Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Glass

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

WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Glass articles by quality Refresh
FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Template	NA	???	Total
2	0	19	122	307	691	401	0	20	174	2	7	27	0	8	15	77	1	1,873

Tagging articles

Alright, there are a bots to help with this task. So to save yourselves some work you should build a list of categories and subcategories that should be tagged with {{Glass}}. The categories doesn't need to be "clean", as long as it contains articles that could be of interest to WP Glass. But don't pick something like Category:Books because one in 100 millions will be about a glass-related topics.

After you do this, I'll get bots to tag the articles based on category membership and automatically assess them (for quality, importance remains untouched) based on the already present templates from the other Wikiprojects (if possible). The next step will be to review the assesments (preferably starting with FA, then FL, then A, then GA, then B, etc. in descending order) to make sure that these are actually related to this project, and that the B class articles are actually up to B class standards.

Doing things in this order will save you a lot of work, believe me. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I would suggest the following categories. You might correct the list here and there, if you find an error or a missing category:

-- Afluegel (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck a few that I think would be best for humans to go through due to the low relevance and high false positive rates. I'm rather puzzled by some of these categories, such as Category:Lists of telescopes. I wonder if tagging all photographic lens is a sound thing to do (altough lens type is definetely appropriate). I'll let this sit for two-three days to give you and others some times to find other categories you didn't think of, and to comment on what's there so far. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, this is fine with me. I made the list rather quickly, therefore the errors are in it you noted. If I find more categories in the coming days, I will add them here. Concerning the photographic lenses, I am not sure what to do. Please give me some time to think about it. --Afluegel (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know glasses are not crystals, but Category:Crystalline solids and Category:Crystallography seems to have sub categories (as well as sub sub cats, and sub sub sub cats...), that could be of relevance. Perhaps some would be even appropriate for bot tagging, but human eyes should definitely go look at them.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found indeed some articles such as Underglaze that are very relevant. Underglaze is now also in a glass category. So far I did not find a whole relevant category, but I will keep looking. Again, thank you very much for your help!--Afluegel (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the lenses: You might be right. We should keep only the category Lenses for tagging, and not tag all the other lens type categories. Otherwise there are three further interesting categories: Amorphous solids, Amorphous silicon, and Materials with minor glass phase. Please also consider the new glass artist categories below in the section Suggestions.--Afluegel (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request has been made here. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging is complete. If other categories to cumbersome to tag by hand comes to mind, just drop a message here.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!!! It seems to be a lot of work coming up now. Please give me a little time to go through all your recommendations. I will soon give my comments as required.--Afluegel (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am collecting categories here that AnomieBOT should handle differently in future. There is no need for immediate action, the collecting will take some time.

Categories that AnomieBOT should not tag with the {{glass}} template: Laboratory glassware, Materials with minor glass phase, Amorphous solids

Categories that AnomieBOT should tag with the {{glass}} template: Glass physics, Glass chemistry, Glass compositions, Glass coating and surface modification

--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 12:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

1. Can I suggest that these categories are standardised and tha all later ones of a similar type take the same form?

Category:British stained glass artists and manufacturers

Category:Irish stained glass artists

Category:Stained glass artists of the United States

My preference is for the first form which allows for the fact that many designers were/are also maufacturers, but some artists freelanced or worked for a number of factories during their lifetime.

2. Other countries for which articles should be developed are

Category:French stained glass artists and manufacturers

Category:German stained glass artists and manufacturers

Category:Australian stained glass artists and manufacturers

Stained glass manufacture in Australia is a surprisingly well-developed industry, given the small population of that country during the 19th century. The reason for this is that European settlement was happening very fast. The towns and villages were often far apart and so each needed at least two churches, Church of England and Roman Catholic. Many also had a Presbyterian Church and a Methodist Chapel. Hundreds of churches were built within a very short time. Most of them were tiny weatherboard buildings, but none-the-less, almost every single one of them contains at least one stained glass window, many of them locally made.

Amandajm (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As we discussed the topic already concerning the British, I fully agree with you. - A related topic: Would you mind to create sub-categories within the ones you proposed about contemporary and historic artists and manufacturers? The advantages are that the historic part can be linked to history, and (as far as I can tell with my little experience in this field) stained glass art had a different character in the past, often tied to religion.--Afluegel (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is agreement, take it to WP:CFD so bots/users with AWB will do the heavy work (unless this only affect 20 articles or so, where it's easier to do it yourself, especially with AWB).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip. But I think it is too little work for a bot because Irish stained glass artists contains 4 articles, Stained glass artists of the United States 13, and Stained glass artists 20. -- Afluegel (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Here are the new and deleted categories:

New: Category:Stained glass artists and manufacturers (deleted: Stained glass artists)
New: Category:Stained glass artists and manufacturers of the United States (deleted: Stained glass artists of the United States)
New: Category:Irish stained glass artists and manufacturers (deleted: Irish stained glass artists)
New: Category:French stained glass artists and manufacturers
New: Category:German stained glass artists and manufacturers
New: Category:Australian stained glass artists and manufacturers

Afluegel (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Is there a good reason why the template for this Taskforce, being placed on glass related articles this evening, is representing itself as a WikiProject template and not a taskforce that it is? ww2censor (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some knowledge about templates, discuss it with User:Headbomb and change it to Taskforce. I do not have sufficient experience with this. As far as I know this is not possible, but I might (hopefully) be wrong. The problem is that Glass can not be 100% a child of the WikiProject Physics or any other WikiProject, it needs to be the child of several projects. Consequently, it can not just be incorporated into the Physics template. This would not look good on art or history pages.--Afluegel (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the reason is technical more than anything else. Not very important if you ask me. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it's a technical problem but it will continue to give some readers the wrong impression. Perhaps some additional detail in the template would help alleviate that issue. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murrine

not sure where else to put this so i will add it here, sorry if thats wrong. Murrine can be made by fusing flat sheet glass into bricks, and then stretching those bricks like cane in the hotshop. I know this because i did this last friday :D. just wanted to add that

jds35901@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.254.212.44 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recruiting

Alright, the taskforce is reasonably set up. Some tips to recruit people:

Notify other related projects that the taskforce is set up and that you are looking for members. Encourage to watch the alert page (needs to show bot edits) as an alternative to place their name on the memberlist.
Place a notice on the high profile glass-related articles (Talk:Glass, Talk:Stained glass, ...)
Think of other editors that worked on glass related articles, or that seemed to know something about glass related topics and personally invite them to join the taskforce. If they decline because they don't feel comfortable in joining, invite them at least watch the alerts page (show bot edits). If you don't know that many (or any) such editors, go through the history of glass-related articles and look for people who added content. It is my experience that many will ask questions about the benefits and pertinence of joining taskforces. My usual reply is that it serves as a centralized rally point to discuss glass articles and to build a list of "go-to people". Some might know a lot about glass art, but don't feel they would "contribute enough" to join, or are not interested by "menial tasks" such as assessment or cleanup. However, many of these people don't mind to place their names on the list to give feedback when requested. And many will agree to at least watch the alert page.
If you know (in real life) people who are knowledgeable (collegues, friends, etc...), invite them to join wikipedia (or to give it a try, it's intimidating at first, but the community is, as a whole, very supportive).

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that the new articles notices are now working. Asking the creators of these articles would be a good way to recruit people.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing articles.

Alright, since there will be a lot of articles that will be tagged and will need reviewing, here's a road map. Strike things as they get completed.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) Going through FA-Class Done

~~Check if they are indeed glass-related. If not, remove {{Glass}} from the page. Please tag with other project templates as appropriate.~~
~~If you agree that these articles are FA class, remove |auto=yes from the template. If you disagree, submit to WP:FAR.~~
~~Give an importance rating (go with gut instincts)~~

2) Going through FL-Class Done

~~Check if they are indeed glass-related. If not, remove {{Glass}} from the page. Please tag with other project templates as appropriate.~~
~~If you agree that these articles are FL class, remove |auto=yes from the template. If you disagree, submit to WP:FLR.~~
~~Give an importance rating (go with gut instincts)~~

3) Going through GA-Class Done

~~Check if they are indeed glass-related. If not, remove {{Glass}} from the page. Please tag with other project templates as appropriate.~~
~~If you agree that these articles are GA class, remove |auto=yes from the template. If you disagree, submit to WP:GAR.~~
~~Give an importance rating (go with gut instincts)~~

4) Going through A-Class Done

~~Check if they are indeed glass-related. If not, remove {{Glass}} from the page. Please tag with other project templates as appropriate.~~
~~If you agree that these articles are A class, remove |auto=yes from the template. If you disagree, downgrade to B class or lower, as appropriate.~~
~~Give an importance rating (go with gut instincts)~~

5) Going through B-Class Done

~~Check if they are indeed glass-related. If not, remove {{Glass}} from the page. Please tag with other project templates as appropriate.~~
~~If you agree that these articles are B class, remove |auto=yes from the template. If not, re-assess the article. If you think these could be GA-class, summit to WP:GAC~~
~~Give an importance rating (go with gut instincts)~~

6) Going through C-Class Done

~~Check if they are indeed glass-related. If not, remove {{Glass}} from the page. Please tag with other project templates as appropriate.~~
~~If you agree that these articles are C class, remove |auto=yes from the template. If not, re-assess the article.~~
~~Give an importance rating (go with gut instincts)~~

7) Going through Start-Class Done

~~Check if they are indeed glass-related. If not, remove {{Glass}} from the page. Please tag with other project templates as appropriate.~~
~~If you agree that these articles are Start class, remove |auto=yes from the template. If not, re-assess the article.~~
~~Give an importance rating (go with gut instincts)~~

8) Going through Stub-Class Doing...

Check if they are indeed glass-related. If not, remove {{Glass}} from the page. Please tag with other project templates as appropriate.
If you agree that these articles are Stub class, remove |auto=yes from the template. If not, re-assess the article.
Give an importance rating (go with gut instincts)

Again thank you! I will start going through the unassessed articles. In a few I removed the template already.--Afluegel (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useful things

Propose a deletion: {{PROD}}
Nominate for deletion: {{AfD}}
Speedy deletion: {{db}}
Merge: {{Mergeto}}, {{mergefrom}}, {{merge}}
Expand: {{expand}}, {{expand-section}}
References: {{unreferenced}}, {{inline}}
POV: {{POV}}, {{weasel}}, {{undue}}
Wikify: {{wikify}}

Comments

Does this project want to use A-class? It is customary to have a sort of internal review for this, but since this is a small taskforce, you could simply submit A-class articles to WP:GAC and have it tagged as GA-glass instead. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may leave the option for A-class open, but I am not planning to use if in the near future. Actually, A and GA appear so similar to me that I would not know how to use it now.--Afluegel (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project page design

I think it would be good to add some more content to the glass workgroup page, in particular a shourt summary of the main topics (e.g., Physics, Chemistry, Engineering & Technology, Business, Art, History, Architecture, Geology, important Personalities) with the related articles and To-do lists. This might better provoke the interest of a reader. I personally would need some guidance how to work on this or similar modifications of the project page without messing up the well arranged templates.--Afluegel (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I just found it out myself how to format the project page. It is easier as I thought.--Afluegel (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Powder painting

Excuse me, but I created a "Talk:Powder painting" and voiced some questions. It was suggested that I come here to see what this taskforce was doing in the glass category. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I really don't understand a lot of what you are doing here. The reason that I'm commenting is that it appears to me that you are missing large sections of today's new glass efforts in the arts, namely kiln-formed glass and lampworking. Kiln-formed glass is largely replacing stained glass in the hobby area and is now making deep inroads into architectural usages. Lampworking or torch-worked glass has a history dating back hundreds of years and kiln-formed glass goes back to Egyptian times. However, technology has brought vast changes to the practice of both.

My article that is being questioned is just one of many 'new' ways of working with glass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim boles (talk • contribs) 03:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim, thank you for your contribution Powder painting and the intention to explain new artistic techniques! Do not be discouraged by some initial problems with the Wikipedia policy. Your new article Powder painting is just questioned as many other new articles are. You simply need to learn to address the issues, such as the templates concerning proper referencing and conflict of interest, and it should go well. As long as you do not try to promote your own business through Wikipedia, I do not see a problem. - By the way, you should certainly not mention yourself in the article; you may cross your name out and remain more general. Good luck...--Afluegel (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porcelain

I don't see why this has had the project banner added. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is very appropriate. I explained it here on the Porcelain discussion page. The main reason is, that, as far as I know, porcelain has rather considerable glass and glass-ceramic phases, which are still less than 50%, but they are major phases and increases the fracture toughness of modern porcelain. If you wish, I will look for references and add a corresponding section to the porcelain article. Then, there is also an "inofficial" reason: On the longer term, I mean in the course of some years, it might be interesting to have glass and ceramis within one single task force because the topics are closely related. Keeping porcelain within the glass task force is thereby "inofficially" intended to keep the door open. - However, in case you strongly disagree, please feel free to remove the banner and/or to further discuss the subject. Thank you for your input. -- Afluegel (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the technical issue, but glass and ceramics are normally classed seperately by both industry and art history, so I think I will remove the banner. Also few editors seem interested in both (or either, let's face it). We have a certain resurgence of activity on ceramics pages, so may get a project yet. good luck with the glass! Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is fine with me and very understandable. No problem. Good luck also with a planned ceramics project or workgroup...--Afluegel (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blowing and pressing pictures

Hi! I just drew the following pictures for de:Glasmaschine. Maybe you have use for them :-) Feel free to improve! Gruß aus Deutschland, VMH (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blow-blow-process (on IS machine)
Form of parison and finished bottle - blow-blow
dito, press-blow (narrow neck)

Thank you very much (Vielen Dank!). The article de:Glasmaschine also has further pictures that look really interesting for the English article Glass production. Thanks again for the tip, and: Gruß nach Deutschland. Wenn alles gut geht, werde ich im Mai dorthin in den Urlaub fahren.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: added press-blow-picture. I like Template:Glass_forming and plan to do something like this in de.Wikipedia. Ach... too much to do, to little time - grmpf... Viel Spaß im Urlaub wünscht der VMH (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! I guess they should have similar templates at the German Wikipedia, but I did not see any so far. All the best with your work and studies...--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Concerning the article de:Glasmaschine: If you cite the references in the text, you may propose it as a good article, I think. - Viel Glück! -- Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything fine?

It's been a while since I've dropped around, just making sure things are still fine and all. If you need anything, just say so here (I'm watching the page) or on my talk page and I'll try to help as best I can.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just returned from vacation, and had to organize a few things. I will now start contributing to the glass taskforce again. Thank you for helping out during my absence.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 05:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glass transition merger / massacre

A new user has merged the glass transition temperature with the glass transition -- and is currently attempting to remove the entire previous contents of the original article. Her radically aggressive "slash and burn" editing techniques are completely inappropriate, and totally out of sync with standard Wikipedia protocol. She is obsessively persistent -- and somewhat irrational (cursing me and calling me names like "shameless"). Please advise. -- logger9 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Physics of glass on endangered species list

The same "slash and burn" editor User:Paula_Pilcher is now formulating her attack on the Physics of glass page. It would not surprise me if it were gone by morning. -- logger9 (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of Glass deleted

With no notification whatsoever, I just happened to notice that the article on Strength of glass has been removed in its entirety due to copyright violation. I went to the website they mentioned, and have to say that I have never even seen it before. It is certainly true that I have read and reviewed and relied heavily on the work of Kurkijan (and would be glad to rewrite the article if necessary). But these actions seem to me to be unfounded -- and radically destructive. Please advise -- logger9 (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can go to WP:Deletion review. More simply you could ask an admin to place the article in your userspace so you can fix it and recreate at a later date. Usually if the entire article is not a copyvio (only sections of it), it is customary to send to WP:CV before deleting, or simply delete the guilty section. Weird that the entire article was deleted because of it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have NW working with me on it now :-) -- logger9 (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at Glass transition

I have protected this article over an edit war that seems to have been building for some time. The current version is the one that happened to be live at the time of protection. Input is required from editors who are familiar with the subject to bring the article back on track. Please discuss on the Talk:Glass transition page. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the content is discussed now.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 20:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic deformation in solids

You might want to take a look at what is going on here. -- logger9 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I commented on the article deletion discussion page.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 21:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiberglass GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Fiberglass for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I will do what I can.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Institute of Technology GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Georgia Institute of Technology for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Fountain FAC 4

I see that your project task force has no WP:FAs. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎, which might be your first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Glass to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Glass/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on WP Physics coordinators

Please take a look and feel free to comment (or not). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Glass/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible CoI at Photonic-crystal fiber

I have concerns about narrow agendas that some editors may be pushing from within the halls of academia. I would be grateful for advice here. Tony (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art glass

Would someone with interest and knowledge of this subject please take a look at this article? I've done a little cleanup, but it's pretty much a mess and needs attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tube bending

I have added this article to WikiProject Glass per glass tube bending as would be used to make neon signs. The article currently has absolutely zero information on glass tube bending, and so could probably use some attention. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holmegaard Glass Factory has issues

I'm no glass guy, but I stumbled across this article that looks to me, at least in part, like a crib from corporate literature of some sort. For instance: "During the last couple of years a lot of new initiatives have been launched at Holmegaard Glasværk, and it is now a place for exploration for kids and adults of all ages. You'll be able to create your own piece of glass, and there are great savings in the shop, as well as a museum with some of the factory's most notable pieces." Just a heads up that somebody more knowledgeable really ought to have a look at it. Drhoehl (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need a Picture

I have two glass projects on my projects list. The first one is Novelty Glass Company of Fostoria. This glass works only existed for two or three years (1891-1893). I have plenty of information and history, but I do not have a picture of its products. There should be some products on display in the glass museum in Fostoria, Ohio. If would be wonderful if someone could add a picture or two to Wikimedia Commons, and notify me. The Christopher Columbus punch cup or salt shaker is extremely valuable. As info, I also plan to add some history to the Fostoria Glass Company page. TwoScars (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New glass company articles

I recently listed Hartford City Glass Company for peer review in the history section. Any comments are welcome. Feel free to contact me through my talk page too. Any comments for Novelty Glass Company or Belmont Glass Company also welcome. TwoScars (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added some history to Fostoria Glass Company and working on new article on Seneca Glass Company. TwoScars (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford City Glass Company has been nominated for Good Article. TwoScars (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duchamp LargeGlass.jpg

file:Duchamp LargeGlass.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Physics/Taskforces/Glass articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on V&A Chandelier by Dale Chihuly

Hi, just wondering if anyone wanted to contribute to this discussion on Talk:V&A Chandelier by Dale Chihuly about potentially renaming the page. Many thanks. Libby norman (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Glass/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Physics.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Physics, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Bullseye Glass

There have been some interesting edits to the Bullseye Glass article recently. I've reverted much of the content, but feel free to take a look or help expand. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Sang

Hello. I've created Jacob Sang. Please expand it if interested. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation needed in Burmese glass

Hey there,

Burmese glass mentions a color change occurring in gold-infused uranium glass as a result of reheating. If someone can explain the process in the article, that would be most useful.

Thanks. François Robere (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insight into a topic

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Tiffany glass#Grand Central Terminal that may interest WikiProject members. Was Grand Central Terminal's south facade clock made of Tiffany glass? Weigh in at the link above. $ɱ$ (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Introducing the Glass Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glass melting furnace

This is definite a very poor article. As a first step for improvement I would like to point you to the German Wikipedia "Glasschmelzwanne" which I have widely edited lately. However needs of course translation, which I may try with some help from a native speaking person. Who will support? Sandkuhle (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pentax-Seiko relationship

See discussion at Talk:Pentax#Seiko regarding relationship between Pentax and Seiko.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fostoria Glass company sources

I have two books about Fostoria glass companies that Wikipedia questions as a usable source because they are self published. Can this task force approve their use? The first book is called "Blowpipes: Northwest Ohio Glassmaking in the Gas Boom of the 1880s" by Jack K. Paquette. This 559-page book has citations and end notes. Chapter V, the chapter on Fostoria, has 360 citations plus end notes. Jack K. Paquette is a former Vice President overall of Owens Illinois, Inc., a.ka. O-I Glass. His work papers, and a biographical outline, are available at the University of Toledo. Here is a link. Because his book was published by Xlibris Corporation, it gets "flagged" when it is actually a well–researched publication. This book focuses on the business side of glass companies.

The other book is called "Fostoria, Ohio Glass II", by Melvin L. Murray. This book contains glass company history, but also gives attention to the products made. It is 184 pages. Murray uses newspaper articles and advertisements, plus photos of products, to support his information. His "real" job was operating a radio station broadcasting college and high school sports. However, he was also a trustee for Bowling Green State University, member of the Fostoria library board for 50 years, past president of the Ohio Library Trustee Association, past president of the Fostoria Glass Association, and founder of the Fostoria Glass Heritage Gallery. Here is a link to Murray's obit: link. With Murray's links to libraries and Fostoria glass, I believe his book can be trusted.

I sent an email to the Fostoria Ohio Glass Association] to see if they had any good books to recommend. Their response was that the Paquette and Murray books were the two they recommend. Can these two books be approved by this WikiProject as a source for articles about glass companies? I would like to write something about all 13 Fostoria glass companies, and have completed three already. Please help! TwoScars (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the authors can be established as reliable experts (which from your description they seem to be, both from their biographies and from the apparent endorsement by FOGA), there should be no real issue with those sources, subject to the usual BLP limits of WP:SELFPUBLISH. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars it's been a year, but if you are looking for a place that can formally determine per Wikipedia whether a source is considered reliable, go to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. That's their job. But as the person above said, if both of the authors are experts who have been published (book, reputable journal, not self-published) on the topic, it's also good. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]