Talk:Squeezed states of light

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 4 February 2018 by reviewer MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs).

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missing Figure 1?

In the "Quantum physical background" paragraph, where is the Figure 1 to which it refers? There is a Figure 1 much farther down (in "Representation of squeezed states...") that doesn't appear to me to apply to this earlier reference. 24.16.12.134 (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The missing figure, which I remember clearly, was actually in five parts - Fig. 1a-e. (Fig. 1f still appears.) Its disappearance represents a huge loss from this otherwise fine article. I hope that it can be recovered and reintroduced. This disruption also makes me think that I need to do a print-to-PDF far more often when I find a truly essential Wikipedia article, which this article was before this significant loss 67.170.37.204 (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now confirmed that the missing figures(s) can be consulted (for now) via the Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive, in the July 2023 capture 67.170.37.204 (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The figure is still visible in this old version [[1]] of the article. The subsequent chain of events leading to its loss is comical:

On 17 August, the user @ASUDLER uploaded a new image (probably to fix the spelling of "vacuum")
On 5 September at 05:37, the user @krd (possibly a bot) deleted the new uploaded image because "No licence since 28 August 2023". This is a real pity: given that the image was (I'm guessing) a small tweak of the previous image, it should have been obvious that the missing licence was a small administrative hiccup that could have been resolved without deleting the image.
On 5 September at 05:53, just 16 minutes after the previous event, the @CommonsDelinker bot deleted the image link from this article. This too is a pity: a human would have taken the time to investigate why the link was broken, and then either restored the old image (despite the spelling mistake) or uploaded a new version with the corrected spelling and a valid licence.

While I have the highest respect for the valuable work that users/bots like @krd and @CommonsDelinker perform, I hope they can find a way to change their algorithms/procedures to avoid mishaps like this in the future. In the meantime, I hope somebody with better wikipedia proficiency than me can restore the image from the old version (see link above).

144.174.212.39 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting Stoler? A Travesty

It is simply a travesty, to omit David Stoler in an encyclopedia entry on squeezed states.

Here is one cite you should be mentioning:

 David Stoler. "Equivalence Classes of Minimum Uncertainty Packets"  Phys.Rev.D 1 (1970) 3217-321
 DOI:  10.1103/PhysRevD.1.3217

And, let's not forget, Yurke Stoler states,

 B. Yurke and D. Stoler Phys. Rev. Lett. (1970) 57, 13 
 DOI:  10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.13

Whoever is responsible for this article, please correct this entirely unfair omission. 71.187.39.204 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]