Talk:Microscope/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Microscope. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for comment on how a scanning electron microscope works

This edit was not controversial and am unsure about the purposes of the RFC.Winged Blades^Godric 04:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article says, "Scanning optical and electron microscopes, like the confocal microscope and scanning electron microscope, use lenses to focus a spot of light or electrons onto the sample then analyze the reflected or transmitted waves."

I changed it to, "Scanning optical and electron microscopes, like the confocal microscope and scanning electron microscope, use lenses to focus a spot of light or electrons onto the sample then analyze the signals generated by the beam interacting with the sample."

This contradicts the Wikipedia article on Scanning electron microscopes (and all reliable sources), which says," The electrons interact with atoms in the sample, producing various signals that contain information about the sample's surface topography and composition."

Also, the major optical methods work differently, and this is a poor misrepresentation of both Confocal laser scanning microscopy and Near-field scanning optical microscope, but I haven't gotten near those.

Please discuss, and please provide references.

--2601:648:8503:4467:F4B3:6D6C:9DCC:DC06 (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed this RFC because it was mentioned at the Tea house. So I'm an uninvolved editor, but am not one of this article's participants (usually RFCs are to form concensus between those). But I agree with you that unless the article already covers other microscope technology the lead should not mention those, because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the content. The see-also section, or the category, may be a more appropriate way to access more microscopy-related articles, which are not currently covered in this one. As for your question about how to gather more attention to RFCs when noone participates, I'm not sure. It may be that bringing it up at the Tea house was a good idea, if this article's talk page is mostly dead. The RFCs are however also found in their proper category (i.e. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology in this case), but I'm not sure how many patrol those. We also have the science reference desk (mostly to obtain information and references for topics) and the dispute resolution noticeboard (which can call for uninvolved editors). PaleoNeonate (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for treating me decently and addressing my questions and offering suggestions (also to the poster above, even if I did not understand his her point, for at least participating). --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In general, shift detailed text into other pages: The page "Microscope" should be kept short and simple. Also fringe models of scopes should be avoided here. For mainstream microscopes, explain them in other pages ("God is in the details, retained in subpages"). Otherwise, a major page (such as "Microscope") is victim to endless years of rewrites and text-deletions. When you turn your back, the crucial text (or photos), which you spent weeks/months to refine, will be removed within a few days, and no one will have time to check the results. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I would describe the basics, but in just a sentence or two, as this differentiates among the different microscopes, otherwise it's just a list. This RFC is about correcting misinformation, should there be no info on how a major microscope works? --2601:648:8503:4467:1956:5F67:33D7:70C9 (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

This article is unreferenced, badly written, poorly developed, full of misinformation, and, contradictory within it and within Wikipedia

I see why.

6 days, 10 hours, multiple editors and posts all over the place to remove one unreferenced word from the lead.

Good luck finding someone with knowledge of the topic who is willing to be treated like shit to fix this article. That someone is not me.

Good riddance. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope you still reconsider. I only unprotected the article today. The RfCs have only been up for the day. I'd say give it a week before you throw in the towel. El_C 03:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

How? City admits he is playing games with me, willing to vandalize this article to make a point against me. Dane keeps inserting things that aren't there, even when he she provides the source.

Please add the template or tag that says it's not in the source to what he she just added. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

With a heavy heart, I fully protected the page for three days to prevent any further edit warring. But it hurtsted my soul a little bit. Anyway, hopefully, this is something the two (three?) of you can resolve here, on the article talk page, in the meantime. ~~Also, the tag you're thinking of is the {{failed verification}} tag.~~ [Never mind, I see that you have done this already.] CityofSilver and Dane: can you both provide reliable sources (preferably from 2ndry scholarly sources) that IP is requesting? Thanks. Addendum: Incidentally, I'm happy to lift the protection early, so let me know if you reach a breakthrough (I'll try to keep an eye anyway though). El_C 03:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably for the better. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: It makes sense that if people are going to characterize me as a supporter of maintaining the word's presence in the lede, they need to square that with a previous message from me that started out "I support removing the reference to 'ultramicroscope'." City Of Silver 00:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We're having these walls of discussion and RFCs because you reverted my removal. Twice. That squares with saying you are keeping it in, as you are directly responsible. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone, but if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the reverts were on procedural grounds: wanting to wait until the RfC is concluded before removal. Which, incidentally, is not necessary if the passage in question is particularly poorly sourced. Sorry, I haven't read everything concerning it to comment beyond that. El_C 05:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No. For some reason Dane, who has had since the 26th to source it, wants it in the article. City admitted above he is bullying me to teach me a lesson, and admitted on a user talk page that he reverted me to violate Wikipedia's point policy to troll me to teach me a lesson.

I started the RFC long after City began his campaign of trolling, provoking and bullying me. Remember, he is admitting to bullying and trolling me. But, for whatever real reason, he reverted a legitimate edit twice to keep an unsourced and challenged statement in the article. He and Dane won't allow the unreferenced statement to be removed.

It's not poorly source, it is 100% unsourced and has never been sourced.

The article looks like it has been ignored for years. I have no idea why everyone is panicked about the removal of one unsourced word from the lead. This article needs a lot of work.67.180.57.221 (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You say "admitted to bullying and trolling me", but we have no idea who you are. I saw this same claim on User talk:2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D, and now it's being repeated by User:67.180.57.221. There are edits from at least four different IP addresses in this discussion, so I don't know who is saying what. Are you the only anonymous user taking part in this discussion? Should we assume that all comments by anonymous users are from you? If you'll just make a username, you'll be even more anonymous than you are now, because no-one will be able to see your IP address, but at least we'll have a stable name to attach to your comments, and you can start to build up a reputation so that people can take you more seriously. Also, any claims of abuse that you make will be easier for admins to evaluate, so you're more likely to get redress. --Slashme (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No one besides me is editing the article in an attempt to improve it other than the one lead paragraph to the history of microscopes section, so it seems I am all the IP editors. I edit on my mobile while travelling so my IP changes frequently. A number of editors are fighting tooth and nail to prevent every attempt I make at improving the article. I tried creating a user name but I was harassed worse than I am being bullied now. At some point, Wikipedia ought to figure out that the articles are more important than hanging out and playing games. At that point a user name might be worthwhile. But I don't really see that happening. Until then, a user name just makes me a target for more bullies. --2601:648:8503:4467:5520:C997:E664:CBDE (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear PI. Thanks for hanging in there. It is probably small comfort to know that your experience here is far from unusual when trying to apply real expertise to correct/improve articles on scientific topics of a more general nature, where the aphorism "a little learning is a dangerous thing" may apply. I experienced the same problem in the articles physics, chemistry, and resonance. I doubt that there is any solution to this problem within the Wikipedia model, which works amazing well for most topics, but poorly for topics of this nature. (Medicine may be a fortunate exception; a set of specific guidelines for reliable sources could be established for that field, but efforts to establish guidelines for editing scientific articles were blocked.) So I just gave up and focused my (occasional) efforts on the many articles begging for work on more specialized topics where it requires more effort to engage. Trolls don't seem to bother us there. Layzeeboi (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It's like Kafka. No one has even heard of an ultramicroscope; it's unsourced; it's not discussed anywhere else in the article; there are not realy sources on line about it; they're not technical writers; but they're gonna die before they remove that one unsourced word from the lead of the article. I'll bring popcorn the next time I try to remove a single unsourced obscure word from an article.

We could have written 20 new articles on missing topics; rewritten this to featured article status, but, no, that word must stay here. --2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 April 2017

X-ray microscopes

Microscope versus microscopy

Text and citations instead of a list

History of fluorescence microscopes

Thin sections and fluorescent light

Remove "both types of electron microscope" from the lead

There is no need to list both types of electron microscope in the lead. The idea is to clean the lead out so that it is useful, as this is all that appears when mobile and tablet users access the page. This is a large audience.

From this --> "In this way of grouping microscopes the most common (and the first microscope to be invented) is the optical microscope, which uses light to image the sample. Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope), and the various types of scanning probe microscope.[1]"

Why do we list both types of electron microscope? Is the average reading going to assume that by "electron microscope" we mean only one type rather than both major types? Should we list the major types of light (probably a dozen) and scanning probe (maybe the 3 most commone) microscopes in the lead also? Or can we just shorten the sentence:

To this --> "In this way of grouping microscopes the most common (and the first microscope to be invented) is the optical microscope, which uses light to image the sample. Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope, and the various types of scanning probe microscope.[1]"

User:Qzd disagrees with this change.

Or possibly this --> "In this way of grouping microscopes the most common (and the first microscope to be invented) is the optical microscope (including optical light, polarizing, phase contrast, epifluorescence, confocal, digital, and super resolution microscopes), which uses light to image the sample. Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope), and the various types of scanning probe microscope (including atomic force, near-field scanning optical, and scanning tunneling microscopes).[1]"
Of course expanding the optical light microscope sentence with a number of different types also.

So, what's the consensus?

--2601:648:8503:4467:DC7F:C122:B217:7086 (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I cannot argue for any consensus, but also cannot support any debate with disruptive editing and wikiwarring from persons who do not wish to adopt any handles. The lede and large parts of the body of the article are an embarrassment, badly written and badly constructed. They need competent replacement from scratch, and the foregoing items are not it, either from the point of view of quality or content. JonRichfield (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yet here you are, debating.

Please feel free to make a proposal to prohibit IP editing.

By all means, as you know the needed quality and content, edit! --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:5D (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You say you don't want to create a username because then you'll get "bullied", but you continually flame everyone else, even people who agree with your proposals. You edit anonymously, so you have no stable IP address, and when we point out that it would be more convenient to communicate with you if you would make a username, you imply that we want to ban IP editing. You continually accuse others of acting in bad faith (e.g. accusing people of trying to keep misinformation in this article, just because they're engaging in the discussion that you started). You might be a technically competent and good editor, but this is a collaborative project, and you're not working collaboratively. --Slashme (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

What's to collaborate on? No one is improving microscope articles. Light, electron, scanning probe, they're full of unsourced misinformation. One of the EM articles has an incomprehensible five year old description of the wrong imaging technique. That ultramicroscope bit? No reliable source, but it takes 10000 words, 4 weeks, and a dozen editors to remove an unsourced claim. That's not collaboration. That's dealing with Randy in Boise. --2601:648:8503:4467:CC4:FFC7:3087:F815 (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to use the concept of classification of microscopes to improve the lede somewhat. Now instead of talking about "both types of electron microscopes", it discusses transmission and reflection/fluorescence separately. In the process I removed the wording "electromagnet beam" that was added about a week ago. A beam of electrons isn't an electromagnetic beam, by the way. --Slashme (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

So much for collaboration.

"... generate images from the light or electrons that pass through a thin section of the sample (transmission electron microscopy or transmission optical microscopy)"

Word order inconsistency light/electron, then electron/light. It's not the electrons or photons that pass through that generate the image. It's the ones that interact with the sample.

"or from the results of illuminating the surface of the sample (reflected light or fluorescence in the case of a light microscope, and secondary electrons emitted by atoms excited by the electron beam of a scanning electron microscope"

SEMs don't generate images from the results of illuminating the surface of the sample, neither do fluorescence microscopes, although maybe you could say that with naturally occurring fluorescence. You also say "by the way the instruments gather data," then you don't mention the ETD or chips or anything that actually gathers data, just the secondary electrons for SEM, for example. Without a detector nothing is being gathered, and, for this article, it should be about image formation by the microscope, not the CCD or secondary electron detector. It's off target.

It's odd phrasing. Not sure where you're going with it. I am reverting for first part though. The electrons and photons that pass through are background. Also, "thin section" on Wikipedia is about petrographic thin sections, and in microscopy the sample, even though it may be thin, is not necessarily a "thin section." --2601:648:8503:4467:CC4:FFC7:3087:F815 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Current:

"There are many types of microscopes, and they may be grouped in different ways. One way is to describe the way the instruments interact with a sample to create images, either by sending a beam of light or electrons to a sample in its optical path, or by scanning across, and a short distance from, the surface of a sample using a probe. The most common microscope (and the first to be invented) is the optical microscope, which uses light to pass through a samplpe to produce an image. Another type of optical microscope uses light to illuminate the sample surface, and, in this way, produces an image from the reflected or fluorescent light. Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both, the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope) and the various types of scanning probe microscopes.[1]"

Alternative:

There are many different types of microscopes. The most familiar ones transmit either a beam of photons (optical light microscopes) or a beam of electrons (transmission electron microscopes) through a sample to form an image. Common optical light microscopes for materials science and the semiconductor industry send a beam of light to reflect off the surface of non-transparent samples to form images. Many advances have been made over the past two decades in fluorescence microscopes. A basic lab model uses an epi-illumination path to send a beam of light to excite atoms or molecules near the surface of the sample. The particles relax to their ground state and emit photons of longer wavelength that are recorded to create the image. Scanning electron microscopes similarly collect information of interactions from a beam of electrons being scanning across the surface of a sample. The electrons interact with the atoms of the sample causing electrons, x-rays, and other signals to be emitted from near the surface of the sample. Other microscopes scan a probe across and a short distance from the surface of the sample and create an image or map of the location and magnitude of an interaction between the probe and the surface.

--2601:648:8503:4467:941D:6EAC:64A2:EF15 (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank you for your comments - the "Current" lede (copied above) seems easier to understand; the "Alternative" lede seems much more technical - and less easy to understand - I would prefer the "Current" lede (or equivalent) over the "Alternative" one - IF Possible, the best wording(s) for the "Microscope" article lede may be wordings as non-technical, and as brief as possible - more detail re the wording may be found at associated wikilinks - this may make the "Microscope" article more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level)^[1] - (also - see related discussion at => "Template talk:Nature timeline#BestWording") - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think being incorrect makes the nontechnical lead unacceptable. You imply that fluorescence is a subset of reflected light techniques. A lead should not establish misinformation in order to be less technical. --2601:648:8503:4467:29A3:AE8B:4BD0:8C1B (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - yes - agreed - a brief corrected (nontechnical if possible) version of the "fluorescence"-sentence may be worthy (and welcome) for consideration I would think - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you added it and disagree with my wording, and I'm editing as an IP, why not just revert or fix what you wrote? This article gets thousands of views every day, and careless additions that introduce misinformation are not enjoyable. --2601:648:8503:4467:29A3:AE8B:4BD0:8C1B (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW - My original version of the sentence is as follows => "Another type of optical microscope uses light to illuminate the sample surface, and, in this way, produces an image from the reflected or fluorescent light." - this seems ok with me at the moment - I'm not at all clear how your version of the sentence would be worded - your own suggested sentence (brief and nontechnical if possible) would be welcome for consideration of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

You put fluorescence in the reflected light realm. This "seems okay" to you? How? Do you think fluorescence imaging is a reflected light microscoph technique? Maybe you ought to just revert or attempt to source that. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:BA (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Done - rm/adj disputed text - no problem whatsoever - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

References

[1]
Lucassen, Teun; Dijkstra, Roald; Schraagen, Jan Maarten (September 3, 2012). "Readability of Wikipedia". First Monday (journal). 17 (9). Retrieved September 28, 2016.

RFC should article focus on instrument, microscope, or technique, microscopy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The community supports the content of this article centering directly on the scientific instruments. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Should this article be about microscopes rather than microscopy? There is an article on microscopy, already. I am attempting to focus this article on the instrument itself, but this has been rejected. I think that it will be easier to develop and add sources to this article if the focus remains entirely on the instrument while leaving the technique to its own article.

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Support making article about microscope

Support An article on microscopy exists already. For the high level topic it makes sense to pull out a separate article on the instrument, which has an extensive history that could be written. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Support Strikes me as reasonable. An article focusing on the history and composition of the instrument itself would be an excellent companion to the one we already have about the history and divisions of the field sensu latu.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Support but... The concepts and contexts of microscopes and their significance are far too wide for one article, or two IMO, but the implication is not that we can settle the problem by throwing articles at it. If we wish to achieve anything of a respectable standard we need to work out a practical, helpful structure for the set of articles involved, and handwaving about Microscope and Microscopy won't cut it. Nor will patching and faffing about with the wording of the current mess. I for one won't touch it before some properly identified team has been convened and the desired topics suitable defined and locked. JonRichfield (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Support The tool (microscope) and the purpose for which the tool is used (microscopy) are in this case at least distinct enough that they should each receive their own article. --Joshualouie711^talk 14:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Support Instrument vs science of using it is good. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Support It's easy to blur the two, as your diff above shows: An alternative to light microscopes is an alternative technology; an alternative to light microscopy encompasses the instrument and all the craft that goes with it. The latter is perfectly acceptable in microscopy. Here, it feels like a duplication. Barte (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Support. Definitely better, and likely what the reader is searching for anyway. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Support. It seems there was never any disagreement about the issue. See the discussion below for the matter of disagreement. Maproom (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You really think CityOfSilver rejected a substantive change because of a typo? He has admitted, above, to bullying me, and on a talk page to reverting me to be pointy, but the typo thing seems far-fetched. I will ask him to comment so we can move on to fixing the focus of the article. Or, I'll redo the edit without the typo. --2601:648:8503:4467:E936:D41F:C435:47B0 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose making article about microscope

Alternative suggestions

Discussion

An example of the problem is the fluorescent microscope history section. There are specific technological advances in the instrument that enable fluorescent imagjng, which has been ar9und since the early 20th century, but the section focuses on fluorescent microscopy rather than the instrument. It needs rewritten, but editors are not in agreement on the topic of this article.

Can the fluorescent microscope section be rewritten to be about the microscope? --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your cited change wasn't rejected for reasons of scope, but for reasons of grammar. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't appear to be the case, as it says the change was not helpful. Not that it was badly written. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Bad grammar isn't helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I take it you oppose spending time making this article technically correct, informative, and sourced on the topic of microscopes? There's a section above for your oppose. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I support motherhood and apple pie and oppose the beating of wives too. We already have separate articles on Microscope and Microscopy, so it's unclear what your change is intended to achieve. When your ungrammatical change was reverted you seem to have taken that as a personal slight and are now attacking uninvolved editors as "opposing spending time making this article technically correct, informative, and sourced". As you evidently have the linguistic and rhetorical skills of a stroppy teenager, I'm puzzled as to how deep your technical knowledge will be to go along with that? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, you have nothing to contribute to the article. Got it. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I do see what you mean, I made a typo. Lol. The entire article is unsourced and contains incorrect information, and you're here about my typo. There are just so many ways this article could be improved if there weren't so many editors dedicated to impeding any and all improvements. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure Its been 23 days since the last !vote, I am not sure if the bot is even still listing this to users. Can it be closed now? At @Maproom, SW3 5DL, Barte, Joshualouie711, JonRichfield, and Elmidae: participants. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Microscope/Archive 2

Request for comment on how a scanning electron microscope works

This article is unreferenced, badly written, poorly developed, full of misinformation, and, contradictory within it and within Wikipedia

Protected edit request on 2 April 2017

Protected edit request on 2 April 2017

Protected edit request on 2 April 2017

X-ray microscopes

Microscope versus microscopy

Text and citations instead of a list

History of fluorescence microscopes

Thin sections and fluorescent light

Remove "both types of electron microscope" from the lead

RFC should article focus on instrument, microscope, or technique, microscopy

Support making article about microscope

Oppose making article about microscope

Alternative suggestions

Discussion

Spamming the article

External links modified

Article structure

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2018

History

Related Articles