Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science/Archive 8

Generalized proper time
Can some more knowledgeable people here please take a look at Generalized proper time and check whether this is a notable theory, a one-man project of AA Osipov, or something else? It looks a bit like a coatrack of some loose ideas by others plus a not really notable theory by Osipov to me, but I may be totally off base here. Fram (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that a previous version was already draftified by User:Discospinster, Draft:Generalized proper time. Fram (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Science articles needing expert attention
I've gone through the main Category:Science articles needing expert attention. Here are the results: More specific WikiProjects will be notified of this discussion. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 14:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Asymptotically flat spacetime: Redlinks fixed, fringe content has been removed. Article lacks inline citations.
 * Cooperstock's energy-localization hypothesis: Non-notable fringe science, PRODded.
 * DACAPO: Unclear expert-needed tag. Notability is questionable, and article is an unreferenced stub, hence I have brought it to AfD.
 * Data fabrication: Unclear expert needed tag, possibly redundant with Context tag added in the same edit. Article was recently moved from Fabrication (science), which I think was a good move but was done without discussion or explanation.
 * Data profiling: Redundant to More citations needed, whch was already on the article.
 * Environmental radioactivity: Issue tag claims that the article is a "a random collection of topics", possibly failing WP:SYNTH.
 * Fritz Johann Hansgirg: Original concern was most likely a lack of explanation about his invention, carbothermic magnesium reduction. Subject refined to "chemistry".
 * Landau–Hopf theory of turbulence: Stub with zero inline citations, but topic is notable. Redundant tag with non-descript rationale "Fluid-dynamics". Added sources exist and too technical tags.
 * Literature review: Original concern was most likely failing to distinguish the topic from systematic review, survey article, or meta-analysis. User is semi-active, pinging for more detail.
 * Melanthiini: Added by creator without explanation. Pinging user for more information.
 * Microprinting: The author was unsure of the section he added. (He didn't specify on the talk page.) Subject changed to "chemistry" or "technology".
 * Microscope image processing: Unclear why the IP user demanded expert attention, but they claimed in the edit summary that it is "a bit of a rant". Changed to essay. Article lacks inline citations and may contain original research.
 * Music information retrieval: Redundant to a too technical tag added later. Might also contain original research.
 * Patlak plot: Added by creator without explanation. Article has expanded since then.
 * Quantum paraelectricity: Replaced with too technical.
 * Scientific literature: Unclear expert-needed tag. I also removed an outdated tag added in the same edit that is implausible for this topic, any may already be resolved.
 * Semantic System: Unclear expert-needed tag, added shortly after article creation, and also doesn't appear to be a science topic. Pinging for more detail.

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject
Basic research	10,657	355	Stub--Coin945 (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on length, I have updated the classification to Start. What's the full list of the top 10 or so? –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 20:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have assessed it as C-class. It is well cited. It needs to cover more than the US perspective and this has already been tagged. ~Kvng (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Reviving WikiProject Zoo
Hello, WikiProject Science members, I am reviving WikiProject Zoo as I feel many of the zoo articles are lackluster. If anyone is interested in helping out, please do so. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to help! I'm also trying to create a WikiProject about Science, Nature and Eco-Life. Are you interested? FireToWater (Let's Talk!) 21:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Rfc on Falsifiability
Your comments will be appreciated at Talk:Falsifiability. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request- Help with expanding the scientific career of a scientist
If anyone is interested, please could you expand the scientific career of M. S. Swaminathan, the first World Food Prize laureate. I've recently spent some time addressing the non-science parts. Regards. DTM (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Mobility transition
Hi everyone, I've just finished my translation of Mobility transition from de:Verkehrswende. I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for improvement suggestions, but I wanted to run this new article past people with relevant expertise, because there is a lot of science involved that is outside my field of expertise as a historian. The term itself is relatively new and has many applications (as the article itself shows), and so mobility transition is sort of an emerging interdisciplinary field of various natural sciences and humanities. I took the liberty of changing some wordings to comply to English Wikipedia's manual of style, such as 'have been [present perfect continuous]' instead of 'is' or some other simple present or simple past tense when referring to processes that have been recently initiated and are still ongoing. More broadly speaking, I have operated under the assumption that the mobility transition is already going on, because many of the processes described in the article are already going on (since at least the 1960s and 1970s); the original German Wikipedia article often spoke more hypothetically of 'a mobility transition', as something that might happen in the future but is not yet here, whereas I consider it as a partial fait accompli. Many calculations are difficult to make sense of, and sometimes it's difficult to convert certain units of measurement, or to properly translate certain terms into English (I use British English as my standard, but sometimes I follow American English if the present Wikipedia article title uses an American term rather than a British one, e.g. 'truck' rather than 'lorry'. I use metric units wherever possible).

Aside from that, many parts of this article could use examples from other parts of the world; as it was originally written in German, most examples are from Germany (and to a lesser degree Austria, Switzerland and some other European countries), so perhaps Template:Globalize applies a bit here. I've added some examples from Anglo-Saxon countries and my native Netherlands, feel free to add more. Finally, there are some repetitions in the text (e.g. between 'Inland navigation' and 'Road freight and modal share'), some claims are arguably outdated (although they can still be relevant), and especially the 'Further examples' section is a bit random and unorganised (it seems to have organically grown over time as more and more editors added relevant facts to the list that didn't fit well into existing sections), although I'm not sure how to organise it better. Many examples can't readily be organised e.g. according mode of transport, or by kind of intended effect (e.g. energy efficiency, spatial efficiency, financial efficiency, traffic safety etc.), as many of them are interconnected. (I added 'short-haul flight ban' myself, but later decided to make it a separate section with an excerpt template, as it is can be separated from the other issues more easily). In some cases there wasn't a source for a claim, so I tried to find and add one (some citations may still be needed), and in other cases the source didn't seem to say what the text claimed, or wasn't clear to which year or which area (Germany? Europe? The world?) it applied, so I tried to clarify the source.

In some cases I've used Template:Interlanguage link when I estimated that the German Wikipedia entry on a certain topic may be worth translating, or would probably be translated by someone some day. This may never happen though, and it may detract from how well the text looks. In other cases, English Wikipedia does have a Wikipedia article, but it's not on exactly the same subject, so with certain links I might not be properly conveying in English what a German-language Wikipedian was trying to say. In still other cases, such as inland navigation, our English Wikipedia articles are still very limited. I tried to add some more information about inland navigation that I found along the way, but a lot more is desirable to have. The lack of info on inland navigation on English Wikipedia could be due to the fact that Anglo-Saxon countries are much more focused on sea navigation due to their geography, thereby missing how important inland waterways may be for transportation in landlocked or partially landlocked countries with lots of navigable rivers and canals. E.g. the Rhine may not mean much to Britons and Irish, as they can ship almost anything by sea, but it is of crucial importance to many continental Western Europeans. Language barriers and the average interests of the speakers of certain languages can be an obstacle to providing balanced information about the whole world. And that's before I even start about non-Western countries, about which very little is currently said in the article.

So, if anyone would like to make suggestions or corrections to improve it further, feel free to do so, or to leave a comment below. :) Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Help reviewing WikiProject Lone Simonsen
Hi to all WikiProject Science members. I am creating a Wiki for professor Lone Simonsen, but the reviewing is taking too long. The thing is we have a deadline to uphold at our scientific centre at Roskilde University, and I would very much like the Wiki to be published ASAP. If anyone is interested in helping me out in how to speed up the process, please let me know. -- Modatpandemix (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC+1)
 * "how to speed up the process" is a good question to ask at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! I added two project tags to your draft. Paleorthid (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have accepted the draft. The subject clearly meets our WP:NPROF notability guidelines. ~Kvng (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Polygraph results in an alleged case of alien abduction
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Travis Walton UFO incident § Polygraph. Sundayclose (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Scratch hardness
I need someone to weigh in on Articles for deletion/Scratch hardness and determine the notability of this term, as well as the other two non-Mohs scales being compared to the Mohs scale in this article. I was unable to find anything at all to suggest that either scale, Wooddall's or Ridgway's, are notable or worth comparing to Mohs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this science palaver I wrote correct?
OK, so in the article Boning (baseball) I wrote:

(Source are in the passage in the article.) Is this correct, I mean is the science correct? I kind of had look this stuff up and puzzle thru it to arrive at this passage. (Secondary question, not important as your answer won't be a reliable source, just curious: Is it true that we can't really know whether or a harder or softer bat (all other factors held equal) would produce more better (faster) rebound of the ball off the bat? Seems like some advanced math could tell us, but it seems not?) Herostratus (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If the reliable sources don't agree, we have to accept that and present multiple possibilities. For an editor to try to sort out the complicated physics involved goes well beyond WP:CALC into WP:OR. ~Kvng (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Planet at FAR
I have nominated Planet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Artem.G (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

List of scientific misconduct incidents
The discussion here might be of interest to readers of this page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Help reviewing status and class of article
Hi there everyone, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and have made a number of edits on the research station article. I would love to get some feedback and help reviewing the class status of the article which was formerly tagged as a stub. Thanks! Bubbleteafiend (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have updated Research station to C-class. It would need more than one main section to go higher. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thankyou! Bubbleteafiend (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on History of science page
Hello folks - we're having a bit of a discussion about the History of science article - some editors think there should be a section on approaches, summarising very briefly how histories of science have changed over time. It would be good to get some more perspectives on this on Talk:History of science, please! Thanks in advance. Zeromonk (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Green - July GA editathon event
Hello everyone -- I wanted to extend an invitation to all members of WikiProject Science. Throughout the month of July, WikiProject Women in Green (which focuses on bringing articles about women and women's works up to Good Article [GA] status and beyond) is hosting a GA editathon event on the theme of "Women and the Environment." Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and the environment (e.g., biologists, ecologists, environmental activists, or environmental-related books and films by women), with editors of all experience levels welcome. GA editing resources and one-on-one support will be made available by Women in Green, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a barnstar for their efforts. We hope to see you there! All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikifact
Hello. I would like to share a vision for a real-time fact-checking resource: Wikifact. I hope that the project is of some interest to those who contribute to Wikipedia in this science portal.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikifact

In the not-too-distant future, it may become possible for end-users to fact-check arbitrary portions of documents in word processors and Web browsers simply by selecting content, using context menus, and making use of crowdsourced, collaborative resources such as Wikifact. End-users would be able to select content from social media websites, news articles, digital textbooks, or arbitrary other documents and websites, and then open context menus providing options for exploring, e.g., fact-checking, the content.

I am hoping that more people will express interest on the project proposal’s website. I am hoping to publicize the project proposal. I am hoping to disseminate these ideas.

Please express your support for or opposition to the proposal on the project’s wiki page. We also welcome any of your comments, questions, or feedback with respect to the proposal, in particular ideas for improving it. Please feel free to share any of your ideas in our talk pages.

Thank you, AdamSobieski (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Language around units
On the suitability of English on WP such as "The units of mass are kilograms" and related, opine at Talk:Electric field - 172.82.46.195 (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC about widespread theories without scientific backing
There is a possibly interesting RFC on the Terpene article talk page: Talk:Terpene. The issue is whether it is useful to include WP:MEDRS resources to document the (current) fact that a very widespread theory about terpenes currently has no (clinical) scientific backup. If this is of any interest to you, feel free to express your opinion there. Finney1234 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

CZ Biohub Organization draft
Hello! I'm here on behalf of Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, a nonprofit that partners with universities to advance medical science. If you would like to read my full conflict of interest disclosure, you can do so using this link.

I've tried to improve the Biohub page by drafting an Organization section that combines some parts of the page's existing History section with information about the Biohub's structure, how it operates, and the types of research projects it pursues. I put the draft forward in an edit request on the organization's Talk page and uploaded the full section draft to my user page. Would anyone at this WikiProject be interested in reviewing my request/draft? Any help or feedback would be deeply appreciated. Thanks! Patricia at GMMB (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Help with Early Warning Labs
Early Warning Labs, An R&D partner with the USGS for the ShakeAlert project, was nominated for deletion. Please see COI! Any help with references or alternatives to deletion would help. EricFishers11 (talk) EricFishers11 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Planet
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Planet/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Astronomy
Astronomy 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Mass removal of residence parameter from Infobox scientist
Hi there. I'm trying to get some input from the community on whether we should have a mass-removal of the residence parameter from articles using Template:Infobox scientist. I believe that mass-removing this parameter from the 4,000+ articles will assist by a.) clearing Category:Pages using infobox scientist with unknown parameters so that it can more effectively be used as a maintenance category, and b.) reduce the likelihood that editors will add (often unsourced) information into the infobox about the subject's residence, which doesn't even show up in the infobox. If you could please voice your opinion on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Phuzion (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just occurred to me that I didn't link the original discussion over at the Template Talk page. I have also cross-posted this to VPT. Phuzion (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Help with Draft on Scientist
Hi, I've been working on Draft:Sanket Goel for a couple of months and it has been declined 3-4 times. Please help me out with it :) Shashy 922 (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Philosophy of science
Philosophy of science 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Sociology
Sociology 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Influences/influenced from the scientist infobox
hey, here's a proposal to remove Influences/influenced fields from the scientist infobox. It was done for the philosopher infobox, and bacause these fields often have too many unsourced / unnecessary entries never covered in text it might be a good idea for scientists as well. Please see and comment there: Template_talk:Infobox_scientist. Artem.G (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPathtalk 09:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Scientific consensus on climate change
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Scientific consensus on climate change&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Galaxy
I have nominated Galaxy 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. Greenish Pickle!  (🔔) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)