Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive July 2018

Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4

• Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Physics
• Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Measurement
• Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4#Astronomy

An IP has made a lot of physics-related proposals. Please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutual energy

This is certainly... something. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Move requested: Steady State theory → Steady State model

Hello, I tagged the article Steady State theory for a potential move to "Steady State model" as it failed as an accepted theory. Your comments there are welcome. Cheers, --Rowan Forest (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"CIRCLE with DOT" (SUN) is now illegal on Wikipedia

FYI, there's now an edit filter, Filter 680 that makes the SUN symbol illegal to use on Wikipedia. The Sun Symbol found at Solar mass in subscript form is currently disallowed when adding new text. So "☉" (U+2609) as in M_☉ is impossible to type in articlespace, and a big red vandalism warning shows up instead of being saved.

As this is caused by rangeblocks of unicode characters, there may be some other physics and math symbols that are similarly deemed illegal. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Some answers from the WP:AST: [1]. --MaoGo (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nanodumbbell

I just started Nanodumbbell and have no idea what I'm doing. Please visit the article and see if the "Effect of Surfactant on Growth of ZnO Nanodumbbells..." external link is the right thing. Are these things silica or zinc or what? Many thanks! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to find published reliable sources (i.e. in the peer reviewed scientific literature) which have been significantly cited by others before proceeding further. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC).

It looks like the primary source for the popular article is this PRL article] and that article mentions silica. But the topic of nanodumbbells is broader than that. There are various ways to construct them, but one common way is as a multicomponent nanocrystal. There are a quite a few papers out there describing construction and properties, but I don't know of any review papers on nanodumbbells. As with all articles, it is best to start off with reliable sources and write the article from those. Good luck! --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Aren't these two screening the same effect?

The articles Electric-field screening and Screening effect are very similar. I think the later is included in the former (see Thomas-Fermi section). Why should we keep Screening effect? MaoGo (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. Yes, I think Screening effect is redundant with Electric-field screening and Electric-field screening is the much better article. Perhaps turn Screening effect into a redirect? It is a plausible search term. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

DONE --MaoGo (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum field of magnet Xxanthippe (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC).

Pointless category created and applied to physics articles

BD2412 (talk · contribs) has created Category:Eponymous scientific concepts and added many physics articles to the category. I see no value in having such a category and it seems particularly inappropriate when applied to Parameterized post-Newtonian formalism which is specifically not Newtonian. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You can initiate a WP:CFD request. Ruslik_Zero 08:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Fix the errors (regex is no substitute for knowledge!) and move on, I'm OK with the concept of the category, but CfD it if you wish. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• A name is eponymous if it references the name of a person. This may be of no specific interest to physicists, of course, but this is not Physikipedia; it is, rather, an encyclopedia for everyone. This category fits into the general scheme of Category:Eponyms. I can't see why we would have categories identifying what kind of hats and desserts and political philosophies are named after specific people, but not a corresponding one for scientific concepts named after specific people. I also don't think it matters whether the term is used in the negative. As a matter of linguistics, something non-Newtonian is still a term incorporating the name of that specific person. bd2412 T 12:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that there's already Category:Lists of things named after scientists. Not the same thing, but there's a lot of effective overlap with the new category. — Myasuda (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have cross-referenced these in the category descriptions. It is worth noting that not all things named after a scientist will have an article, nor will everything named after a scientist be a scientific concept (for example the Faraday Building, Tesla (band), Dirac Medal). In theory, there could also be scientific concepts that are named after a lay person (such as an experimental subject), rather than a scientist. bd2412 T 18:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the latter, these should be included in one of List of scientific laws named after people, List of scientific units named after people, or Scientific phenomena named after people. — Myasuda (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)