Talk:Alternative physics

Name of page
The capitalization is wrong, the page should be called "Alternative theories" (or something like "Alternative theories in physics") 1Z 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
Only sources that have some peer review should be considered.

Surely anything that has achieved peer review is by definition mainstream?

1Z 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Collection of links?
As it stands, the purpose of the article seems to collect links to websites for alternative theories. That makes the article likely to be deleted. As What Wikipedia is not says: "Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links." My suggestion would be to shortly describe these alternative theories and add some references to prove that the theories indeed have seen some peer review. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Virtual chaos
I am having some trouble with this one. It is impossible to summarise, There is very little mathematical content, and what there is is glaringly wrong.1Z 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Quibble
In the theory of elementary waves is 'existent' a noun? SmokeyTheCat

Ahem
Isn't this article original research? Or is this a fork of List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts? --Pjacobi 18:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's intended as a lightning-conductor for the Theory of everything page. 1Z 19:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic
This article, as currently structured, does not meet the style of an encyclopaedia article. There shouldn't be directions to editors like "Please, when adding a link, avoid adding your own web sites to this page...", nor self-referential comments like "this page is dedicated to the websites...". Statements like these belong on talk pages, not in an article itself. Articles should be aimed at readers, not editors. Either that, or this deserves the title of essay and belongs in Wikipedia space, and not article space. &mdash; BillCtalk 22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)