Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
The Science WikiProject is now seven years old! Please help to:
|
| Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Reliability of source American Alpine Journal for geology citations, and more specifically, Eric Gilbertson contents
editThere is currently a discussion at reliable sources noticeboard about the use of American Alpine Journal magazine for geology citations and more specifically, Eric Gilbertson articles on AAJ. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_publication_in_the_American_Alpine_Journal_sufficient_to_establish_the_elevation_of_a_mountain_peak? please consider participating. Graywalls (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
The article Primary instrument has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. Tagged for Notability concerns for 5 weeks to give editors watching this a heads up. I'm not sure if this is the correct or best usage. WP:OR and WP:TNT apply here.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Discussion re Ocean heat content
editAn editor has extensively edited Ocean heat content, introducing tracts of unsourced technical detail in what was formerly geared toward readers of this layperson's encyclopedia. I want to avoid an edit war (see Talk:Ocean_heat_content#Definition_of_heat), and I urge project members to weigh in there. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- The alleged "unsourced technical detail" is basics in thermodynamics, written in a separate section, with several links to the wikipedia articles of thermodynamics.
- The lead section, which RCraig09 doesn't like, reads:
- ============================================ (START)
Map of the ocean heat anomaly in the upper 700 meters for year 2020 versus the 1993–2020 average.[1] Some regions accumulated more energy than others due to transport drivers such as winds and currents. - Ocean heat content (OHC) or ocean heat uptake (OHU) is the enthalpy absorbed by oceans, and is thus an important indicator of global warming.[2] Ocean heat content is calculated by measuring ocean temperature at many different locations and depths, and integrating the areal density of a change in enthalpic energy over an ocean basin or entire ocean.[3] Despite being called heat content, “work and heat are not stored in a system. Each is a mode of transfer of energy from one system to another,”[4]. Historically, in the 19th century, the now obsolete notion “heat content” was used in thermodynamics for enthalpy and denoted by , see the section about history and etymology of enthalpy, and see also the section Critics and possible misunderstandings.
- This wikipedia article
- provides the present definition,
- explains measurement methods,
- discusses causes for heat uptake and
- expected impacts.
- ============================================ (END)
- The problem seems not to be "unsourced technical detail" or the like, but just the issue, that some people lack basics of thermodynamics and do not know, that no system stores work or heat. Systems store energy (and mass). Heat is not a quantity associated to a state. The idea of an "amount of heat stored" was a point of view till the mid of 19th century, but meanwhile, physics knows, that such an amount does not exist and this point of view is obsolete. Heat is just some mode of energy transfer, associated to processes. That's basics in thermodynamics, but might come to some as a surprise.
- Ocean Heat Content (OHC) is an enthalpy (dependent on the context: per area, per volume, or total) and therefore a notion of energy.
- This is also clarified in the original articles about TEOS-10 , e.g. the official TEOS-10 manual, or in the wikipedia article Conservative temperature.
- --EinMathematikerInAustria (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC) EinMathematikerInAustria (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Let's please keep the discussion at Talk:Ocean heat content, rather than spreading it across multiple WikiProjects. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
References
- ^ Jessica Blunden (25 August 2021). "Reporting on the State of the Climate in 2020". Climate.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
- ^ Cheng, Lijing; Foster, Grant; Hausfather, Zeke; Trenberth, Kevin E.; Abraham, John (2022). "Improved Quantification of the Rate of Ocean Warming". Journal of Climate. 35 (14): 4827–4840. Bibcode:2022JCli...35.4827C. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0895.1.
- ^ Dijkstra, Henk A. (2008). Dynamical oceanography ([Corr. 2nd print.] ed.). Berlin: Springer Verlag. p. 276. ISBN 9783540763758.
- ^ Beretta, G.P.; E.P. Gyftopoulos (2015). "What is heat?" (PDF). Journal of Energy Resources Technology. ASME. 137 (2). doi:10.1115/1.4026382.
Discussion on Template:Regeneron Science Talent Search
editI have posted a discussion on the merits of Template:Regeneron Science Talent Search at the TfD page here. It looks like interested editors add "Replies" at that discussion page. About 20% of the prior winners now have Wikipedia pages. I am posting both here as they are in various disciplines, and also to WT:Physics as a decent number became physics academics. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Are social scientists, scientists?
editI have set up a discussion here. Wikipedia_talk:Contents/Society_and_social_sciences#Are_social_scientists,_scientists?. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Request for article
edit- Hello, I’m Cyril Voyant, Director of Research at the O.I.E. laboratory, Mines Paris‑PSL, based in Sophia Antipolis. I am seeking the assistance of a neutral volunteer editor (with no personal or professional connection to me) who can review or publish a draft about me, in accordance with community standards.
- My academic credentials are publicly verifiable:
- HAL profile (116 indexed publications, participation in ANR/EU projects like SAPHIR, Fine4cast, TILOS): https://cv.hal.science/cyril-voyant Google Scholar profile (over 130 peer-reviewed articles, approximately 6,500 citations): https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=aUlP6agAAAAJ&hl=en ResearchGate profile (149 publications, around 6,157 citations): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cyril-Voyant.My research areas include:
- Solar irradiance forecasting applying hybrid AI/statistical models, development of novel metrics such as the stochastic coefficient of variation (sCV) and Forecastability Index.
- ClearSky‑Free forecasting using Extreme Learning Machines trained directly on raw irradiance data.
- Transfer learning and clustering techniques to deploy models in regions lacking local data.
- Complex-valued time series modeling to capture amplitude and volatility for probabilistic forecasting.
- Medical dosimetry and radiotherapy planning, notably the open‑source software LQL‑Equiv used in over 20 countries.
- Projects with national and European funding: SAPHIR, Fine4cast, TILOS. All the information and reference are availaible at https://www.cyrilvoyant.com/ . A lot reference are available in scopus, publon, mdpi interfaces.
- This initiative is strictly non-commercial, primarily aimed at improving access to my work and facilitating future scientific collaborations.
- I would be grateful to any volunteer editor, impartial and independent, who can assist in ensuring the text meets Wikipedia guidelines. I can provide access to the draft via EverybodyWiki (Cyril_voyant) or cyrilvoyant.com if needed.
- Thank you in advance to anyone willing to contribute to the rigorous and useful dissemination of this scientific work.
- Best regards,
- Cyril Voyant Cyril voyant (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Cyril Voyant is a worthy subject for an article in the English Wikipedia. I posted my rationale on the draft article's talk page. -- Paleorthid (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's frustrating that people have to wait for someone to write the article they think they are ready for. I'm looking at this and it just screams CV. Where is the interesting part, early life, personal life and photo. Also needs a infobox. No need to be gossipy but this just looks like someone sprang into being. The reviewer says that there are no reliable sources, I didn't check but trust the reviewer knows best. Cyril may be an amazing scientist but we need more than what you would put on a CV. Living people biographies need to stand out from their peers, and that difference is recognized by independent media. New editors should never start by writing a new Wikipedia article, learn the rules and help build the encyclopedia for others, only focusing on yourself is not something I would recommend.
- And now I'm reading the exchanges Cyril is having with other editors and his frustration is clear, he does not understand the rules, thinks he is notable and not listening to the advice he is given by experienced editors. "I’m withdrawing my draft. The editorial process here doesn’t suit me, and I’ve felt a lack of objectivity. As far as I know, editing about oneself is not strictly forbidden during draft submission, especially when transparent. I did provide the requested references and used basic editing tools like spelling/grammar checkers, which I don’t believe should be an issue. The tone of the exchanges has been unwelcoming. I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia reconsider this type of approach if it wants to remain an open, useful platform. Thank you to those who took the time to review. Best regards. Cyril Voyant" Come on now, this does not reflect well on you Cyril. But this isn't a Cyril issue, the perception non-editors have about Wikipedia is not kind, they feel they deserve the Wikipedia article and those mean Wikipedia editors are standing in the way. Sorry but that isn't how it works, learn the rules, work on other articles that you have no COI with and don't attack people who are explaining, kindly to you. Sgerbic (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Cyril Voyant is a worthy subject for an article in the English Wikipedia. I posted my rationale on the draft article's talk page. -- Paleorthid (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
How do I subscribe to get updates
editHi, is there a newsletter about this project, with recently expanded or added pages, or pages that need more attention. How do I subscribe. I would like to know also what software is used to generate it and to subscribe me to it. If it is not there, then do you need such a feature? Thanks. Gryllida 10:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Gryllida: Well, at the top of this page there's a tab containing the link Members, in which there is a heading Newsletter. This has a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Science/Newsletter/Members. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Redrose64, what software is used for delivering these? They only come into Wiki page? And are not posted to social media right? I was thinking this could help with exposure. Gryllida 23:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- The MassMessage system is used. As with other communication methods on Wikipedia, this will only send messages within Wikipedia itself - not to outside addresses. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Redrose64, what software is used for delivering these? They only come into Wiki page? And are not posted to social media right? I was thinking this could help with exposure. Gryllida 23:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
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. TompaDompa (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
The article Coolant pump has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 11 years. This is a classic Dictionary definition. This is also unnecessary as a disambiguation page, with only two entries.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)