Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science

 Wikiproject Science Topics list Target articles Guidelines Templates Members 

Proposed deletion of Sonic soot blowers

The article Sonic soot blowers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced for 15 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced with spammy external links

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pneumatic web guides

The article Pneumatic web guides has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns for 10 years. Completely unsourced for close to 17 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Requires a complete re-write. Created by a SPA with about 16 edits.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Eulerian coherent structure

I'm confused by this, and am not sure if it's notable. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

It is proported related to Lagrangian coherent structure which is also not easy to understand. Eulerian coherent structure is determined to be not-notable, it could be merged into Lagrangian coherent structure as an WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I took 7 math(s) classes in college and graduate schools and still have no clue. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Input requested: modern implementations of ultrasonic atomization

A long-running content discussion is taking place at Talk:Ultrasonic atomization concerning the sourcing and due weight of modern commercial implementations of metal ultrasonic atomization.

Input from uninvolved editors would be appreciated, particularly regarding whether a short chronology covering independently sourced developments associated with 3D Lab/ATO and AMAZEMET/rePOWDER would provide balanced coverage.

Discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ultrasonic_atomization

Proposed text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaltoczko/sandbox/Ultrasonic_atomization Michaltoczko (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Source check

I'm an experienced editor, but with little experience writing scientific subjects, and I'm having trouble identifying usable sources. Would this thisweekinsciencenews.com source be usable for Wikipedia? If not, can anyone suggest any sources covering the subject of 432 hz in music? Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

@Popcornfud The fact that the URL contains the word "blog" suggests it is not usable, except in limited circumstances described at WP:BLOG. Google scholar has plenty of usable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Popcornfud, in addition, you're always welcome to post at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard which is dedicated to questions like this, whether for this question, or just for next time around. Mathglot (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

"Discovered by <instrument>", or "discovered by <person(s)> using <instrument>"?

Do we have any guidance, or even a convention, regarding the subject of the verb discovered when humans are involved? I notice for example, this lead sentence from Little Red Dots:

Little Red Dots (LRDs) are a class of small, red-tinted astronomical objects discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).^[1][2][4]

I object to this formulation as improper. I would not list the JWST as the object (or agent) of the discovered-by clause, making it the "discoverer", not to mention short-changing the team(s) involved in the discovery of the credit due them. (The LRD article never mentions the discoverers in the running text of the article at all.) It seems to me the individuals involved are the discoverers, and the JWST is their tool.

I am okay with saying that the LIGO "recorded" a signal later determined/discovered (by people) to be a gravity wave. I am less okay with "LIGO *detected* a gravity wave", although some sources do say that (e.g., CalTech, but not MIT). An X-ray diffraction camera did not "discover" (or "detect", or "identify", or "determine", or "visualize", or "show") the helical nature of DNA in 1951, that was Rosalind Franklin, looking at fuzzy images produced by an X-ray diffraction apparatus.

Coming full circle, did the JWST "discover" LRDs? I would say no. And I would think that a similar principle should hold across all the sciences, at least until agentic AI-driven instruments are really doing independent experiments and interpreting/announcing the results. Mathglot (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Changing 'by' to 'with' or 'using' should suffice, I would think. Praemonitus (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

That would work, I agree. Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Discovery are made by people. The only time I'd accept "This was discovered by <instrument>" is when what is meant is really "This was discovered by the <instrument> team.", e.g. "The Higgs boson was discovered by the ATLAS and CMS experiments."

JWST has no such team doing analysis, so JWST doesn't discover anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

In the concern within the sentence you use as an example, "with" works to address it. An interesting topic, thanks for bringing it up. Would never want to downplay the telescopes though, their very existence is what makes these distances and their defining science discoveries reachable. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Inanimate objects cannot discover. The article has lots of issues. I hacked on it. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

It appears we all agree, but I'll chime in to point out that instruments are not sentient, so cannot discover anything. An instrument can measure or detect something, but all interpretation is done by humans. So humans make discoveries, suggest interpretations, infer the origin of the signal, derive physical properties etc. But often it's not necessary or beneficial to specify which humans - especially if they're otherwise non-notable. Phrasing like 'using' or 'in data from' works well. Modest Genius ^talk 13:19, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Modest Genius. Since we all seem to pretty much agree on the main issue, here's a more minor one. I agree with you about measure (or record ), but I am more on the fence about the word detect. It seems to me that detect lies somewhere on the spectrum of sentient intelligence required between record (none) and discover (lots). When I think of something being detected, I think of many trials, with very likely some false positives which were not what you were seeking. If you're working on SETI, you can record a signal that might be alien intelligence or might be space junk or solar storms, but if you detect a signal that seems to me to imply an assertion of a modicum of judgment leaning toward the desired outcome; i.e., stronger than record, but (much) weaker than discover. Or do I detect some disagreement on this point? Curious about your thoughts on this. Mathglot (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I see your point, 'detect' could be a more ambiguous case if it's something that requires thought or consideration to eliminate other possibilities. I was instead thinking of automated systems making routine detections of common events e.g. earthquakes, gamma-ray bursts, or a train passing a set of points that it shouldn't. Those are sufficiently well understood events that a machine can identify the signal, exclude common noise sources, and issue an alert or trigger follow-up actions, all without needing human input. In that case, 'detect' seems a valid word. But I agree that if it's a new type of signal, or not a mature technique, a 'detection' would require human input. In the case that started this discussion, JWST can detect a red source with certain brightness and coordinates, but a human is needed to identify it as a distant galaxy and classify it as a little red dot. Modest Genius ^talk 12:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to pile-on, the suggestions above seem perfectly sound (in particular Modest Genius' remarks about the often-non-notability of the researchers themselves). I don't think we necessarily need to have a standard, but any one of using/by/with/etc would work. Primefac (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Some adroit usage of metonymy is fine by me. The White House talks; CERN discovers; the Chinese are holding drills off Taiwan (not all of them). kencf0618 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)