Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science

I am trying to figure out how to best improve Volta Conference. I wanted initially to make 1927 Volta Congress article because this event is so famous in the history of physics (we also have a couple of pictures). However I found that Volta Conference refers to many conferences with very different topics with no particular official website. I cannot even find what is its official name (congress? conference? lecture?). Even the current wiki article claims that the second Volta "conference" was about some political stuff, but I believe the second one was about physics and was in Rome (1931). So I am looking for two things: (1) an official archive of all the conferences (probably from Accademia dei Lincei website) (2) a proceeding of 1927 conference or a historical article specifying what happened there and who was there. Any additional source to the article would help. Maybe the article could be just about the 1927 conference and just mention other conferences in a section. ReyHahn (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Done--ReyHahn (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

History of the metric system 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) 00:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The infobar for Hydrogen conflicts with the article regarding the "discovery". I attempted to fix it but my change was reverted. Please weigh in on Talk:Hydrogen#Discovery_in_article_vs_template. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There is a proposal to reorganize Template:Infobox academic. Please feel free to participate in the discussion here. Thanks! — hike395 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have been working for fun on physic conferences articles. Some recent ones include Chapel Hill Conference and Como Conference, if you have any historical conference that you think deserves an article (something notable happened during the conference), please do not hesitate to write to me directly. For the moment I am not eager to write articles on individual Solvay Conferences. ReyHahn (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Koopman–von Neumann classical mechanics is becoming more popular these days. However the article claims that it is not from Koopman or from von Neumann. Unfortunately I could not find a source that claims such. If you have one please bring it into the article. ReyHahn (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I guess the name was probably invented by Mauro in a PhD thesis. Gozzi did work before Mauro and later together.

Weirdly this recent paper

• Bondar, D. I., Gay-Balmaz, F., & Tronci, C. (2019). Koopman wavefunctions and classical–quantum correlation dynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 475(2229), 20180879.

claims Therein, Sudarshan proposed to couple classical and quantum dynamics by exploiting the Koopman–von Neumann (KvN) formulation of classical dynamics in terms of classical wavefunctions but the cited Sudarshan paper does not use "KvN" and only cites "Coopman". I gather from the way that paper is written that they consider the Mauro work to be minor, so there is some conflict here.

• Ramos-Prieto, I., Urzúa-Pineda, A.R., Soto-Eguibar, F. et al. KvN mechanics approach to the time-dependent frequency harmonic oscillator. Sci Rep 8, 8401 (2018).

cites both the Mauro/Gozzi and Bondar teams while associating "KvN" with the two independent K and vN papers.

So there are sources that say "KvN" is from K and vN, but I don't think we can say who coined the term (not that it matters really). Johnjbarton (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I see but we cannot even say [at least not in a Wiki article] that there is some conflict on its historicity. This discussion is not present in the papers. So the allegations of fabrication could be scrapped from the article.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, done. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm glad we agree, thanks.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I would appreciate your input on Talk:History_of_the_metre#Consensus_to_reduce_extraneous_content. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Aristotle 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. Psychastes (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Nikola Tesla 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) 21:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Geocentric model#Requested move 7 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath ^talk 04:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

History of botany 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) 17:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology 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) 17:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi all — I have been working on Draft:List of applications built with VP-Expert and would like to get it ready for publication in mainspace.

I’d really appreciate input on:

• Whether the topic meets notability for inclusion (as a list within computing/AI history).
• Suggestions for strengthening sourcing with independent, secondary references.
• Any neutrality or structure concerns that might prevent AfC approval or mainspace move.

Goal: make sure the draft is solid enough to be accepted and helpful to readers interested in the history of expert systems on PCs.

Thanks for any guidance or edits! Bns1743 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

How is this relevant to the history of science? –jacobolus (t) 15:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The Discovery of the neutron looks pretty good but once I started to read carefully I found more and more problems. However editor @Bdushaw disagrees with some of my changes. It would be helpful if other editors would take a look. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Project-Class history of science pages
• NA-importance history of science pages
• WikiProject History of Science articles