Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

WikiProject Physics
WikiProject Physics Main / Talk	Members	Quality Control (talk)	Welcome

Hall effect sensor

A few years ago, I changed the title of this article from "Hall-effect sensor" to "Hall effect sensor" on the theory that the Hall effect is a single, non-hyphenated concept. Another user just came through and changed every instance of "Hall effect sensor" to "Hall-effect sensor" throughout the entire article, but did not change the title.

I don't have terribly strong feelings about which is correct. Unhyphenated seems to me clearer and more in line with MOS:HYPHEN, but I won't go to the mat for it against a user who DOES seem to have very strong feelings.

However, I think they should definitely be the SAME. Either the article title should be changed, or the text should be changed to match the title. Soliciting comments here as to which seems more correct, or should we just leave it as is? PianoDan (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I believe it's correct to say that a sensor based on the Hall effect is a Hall-effect sensor, but I agree that the change has to be consistent throughout and that requires a page move.--Srleffler (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

That was more or less my thinking too. Judging by the titles of the sources cited, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of consensus elsewhere though. Either way, we should be consistent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

It was consistently hyphenated (both text and title) before PianoDan removed all the hyphens, using a meaningless argument about "real effect". "Field effect" is a real effect, but is hyphenated in "field-effect transistor" because there it serves as a compound modifier. Same with "ground effect" and "ground-effect vehicle", and so on. See also "Hall-effect thruster". I would move the page "Hall effect sensor" back to "Hall-effect sensor", but I "do not have permission" because "a page of that name already exists ..., which is a redirect that ... has multiple revisions", so this now requires administrative rights. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm just going to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and leave it at that. PianoDan (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I proposed a move on the article's talk page. Feel free to chime in there. --Srleffler (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Placement of display math and chem formula

We will soon see the rollout of T271001 that changes the default rendering method for <math>...</math> and <chem>...</chem> formula from serverside SVG to client side SVG. This will have many changes to the look of formula that are best discussed upstream or bug reported via Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/MathFormattingBugs.

Once change we can potentially do here is the change the local CSS ensuring display equations get the same alignment as before. The do nothing option will see the placement of display <math>...</math> and <chem>...</chem> change from left-aligned and indented to center aligned. To reasses the consensus I've opened a discussions at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Placement of display math and chem formula to reassess consensus.

Your input there is welcome. Salix alba (talk): 22:40, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Articles relating to CP symmetry

As I previously mentioned on this page, I've been working on cleaning up articles to do with symmetries, and I wanted to get some input on a couple of changes I think should be made. Currently there is an article called Parity (physics), which I would like propose moving to "P-symmetry" (which currently redirects there), bringing in line with T-symmetry and C-symmetry. This would also be an opportunity to add a better disambiguation (including a disambiguation page?) about different parity transformations in physics. I also think it would be a good idea to merge C-parity into the latter; the C-parity page has received little attention from editors for a long time and already significantly overlaps with the C-symmetry article. Adkbeckett (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I've just come across the article on intrinsic parity, which I suppose is the analogue to the C-parity article for the P-symmetry. A merge might be a good idea here too. Adkbeckett (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Parity is much more the common name than p-symmetry; parity physics gets 1.2 million hits in GScholar vs 9,000 for p-symmetry physics. I think we should keep the title as recommended in WP:COMMONNAME. we might consider changing t-symmetry to time reversal symmetry and c-symmetry to charge conjugation symmetry for similar reasons. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Good suggestion, this might be the way to go. In any case, I think these three articles should have consistent naming conventions. Adkbeckett (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I've added a physics section to Parity (disambiguation) and link to that page in the header of Parity (physics). Adkbeckett (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I would very much go the other way or renaming C-symmetry to charge conjugation, and T-symmetry to time reversal symmetry. And yes, C-parity should be merged into the other one, something ive noticed years ago.

On a side note, glad to see someone else is finally working on susy articles. The R-symmetry one was in much need of improvement so thanks for doing that. OpenScience709 (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Mark viking and @OpenScience709 for the comments. I have made an official WP:RMPM for C and T at Talk:C-symmetry. Adkbeckett (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Review requested: COI edit request at Talk:Yuri Kivshar

Hi team, I am wondering if I can get some help reviewing and updating a Wiki page?

The article is on the physicist Yuri Kivshar (nonlinear optics, metamaterials, ANU). I have posted a proposed, fully sourced revision as an edit request at Talk:Yuri Kivshar, and I would be grateful if an uninvolved editor familiar with the field could take a look and apply whatever holds up. I am happy to answer any questions on the talk page.

I am asking here rather than editing it myself because I have a declared conflict of interest. Thank you. Borizuka (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Declined on the talk page. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Following up on this: the proposed revision at Talk:Yuri Kivshar has since been trimmed right down to address the feedback (about 15 KB now, with the h-index and grant details removed and the references cut back), and the edit request is still open. If any physics editor has a moment to take a look I'd be very grateful. Thanks. Borizuka (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Help regarding Steady-state microbunching

I published a article without Help:Unreviewed new page, it was withdrawn, so now I want help of other editors, to improve the article. It is in Draft for reviewing: Steady-state microbunching (SSMB), I made some changes to its tone and to improve some parts of it, but it still requires some major changes because I used some help of an LLM (Kimi k3) in some subsection and to gather sources. I want to publish this article because of its accelerator based approach of generating EUV light. Here is the link of the of the help page for more information and helpful sources in this matter:
Steady-State Microbunching Accelerator Light Source
Micro-Bunching based on Transverse-Longitudinal Coupling
illuminates new technological horizon
progress of SSMB EUV light source project at Tsinghua University
High-power EUV Light Source Based on Steady-state ... - Indico
the theoretical foundation of steady-state microbunching
of Tsinghua SSMB EUV
of Tsinghua SSMB EUV
formulas and example parameters set for the design of SSMB storage rings
Sayanpdd (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I've been chatting on my talk page with this author, and just to summarize my advice here - I think this article needs to be replaced with one that is massively shorter to start, and which explains the concept to a lay reader. (See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable) Once a reasonably encyclopedic starting point exists, it will be in a better position to be slowly expanded with more detailed information. PianoDan (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I have agreed to help @Sayanpdd develop a new draft. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Dynamical system: input on some edits please

There is a discussion at Talk:Dynamical system#reverted to 16 august 2026 version about some recent disagreements on edits. I think further input is needed so I am posting here. I will add that the article looks like it needs quite a lot of work beyond the recent edits under discussion. N.B., I am also posting to WT:MATH, so please post any comments on the dynamical system's talk page. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Nobel week 2026

As it is usual with the Nobel prizes special attention is needed in WP:BLP. For physics this year is just Francis Halzen which is not that bad already. Any extra attention Halzen, IceCube Neutrino Observatory and neutrino articles is deeply welcomed. ReyHahn (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

EBSCO sources

I've been seeing examples like this edit which add a source like

• "Bosons | Physics | Research Starters | EBSCOhost". EBSCO. Retrieved 2026-10-07.

which is not a source but just an advertisement for EBSCO. I think AI is suggesting these but I am unsure. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

That article does exist, but the url is not correct. It should be https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/physics/bosons/ Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like tools like WP:ProveIt (which relys on ) give an very poor result for the longer URL and that result ends up being cited.

So a separate question is whether the source

• Giberson, Karl. "Research Starter Boson". EBSCO. Retrieved 2026-10-07.

is reliable. The content looks reasonable in the same way that content in Wikipedia looks reasonable. Who is Karl Giberson? I guess not this Karl W. Giberson. So we have a source written by an unknown author reviewed by EBSCO editors who I assert are similar to wikipedia editors. I think these sources may be helpful because they have references but no inline citations. I don't think we should consider them to be reliable sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I think the author is the same Karl W. Giberson. His CV mentions an essay on "bosons" (1991) published by Salem Press, and according to , "Research Starters" is based on Salem Press Encyclopedia of Science. Giberson has a PhD in physics from 1984 but has not focused on physics research after that, and instead has focused on religious writing. I would evaluate him at the low end of the expert scale on this topic. The article has some errors on the chronology: according to the article, boson/fermion split was introduced to explain the particle zoo (it predated those discoveries), and the strong force was the next theory after QED (electroweak theory came first). Likely other parts also contain similar errors or simplifications, so I would not cite this.

In general, "EBSCO Research starters" seems like a typical encyclopedia like Britannica and has the same problems. It is a WP:TERTIARY source, and reliable secondary are preferred instead. It is aimed to undergraduates, and is not a source one could cite in a scientific article (unlike an article from a more specialized encyclopedias). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case, if you look at the exact link they specify in the article name parameter, it seems like a real source , whether or not it is reliable is unclear to me. I don't see it listed as a reliable source on WP documentation pages, but the bibliography seems to reference decent sources. The user also seems fine, no other promotion of the same link, which is usually how that works. Ajheindel (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

I see the user was banned for socking anyways. Ajheindel (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Article about Henri Poincaré

I noticed that in the discussion regarding the article on the mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré, the reliability of some of the sources used there is being questioned (see the last three last sections of the talk page). A concern is that using Men of Mathematics to source information in an article about Poincaré is not a good idea. That book is "one of the worst", according to historian Ivor Grattan-Guinness and many other historians of mathematics. It's not a reliable book and should be avoided as reference on Wikipedia. According to this page, the Poincaré article received 13973 views over the last 30 days, which is quite a lot for the biography page of a mathematician born in 1854. I believe that the quality and correctness of the sources used to write a Wikipedia article is what ultimately determines its quality. So I ask that an experienced editor please review the sources there and remove whatever needs to be removed (due to a lack of reliability). [This was also posted at WT:WPMATH] ~2026-54122-04 (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)