Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive January 2017

Non-existant categories

Is it worth creating Category:American Institute of Physics and Category:National Academy of Sciences with possible repetitions including "members of" or "fellows of"? Just a little surprised they didn't exist. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 14:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy new year. I think AIP would make make for a reasonable category, with possible sub cats for notable sub-organizations, members, awards, journals, etc, along the lines of Category:American Chemical Society. I know less about the NAS, but would guess that it would make for a reasonable cat, too. In my experience, there is plenty of categorization that is unfinished, waiting for editors to take the initiative. --Mark viking (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying and happy new year to you too (and everyone here). I'll just start the first two categories, without "members of" or anything else. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 09:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nonlocality

There’s a discussion at Talk:Nonlocality, nominally about adding an entry to a dab page but concerning the physics of how to classify a particular instance of nonlocality. It would be helpful if someone more familiar with the physics could look at it and suggest how best deal with this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Need help with article on the Four dimensional shape, the Cubinder.

Hello fellow Wikipedian. I am in the process of creating an article about the 4D shape, the “cubinder”. It was previously red linked on other articles, and I was surprised to see it was not already an item listed for creation by Wiki Projects Mathematics, as the duocylinder and spheriender are already articles. I require help to improve the draft, as I require more formulae, sources, and additional information to create this article. You can access this page at User:Darnburn98/Cubinder, please come on over and help improve this article to get into the main space! Darnburn98 (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I find the flashing lights really irritating, and they would dissuade me from reading the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC).

Merger Proposal: Pair distribution function and Radial distribution function

I have proposed a merge of Pair distribution function and Radial distribution function, since they're essentially the same thing. The terms are often used interchangeably. The discussion is at Talk: Radial distribution function. I'm looking for a few editors agreement before making the merge. Polyamorph (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Point particle talk page discussion

There is a discussion taking place here: [1]. This is what it is about: An editor removed the infobox on this page [2] saying " removed figure ((Standard model|cTopic=Background)) which is not a good fit for the topic and content of this article". I reverted [3] with an explanation "Restore image and infobox - this exactly fits with this article. Please open a discussion on the talk page if you still disagree before removing this - thanks".

I was unaware the editor opened a discussion on this on January 20th. Had I known I would have posted here sooner, and responded there sooner. Anyway, hopefully project members will chime in over there. It would be very much appreciated. I mean, I might be wrong about this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Rounding of scientific numbers

There is a discussion which is incredibly relevant to this project regarding rounding as it pertains to scientific physical constants. Your input is requested at this template's talk page. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is more or less closed, but a new one has arisen. Input is requested at this discussion. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)