Talk:Microscope: Difference between revisions

Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Microbiology C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Technology C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I have to read through the talk here to try and get something done about the future of this article. It seems that people agree on what should be done, it just needs doing!!

Here is an outline of what I believe a sensible solution is for the microscopy, microscope and all other related pages:

• Microscope and microscopy should become portal style pages, with summary articles and links to pages on the individual types of microscopy (optical, electron, etc.) and pages on the physical principles of basic microscopes (ie. optics, resolution, electron optics, etc.)
• Microscope should be written from a physical viewpoint, ie. the physics and history of microscopes, as microscopes are the actual instrument. Microscopy should be written from a more practical viewpoint, ie. the usage and reasons for usage of the different techniques.
• Optical microscope needs its own page, similar to electron microscope. Relevant information on individual optical microscopy instruments and techniques need to be moved to this page.
• Each individual microscopy technique and microscope type (eg. phase contrast, scanning electron, etc.) needs its own page, no matter how short - it is better to have a stub for expansion than a long and confusing parent article.

Finally and most importantly:

• microscope and microscopy should be kept short and simple. They are introductory pages to what is a very wide and in depth region of science. Detail should be confined to more focussed articles.

You have a week to make your comments, and, unless there are any major complaints, im going to get started! Zephyris 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would greatly reduce the content of the microscope page and move large portions of it to the optical microscope page. Personally I think this is a good idea, but may upset the Wikipedia CD Selection and WikiProject on Physics projects...

Random reader says: I wish there was more detail on the microscope page as to HOW a microscope works.

Which type of microscope is of interest? For optical microscopes see Optical microscope#How a microscope works... - Zephyris _Talk 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a stereo microscope is the same as a binocular microscope. In a typical binocular microscope the light passes through a prism which splits the light. This would make each image to each eye-piece identical and not provide stereo vision.--Rjstott 11:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and should be added to the article. However, I am not sure that "binocular" does not also include "stereo" microscopes which would require two oculars. Industry termionology is not very disciplined, but I like your explanation - Marshman 17:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't clearly explain how a simple (single lens) optical microscope works and *why* it makes things look bigger than they really are. I wish I knew...!

It needs a drawing to show that, such as those presented at lens (optics) - Marshman 17:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been studying microscopes and, from what I've seen, the image formed by the objective is REAL, not virtual. The eyepiece then forms a vitual image, which is focused at around 25 cm, not at infinity. Can someone check this info? Luke poa 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image viewed by the eypiece is a virtual representation of the specimen being examined. Effectively the eypiece is examining an aerial image that is only made real if projected onto a screen. As there is no intermediate screen in the tube of the microscope, the image within the tube is referred to as a virtual image. Velela 13:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience with optical microscopes, I have heard of 200x objectives, giving up to ~2000x zoom, and do not have to be oil immersion (you do not need to alter your sample... at least this is true for the 100x lens I often use). I think the objectives section should be modified, perhaps into another section, as there are a lot of different kinds of objectives and properties (working distance, numerical arpeture, depth of field, immersion type, etc). muie!!

"He developed an occhiolino or compound microscope with a convex and a concave lens in 1609. Galilei´s microscope was celebrated in the ´Lynx academy´ founded by Federico Cesi in 1603." So his microscope was celebrated befor it was invetned? --213.67.162.238

I think that it's saying that the academy was founded in 1603 not that the microscope was celebrated then. Navilluss (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose any merge with Microscopy. A microscope is the instrument or the tool with which work is done. Microscopy describes the techniques for which a microscope is used. It would be like merging Automobile and Driving
Velela 17:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with, second, and whatever other sort of formal grace is appropriate, Velela's opinion and conclusion.

--Erielhonan 05:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose too. Microscopy should eventually be split into the various techniques much as welding has been (e.g., TIG welding, MIG welding, etc.). Right now there isn't quite enough material for that, but really DIC, fluorescence, confocal, two-photon, FRAP, FRET, etc. should get a full discussion on their own page. —BenFrantzDale 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they are two different subjects and should not be merged. Merge template removed in line with general opinion. Snowman 11:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, consensus seemed to be to oppose merge and remove template - yet the template is still up.... Reversion of Snowman's edit by User:Sarah Ewart seems to be the "how" part - any one know the "why" part? (I suppose I could just ask the user who reverted - nah, too easy). MarcoTolo 02:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the microscope reads like a thriller novel. You definitely must not merge with anything else! I agree that separate stories should be filled out about the various optical instruments created by van Leeuwenhoek and others. The great thing about van Leeuwenhoek was that he invented the thing to look at his own sperm! The British society was extremely jealous and kept asking for his microscope because his drawings were so cool. Jane 15:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so i tried to cover some of the available microscopes and listed them. It is pretty useless to make articles for them all so i recommend to link them with appropriate good inet articles, and perhaps in addition wikipedias articles. Guys foremost wikipedia should be about giving knowledge, thus make sure u provide the best available sources to others, that is either make a damn good specific microscope article or link to a damn good article on the web. Thanks. Slicky 18:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article covers many techniques, which however contrary to possible belief, still only represent an excerpt of the microscope designs/techniques/principles that exist, and thus cannot be seen as a summary or comprehensive overview.Slicky 09:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Slicky - I'm not sure what this note means, or where it should be posted.... Could you help a slow editor (i.e. me) and interpret? -- MarcoTolo 17:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article is intended to cover every conceivable sort of microscope, every technique used with any microscope, and the principles of operation of every microscope. You could write entire books on the subject. As an encyclopedia article, this is supposed to give the reader an overview and understanding of the subject in a fairly general way. Frankly, I think the article needs to be pruned down and reorganized. eaolson 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hear, hear!" The entry is exceptionally long and needs a good trim. I assume that Microscope will end up as a "portal" entry, eventually, with a number of short decriptions and a Main article <here>–type format—at this point, however, the article is extremely unwieldy. That said, I don't have any concrete solutions to offer (I probably should of thought of that before I started writing, eh?). -- MarcoTolo 18:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent stuff MarcoTolo, eaolson and Bookofjude this had become a sorry apology of an article. For what it is worth, I believe that further pruning is worth doing with the specilaised methods in their separate articles. I would restrict this to Conventional optical Microscope and its common variants together with Electon microscope and list all the rest in 'see also...

Velela 19:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I aggree with eaolson und velela, either there will be another article with somewhat like scientific use of the microscope or better yet an wikibook covering that topic. In the end wikipedia ain't really the right place for articles but merely for encyclopedic entries.Slicky 07:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a lot of confusing and often contradictory editing of this article. My proposal is that:

1. It should start with a simple introduction (as we have) about the simple optical and the compound optical microscope, its history , how it works and a link to microscopy, all accompanied by the images relevant to those sections.
2. We should then have a section about the limitations and constraints of the optical microscope (including the optical limits on resolution) which can lead into topics on other types of microscope.
3. Detailed discussion of other types of microscope be limited to the Electon Microscope with only references to other types and links to other articles where practicable.

In this way we can create a high quality article of reasonable size that provides a robust introduction to the microscope and provides the links for the more intrepid enquirer. At present we have a mixture of leading edge research, images unmatched to text and little coherence. For a non-specialist reading this it makes little sense and the images in partuclar are most confusuing in their current context. Does this make sense? Comments and other suggestions welcomed. Velela 15:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I proposed above, and there being no adverse comments, I have greatly simplified this article. I have removed all the text and images relating to non optical microscopes and dumped it on the discussion page of Electron microscope which already dealt with many of the issues in the excised text. I would propose that the text on the discussion page is merged appropriately with the article Electron Microscope. The Microscope article is now much clearer and understandable but provides the appropriate link to the non optical microscopes. It also ensures that the relevant images accompany the appropriate text. Velela 20:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits, I agree that the microscope article should cover only a general selection of information. Just to note that there is some info on the material to moved over to Talk:Electron microscope that isn't necessarily to do with electron microscopes - this may need a look? Mushin^talk 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree, but I think the article should at least cover non-optical microscopes. Perhaps in a fairly general way, but they should be here. I'd suggest the non-optical categories to include would be (a) electron, both scanning and transmission, and (b) scanning probe (AFM, etc.) Fairly broad descriptions with pointers to more specific articles would be sufficient. eaolson 21:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my rather draconian edit, I do agree. However, I couldn't see the wood for the trees and would welcome some well measured inclusions of other types and/or links to other articles providing more detail.

Velela

I have reverted the reversion that Slicky made back to the readily understandable artic le concentrating on Optical Microscopes. There is a perfectly good article at Electron microscope that might benefit from additions, but the latest version by User:Slicky, is unccordinated, text is unmatched by images, and much makes too little sense. Please don't revert again without good reason and without a serious attempt to improve the article. Velela 16:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slicky - articles have to be trimmed and cleaned regularly. To do this is not to 'destroy', it is a necessary part of keeping articles on wikipedia readable and concise. Mushin^talk 18:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look you guys i appreciate your input, but we cannot ignore the technological breakthroughs that have undergone. In reality the nanoscopes are what matters today, and push the envelope further each and every day. Without them my graduate research project as well as any technological forthcoming would be futile and we shouldn't ignore the fact that the classical optical microscopes belongs in a history section and be it even an own article. That is not to say that the principle shouldn't be explained but a page stuck full with 17 century photos doesn't belong to microscopy. Moreover microscopy is interchangeable with microscope whereas the first one refers to the underlying technique that is employed. Please give me your input on that matter. Sure WP should not be a crystal sphere or about orginial research but it should not be stuck in a 17th century knowledge-base either. Slicky 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Velela et al. If you cannot live with the article including recent information, and others feel the same way, then we will need another article. I suggest nanoscope, etc. But it is more reasonble to have a history of the microscope page instead. What i do not get is what bothers you so much about the site that you don't want to improve it. To me a microscope should be a survey of microscopes. Lemme know what you think. Also i put a lot of research into that matter, ultimately because i myself as a grad student in molecular biology have been working with SEM/TEMs at the university of vienna for quite some time and whilst it should not, i am of course a bit prejudices, so i apologize for that. What i had in mind is to give a survey to anyone who looks up the page, preferrably researchers/students and find about about the microscope that is best suited for their task. Sure there are better ways/ideas, but please lemme know of them and i sure will help you the best i can. In a way i also understand your worries, in that the average wikipedian looking up the term doesn't want to be overwhelmed with all that stuff and instead just wants to learn about the classic microscope that he or she may have at home. But wikipedia should also be for professionals, i mean just look at the math pages. Slicky 11:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slicky - firstly you need to understand that you cannot just revert an article back to a previous state once more edits have been made. Even if the decision is made to merge this excised information back into the Microscope article, it must be done without throwing away edits made between the last revision and now. I have reverted your edit because of this.

Secondly, you say that wikipedia should also be for professionals and not just the 'average user'. However, wikipedia articles should never contain indiscriminate collections of information. In this case, a large list of unexplained technical data and specifications would be confusing to most readers. Therefore it is unacceptable in the present form; with no introductions or explanations, to be part of the article. Even if this information is put into the article, it needs to be cut down and simplified, with explanations of what these lists actually mean.

I quote the following from What is a good article?. "A good article is well written:

• it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to a non-specialist reader;
• where technical terms or necessary jargon appear they are briefly explained in the article itself (or, at the very least an active link is provided);
• it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together coverage of related aspects. Where appropriate (particularly for lengthier articles) it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is segmented into a proper system of hierarchical sections."

Please bear this in mind before making revertions based on what you think should constitute a wikipedia article, rather than what the vast majority of the wikipedia community thinks. Articles should be accessible to all levels of reader. By all means they can go into technical detail, as long as this detail is fully lead into and explained for the layman. As it is, the information you reinserted was not. Mushin^talk 14:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I agree with Mushin. Reading this article isn't supposed to make one a microscopist. Filling it with huge amounts of jargon and acronyms for highly specialized microscopy techniques (I mean, friction force microscopy?) isn't useful for this article. Maybe the article is being visited by a kid from a third-world country that's never used a microscope before. It's necessary to start generally, and then get specific. The work that Slicky went to in his edits is appreciated, but they were highly uncategorized, rather unorganized, and the information was far too specialized for this general article. eaolson 04:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and thus i myself placed a marker for cleanup and proof reading. I simply didn't have the time to do everything myself. However i agree with you at second thought that the microscope article itself should fit non-scientific and scientific people, especially science a scientist isn't likly to end up at the section microscope, considering that what he expects to find in this article is exactly what eaolson and others strongly and reasonable argued about.Slicky 07:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Darkfield, Brightfield, phase contrast, oblique illumination, DIC etc. be included? And why does optic microscope redirect to microscope? Fad (ix) 00:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some chav keeps inserting crap about elves, probably more, so should we protect the page, or not? --4.246.36.162 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put this article on my watchlist. I'll try to keep tabs on it for a while. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

q fue brother qreis sexo dale mas duro papi "!!!!!!!!!

i'll take a wild stab and guess that this shouldn't be here, at the top of the second paragraph under the "Types" section. i don't know anything about editing wiki myself, just thought i'd point this out to someone who does.

216.99.65.64 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of interesting stuff which allows to observe object optically and electrically, on different level of magnifying up to nanolevel - Atomic force microscope, Scanning tunneling microscope. It would be incredibly useful if all of them share the same template which would range all the possible devices from most-magnifying to least-magnifying; probable, there may be several levels/rows, to distinguish between optical ones and other kinds. Honeyman 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why no one in the World has tried so far to "illuminate" the subject of Fluorescence Microscopy on these pages while is in fact the major tool in contemporary biological research. People with any knowldge about the subject are hereby urged to contribute. SD

See microscopy and fluorescence microscopy.

I feel that this sentence does not sound right in some way... some help please?

The microscopes we use in school and at home trace their history back almost 400 years.

74.116.137.2 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it does seem weird. Maybe this sounds better to you:

"We can trace the history of the microscopes we use at school and at home back almost 400 years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.178.186 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why do we call them microbes small objects of any kind?????:| —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.12.147.105 (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I migrating some information about micrography (pertaining to microscopes) from Micrography to Micrography (Microscopy). If this info belongs in an already-existing article, feel free to merge the information—I am not a microscope-savvy person. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

In the "See also" section, the Fluorescent microscopy link should be Fluorescence microscope and I think it's worth adding Confocal microscopy as well.

Does this page still need to be protected? It's been since April 21. That was quite a bad vandalism run, but if it's going to be protected long-term, a description in the talk page might be nice. 71.41.210.146 06:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current page reads: "Infrared light is used to study thick slices of biological tissue because infrared light's low diffraction coefficient permits viewing deeper into tissue."

Suggested correction: "Infrared light is used to study thick slices of biological tissue because infrared light's low absorption coefficient permits viewing deeper into tissue."

Diffraction doesn't play a role in this example. In fact, the longer wavelength of the infrared light will worsen resolution due to diffraction. See, for example, wikipedia articles on Angular resolution or Photolithography. To be more precise, only some spectral windows in infrared enable this thick imaging. Other infrared wavelengths are associated with vibration-modes water absorption bands rendering a high infrared absorption coeficient. Fisico78 04:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please separate the two articles. Microscopic should not redirect here. Microscopic deals with physical length scales. see Macroscopic Katanada (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - do you want to give it a go ? Velela (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it to my to-do list although it may be a while because I'm currently working on the Gas article and then moving to Ideal gas. Honestly, I was just in the process of re-writing 'gas' and I needed to use "macroscopic" and "microscopic" and then Macroscopic had an article and Microscopic redirected to this article and I don't think that is appropriate. --Could you get rid of the redirection for me and just make a little stub about it? I'll come back around and add more substance to it but in the mean time we have something there to hold some ground. Katanada (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've done a stub (tempted as I was to make it only three words long to make it a literally microscopic stub!). Would welcome any expansion amendment , improvement etc. etc. Velela (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent!! Thanks a lot for the help. I will now attach the "Microscopic" link where I wanted to put it in my Gas article. I liked the example about the feet haha its kinda funny. Katanada (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who made or invented the microscope —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.179.234 (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me why this page is becoming a frequent target of vandalism Mgoodyear (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a page on specular microscopy already, or it is needed to be created? --CopperKettle (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THi s is for everyone who wants to learn about how to make a microscopes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.24.251 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the text, one of the invetors is called Hans Janssen. All sources that I have consuloted give the name Sacharias Janssen (different spellings of Sacharias), no Hans. Cannot correct this as the article is blocked to editing. Lave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.197.174 (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only image currently on the page which is a through-microscope view is of a cigarette ash "half the size of an ant, as seen through a microscope". This doesn't effectively illustrate the capabilities or practical function of a microscope. An image of plant cells, micro-organisms, or a closeup of an insect, for instance, would better illustrate the concept and be more appropriate for the article.

If anyone has a better image, please add it. Dialectric (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who invented the microscope? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.211.203 (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Microscope#History.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the text , it was given that Hans Lippershey and Hans Janssen are the early inventors of microscope, moreover proper citation was not given, but in the list of Timeline of microscope technology, it says, Dutch spectacle-makers Hans Janssen and his son Zacharias Janssen invented it. This is controversial. According to some websites:

• http://nobelprize.org/educational/physics/microscopes/timeline/index.html, Hans and Zacharias Janssen are the inventors, again uncertainty about Hans (Hans Lippershey? Hans Janssen? )
• http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/museum/janssen.html, Zacharias Janssen, probably with the help of his father Hans
• http://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/science/sciber00/7th/cells/sciber/cellhist.htm, Hans and Zacharias Janssen, Dutch lens grinders, father and son

If there would be no objections, the text need to be changed as Hans Janssen and his son Zacharias Janssen, please discuss.--Senthi (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Hi,

This article (microscope) is closed for editing. However, it has quite a few mistakes and omissions (a lot, actually; may be because it is protected). What (and how) can I do to suggest improvements?

For example, in Electron Microscope section it is wrongly stated that:

1. …STM is an electron microscope!!! Clearly, it should be removed.

2. …SEM is ”measuring reflection” of electrons (main mode of SEM has nothing to do with reflected electrons).

3. …TEM “passes electrons completely through the sample”, which is nonsense: complete transmission means invisibility.

These are just a few examples; much more should be changed/added.

Thanks

PS

Below I have copied a paragraph about electron microscopes:

Electron Main article: Electron microscope Three major variants of electron microscopes exist: • Scanning electron microscope (SEM): looks at the surface of bulk objects by scanning the surface with a fine electron beam and measuring reflection. May also be used for spectroscopy. See also environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM). • Transmission electron microscope (TEM): passes electrons completely through the sample, analogous to basic optical microscopy. This requires careful sample preparation, since electrons are scattered so strongly by most materials.This is a scientific device that allows people to see objects that could normally not be seen by the naked or unaided eye. • Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM): is a powerful technique for viewing surfaces at the atomic level. The SEM and STM can also be considered examples of scanning probe microscopy Vniizht (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've quick-fixed the errors you mentioned. This page is far from ideal, but once you become an autoconfirmed user (4 days, 10 edits), you'll be able to edit it directly. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/medicalmuseum/page98/ (if somebody want to import those pictures on Wikimedia commons... --Lamiot (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Additional resource link: www.olympusmicro.com 64.64.32.4 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did early microscopes use a droplet of water as a lens? I was told that this was the original type of microscope at school. There is no mention of the early water droplet lens type of microscope here. Did the water droplet microscope preceed the glass lens microscope? It does make some sense that glass lenses were created to make more reliable and permanent versions of the water droplet lens. There are many sites describing how to make a water droplet microscope on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.52.32 (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscope#History there is a "sentence" that reads:

Hans Lippershey (who developed an early telescope) and Zacharias Janssen (also claimed as the inventor of the telescope).

Would the person who contributed this please make this into a real sentence, with subject, verb, and object?

Thanks. Bill Jefferys (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.6.243 (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i think is saw something wrong with your spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisgshort (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Gerald wish (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the discussion of the 2014 Nobel prize in the very first introduction of the page, or move it further down the page. While it is great to have such recognition, this is a page on microscopes, and through history there have been many Nobel prizes on this field. So if the article really needs to start with Nobel prizes (which it didn't previously) then it should start with the earliest ones. But in any case it should introduce microscopes, not Nobel prizes.

119.104.93.197 (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done - removed it since there was no reference as to why this belonged in a WP:SUMMARY article on Microscope, let alone the lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this request to make it inactive. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 17:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

can i 2600:1007:B02C:25E5:8CAE:AF1D:BC36:54DB (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Gulumeemee (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope), the ultramicroscope, and the various types of scanning probe microscope."

Please remove "the ultramicroscope" from this section. It's unsourced, undiscussed within this or its article and not confirmed in the article on the topic.

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The Ultramicroscope text appears to be on topic and adequately placed in this article. -- Dane ^talk 20:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unsourced and not mentioned further in the article. Do you have a source that says it's one of the major types of microscopes? If so, add the source to this and the Ultrmicroscopy article. If not, please remove it from the intro. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, five days, a dozen editors, and hours of conversation to remove one unsourced word from the lead of the article. @Dane, the text is not on topic, it's unsourced, and Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and it's not properly placed, as the lead covers material in the article, and ultramicroscope is not covered in the article. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Also the text says "likely inventor," but the box lists an inventor. The inventor's identity is not know, I'm just likely, so this should be removed from the box.

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done - removed per 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB, not supported by source (which only covers compound microscopes, we also have simple microscopes). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the following:

"Scanning optical and electron microscopes, like the confocal microscope and scanning electron microscope, use lenses to focus a spot of light or electrons onto the sample X --> then analyze the reflected or transmitted waves"

Y--> "then analyze the signals generated by the beam interacting with the sample."

As this is not how these instruments work. You want sources, read the Wikipedia articles on the topics.

--2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AB (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Marking as answered DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add fact tag after ultramicroscope until it is sourced or removed from the lead or discussed within the article.

X --> ultramicroscope

Y --> ultramicroscope^{[citation needed]}

--2601:648:8503:4467:F8A3:878A:2E5F:4D3C (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC) 2601:648:8503:4467:F8A3:878A:2E5F:4D3C (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to improve this article, but the need to edit request every change coupled with ignorant drive-by rejections of sound edit requests and even reversions (probably the "anything by an IP is vandalism" type) is locking this into a bad article.

Microscopes are important tools and have a well studied, if not always fully known, technological timeline outside of the topic of microscopy. This should be a much better article, not an article that no one is allowed to improve.

--2601:648:8503:4467:C160:6162:7443:F334 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

X --> "The first microscope to be developed was the optical microscope, although the original inventor is not easy to identify."

Y --> "The earliest microscopes were single lens magnifying glasses with limited magnification. Compound microscopes, with more than one lens, arose sometime in the early 17th century in Europe, although the original inventor is not easy to identify. At this time, though, many limitations of early microscopes were due to technological problems in manufacturing lenses. The the best early microscopes came later in that century and for many years were the single lens microscopes being manufactured by Anton Leeuwenhoek, who taught himself to grind lenses capable of magnification over 200 times.^[1]"

--2601:648:8503:4467:C160:6162:7443:F334 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On mobile, will add references, but since Wikipedia has declared ultramicroscope to be major without references, maybe I don't need any. 2601:648:8503:4467:C160:6162:7443:F334 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done - wording adapted and expanded with sources, thanks. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Leeuwenhoek needs reworded, but I see it is in the next paragraph, and I will expand and reorient it a bit. The technology should be about the quality of his lenses, not just their outright magnifying power, the former is the story of microscopes, the latter becomes the realization and quest for resolution.

Are my other edit requests too controversial? I thought material had to be cited, and the lead was about the Article? --2601:648:8503:4467:C160:6162:7443:F334 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a vandal and you're playing games here? --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit, Wikipedia does not "add up" sources (A+B) to reach a conclusion (C) (see WP:SYNTH). Weight should be given to well researched academic works, anonymous websites should be probably discounted and, again, we do not "add up" multiple poor quality web sources. In general all views should be presented, and attributed, when possible (WP:YESPOV). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect statements here. Cornelius Drebbel as a likely inventor is followed by the source Albert Van Helden; Sven Dupré; Rob van Gent (2010). The Origins of the Telescope. Amsterdam University Press. p. 24 (footnote 64 - bottom of the page) and that note cites two further sources. Also on page 32. Also in another source in article: namely William Rosenthal, Spectacles and Other Vision Aids: A History and Guide to Collecting, Norman Publishing, 1996, page 391 - 392. Zacharias Janssen did not "claim to have invented the microscope". That claim was made by his son, Johannes Zachariassen, some 23 years after Zacharias Janssen's death, see: Albert Van Helden; Sven Dupré; Rob van Gent (2010). The Origins of the Telescope. Amsterdam University Press. pp. 32–36. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, unsourced and with no explanation or further discussion anywhere on Wikipedia, and now copied to thousands of Wikipedia mirrors, we declare, in the lead, that the ultramicroscope is one of the major types of microscope. Getting something wrong, synthesizing from existing materials is bad and must be corrected, but something made up can stay in the lead of the article.

Why?

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:C3 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Microscope. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

X -->

Y -->

This scientific article needs additional citations to secondary or tertiary sources. Help add sources such as review articles, monographs, or textbooks. Please also establish the relevance for any primary research articles cited. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In addition to the false ultramicroscope comment, which registered editors are forcing upon unwary readers, other information in this article is wrong and unsourced.

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC) 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

":That is the specific change, no template to template. Are you just playing with me? --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk)•

You're kidding me? Please quote where it is in the article other than the lead that ultramicroscope is mentioned. Is there a hidden section, or am I being trolled? --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't believe that a scanning electron microscope uses an Everhart-Thornley or through the lens detector to capture the signal generated by the interaction of the beam with a reaction volume of the specimen?

Is this a time warp or something, your belief trumps science? Are you going to remove all that information from all the Wikipedia articles which describe exactly that, correctly, as how an SEM works? You're serious?

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article says, and other editors are determine that it keeps saying, that Scanning electron microscopes work by analyzing their reflected or transmitted incident beams.

I bet this article gets 100s of readers a day and to leave something so fundamentally wrong in it is very bad.

I attempted to remove this misinformation, but this not-reliably-sourced (and unsourcable) statement must stay in the article, being read by 100s of people and copied by other websites, until it can be discussed here for some amount of time.

The statement is unsourcable, so I won't ask for any, but please discuss why this even found its way into a science article.

--2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This article contains this statement at the end of the lead section:

"Other major types of microscopes are the electron microscope (both the transmission electron microscope and the scanning electron microscope), the ultramicroscope, and the various types of scanning probe microscope."

The statement has no sources within the lead, and, as it does not appear elsewhere within the article, it has no sources in the article.

This unsourced statement is in a high visibility science article. I suggest it be removed.

Thanks, --2601:648:8503:4467:F4B3:6D6C:9DCC:DC06 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]