This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPhysics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Despite "Newton" and "orbits", the topic seems to be primarily an issue of mathematics or possibly astronomy AFAICT, so maybe someone on those projects might take interest.Johnjbarton (talk)23:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The bit at the end of§ Modern derivation that rephrases the theorem in terms of potential energy doesn't seem to be in any of the sources included so far. Does anyone feel like searching for it? It follows by integrating the statement about forces, of course, but even though it's easily checked I don't think it's strictlyWP:DUE as matters currently stand.Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)09:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Samboy and the Nguyen sources in the article both give "modern" derivations but they both adopt transformations of the equations to an rather than since we generally want the shape of the orbit. So to me the issue here is that there is a better modern derivation.Johnjbarton (talk)03:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources that claim it is special are all biased: the organizers and the press covering the event. Most of the content in the article is not encyclopedic: 15 year old news reports of presentations that are not peer-reviewed. If we tried tomerge the article into a new sectionAmerican Astronomical Society § Meetings we would have nothing to say beyond the title and date.AAS meeting does not single out any of the 200+ meetings as special.Johnjbarton (talk)18:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve noticed that theheat transfer article currently uses a suboptimal choice of a lead image. I posted an analysis of three possible alternatives on the article’s talk page (Talk:Heat transfer#Lead Image), comparing their clarity and pedagogical value.
It has been 11 days without any responses, and before making a bold change to the lead image, I'd like to ensure some consensus.
Dear all, I cannot hide the fact that I am confused by this discussion.
When examining theList of physics awards, one finds approximately 213 prizes that have dedicated Wikipedia pages. Given this substantial precedent, I would welcome a clear explanation of the specific notability criteria that distinguish these established award pages from the Cocconi and Young Experimental Physics Prize. What threshold determines whether a physics prize merits coverage (taking also in consideration that you already agree that "these are important prizes")?
I would argue that Wikipedia has already decided since a long time that physics prizes, as a category, are inherently notable and worthy of individual articles. This is fundamentally different from coverage of isolated events, such as a single meeting of an academic organization (specifically the American Astronomical Society 215th meeting).
Sincerely the attempt to rank over 200 existing prizes in term of "notability" could result in an impractical and potentially contentious exercise.
Sorry just because other prizes exist does not mean that a particular prize needs one. SeeWP:INN. Yes we have many articles on prizes many have to be reviewed again. The notability of a given articles is mostly the same as any other article. For prizes consider reliable sources that discuss the prize on its own not just to list or announce a winner.--ReyHahn (talk)17:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of discussing the (de)merits of the article you keep linkingWP:INN.
I repeat what I said toUser:Ldm1954 in a previous discussion, about Cocconi:
a) the prize is awarded by the leading European academic institution (EPS Wikipedia page)
b) the prize enjoys great prestige and visibility ([4] and [6])
c) the award winners are of the highest rank, including future Nobel Prizes ([6])
d) the award announcements are reported by many academic institutions and research laboratories around the world ([4], [6], [9], [11], [13], [14], [15], [19], [20]),
It's absolutely not true that the article contains only self-citations.
Given that over 200 prizes have been published, declining these two suggests they fall below a quality threshold. For transparency and consistency, I kindly request that this threshold be explicitly quantified and discussed.Mauro.mezzetto (talk)20:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think theCocconi Prize page is ok. It had a number of claims in the intro that were not supported by the sources, some I fixed. For future reference, I suggest posting a "here are the sources that shownotability" defense first. Nothing else matters, including the prestige of the prize or names of the winners etc. You will save yourself time by focusing solely on the notability. Starting off by comparing to other articles will sidetrack the discussion as you see here.Johnjbarton (talk)21:31, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When an academic institution establishes a prize devoted to early-career researchers, it is fully aware that this prize will not attain the visibility—or notability, in your terms—of other major prizes. The objective is to encourage and recognize the initial stages of young researchers' careers. I sincerely hope that you will take this consideration into account when comparing this prize with other accolades.Mauro.mezzetto (talk)09:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using "you" in you responses. Did you readWP:42,WP:Notability andWP:NOT? Just like writing a scientific paper, you have to do the required background reading. These are not personal opinions of @Johnjbarton, @ReyHahn and I, this ispolicy established by hundreds (thousands) of editors. Please also note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source so your adding it to those pages is irrelevant, please also readWP:Reliable Sources. (And, of course, follow the pages mentioned in the policy pages I cite -- research the citation tree.)
N.B., as already mentioned, the awardees do not confer notability. The only relevant source in YEPP is [2], and that is not independent so would be disqualified from consideration.Ldm1954 (talk)10:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Approximations using the first few terms of a Taylor series can make otherwise unsolvable problems possible for a restricted domain; this approach is often used in physics.
I doubt that would add anything to the current page. There are vast numbers of examples inmany most branches of science and engineering, but explaining them and the limits of validity would be way off topic.Ldm1954 (talk)14:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tailor series of the sine to appromixate the force on the pendulum is a classic. If you want a more specialized application, I and a collegue wrote a paper (doi:10.1139/cjp-2015-0378,free version) that makes use of Taylor expansions to approximate several forces (see eq 3/4 and their developments) in the context of bouncing balls.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}00:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently collecting independent secondary sources from reliable outlets (e.g. award announcements and review articles) and will add them to the draft shortly. I appreciate your guidance.Psonmez (talk)08:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I recently ran across the pageLeik Myrabo which was nominated byUser:Very_Polite_Person as a physics and astronomygood article in September 2025. From a little analysis it is very unclear whether he passesWP:NPROF, there is a lot ofWP:Peacock plus the page incorrectly stated that he used to be a professor atRPI (he was an associate prof from what I can find). Maybe he passesWP:GNG as a well known name in space propulsion, or perhaps this is a promo page that belongs at AfD. I would appreciate opinions.Ldm1954 (talk)14:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it probably wouldn't passWP:NPROF, none of the sources say anything beyond his appointment (most of the sources say "associate professor of engineering physics", but at least two say "aerospace engineering professor"). There appears to be pretty decent coverage on various things he has done, so I feelWP:GNG is reasonable, but I agree it needs some rewriting for promotional tone.Ajheindel (talk)15:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, in North America, at least, "Associate Professor" is usually the rank assigned to a professor who has achieved tenure. ("Assistant Professor" is generally used for professors on the tenure track that have not yet achieved tenure.) So it's not really dispositive one way or the other. I suspect that a LOT of the folks who meetWP:NPROF by virtue of being APS fellows are Associate Professors.PianoDan (talk)15:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is not right (just to clarify). They often occur at the same time, but they do not have to and there are untenured assoc profs.Ldm1954 (talk)15:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., the "prof" glitch is not the main one. Based upon a quickWP:Before analysis I have severe doubts about whether he really passesWP:GNG. His page has heavy promo which independent sources (see my latest comments atTalk:Leik Myrabo/GA1) do not verify. I really would like an "expert" opinion on this, but so far nothing.Ldm1954 (talk)16:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum superabsorption and superradiance merge proposal
.jpg)
