Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive March 2022

Eduard Shifrin
There is a discussion at Talk:Eduard Shifrin which may be of interest to the community here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

List of physics acronyms?
Perhaps it would be useful to have a List of physics acronyms article, similar to List of astronomy acronyms and List of computing and IT abbreviations? Praemonitus (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please can we also make sure that all symbols introduced into equations are defined?
 * Many articles seem not to define all variables. Also, can each symbol, when first introduced, have the pronunciation parenthesized?  I'm thinking of greek (or even those non-native to the current reading language, if possible.)
 * Otherwise physics and maths and to an extenet, engineering remain eletist realms where less knowledgeable people are unable to start to learn. They cannot read the articles for the want of a name, or audible queue, for symbols when reading. TheBobGeezer (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Labelling variables is always a good idea, and the relevant Manual of Style entry on how to format definitions from an equation is located just after MOS:RADICAL. (Sadly, there's no DIRECT shortcut to that section, but maybe I'll create one when I have time.)


 * I strongly disagree with the suggestion to include pronunciation after every single symbol, as that would result in a great deal of clutter. And for the vast majority of symbols, it's a simple matter to cut and paste the symbol from the page into the search bar, and go to the WP page for the symbol itself. PianoDan (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And now we have MOS:EXPLAINSYMBOLS. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have been trying to get a inline template that looks like $$F=ma$$, but the inline wikiproject seems kind of dead, check Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Inline Templates.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Eugene Parker § Views on climate change
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eugene Parker § Views on climate change. &#x0020;More editors' opinions on content discussion for biography of a very recently-deceased physicist are welcome. Schazjmd  (talk)  20:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Speed of light
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Speed of light/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we really need both Planck units and Planck length?
I was doing some deferred maintenance on Planck units and Planck length, and now I'm not so sure we need two separate pages. I think Planck length is the last survivor of a population of separate pages that now redirect to Planck units (like Planck time, which has been a redirect since May 2020). The sections of Planck length are "Value", "History", and "Theoretical significance", which are all redundant with the main article; and "Planck length and Euclidean geometry", which just spells out the heuristic calculations alluded to in the previous section in (maybe too much) detail. This side of physics also attracts fringe-POV-pushing, because black holes and quantum and all that, so having fewer pages to have to keep an eye on would be beneficial for maintenance. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum about the fringe bit: going through the history of Planck length, it appears to have attracted the attention of multiple SPA's trying to promote a paper by Espen Gaarder Haug. The first one to do so was later blocked for sockpuppetry. Man, where do I get a fan club that will spam my papers across this site.... XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I bet you're glad that you have no such fan club. Planck length needs to go the same way as the others. 172.82.47.201 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with a merge, but not just a redirect. The Planck length article has a clarity to it that should be carried across. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with a merge. Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Merged. Most of "Theoretical significance" turned out to be a line-by-line translation of a 1989 Russian textbook, which is (a) not cool, (b) not house style, and (c) kind of weird. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. Out of curiosity, how did you find the plagiarism? --Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting help for Template:Decay modes/2020
Last month, I requested that DePiep update the "Decay modes" table on Radioactive decay to match the decay modes given in NUBASE2020 (you can find the original request here), which they subsequently followed up and posted the current work-in-progress on Talk:Radioactive decay. However, the table is still incomplete because we're quite hazy on the physics side of the decay modes, and progress on the table has pretty much slowed to a crawl. I suggested to DePiep that we should bring the issue here to try to speed up the process (original suggestion here), so that's what I'm doing with this message.

To get to the point, what I'm requesting is some editors who are familiar/experienced with the physics relevant to radioactive decay to help fill out the empty cells in the table, resolve some of the questions regarding β+ decay, electron capture (ε), and positron emission (e+) as used by NUBASE2020, and a couple of other things (more details can be found on Talk:Radioactive decay). I've done some research trying to resolve the notation used for beta plus decay, electron capture, and positron emission in NUBASE2020, but I haven't found anything so far (I'm not familiar with the physics either). Any help would be greatly appreciated :)

Thanks! MeasureWell (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I posted a comment on the page, although it may have gotten lost in the shuffle. I'm happy to help, and reasonably familiar with nuclear decay modes, but couldn't really work out what the unresolved issues were, given all the back-and-forth. PianoDan (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Adoption and Mentorship
Dear members of WikiProject Physics,

I am setting out on a journey to learn physics basically from scratch and I could do with some assistance! I joined Wikipedia to contribute for fun and so far I have greatly enjoyed becoming an editor. Since joining, I have decided that I would like to pursue a career in astronomy. It is a subject that has always fascinated me and I have finally decided to begin learning. I am seeking adoption from someone with a background in physics or astronomy, to teach me about being an editor on Wikipedia and to help me become a valuable contributor. I would also greatly appreciate if my mentor would be able to help me out with the occasional tricky question or concept I come across in Physics.

Secondly, if anyone requires assistance with referencing, copyediting or adding links, I'm your guy!

Thanks for your time, Kabiryani (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to drop me a note if you ever have questions (about Wikipedia, physics, or astronomy), as I have a degree in two of those things (and have taught them too). Primefac (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the offer @Primefac! I will definitely be coming to you when I have a few questions. However, I just wanted to understand whether this is an adoption offer. Kabiryani (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what that means, so I couldn't say for sure, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be anything formal as making a declaration of "X has adopted Y", especially since in my mind that implies that I will be actively seeking you out at times, which to be completely honest is not one of my intentions (i.e. I'm totally happy to help out when/if you have questions, but I won't be setting tasks for you). Primefac (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)