Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive August 2023
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Not very familiar with editing about physics on the project, so could someone take a look at Oppenheimer–Snyder model? Figured it was notable enough to have its own article. WMrapids (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- May I suggest an alternative?
- If this model of the creation of a black hole is truly notable as you say, I would expect that it would be discussed in the article about black holes, gravitational collapse, and in Einstein field equations. These pages make no mention of Synder. Conversely, the stand alone page simply assumes that the reader knows "field equation" "black hole" and "gravitational collapse", in which case they probably already know what the article offers.
- By embedding this content in the large story more readers will be exposed to the material. Adding a redirect page with the title you used will ensure that searches land on the content. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Major edits on Wave-particle duality.
We are doing some pretty drastic work on wave-particle duality, with the general flavor of removing the pre-1926 history to make space for the post 1926 history (see Talk page) and substituting historic evidence (moved to new history) with clearer and more modern evidence. Please join and review. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe a comment on field theory in the history section would be nice (some paragraphs about qft are already there in other sections).--ReyHahn (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tercer (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Is an anonymous post on physics.stackexchange a reliable source?
A recent edit to Photon cited a post by "ACuriousMind". Based on the apparent quality of the answer and the considerable reputation (according to physics.stackexchange) of the poster, I guess the material is adequately correct. Also in my experience many answers on that site are adequately correct and easy to follow physics descriptions, though some are --of course-- bogus.
Ideally the same content would have an obviously reliable reference. But what we have is this edit.
Should this change be left? Johnjbarton (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#Is_Stack_Exchange_a_reliable_source. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not in the least.
- Which is different question than is the post correct. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I see the point that my edit is not backed by respected sources. However the current claim about the spin angular moment is at best misleading in that it claims that the spin angular momentum can be 0. The reference given a line later is a popular science article that does not support the claim about spin angular momentum. Someone who knows the literature better than me may be more qualified to clarify the wikipedia entry backed by a valid reference. Tpreu (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I wrote a corresponding entry in Talk:Photon#Spin_vs._helicity_(yet_again). Tpreu (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Article classification thought
I'm thinking of making a request for someone with AWB skills (or adding it as a bot task somewhere) that if an article is already tagged with WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Physics, to then add the bio=yes parameter to the Physics project banner if it's not already present.
Would that cause problems? Is it a reasonable idea? Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- There are about 7800 pages that fit this criteria. If it's deemed worth doing, I can do it. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- For my understanding, is that just articles with both projects, or filtered to that and without the bio=yes parameter too? As I wasn't sure how to use petscan to filter by parameter. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- That drops you down to 1368 pages. Still probably more than what someone would want to do manually. Primefac (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wouldn't pages that are not biographies need to be excluded, such as list-class articles (e.g. List of quantum gravity researchers), categories (e.g. Category:Optical physicists), templates (e.g. Template:Scientists whose names are used as SI units), and files (e.g. File:Heraclitus_b_4_compressed.jpg)? —Quondum 11:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Probably. I'm just ballparking it; feel free to tweak the petscan to remove namespaces or add/subtract more specific cats, since that will likely need doing before any bot run proceeds anyway. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Quite a lot of flexibility the tool has. 1267 pages with those exclusions. —Quondum 12:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Skimming over the latest query they all look at actual biographical articles to me at least, many thanks for narrowing it down. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is better to manually check the project flags before setting the "bio=yes" flag. Otherwise, we could be compounding an error. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- JRSpriggs, what sort of error are you thinking of? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- For example, if someone were known both as a musician and a physicist, there might have been two separate articles on them resulting in both having biography banners. Then perhaps the biographical information might all be transferred to the musician article, but the biography banner on the physicist article might be left on. Setting the "bio=yes" flag on that article would be a mistake. Instead both that flag and the physicist banner should be added to the musician article. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Do we have anyone that fits that incredibly unlikely bill? Primefac (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- JRSpriggs in that situation, are you saying a single person initially had two articles erroneously (one as a physicist, one as a musician), which were then correctly merged into one - and the concern is tagging whichever ended up being the redirect? -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Do we have anyone that fits that incredibly unlikely bill? Primefac (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- For example, if someone were known both as a musician and a physicist, there might have been two separate articles on them resulting in both having biography banners. Then perhaps the biographical information might all be transferred to the musician article, but the biography banner on the physicist article might be left on. Setting the "bio=yes" flag on that article would be a mistake. Instead both that flag and the physicist banner should be added to the musician article. JRSpriggs (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- JRSpriggs, what sort of error are you thinking of? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is better to manually check the project flags before setting the "bio=yes" flag. Otherwise, we could be compounding an error. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Skimming over the latest query they all look at actual biographical articles to me at least, many thanks for narrowing it down. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Quite a lot of flexibility the tool has. 1267 pages with those exclusions. —Quondum 12:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Probably. I'm just ballparking it; feel free to tweak the petscan to remove namespaces or add/subtract more specific cats, since that will likely need doing before any bot run proceeds anyway. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wouldn't pages that are not biographies need to be excluded, such as list-class articles (e.g. List of quantum gravity researchers), categories (e.g. Category:Optical physicists), templates (e.g. Template:Scientists whose names are used as SI units), and files (e.g. File:Heraclitus_b_4_compressed.jpg)? —Quondum 11:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- That drops you down to 1368 pages. Still probably more than what someone would want to do manually. Primefac (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- For my understanding, is that just articles with both projects, or filtered to that and without the bio=yes parameter too? As I wasn't sure how to use petscan to filter by parameter. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This was just a hypothetical example; I have no actual case in mind. But I am assuming that the editors make normal human errors such as forgetting a step (removing the old biography banner from the physics article) or avoiding changes outside their expertise (musicians and biographers not wanting to touch physics stuff). In this case, there would still be two articles at the end: one with just the physics and one with the music and biography. Hopefully, they would link to each other. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- In which case, if there's a biographical article and a separate article on some physics they are known for, that's okay to have two articles. If there are two biographical articles on the same person, they should be merged. But your point is accidently putting/leaving bio=yes on the non-biographical one in the former case. Personally I think that's such an unlikely scenario it's not worth manually checking over 1000 pages to avoid it (which itself introduces potential of human-error), it's better to just manually deal with the exception when it's discovered, as it's no great harm, and automate as much as possible. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Additional thought: if going to do this, the same set should also have "s&a-work-group=yes" in the biography tag too, if not already. Primefac, would the difference between "=y" and "=yes" cause any issues? I'm assuming not if it's based on what cats articles are in. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware project banners use {{yesno}} so either option would be accepted. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac, what would be the next step towards implementing this? -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Figure out the actual bot steps needed, write up a proposal, likely run a short trial, then do the full run after that's approved. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've posted it to WP:BOTREQ. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Think there might be a bit of confusion. Those were my next steps. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- D'oh, I did get confused. :-) Should I withdraw the other proposal or anything? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Think there might be a bit of confusion. Those were my next steps. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've posted it to WP:BOTREQ. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Figure out the actual bot steps needed, write up a proposal, likely run a short trial, then do the full run after that's approved. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac, what would be the next step towards implementing this? -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware project banners use {{yesno}} so either option would be accepted. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Task completed, if anything got skipped it can probably be sorted manually. Primefac (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Primefac, that's great, thank you! https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=25332108 is down to 6 now, which is easy for me to do manually. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Credibility bot
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- An example or two of how these reports can be used to make better articles would be very helpful. Also, is there ongoing actions needed beyond checking a list?
- As far as I can tell this bot would create
- 1) alerts like Wikipedia:Vaccine_safety/Alerts
- 2) reports like Wikipedia:Vaccine_safety/Reports
- I'm sure the bot developers know what to do with the content on these pages, but to me I don't see anything useful.
- Johnjbarton (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- The BRFA for this task is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Credibility bot. Feedback is appreciated. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
How to rollback many edits?
By looking at this user history: [Jerry Z. Liu contributions], I can see that the user add conduction zone to many see alsos of other articles. Can somebody tell me how to revert all those edits? If not can somebody with more admin powers do it? Conduction zone is proposed for deletion. ReyHahn (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- I believe Wikipedia:Kill-It-With-Fire will do the job. Tercer (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js also is an option (never used KIWF). As far as the rollbacks go, I'll take a look and revert if appropriate. Primefac (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the PROD failed, so I had to take the article to AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conduction zone). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js also is an option (never used KIWF). As far as the rollbacks go, I'll take a look and revert if appropriate. Primefac (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
On a concerning article: Conduction zone
Hello WikiProject Physics,
I ran into the article conduction zone in AfD today. It appears to be a copy from this site, which hosts a not-peer-reviewed paper by an author of the same name as the page creator. You may see the AfD here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conduction zone.
The article definitely belongs to the scope of our WikiProject, so I am sending it here for some more opinions on the AfD. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
FYI: Articles for deletion/Conduction zone - unique superconductivity theory
FYI, please see:
From the article: "The term conduction zone was introduced in the 'Unified Theory of Low and High-Temperature Superconductivity.'"
Feel free to provide your inputs as to what we should do with this article.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello A. B.,
- Thanks for acting on this. This is a tangential thought: the article creator looks like a WP:SPA, only working on the article conduction zone and inserting it into the "See also" of other articles, likely for promotion. Of course, given their <100 edit count, it might be too early to say anything substantial, but I think it's worth to keep an eye out? -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Electrostatics
I just ran across the Electrostatics page. The first sections are OK, but then it decides to discuss static electricity. Indeed the current short definition is:
- Electrostatics is a branch of physics that studies electric charges at rest (static electricity).
Am I the only person who thinks this needs work? (It also has few sources.) Ldm1954 (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Historically there was no "electrostatics" before electromagnetism so electrostatics is a branch of electromagnetism appropriate for time independent systems without magnetic fields. (As far as I know).
- Of course static electricity often fits the constraints but mostly not. The reason static electricity is fun is that is not static! Its a natural phenomenon, not a constraint on a general theory.
- Personally and without in depth analysis I think the static electricity part of the Electrostatics page ought to be merged into static electricity, the short definition changed, and the relationship between static electricity and triboelectricity clarified. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- The definition correspond to what you can find in any introductory textbook for electromagnetism. It is a common topic that many students have to understand, I will keep it as it is.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- @ReyHahn: to be sure we are thinking about the same content, do you mean that every introductory textbook on electromagnetism would include discussion of static electricity in a chapter on electro statics?
- My issue with the Electrostatics page is the deep drill down on static electricity (...chemical industry...applicable standards). This is inconsistent with the core "electrostatics"; it is a particular approximation useful in rather simple systems. The creation and discharge of static electricity cannot be described with the theory called "electrostatics"; the description of static electricity by 'electrostatics' would be of very limited use. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah sorry maybe I missed the point. I just wanted to say that we should not remove or merge electrostatics into anything, it is a topic on its own. I agree that triboelectric effect (or any mechanism to build up charge) is not part of electrostatics. However, once the solid is charged (maybe by static electricity) one can introduce some electrostatic problems. Many educational strategies use static electricity to demonstrate the principles of electrostatics (e.g. hair standing when touching a Van de Graaf generator), even if the the charge-discharge dynamics are not part of electrostatics per se. --ReyHahn (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Great. Can we find some reference for "Many educational strategies use static electricity to demonstrate the principles of electrostatics (e.g. hair standing when touching a Van de Graaf generator)," ?
- I think if @Ldm1954 replaced the tail end with a summary section linking to the various static electricity pages the result would be a big improvement.
- One subtle issue. "Electrostatics" is the study of the approximation in electrodynamics, but "Electrostatic generators" are static electric generators; high voltage, low current systems.
- I think we need to add disambiguation links to these pages. eg on Electrostatics, "For static electric generation see Electrostatic generator" Johnjbarton (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree to distinguishing electrostatic generators from electrostatics. For the demo, check Van de Graaff generator#Entertainment and educational generators.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah sorry maybe I missed the point. I just wanted to say that we should not remove or merge electrostatics into anything, it is a topic on its own. I agree that triboelectric effect (or any mechanism to build up charge) is not part of electrostatics. However, once the solid is charged (maybe by static electricity) one can introduce some electrostatic problems. Many educational strategies use static electricity to demonstrate the principles of electrostatics (e.g. hair standing when touching a Van de Graaf generator), even if the the charge-discharge dynamics are not part of electrostatics per se. --ReyHahn (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Johnjbarton; I deliberately phrased my initial question a bit (too?) open. I suggest keep and improve (add sources)
- Delete from Electrostatics#Triboelectric effect onwards, as I question their relevance plus their are already far better main pages on them -- have a see also (I have not checked against standard texts to see what else should be added, I have never taught this subject so I might have missed some topics.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- The above consensus is that the various static electricity parts don't belong. I started the cleanup by removing Triboelectricity and adding it as a see also. I will wait before doing more. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have removed the rest of the material that, from this discussion, did not belong. Please check the Electrostatics page to see if there is anything significant to add. (It could probably do with a few more references.) Ldm1954 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- The above consensus is that the various static electricity parts don't belong. I started the cleanup by removing Triboelectricity and adding it as a see also. I will wait before doing more. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- The definition correspond to what you can find in any introductory textbook for electromagnetism. It is a common topic that many students have to understand, I will keep it as it is.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Force
Force has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think the Force article is looking better now, but it could stand another reading by fresh eyes. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- A few {{citation needed}} tags have been added. I think some might be unjustified, and others might be more simply addressed by removing the text to which they are attached. I'd rather someone else make that decision, though, as I have historically been rather snippy about {{cn}}s being thrown into articles without checking if the existing references covered the material just because every paragraph needs its bloody [footnote] at the end. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- My reaction to citation needed tags is more like "well do the work and add them". I think it's kinda ok in this context as a type of review markup.
- Any way I think the Force article is pretty awesome now. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I feel the article still needs considerable work. To me it has a bias towards mechanics, plus too many errors.<br>
- I will just focus on the 2nd paragraph, which is a mess (I corrected some grammar). First, the statements about stress are wrong, for instance elastic/plastic deformation do not always have balanced stresses. Second, mechanical stresses can be balanced by electromechanical such as flexoelectricity and gravitational, e.g. body forces. Third, pressure and stress are different, e.g. capillary pressure. Fourth, normal liquids have no stresses, and the use of the term for a liquid is odd. Others:
- The quantum mechanics section says not much more than "it's complicated"
- The order of the forces sections seems to be somewhat random
- Does "Normal force" deserve a section?
- The Friction section is weak -- what about air/liquid flow in a tube?
- The Elasticity section is very weak, just trivial Hooke's law
- The Electromagnetic section at the end appears to credit Planck for quantization of photons -- what about Einstein? Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Electromagnetic subsection at the end does not mention anyone by name, except in a footnote that cites an article which discusses the contributions both of Planck and of Einstein. I don't care very much about the order of the forces in the "Examples" section; maybe someone else can provide a rationale for how to sequence them, but to me it seems like we could shuffle them one way or another without much overall benefit. I do think that normal force needs to be included, given its prevalence across the mechanics curriculum. To me, the extent of what the "Friction" and "Elasticity" sections say is OK (not great, but OK). This is, after all, a broad-scope article that is meant to link to others for additional information. As far as Wikipedia procedures go, the point of the current effort is to save the page's GA status, and "Good" is a lower tier than Featured. The former is not expected to be comprehensive like the latter. XOR'easter (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I altered the Fundamental interactions > Electromagnetic to remove history and thus Planck. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- The Electromagnetic subsection at the end does not mention anyone by name, except in a footnote that cites an article which discusses the contributions both of Planck and of Einstein. I don't care very much about the order of the forces in the "Examples" section; maybe someone else can provide a rationale for how to sequence them, but to me it seems like we could shuffle them one way or another without much overall benefit. I do think that normal force needs to be included, given its prevalence across the mechanics curriculum. To me, the extent of what the "Friction" and "Elasticity" sections say is OK (not great, but OK). This is, after all, a broad-scope article that is meant to link to others for additional information. As far as Wikipedia procedures go, the point of the current effort is to save the page's GA status, and "Good" is a lower tier than Featured. The former is not expected to be comprehensive like the latter. XOR'easter (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- One more issue: There are seven citations to
University Physics, Sears, Young & Zemansky, pp. 18–38
. Given the profusion of textbook editions, that's not really specific enough to be verifiable. The editions with only those three authors all seem fairly old, too; for example, the 12th edition (2008) also includes Freedman and Ford. (And the page range 18–38 is definitely not correct for that edition.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC) - The GA reassessment has been closed with a decision to keep it listed as a GA. Thanks to all who participated! XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Good article nomination for Electron diffraction
I have put one in. I did most of the editing, trying to reach a balanced overview, with additional input from four senior colleagues in the field. Comments welcome. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Good article nomination for Triboelectric effect
I have just put one in, comments welcome. My aim has been to balance:
- Old papers that have often been ignored of late
- Primary (~2/3) and secondary (~1/3) sources
- The many conflicting views, appropriately cited
- The many conflicting models, appropriately cited
- Less of views which have been shown to be inappropriate.
I have received input from a few other experts in the field so I am happy that it is technically decent. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Ldm1954, the article looks beyond decent to me. Congratulations on your work! Unfortunately the content is beyond my level, but I look forward to the day when it becomes a good article. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
How to find pictures for scientists?
I am looking for a picture of Immanuel Estermann, assistant of Otto Stern. There are some pictures on the web but what is the best way to find one that is copyright valid for Wikipedia? Can I just take them from AIP archives? ReyHahn (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- I believe Estermann's portrait from AIP's Emilio Segrè Visual Archives can be used. The copyright status of the photos in the archive is stated here. In Estermann's case, AIP is listed as the copyright holder, and according to the copyright statement one may use it freely without permission. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you use Google search with the 'images' only button selected there will be a 'tools' menu on the result page to filter by usage rights. It's not super useful since the CC licensed images are almost all on Wikimedia Commons, but the google search is way better than using the Commons UI to look for images. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)