Requested move at Talk:Fok state#Requested move 12 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fok state#Requested move 12 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the undiscussed move.--Srleffler (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Body relative direction#Requested move 6 April 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Body relative direction#Requested move 6 April 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Quality (physics)

This stub has issues identified by a tag and on the talk page. Please try to address those. Bearian (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I redirected this to Q factor which discusses this use of the term "quality". Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

New codemirror editor deployed.

Just a PSA. The codemirror based editor has been enabled. I am familiar with this excellent editor from my days as a web developer. Personally I used the [Help:Extension:CodeMirror#CodeMirror_preferences preferences] to turn off line numbers and turn on code folding. The code folding is awesome: the inline refs are folded and the text is much easier to read. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, looks promising. I did not manage to resolve this link [Help:Extension:CodeMirror#CodeMirror_preferences preferences], but found that preferences can also be accessed with Ctrl + Shift + ,. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Amy Eskridge in Missing scientists

There's a disagreement on how WP should describe this person in the article. If you have an opinion, please join Talk:Missing_scientists#The_claim_Eskridge_was_an_"anti-gravity_researcher"_is_a_Red_Flag_and_should_be_removed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Request for WP:3O

@Gurkubondinn is edit warring by adding a LLM tag to Gareth Thomas (materials scientist) based upon a claim that the original page creator has a history of LLM, and that the page contains OR/SYNTH. I have previously reviewed this page as part of WP:NPP and find zero evidence of this. This opinion is based upon both the page content, and my personal knowledge; Gareth was a major figure in electron microscopy which is my main topic. Since my professional opinion and also that as a moderately experienced WP editor is being disputed, I would appreciate third opinions as to whether there truly are any hallucinations in the text that merit tagging.

Courtesy ping of @Jähmefyysikko who previously questioned a claim of DOI hallucinations. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:AINB would be a more appropriate place to ask, since the issue at hand is AI-generated text and has nothing to with material science. I'll also point out (again) that I am not edit warring; I restored the tag with an explanation, then gave further explanation when asked. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

You are claiming that the page contains SYNTH/OR/LLM hallucinations, none of which is true. The posting here is for other expert eye on content as WP:Materials is not very active. TEM is closer to physics than chemistry. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

More examples of how this is recognisable as AI-generated text have been laid out. Again, the problems have nothing to do with material science. You should ask on WP:AINB if you want to get more opinions. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

As stated in my response to you on the talk page, you are misinterpreting words because you do not have expertise in the area. I suggest you wait for uninvolved expert eyes to look at the page and see if they agree with you that it contains OR/SYNTH/LLM hallucinations. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The required "expertise" is on AINB. There might of course be some overlap, I'm not familar with this wikiproject. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

All of the sources are accessible and what are described in the reflist, I don't see anything like DOI hallucinations. All claims are cited, although mostly based on a single source. Many of the claims are cited by the actual paper or patent (primary sources), which is not ideal, but I think it can be fixed. Nothing is obviously AI from my perspective. Ajheindel (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I verified all of the sources. Better than average bio article. I saw no evidence of AI. The tag seems like make-work to me. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Multiple redundant articles in electromagnetism.

While trying to fix the electrodynamics section of magnetic field and looking for a suitable main article for electrodynamics, I stumbled across the fact that there are currently three articles (none of which are near sufficient) that cover essentially the same thing: electromagnetism, introduction to electromagnetism, and classical electromagnetism. This seems bigger than any one of these articles so I am posting it here rather than just on the talk page of one of the articles. While in principle, I can see keeping the first 2, the difference between classical electromagnetism and electromagnetism seems too small to me to warrant separate articles.

I was hoping that I can get some suggestions on what to do with these articles. The simplest thing to do (other than nothing) is to turn classical electromagnetism and introduction to electromagnetism into redirects, but there are useful and different material on each of the pages.

Thoughts? TStein (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Electromagnetism is mostly an overly long summary of History of electromagnetic theory and a table of symbols.

classical electromagnetism is essentially unsourced but contains some of the basic formula of EM.

Introduction to electromagnetism as a lot of good stuff, skewing towards electricity, decently sourced.

Some suggestions:

• I would aim for Electromagnetism to be an overview with summaries of the history, many subtopics, and applications.
• Merge Electromagnetism § Classical electrodynamics with Electromagnetism § History, then cut it down to a summary of History of electromagnetic theory. Ideally content in these sections might move to the main article, but you might find that the main is stronger.
• Merge classical electromagnetism into electromagnetism, pulling a couple of sources up from the subtopic articles (assuming they have sources). I think a section like "Classical and quantum theories" would be great near the top, with two short summaries leading to other articles.

Then I would re-assess. Introduction to electromagnetism is the strongest of these so is the lowest priority for action. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was thinking about something similar long-term. Hopefully, I can find some time to do that soon. I also stumbled across electromagnetic field which has some stuff that could fit better with electromagnetism as well. Who knows what other articles has something useful. TStein (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

In following Wikipedia:Summary style, the parent article Electromagnetism should not duplicate content of the children articles. I'd suggest double checking if the subsections in Electromagnetism#History couldn't be trimmed down. The section about EM force could be generalized to EM interactions, including events (e.g., ionization). There is also a clear distinction between classical EM and QED, so the latter would deserve a section in the parent article. fgnievinski (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Request for article assessment: Klaus Honscheid (DESI instrument scientist, APS Fellow)

I am Klaus Honscheid, Professor of Physics at The Ohio State University. I have a clear conflict of interest and will not be writing or editing any article about myself; I am posting here to ask whether volunteer editors think I meet WP:NPROF and, if so, whether anyone would be interested in drafting an article. I have disclosed my identity on my user page. A brief summary of the case for notability, with criteria references:

WP:NPROF C1 (impact in discipline): Google Scholar lists approximately 229,000 citations and an h-index of approximately 119, accumulated across work on the CLEO and BaBar experiments in particle physics and the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) in observational cosmology. (Citation counts in collaborative physics are inflated by large author lists; I note this for transparency.)

WP:NPROF C2 (major awards): Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship (1994), verifiable in the Sloan Foundation Fellows Database at sloan.org/fellows-database.

WP:NPROF C3 (fellow of major scholarly society): Fellow of the American Physical Society, elected 2005.

WP:NPROF C7 (mentioned in independent reliable sources): I am identified as one of the two instrument scientists of DESI in the existing Wikipedia article on the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, and quoted by name in coverage of DESI by Space.com and in news releases from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Other potentially relevant items: I currently serve on the External Advisory Committee of the Simons Observatory (Simons Foundation), and I held the role of Project Instrument Scientist for DESI during its construction and commissioning. My faculty page is at physics.osu.edu, and I have a Google Scholar profile under "Klaus Honscheid."

If editors here judge that the case is borderline or insufficient, I would genuinely appreciate that feedback rather than have time wasted. If the case looks adequate, I am happy to answer factual questions on my talk page but will otherwise stay out of the drafting process KlausHonscheid (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks to me like you would meet WP:PROF. For convenience, the APS Fellowship can be verified on the Division of Particles and Fields webpage (click "see all recipients"), and here's the Google Scholar profile.

If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia's physics articles, you're more than welcome to do so, since there are plenty of articles in physics where nobody would argue that you have an actual conflict of interest. (Lots of pages about stuff in the standard undergraduate curriculum still need work, even.) We have an informal guide explaining the oddities of Wikipedia to experts coming from outside that you may find useful. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ecliptic

Ecliptic 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This reassessment was closed while people were still working on it (6 {{citation needed}} tags had been brought down to 2). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Metric system

Metric system 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. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding of a tribocharged image in strange places

Nsae Comp has recently added an image from an experiment on the space station to both Polytetrafluoroethylene and Electrostatics. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that it shows in some sense the electric field after a piece of teflon was triboelectric charging by rubbing with, somehow, something related to "charged water droplets". To me this is way to vague to be usable in either page where there are already better explanations and more relevant graphics. If you want to add comments see Talk:Polytetrafluoroethylene and/or the pages themselves. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)