-categorization. JRSpriggs 10:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Energy is the new Core Topics collaboration

Hi, I thought folks here might be interested to know that Energy is the current core topics collaboration. Unfortunately it looks like there have been some edit wars and name calling recently, but in such cases a larger number of people can often help the article reach the point of consensus. If you can help out, please do, this is an important topic. Thanks, Walkerma 06:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

An invitation to categorize uncategorized physics stubs

Hello. The categorization taskforce is trying to find WikiProjects interested in using the bot of Alai to identify physics stub articles which do not currently have a category (besides the stub category of course). If the project is interested, we could create something like Category:Uncategorized physics stubs (amounting to roughly 350 articles) which could then be categorized by people knowledgeable in the subject, thus reducing the risk of improper categorization. Please let us know on the taskforce's talk page if you're interested. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 00:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Delta potential well (QM)

I did a copyedit to this article as it was written in a lecture/speaking style, could someone look it over and be sure I have not changed the meaning? Maybe that is the way you folks write all your articles, if so feel free to revert. If I have inadvertantly solved some obscure physics quandry I want credit on the paper. :) Thanks!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, if its OK let me know and I'll remove the tags and do other copyedit housekeeping stuff.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD: Mathematical landscape

Mathematical landscape has been nominated for deletion. Comment as you see fit! Anville 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I copied the above comment from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. The article mentioned is about dimensions used in various physical theories. So I felt that the physicists should also comment on whether to delete it or keep it. JRSpriggs 10:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

DO IT NOW

Dear fellow members of the Physics WikiProject,

Please allow me to encourage you to review Equipartition theorem, which is a Featured Article candidate. I'm sure that the article would benefit from your insights. Thank you very much for your time and trouble, Willow 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Magnetic field article

I think that the magnetic field article is not in good shape, and needs some attention. Thoughts? --Starwed 21:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Systems

System is a key concept in physics, with a rather specialised meaning, explained well at the beginning of thermodynamic system. There is also an article physical system which is linked to from Energy, and a general article on system. These pages all have some drawbacks as links from physics pages like Energy:

• system uses an engineering-type definition, refering to the "objective" of the system.
• physical system is quite eccentric. I edited it a bit to make the lead sensible, but most of the (short) article describes a definition of "complexity", which is not the focus I'd expect, (and the definition given looks a lot like OR).
• thermodynamic system starts with a definition which could be trivially adapted to apply to all physical systems but rapidly specialises to thermodynamics.

Complicating things is a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems which has an agenda I can't fathom and a stake in at least the first two articles above. If it was up to me I would just replace the current physical system with a slightly edited lead section of thermodynamic system; maybe merging the examples lists (I wrote the one in physical system to emphasise some counter-intuitive possibilities). What do other people think? PaddyLeahy 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Systems was created by two people who are strongly involved with systems research and/or who believe in categorizing things identified as systems. The project formed after the deletion of Category:Systems Other than an extended discussion on Category:Systems and some subcategories, I have not been involved with the group. I suggest contacting the project (or the two members) to discuss your concerns. Dr. Submillimeter 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Physics, Paddy Leahya and Dr. Submillimeter. I noticed this new point of discusion, because of earlier discussion about this, see [4] on the talk page of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems. I'm a member of that project, and we from our side are going to look at this situation also. It would maybe be nice to talk about this together and exchange some ideas. Greetings - Mdd 22:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang FAR

Big Bang has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)