Talk:Camassa–Holm equation

Reference list
The reference list is expanding, which is great! However, almost all of the cited articles are by Constantin and coauthors. There's nothing wrong with those papers (on the contrary!), but there are also hundreds of other papers on the CH eqn, so the reference list is currently looking a little biased in my opinion. I think we should try to provide some other references too. (When adding a reference, please include a DOI link if possible! And use "en dashes" for page ranges, not hyphens.) Another thing: instead of trying to explain here what integrability or solitary waves or solitons are, we should just link to the corresponding Wikipedia articles instead. Hans Lundmark (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now (finally) added a long list of references, which better reflects the breadth and variety of the enormous amount of research done on this equation during the last 15 years. There's still plenty of room for improvement in the main text of the article, but now at least anyone willing to take on this task should be able to find all the information they might need. Hans Lundmark (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Hans, the long list is indeed long. Here are some ideas on how to organize things:
 * Layout distinguishes the following sections w.r.t. references: "Works", "Notes", "References", "Further reading".
 * A section "Works" seems more at its place for an biographic article on a writer. It could be the original Camassa & Holm paper in this case, but my preference would be not to use this standard section.
 * "Notes" exists.
 * "References": my suggestion is to put the references mentioned in the notes here.
 * "Further reading": my suggestion is to create two sub-sections in this. The first, named e.g. "Introductions to the subject" contain the introductory papers recommended by you; the second (e.g. "General" or "Others") contain the rest.
 * To avoid the risk that people object against the long list (referring to e.g. WP:NOTDIRECTORY) I suggest to put the "Others" in a collapsed table. See for an example of such a table: Capillary wave.
 * What are your ideas on this ordering? Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Very good suggestions. I agree completely, except that I think it might be even more useful if "Further reading" is divided into more specific subcategories (for example, "Numerical methods", "The CH eqn as a water wave model", etc.). But that can be dealt with later. To begin with, "Others" will be just fine. And maybe the whole "Further reading" section should be collapsed? Hans Lundmark (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a start with this. Do you have suggestions for improvement and further subcategory divisions? -- Crowsnest (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's much better already. Some of the papers in the "Introductions to the subject" section are perhaps too specialized and technical to be there, since they are all really research papers with the focus on proving some specific results, but unfortunately I don't know of any good books or review papers to put there instead. I think our goal should be to improve this Wikipedia article so that it in itself is a sufficiently good introduction to the subject, and then remove that section. Instead, we could have a single (hidden) "Further reading" section, with rather detailed subcategories so that people wanting to read more about some specific thing could easily find papers about that. Hans Lundmark (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In two footnotes, there is a discrepancy between the year in the "notes" and in the actual "references": Boldea 1997; Constantin, Gerdjikov & Ivanov 2006 (using the "notes" years). -- Crowsnest (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. The year for Boldea was just wrong as far as I can tell, but in the other case I think the footnote actually was meant to refer to a different paper from 2006 (that I've now added; I moved the 2007 paper to "Further reading/Others"). Hans Lundmark (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Animations
I'm not sure if these particular animations really improve this article. The have several issues. 1) Why are they 2D? This is a 1D equation, and an animation of the solutions should be a 1D curve. 2) the second axis is not labeled 3) how were they created? What numerical methods were used? 4) Some of the animations don't seem to show anything useful, and just have rapidly varying colors.

I think they should be removed, and if possible, replaced by better (1D) animations.

Arichar6 (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The animations were removed by me, since the above points were not answered or improved. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)