Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)/Archive 19

See also section
While we have some eyes on this page I would like to discuss the see also section. This section contains almost 30 links now, which is serious overkill. The goal here is to start a civil discussion and reach consensus which links should be removed and which should stay.

I have started by listing the links which are already linked from elsewhere in the article. Per wp:SEEALSO these should generally not be linked again in a see also and I see no reason to deviate from the guideline in this point.
 * Centrifuge
 * Classical mechanics
 * Coriolis force
 * D'Alembert's principle (infobox)
 * Euler force
 * Fictitious force
 * Frame of reference
 * Inertial frame of reference
 * Mechanics of planar particle motion

These terms are not linked in the article, but are mentioned and should be linked at first mention (wp:UNDERLINK) and the see also removed (per reasoning above)
 * Centripetal force
 * Circular motion
 * Dynamics (physics)
 * Rotational motion

Does anybody disagree with me so far? I want to have a critical look at the other links as well, but lets reach consensus on these first. Yoenit (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if they're already linked within the article, they should be removed from See also. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, anything you can do to clean this up would be appreciated. As a bit of history, the article started out at Centrifugal force, and went through a great inflationary period starting in April/May 2008 when David Tombe and then Brews Ohare started attacking it from opposite points of view.  David added the confusion of a fictitious force denier, and Brews tried to help by adding example after example, and tons of stuff to try to convince David, all of which failed and also failed to help the article; just made it 10X bigger or so, and rescoped it and moved it and pissed off everyone else who tried to help along the way.  Anything you can take out will probably cause a net win.  Except the xkcd cartoon, of course. Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone want to make an editprotected request, or does someone disagree? --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Editprotected is supposed to be for things which are too important to wait. Give it a week, see if anyone disagrees, and if not you're good to go. FWIW I'm happy with the proposal. Any time a see also section needs columns, it should be seriously pruned back. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yoenit, It might make things easier if this article were deleted altogether. We already have an article entitled centrifugal force which ought to be sufficient for the purpose of covering all aspects of the topic. This article here supposedly caters for one particular perspective on the topic ie. the fictitious force which is observed in a rotating frame of reference. Yet it contains material which doesn't fall into that category, such as Goldstein's treatment of the planetary orbital problem. And furthermore, the James Bond cartoon contains two opposing points of view, neither of which are the point of view which this article is supposed to be dealing with. I can enlighten you somewhat as to the history behind why this article was created. There used to be just one article entitled centrifugal force. But during a debate in 2008, in which examples were given which unequivocally demonstrated a real outward push associated with centrifugal force, it was decided by an editor who is now retired, to segregate all matters to do with such examples into a separate article entitled reactive centrifugal force. Meanwhile neither of the two new articles ostensibly catered for the centrifugal force which appears in polar coordinates in the absence of a rotating frame of reference and which is used in planetary orbital analysis, even though this article deals with it nevertheless, but in a distorted manner. It is this latter perspective which James Bond's adversary is referring to in the cartoon. So I say, 'scrap this article altogether' as it is a complete mess, and have done with it. David Tombe (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's very important that new editors here realize that everything David Tombe says needs to be ignored. Or you can read the archives for all the attempts to explain to him that Goldstein is using a rotating coordinate system when he writes equations for the derivative of radial distance.  In any case, I oppose a merge; the new centrifugal force article was created to be a summary-style article to point to more in-depth (and bloated) articles like this one.  It isn't a good idea to try to put it all back in one place again.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I think it has been fairly obvious to those of us unfamiliar with him that he's pushing an agenda here. I could tell that from the way he was trying to use the comic debate as a way of including his point of view. The best thing would be to literally ignore his posts that aren't on topic.
 * I agree about the "see also" being pruned. We certainly don't need massively general things like "statics" linked, redundant or not! Wenttomowameadow (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wenttomowanmeadow, All I was saying was that we shouldn't use a comic strip to make a point in an article. I haven't edited on this article for a long time, and I don't intend to start again because I don't think that this article should even exist. And if you you think that I'm the only one here who is pushing an agenda, then I think you need to open your eyes a bit wider. David Tombe (talk) 10:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Page protection
Why is this page protected? As far as I can tell there has been an edit war over the inclusion of two external links. One (hyperphysics) appears to satisy WP:RS but it's debatable whether it needs to be linked to. The other appears to be a comic strip and is not a reliable source and so should not be included. But if people want to edit war over this then they should be blocked but the page should not be fully protected. Specifically if a user persistently adds external links to an article that violate WP:RS and engage in an edit war over this then they should be blocked, not the page itself! Could the protecting admin please unprotect. This is not a serious content dispute! Polyamorph (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Without going into an actual discussion whether this page should be protected or not, I will quickly point out that wp:external links has absolutely nothing to do with wp:RS. In fact the whole point of external links is to allow useful links that can't be used as sources for some reason. Yoenit (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, however the policies are actually clearly related. Every attempt should be made to ensure that external links are reliable sources. Sure there is a slightly different policy wp:external links but I'm not a wikilawyer and this doesn't change my fundamental point above which is simply because some disruptive editors are persistently adding unsuitable links into the article does not make a valid case for fully protecting the article. Instead such disruptive editors or those determined to participate in an WP:edit war should be blocked prior to taking such drastic action as fully protecting the page! Polyamorph (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You've gotten that backwards. Blocking people is far more serious than temporarily protecting a page, especially one which has seen very little in the way of productive contributions for over a year. See WP:PP. This is not a limited spat between two people: multiple editors have been involved in warring over this on either side. Blocking individuals would be unlikely to work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @thumperward I don't think I have got it wrong. Fair enough if you think no harm will come by FULLY protecting this page but this is NOT a serious content dispute, it's petty edit warring for the sake of it when it's pretty clear to me (an uninvolved yet experienced editor) that the link is not suitable for this article and as such anyone persistently adding it against consensus should be blocked, in my opinion, for disruptive editing. Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion, but it's not policy. Consensus is that in the case where an edit war is disrupting the article (which this one is: over 50% of the article's edits in the last six months have been part of it, and 100% in the last three days) and where it's not a small and discrete group responsible (warring here has largely been open-ended, with at least half a dozen separate actors on either side) that protection is the best policy. If you have urgent need to make an edit feel free to ping me or raise an editprotected request, but this isn't the time to rail against the protection policy on the principle of free editing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes ok Polyamorph (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'people' warring here are simply you; and maybe a couple of others. There's a majority of people that want this kept, and you're lying, misrepresenting, edit warring, forum shopping, manipulating and scheming, and you've even stated above that if you hadn't been so obviously involved you would have abused your sysop powers. Exactly when are you going to give up this crap? Everyone here is tired of it, and you.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 18:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The people who support this link see it as a positive thing for helping people understand the topic. The people opposed to it appear to be trying to remove it for what appear to be ulterior motives, and are and have been using every single evil trick in the book to try to achieve it. There have been sockpuppets, 'reinterpretation' of the results of polls, there have been deliberate attempts to undermine the 5 pillars, there have been forum shopping and on and on and on.
 * Please stop, you are hurting Wikipedia.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 18:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How you can still claim to act with majority is beyond me. Personally I am getting tired of yout wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality. Yoenit (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The facts are that there was a well-advertised, fairly run, poll in this forum, which was attended by people from the WP:EL noticeboard. The result of the poll (ignoring the single purpose accounts, and noticeably contrary to claims by the people from the WP:EL noticeboard after the fact) was that there was a MAJORITY for the link to be kept. Which bit of that don't you understand?????- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 21:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There. Was. No. Majority. For. The. Link. Really. There wasn't. The poll is right here on this page. Go ahead, count it. 7 were for keeping, 8 for removing it. Even if you discount the IP !vote, there was still no majority. --Conti|✉ 21:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

alternative solution to the dispute
Has anyone considered contacting Randall Munroe, to ask if he would release the image under a CC-BY-SA license. He has done so before (see commons:Category:xkcd). If the image has educational value it could then be included in the article instead of linked to. —Ruud 18:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it have educational value? I think it would only fit in a section describing the dispute about the existence of the centrifugal force. Yoenit (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think someone who made a significant contribution to the whole article should judge on that. I don't think I'm qualified to choose the colour of the bikeshed. —Ruud 19:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Every significant contributor to the article has been editing the link back in over the past few months, which is the whole root of this debate. Any decision must involve outside contributors. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this looks like a good article, so I would expect the significant contributors to be competent editors with good judgement. Why shouldn't we trust them to make a good judgement on the in- or exclusion of a certain external link? —Ruud 19:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's probably a discussion about that somewhere... Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is known as Parkinson's Law of Triviality. I've been looking for a Wikipedia essay on this issue for a while, so in case the ellipsis was to indicate sarcasm due to the fact that I've overlooked a well known essay, I'd still gladly like a link to it. —Ruud 20:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously(?) I was referring to the conversations on this talk page, which should make it clear that a limited consensus would stir up all of the same controversy again. Is there a good reason why you have undone the page's protection after ignoring protests about doing this from other admins and then suggested that consensus should be ignored in favour of the opinions of a core group of editors? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, whether the link is included or not is completely irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. I assume everyone here realizes this and trust everyone to not continue edit warring. This issue really does not justify stopping any improvement to the rest of the article. —Ruud 20:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be honest with you, I am a bit shocked to find an admin advocating local consensus overrules guidelines and policies. Yoenit (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm much more shocked that people like you think that WP:EL overrides WP:CONSENSUS. External links are content, just as much as other types of content.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 21:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, my hypothesis is that Wikipedia works so well mostly due to it's lack of a lot of top-down imposed structures, which cannot possibly take in account all the subtleties present at at the local level. As I'm usually the kind of person which attaches great value to things such as "order" this is quite an interesting mindset to get into. —Ruud 20:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's no use to anybody who doesn't already understand the concepts. The only thing they will learn is that there is a debate about the existence of the force. We don't need a comic to illustrate this point, it's an inefficient way of conveying the information and would be a distraction. On top of that, we don't need more excuses for people to insert references to xkcd into Wikipedia. It's a problem managing people's obsession with that comic as it is (particularly on days when it actively trolls Wikipedia). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But that's the only reason that matters to you isn't it? You just don't want any links to xkcd. Pretty much everyone else wants it because of what that particular comic is about, because they feel it adds technically to the article, also because it captures the debate, and that it's amusing is extra on top. So really, your argument is an extremely facile one you're dressing up to try to make it look like there's some higher purpose that it violates this trivial guideline or other, or because they are a 'fan' of xkcd; but really it's none of that, you just don't like xkcd at all and you're systematically trying to remove it from the Wikipedia.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 22:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, note that most of the comics licensed for Commons are there because they're about topics that xkcd has directly influenced. Applying for licenses to illustrate appropriate concepts directly related to the comic is one thing, but purposely sourcing content from xkcd for inclusion in articles is a bit off, and an idea that I think is influenced purely by fandom. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * I just noticed "normally" links to Use common sense. Funny. —Ruud 21:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to the original query
See. User:Wolfkeeper (who has purportedly retired, albeit under a cloud of socking) did exactly that (requesting relicensing permission from Randall) without any luck. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC against individuals involved in EL link deletionism
Removing stale links is perfectly OK, but some people are clearly using what may be termed 'dirty tricks' to remove links even when their presence may have broad agreement, and they are using extensive forum shopping, bald faced lies and whether they personally engage in it or not, their activities are associated with sockpuppetry and false voting patterns.

So I'm considering starting up an RFC to get them topic blocked.

Do we have any others that will support an RFC for the people that are clearly going from article to article and engaging in extensive edit warring and manipulating and removing Wikipedia content and going far beyond what would normally be considered to be reasonable behaviour?- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Might suggest you head over to wp:ANI first if you truly believe this dispute requires blocking people? A A RFC on user conduct is a rather serious affair and it will just get speedily closed if you start one without heading to ANI first. Beware of the wp:BOOMERANG though. Yoenit (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the outcome of that will be frustration for you and a waste of time for everybody else. When you calm down you will read this page and see several editors (including administrators and experienced editors) who view the link's removal as an obvious policy-based decision. You will also see lack of consensus to keep the link, which is what was needed for an exception to the rules. Your attitude over the past few days will give the impression of somebody who is more interested in making personal attacks than dealing with the issues at hand. You should feel lucky that nobody has reported you up until now (I fee that there are grounds to do this, but it's pointless bickering and bureaucracy). The RfC would be a bad idea for you, and I doubt it would actually worry any of the editors involved in this debate. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, completely the contrary you started with the personal attacks, and you are continuing with them, even this above is another personal attack on me. When we've pulled up the list from the history of the various talk pages, this will be self-evident, and I'm sure that you will be topic blocked.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 21:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * When you repeatedly deliberately state things that are obviously the opposite of the truth as part of a discussion of what should or shouldn't be kept in an article, it's obvious that your editing priviledges need to be curtailed.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 21:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The nice thing about the wikipedia is that all your statements are recorded, and an RFC just consists of collecting them together and comparing them with the truth...- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 21:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is pathetic. Empty threats and false accusations. Wenttomowameadow's post is a not a personal attack and the only person who keeps repeatedly making false claims is you, with your "majority" and "consensus". Yoenit (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, what's pathetic is when people engage in disruptive editing, deletionism and bald faced lies that consensus doesn't matter here or there in the Wikipedia, or that we hadn't found consensus when there was a majority, and when they engage in forum shopping. In short, you make me sick.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

xkcd centrifugal force cartooned discussed in WP:RSs
I think we have a way out: report on the papers here that talk about the cartoon in question:. Anybody have free access to The Physics Teacher? Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're getting ahead of yourself. Before trying to find a loophole to include your favourite things you need to establish that they are wanted. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It reads: "WebSights features reviews of select sites presenting physics teaching strategies, as well as shorter announcements of sites of interest to physics teachers. [...] The web cartoon xkcd has been pointed out several times on the PHYS-L mailing list this past month. Written and drawn by Randall Munroe, physics degree holder, the strip contains much math, science, and computer science humor updated three times weekly, with accompanying artwork and T-shirts for sale. The cartoons “Nerd Sniping,” http://xkcd.com/356/, and “Centrifugal Force,” http://xkcd.com/123/, are particularly recommended." —Ruud 22:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay? Is there a point to this? I... oh I give up. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To demonstrate this particular cartoon is more widely recognized as being of education value, rather than just some editor's favourite thing? —Ruud 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You've demonstrated that it appeals to people who like science. This is news to nobody, the very nature of the comic is to make references to science and Internet memes to appeal to certain groups. This has very little to do with suitability for Wikipedia. The fact that people see the words "Fourier transform" in a comic and then decide to add a reference to the comic on Wikipedia is a good sign that they should be encouraged to think more carefully about its importance. We don't need to purposely find ways to get the comic included for no good reason. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If this particular comic (“Centrifugal Force”) was "important" enough to warrant a mention in a journal for physics educators, why wouldn’t it be important enough to mention in Wikipedia? —Ruud 23:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So in what article are we going to mention the "Nerd Sniping" comic? --Conti|✉ 23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Your quote is from a lighthearted "here are some links of general interest" type page. It's hardly a scientific journal, and more importantly it's not an encyclopedia. Mentions on a mailing list are clearly not a reason for including the comic either. "They like it" is not a better argument than "I like it". Why do I find myself having to explain this to an admin? There's something very wrong here. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I couldn't care less if the link stays or goes and think this is mostly just a huge waste of everyone's time. I just like Socratic debates. —Ruud 00:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wenttomowameadow, IDONTLIKEIT is just as fallacious as ILIKEIT. Your argument that we should include it or not because it's 'wanted' seems to be fundamentally flawed, and irrespective of educational value (which is why it's considered desirable) especially since you think that a small minority should make that decision (mainly you by the look of it).- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 21:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that amongst physicists and various other communities xkcd is highly popular (at least relative to other webcomics). That does not, however, imply that a link here under that rationale would be any more appropriate than linking to a Dilbert strip in every article covered in a humourous manner by Scott Adams. Now if there were reason to believe that the xckd strip in question had had a significant real-world impact on discussion of contrifugal versus centripal force it'd be a different matter entirely (compare to the examples of appropriate referencing given in WP:XKCD). But so far nobody's made a case for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks I agree that the cartoon is notable, and hence should be reinstated.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 21:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Try reading his post again and you will notice he is actually against inclusion of the cartoon. Yoenit (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're for it as well then. Excellent.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 01:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The stale merge proposal was there since September. Now someone claims there's clear support for a merger. I don't see it. What's up? Anyone supporting a merger, besides David Tombe? Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the discussion was here: Talk:Centrifugal_force. I was under the impression that people had been satisfied when I merged and got rid of the disambig page, and kept the summary-style page, but I see that it's not so clear there. I do agree that the "rotating reference frame" page is way too much, based on what Brews did, but I hate the see the summary-style article converted to a bloat attractor. I think that a new merge proposal should be opened if someone isn't happy with the status quo. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at the conversation and saw that nearly everybody was in support of the merge, which is why I reverted . Yours was the only voice that wasn't interested in merging and the general tone was "Yep, good idea". I agree that the motion has gone stale, but it needs motivating rather than burying, IMO. I would support refreshing the old debate rather than starting a new one, mainly because I think that you'd just get a lot of yes votes, but anything that gets us moving and coming to a very firm consensus on a plan of action would be welcome. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but dicklyon himself actually nominated a merge proposal back in May 2009, and it was immediately supported by another editor. See here. Why the U-turn? David Tombe (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That was just before the current summary-style Centrifugal force was created. That seemed like a better solution to most people at the time, if I recall correctly.  At least, I don't recall anyone opposing that approach.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the stale merge proposal is dead, given what we did at the time about getting rid of the disambig. If someone still sees a need, a new proposal would be in order. I'm going to take the stale tag off again. Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)