Broomfield Park

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

Do we want ALL Nobel Laureates at high importance

Giving every Nobel Laureate high priority biases the high priority list in favor of 20th century scientists. Having one 'high priority' scientist per year seems to me to be way too many.

Main articles

How about Physics, History of Physics, and the main articles they link to? Gnixon (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What 'bout 'em? IMO that's as important as it gets.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[1] may be useful, haven<t checked it.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Greek philosophers

I've noticed that many greek philosophers articles are withing the scope of wiki physics. Often they had top or high importance, which I find completely ludicrous. I've demoted all of them to Mid importance, but I really fell that they are almost completely inconsequential. I suggest that we demoted them all to low importance, save those who actually made a real contribution to physics (aka not just some crazy guy who was considered a physicist at the time because he once ranted the universe). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You may catch some flack over this. I agree with you but there are a number of people who track science as progressing from the Greeks through the Romans through the Arabs to the late mideval Europeans. To them the Greeks started it all. There is little doubt about the large influence of the influx of mathematical thought preserved and extended by the Muslims to the mideval Europeans. I would keep them at mid for that reason. I think that evidence that renaissances in science had a lot more European roots including philosophers like Sir Francis Bacon.

(I also stumbled across Ibn_al-Haytham who appears to be very influential in optics and the scientific method from the glowing reviews on that page. Unfortunately, I am not in the position to judge. Somebody should though. He isn't even listed under physics!

I see you have Archimedes as high. I would probably place him as top because of his capabilities as a scientist of his time and because of the interest that people place in him.

I am a little disappointed that Aristarchus, Erastothenes, and Ptolemy are not considered as physicists in addition to being astronomers. Should I add them?

Finally, I am not quite sure what to do with any of the biographies. Pick any particular subject and look up the history--I picked (Optics and Inertia). What you will find is a list of all kinds of people you never heard of, some in the middle age Europe and others in Islamic Arabia who were very influential but rarely mentioned in physics textbooks. Often these peoples main contribution was that they opposed a prevailing Greek thought which was holding back science. According to most textbooks, though, science seems to either begin with Galileo or begins with the Greeks dies for a little and is resurrected by Galileo. Is it more important for us to recognize the people who were actually the most influential or the people who as a part of physics lore are accounted as being the most influential? This is a physics work group after all. Maybe we should get out of the biography business altogether.

TStein (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to do with the biographies either. But I think that one thing that is clear: Greek philosophers' contributions to physics are pretty damned small (low importance at best), with perhaps some notable exceptions (mid importance, and very rarely high importance)). Rule of thumb IMO is that anything pre-scientific revolution is not very important to physics. I don't mind having them on the History of physics article, as they indeed have a part that should be mentionned, but as far as a Compendium of Physics would go, Thales and Aristotle don't deserve much more than footnotes.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 07:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. My understanding is that rediscovery of Greek science through its preservation by Islamic civilization was essential to the sparking of the scientific revolution. I'm no historian, but I doubt it's appropriate to minimize the importance of Aristotle and Ptolemy. Gnixon (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hence their place in articles such as History of science. It's only because of physics that RNA-transcription is possible, yet you don't see RNA in the scope of WikiProject physics. Ptolemy is more important than the others because he had a solar model that was used for a long while, and was the rival of the Copernican model. I can't think of anything Aristotle did that has anything higher than "low" importance for physics. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparing apples to oranges

There's a large extent to which ranking importance within physics can be done in logical, neutral way. That's what's going on here, and I'm glad it's happening. But there also comes a point when you're comparing very different types of articles: Articles about concepts in physics versus articles about physicists versus articles about the history and practice of physics. My request is: When choosing official "projects of the week", we should be sure to include a balance of different types of articles, even if that means not always following the rule of highest-priority-lowest-quality-first. For example, if we make all Nobel-prize-winning physicists high priority (which is fine, as far as I'm concerned), then there may well come a time when all the remaining high-priority stub articles are Nobel-prize-winning physicists, since there's so many of them. People like me who aren't interested in editing biographical articles will stop helping, if the "projects of the week" are all (or almost all) biographies.

We don't necessarily need a strict quota system, but we should keep in mind that these priorities we're giving are a great starting point, but not the only thing to consider. A balance of article types is worthwhile too. :-) --Steve (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Things should be varied enough, since I plan to tackle things alphabetically in the "highest importance of lowest quality", but yeah if it's too 1-topic centered, or too biography oriented I'll diversify. I'll also group similar topics as "1 entry" (example of that grouping would up, down, charm, strange, bottom, top, quark articles since relevant informations is likely to be at the same place, and that it'll be easier to harmonize them topics together). Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is is ok just to delete the reference to the physics project

I came across an article about a prominent UFO researcher whose only connection to physics was that he happened to be a physicist. In my mind article doesn't even deserve to be a low priority for physics. Then there is this site: buttered cat paradox. Ammusing, but not really about physics at all.

TStein (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn right it is! I've deleted several myself. Not like anyone will miss Alexander Ross Clarke and (E)-stilbene :P. Tho I usually leave a mention to the effect of "irrelevant to physics" or something so people know why it was removed. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Resorting importance list by category

I am trying to sort out importance of articles using this template but it is hard at times because the criteria are split between importance categories. Would it be better to sort first by article type (Biography, theory, experiment, list, institution, equation, physical quantity... or some sort). For example we can do something like.

Biography

• top: Person who...

Examples: Newton

• high: Person who....

Examples:

• mid:

Examples:

Experiment

• top: ground breaking...

Examples: Newton

• high: ....

Examples:

• mid:

Examples:

I think it would make it easier for me to use.

TStein (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead. It would probably a smarter way of doing things that what's done right now. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. Fixing it made it more obvious where we need to add stuff and where there are inconsistencies. Hopefully that will make it easier for others to fill in the blanks.

TStein (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Updating the Importance Table and fixing the wpbot and template:physics

• Headbomb, Do you update the importance table by hand by counting through the links generated above the table or is there a more sophisticated way of doing that? I would love to cherry pick all the unassessed (for importance) members of the Start class (or any other class) for instance.

By the way I called attention to your proposal to update the Physics Template by adding the editprotect template. I stumbled upon that. I hope it is the right thing to do. The wording was so vague.

That won't help the bot sort the articles into the correct category, though. It seems to me that all this will do is allow the colors to change without helping the bot sort them. For instance using an class of Category changes the color property on the Template but does not help the bot sort. Using the term cat doesn't change the color but helps the bot find assess the article. Something similar happens to medium. For some reason the template recognizes an importance of Medium while the bot does not. This causes editors to think that they have assessed the article when in reality (from the bots point of view) they have not.

We need to fix both Template:Physics and the bot so that they agree with each other and to include list properly, if we are using it.

I really want to clear the unassessed list. There is no excuse for so many unassessed articles. If someone can take the time to write an article then surely they can take the even less time it takes to assess another one.

TStein (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Headbomb's changes to the Template:Physics have been implemented. I am not quite sure how that will affect the bot. TStein (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Current status of Template:Physics

{{physics}} We'll have to update the bot to handle all these (unless some are deemed unnecessary):
FA, Fa, fa, FL, Fl, fl, A, a, GA, Ga, ga, B, b, Start, start, Stub, stub, Template, template, Temp, temp, Category, category, Cat, cat, List, list.

Right now there's a problem with

• Temp and temp are not recognized by {{physics}}.
• Template, template, Temp, and temp are not recognized by the bot.
• Cat, cat are partially recognized by {{physics}}. "Category" does not appears on the banner, but are listed in "category-class" articles.
• Category and category, not recognized by {{physics}}.
• Category, category, are not recognized by the bot.

Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good work Headbomb. Are you sure about the bot not recognizing Cat and cat, though? I appears to be working for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TStein (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• My bad, they work.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Template class articles

I've tagged all physics-related templates I could find (see Category:Template-Class physics articles, some of these are oooooooooold).Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 03:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple rules versus common sense...

There are bound to be tradeoffs between specifying rules that are simple and unambiguous and easy-to-follow on the one hand, and asking there to be some application of common sense on the other. Now, I'm not contributing to the assessment effort, so perhaps I have no right to complain. Nevertheless, if Davydov soliton is of "top importance within physics", or even "high importance", just because it's a "particle", then maybe you should consider that the guidelines shouldn't be regarded as hard-and-fast rules, but maybe there should be room for common sense. Or more willingness to modify the guidelines. But again, I have no right to complain :-) Best, --Steve (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an old assessment. Things are better now than two weeks ago, even if the guidelines aren't tip-top. Stuff like this happens, but should be corrected over the next weeks. After all, this is the first time (that I'm aware of) someone tries to organize the importance ratings within WP Physics. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Something is better than nothing

My feeling on the matter is that something, even if it leads to nonsense occasionally, is better than nothing. If you don't like Davydov soliton being rated top then change it. Or maybe better yet tweak our rules then change it. Where does Davydov soliton belong and why? Asking and answering questions like that will help us rate the articles better.

A coworker of mine tells a story that applies here. (I am sure I am mutilating the story but the point is the same.) She and a friend needed to carry some heavy things up to her apartment but needed help. Asking for help didn't do too much. So she and her friend struggled, in an obvious manner to get the items up themselves. In moments there were plenty of strong men to help them out. That is how I feel about what we are doing here. Rating every article is too big of a task for a few people. I have made a lot of decisions here, some of which were done too quickly out of necessity. Some of which I have little knowledge about. But if I made an obvious mistake like Davydov soliton then it has a better chance of being fixed then if it had no rating at all.

In the case of Davydov soliton I looked briefly at it and was going to change it, but then saw that Headbomb was the one who set the priority. My thoughts on the matter was that it was alright to leave it at top priority for now. After all the top priority items are going to be reviewed again soon. And if it leads to a discussion about the rule that all quasiparticles should be treated equally then so much the better.

TStein (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

TStein pretty much summed up my feelings on this. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Again, sorry to snipe from the sidelines :-) --Steve (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh snipe-away. Last thing I want is a wikiproject where crazy rules are favoured over sane ones. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Launch pushed back to June 30th

There's too many things that needs to be tackled before this is launched, IMO.

• First reason is I want to test the Cheatsheet properly. There's only one way to test things properly, and that way is to use them to exposes the flaws and strength. If we could each pick 3 (or more, why not?) articles that we think needs to be improved, and use it to review the status of the article and what needs to be done, we could determine what part of the sheet is nigh useless, what is missing from it, and what could be better with the other stuff. It takes about 15 minutes to fill if you fix some things along the way, and about 5 if you don't.

• Another reason is that we could make two or three cheatsheets, one for "biographies", one for articles and one for lists.

• Third reason is that I want to check if the top importance criteria are "sane". I think the best way to do this is if we each went through all top importance articles (without actually reassessing them for now), and note which articles we would rate differently (forget quality, and forget what's written right now, just go for what you feel is the correct importance rating). Keeping a text file with with categories "Reassess to high" "Reassess to mid" "Reassess to low" should help in doing this. This shouldn't take too long, as it's a matter of simply going over a list of about 300 articles.

• We could keep our "rating" a secret at first, to not bias the judgement of others. If we do this, I say that 3 days is more than enough to give us the time to each build our lists. Or we could just say screw it, that's just too much trouble (which is where I'm leaning right now).

What say you? Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall I think it is a good idea. Although, I might not be the best person to respond since I am going on a 2 week trip starting tomorrow. I won't have any internet for the next two days and from there my internet connection will be fairly uncertain.

My advise is don't push it back too much more, though. Don't worry about everything being perfect before the launch. The details can be hammered out afterwards. Too many projects have grand plans and try too hard for perfection. The best projects are ones that start off with small attainable goals, launch quickly then expand from there. I would focus on testing for only a little while longer. Then pick that one goal that you really want to attain along with a few other sub goals. Finally advertise, advertise, advertise. Are personal invitations on web pages frowned upon for stuff like this?

At least that is my 2 cents, for what it is worth. I hope I can find some time to help. Because it sounds like fun.

TStein (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno exactly. It seems to be generally frowned upon when it's made to garner attention to a single article, but I have a hard time seeing how it would be frowned upon when a Wikiproject is asking its members for guidance on something like this. I don't plan to launch later than next week, but I think that we ought to at least try the tools we built on a small scale first. Enjoy your trip. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 11:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Importance (timelines)

I was surprised to see Timeline of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and random processes recently rated a "low priority" list.

Surely, as lists go, a historical survey of one of the most practical, subtle, and theoretically fundamental areas of physics should be anything but "low priority" ?

(And can we, like various other projects, please use priority rather than importance -- I'm very uncomfortable about writing any areas of physics off as unimportant. What is useful is to triage the articles by their priority to this project). Jheald (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well "importance" confers a different meaning than "priority" (or "usefullness"). What's been done so far is identify what would be most important to have in an "encyclopedia of physics", while priority should be given to the higher importance article of lowest quality. I do agree that my assessment of this timeline as "low" is inadequate, and that it's at least of "mid" importantce. I'll let you make the change in importance ratings. I'll also invite you to browse Category:List-Class physics articles to check if there are other timelines that got put in inadequate importance ratings. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing cheatsheet

Hi, I think the cheatsheet is much better chopped into sections. Having said this, maybe there are too many sections? E.g. update and verify could go into the problems section? I also think it would be useful to include a sentence to the blurb explaining what the cheatsheet actually is. For example:

WikiProject Physics' Reviewing Cheatsheet (14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Version)

The following cheatsheet highlights current editing issues in this article. Please feel free to browse the sections and make any necessary changes to the article. When issues have been resolved, please do not remove the elements, but rather strike them as they becomes useless or irrelevant (i.e write <s>text to be struck</s>) to indicate that this element was verified and found to be alright.
If everything in one of the sections (i.e everything in one hidden-box) has been addressed, strike that particular hidden box's title.
To add the Reviewing Cheatsheet to an article's talk page, simply place {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Projects of the Week/Reviewing Cheatsheet}} immediately before the first section.
This cheetsheet can be used by anyone.

Jdrewitt (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put a statement to that effect now. I tried to have as little section as possible, but I could only merge copy editing with cleanup, since there is also the need for topical sections, and the more sections are immediately visible, the more people will be reminded "Hey right, copyright's an issue, and so is categories". If you got suggestions for that, don't be shy. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 11:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The new statement reads well. I think your right about the sections, they are separate issues. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure I am that enamored of the cheatsheet. I like easy access to all the possible problem areas but there are just too many things to check many of which will need to be rechecked later. So far I only partially cheatsheeted one article, density and that took me quite a while. I worry a little that it won't be adequately used by the main editors, also. Then there is a problem of knowing which of the many categories are important for other reviewers to check. I placed an exclamation mark after the categories that I added something and a ? for things that I think others need to check. I don't know if that is visible enough or the right thing to do, though. Should we timestamp the individual categories that we check? TStein (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I went over there and you seem to have made a good use of it in terms of assessing the status of the article. The Cheatsheet's purpose is two-fold IMO. First it supports editors in writing, by reminding them of what to check for. Second it allows editors to tell what has been done and what is left to be done. I usually edit the page as I fill the sheet, since it's usually easier to fix the problem than to detail it. As for time stamping individual sections, up to you. Let's not get caught up in details. The Cheetsheet is a tool, and its usage is up too individual. There's no "correct" or "wrong" way to use it. I'll probably work on article content tomorrow, as I've been busy on other projects this week.

Side note, I too think the Cheatsheet was better when it was all in one. You can skim everything with one click rather than having to click for individual categories. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree although I think we need to focus on making it as useful as possible. Can we use this as a checklist for an article to gain B status or higher for instance? If so then we should call it a 'checklist for B status' instead of cheat sheet. If we could do that it would give people a good reason to look at the template and use it. Plus I think we can make reviewed and fixed categories visually distinctive such as changing the color of the bar. A green bar means everything has been checked and been found good. Red means something has been found wrong. We can then use yellow for either partially checked and no problems or not checked at all. A quick glance will give people an idea of what needs to be checked and changed.

(We have enough editors creating and editing pages it seems (at least from the number of pages we have). What we don't have is enough editors to do the grunt work of rating articles writing to dos and cleanup and focused editing of important pages. Anything that will help and encourage the former much larger category to do some of the latter work would do a lot more to help our work group than any one person could do I think. I think that this cheat sheet has potential to do that if we can make it a lot more user friendly and give it a more focused purpose.)

I also think that we should encourage but not require timestamps for the long haul. A good protocol maintained on a separate page will go a long ways to helping people get the most out of the template (so that they don't have to think as much) as long as it isn't to picky or difficult to use. TStein (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the Red -> Green idea. I'll change the cheatsheet accordingly. I'll respond to the rest later.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What importance to give...?

• Journals: e.g. American Journal of Physics.
• Popular scientific books written by physicists. e.g. A Different Universe.

(TimothyRias (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Good question. For journals and books, it would be a case-by-case basic IMO, ranging from High to Low. For journals specific ratings would depending on how established the journal is and the impact it had within physics. I would probably give the Physical Reviews a High rating, while I'd give Synthetic Metals and Journal of Molecular Modeling Low ratings. For books, it would depends on how well-known the book is and its impact. The Feynman Lectures and Stephen Hawking' A Brief History of Time are about as high as you could get (High ratings IMO), but textbooks would generally be of Low importance, perhaps Mid if there's something exceptional about the book. Individual papers might get Top importance ratings (Annus Mirabilis Papers would certainly get that), but for an encyclopedia I don't see journals and books to be of critical importance.

Anyway that's my opinion. Feel free to disagree and to voice yours. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 11:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That was pretty much what I was thinking. Although, I think no paper would be top priority, even the landmark ones. High would be max IMO. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I agree about journals, although I am not quite sure what all needs to be said about them in an encyclopedia. I would rate American Journal of Physics as high along with all (or most of the ) the PR magazines and Science and Nature. The first I would rate high because of its utility to the University community the rest because they are the top-tier Journals for original research. I also noticed that we do not have a list of physics journals that I can find* (I monumentally despise the search feature of wikipedia). *Nevermind I finally found the list of scientific journals in physics. I still hate wikipedias search feature, though.

I think there are a handful of textbooks that would get high priority but no tops. Many of the textbooks that are so influential you can reference them by the author (for example Jackson or Goldstein) would qualify for high. The popular textbooks at just a lower level then the ones that are considered 'bibles' and or 'bibles' of more specialized fields would be marked as mid. Here I would include Griffiths (E&M and QM) for instance. I agree that the rest should be treated as low. I am not certain exactly what is important to say about these works in an encyclopedia, though. Eventually, it would be nice to spell out what.

I can't imagine any paper getting top priority.

TStein (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not even the Annus Mirabilis Papers, or On Physical Lines of Force (currently uncreated) se ([http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force.pdf) A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field??

What to do with redirected articles?

Going through the list of unassessed articles, I some times find articles that have been redirected. Should these still get an importance assessment, or should the physics banner just be removed? (TimothyRias (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I've been removing the banners. Maybe someone could find a reason to leave them, but for now I don't see the point in having a tagged redirect. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 11:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason to maybe leave them, is so that somebody later one removes the redirect as part of splitting up a lengthy article, the new article will already have a physics importance rating. This is only really important for top/high priority articles that currently redirect to some other topic. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I don't think that it is too onerous to ask whoever removes the redirect to also insert the importance rating. I agree with Headbomb. Removing the tags is best. TStein (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with bot with cat and template classes again

I was hoping to knock off a few more unassessed articles, but when I clicked on the link I noticed there were a lot of categories and templates in the unassessed articles again. Is there anyway to get this fixed? TStein (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure of what you mean... It is possible this is simply a delay between the update of the database. Apparently doing null edits solves this. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked the code and I forgot some equal signs. Thanks for pointing that out. Now to wait for the editprotected request to go through... Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Top importance phycisists

I have been reviewing the importance ratings of physicists, and I found that I do not necessarily always agree with the given ratings. As many of them have recently been given by Headbomb, I thought it might be more productive to have an open discussion about who we think should be given top importance and why. For reference here is the list of currently top-rated phycisists:

• Antoine Abragam
• Andre-Marie Ampere
• Philip Warren Anderson
• John Bardeen
• Henri Becquerel
• Felix Bloch
• David Bohm
• Niels Bohr
• Ludwig Boltzmann
• Lawrence Bragg
• Walter Houser Brattain
• Marie Sklodowska-Curie
• Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot
• Pierre Curie
• Paul Dirac
• Albert Einstein
• Thomas Alva Edison
• Michael Faraday
• Enrico Fermi
• Richard Feynman
• Carl Gauss
• Murray Gell-Mann
• Galileo Galilei
• Jean Jenier
• Brian Josephson
• William Rowan Hamilton
• Stephen Hawking
• Gerard 't Hooft
• Werner Heisenberg
• Archibald Hill
• Christiaan Huygens
• Igor Kurchatov
• Lev Davidovich Landau
• Georges Lemaitre
• Peter Mansfield
• James Maxwell
• Neville Mott
• Isaac Newton
• Louis Neel
• Kamerlingh Onnes
• Robert Oppenheimer
• Wolfgang Pauli
• Max Planck
• Henri Poincare
• Edward Mills Purcell
• Sir John Randall
• Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen
• Ernest Rutherford
• Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov
• Erwin Schrodinger
• William Shockley
• Nikola Tesla
• John von Neumann
• John H. Van Vleck
• Max von Laue
• Edward Witten
• Steven Weinberg
• Hideki Yukawa

Some names on this list are a no-brainer (e.g. Newton or Einstein), yet others are not obvious as to why they should be top important to physics. For example, why are Shockley and Brattain on this list? Yes they invented the transistor, which is important but not to physics (the article doesn't even have a physics tag, maybe it should be importance would high at most). As a rule of thumb I believe no physicist should be given a higher importance rating then his or her main contribution to physics. (figure like Hawking might be an exception due to their public profile) Following this rule also raises doubts about the presence of figures like Weinberg and Gell-Mann on this list.

Equally important if these people are all deemed top important then who else should be here. If Hamilton is here then Lagrange should be as well. If Weinberg and Gell-Mann are here then maybe so should 't Hooft.

I am opening this up for discussion (instead of just changing the ratings I feel are off) because I feel it is important to have some concensus about this. It might help sharpen the current importance to physics description on the project page. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC))

Well it was mostly I who assigned these ratings so I'll explain and then maybe it'll make sense (or not):

• Brattain and Shockley for the transistor. Shockley also was the first to succesfully modelize PN junctions. Brattain could probably be dropped to High, but Shockley IMO, is of top importance considering the impact of his work.
• Gell-Man because of his work on QED with Feynman.
• Weinberg for unifying EM and the weak interaction.
• Hill for the foundation of biophysics
• Kurchatov because of what seems his enormous impact within the Soviet physics community. He seems like the Soviet Oppenheimer. However, I never heard of the guy before.
• Lagrange: I agree that this guy should be in top-importance. What about d'Alembert, Legendre, and Poisson?

Good idea to list them all. It gives us a good overview of things. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I sort of have my doubts about the actual importance to physics of Oppenheimer and Kurchatov. They were heads of the the atomic programs of the US and USSR, which makes them important figures for modern history. Besides this they were prominent physicists of their time, but that pretty much goes for any high/mid rated physicist. I think that for this project "high" would be a good rating. But I guess it is a matter of where we want to put the bar.

Some people that I think should make this list: (i.e. people of at least the same stature as the people currently on the list)

• Ludwig Boltzmann for statistical physics (Ouch, was unassessed. Have put him in Top)
• Kamerlingh Onnes superconductivity (The top list has a shocking lack of experimentalists)
• Marie Curie radioactivity. (also I think it is good to have at least one female in there)
• Edward Witten maybe?
• Gerard 't Hooft for his work on QCD and the standard model?

I'm not sure about d'Alembert, Legendre, and Poisson. They were mostly mathmaticians. They should be at least high but top would be too much, I think. (same goes for Euler and Cauchy probably). (TimothyRias (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Let's also not forget that most people never see these rankings. They're means to an end, and the end is having better articles. It's fine to spend some time thinking about how to focus efforts, but let's not go tooo far overboard scrutinizing every borderline ranking. Better to spend the time simply improving the articles. :-) --Steve (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)