Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive June 2018

Draft:Dislon

Input about this draft? It has a ton of references, but on first glance it appears that many of them may not actually be about dislons. I see that dislons are mentioned in the article quasiparticle. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This topic doesn't look notable to me. There is a single 2018 paper on the topic [1]. The mention in quasiparticle was added by the dislon draft author and looks like a bit of refspam. At best, WP:TOOSOON. --Mark viking (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Dror Fixler

Should this article be moved to mainspace? It is liable to be deleted for lack of edits in draftspace. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks to your and my edits just now, it's immunized for another six months unless someone sends it to MFD. No comment on its relevance, just thought I'd mention it. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Feodor Ivanovich Vilesov

Is this person notable? He won the USSR State Prize (which seems important) but I can find relatively little information about him (in English at least, and not seeing anything obvious and high-quality in Russian). Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No consensus:Fine electronic structure

As Fine electronic structure got no consensus. I think I will TNT it to make at least a nice stub. --MaoGo (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Various physics drafts

Over on WP:WPM we been working on identifying draft which come under our project and reviewing them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. Part of this process involved finding draft which had mathematical of chemical equations in them. Quite a few of them come under your project and we have listed them at Wikipedia:List of draft pages on science and engineering. You may wish to examine these and see if any should be promoted to main space. --Salix alba (talk): 07:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A-Class review for MAUD Committee needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for MAUD Committee; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Sotiris Xantheas

This bio was recently added to the project. Is this article (Sotiris Xantheas) notable enough? MaoGo (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Signs point to yes: GS h-index of 58 is enough for WP:PROF#C1, and either AAAS or APS Fellowship would be enough for WP:PROF#C3. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Migration away from old texvc <math> engine

There is now a project to migrate away from the texvc renderer for <math> expressions. This was the default a few years ago which produces PNG images, now we have a hybrid solution with uses MathJax in the backend to produce svg images and sometimes xml. There is still some legacy from texvc as it is used in the frist parsing step of the current engine. This means there are some idiosyncrasies in the syntax which differ from standard LaTex:

Current syntax	Suggested replacement	Comment
$	\$	redefinition would involve changing the character code
%	\%	redefinition would involve changing the character code
\and	\land	causes normal align environment to fail
\or	\lor	see [2]; causes teubner to fail
\part	\partial	acceptable if the document doesn't use sectioning with \part.
\ang	\angle	this only conflicts with siunitx package.
\C	\Complex	conflicts with puenc.def e.g. from hyperref package
\H	\mathbb{H}	conflicts with text command \H{0} which is ő.
\bold	\mathbf
\Bbb	\mathbb
\pagecolor	remove	not needed and not working anymore, done on en-wiki mainspace
<ce>...</ce>	<chem>...</chem>	Chemistry environment, done on en-wiki mainspace

The first step in the project will involve deprecating the old syntax and running a bot or semi-automated edits to change the syntax. These should not result in any visible change to the pages. The bot doing the work is User:Texvc2LaTeXBot which is currently seeking approval. Changes will also be made to the Visual Editor to produce the new syntax.

Subsequent stages in the project are discussed at mw:Extension:Math/Roadmap, these involve some more complex problems with the <chem> syntax. Eventually the texvc part will be removed completely and there may be some slight change to the rendered output. The main discussion of the project happens at T195861 and your input is welcome. Discussion on the English wikipedia should be on WT:WPM--Salix alba (talk): 15:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics"

Discussion of a proposed consolidated Weapons of power in Hindu epics article is at Talk:Kurukshetra War#New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics". A translation from the Mahabharata: Gurkha, flying a swift and powerful vimana (fast aircraft) hurled a single projectile (rocket) charged with the power of the Universe (nuclear device). An incandescent column of smoke and flame, as bright as ten thousand suns, rose with all its splendor. see J. Robert Oppenheimer ten thousand suns. --Bejnar (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but translating ancient Hindu religious texts as referring to modern weapons system makes about as much sense as applying a similar approach to the ramblings of Nostradamus, i.e. none. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Table formatting at Maxwell's equations

We could do with additional input on the best format for the tables of formulae in Maxwell's equations. See Talk:Maxwell's equations#Table format, as well as User talk:JohnBlackburne#Table formatting for some previous discussion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

FA on Tokamak

We're coming up on the 60th anniversary of the announcement of the tokamak at Novosibirsk.

I've done my part in getting the older bits of the history into shape as best I could, but it needs work on the modern stuff. It also needs clear descriptions of the variety of changes over the years - the vertical field is completely lacking for instance.

Anyone out there interested in working with me on this article to get it to FA in time?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Access to Nature for Gravity edit?

• CarolynMW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone with access to Nature have a look at this edit by user CarolynMW (talk · contribs)? The abstract of the cited source https://www.nature.com/articles/320039a0 seems not to correspond to the statement added to the article. - DVdm (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The cited source does not support the addition. "Dynamic Newtonian Advanced gravity" is the pet notion of one person (as a quick Google Scholar search verifies) and fails WP:FRINGE. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, XOR, that is what I suspected. Note that the same source was used with this edit by the same user. That one seems ok. - DVdm (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I would further encourage people to review all the contributions of that user and revert as appropriate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)