Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics/Archive/2009-2010

Revive the Taskforce Fluid Dynamics
Let us revive the Taskforce (formerly WikiProject) Fluid Dynamics! If you are interested, please indicate so below. If enough people want to participate (say at least five), we can start. There is enough beautiful material to beautify and expand further, many topics are still missing, and there is also a lot of garbage around. Let us bring some order in the chaos (well, that is quite exagerated). -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll help with the metaspace work. I.e. tagging articles, redesigning the taskforce's page, building some nifty lists of tools, getting bot support, etc... However, I don't know anything, or know anyone (both on wiki or outside of wiki) who knows anything about fluid dynamics. A first good step would be contacting the old members to see with they are still interested. Perhaps some people from WikiProject Engineering, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Aircraft, WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Rocketry would be interested/knowledgable in this. Also if you personally know other experts in the field, they would probably be of the biggest help possible. So don't forget about them. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in. I'll look over the list of articles in a few days and start working on some Start-and C-class ones. Michael Belisle (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I got the message and signed back up. Awickert (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to volunteer. My expertise is in the area of application of fluid dynamics to low-speed aeronautics.  Dolphin51 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks a bunch. Also, make sure to watch the WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics/Article alerts page (show bot edits) to monitor what's going on with the FD articles.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Joining as a volunteer. My area is computational fluid dynamics. Thanks Crowsnest for taking the lead. Salih  ( talk ) 17:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in. My area of expertise is experimental fluid mechanics, particularly in the area of PIV, microfluidics and electrokinetics.  I'm new to wikipedia though so I can offer knowledge and revision skills on articles but as for formatting, don't expect much help.

Iron Engineer (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Scope
From the list of articles being tagged as falling within the fluid dynamics taskforce, some are companies (e.g. 3T Cycling), or meteorology topics (e.g. Derecho), hardly saying anything about fluid dynamics. So, what is the scope of the taskforce? Is it the natural science of fluid dynamics (that would be my preference)? Any ideas? -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is because I've tagged the following categories by bot:
 * Category:Fluid dynamics
 * Category:Boundary layers
 * Category:Aerodynamics
 * Category:Bubbles
 * Category:Computational fluid dynamics
 * Category:Convection
 * Category:Discrete-phase flow
 * Category:Equations of fluid dynamics
 * Category:Flow meters
 * Category:Fluid dynamicists
 * Category:Aeronautics
 * Category:Helicopter aerodynamics
 * Category:Wind power
 * Category:Wind tunnels
 * Category:Winds
 * Category:Wing design
 * Category:Vortices


 * I found it more important to build/expand the "article base", especially so that Article alerts can pick up stuff like PRODs and AfDs, than to make sure that all articles tagged are indeed about FD. All these will not have importance ratings given for the physics project (see Category:Unknown-importance physics articles), so over time, these will be flushed out, even if they have quality ratings. If you know of other categories that contain likely candidates, just post them here and I'll contact AnomieBOT to tag them with the banner. As far as I'm aware, the scope of this is still about FD and closely-related topics. If you see something that should not be tagged, simply remove the banner and that's that (although if its still physics-related, just remove the |fluid-dynamics=yes parameter).Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it allows some category checking. 3T Cycling was in Category:Aerodynamics and it shouldn't have been, so if you see that kind of stuff, remove the category as well.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Headbomb. It is very helpful you know about how to use these bots, and that you already filled the taskforce with these articles! I will have a look whether there are more categories which are relevant. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories for Fluid Dynamics TaskForce

 * Moved from User talk:Headbomb.

Hello Headbomb, I do not know whether this is the right place to ask, but: can you arrange the following categories to be tagged as fluid-dynamics as well Best regards, -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Water waves
 * Category:Tides
 * Category:Fluid mechanics : contains much more fluid dynamics than statics, to my surprise


 * Will do.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Crowsnest (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey I'd like to propose the adoption of the temperature and temperature related articles to this taskforce. At least temperature is part of Wikiprojects, but is not under this task force. Entropy as it relates to compressible fluids is another area of interest. The compressible fluids article is a mess but I'm going to be working on it. Compressible aerodynamic design makes use of isotropic lines, which qualifies my statement about entropy, but I admit compressible aerodynamic design is slightly outside of my expertise. Iron_Engineer (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ripcurl nominated for deletion
The AfD discussion can be found here. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unassessed articles
I started rating the unassessed articles within the scope of this task force, starting from the back (Z). I try to adhere to the WikiProject Physics importance scale since we are part of that project. While the class ratings are just according to the WP-wide class scale. Any help is welcome! -- Crowsnest (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, excellent. There was a message on the banner linking to the importance ratings of WP:PHYS, but we switched banners a while ago and now it doesn't link to that anymore. There are four categories that are more relevant than others when it comes to doing assessment/ratings run. Category:Unassessed physics articles, Category:Unknown-importance physics articles (and their intersection Category:Unassessed physics articles of Unknown-importance), and for this project specifically Category:Unassessed fluid dynamics articles.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A personal suggestion for those looking to do assessment runs: pick one of these categories, then find a letter which doesn't have 4 million entries. Then clear that letter. It gives a certain sense of satisfaction, and you feel like you've done something.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles within multiple task forces?
A question: can articles belong to multiple task forces, for example acoustics and sound (both within task force "acoustics" and "fluid dynamics")? -- Crowsnest (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Short answer:Yes. Long answer: Yes. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I choose the long answer. -- Crowsnest (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

New cleanup listing availible.
Freshly delivered by WolterBot.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is a helpful overview. Enough nice things we can do, it appears. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Vortex ring toys needs some attention.
Lots of stuff being said, most of it which is WP:OR. I've cleaned it up a bit, but the content is still bad.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice toys, both with respect to fluid dynamics and OR. If not done by somebody else, I will have a look after finishing with two others. -- Crowsnest (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Observations during assessment of articles
During the processing of not-assessed articles, to my observation there are a few sub-fields of fluid dynamics which seem to need attention. Especially: which both are quite important, to my opinion. Both seem to be very underdeveloped as compared to the state-of-the-art (as well as the older fundamentals) in these fields.
 * turbulence — Category:Turbulence
 * computational fluid dynamics — Category:Computational fluid dynamics

To a lesser extend hydraulics, with a lot of confusion between the technology of hydraulic machinery on one side, and hydraulics as the applied science of hydrodynamics (which is much wider in scope) on the other. And a horrible main page hydraulics (mainly being a kind of history up to the Middle Ages, and then a very little for the period up to the second half of the 19th century, where it just stops).

But these are just my observations. I do not know what the impression of other people is, with respect to the articles and categories in this task force. And how to proceed to improve them. Do you like to pick articles which need cleaning up from the cleanup listing, or do we use more organized forms, working together on one or more important articles which need improvement? -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can offer some insight here if you opt for more focused efforts. It is my experience that the fewer people are involved in tasks, the less at once you should ask of them. Focus on one or two article at a time, but not more than that.


 * What I personally like to do is to first go over an article and give it a quick read. Then I try to find what the structure should be, aka what sections should be included, in what order, what is should be a subsection what is not, etc...). After that, I basically edit the article with that structure in mind, moving stuff to their proper section and subsection as needed. After this is done, you're left with something which may or may not be of very high quality, but you've completed what I call the "pre-work". You've made it easy to identify what sections and subsections are underdeveloped, what elements are lacking, etc... It is then much much easier to get other editors to give feedback and to get them to work on the article. Coordination with other related WikiProjects is a good idea at this point (and so is peer review if you are out of ideas or don't get much feedback). For example hydraulics is definitely related to engineering, so asking them to help would probably get you somewhere. At this point editing doesn't really follow a structure anymore. People do referencing, others add content, others copy-edit stuff, improve prose, improve MOS compliance, etc... And after this is all over, you usually end up with something that is at-least of B-class. And if you're interested in going the extra mile, another PR or even a GAC/FAC will often results in fruitful discussion.


 * Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AlexNewArticleBot keywords
If you build a list of keywords related to fluid dynamics, there's a bot that can patrol the newly created articles to see if there isn't something related to this project. Just list anything that goes through your head which is related to fluid dynamics, but not so general that it would pick up unrelated articles 95% of the time (aka "Newtonian fluid" is awesome, "fluid" is okay, "water" not so much). Build the list here and I'll set it up afterwards (or get someone else to do it). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just making a start with the list. A preceding number indicates relative importance, "normal importance" is 10. I started from the topics in Fluid dynamics. -- Crowsnest (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification, the number shouldn't really be about "importance", but rather about the quality of the "trigger". You probably want all pages with "Coanda effect" being reported, but not necessarily all pages with "aerodynamic" (lots of car-related articles) or "acoustic" (tons of music related articles, etc.). Anyway, this is not very important at this point. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Headbomb, please feel free to add an "s" to topics like "acoustics", "aerodynamics", etc. if you think that will prevent spoiling the generated new-articles lists with irrelevant links. -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I currently truncate works in their most useful forms. For example "acoustics" is truncated to "acoust" as so to cover acousto, acoustic, acoustics, etc..., "Coanda effect" is truncated to "Coanda" since it'll cover pages mentionning Coanda without mentionning the Coanda effect.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Putting edit above list, to keep talk together - move if you like) Crowsnest, do you mind if I add to the list? I'll keep it alphabetized. Awickert (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All additions, improvements and critique are of course welcome: this is Wikipedia. Please add after the current list, as asked by Headbomb, since the entries have to be formatted further before their implementation. -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already started to implement this. Adding it after the current list would make things less confusing for me. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All right - that's what I wanted to know - thanks. I'll put a list together, then type it up here. Awickert (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Alright, the bot is working. There is was, I cleaned the list up quite a lot. It's not perfect, but it's not 90% politicians and soccer players now. a lot of false positive because of a russian soccer/football club (called Dynamo-something), politicians (url containing the "cfd" string) and I forgot that "flowers" start with "flow". Many other tweaks should ensure a better selection of article in the future. I'll implement the new keywords in a day or two (so I can test the new exclusion rules, and so on).Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I am anxious to see what the tweaks to the keyword rules will do :). -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it should make a difference similar to this . I'm not entirely sure how the bot works, so we'll see what exactly they do tomorrow. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The first hit from the new articles list: Philip L. Roe (paradoxically enough a key scientist in the field of CFD)!. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Alright, the list definitely got less clutter than last time, but it's still not tip top. I've tweaked/fixed some rules to further eliminate politicians, rivers, soccer players, flowers, etc... The next tweak should make a difference similar to this. I'll check how the bot performs tomorrow, then I'll work on the new keywords. In the meantime, you can browse the new article list and start tagging/assessing what you think should be tagged (starting from the bottom is a good idea, since the older entries get archived first). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This list is also a good opportunity to recruit new members. Contacting the creators of new FD articles is a good way to augment membership. I gave some recuiting tips to the Glass taskforce which would also apply here.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The list starts to work. There were two articles I tagged for the task force, and these directly led to another highly-relevant one (Laser Doppler Velocimetry). I am quite amazed that so many related new articles are appearing, considering the amount of articles tagged as "fluid-dynamics=yes" at the moment. There must be many around here at WP not identified as such. Or otherwise this part of WP has to be expanding at a (relative) high rate. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed in the bot's log, that cnoidal wave first got -100 points due to the rule "brook", caused by a wikilink to Brooke Benjamin appearing in the page's source code. Is it possible to prevent this type of behaviour? Otherwise, pages may be missed while being relevant to the project. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

More Keywords
Adding a few from the top of my head, as well as the whole Template:NonDimFluMech list. Also, we might want to qualify "subcritical" and "supercritical" from the above list; I can imagine that by themselves, they're used in more than fluids. Awickert (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hydromechanics
The Hydromechanics article is a fossil left over from the Encyclopedia Brittanica 1911 edition. It contains some relevant material on the history of fluid dynamics, but becomes hardly useful after 1800 and stops of course around 1900. Before, I merged Hydrodynamics into Fluid dynamics, and something similar can be done here. Or move it to History of fluid dynamics or something like that; but than the present material is by far inadequate. Or can it be parked somewhere outside article space (in such a way that some material can be found and grabbed when needed)? Any ideas? -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion on this is at Talk:Hydromechanics. -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Languages
On the taskforce's page something weird is happening: in the left navigation column, interwikilinks of Portal:Box-header to other languages appear, in a repeating fashion (six times). Crowsnest (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. There was a problem with a misplaced noinclude tag in the box-header template.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Convective available potential energy / Convective instability
Repost from WT:PHYS Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Two articles (both previously in WikiProject Physics, now one)&mdash;Convective instability and Convective available potential energy were merged. Now there is a discussion as to whether it is appropriate to have the merged article recreated to describe the phenomenon in less technical specificity and in a manner appropriate to at least one class of interested readers. If you care, could you please review Talk:Convective instability?

Thanks, Bongo  matic  23:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Turbulence
The turbulence article is a mess at the moment, see here. For the time being, I reverted to a version of 8 March, and would very much appreciate help to sort things out. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jet engine performance
Jet engine performance has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The banner was removed on 30 April by User:TStein, citing grounds that the subject is notable.  I agree that Jet engine performance is little more than an unsourced student essay at present.  I have begun repairing it by re-working the introductory paragraphs, and adding one suitable reference.  Dolphin51 (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dolphin51. Headbomb made some suggestions above in which may be of help. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?
Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Referencing
Hello, I'm trying to hit the ground running on improving some articles but am unfamiliar with editing procedure, including the usage of references. I decided to start on a topic I know a lot about, Particle Imaging Velocimetry, so I could get the ground rules down so to speak. I just rewrote the article to make it more factual and so it would more fully cover the entire breadth of the topic. If you go to that talk page though, I've addressed that I'm not entirely sure how to cite everything and wikify it. I mean, most of the words mentioned have wiki pages for them, but if I do everything, then the users gonna be looking at a lot of blue. Also, I have one reference that I put in that talk page that pretty much covers everything as its a text book on that topic. However, there are plenty of other scientific sources to cover everything. It seems wrong to cite everything to one source so I really don't know on this. Some help would be appreciated. Iron_Engineer (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright I can help a bit here. There are many ways to references things. If you use one source heavily, the easier way to proceed would be this (let's say the book is G.M. Homsy (2008). Multimedia Fluid Mechanics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521721691).


 * First add the book in the references section. The text you would write is something like G.M. Homsy (2008). Multimedia Fluid Mechanics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521721691
 * Alternatively, you can use a cite book template: to produce
 * Then you can add inline citations where appropriate. The text you would write is something like


 * Alternatively, if you use a review as your main source, let's say S.S. Penner, F.A. Williams, P.A. Libby, and S. Nemat-Nasser (2009). "Von Kármán's Work: The Later Years (1952 to 1963) and Legacy", Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 41 1-15 doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.010908.165156, you could simply write
 * On the first use:
 * Alternatively, you could use a cite journal template: <ref name="Penner2009">
 * On subsequent uses:
 * This will produce a single footnotes, linked to it many times. I hope this helps, and if it's still confusing right now, I would still suggest giving it a try to get a feel of how things work for yourself. You really can't break a thing, and if you do you can always undo your edits. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary: -- Mr.Z-man 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
 * The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
 * I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - ~alexz/pop/.
 * This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
 * This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
 * There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
 * The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
 * The data is now retained indefinitely.
 * The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
 * Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" -

Not attainable?
Hi all, I'm still perusing pages and pages of continuum mechanics branches, I understand Wikipedia perfection is unattainable, but still wonder: is this task force done? It sort of stopped in July. For example, the well written Fluid Mechanics article still includes a table that was discussed on talk:continuum mechanics and seems to belong there since the one thing everyone appears to agree on (attainable agreements!?) is that continuum mechanics is the mother of all these other branches. IDave2 (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Taskforces are never done, although activity has dropped. Feel free to join it and be bold! Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Headbomb. I will follow your advice as soon as I get back to this. IDave2 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

RBF Morph
Can someone check if this software (nominated for deletion) is somehow worthy of mention in Computational fluid dynamics or similar articles? Thanks, Pcap ping  01:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone may want to have a look at ModeFRONTIER which was proposed for deletion last year. (currently not claimed by any wiki project). Pcap ping  01:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wavenumber-frequency diagram
Gave it a small expansion. I did it by memory, so if someone could double-check after me to make sure I didn't say anything stupid, that would be great. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC on WP Physics coordinators
Please take a look and feel free to comment (or not). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fluid dynamics articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Fluid dynamics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)