Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive January 2024

RfC on Angular mechanics
During new page review I came across Angular mechanics which was created by new editor @GrandMasterGrayson without going through the standard review process. I think it is OK, although it does duplicate some of the other mechanics pages. My feeling is that we should probably keep it and integrate it better, helping him out. However, I do think this is worth a brief discussion on the article talk page or just make edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I have had a look at the new article. It places a little emphasis on the role of angular mechanics in aerodynamics, aviation and aeronautical engineering - what has been written in support of this emphasis is amateurish and has no place in an encyclopaedia. For example: “Propellers spin, which generates angular momentum. Because of the momentum, it directs the air back and keeps the plane up while also propelling it forward.” Dolphin ( t ) 14:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that this page is un-encyclopedic, doesn't provide any content that isn't already in Wikipedia, and would best be served by being fully redirected somewhere. Angular momentum, perhaps? PianoDan (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked most of the references: no mention of the term "angular mechanics". I'm all for keeping content whenever possible but at most I think some of the refs could be added to other pages, but perhaps to External links. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of angular mechanics as a separate discipline on its own, but rather angular momentum and rotation as parts of classical mechanics. Perhaps merge or redirect to rotation or angular momentum. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In engineering, there is the topic of Rotordynamics, which seems to overlap with some of the new article. -- 19:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Angular mechanics" sounds like a non-standard name for the general topic that is more commonly called "rotational analogs" or "angular analogs" of linear kinematics and dynamics. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a standard name either redirect to angular momentum or to a more precise engineering term.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to move Identical particles to Indistinguishable particles
Currently "Indistinguishable particles" redirects to Identical particles. Since the article is about QM I propose to reverse this.

Please weigh in on Talk:Identical_particles Johnjbarton (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert Hooke
Hi all, looking for a "what should I do?" sort of answer. Large chunks of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hooke#Personality_and_disputes have been marked as "citation needed" since 2020. Is it okay to remove those parts (with a comment on the talk page on why I've done it)? Asking because it's protected. Red Fiona (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes: WP:PROVEIT. My only caveat is to look for surrounding refs as I found many refs do not match the content: the sources are occasionally mispositioned. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Red Fiona (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Electromagnetic field
The article Electromagnetic field needs work in just about every way. Its citations include random websites and a press release, along with books cited in bizarrely varying formats. There's a whole section on "Interference" that reads like a list of bullet points from a technical manual. The section "Feedback loop" just is a pile of bullet points. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Go for it! For certain I would delete the whole section on interference, merging anything useful into electromagnetic interference. Similarly move the health section somewhere else (if there is somewhere for this). WP:BOLD Ldm1954 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Analytical dynamics into Dynamics (mechanics)
Please weigh in Talk:Dynamics_(mechanics). An attempt 13 years ago failed but the challenges were not significant IMO.

Summary: Make one article named "Dynamics (mechanics)" out of two weak articles, mostly using "Analytical dynamics". Johnjbarton (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Our discussion triggered some learning and a bunch of good edits so I've change my proposal:
 * Redirect Dynamics (mechanics) to classical mechanics
 * Redirect Analytical dynamics to analytical mechanics.
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:MKS system of units
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MKS system of units that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Information processing (psychology)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Information processing (psychology) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Advertising inserted by user:Solophi at Hawking star
inserted a further reading to a religious philosophy book published by Solophi as an "early reference" at, an astrophysics article. This seems like advertising. I have deleted the link -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The link was incorrectly entered, this book on religious philosophy is:
 * Page, Richard K.. Exploring the Divine. United States, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2015.
 * So the issue is not advertising but rather that the book is off topic. I agree with the revert. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * FWIW, at talk:Hawking star, is arguing for its inclusion, as well as at user talk:Solophi -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ...and also that the book is self-published and therefore not a reliable source--Srleffler (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hartree atomic units
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hartree atomic units that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Escape velocity
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Escape velocity that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Charles Francis Richter
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Charles Francis Richter that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Escape speed vs velocity
Against consensus, user moved article Escape velocity to Escape speed, clearly overwhelmingly against the literature. Can someone weigh in at Talk:Escape speed? Tia - DVdm (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is false, there was a 3:1 consensus, with DVdm being the only dissenting user, and having ignored the arguments presented in favor of the change rather than explain why they disagreed. KingSupernova (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * KingSupernova, this is comment is inappropriate here, since WP Physics has no special sway on general RM process or the handling of discussions, or on other editor's behavior generally. What was appropriate was the pinging the project for their input on a current formal discussion of the actual page-name. DMacks (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @DMacks In my opinion, this comment is not inappropriate. Rather the original post was inappropriate.
 * The original post here starts with "against consensus...". This invites and allows replies by providing an assessment of a discussion rather than simply noting its occurrence on an other page. The original post continues by providing one sided evidence ("clearly overwhelmingly...").  Again this invites rebuttal. If you don't want discussion here, then don't start it here. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Timing is important.
 * Note that DVdm's comment is from before there was a requested move. Therefore DVdm was not obliged to provide a neutral summary of the RM, as there was none.
 * That said, DVdm's sentence starting with "[a]gainst consensus" seems to mean against the consensus of the literature rather than a consensus of a WP discussion. That is a bit misleading; I'll give DVdm the benefit of the doubt as to intent but it was not the best wording.
 * However KingSupernova's claim that "there was a 3:1 consensus" for the move is pretty hard to swallow. KingSupernova argued to move the page (no formal RM but not a bureaucracy and all that) in 2018.  DVdm argued against the move.  More than three years later, and two months apart, two more users chimed in to support KingSupernova's position.  Then more than two years after that, KingSupernova suddenly claims to be moving the page as the outcome of the "discussion".  That really doesn't pass the laugh test.
 * So DVdm was correct to revert the move as "undiscussed"; because there was nothing you could call a substantial discussion, even ignoring the lack of a formal RM.
 * Finally, there is now a formal RM and WikiProject contributors can contribute there.
 * That is all for now. --Trovatore (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All this side commentary is completely baffling to me. He said she said. Unnecessary negativity. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Reworked Equivalence principle.
I rather massively edited Equivalence principle to a cleaner and more sourced version. Please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Johnjbarton As a person not very into physics, I like it! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics
Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The most frequently viewed "Top-importance" physics pages
You may find this an interesting or entertaining curiosity: there's a software tool that can rank pages in a category by their daily view count. Of course, this hinges upon which pages are put into Category:Top-importance physics articles. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, and here are the results for the pages that are merely "high" importance. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool. I would point to two other searches:
 * C-Class physics articles that are most highly read.
 * Start-Class physics articles Start class physics article that are most highly read.
 * These then are the ugliest bits of WikiProject Physics that readers are most likely to see. Improving the top 100 on the C list and top 20 on the Start list would have a big impact.
 * Of course the ratings may be not correct, but I have found that Rater very quickly gives a decent rating without thinking too hard. It actually seems to be mostly testing if the article is similar to other B, C, or Start articles, but that's fine for a quick validate. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I re-rated the top 20 Start, they were all C class. I re-rated a few of the top C to B. So the most popular C list should be C's now. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the top "start" articles are C they have pictures and more than two sections.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And the rest should probably be deleted. The Start concept eludes me. "Dear reader, Here is a Page. Sincerely, Wikipedia". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Dear reader, here is a page. Would you like to add something to it?" One of the best ways to recruit new editors is to have stub pages on notable topics where we don't yet have much content. Eventually someone with an interest in that topic may encounter it and feel inspired to add to it. Nothing inspires better than "I can do better than that!"--Srleffler (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another good motivation is "This is all wrong!!". However probably some pages deserve to be deleted as they are not really notable.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Math Genealogy Project and other genealogy trees
The Mathematics Genealogy Project and other genealogy websites, were created to track the advisors and advisees of phd theses. This website is often cited in Wikipedia, especially to indicate the advisor or the thesis of a given person. However, this website can be edited by anybody and often does not provide sources. This makes it invalid as a source per WP:UGC. I have often found errors in its use or been unable to confirm some of the information provided in its entries.

My question is should I proceed with some RM WP:RfC to discuss the possibility to enforce the deprecation of such a source? This would help avoid the fabrication of data. ReyHahn (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Examples? Also, what is an RM? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops! I did not meant RM, I meant WP:RfC. As an example I just removed one at Paul Epstein (which might be right but needs a source check like the whole article). Here are more examples --ReyHahn (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the idea of enforcing the deprecation. I consider them (there are others) as useful sources that are not fully secondary, kind-off a soft primary. If there was an alternative curated list then they could be deprecated. Until there is (2050?) I would leave them be. Let sleeping information lie. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking also in future uses of the website. It is a direct violation of WP:UGC deprecating it will alert any users trying to use such a source and tell them to reconsider using something different. As for the sleeping information we already have, we could just make a list and work it out.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The ones I have seen have been mainly created and edited by Universities/Departments, so they are not exactly the same as those categories. I think Wikipedia already has too many rules, I am not in favor of more. If you can show cases where these lists have been fabricated, then I will reconsider my opinion. Until then I remain disagree. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is something to raise at Reliable sources/Perennial sources? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * An WP:RfC needs to be preceded by a discussion, I was triying to get a feeling of what users might think first.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant to discuss there, not to raise an RFC there. Might be worth searching for past discussions on the topic too, if you haven't already. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I just moved the conversation there: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Emmy Noether
I have nominated Emmy Noether for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Demolition completed for International System of Units
Ok I guess I should have discussed this first, but I just completed a massive demolition on International System of Units, cutting the content in half. I also reorganized the TOC.

Most of the removal was duplicate, repeating, not yet again stuff or historical material much better covered in the history of the metric system. Some was unreferenced examples that were probably correct. Some was material I believe amounted to guidebook content.

The content in the article now is mostly from the original, reworked to various extents. I hope other editors will step in and make improvements. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Energy-time uncertainty principle.
I reworked the energy-time part of uncertainty principle as well as some overall reorg and clean up. Please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Atomic physics to History of atoms
A rename discussion is talking place at Talk:Atomic theory. ReyHahn (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)