Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive October 2023

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nobel Prize in Physics 2023

As usual some wikipedia articles are missing related to this year Nobel Prize in physics. An article for Pierre Agostini and his RABBIT technique were recently created. Any help on verifying their notability or improving the articles quality is welcomed. ReyHahn (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Attosecond physics needs also an update.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Awful page Nanoscopic scale

I ran across this page by accident. I have added to both the Talk and Main that I think it should be deleted and replaced by a link to Nanotechnology. Note that Nanoscience redirects to Nanoscopic scale.If you have opinions please add them to Talk:Nanoscopic scale. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed the page and changed the redirect. If anyone wants to add (it is supposedly part of WikiProject Physics) please go ahead. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Mission "Laser"

Hello everybody!

I am currently trying to bring together a team of (laser) physics-specialised editors, so as for us to make the level-3 vital Laser article a GA.

At the moment, I have found 3 editors who are somewhat related to lasers/optics and sent them invitations, but I was aiming for a wider audience, so I'll leave this message here.

If anyone is interested in helping out, please let me know. If you're not interested or have no time, I would nevertheless appreciate your suggestions of Wikipedians you find suitable for the task.

Thank you for your time,
L'OrfeoSon io 17:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

FA review for EBSD

Hi, I wonder if any1 interested can take time and participate in reviewing the Electron backscatter diffraction article and support or oppose my feature article nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Electron backscatter diffraction/archive1. Thanks FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Alex Efros

I was reviewing the page of Alexei Ekimov and found two persons with similar names: Alexei Efros (physicist) and Alexander Efros. Are these two the same person? Not to be confused with Alexei A. Efros --ReyHahn (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)ReyHahn (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The hatnote from Alexander Efros explains the connection:
Not to be confused with his brother Alexei L. Efros, also a physicist, or his nephew Alexei A. Efros, a computer scientist.
Cheers, Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks  Done--ReyHahn (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Selected publications, keep or remove?

In my battle to reduce WP:PUFFERY production in recent physics and chemistry Nobel laureates article, users tend to want to add a small sections with a selected number of papers. Usually this means 4 to 10 most cited articles per Google Scholar (GS) or some other aggregator. I think this kind of sections mean nothing, the layperson is not going to check them and the academics will look it somewhere else (like in GS). Do we have some guideline or essay on this kind of sections? Do you find them helpful? ReyHahn (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Keep. Useful for reference if not too long. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC).
According to previous adamant posts on this page, citations alone are not notable. I don't understand the logic, so I can't defend it. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Remove for an article such as "Physics 2023 Nobel". Such articles are more for the general reader, so the articles are less useful unless they are general reader level.
Keep for a general academic bio. These have to contain content for other academics or prospective MS/PhD students, so the papers are definitely relevant. A few representative pubs is standard outside Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: thanks for the input so far. I still think that these kind of sections should have a trackable notability as their rationale. One could consider to add them if already another sources cites them as valuable (something along the lines "here is a list of important papers by X:").--ReyHahn (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. A list of significant publications in chronological order shows how an academic's impact on their field developed. For briefer articles than Nobelists the titles in the list provide a way of describing their research. A description of a scientist's research is not "puffery" unless puffing adjectives are involved. ReyHahn, I am confused by your comment. According to WP:NPROF, The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. That is, the papers in such a list are one of the kinds of "trackable notability" used in these articles. Google Scholar is used as a convenience to see this, the since scholarly citation tracking services require expensive subscriptions. An article about a Nobelist should cover their research in enough detail, with publications used as sources, that such a list wouldn't be a useful addition. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    I hope that you are not saying that articles should mainly cite the papers of the Nobelist as sources. A good wiki article should avoid using primary sources as references. That is, the notability and important achievements of a persons work should preferably cite a secondary or tertiary work that acknowledges their contribution. The notability of the works in the article (not of the scientist) should preferably not be circularly based on a "notable works" section (if not it would be preferable to write a wiki article on the work itself). "Further reading" sections serve to dig deeper into secondary sources or primary reviews that go in more detail. However "Notable works" sections imply that we have to decide which are the best articles of a given author. This can be achieved by aggregators were we see the number of citation or something like that. However this has two problems (1) we neglect more recent publication which might be less cited but that could have a larger impact (like making an important scientific discovery or so) (2) where do we stop? at the first 3 papers? 6? 10?. After some size it starts looking like a CV.--ReyHahn (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    Take for example Isidor Rabi (FA). It does not have a Selected Publication section, he does not need it.--ReyHahn (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    This example is how bios should look. "Selected Publications" in a bibliography are lame. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    Most scientists, not even new Nobelists, have a definitive biography available as does the Rabi article. However in covering his career, that article also uses seven of his major papers as references. Of course papers are references for a career. Unfortunately most editors who create scientist articles don't have the expertise to cover career development. We need more expert editors. So "Selected publications" fills the gap. Not necessary if the work is covered in the career section. @Johnjbarton, are you really asking how to tell if papers are highly cited according to WP:NPROF? StarryGrandma (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    @StarryGrandma No, I'm quite familiar with citation indexes so I'm not asking about how to gather data (if that is your question). What I am asking is how a list of publications would be referenced in Wikipedia so such that the notability of items on the list could be verified. The context of my question includes previous discussion which reject referencing the citation services. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    @Johnjbarton, topics must be notable. Material in an article about a scientist does not itself need to be notable. The article itself serves as reference to its existence. A click on the doi of an article in the list will verify that it exists. The title of the section is "Selected publications", not notable publications. I don't ever remember seeing any requirement that a published paper needs to have a reference other than itself to prove that it was published by its author. Editors are free to choose papers in the short list. I usually choose highly cited papers in the major area of accomplishment and perhaps a recent paper or two. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep for shorter bios of general academics, as long as a limited number (even 10 is possibly pushing it in my view). Highly cited papers are evidence of notability, though sometimes a representative sample is better to give a flavour of that person's work and achievements. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    How do you propose to WP:VERIFY such a list? Johnjbarton (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    What about a Nobelist? Where their work is already clearly notable, do they need a selected publication section? ReyHahn (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    If their major work is explained in the sections that describe the development of their career, the sources will be there and it would be redundant to have a "Selected publications" section. If no editor has been able to provide such material, then the publications section helps fill the gap until someone more knowledgeable comes along. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    For your second case (where we don't have text on the career development) does the publications section provide encyclopedic information? I think no. A non-expert reader is no better off and an expert reader can produce this list with no help.
    Perhaps we could allow that the list is "harmless" to readers. If so we should also allow editors who add content with inline references to the items permission to remove the list even if their work is incomplete. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    And I think it does provide information, and find it does for me in areas I am not otherwise familiar with. We differ. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    If I understand you correctly, a list constructed based on the opinion of an editor with no verifiability is useful and justified to add to Wikipedia. But where is our line? If I build a list and you disagree, what criteria will be used to judge? Other editors "opinions" on the list? A citation service we would not allow as a reference?
    (To be clear I'm not strongly against these lists absent alternatives; I genuinely don't understand why sources count in some cases and not in others). Johnjbarton (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    Entire articles are constructed on the basis of what an editor feels should be there. This is a collaborative environment and other editors will also work on the articles. All the sections are written this way. Editors choose what material should go there. They select material for all the sections, and provide sources. The articles in a selected publication list are self-sourcing. The fact that an editor has selected them is no different than an editor selecting what goes into a career section. I don't understand what you mean by "no verifiability" unless in some way you do not want editors to choose material for that particular section. Editors disagree on article content all the time. It gets discussed on talk pages, and if that doesn't work we have various methods for resolving disputes. I have discussed list contents with editors writing about themselves after I have cut down and modified their publication lists. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    And remember that while citation services are not allowed as reference in an article, they provide useful information for talk page discussions, just as they do at Articles for Deletion. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    My opinion is the same as StarryGrandma Ldm1954 (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
    It might help this discussion to have two examples. I knew both of these people, but I have no COI. Both are unconditionally notable.
    a) John C. H. Spence. The Bibliography gives a good overview of him, fleshing out the text.
    b) John M. Cowley who has no Bibliography so his impact is not so obvious, even though many view him (I do) as a more major figure.
    When I investigate someone, I look at their faculty page (if they have one), Wikipedia, Facebook, LinkedIn and Google scholar. Having a brief list of key papers is very useful -- these do not have to be the most highly cited ones.
    In the WP:Afc I have reviewed the Selected publications has been useful.
    Very Strong Keep Ldm1954 (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Having a few publications, chosen using some indications of being the author's most influential, is helpful to readers and makes a biography more useful. XOR'easter (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent outreach/recent publications

What about Recent publications? I just saw that in an economy bio. Also see Laura Greene (physicist) for Recent outreach.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Generally, I'm not a fan of the term "recent", given MOS:DATED. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm. IMHO Laura's bio needs some heavy editing to remove fluff. I am less concerned about the outreach than other parts. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
For that particular article, I'd agree the recent outreach part is far from the worst part. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is another example Jean-Paul Poirier. I know I am not pointing to good articles, I would just like to understand how to handle this kind of sections.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd just rename "Some recent publications" to "Selected publications" in that case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
It is not the same. "Selected publications" might mean very well cited articles, "Recent publications" looks like promotion for new papers no matter if the publications are important or not.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a rationale for both, although I would limit them to 10-20 total between the two:
"Selected publications" should be the most important, often (but not always) the highest cited. This is historical information.
"Recent publication" is what they are now working on. This is contemporary information. Often (always IMHO) this is very different.
I can defend both for an active academic. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
My trouble is with people trying to make Wikipedia articles reflect their official faculty website (sections:Education, Research, Selected papers, Recent Papers, Personal hobbies, Awards). We should cover notable stuff, recent articles are probably not notable yet.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Links to people

If someone already has a Wikipedia page, then obviously they should be linked in an article if relevant; I just went through and added many of these to the Electron diffraction page. However, if they don't, what to do? I had a link to Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q66738943) for Alex Moodie but someone objected to it and removed it. I could add something like https://www.science.org.au/profile/alex-moodie as an external link to his name. Another case is Daniel Alpert where I could use https://physics.illinois.edu/people/memorials/daniel-alpert. In some cases there is a Google Scholar link. Thoughts? Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I found a solution for Alpert, check it out. As for Moodie a Wikidata should work I do not know what are the common practices with respect to that. Maybe it is better to not link to Wikidata if there is no additional info there? No to linking to his profile outside Wikipedia, the article is not about him. Check the Template:Ill it can be used to link to an article in another language Wikipedia or to the Wikidata, the red link gets replaced by bot as soon as the article is created in English Wikipedia.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Not sure I agree about not linking outside Wikipedia; if I follow your argument then why link anything? I put one in for Alex Moodie and another for Harrison Farnsworth. Both would sail through WP:NACADEMIC which is my criterion. I prefer to include them, but if someone objects then they could be removed. (The article is up for GA, but it may not get reviewed as most GA article nominations are outside science.) Ldm1954 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Personally, to me it feels very promotional when links take me out of Wikipedia. Also WP:REDLINKs are no inconvenient, they promote people to write articles to remove them.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Also I definetely oppose using Daniel Alpert over Daniel J. Alpert [de]. The latter indicates very transparently that the article does not exist in Wikipedia and a German version exists, the former makes me think that there is an article in English Wikipedia and hides the fact that it goes into specifically German Wikipedia. See WP:EASTEREGG.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The version Daniel J. Alpert is option 5. in H:FOREIGNLINK. Since many (most?) browsers automatically translate I prefer it. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
But why not go for H:FOREIGNLINK's best practice (option 1)? Which favors from transparency and motivates to write something about it, I really do not see why aesthetics (option 5) would be preferred instead. Side comment: In the article your are using Daniel J. Alpert (leads nowhere) but it should be Daniel J. Alpert (see code).--ReyHahn (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the typo note, corrected.
To me the red is distracting. I admit it is a personal preference, but H:FOREIGNLINK does say options, not you will die a horrible death... Ldm1954 (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
If someone doesn't have a Wikipedia (in the general sense) article, we do not link them via external link. Period. If they have an article on a non-English Wikipedia, as mentioned above {{ill}} should be used (which, as briefly mentioned, can link to WikiData if it exists). Primefac (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
As stated above, H:FOREIGNLINK does not state that should be used. Please do not incorrectly represent the options in the article. I think it is inappropriate that you decided to edit out my use of a valid option.
I will also contest the utility of you going in and editing out links to highly notable scientists who don't have pages. Why? We are trying to provide useful information. If there is a valid link with useful, non-fluff information then it is appropriate to use, readers first. To quote from WP:UIAR
If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way.
I will listen to responses rather than adhoc going in and reverting. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
If someone doesn't have a Wikipedia (in the general sense) article, we do not link them. I don't think this is based on any guideline. WP:REDLINK states that "in general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created". It explicitly says that people are no exception: "As with other topics, red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability." But I do prefer {{ill}}'s over foreign language easter eggs. In the examples given in H:FOREIGNLINK option 5 (Jeux olympiques and 東京都), it is no surprize that the links might take you to a foreign wikipedia. Daniel J. Alpert gives no such indication. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The key word is prefer here, this is not a rule. I contend that since all browsers now do a good job of automatically translating, all languages are equal, no languages are more equal than others (apologies to Eric Blair). We have redirects as Eric Blair would not be useful, a slightly obvious illustration. Rules are made to evolve, although here it is options not rules. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I have no intention of enforcing my preference, and links to dewiki are definitely a positive thing. They make a good effort on physicist biographies there. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Accepted, I realize you did not make edits reverting my use of Option 5, someone else did... Ldm1954 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Please don't use these hidden links to a foreign language Wikipedia. As a reader I definitely want to know when I'm being taken elsewhere and will have to face a shitty automatic translation. Tercer (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
How about a compromise, using for instance fr:Jeux olympiques or French: Jeux olympiques. This indicates that it is going to a foreign language, but removes the red which I view as archaic. Realistically the probability of pages being translated is small, I for certain would not be able to do better than Chrome. Almost certainly there are many pages in other languages which are, and will always be better. (The same should hold for their linking to English pages, or even American ones.) Ldm1954 (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
That would be inappropriate for the reasons outlined in WP:CLICKHERE. Nardog (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I fail to see how that is relevant unless you are indicating that are Jeux Olympics [fr] is "click here", which I understand because it requires the user to move their mouse over the "fr" and then click for more information. French: Jeux olympiques is the standard option 4, and indicates that the link is not in English (which some feel is important, WP:RF). To quote from H:FOREIGNLINK:

"4. To show the name of the other language instead of its code, which can be easier to read for less experienced readers, you can use the lang template or one of its class: French: Jeux olympiques or Japanese: 東京都"

Please note that the "best practices" term was added in July 2022 without discussion. Earlier versions treated all equally. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
H:FOREIGNLINK is in any case not a guideline, but a page for technical help. The related guideline is MOS:INTERWIKI. It states: "To avoid reader confusion, [..] interwiki linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged. Exceptions: [..] {{Interlanguage link}} template may be helpful to show a red link accompanied by an interlanguage link if no article exists in English Wikipedia." Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
How the times have changed. Now redlinks are so rare that you consider them "archaic". They used to be everywhere. I think this shows how diligent people have been in creating articles where the redlinks were. Tercer (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, you are misquoting me. I consider redlinks when a good article already exists in another language archaic. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
My apologies, I misspoke. You are correct that redlinks can encourage an article to be written. I was referring more to external links, which is an WP:EL violation. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I have not heard a convincing rationale; sorry, but I think it matters to move with the technology. While some cloud translations are still weak, most are good and are only going to get better. The lines between the different language Wikipedias will blur and vanish, I suspect they already are soft, since Google searching (for instance) will now find non-English Wiki pages; Bing probably already does more. 🔮
However, I am not going to create an edit war by reverting the changes made by others to what I had in Electron diffraction for links to notable scientists who have good German pages, it is a minor point. Other changes...that would be electrons at 20 paces. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I still do not agree with you on removing the {{ill}} just for red links, but I think you are right that H:FOREIGNLINK is too loose and seems to allow for different options outside {{ill}}. Feel free to revert my edits but I hope you realize that this point is irrelevant with respect to the GA review. There is an important discussion at Help talk:Interlanguage links about this concern on red links.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I had no problem with you edits, others were not so clear. I have given up on a GA review of Electron diffraction. Maybe it will happen, probably not. While there are some STEM relevant WP:Afc, there are few in WP:GA. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel that STEM is a bit niche in Wikipedia. However, this is waaaaay off topic. My "to do" list both within and outside WP has many higher priority items. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Dirac Medal

Is there anybody who can take a look at Dirac Medal and related articles? Someone made it - undiscussed - into a disambiguation. And I see scary notices of copy and paste moves of text that might breach the licensing. I have reverted it back to the last stable version, but there might be some admin attention needed. The Banner talk 19:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

My rationale for splitting the article was WP:NOTDICT. The article contains 4 different topics, only related by name. And the physics awards articles do not seem like the most popular and dynamic part of WP, which is why I decided for a direct bold action, instead of waiting for someone to discuss with. I did tell where I copied the content from, is that not enough for attribution? I understand there were a lot of links leading to the newly created disambiguation page, but was there some other problem? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the move was not done properly. Did it follow WP:CWW? Anyhow, it seems like the right move, we cannot conflate different awards from different organisms just because they decided to name their award after the same person. If tomorrow the --ReyHahn (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I would claim that this was not too far off from WP:PROPERSPLIT, except I did not use the magic words "please see its history for attribution" after giving the link to the article where the content was copied from. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that splitting seems to be the right move.
I will mention that the disambiguation page also needs to mention the "Dirac Chairs" at FSU. These are not in the same league, but could well be confused. There are also "Dirac Lectures" https://announcements.fsu.edu/article/2023-dirac-lectures also at Cambridge "https://talks.cam.ac.uk/show/index/18853. I know I am complicating matters, sorry, results from a quick search which seem relevant (and might not be complete). Ldm1954 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, although I am not sure how to include them. Disambiguation items should always have exactly one wikilink, and here there is no suitable target. See MOS:DABNOENTRY. External links are also not allowed. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Ldm1954 The DAB page is only about medals. It's not List of things named after Paul Dirac. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Also some effort is going to be needed to redirect all links that point to the disambiguation page to the specific award page.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Working on this, albeit rather slowly. It's not too many pages, 100 or so, but one needs to check for possible errors in the progress. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the change. One might need to consider renaming Dirac Medal (IOP) to Paul Dirac Medal.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a possibility. For those who know, that form unambiguously identifies the prize. The current title is not wrong either. Even the IOP website previously used to call it just "Dirac Medal".[1] Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Great find. In that case let us keep Dirac Medal (IOP) for disambiguation sake.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Funny enough, the website of UNSW pointed to Dirac Medal in Wikipedia to offer the full list of laureates [2]. Very bad choice by UNSW.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The joke was made better when somebody had decided that UNSW Dirac Medal should be awarded regularly and added some IOP and ICTP prize winners to that list. Now I am wondering whether E. C. George Sudarshan truly won both the ICTP and UNSW Dirac Prizes in 2010. ICTP Prize he definitely won, but how about the UNSW one? This ref [3] claims he did, but I don't fully trust it. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
This supports that we should not conflate the different medals. Wasn't that an official site? waht makes you doubt this list? I suggest that we continue to discuss these bugs in Talk:Dirac Medal--ReyHahn (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Student editors

I just noticed that a college course plans to edit physics articles. Please be on the lookout for well-intentioned novice edits. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. My heart sinks when I hear that student editors are at it again in this well established and complex field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC).
I suggest that the students gain experience on the Simple English Wikipedia, which is in need of physics articles, before they start work on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC).

Evaluating new material versus existing articles.

I encourage my fellow editors to be more generous towards new material. We have plenty of articles that need work. Rather than focusing on borderline issues in new material I think we make more progress by identifying the largest problems over all of the project articles. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you care to be specific? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC).
No, I just want to encourage positivity. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I do not get this comment is it about new articles or new material in old articles? I think we should be more courageous on trimming old material in old articles too (when properly needed).--ReyHahn (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry my comment was not really about new-vs-old exactly. I want to encourage more even evaluation. I find myself applying a high bar to changes, when the very next article I look at is much worse than the change I just criticized.
The "new" part is important in two ways: the ideas and refs are fresh so helpful suggestions on new material can significantly improve an article. Conversely unnecessary borderline critiques are discouraging if you just finished spending some hours on what you intended as an improvement. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

When should list articles have references?

As most list articles have no references I taught until recently that list articles did not need references, however they do per WP:LISTVERIFY. So I recently tagged Laser acronyms with Template:No references but it was removed as "nearly all of the entries on this list are blue links". Was I wrong with tagging the article? I think that such an article should work as a standalone articles and not depend of other articles. ReyHahn (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this list of acronyms is not notable. In fact these are not even acronyms, they are merely unpronounceable abbreviations of interest to experts in the field. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I was the one who reverted him. My main point was that WP:LISTVERIFY does not require references for "obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of apple in the list of fruits". The only references that are possible or useful at Laser acronyms would be references that establish that the acronym is an acronym, or that establish that it is used in laser physics. With respect to that, most of the entries in the list are obviously appropriate. Tagging individual entries of concern is not a problem, but drive-by tagging of the entire list as "unreferenced" was not a productive activity.--Srleffler (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
As far as references go, in that specific list, I'd say the redlinks need it, and those where the articles don't have a reference for the acronym also need it. Like if helium-neon laser didn't mention HeNe with a reference, then HeNe would need a reference. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
We don't usually require references to support obvious acronyms in articles. Wikipedia:Verifiability does not require that. All material must be verifiable, but a reference is only required if the material has been challenged or is likely to be. Editors are of course free to demand that a reference be provided for any statement, but blanket demanding references for statements that are not actually in doubt is pointy.--Srleffler (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be about not wanting to take the effort to source the list than about what the guidelines say.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Sourcing things does take effort, and often that effort is better spent elsewhere. Before tagging anything as needing a citation you should ask yourself whether you actually have any doubt about whether the statement is true or think someone else might doubt that it is true. If not, and assuming it is not a direct quotation or something contentious about a living person, then you should not tag it. WP:V explicitly does not require everything to have an inline citation. If you are tagging things "cite needed" that are not actually likely to be disputed, then you are just making pointless work for other editors, and not actually contributing anything useful yourself. --Srleffler (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
While I agree with your point of view in theory, I've had more than one occasion to question an assertion only to be told that "everyone knows". I think almost every fact posted on wikipedia is something someone else might doubt: if they already knew it they would not need to read the article. Thus we should err on the side of referencing when we are unsure. (I agree about not adding 'citation needed'; if you really doubt something unreferenced just delete it.) Johnjbarton (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics/Archive_October_2023&oldid=1188056894"