Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Optics

Comments

No discussion page here! (Until now.) Not a really active group.

Someone's created a new article titled differential group delay, which may be of interest to this group (if this group exists......) Michael Hardy (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing optical topics

I've updated my page about missing physics topics, including the section about the optics - Skysmith (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Optical device

Wikipedia has no article titled optical device, although maybe 15 or 20 or so articles link to it. It now redirects to a very short article titled optical instrument. Apparently a telescope or the like is an "instrument" whereas "device" includes simple components of intruments(?).

Should there be a separate article rather than a redirect? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have created Missing topics about Optics (split from the Physics page) - Skysmith (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Advanced Optical Technology

Just in case anyone is watching this page, I'm reporting this old AfC submission that may be of interest. Is this a notable journal? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: mark historical. Number 57 11:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Optics → Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Optics – Per other dead wikiprojects, this should be merged to an active project in a more general topic area. Since optics is a subfield of physics, it should merge there as a taskforce. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support -- Sure, that seems reasonable. --Steve (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Mark as historic and add pointer per Jenks24 — Sebastian 20:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • One of the recommended actions at WP:MFD is to merge the project -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment surely this hasn't been the first time this has occurred. While it seems reasonable, isn't there an established policy or precedent for this? Tiggerjay (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • MFD recommends merger, WP:TV usual practice is to merge inactive TV show projects into WPTV as taskforces. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Just mark historical. It is no use making a dead task force. The link to the Physics project is appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Is there any evidence that turning a dead wikiproject into a task force will suddenly make it come to life? Seems like a waste of time to me, you are just going to get a dead task force instead of a dead project. SpinningSpark 12:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It won't necessarily make it come to life, it will attach it to an active community, where people seeking collaboration will encounter people from the more general topic area. (and at WP:MILHIST all the taskforce talk pages redirect to the primary talk page, so all discussions are centralized to the main project; which can be done here). It's better than dead ending at a dead project, instead of being able to seek out the parent project. And it's not like it's a good idea to have various dead physics projects floating around where people will terminate their journey at without ending up at WPPhysics. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Just mark this project historical and add a pointer to the physics project. It is generally unproductive in my experience to try and do anything with these dead projects – it just creates work for people at the 'parent' project. Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Normally, I'd be for the merger, but this project more or less did absolutely nothing, so there's kinda nothing to merge. If it used a banner, and did some tagging, I'd be willing to do the heavy lifting and incorporate into WP:PHYS, but as of not, there's just nothing to merge. So just mark it as historical. If there's interest for revival, just bring it up at WT:PHYS and we can discuss banners, tagging, categories, etc... at that time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge two optics articles

I just came to this page thinking that it was an active project because of two articles, Optometry and Optician, which should be in this wikiproject, if it were active. I don't see a significant difference in their definitions and am wondering if the two should be merged. See WP:RD/S#What's the difference between an optician and an optometrist?. — Sebastian 20:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about optics is updated - Skysmith (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

What optical instrument is this computer using?

X-4 with Female Computer

What optical instrument is this computer using?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Help at Phase_detector#Optical_phase_detectors

In case anyone is still here, some help would be appreciated at Phase_detector#Optical_phase_detectors. I have marked the section as needing expert attention. ~Kvng (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Stress-optic coefficient redirect pages

I have created these eight pages, all redirects to Photoelasticity.

• Stress-optic coefficients
• Stress-optic coefficient
• Stress optic coefficients
• Stress optic coefficient
• Stress-Optic Coefficients
• Stress-Optic Coefficient
• Stress Optic Coefficients
• Stress Optic Coefficient

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

We probably would have been fine with only one or two of these. The topic is buried in Photoelasticity so I dropped an anchor and added boldface. ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)