Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

  An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Tangential speed—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. – LuniZunie_(talk) 16:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. I'm not sure if everything is accurate. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The new editor DaRealPoopster2 with 12 prior edits has just created directly in main an extensive page Quantum geometry (condensed matter) which is beyond my areas of competence. I would appreciate opinions on whether this should be reviewed as "OK" or not. I do not see any obvious problem except that a Google search finds mainly 2025 material so I do wonder whether this is too new for Wikipedia, and/or perhaps one approach but not general NPOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

On quick reading, the article covers the central aspects of the topic in a balanced way. I would also regard the topic well established by now, with several hundreds of articles about "quantum geometry" or "quantum metric" in the cond-mat section of arXiv, and with multiple review articles with "quantum geometry" in the title (e.g. , , upcoming: , ). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The article also looks good to me--a reasonable selection of topics and the sources look reasonable. I agree with Jähmefyysikko--the topic is notable. That is a nicely done first article by DaRealPoopster2. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nuclear weapons and Israel#Requested move 7 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I have concerns about the editing of Goodphy on mathematics topics (detailed here and two sections below that by Deacon Vorbis). Recently, they have also been editing various topics in optics, which I am not generally competent to evaluate. Is anyone here willing to make a quick assessment of their editing on these topics? I would like to know if the issues I've identified are subject-specific or apply to their editing more generally. Here is a list of their recent edits in this topic area (either links to individual edits, or in the case that there are many edits spread out over time, to the article history page):

• Corner reflector history
• Entrance pupil history
• Exit pupil history
• Eyepiece
• Focal length
• Gaussian optics (reverted)
• Lens history
• Lens flare (partly reverted)
• Mirror (reverted by me), follow-up
• Optical heterodyne detection history
• Optical path length
• Reflection (physics)
• Retroreflector (subsequently tweaked)
• Virtual image history

Thanks for any assistance, --JBL (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

A quick look is that these edits are not vandalism. I might not make them, but I do not see glaring errors or OR. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, their edits to mathematics articles are not vandalistic, either: Goodphy is obviously trying to improve Wikipedia. (It's just that, in my opinion, their work on mathematics articles tends to have the opposite of the intended effect.) --JBL (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, nothing seems glaringly wrong. They make excessive use of footnotes I think, but otherwise the content seems fine. Ajheindel (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much, both -- that's reassuring. --JBL (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

This new article was created by @KnowMosaic. The four sources are inappropriate for the title, but the title itself seems to be widely used terminology. Perhaps it has potential as a WP:Broad concept article? Do we have some existing article it overlaps with? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd just redirect it to Optics. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I think I would agree with a redirect to optics, that is the primary use of this term I believe. I don't really see why Two-level system model and Rabi oscillations belong. The condensed matter section is just how things like photons are analogous to photons, not how light and matter interact, Raman scattering seems fitting though. The theoretical framework section is just a vague collection of relevant theories. Ajheindel (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, my bad. I should have been clearer. I was try to say:

The content of Light-matter interaction is off base because it is not a summary of sources about "light-matter interaction". Ignore the content on that page, it is not useful. But the topic is the subject of reliable sources:

• Weiner, J., & Ho, P. T. (2008). Light-matter interaction: fundamentals and applications (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons. ...the treatment of microscopic light-matter interaction to a two-level atom interacting with a single radiation field mode. When a gain medium is introduced, we treat real lasers of practical importance. While the gain medium is modeled as three- or four-level systems, it can be simplified to a two-level system in calculating the important physical quantities. Wave optics is treated in two dimensions in order to prevent elaborate mathematical expressions from obscuring the basic physical phenomena.
• Gutzler, R., Garg, M., Ast, C. R., Kuhnke, K., & Kern, K. (2021). Light–matter interaction at atomic scales. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6), 441-453. Light–matter interaction drives many systems, such as optoelectronic devices like light-emitting diodes and solar cells, biological structures like photosystem II and potential future quantum devices.
• Rivera, N., & Kaminer, I. (2020). Light–matter interactions with photonic quasiparticles. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(10), 538-561. Interactions between light and matter play an instrumental role in spectroscopy, sensing, quantum information processing and lasers.
• Stenzel, O. (2022). Light–matter interaction. Cham: Springer Nature. This book offers a didactic introduction to light–matter interactions at both the classical and semi-classical levels. Pursuing an approach that describes the essential physics behind the functionality of any optical element, it acquaints students with the broad areas of optics and photonics.

Again I apologize for not starting with this bit of information I had already gathered. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I see, it looks like there could be something there, considering the sources you provided. I am not that familiar with this topic and I don't have access to the sources, but it seems somewhat adjacent (or maybe more general) to pages such as Stimulated emission, Spontaneous emission, Absorption (electromagnetic radiation), and Rabi cycle. Maybe a broad topic article giving a background as presented in the two textbooks, and then covering applications would make sense. Ajheindel (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for making changes to it. I work in this field, and the topic of light-matter interaction is a widely accepted concept and experiment in most applications of quantum systems. Pointing this article to Optics didn't make any sense. I placed 'Light-Matter Interaction' there from a different point of view, rather than just 'Optics and Matter.' Light-matter interaction has grown so much that you will find it everywhere in the physics research institutions have dedicated groups for light-matter interaction. It is as crucial as having an article on the Pythagorean theorem. I would request that you revert the edit. I will provide more sources for it.

---

KnowMosaic 18:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Would someone like to adopt Draft:David J. Brady? It was created by a now banned sock, but it looks OK, it just needs references to him being a fellow of Optica, SPIE, and IEEE. If you do then you can ping me and I will "pass" it (or you can as he is clearly notable). There is no point in my asking the page creator to do this! Ldm1954 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I added links to verify the society Fellowships. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

"Restored revision 1313648719 by Ldm1954 (talk): Such major changes to a template that is used in many parts of physics MUST be first discussed on the talk page and posted to WT:Physics so other editors can give their views."

The user Ldm1954 reverted my changes saying they are "major" but most of my changes were just to add missing equantions, fundamentals, experiments and physicists to the template. All of them related to the field. Publicnotorious (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

For convenience, here are the diffs for the proposed change: Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The changes are massive for such as commonly used template, so there should be discussion here (or on the template talk page first). Ldm1954 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

i replied below with my arguments of why they should be in the template. the reason why i changed it so much is because i tried to find topics on the template and couldn't. but i understand i should have explained it Publicnotorious (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

My arguments in favor of the changes:

Fundamentals & Principles Observable: The bedrock of quantum measurement; essential for distinguishing between a physical state and what we can actually detect.

Indistinguishable particles: The fundamental physical reason behind Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics; the statistics cannot be understood without this principle.

Born rule: The indispensable bridge between the mathematical wave function and physical probability.

Quantum number: The basic "address" system for every electron state in an atom; fundamental for atomic physics navigation.

Equations & Formulations Planck’s Law & Planck relation: These mark the "Day Zero" of quantum mechanics; omitting them is like omitting Newton's laws from a mechanics template.

Moseley's law: The first empirical proof that atomic numbers correspond to physical quantum structures.

Canonical commutation relation (CCR): The formal mathematical definition of non-commuting variables; it is the rigorous basis for the Uncertainty Principle.

Majorana equation: Essential for relativistic quantum mechanics and the prediction of neutral fermions.

Matter wave (de Broglie hypothesis): The core hypothesis that launched the transition from the Bohr model to modern wave mechanics.

Experiments Wu experiment: The definitive proof of parity violation, representing a massive shift in our understanding of quantum symmetry.

Claus Jönsson & Giulio Pozzi: These track the evolution of the double-slit experiment from many-electron diffraction (Jönsson, 1961) to the "Feynman thought experiment" of single-electron buildup (Pozzi et al., 1974).

Stern–Gerlach experiment: The foundational proof of space quantization and spin; Stern and Gerlach's names are inseparable from this entry.

Franck–Hertz experiment: The first non-optical proof that energy levels in atoms are indeed quantized.

Davisson–Germer experiment: The experimental verification of the matter wave hypothesis (de Broglie waves).

Black-body radiation: The experimental "crisis" that forced the creation of quantum physics; it is the necessary starting point for the "Background" section.

Architects of Quantum Theory Samuel Abraham Goudsmit and George Eugene Uhlenbeck: Discovered electron spin; the template currently lists "Spin" but omits the scientists who identified this fundamental property.

Ralph Kronig: A pioneer in spin theory and creator of the Kronig–Penney model, which is essential for understanding quantum behavior in crystals.

Friedrich Hermann Hund and Robert Sanderson Mulliken: Developed Molecular orbital theory, the primary bridge between quantum mechanics and chemistry.

Douglas Rayner Hartree: Developed the Hartree–Fock method, which remains the standard for solving many-body quantum equations.

Experimental Proofs Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach: Their experiment provided the definitive proof of space quantization; their names are inseparable from the Stern–Gerlach experiment entry.

Lester Germer: Co-discovered electron diffraction (Davisson–Germer experiment), providing the first experimental verification of the de Broglie wave hypothesis.

James Franck: Provided the first non-optical evidence of quantized energy levels in atoms via the Franck–Hertz experiment.

Hans Geiger and Walter Bothe: Developed coincidence counting to prove the conservation of energy and momentum in individual atomic processes.

Claus Jönsson and Giulio Pozzi: They represent the critical evolution of the double-slit experiment from many-electron diffraction (1961) to the single-electron buildup (1974) that realized Feynman’s famous thought experiment.

Symmetry and Modern Foundations Chien-Shiung Wu: Her landmark experiment proved the violation of parity, changing our fundamental understanding of quantum symmetry.

Ettore Majorana: Created the Majorana equation; his work on neutral fermions is a cornerstone of modern particle physics and quantum computing.

John Archibald Wheeler: Conceptualized the delayed-choice experiment, which is already a core entry in the template’s list of experiments.

John Clauser: Recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize for the first experimental test of Bell's theorem, essential for the study of entanglement.

Marlan Scully: A leader in quantum optics who developed the Quantum eraser experiment, a vital modern interpretation of wave-particle duality.

Anthony James Leggett and Anupam Garg: Developed the Leggett–Garg inequality to test the limits of quantum coherence at the macroscopic scale.

Historical Precursors Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard: His work on the Photoelectric effect was the experimental basis for Einstein’s light quanta hypothesis.

Johannes Stark: Discovered the Stark effect (the splitting of spectral lines in electric fields), a primary quantum phenomenon used in atomic physics.

I think we should not have links people articles in general topic templates like these, it constructs the myth of the "solitary science hero".--ReyHahn (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Not my intention. The purpose here is to link to their pages so the moderators can check their contribuitions. My additions are not under any personal bias. Every one has contribuited immensely to the field. Publicnotorious (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You misunderstand how WP works; there are no moderators, just volunteers. Consensus here is how decisions are made. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. So, whats the consensus? Publicnotorious (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think I would agree with this, there are hundreds of people who have made important contributions to quantum mechanics over the years, choosing a selection here will never accurately represent that properly. There is already a History of quantum mechanics page that is linked in the template, which should cover (or could be added) the contributions of people listed in the template now. Maybe a list of physicists with contributions to QM could be made in that same history page as well, I don't think there needs to be a list on every page that uses the template. Ajheindel (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

if you read carefully, all my additions are about physicists who contributed to the early quantum theory by doing major experiements that shaped the field. Im not adding particle physicists and others working with nuclear forces. In the end its all related, however my contribuitions focus on the foundations of quantum theory thus making them necessary. There are templates about quantum field theory and particle physics but i already knew this. Publicnotorious (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Ajheindel, history of quantum mechanics could just be listed. Category pages also capture this. We should value concepts and ideas more. ReyHahn (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

i literally added more experiments, equations and background. the template is suposed to work as a bridge to speed up users to find related topics but somehow no one is able to give a conherent argument of why my edits are not correct.

why link to history of quantu mechanics when people could just go to shorter page of the experiment. Theres no plancks law or the matter wave articles in the template. it's incomplete and its missing more of the early quantum theory and its makers. Ldm1954 asked for a consensus but he decided to revert my changes by his ownm and i explained every single change of the history tab. i guess he didnt even bothered to read them.

theres no point in arguingwith a wrong consensus. the history of quntum mechanics page is a huge page and doesnt make justice to less unknown phyicistsif they are not included in teh template. Thats fine though i wont force it. I lost my will to keep editing on this site. Publicnotorious (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Be patient WP:THEREISNORUSH make your case and wait for users to respond. I was arguing for a specific point of getting rid of the scientists in the template. No argument about the other stuff has been made so far.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

So many people have contributed to quantum physics that it is hard to make a useful list. Adding more names to the existing list just highlights the problem, IMO: it becomes even more difficult to dodge the "if X, why not also Y?" questions. If Dirac, why not also Dyson? If Garg, why not also Mermin? If Everett, why not also DeWitt and Zeh? If Franck, why not also Hertz? If Compton and Raman, why not also Ramsauer? If Aharonov, why not also Berry? If Wu, why not also Goeppert Mayer? If Wineland, why not also Haroche? If Feynman, why not also Schwinger and Tomonaga?

On the flipside, the "Experiments" list really includes testing Bell's theorem three times: under Bell's name, under Aspect's, and as CHSH. Also, it includes Popper's experiment, which is really little more than a conceptual curiosity, while omitting, e.g., the measurement of the Lamb shift.

I'm not convinced that doing a double-slit experiment with individual electrons, and getting the result predicted by orthodox quantum theory, is as noteworthy as doing an experiment whose results radically diverged from prevailing theory, thus helping lead to quantum physics in the first place. Sure, it's nice, but it's not radical (like, e.g., Stern–Gerlach).

Listing a bunch of things as "Equations" is not very helpful. It's physics, it's going to be full of math, of course there are equations. But the list includes both Bose–Einstein and Fermi–Dirac statistics, which aren't specific equations per se. Rather, they are concepts from which equations are deduced.

There is no sense of what the "Background" section of the box is supposed to be. "Classical mechanics", "Old quantum theory" and the general article on wave "Interference" make it sound like it's meant to cover historical prerequisites, but then we throw in Dirac notation and Hamiltonian operators. Surely "Hamiltonian" belongs with "Wave function" and "Observable", no? And surely the equations due to Planck, de Broglie, Rydberg and Moseley belong with "Old quantum theory" in the historical background.

Overall, the whole infobox suffers from an identity crisis. Who is it for? What is its purpose? And expanding it just exacerbates the situation. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"Listing a bunch of things as "Equations" is not very helpful. It's physics, it's going to be full of math, of course there are equations"

Most of the actual physics comes from experimental physicists (anyone who actually knows physics, knows this). All the important fields started with experiments. most of the physicists i added were also experimentalists, its not a coincidence. the layman often overrate the formula and the math. Publicnotorious (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

have you checked this template?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Quantum_field_theory

is the same argument. except the people who edited it allowed over a hundred physicists without any complaint. My edits are based on relevance to the field, foundational quntum physics. i dont have any personal bias, as i said.

im also replaying to the user Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction Publicnotorious (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think one badly organized template is a justification for another. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

yeah but you are judging mine as a badly organized. No! the one now is badly organized for explanple Patrick Blacket tbelongs in the nuclear physics template, Heike onnes on the macro condensed matter physics and Michelle Simmons worked on quantum electronics not the quantum foundational theory. totally different my friend. Publicnotorious (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You're imposing your own idea of "quantum foundational theory" without clearly delineating what that is, what sources you base that judgment upon (we can't just make classifications up ourselves), or why the template should be devoted to it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

not mine but reconized by the scientific community. you are just making up stuff. Publicnotorious (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Neither electron behavior in crystals nor molecular orbital theory are quantum foundations as the community understands. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Infoboxes make the most sense when there is a concise, well-delimited set of unambiguous data fields that should be provided for every article of a given type; e.g., every article about a city ought to list its population, and every article on a biological species ought to give its classification. In contrast, quantum physics is a sprawling subject. What purpose should an infobox about it serve? How should it be organized so that its contents serve that purpose? Looking at it the way it is now, I couldn't tell you—and embiggening it only compounds the confusion. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

there are information missing. can you t least point out which physicist or equation or experiment i added that doesnt belong in there? please make a coherent argument Publicnotorious (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I did already point out at least two physicists you added that don't belong (Claus Jönsson and Giulio Pozzi). And I think that listing Stern and Gerlach separately when the Stern–Gerlach experiment was already included is redundant, for example. But mostly, my problem with your additions is that they just worsened the difficulties with an already-bad template. A template that was already too confused was made more so. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the modified version of Template:Quantum_mechanics is fine. The additions seem suitable for the most part.

Separately someone could propose to remove "Scientists" from the template or propose a source eg Baggott, J. E. (2013). The quantum story: a history in 40 moments (Impression: 3 ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-19-965597-7. that selects the names. I suggest that arguing about the list of names is unlikely to be that fun.

There is also Template:Quantum mechanics topics which seems a bit much. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

this is my version sir.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Quantum_mechanics&diff=prev&oldid=1341332470 Publicnotorious (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You don't think that arguing is likely to be fun? What kind of Wikipedia editor are you? :-)

I think removing the "Scientists" section entirely and pointing to History of quantum mechanics instead is the best option anyone has suggested so far. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly with either version as long as we take scientist away. Aside from OP, what are the problems with Publicnotorious changes?--ReyHahn (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the rest of the changes are fine, my comments were only related to the scientists section as with ReyHahn. Ajheindel (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks for understanding my point . theres nothing wrong with my edits. all the physicists and experiments are strongly correlated with the early quantum theory. if my edit is accepted, then im willing to keep helping the community on more pages . theres no point adding more content just for a user revert them later

Plus why theres isn't a rule for changes made with 'good faith'. i didn't add controvertial stuff nor trolling, just purely educational. If such edit is done with good faith all im all for debate. but remove it without good explanations just make the new editor loses interest in further projects Publicnotorious (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

For most pages it isn't an issue, but templates are typically used on many pages (sometimes hundreds of thousands of pages), so you are effectively making changes to all those pages. It is good to be cautious when making large scale changes like that, and what Ldm1954 did was perfectly normal and justified. Just because you don't think it is controversial doesn't mean others feel the same way, hence why we discuss. Ajheindel (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

With forty names on the list they don't seem very solitary to me ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The scientist have now gone, thanks to @Publicnotorious as that seemed to be a clear consensus. Reading again the discussion it appears that there was no consensus for or against the changes Publicnotorious made. There were some questions raised about both the Equations and Experiments sections. Please add any new comments or suggestions here. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I am not in favor of including the Claus Jönsson & Giulio Pozzi work. even though that is my area. Almost immediately after the first electron diffraction work Hans Bethe showed that the Schroedinger equation was needed to get the diffraction angles right (mean inner potential term). It was accepted way before this work that matter waves showed interference. Beautiful work, but not fundamental IMO. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

? I assume this is consensus is just to put them in as a bunch to start, it says nothing about any particular item having consensus to stay. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Relativistic QM is taken as an advanced topic, then maybe Dirac equation should not be there. If by not advanced we mean undergrad level then maybe we should keep only things that we find in (the first half of) undergrad books. Note that relativistic QM, density matrices and Dirac equation is sometimes found in those books.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved some of the existing items around. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Are we missing first quantization (which may need work) and second quantization? Ldm1954 (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Should we be spreading around terms that are widely seen as confusing and/or only used for historical reasons? I'm not sure that's a good use of infobox space. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I view the concept that states are discrete, quantized and either Fermíons or Bosons as one of the fundamental aspects of QM. Second quantization belongs in advanced, but this (kind of first quantization) should be there. It might need a need article. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the articles listed in "Fundamentals" already cover part of that. We could add "Indistinguishable particles (Bose–Einstein • Fermi–Dirac)" or something like that, perhaps. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi all,

There has been an extended discussion on Talk:Diffraction#Article_Structure regarding how the article should be structured and how to organise the different theoretical treatments. The discussion has now stalled, so I’m going to seek wider input here so more editors can help clarify the best structure for the article.

The main points of disagreement fall into three areas:

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Andersen thermostat article. DrThneed (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@DrThneed The request is inappropriate: the suggested source is about automobile thermostats, the article is about a way of doing molecular dynamics calculations. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Johnjbarton. I am not the requester, I am just trying to notify WikiProjects of COIs relevant to them, to try to get the backlog of COI edit requests down a bit (relevancy being determined by the WikiProjects listed on the talk page). I will mark that request declined so it takes it off the working list. DrThneed (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I knew that, I just did not know how to clear the item but expected you did. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry from me too - as soon as I saw you replied on the request itself, I knew you realised it wasn't from me! Thanks so much for your response, though, really helpful to get things like this crossed off the list. DrThneed (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Representation theory of the Lorentz group 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) 18:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Wind turbine 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) 18:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I am seeking a review from editors familiar with High-Energy Physics (HEP) notability standards regarding Draft:Levan Babukhadia.

The draft was recently "Rejected" by an AfC reviewer on the grounds that "large team project papers... do not qualify for a pass of WP:NPROF#C1." As is standard in experimental HEP, the subject's work is largely within collaborations (DØ and ATLAS), but the draft highlights specific technical leadership:

• Primary Research: Lead authorship of the PhD-based PRL paper "Inclusive Jet Production in ${\displaystyle p{\bar {p}}}$ Collisions" (over 120 citations). (INSPIRE-HEP Record)

• Technical Leadership: Primary leader role for the DØ Central Track Trigger (CTT) as highlighted in the Xilinx Xcell Journal cover story ("500+ Xilinx FPGAs Search for Elusive Higgs Boson", Issue 44, pp. 68-73).

• Metrics: A lifetime h-index of 51 (per INSPIRE-HEP).

I believe the reviewer is misapplying WP:NPROF by discounting collaboration-based research entirely, which would effectively bar almost all experimental particle physicists from Wikipedia. I would appreciate an evaluation by someone who understands the distinction between "general collaboration membership" and "sub-system leadership/primary authorship" in this field. Blevan7 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment by the reviewer, User:Ldm1954. It is standard to weight citations by the typical citations in the field, this has been extensively discussed at WT:NPROF (which is the appropriate page for this discussion). While 51 would be massive in history, strong in many areas of theoretical physics, it is small in HEP particularly as at least the top 20 of the users citations are team efforts, see GS page.Ldm1954 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:NPROF#C1, the standard is "significant impact in their field." An h-index of 51 in HEP (excluding self-citations) is globally recognized as a high mark of impact. More importantly, the focus on "team efforts" ignores the fact that I was the primary author of the PRL inclusive jet production paper (which was my PhD thesis work) and the lead architect of the DØ Central Track Trigger. The Xilinx Xcell Journal cover story serves as an independent secondary source verifying this individual technical leadership within the larger collaboration. I would appreciate it if other HEP-familiar editors could weigh in on whether a lead role of a major detector subsystem meets the threshold for "significant impact." Blevan7 (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

To clarify the context of the metrics: that h-index of 51 was largely built within a **single decade** of active research. In HEP, achieving that level of citation velocity is a clear indicator of "significant impact" under WP:NPROF. Furthermore, while GS counts everyone, the PRL inclusive jet paper was my PhD work—by definition, the primary intellectual contribution—and the CTT architecture was my specific technical lead role. I am asking for an evaluation of that specific technical leadership rather than a dismissal based on collaboration size. Not to mention any work carried out in Theoretical Physics.. Blevan7 (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have misunderstood how comparisons are made. The normal process is to compare to others in the field. Since you do not have coauthors on your GS page, consider particle physics topic. Top is Mark Oreglia who has an h-factor of 684 and 1.5M citations. If I go to number 50 in the list that is Alexei Klimentov with an h-factor of 249 and 323K cites. Number 200 in Pierluigi Bortignon with an h-factor of 234 and 228K cites. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

With respect, comparing a candidate to the top 50 or 200 most-cited physicists in the world (with h-indexes of 250+) is not the standard for WP:NPROF. Those individuals represent the extreme outliers of the field, often in career-long management roles within the largest collaborations.

The criteria for notability is "significant impact," not "global top 200." An h-index of 51 achieved primarily within a single decade—combined with lead authorship on a foundational PRL inclusive jet paper and lead architecture of the DØ CTT—clearly distinguishes the subject from the average researcher in the field. I am asking for an evaluation based on whether these specific technical and research leadership roles meet the threshold of a "significant" contribution, rather than a comparison against the most cited researchers in the history of the LHC. Blevan7 (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, the comparison to lifetime stats of senior collaboration leaders is a temporal fallacy. A meaningful comparison would look at the citation metrics of those individuals during the **first decade** of their careers. An h-index of 51 achieved in that timeframe represents an impact velocity that is well within the top tier of the field. I am seeking a review that looks at the actual substance of the technical leadership (DØ CTT) and the primary-author research rather than a raw comparison against the lifetime totals of the world's most-cited outliers. I will now leave this for other project members to evaluate. Blevan7 (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Notability is about lifetime achievement, not about how good you were in your first ten years. Impact velocity is irrelevant to notability. Total impact over your entire career is what counts. People who are extreme outliers in their field, with career-long management roles are exactly the kind of academics who merit a Wikipedia article. A guy who did a really great Ph.D. project is not. Unless that project completely revolutionized the field, it's just not going to cut it. Really great Ph.D. work followed by twenty or thirty years of equally great work might have gotten you there.--Srleffler (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the subject's departure from the field: Notability is not temporary (WP:PERM). The rejection seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of how individual technical leadership is recognized within HEP collaborations. While I could easily invite active researchers from DØ or ATLAS to verify these contributions, I believe the draft's existing secondary sources—specifically the Xilinx Xcell Journal and the primary-author PhD research—should be sufficient for any independent editor familiar with the field to recognize "significant impact." I am seeking an unbiased evaluation that doesn't discount HEP contributions simply because of the scale of the collaborations involved. Blevan7 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Getting a PRL is nice, but it's not enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article under WP:PROF. The Xilinx Xcell Journal item appears to be the manufacturer of Xilinx FPGAs doing a glossy write-up for an application of Xilinx FPGAs. That fails our independence requirements, as it's basically an advertisement. We would need much, much better sourcing to establish that being team leader for the DØ Central Track Trigger is noteworthy.

So, like Ldm1954, I do not see a notability case here. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with Ldm1954 as well, I don't think the "high output" in a short period is proof of notability either (maybe an indicator of future notability). As someone in the HEP field as well, I agree it is difficult to stand out in a large collaboration, but certainly not impossible. Also, asking collaboration members for verification is not how Wikipedia operates, notability should be clear from the sources available. Ajheindel (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I also agree. For something like "specific technical and research leadership roles" to show notability I'd expect significant coverage in reliable indepenant (secondary) sources, i.e. not from direct collaborators. A high impact velocity is good, but is more typically a case of WP:TOOSOON. Being a good indicator of future notability isn't sufficient. Less of a factor, but just to confirm understanding, in 1999 he was a postdoc RA having just finished a PhD and changed careers in 2003. In academia, it's rare (certainly not impossible) to meet WP:NPROF without being a full professor. The PRL publication is nice, but the citations are more a factor than the publication itself. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

P.S. I'd also suggest caution with respect to WP:SELFCITE on DØ experiment to avoid giving the impression of primarily editing Wikipedia as a form of promotion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

This is mostly above my paygrade, but it seems obvious to me that this is WP:COI, a form of self-promotion; perhaps I am mistaken.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It's definitely COI, Blevan7 is the subject of the draft article in question. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to Ldm1954, Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction, Ajheindel, Kj cheetham, and Chjoaygame for the feedback. I would like to address the common themes raised regarding the DØ and ATLAS contributions as a whole, specifically regarding WP:NPROF Criterion 1.

• The "Primary Author" PRL (PhD Research): While "getting a PRL" is one metric, the context here is specific: this was PhD dissertation research where the subject was the primary driver and lead author. In HEP, it is statistically rare (est. 1–2%) for a dissertation to be accepted by PRL, and even rarer for such a paper to feature a single main author. Furthermore, a primary-author PhD published in PRL reaching 120+ citations (as noted by Kj cheetham) represents a "significant impact" based on the individual merit of the research. The significance of this specific inclusive jet production analysis, compared to prior measurements, is visually evident in the key analysis coverage plot from the PRL. This research laid the systematic foundation for multiple subsequent and parallel DØ publications and serves as a clear example of how the subject stood out within a large collaboration.
• The MSc Publication: As a further indicator of early-career impact, the subject's Master's research in theoretical physics (QCD phenomenology) was published as lead author in the Journal of Physics G (Ref [2] in the Draft, "Linear sigma model linkage with nonperturbative QCD"), garnering 25+ citations—an unusual level of scholarly influence for a Master's-level project.
• Impact Velocity and Technical Leadership: As noted, an h-index of 51 was achieved in roughly one decade. Per WP:PERM, notability is not a "use it or lose it" status. Regarding the DØ CTT, I point to the formal peer-reviewed record: "The D0 central track trigger," IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 340-344, June 2004. This architectural leadership is a further instance of standing out via technical innovation.
• Transparency and COI: I have been fully transparent about my identity from the moment of the draft's inception, including a formal disclosure placed on my User page on 24 February 2026, coinciding with the very first version of the sandbox draft. Furthermore, I brought this to WikiProject Physics specifically to move the conversation from "identity" to "merit," seeking an objective evaluation of whether these HEP milestones meet the specialized standards of the field.

I will respect the consensus of the project, but I ask that these specific "primary-lead" milestones be evaluated against the "significant impact" standard. Blevan7 (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Having seen a whole lot of deletion discussions for academic biographies, I think it is unlikely that this draft would survive such a discussion. It is difficult to separate your contributions from the contributions of the myriad coauthors, and this is particularly so given that you've left academia. The theses may show early promise, but I think it's short of the kind of impact that we're looking for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Well ouyside my field, but this article in The Guardian struck me as a pretty good layman's guide. Narky Blert (talk)

I found that article has very little about the particle save for a basic explanation that it's made of down/charm/charm quarks. This article has more, including mass (3620 MeV/c^2). It's isospin partner, Xi_cc^++ (up/charm/charm) quarks has been discovered in 2017, with a mass of 3621 MeV/c^2. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Found the slides for the Moriond conference this was presented at. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

How can it, the isospin partner, manage to cram two plus charges into a single elementary particle without having too much energy to be possible? JRSpriggs (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Same reason a Δ⁺⁺ or Σ⁺⁺
_c can. Each constituant quark have +2/3 e charge, totalling +2 e charge. Yes they repel each other electrically, but at that size the strong force dominate the electric force. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Non-relativistic gravitational fields is currently slated to be merged into Parameterized post-Newtonian formalism. And by "currently", I mean it's been slated for a couple years now. It's the oldest pending merger, and I invite anyone to take a look at it before one ends up just getting WP:BLAR'd or crudely copied-and-pasted in its entirety. See Talk:Parameterized post-Newtonian formalism#Merge proposal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)