Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/BPH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics
Main / Talk
Taskforces
Members Quality Control
(talk)
Welcome
Shortcuts:
WikiProject Physics / Biographies / Publications / History (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.
This page is supported by Biographies Taskforce.
This page is supported by Publications Taskforce.
This page is supported by History Taskforce.
 

Tagging request for biographies[edit]

If you have any more categories that should be tagged, just post them here and I'll add them.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I went through your list and it looks good to me. I was hoping we could troll through the WikiProject Biography articles for physics tags, but there structure looks too complicated. TStein (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I though of placing a parameter in the bio banner, but it's doesn't intertwine well with the physics projects. We're have seperate alerts, importance would be screwed up, and all other projects would want their parameter as well. This way of doing things is not optimal, but it's the best we have so far.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I spent some time trying to chase down all of the publications and history categories that apply to physics. I can't guarantee that I have all of them or even a majority. Some of the articles are spread out over many different categories.

Here are the publication categories I found:

There might be some physics tags in

Category:Geology books

as well.

Here are the history categories I found:

I am not quite sure it is wise to include

Category:History of physics

since it includes a lot of articles that are about the physics and not the history of physics. It would probably be more work untagging articles, in my PoV at least, then it would be to manually tag the ones that are correct.

On the other hand the History of Science WikiProject is a lot more discriminating. If we can sort through all of our articles looking for {{WikiProject History of Science}} tags. TStein (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've made the request. I didn't include the physics societies (none in there seems to be about something "historical", even though nearly all had considerable influence), and I opted to include the history of physics (about 75% seems good enough, and tagging them will allow us to do some much need category cleanup). Per your suggestion, I've requested the intersections of HistSci and Phys to be tagged as well. Potential a lot of false negatives, but it's more important to get all likely candidates tagged than to make sure we are not tagging something that doesn't belong here. I'll start with reviewing the history ones (since you aren't keen on the idea of tagging the history of physics category), so would I suggest that you go through the other taskforces (if you feel like doing assessments) so we don't overlap.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?[edit]

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Journal compilation up and running.[edit]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Most popular missing entries[edit]

Some quick compilation I made. Many of them should be redirects and not actually articles, others are typos and can be ignored.


Rfc at Talk:Celestial spheres[edit]

A request for comment on a large amount of disputed content in the article Celestial spheres, a B-grade article of low-importance within the scope of WikiProject Physics, is under way here. Anyone who can usefully contribute to the discussion, please do so.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC on WP Physics coordinators[edit]

Please take a look and feel free to comment (or not). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Awards for later discredited research[edit]

Hi, Tom Van Flandern was awarded second place from the Gravity Research Foundation in 1972. My understanding is that the paper has since been discredited. To be fair, I think the author may have acknowledged the errors made before he died. I don't understand it fully, but the gravitation constant hasnt changed, and our article doesnt mention this as a controversy. It doesnt seem to have received much attention, as is so often the case.

F. Richard Stephenson mentioned the awarded paper in his 22 February 1979 New Scientist article "A modern look at ancient eclipses". See p.562 of [1]

The paper has two cites in Google Scholar.[2] Both are before my electronic access, and im not on campus atm.

This must happen occasionally for any funding body that is seeking ground breaking research. Is it seen as a negative on the awarding body to occasionally award a paper which is latter discredited?

Has it happened more than reasonable for Gravity Research Foundation?

And, how should this be presented in the biography? In his life, until it was discredited at least, I assume it was a major award that will have impacted him and those around him. How he handled the discrediting is an important biographical detail, but will probably be hard to source reliably unless he continued to push the theory long after it was discredited, which doesnt appear to be the case. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know: I'm afraid you might have found someone on the fringes. On googlebooks you can see a 1993 book by him in googlebooks. The intro reads like a conspiracy theory. On page xix he mentions the result you mentioned, and the fact that errors turned up in the research was relegated to a footnote, lamenting that he could not continue the research, and concluding that the existence of variations is "still unknown". Also, one of the reviews declares emphatically that there is some bad error in a part they read. Rschwieb (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like he was also pushing "gravity is faster than light" until 2000 at least. I'm not a physicist, but until someone educates me otherwise, my heuristic is that no form of energy can be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Rschwieb (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. He was definitely on the fringe, and I think he acknowledged that, but continued down that path to the end. The hard part of this bio is identifying which parts of his work were pseudo-science at the time, and separating them from his contribution to science, even if that contribution was latter found to be wrong. I believe the many wrong theories throughout time should be 'respected' if they were credible at the time; these contributions wont ever be heralded, but they do form part of the scientific process, and bios shouldn't heap shame on scientists for their attempts to break new ground excepting if they made unacceptable errors in the process. So I am curious how bad the errors were, and why didnt Gravity Research Foundation see these errors. If you could send me a copy of the review, that would be great. (jayvdb@gmail.com) John Vandenberg (chat) 08:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You make a lot of good points :) I'm not really sure a google review is worth much, but I'll see if I can find more credible ones... Rschwieb (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in science[edit]

Sarah Stierch (talk) and Keilana|Parlez ici have started a new WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. If you have any questions, feel free to ask one of us on our talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Willard Gibbs[edit]

Hi. Back in November I nominated the bio. of Josiah Willard Gibbs for featured article. I put in an enormous amount of work into the bio., both before and during the nomination, but it was not promoted. It had considerable support, but some of the FA regulars seemed to think that further copyediting was required, and in the end the discussion just became inactive. I would like to encourage those of you who might be interesting to please look into the article and either make improvements yourselves or suggest improvements in the talk page. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

ORCID identifiers[edit]

ORCID, the Open Research Contributor ID is an identifier for contributors to academic journals, and other such publications, including Wikipedia. It's the equivalent for such people of an ISBN for a book. I would encourage all editors, but especially those who also contribute to scientific papers, to register for an ORCID. If you know any scientists who are the subject of a Wikipedia article, please ask them to do so, too. ORCIDs can be added to articles, or user pages, using the {{Authority control}} template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification: Featured Article Review for Stephen Hawking[edit]

There are some serious deficiencies which several users have identified in the Stephen Hawking article which was promoted to FA status earlier this year after an FAC that wasn't rigorous. Please feel free to comment and contribute to the debate at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stephen Hawking/archive1 on whether this article should be delisted and what work needs to be done.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should Nikola Tesla's birthplace be changed?[edit]

An RfC Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? has been created. Comments are welcome.- MrX 15:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Charles Thomson Rees Wilson[edit]

This article was rated a 'C' class, but I really think it needs a lot more work to get to GA status. Can I be bold and start adding sources and text? And can anyone else chip in? Bearian (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Taskforces/BPH
en.wikipedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-52
67928
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:UVPF6JV25ZVC7J465JWWMEZZSQVFC3FB
<urn:uuid:cb864b02-5d55-4fa0-8004-fd2e09836f09>
2014-12-19T14:48:51Z
208.80.154.224
sha1:NW6CRDPOLZZ7RMESFG4AGCSXZSJJ5LO4
<urn:uuid:3c6d4b9b-09b9-4f88-be05-ed08b9ce9e04>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Taskforces/BPH
response
<urn:uuid:f56ad9bf-8af9-4eae-bc5c-55a9cfbede24>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-231-17-201.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-52
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for December 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf