Talk:Basic concepts of quantum mechanics

Merger proposal 2
A while ago, I proposed merging this article with the Introduction to quantum mechanics article, on the grounds that it would be better to have one (and only one!) introductory article on the subject. At the time it seemed better to withdraw the proposal, and improve this article before merging them. This has now happened, so let's merge the two. Djr32 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this proposal. There should only be 1 intro article. --Robin (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, well to make a start I've merged the section on Planck's law into the Intro article. I won't delete it from here for now, as it might take a while to complete this process and there's no sense having a broken article here in the mean time - I suggest that once the process is complete we redirect this entire article.  Djr32 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So far things look good to me. I have started from the top down to fix little things that I've noticed. One thing that hit me was how many times American spelling is still used. Isn't there a bot or something to pick out the color/colour type distinctions? P0M (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It turns out there is a way to do spelling/dictionary prefs for Firefox.P0M (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. Unfortunately, I think that so far we've only done the easy bits! Djr32 (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the merge. Good luck! Alex Douglas (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - This is an extreme content fork (for what it is worth Introduction to quantum mechanics needs to be merged into Quantum mechanics as well). --Mcorazao (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Introduction to quantum mechanics should be merged with Quantum mechanics. The latter is the substantive article and the former is one in the Introduction to series.  See WP:List of Introductory Articles.  Dolphin  ( t ) 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I agree that this article should be merged with Introduction to quantum mechanics. Dolphin  ( t ) 23:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Massive amounts of unneccesary duplication between the two articles. Merging them makes a lot of sense. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Opposed – I have read bits and pieces of both articles. “Basic concepts of quantum mechanics" is a more layman's term approach to the subject for the people who haven't taken every science class known to man. "Introduction to quantum mechanics", on the other hand, has many technical terms, is very wordy, and confusing. I may be the only non-science person to come across these articles, so your main audience may be fine with it, but as someone who knows little to nothing about quantum mechanics or physics, “Basic concepts of quantum mechanics" is a little easier to wrap my head around. Samanthalee1983 (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Opposed - I agree with the above comment.Selfstudier (talk) 01:10, 05 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now – I'm slowly working on improving both articles and I'm reserving judgment on a merger until I'm done. Note that there is also an article on the Simple English Wikipedia that I've done some work on. It might be possible for that to become the "basic" article one day. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Opposed – “Basic concepts of quantum mechanics" is less inaccessible to the general reader who has no understanding of algebra. Additionally, the main article on QM - and many of its subsidiaries - seem to suffer from a fundamental schizophrenia as to whether they are aimed at a Science Major (who, by definition, understands the standard textbooks and so doesn't need to read up QM on Wikipedia), or at the general reader (who by definition won't have a background in mathematics). Stephen Poppitt 22:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The Intro article should be merged with the main Quantum mechanics. If our artcile on Quantum mechanics (and related articles on basic concepts) is so incomprehensible, we need to address that deficiency rather than inventing a completely new style.  I can see why the "Introduction to ..." concept is appealing, but by going that route we are shirking a core responsibility to make articles understandable, with a gradient of knowledge from gentle to advanced, and guiding readers to various 's .  Furthermore, by agreeing to this fork, we would be opening up a parallel universe within Wikipedia, with good intentions but bad consequences, I fear.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not opposed - there is not a terrible distance in readability between the two, so I will go along with the crowd on this issue. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)