Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Science (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Edit request- Help with expanding the scientific career of a scientistEdit

If anyone is interested, please could you expand the scientific career of M. S. Swaminathan, the first World Food Prize laureate. I've recently spent some time addressing the non-science parts. Regards. DTM (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Help reviewing WikiProject Lone SimonsenEdit

Hi to all WikiProject Science members. I am creating a Wiki for professor Lone Simonsen, but the reviewing is taking too long. The thing is we have a deadline to uphold at our scientific centre at Roskilde University, and I would very much like the Wiki to be published ASAP. If anyone is interested in helping me out in how to speed up the process, please let me know. -- Modatpandemix (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC+1)

"how to speed up the process" is a good question to ask at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! I added two project tags to your draft. Paleorthid (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Modatpandemix, I have accepted the draft. The subject clearly meets our WP:NPROF notability guidelines. ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Mobility transitionEdit

Hi everyone, I've just finished my translation of Mobility transition from de:Verkehrswende. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for improvement suggestions, but I wanted to run this new article past people with relevant expertise, because there is a lot of science involved that is outside my field of expertise as a historian. The term itself is relatively new and has many applications (as the article itself shows), and so mobility transition is sort of an emerging interdisciplinary field of various natural sciences and humanities. I took the liberty of changing some wordings to comply to English Wikipedia's manual of style, such as 'have been [present perfect continuous]' instead of 'is' or some other simple present or simple past tense when referring to processes that have been recently initiated and are still ongoing. More broadly speaking, I have operated under the assumption that the mobility transition is already going on, because many of the processes described in the article are already going on (since at least the 1960s and 1970s); the original German Wikipedia article often spoke more hypothetically of 'a mobility transition', as something that might happen in the future but is not yet here, whereas I consider it as a partial fait accompli. Many calculations are difficult to make sense of, and sometimes it's difficult to convert certain units of measurement, or to properly translate certain terms into English (I use British English as my standard, but sometimes I follow American English if the present Wikipedia article title uses an American term rather than a British one, e.g. 'truck' rather than 'lorry'. I use metric units wherever possible).

Aside from that, many parts of this article could use examples from other parts of the world; as it was originally written in German, most examples are from Germany (and to a lesser degree Austria, Switzerland and some other European countries), so perhaps Template:Globalize applies a bit here. I've added some examples from Anglo-Saxon countries and my native Netherlands, feel free to add more. Finally, there are some repetitions in the text (e.g. between 'Inland navigation' and 'Road freight and modal share'), some claims are arguably outdated (although they can still be relevant), and especially the 'Further examples' section is a bit random and unorganised (it seems to have organically grown over time as more and more editors added relevant facts to the list that didn't fit well into existing sections), although I'm not sure how to organise it better. Many examples can't readily be organised e.g. according mode of transport, or by kind of intended effect (e.g. energy efficiency, spatial efficiency, financial efficiency, traffic safety etc.), as many of them are interconnected. (I added 'short-haul flight ban' myself, but later decided to make it a separate section with an excerpt template, as it is can be separated from the other issues more easily). In some cases there wasn't a source for a claim, so I tried to find and add one (some citations may still be needed), and in other cases the source didn't seem to say what the text claimed, or wasn't clear to which year or which area (Germany? Europe? The world?) it applied, so I tried to clarify the source.

In some cases I've used Template:Interlanguage link when I estimated that the German Wikipedia entry on a certain topic may be worth translating, or would probably be translated by someone some day. This may never happen though, and it may detract from how well the text looks. In other cases, English Wikipedia does have a Wikipedia article, but it's not on exactly the same subject, so with certain links I might not be properly conveying in English what a German-language Wikipedian was trying to say. In still other cases, such as inland navigation, our English Wikipedia articles are still very limited. I tried to add some more information about inland navigation that I found along the way, but a lot more is desirable to have. The lack of info on inland navigation on English Wikipedia could be due to the fact that Anglo-Saxon countries are much more focused on sea navigation due to their geography, thereby missing how important inland waterways may be for transportation in landlocked or partially landlocked countries with lots of navigable rivers and canals. E.g. the Rhine may not mean much to Britons and Irish, as they can ship almost anything by sea, but it is of crucial importance to many continental Western Europeans. Language barriers and the average interests of the speakers of certain languages can be an obstacle to providing balanced information about the whole world. And that's before I even start about non-Western countries, about which very little is currently said in the article.

So, if anyone would like to make suggestions or corrections to improve it further, feel free to do so, or to leave a comment below. :) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Polygraph results in an alleged case of alien abductionEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Travis Walton UFO incident § Polygraph. Sundayclose (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this science palaver I wrote correct?Edit

OK, so in the article Boning (baseball) I wrote:

According to some sources, a harder bat surface, having less "give", experiences less deformation, thus forcing more deformation onto the baseball. The ball, being softer than wood, deforms more, so more kinetic energy is absorbed by the deformation, giving a lower coefficient of restitution to the entire event, and thus less speed of the ball coming off the bat... see bouncing ball physics. Other sources claim the opposite effect...

(Source are in the passage in the article.) Is this correct, I mean is the science correct? I kind of had look this stuff up and puzzle thru it to arrive at this passage. (Secondary question, not important as your answer won't be a reliable source, just curious: Is it true that we can't really know whether or a harder or softer bat (all other factors held equal) would produce more better (faster) rebound of the ball off the bat? Seems like some advanced math could tell us, but it seems not?) Herostratus (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

If the reliable sources don't agree, we have to accept that and present multiple possibilities. For an editor to try to sort out the complicated physics involved goes well beyond WP:CALC into WP:OR. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Scratch hardnessEdit

I need someone to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scratch hardness and determine the notability of this term, as well as the other two non-Mohs scales being compared to the Mohs scale in this article. I was unable to find anything at all to suggest that either scale, Wooddall's or Ridgway's, are notable or worth comparing to Mohs. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Planet at FAREdit

I have nominated Planet 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. Artem.G (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

List of scientific misconduct incidentsEdit

The discussion here might be of interest to readers of this page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)