Talk:Physics

21st century missing

In the History section, shouldn't there be a separate section about 21st-century physics? Because the 20th century section ends with the discovery of the Higgs boson, an option would be to rename "20th century" into "20th and 21st century".

Short description

Hi Johnjbarton, I am reasonably familiar with the guidance on short descriptions, and do not see how "Scientific field of study" is a better navigational aid than "Study of matter, energy, forces and motion", particularly when Physics is listed along with assorted other scientific fields of study, as can and does happen (and is why I was motivated to change it to a less ambiguous version). Perhaps you could explain your reasoning. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk):

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2025

The School of Applied Physics in The Papua New Guinea University of Technology has three sub-departments which are; The Department of Biomedical Engineering, Applied Physics with Electronics and Instrumentation, and Radiology (National Radiology Lab).

With Electronics and Instrumentation, we learn about the physical laws of nature, about space and time, and all the forces around us on a daily basis. Applied Physics with Electronics and Instrumentation is a summary of all the engineering courses. Upon graduating, you'll be able to do:

1. what an Electrical(both Power and Communication) Engineer does.

2. work on Geo Thermal Energy Sites as a Geophysicist or as an Engineer.

3. work as an IT Technican, Callibration Technican, Software Technican, Network Technican, Process Control Technican, etc.

4. work as Engineers on Mining Sites as NDT Technicans and etc.

5. Robotics Engineering.

5. Pilot and Aircraft Engineering.

6. Ship Captain.

With the Biomedical Engineering, we learn the same things as the Instrumentation and Electronics but are more into biology related electronic and instrument technology. After graduating, you'll mostly be working in the Hospitals as Electronics Maintenance Office and callibrating mostly hospital related equipment. Most importantly, you'll be designing new technologies related to biology.

Finally but not the least, The National Radiology Lab is within the School of Applied Physics in the PNG University of Technology and so the students are privileged to take a look at the equipment and also work in the laboratory. Its main focus is to run tests on cancer cells and find ways to cure them by studying and writing thesis. The department will be catering top students in the School of Applied Physics Department and some professional medical doctors within the country.

To conclude, The School of Applied is like family. We also have a Department Rugby League team that takes part in the annual SRS Cup in the university through which Justin Olam (NRL, Australia) and Rodrick Tai (Super League, England) furthered their careers and other countless players made it top the second tier competition teams in the country. Thankyou and welcome to the family. Accelerate To Collide (A2C). Team AP Photons. 202.42.187.10 (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. tony 02:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@202.42.187.10

This WP:Talk page is not an appropriate place for WP:Draft articles. Please copy this content to a draft and stop editing it here.

Oppose I oppose this content for the Physics article. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Refining the Definition

The definition of physics on this Wikipedia article has already been a topic of discussion here and, in general, it has been for centuries or maybe even millennia. I think that the currently present definition here could be improved, because simply including important concepts such as energy and forces does not suffice to describe what physics deeply is nor what its purpose(s) and goal(s) are. I would suggest something along the lines of the following alternative definition:

Physics is the scientific discipline concerned with describing the mechanisms, structures, aspects and phenomena of reality and its various manifestations by use of empirically based and/or mathematically based principles/laws, concepts/abstractions, theories and hypotheses.

After that, the main concepts such as energy and forces may be brought up and elaborated upon. I admit that this definition may not be perfect but I would strongly suggest implementing it and I would be completely open to hearing feedback and perspectives from others here. This is solely intended to be a mention of a potential improvement in accordance to my point of view and I apologise, and would like to be informed of, if there is anything I have been wrong about. Xyqorophibian (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but to me you defined science rather than physics in particular. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Johnjbarton.

Yeah I guess that definition was vague enough to be mistaken as a definition for science rather than physics specifically.

If I manage to think up of a new, perhaps better one then I may bring it up.

Thank you for your reply though. Xyqorophibian (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Ibn al-Haytham

In the section on Islamic science, our article claims

• The most notable work was The Book of Optics (also known as Kitāb al-Manāẓir), written by Ibn al-Haytham, in which he presented the alternative to the ancient Greek idea about vision. His discussed his experiments with camera obscura, showing that light moved in a straight line; he encouraged readers to reproduce his experiments making him one of the originators of the scientific method.

The last bit is supported by

• Al-Khalili, J. In retrospect: Book of Optics. Nature 518, 164–165 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/518164a

which says

• He even urges others to repeat his experiments to verify his conclusions. Many historians of science consider Ibn al-Haytham to be the first true proponent of the modern scientific method.

The Nature book review is by physicist and author of a history of Arabic science with 183 citations. The importance of Ibn al-Haytham is backed up by

• Howard, Ian P., and Rogers, Brian J.. Binocular Vision and Stereopsis. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 1995.

If there are other sources which dispute the claims about Ibn al-Haytham we could also include that point of view. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi . Sorry for late reply. The problem is Al-Khalili is not historian of science and neither is Howard and Rogers, who moreover do no say that al-Haytham is one of originator of scientific methodology.Also Al-Khalili does not mention actual historians of optics who said it. Mark Smith is not only professional historian of science but spent over a decade studying translating and editing Ibn Al-Haytham Book of optics. His book from sight to light is basically modern classic for optical history.You can listen to his interview here discussing common misconception regarding al-Haytham and scientific methodology [1] , starts at 26 minutes.

Also let me quote him from the book : "The same holds for Alhacen's methodology. It may look modern because of its strong empirical bias and reliance on controlled experiments, but Ptolemy's approach was no less empirical, and it, too, was based on controlled experiments. In addition, Alhacen's two most modern-looking experiments are based on physically unobtainable precision in equipment design and observation, so we are left to doubt that he actually carried them out as described— except, of course, in his mind. And these experiments were not new in conception. They were clearly based on equivalent ones in Ptolemy's Optics, although Alhacen had to reformulate them in significant and creative ways to accommodate the testing of light rays rather than visual rays." I think we can rewrite it as "Ibn al-Haytham used controlled experiments in his work on optics, although to what extent it differed from Ptolemy is debated" as it is in history of physics DMKR2005 (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I am naturally concerned when three reasonable authors are discounted in favor of one. However I don't think any of these sources, Smith included, are definitive accounts of the origins of the scientific method. This would be a reasonable basis to challenge the "one of the originators of the scientific method" claim.

When comparing Alhacen to Ptolemy I find Smith's claim to be bizarre:

• "They were clearly based on equivalent ones in Ptolemy's Optics, although Alhacen had to reformulate them in significant and creative ways to accommodate the testing of light rays rather than visual rays."

The hypothesis of light rays vs visual rays is the central issue and the conceptual breakthrough. The sentence is a weird distortion. Alhacen is reinterpreting existing experiments in light of a new (and more correct) hypothesis. This is how science progresses. Thus I do not agree with your proposed rewrite. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I have to disagree, the voice of professional historian of science count a lot more then amateurs, especially a professional historian specializing in history of optics. Al-Khalili is the only one of this authors making this claim. As for Smith , he did not claim that Alhacen didn't achieved breakthrough, he was talking about his scientific methodology and it's comparison with Ptolemy. I can also give you opinion of Olivier Darrigol's "A History of Optics" page 20. To quote "Despite the replacing of visual rays with rays of light and the unprecedented thoroughness of analysis, Alhazen’s approach to the latter phenomena similar to Ptolemy’s in scope and methods. One reason for this similarity is that both theories share the same angular perspective (and lack the modern concept of image). Another is that Alhazen inherits Ptolemy’s taste for controlled experiments: he verifies for light rays the laws of reflection and refraction that Ptolemy had already verified for visual visual ray."

Olivier Darrigol is another historian of science. DMKR2005 (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok excellent. Not only is Olivier Darrigol a second opinion but also one with a scientific education. So our current content is

• The most notable work was The Book of Optics (also known as Kitāb al-Manāẓir), written by Ibn al-Haytham, in which he presented the alternative to the ancient Greek idea about vision. He discussed his experiments with camera obscura, showing that light moved in a straight line; he encouraged readers to reproduce his experiments making him one of the originators of the scientific method.

We agree to remove "... making him one of the originators of the scientific method." But I think the text is too vague about Ibn al-Haytham. Here is a proposal:

• In his Book of Optics (also known as Kitāb al-Manāẓir) Ibn al-Haytham presented the idea of light rays as an alternative to the ancient Greek idea about visual rays. Like Ptolemy, Ibn al-Haytham applied controlled experiments, verifying the laws of refraction and reflection with the new concept of light rays, but still lacking the concept of image formation.

Is it satisfactory? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah that sounds good to me DMKR2005 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Idea for a Split at Lorenz System

Hi Everyone, as a new member of the editing community of Wiki, i couldn't help but notice that the page of Lorenz Attractor was merged with this page. These, although are quite similar are by no means the same; Where the Lorenz system sets a equations that describe the behavior OF the Lorenz attractor. The Lorenz attractor is a specific solution of the Lorenz system, it is known by its butterfly shape. the system is deterministic, where the attractor is a subset of phase space where systems to the system converge. although they go hand in hand i believe firmly that there is so much more content that is not covered here in Lorenz system that could be.

if anyone has any reasons for this not going ahead please let me know (i might not reply for a day or two),

JG

originally proposed at Talk:Lorenz system § Proposal for Split and New Page. brought forward at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics § Proposed split of Lorenz system JG qwerty (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image of this Wikipedia article is a diagram representing the evolution of the universe after the big bang occurred. I am of the point of view that this is a poor choice of an image for conveying the essence, purpose and nature of physics for these following reasons:

• The diagram is misleading and inaccurate for how it illustrates the universe as having 2 spatial dimensions (despite the well-established scientific fact that the universe is spatially tridimensional, with the exception of some theoretical models such as string theory). Physics, or really all topics on Wikipedia, should be described with as much clarity and precision as possible.

• It exemplifies only one field of physics (i.e. cosmology), despite the fact that physics encompasses a broad variety of topics rich with information. Still, it wouldn't be accurate to use cosmology as a primary example because cosmology practically doesn't involve any experiments and has hardly any real-life applications (both of which are fundamentally-valuable elements of physics).

• It isn't a sufficiently-solid scientific law, theory or phenomenon, rather it is a speculative description that, while widely accepted, remains subject to debate and unresolved issues (and as a result, has faced criticism [even from some of its own pioneers] for problems such as [but not limited to] magnetic monopoles, possible observational contradictions from the JWST as well as its fantasy-sounding and logically-incomplete nature).

So, what would I propose to fix this? Well, I think the Wikipedians who developed the article for Biology have pretty much nailed the problem of lead image(s) for broad topics (i.e. the main scientific disciplines). Instead of having a single image that somehow accurately conveys all of physics (which is unlikely), I'd recommend having a collage showcasing images of various processes and phenomena from the main branches of the field. This could be done using the multiple images format, and these are some image ideas I think would be worthy of adding:

• Mechanics: a Newton's cradle in motion, demonstrating both conservation of momentum and energy.
• Thermodynamics & Nuclear Physics: a nuclear power plant within which the Rankine cycle occurs.
• Geophysics & Electromagnetism: an aurora occupying the night sky, due to charged particles interacting with the Earth's magnetosphere.
• Astronomy/Astrophysics & Optics: an astrophotograph distorted by gravitational lensing.
• Oscillations and Biophysics: an electroencephalogram of brain waves, the electrochemical activity of neurons.
• Medical physics & Quantum mechanics: An MRI machine, the medical technology that manipulates nuclei spin for imaging uses.
• Particle Physics: The interior of the LHC, arguably the grandest experimental apparatus in the field.
• Fluid dynamics: a ferrofluid's behaviour when exposed to an external magnetic field.

This is a list I've come up with, attempting to use insightful examples from as many of the main disciplines as I could (limiting the number of images to 8, anything beyond that would likely be too much). Any suggested alternatives would be much appreciated.

I know my initial criticisms of the universe's chronology and the big bang may have sounded strongly worded, but I was just trying to emphasise my point about it's effectiveness as an example of physics's nature. Any feedback from my insights and proposal would be much appreciated, I really do think this article would benefit from using the biology article's lead image(s) format.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Rather than a long tirade, please post an alternative {{multiimage}} proposal. Disrespecting cosmology is completely unnecessary for your goal. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Johnjbarton.

Yes, the main purpose of this topic was just to propose the alternative {{multiimage}} format.

Perhaps I went overboard with criticising standard cosmology to the point where it became degrading, and, if so, I apologise (to anyone who got offended) for being overly-direct.

Now, on to the collage, here's the actual lead image(s) alternative I'd propose:

A newton's cradle in motion, the collisions demonstrate the conservation laws of momentum and energy in (classical) mechanics.

A nuclear power plant using the rankine cycle, a thermodynamic process important to nuclear physics.

The aurora borealis over Bear Lake, a geophysical phenomenon in which charged particles electromagnetically interact with the Earth's magnetosphere.

A ferrofluid interacting with a magnet, a non-Newtonian example of fluid dynamics.

An electroencephalogram of brain waves, this is an example of oscillations in biophysics.

An astronomical photograph distorted by gravitational lensing, illustrating an optical-like effect arising from general relativity in astrophysics.

The interior of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), currently the leading experimental apparatus for elementary particle physics.

An MRI machine, this radiological technology in medical physics manipulates the quantum spin of nuclei.

This collage of 8 images with descriptions is my draft, not identical as my first proposal (as I added some small additions to the descriptions) but I think it's the way to go. The source code is below, of course certain parameters (in terms of size or maybe arrangement) should be changed so that it'd fit in the introduction of the article.

{{multiple image | perrow = 4 | total_width = 880 | image1 = Newtons Cradle.jpg |caption1 = A [[newton's cradle]] in motion, the collisions demonstrate the [[Conservation law|conservation laws]] of momentum and energy in [[Classical mechanics|(classical) mechanics]]. | image2 = 2023.06.13 Astravets Nuclear Power Plant Belarus.jpg | caption2 = A [[nuclear power plant]] using the [[rankine cycle]], a [[Thermodynamics|thermodynamic]] process important to [[nuclear physics]]. | image3 = Aurora borealis over Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.jpg |caption3 = The [[Aurora|aurora borealis]] over Bear Lake, a [[Geophysics|geophysical]] phenomenon in which charged particles [[Electromagnetism|electromagnetically]] interact with the Earth's [[magnetosphere]].| image4 = Magnetické chování ferrokapalin.jpg| caption4 = A [[ferrofluid]] interacting with a magnet, a [[Non-Newtonian fluid|non-Newtonian]] example of [[fluid dynamics]]. |image5 = Spike-waves.png | caption5 = An [[Electroencephalography|electroencephalogram]] of brain waves, this is an example of [[Oscillation|oscillations]] in [[biophysics]].| image6 = Gravitational lens found in the DESI Legacy Surveys data (noirlab2104c).jpg|caption6 = An [[Astrophotography|astronomical photograph]] distorted by [[Gravitational lens|gravitational lensing]], illustrating an [[Optics|optical]]-like effect arising from [[general relativity]] in [[astrophysics]].| image7 = CERN LHC CMS 08.jpg| caption7 = The interior of the [[Large Hadron Collider]] (LHC), currently the leading experimental apparatus for [[elementary particle physics]].| image8 = MRI-Philips.JPG| caption8 = An [[Magnetic resonance imaging|MRI machine]], this [[Radiology|radiological]] technology in [[medical physics]] manipulates the [[quantum]] [[Spin (physics)|spin]] of nuclei.}}

To experiment with this, I tried edit mode for this article and replaced the current lead image with my collage. I found that changing the total width parameter to anything around 700 was perfect, the text wasn't cramped and the pictures were an excellent pedagogical addition (probably the only disadvantage was the navigation box being pushed down a lot, but it still managed to just barely occupy the introduction section).

My proposed collage shown in the article on edit mode

Looking forwards to feedback, thoughts and, most of all, cooperation.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The biology example uses 2x3 layout with 300 width rather than 4x2 at 700. I don't think this was an accident. On my Pixel phone and ipad their 2x3 renders well but I suspect the larger collage will have issues. Note that the actual image used to introduce the topic on mobile is just the top half of the first panel in the biology case.

To assess this the only convincing way is to put the collage in the article. As far as I know the current image has no special standing. I suggest you put your collage in with an edit summary mentioning the Talk page and asking editors to respond here over then next week. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Johnjbarton,

Thank you very much for your response.

I also had some concerns about how the images might appear on small-screen devices, so I’ll go ahead and implement the collage (with an explanatory edit summary) and experiment with how it renders on phones and tablets.

Glad we’re making progress :)

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Johnjbarton.

Just edited the article to have the collage (at width of 650). I checked how it looked on my iPhone and iPad. For the most part, the results were honestly not that bad.

Let's start off with my iPhone. When in portrait mode, my iPhone displayed the article's collage as a 2 x 4 array of the images, which had some aspects of being slightly cluttered but it was okay overall. When I rotated to landscape mode, the images got messily arranged (however, this is simply how MinervaNeue works and it is completely inevitable anyway). By the way, the reason why the navbox does not appear on mobile is also due to how MinervaNeue operates (it's a standard default, nothing of concern really).

On to iPad, the results were almost-completely satisfactory for me. When in portrait mode, the collage occupies space above the text, perhaps the relative widths of text and the collage were a bit off but it's fine (easy to fix). When in landscape mode, the article exhibits the same format in a possibly more comfortable manner (subjective). In both cases, the navbox is preserved :D

All in all, I’m personally quite happy with how the collage renders on my smaller-screen devices. Of course, there’s surely room for refinement, and as you’ve said, we’ll wait to hear what other editors and Wikipedians suggest once they’ve had a chance to review it themselves.

Apologies for not polishing those screenshots up, I know they're not formatted and set out the nicest they could be.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. To give some feedback, this shows more narrowly on my desktop screen than on yours, the line breaks are:

Physics is the scientific study of matter, its
fundamental constituents, its motion and
behavior through space and time, and the

If I turn on both sidebars it gets even narrower and stops after "its", running whitespace until after the image block, because "fundamental" is too wide a word to fit in the space available.

The gallery looks okay on mobile, although as your screenshots show above the image widths don't line up, I assume because it's calculating widths for a four-width view and then breaking them into pairs.

A narrower collage with shorter captions grouped into a single caption below, as at biology, seems like a better approach to take. At 300px the biology gallery hits the "at most" (250*1.2) recommendation for lead images on MOS:IMAGESIZE, and it's also much smaller on mobile (only half a screen high) for those who are scrolling past it to read the second paragraph. Belbury (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Belbury.

Glad that after a week, another Wikipedian has commented on the matter (and your remarks and recommendations are quite insightful).

After reflecting on the collage throughout the week, I agree that it could be improved and I've already come up with a better version. This new version uses the single caption and would (in a way, but, as I'll explain later, not perfectly) reduce the amount of space it occupies, in addition some examples have been changed for the sake of being more standard (i.e. less niche, but also less abstract) and less overly-associated with magnetism and medical/biological physics. My alternative collage would be as follows:

• Mechanics: a Newton's cradle in motion, demonstrating both conservation of momentum and energy.
• Thermodynamics: a diagram of a distillation apparatus illustrating the distillate's phase changes driven by heat transfer.
• Waves, Oscillations & Acoustics: sand figures forming on a resonating Chladni plate.
• Electromagnetism & Geophysics: the aurora borealis, a natural demonstration of charged particles' behaviour in the geomagnetic field.
• Particle physics & Nuclear physics: a Feynman diagram, one of the most important tools in theoretical particle physics, representing beta decay, one of the three basic radioactive decay types.
• Astronomy/Astrophysics, Relativity & Optics: an astrophotograph distorted by gravitational lensing.
• Fluid mechanics & Biophysics: an insect floating on a pond, due to water's surface tension.
• Quantum mechanics: the electron orbitals of an atom, demonstrating the probabilistic nature of particle position according to quantum physics.

To test the idea out, I implemented it into the article in edit mode. A screenshot, as well as the source code, of it is attached below. I think the examples were generally better, however the downwards repositioning of the navbox is a concern and I had to minimise the text size because otherwise the collage's footer would be even more overwhelming in terms of the amount of space it occupies.

{{multiple image | perrow = 4 | total_width = 300 
| footer = <div style="font-size:80%; line-height:1.25; margin-top:0.2em;">This is a collage presenting images related to the various domains of physics, counterclockwise from the upper left: 
*'''[[Mechanics]]''': A [[Newton's cradle]] in motion, demonstrating the [[Conservation law|conservation laws]] of momentum and energy in [[Classical mechanics|(classical) mechanics]]. 
*'''[[Thermodynamics]]''': a diagram of a [[distillation]] apparatus, which separates liquid mixtures by [[phase transition|phase changes]] and demonstrating the [[first law of thermodynamics]]. 
*'''[[Waves]]''', '''[[Oscillations]]''' & '''[[Acoustics]]''': perturbations propagating through a [[Chladni plate]], forming [[standing wave]] patterns where [[resonance]] causes sand to arrange in geometric figures. 
*'''[[Electromagnetism]]''' & '''[[Geophysics]]''': the [[aurora borealis]], a natural phenomenon involving [[Charged particle|charged particles']] behaviour in the Earth's [[magnetosphere]]. 
*'''[[Particle physics]]''' & '''[[Nuclear physics]]''': a [[Feynman diagram]] visually describing [[beta decay]]. 
*'''[[Astronomy]]'''/'''[[Astrophysics]]''', '''[[Relativity]]''' & '''[[Optics]]''': an [[Astrophotography|astrophotograph]] [[Image distortion|distorted]] by [[gravitational lensing]]. 
*'''[[Fluid mechanics]]''' & '''[[Biophysics]]''': a water strider using water's [[surface tension]] to float across a pond. 
* '''[[Quantum mechanics]]''': a graphical representation of [[atomic orbital|electron orbitals]] in a [[hydrogen-like atom]], visualizing the [[wave function|probabilistic description]] of particle behaviour in quantum physics. 
</div> | image1 = Newtons Cradle.jpg 
| image2 = Simple distillation apparatus.svg 
| image3 = Round Chladni plate with 3 circular and 4 linear nodes.jpg 
| image4 = Aurora borealis over Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.jpg 
| image5 = Feynman Diagram - Negative Beta Decay.png 
| image6 = Gravitational lens found in the DESI Legacy Surveys data (noirlab2104c).jpg 
| image7 = Water strider in a pond.jpg 
| image8 = Atomic-orbital-clouds spdf m0.png 
}}

Screenshot of new collage in the article

Because I'm unsure of whether this new collage would definitely be an improvement, I decided not to publish the edit. Hopefully someone experimenting with the source code may come up with a better idea of how to go about it all. Though doubtful, some ideas I'm considering are:

• A different usage of the footer (e.g. some alternative method that'd display the information better than bullet points).
• A repositioning of the collage (e.g. making it a wide, centred set of images below the last paragraph and above the history section).
• A subtle trick that could be used in the article's source code.
• Perhaps using captions instead of a footer (which, as we know from previous attempts, has its own issues).
• Labelling the examples (most likely by means of captions) according to their related domains of physics rather than providing descriptions for each.
• Simply implementing the collage and ignoring the other two issues (which is probably the easiest but not the optimal approach, as it would be rather out-of-place to have the navbox shifted all the way down to the ancient astronomy subsection).

I'm looking forward to further progress,

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I made a similar change as I think the multiple images was far too wide (especially with all appearance settings set to standard). I also changed the images to be in rows of three. I think we're possibly trying to squash too many images and too much information in at the moment. Happy to be reverted if others disagree. Shapeyness (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)