Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Measurement
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Measurement and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
| Article alerts |
|---|
|
Proposed deletions
Requests for comments
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
|
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:23, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
I need your help
[edit]Hi metrologists, I ask for your help. I am stalked by two Chemists that unfortunately have no clue about metrology. I try to make sure that articles are written in correct metrological terminology. Now they are planing to ban me again (see here User_talk:Kkmurray/1). I hope you guys can see that his article Kendrick mass is full of incorrect language (even though it is all taken from reviewed papers) and that my article Kendrick (unit) is better.
Here you find the whole story of the current argument: Talk:Kendrick_mass.
We had an argument before on which they achieved to have me banned for one year. I still think this ban was incorrect. The argument was about a physical quantity in mass spectrometry, the mass-to-charge ratio. Some in the chemistry branch of mass spectrometry use a "dimensionless" m/z and my claim is that a mass-to-charge ratio by definition cannot be dimensionless and therefore needs a unit and that a symbol m/Q would be more appropriate. I partly won the argument because my article Thomson (unit) is still alive.
The deeper issue on this new argument is that many chemists seem not able to make the difference between a quantity Q = n * unit, and the numerical factor n of a quantity. Please check yourself and I would really appreciate your support here Talk:Kendrick_mass. Kehrli (talk) 31 October 2010
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15
[edit]
A final update, for now:
The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.
Regards,
-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
[edit]Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Highlighting this article as a potential for taking to Good Article standard. There are plenty of reliable sources, some in the further reading section, lots of work needed, and it would be an interesting article I think and a valuable addition. Whizz40 (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
[edit]I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Lunar distance (astronomy)#Requested move 23 September 2023
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lunar distance (astronomy)#Requested move 23 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Request to update and write "metrification in the UK"
[edit]Who ever wrote the Metrification in the US, it well structured and written, and precise.
Metrification in the UK needs the same format, similar pictures, can someone update the page for consistency. 1.145.26.176 (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)