Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2012

{{template:Physics equations navbox}} "here to stay just because of user:F=q(E+v^B)"????

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I re-sectioned this thread as it's diverged slightly. To summarize my perspective on the following: I also disagree with the templates - preferably get rid of them - no harm at all to any articles since they will only disappear from the bottom of the pages which now have it, where not many readers will look through titles of equations there. It seems superficially user:F=q(E+v^B): a "formula-freak", is pissed off even at the thought of anyone touching them. If you care - you might continue. Maschen (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, maybe I'm a curmudgeon, but why does {{Physics equations navbox}} exist? Are there a lot of people at the article Dirac equation in the algebra of physical space who are dying to have a quick and convenient and direct way to navigate to the article Tsiolkovsky rocket equation??? --Steve (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Very late to reply + realize, anyway SO WHAT???... You needn't become so heated, nor assume such extreme desires of people "dying" to see random equations: it’s NOT intentionally a tunnel from Dirac equation in the algebra of physical space to Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, or wherever to whatever, even if it allows. I created it for a few good reasons:

1. Top-importance: it serves as a summary of all the main articles on WP which specifically describe the equations in the titles, rather than listing equations individually in the equation-list articles, and
2. Mid-importance: allows interconnection of formula articles within the same or different fields, e.g. Kepler's laws of planetary motion -> Kepler's equation -> Newton's law of gravity -> Einstein field equations -> Geodesic equation, or perhaps -> Maxwell's equations -> Gauss's law -> Continuity equation -> Navier-Stokes equation etc.....
3. Mid-importance: Presumably at some point, ALL the equation-list type articles will be deleted, hated from here down to hell and beyond by ALL professional physics editors on WP for various reasons,
4. Least-important: it helps formula-freaks like me navigate around equation articles.

So what do people prefer??? which is more adapted to WP style??

1. A long, "tiresome" list of formula after formula after more formulas etc with the inevitable requirement of explaining constants, variables/parameters and an providing background of the equation's applicability, or
2. just a compact summary of the main particles all in a box which provide information about equations. If not liked - just close the box and never set eyes on it again, if interested use it, or better yet
3. will this become a template for deletion at the pleasure of some??

ANY is fine and is allowed, and there is nothing I can/will do to prevent from happening, but the last irritates. I apologize for talking so crudely loud, but personally this is my #1 only really impressive and productive contribution (compared to everything else done on WP), which I would hope solves the problem of the numerous formula-list articles which always shoot up and sprout around, eventually to be deleted, its a "continuous life cycle of the equation-list article", and this article type is to many editors dismay which is NOT good. =( FOR ONCE, I'll NOT be so apologetic nor softy-squishy on this matter - the point has been made solid.

For those that suspect - I'm NOT "insulted by this run-by comment" either. This is the response with bold/underline/italic/capital emphasis; NOT assumption of bad faith by all other editors. =| F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 15:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to run into this while reading the page. I personally prefer the formula list articles if there is any need to summarize and present equations. For reasons Steve indicated above, there is no need to have a separate template when the links are already in the articles (see also sections), or better yet the {{main]}} and {{see also]}} templates. Why another template?? Do you really think that many users could be bothered to use it way down at the bottom of the article ??? I wouldn't mind elimination of the template, but not fussed to keep. Anyway - you make such a stressed contradiction of yourself: why accuse Steve of getting angery when... look at yourself. Shame on you. Furthermore you can do better than create just a pile of equations (though other editors have done a better job at cleaning/tidying it up than you have - no offense, just a fact). Maschen (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The only thing relevant to your (although rather rude) "SO WHAT???" is the response against having a summary of equations on WP. For one thing you HAVE edited those articles.

For those that have no clue what lunatic F=q(E+v^B) and I are referring to the articles (I geuss) would be:

1. List of elementary physics formulae,
2. Constitutive equation,
3. Mathematical descriptions of physical laws, and
4. Laws of science.

Then of course these contain the many see also links to the main pages. There are also categories which organize articles, such as [[Category:Theoretical physics]] (which has equations and articles to the mathematical background), and similarly the main subject templates like {{quantum mechanics}} For one thing - if you don't like these pages, yet ironically are so obsessed with equations, why have you edited them?? You like them really... "=)"

My point is - there is no point in your template, and agree with Steve. (Its probably your most unproductive contribution aside from the Dirac notation article when you disobeyed rules and launched my incorrect images into the article WITHOUT my permission. Shame on you again).

Btw to everyone else - sorry for continuing this irrelevant thread. I'll stop now - its dead anyway, except for F=q(E+v^B) trying to re-light the thread. Maschen (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Maschen - WTF are you talking about "WP:STICK" (or in your unclear wordy language "re-light the thread", WTFH means) ??? That is fully irrelevant - and I'm so happy that you enthusiastically look for every possible way to organize and categorize equation articles!!! Except ... for the template which does it immediately anyway.

Let’s be very clear: it's not "my" template either just because I created it, articles or templates never belong to anyone, except of course EVERYONE simultaneously.

Furthermore, you (Maschen), for one, make many mistakes yourself, and are only copying out Steve's opinions because you are defenseless in decision making for editing things, and because of Steve's authority, experience and capabilities both in real life and on WP. And no I was NOT being rude or accusing him of anything personally or directly, again it was to stand out and place emphasis I would like to.

Furthermore - the first 3 of those articles you link to are a waste of time and energy, even if I did contribute, which is what I was saying above: they may soon be deleted since the scope of readership will be very low; who will read a list of formulas one after another??. The last is probably the best but needs a lot of work. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 16:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, some people actually like articles like those 3 "wastes of time and energy" articles, since they act as reference articles, sections and formulas don't have to be read one after the other - instead the reader can dip in and find what they like.

Also - I AM NOT copying out Steve's opinions, as you would typically assume. I may not be that productive on WP or smart in real life, but still have enough brain power to think for myself. The WP:STICK link is because the thread was dead (long ago), or in plain simple language you should understand but don't for some obscure reason: IT HAS BEEN FINISHED - START A NEW THREAD (AKA SECTION) SOMEWHERE ELSE (LIKE THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE), lunatic. But it has naturally grown here. The templates you created should fuck off by rights (in case you didn't know what this means: DELETE THEM) for the reasons repeatedly discussed above, but perhaps that’s too far, so as I say again (for the 3rd time) they may be kept. I'll not touch them. Maschen (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets try and be clear again: (in response to that numskull title you created)

1. they are NOT MINE - they are for everyone, and its not just you - I also appreciate the effort everyone has put in to tidying them up/extending its scope where I didn't, so many thanks to those who did! =)
2. Call me a LUNATIC as much as you like - you can even personally attack me for all I care (PROVIDED you don't do so to anyone else) and defeat WP:NPA (look another irrelevant link! - you should stop the blather of irrelevant points and concentrate on the discussion thread), childish name-calling changes nothing.
3. All I ask is that the template remain - I'm NOT "pissed off" at anything.

It seems to be too much for some people... =( F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 17:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Instead of pulling faces and using so many bold characters like a lunatic - you should see Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot!!! Maschen (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did I even try answering you Maschen? It had no effect. I have no interest or time for this discussion anymore - talk to yourself or someone else. Bye bye (or in your unsual language "fuck off, but that's too far"). F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 17:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What a waste of time this thread has been, I thought I was being reasonable, but you don't want to understand what is told to you. And I'll not say "fuck off": rather "good bye to you too"... Maschen (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention something IMPORTANT Maschen - I suggest you R ! E ! A ! D !

• Talk:List of elementary physics formulae (ignoring your own useless comments of course),
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of physics formulae, and
• Physics equations.

Can you beat the last one? Its red!! It says "A page with this title has previously been deleted."!!!

See this written by linas (who is certainly an experienced WP editor and physicist in real life, who even founded this wikiproject) from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of physics formulae?

"Yes, well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics is the cleanup crew, and has a hell of a time trying to straighten out the crud, half-baked ideas, basic misunderstandings and raw untruths contained in the elementary/introductory/pop physics articles on WP. The best way to not have to clean up a mess is to keep one from happening, which is why this article should be nuked. linas 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"

See this written by Steve from Talk:Continuity equation (after he tried to explain basic calculus to you after you messed the article up!)?

"By the same token, I despise the lists of equations in those three articles you linked to at the top. I can barely even look at them. Grrr. --Steve (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)"

Hmmm... there is some very very strange consensus out there!! I wonder what this all means?

Not sure about you - but it seems as though equation-list pages are to be DELETED. Now do you comprehend? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Still carrying on about this "when you have no time or patience"??? Well, I left a message on Steve's user page, so we'll see what he has to say IF he does come to this section (VERY UNLIKELY). Actually which editors will come here??? As I said above the THREAD IS DEAD. No-one - except a LUNATIC like yourself, actually does care. You care too much about this fucktarded template. If you insist on continuing this - take it to another section LIKE THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, or elsewhere.

AND who says "the equation-list pages WILL be deleted"??? None other than you. I have read those before and while the two quotes are true, the pages remain since there was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE THEM.

Hard to stomach, but just drop it already. I am not the cause - YOU are acting as a bastard lunatic for no reason. The link WP:STICK is certainly relevant now, not childish (ironically as yourself). Again - bye bye. Maschen (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue has already been dropped. Just made sure you ARE aware of the evidence and general consensus. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be planning something - why did you highlight those quotes above? Paranoid about "winning" and not losing" are you, when the game has already ended in a fail-fail draw?

I also have at least one stone to blunt your blade from talk:Mathematical descriptions of physical laws by Esoteric cybernetic (and in fairness I use the same box you used):

"Just a suggestion - I think the article is great! Esoteric cybernetic (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)" and "OK, I see where you are coming from. And yes - I think that wikipedia has been lacking in a comprehensive directory of physical equations, so good job! Esoteric cybernetic (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)"

How about that! NOT EVERYONE is hellbent on obliterating equation-list articles! There are odds against your argument. Maschen (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not planning on anything at all, no intention to stab you with a knife that you try to blunt with one opinion. Even if there were more comments at Esoteric cybernetic's level of appreciation for these types of articles, I would still find the articles unhelpful for the more dominating reasons in the AfD and talk links provided above.

And you can't complain about the boxes now that you just used one.

Let’s stop this instant: I'm tired and have better things to do (like everyone else around here including yourself). We'll take it to yours or my talk page, doesn't matter which, as long as there is NOT a single post right hereafter. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 19:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed (sorry - already violated, but had to de-wikify a category I added above in the argument for it to be visible). "=)" Maschen (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Condensed matter physics

Hi,

I'm working on an overhaul of the Condensed matter physics article (top-importance for this project!). I'd like to get some feedback, and if possible, help with expansion on this article - as I fear it might become too biased towards my research interests. In particular, I'm looking for suggestions for what all should go into the "experimental" and "applications" sections.

Thanks, SPat ^talk 18:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See my query at Talk:Condensed matter physics#Electromagnetic Forces, and keep up the good work! --TSchwenn (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

OR at Dirac equation (still)

Hi, this is about HCPotter again. Recently he has been asking DVdm and me to restore his reference, our reply is "OR + primary source", and have pointed to him WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY before, but seems to insist. I pointed him to here so he can explain himself. Thanks. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Physics AfD

It seems someone has decided to be disruptive and nominate Physics for deletion, see here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Physics_(2nd_nomination)#Physics. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems it was an april fools joke of some sort. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been done though - we aren't supposed to make jokes in article space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I was labeled genius on my talk page for reverting the AFD and templating the user. Neat. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An AfD nomination can't be stopped by just removing the template, as you see, a bot automatically re-added the template. An Admin will eventually close it. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Genius is what I say about the Google maps 'Quest' option for an 8-bit Nintendo version. Effin' eejit is what I say about people who just cause trouble for others. Dmcq (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There's precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe. The usual practice is for it to be closed as "speedy keep" on April 2nd. I particularly liked the "no independent sources" bit in that one. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)