Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2017

Please comment on a few requests for comments on the Microscope article.

Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_how_a_scanning_electron_microscope_works

Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_ultramicroscope

Thank you, --2601:648:8503:4467:F4B3:6D6C:9DCC:DC06 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Toy model about a possible merger of the article and about some related content issues. Notably, Toy model is currently tagged with Template:Unreferenced. If anyone is interested in doing some research and adding more content, with reliable sources, to the article, it would be greatly appreciated. Biogeographist (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Please help review this draft currently waiting at AFC. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI {{user|MartinZ}} has been categorizing cosmology into philosophy and out of astronomy. As this is a topic pertaining to astrophysics, I thought I'd let you know. For the various discussions, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Unilateral_changes_for_this_project and WT:COSMOLOGY

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

See the above discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

:Crosspost, as physical cosmology involves astrophysics and universal theories of everything, thus potentially relevant to members of this project -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

::A joint task force under both Physics and Astronomy projects might make better sense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've just made improvements to Edwin F. Taylor which I believe make the current version much more than a stub. For the Wikiproject Biography stub, there appears to be a Requesting an assessment section to get the stub label upgraded. I couldn't find anything similar here at WikiProject Physics – did I manage to miss something? Or is there no formal upgrade process (below GA/FA)? Can I just change the stub project label myself? Markus Pössel (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

:{{u|Markus Pössel}}, you didn't, there isn't, and you can. If you feel it's better-than-stub, by all means change the assessment. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

::OK great! Thanks for the information! Markus Pössel (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Microscope#RFC_should_article_focus_on_instrument.2C_microscope.2C_or_technique.2C_microscopy

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)