Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive August 2014

Quantum master equation
Someone linked to Quantum Master Equation with capital initial letters. It was a red link, so I made it a redirected to quantum master equation with lower-case initial letters. Someone else had redirect that latter page to Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra. Then someone took me to task for redirecting Quantum Master Equation to Batalin–Vilkovisky algebra, although I never did that. But the person who did that never suggested a better target for that redirect. Perhaps someone here can do that. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say you did anything wrong, some anon user decided to complain without having any idea how Wikipedia works. Unless they lodge an official complaint or repeatedly revert your edit, I wouldn't worry too much about it.Primefac (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The usage of is under discussion, see talk:Outgoing longwave radiation --  65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elastocapillarity
Dear physics experts: Here's an old AfC submission that was declined because Elasto-capillarity is already in mainspace. Is there anything useful in the draft that should be transferred before the draft is deleted as stale? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the article-for-creation is better than the one in main space. How about we do a full merger and let the editors of the article remove any redundant material? JRSpriggs (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with JRSpriggs, that seems the quickest way to get it out of the AfC area without wasting any of the work that either set of editors have done. Djr32 (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The editor was asked six months ago to move any relevant material and references to the mainspace article, and hasn't done so. At this point it is considered abandoned, so anyone who is knowledgeable is welcome to do it.  The process is: (1) move and integrate the material, including the name of the draft creator (User:Amirrost) in the edit summary (2) move the draft to mainspace with the title "Elastocapillarity", and (3) change it to a "Redirect after merging"  by deleting all of the text and replacing it with "#REDIRECT  Elasto-capillarity " to maintain attribution of the original author.  I can do steps 2 and 3 if a physics person will to step 1. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, if nobody has done anything in the next few days, I'll do a cut-and-paste merge. Djr32 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Done (a bit later than promised, sorry!). I should add that I know nothing about this topic, and have done little more than crunching the two articles together, so if anyone does know anything about the topic they should feel free to fix them. Anne Delong, feel free to complete steps 2 and 3 whenever you want. Djr32 (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have moved and redirected the draft. Thanks, .  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Particulates
The uses of, , is under discussion, see talk:Particulates -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

New article that is a POV-fork of an existing article
A user has crated the article List of arguments for a young Earth, which is a clear POV-fork of the existing article age of the Earth. I'll probably AfD it, but decided to take it here first just to get some opinions on it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment; any objections (which I think would be few) could be brought up in the AfD. It makes me think of the Planets beyond Neptune article, but that actually contains current research as well as historical information. This article is mainly debunked theories and bad science, and shouldn't have its own article. It might be able to be included in the early calculations section, but would require some serious cleanup. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like has nominated it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A better title for the article would be List of arguments used by young Earth creationists. Under that title I would see little problem the article as long as it clearly points out the flaws in the used arguments. Are these arguments bad science? Mostly (and when not it is out-dated sciences). However, that is not a measure for inclusion in Wikipedia. As silly as these arguments are, they do receive some matter of attention. Covering them in some way is probably a good idea. Inclusion in age of the Earth would be WP:UNDUE, I think. Inclusion in Young Earth creationism would be another option.TR 09:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reactionless drives
EmDrive and Quantum vacuum plasma thruster could use some clean-up and perhaps might benefit from a merge.

jps (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk:EmDrive has a renaming request as well. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Allan Boardman‎
Article put up for deletion yesterday - comments at deletion page appreciated! Una LagunaTalk 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Discussion has got stale - the main other participant (IP) refuses to elaborate on their reasoning/address objections raised to their arguments and has instead started resorting to WP:ADHOM... could we get some fresh input please? Una LagunaTalk 13:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Name of article for natural unit of information
Should the article be called Nat (unit) or Natural unit of information? Please opine at Talk:Nat (unit). —Quondum 23:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Material properties (thermodynamics)
Template:Material properties (thermodynamics) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

James Chadwick
Looking for someone to double-check the physics at James Chadwick, which is at FAC at the moment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission
Physics experts, do you know if Draft:NewFasant is notable? --Cerebellum (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Materialization (paranormal)
Could someone pls have a look at the talk page? I do not have so much experience in dealing with illiterate editors who behave like if they are Nobel Prize winners. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Boris Sharkov
Hello once more, physics experts. Is this old AfC submission about a notable physicist? I couldn't find a Google Scholar report. Should the draft be kept and improved? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a quite clearly notable physicist, head of ITEP and other projects in plasma physics. Hundreds of publications. However, he already exists with a slightly better article Boris Yuriyevich Sharkov (created by the same editor as the submitter of the AfC). Any relevant information and sources/links should be merged there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Headbomb, for finding that. The draft was a copy-paste remnant and had been blanked by the author, so I deleted it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

EmDrive
The EmDrive article could do with some attention. Firstly, it currently details not just the EmDrive but also the (somewhat related) Cannae drive, which seems off-topic. Secondly, some rewriting may be required to better incorporate the results by NASA, and it's rather short on reliable sources for the claimed violation of conservation of momentum (the company manufacturing it says in its FAQ that the drive doesn't violate conservation of momentum, but their explanation seems bogus to me). Huon (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - in my opinion the information about Cannae drive should be moved elsewhere as it seems off-topic in the EmDrive article. Agree with the opinion that rewriting and better elucidation of various views is required. I suggest that experienced physicists who are experienced editors on WP will take a look at it. Dmatteng (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Code V
The article entitled "Code V" does not have sufficient reliable sources to be considered notable and merit inclusion. In the edit history, an editor recommended merging the article to the company that markets this product - Synopsys.

But, I don't really see a place for it in that article. This is because doing so would seem to be promoting a trivial subject by giving "Code V" its own section, when compared to the notable material already in "Synopsys" article. It doesn't fit with the tone of that article.

So, I am inclined to AFD the "Code V" article. However, I am looking for alternate opinions or solutions, so that is why I am posting this here. Thanks in advance.

I am also posting this on the  WikiProject Computing Talk Page. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am now thinking a good solution is to remove the content and make it a redirect. I think this is what the other editor actually recommended, not a merge. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This should be a disambiguation page. "Code V" is used in many different fields and subjects outside of physics. I would move the current page to Synopsys Code V, and then redirect it, to clear the edit history. Then rewrite "Code V" into a disambiguation page. (for instance: ATC code V, , etc ) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply Hello, 65.94.169.... I responded over at WikiProject Computing (Code V section). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)