Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)/Archive 20

RfC: Does a link to a web-comic belong in this article 2
Should an external link to a xkcd webcomic remain in the article? The link has been the subject of a long discussion and this RFC is trying to find a final consensus. Please remain polite and remember this is a discussion, not a vote Yoenit (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Centrifugal_force_(rotating_reference_frame)#RfC:_Does_a_link_to_a_web-comic_belong_in_this_article_2 The link has been controversial even though the last poll, ignoring single purpose accounts, showed that it should be kept at that time.

In your opinion, should the xkcd link remain in the article? Please vote keep or remove and you may give reasons.

The vote will run for 2 weeks precisely, and I expect that the vote will be considered binding unless there is major manipulation (so no single user accounts, no canvasing at all, and do not misrepresent anything with your comments).- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 02:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't use votes but consensus based in policy. Cheers! --Izno (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, so you would be able to show consensus to remove the link then in this way.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 02:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The poll did not show that the link should be kept! How many times do I have to repeat this (only for you to completely ignore me)? There was a majority for removing the link. Also, what single purpose accounts are you talking about? --Conti|✉ 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep We would prefer to have this image in the article itself, but at the moment the license is incompatible. Failing that, we can link to it, and this is a valid link per EL "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". In the meantime this is a valuable link because it shows the controversy about whether centrifugal force is real or not, as well as being extremely succinct and technically accurate.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 02:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – the xkcd web comic is a valuable illustration of the concepts discussed in the artile. It is a "unique" resource in the sense of providing an accessible illustration of the crux of the confusions in this area.  The cartoon contains much less information than the article, yet it serves as a valuable palpable illustration of an ongoing confusion and discussion about how a "fictitious" force can seem so real to a person in a rotating reference frame.  It refers to the controversy and to the confusion itself, and provides a realistic way to help people think about it.  Under the policy EL, the categories "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" and "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" apply, in my opinion.  It is so on-point that to not link it seems to me to be a sign of some kind of wiki-arrogance on the part of people who would rather stick to narrow rules than appreciate its value.  I'm usually more of a deletionist; don't think I'm usually easy on ELs. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove because, well, I don't see it. I don't see how readers will suddenly understand this concept once they've read the comic, or how it makes them understand how a "'fictitious' force can seem so real to a person in a rotating reference frame". Or rather, why people won't get it without reading the comic. Because I think they will, by reading this article. --Conti|✉ 07:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove It fails point 1 of WP:ELNO (and point 4 and 13). We don't just include users faviourite comics here on wikipedia, it is not an encyclopedic resource and is absolutely unsuitable for this project. I am surprised at the amount of disruptive behaviour evidenced here over the inclusion of this one, clearly unsuitable external link. As I have noted on this page already, no amount of vote counting here will change the fact that the inclusion of the link fails WP:EL policy guideline which already has firm consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove Obvious policy-based removal per WP:EL and WP:ELNO. The link is not special enough to be a special case (it would be a distracting addition to the article). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove This is covered by WP:ELNO. - MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Valuable, astute, to-the-point, illustrative and educationally sound. Per Dicklyon: possible guideline section wp:ELNO objections overruled by section wp:ELYES #3. DVdm (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh In my opinion, Dicklyon provides some strong arguments for inclusion, which have not been adequately rebutted. People against inclusion link only refer to WP:ELNO, but this makes me somewhat doubtful of the fact whether they have comprehended the text they refer to. This guideline (not policy) is stated in term like "links normally to be avoided" and "one should generally avoid" (emphasis mine). This should be interpreted as meaning "exclude unless there are arguments for inclusion". As these arguments for inclusion have been provided, further discussion should focus on strengthening or taking down those arguments, and not by continuing to refer to that same guideline. —Ruud 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most wikipedia users agree that guidelines are there to be followed except in specific special cases. The fact that many users here have commented in favour of removal by virtue of WP:EL only serves to show this is an important guideline most users respect and if more users want to oppose the addition of this link on the basis of WP:ELNO then they are perfectly entitled and right to do so. As for Dicklyon's arguments, I don't believe the xkcd web comic to be encyclopedic or an educational resource, I have mentioned this above. It's main aim is humour not education and including the link serves only to promote that comic which is not the aim of wikipedia, so I argue that the removal of the link is justified per WP:SPAM (which is policy and where the relevant section WP:LINKSPAM directs readers to WP:ELNO). I don't think it gives a clear enough message that enables the reader to fully understand the concept. Moreover it expects readers to already have at least some understanding of the concept in order fully comprehend the meaning of the sketch and hence the punchline, this they can get from the article itself if some effort was put into clarifying the content rendering the comic useless as it will not be giving readers any additional information. If the users so intent on including this link instead put some effort into including the key concepts that are in their opinion so vitally missing from this article then I think a lot of good can be done instead. So I don't believe that Dicklyon's arguments are sound. There are many comic sites on the web, we could probably find a comic strip for pretty much any subject we like on wikipedia. But the fact that the comic is "on topic" is not reason to link to it.Polyamorph (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not spam, it is the external links guideline which is relevant here. What you are doing here is trying to end discussion by pointing to a "policy". However, after you realized this policy was only a guideline, for which there is much more room for discussing its interpretation in a particular context, you suddenly switch to a different, but irrelevant, policy.
 * You missed the central point of my argument. ELNO basically states "exlude unless someone gives a good reason to include". Someone has now given a reason. ELNO now no longer directly applies. We should instead evaluate whether the reason given is good or not.
 * You misrepresent Dicklyon's argument. He is not in favour of inclusion because it is merely on-topic, but that for this particular article humour would be a good educational device. —Ruud 18:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well no. It is link SPAM because those who enjoy this comic are trying to promote it. I'm not trying to end the argument by pointing to policy. You are trying to start an argument by saying those who think WP:ELNO should be followed are in the wrong, whereas I clearly disagree. I have not misrepresented Dicklyon's argument, he clearly states the comic is "on topic" and that it is educational. Whereas I have said it's main purpose is humour not education and clearly explained why. Polyamorph (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As those who are in favour of including the link have offered reasons beyond promotion, claiming that promotion is their only, ulterior, motive is pure speculation at best and probably simply not true.
 * Why do you believe ELNO would favour exclusion in the light of arguments for inclusion? How does your interpretation of this guideline differ from mine? Ruud'' 19:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See wp:ELBURDEN. Yoenit (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get it? How does this sentence related to the question I posed? —Ruud 19:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNO lays out the reasons the link shouldn't be included as standard, the burden was on fans of the link to put up a convincing argument for why it should override the policy and they didn't manage it. Then a redundant RFC was posted in an attempt to gather "votes" and it backfired. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The comic's main purpose being humour does not necessarily prevent it from being a valuable educational tool. (Your argument relies on these being mutually exclusive.) —Ruud 19:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It sucks as an educational device. You need to understand the subject to get the joke. For a reader who does not understand it the comic is only confusing. Yoenit (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. I have stated my opinion above and I have explained why I don't think it is a good educational resource which Yoenit has clarified (thanks). Maybe my statements are not clear enough for you but I believe I have addressed your key point of "exlude unless someone gives a good reason to include" because I don't believe the comic is worth anything educationally. Clarification in the article itself though would be a much more worthwhile use of editing time than this fiasco. Polyamorph (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the discussions above it has been pointed out repeatedly that people do not want to include the link because it is humorous, but because it is educational. I honestly haven't yet understood those arguments, though, and still think that the article itself is about a million times better at discussing the topic itself. --Conti|✉ 19:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ruud, I would totally rebut dicklyon's assertion that the cartoon shows how a "fictitious" force can seem so real to a person in a rotating reference frame. The so-called fictitious force will seem real to anybody in a state of absolute rotation, and that's because it is real. The effect is used in a centrifuge. The cartoon does not explain this, but rather focuses on the dispute about whether or not centrifugal force is real. David Tombe (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove This does not meet wp:ELYES 3 as the comic is not "relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", per the excellent comments of Polyamorph above. This is just some random webcomic which is only funny as an insiders joke and arguments to keep it all boil down to wp:ILIKEIT. It should be removed per wp:ELPOINTS 3: "minize the number of external links". Yoenit (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of this. (See below.) I disagree that it is 'a random webcomic' (it is very relevant to understanding centrifugal force), that it is an 'insiders joke' (again it is a relatively major point of the article), and that it is just wp:ILIKEIT (None of Dicklyon points seem to fit that desription for instance.) TStein (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove Though I like xkcd, it's tiresome to have constant attempts to insert it into articles. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * keep/remove:
 * 1) keeep: It succinctly describes in a very memorable way an important point
 * 2) remove: That important point can be described in a few sentences in a more encyclopedic fashion.
 * 3) keep: External links often duplicate content of wikipedia article in different ways. (We can do both.)
 * 4) remove: Link is gratuitous; It only covers one point which seems mostly about righting a wrong. Even the caption for the link (cartoon about centrifugal force) doesn't adequately describe why it is there. If even the proponent can't come up for a good description of why it is there then why should we keep it?
 * 5) keep: It is quickly becoming (as far as I can tell) part of the culture of teaching about 'fictitious forces'. At least, I have run across this in multiple sources unrelated to the comics source.
 * 6) remove: People who don't understand the concept won't learn it from the cartoon.
 * 7) keep: The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to explain but to enumerate and to cover the material.


 * As you can tell, I am of two minds here. I believe that if it remains as popular as it has been, that this cartoon or a link to it will have to be placed somehow in the main article. People will expect it. I am biased, though, since this cartoon says in a very succinct way a point I stress whenever I get into lively debates about this; which believe it or not does pop up with non-physicists who know I teach physics. Teaching about centripetal/centrifugal force is hard. When a tool like this comes along, you just want to bow down and say I am not worthy. That is not a reason to keep this cartoon here. I suspect though that is my main reason for wanting it. I also suspect that is a good part of the motivation of most of those who support this cartoon here. TStein (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove. This link does not add any valuable material to understanding the article subject. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove. This link is excellent and should be used as a talk page discussion item on a single united centrifugal force article. But it is not at all relevant to this particular article. This particular article is specifically about the mathematical transformation equations from an inertial to a rotating frame of reference in which a particular fictitious term is defined as 'centrifugal force'. This fictitious term applies equally to all objects as viewed from the rotating frame of reference, whether or not they are experiencing an actual outward physical inertial effect. The cartoon on the other hand expresses two contrasting points of view, neither of which are catered for in this article. Bond's adversary is specifically referring to the real inertial effect which shows up when we express Newton's laws in curvilinear coordinates. Bond himself is adopting a popular high school myth to the extent that centrifugal force doesn't exist. Bond's point of view overlooks the fact that the centripetal force in the case scenario is not an active force in its own right, but rather a reaction to the outward centrifugal force that has been induced by the absolute rotation. Secondly, it is not appropriate in principle to use a cartoon in an encyclopaedia article. David Tombe (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove. The comic is not encyclopaedic and arguably not educational at all. In the educational contexts I've seen it used, it is set up as 'here's the joke, now let's learn why the joke is funny'. That the joke requires further explanation that the comic itself doesn't provide in and of itself means that it does not provide standalone encyclopaedic educational benefit. One must have prior understanding of the subject or read the article in order to properly understand it, whereas a truly educational resource would function in the other direction and aid in the understanding of the article. This resource doesn't do that. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In my opinion this link doesn't fulfil the requirements laid out on WP:XKCD, an essay I wrote for precisely this purpose which has broad community buy-in. There has been no demonstration of real-world impact from the comic, even after more than a year of requesting secondary acknowledgement from those supporting its inclusion. I am of the opinion that Dicklyon has overstated the degree to which the comic has educational value, as it would seem evident that the comic, written by a physicist and ostensibly for his peers, was not intended to highlight the supposed controversial nature of the content but simply to play it for laughs. Additionally, as noted above, User:Incompetence's own conditions on the closure of this RfC (namely the reduced duration, and his self-appointment of arbiter of the result) are invalid, so I would expect an uninvolved party to close this after the full month as usual. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for you to provide evidence that WP:XKCD has broad community consensus? Since this RfC relates to obtaining consensus whether or not this comic should stay then it would be very useful to provide evidence of any pre-determined consensus as to the suitability of linking to XKCD comics. I also whole heartedly agree with your point regarding closure of this RfC, the result of this RfC should be decided by a neutral user.Polyamorph (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of WP:XKCD, WP:EL certainly enjoys a broad community consensus and is clearly showing that the webcomic shouldn't be linked. --Conti|✉ 20:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, it clearly fails WP:EL as several users have already pointed out, but it's good to be specific and until thumperward linked to WP:XKCD I didn't know it existed, if it already has consensus then this entire RfC is rather moot.Polyamorph (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not sure essays need or usually have any kind of consensus behind them. People cite them because they (ideally) present a compelling case for or against something, and it's easier to point to WP:XKCD than to repeat the arguments made there. --Conti|✉ 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's just an essay, and given how few of us knew about it, can hardly claim to represent consensus. I'd say that it's a ridiculously high bar for a source or ext link to have to influence a topic, as opposed to just comment on it insightfully.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon: WP:XKCD was written over a year ago and has been linked to from the discussions over this issue multiple times. If you were not aware of it yourself, that suggests that you did not pay as much attention to the previous discussions on this subject as it would be hoped. I'm not sure where the "us" comes from unless you're purporting to speak for others.
 * Polyamorph: all inbound links to the essay at present from other discussions reflect positively on it, and I've never seen the sentiment criticised. In addition, the majority of the core content was imported into WP:IPC (a very widely read essay) eleven months ago and remains so today. Anecdotally I've seen it used repeatedly by third parties in edit summaries and off-wiki.
 * Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove. Falls at the first WP:ELNO hurdle of "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". The article already writes about centrifuges and rotating frame pseudo-forces; if the cartoon is somehow communicating an important nuance that the article is currently missing, we should just fix the article. Yes, the cartoon is snappier and funnier than the article, but WP:ELNO deliberately discourages linking to material that basically repeats what the reader has just read in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ELNO provides guidance about links to "generally avoid". This link is clearly not part of any spam campaign, and passers by such as myself should pay particular attention to the views expressed by those who have built this and related articles. Hammering the POINT of ELNO to overrule the excellent contributors to this article is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is criticising the work of others. Quite how you come to that conclusion I don't know, this discussion is with regards to one external link. No one is hammering the point of ELNO, but many users who have commented here do believe that the link is in violation of ELNO and have every right to say so. Polyamorph (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is a misunderstanding here. You characterize the situation as though the editors who wrote the article all think the link should be included and editors who call for its removal are all passers by. This is not true. The only two people in this discussion who actively contributed to the article in question are David Tombe (125 edits) and Dicklyon (61 edits), who are on opposite sides of the discussion. Yoenit (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my impression: a bunch of outsiders.  As for David Tombe, it's hard to call him a serious contributor when almost all of his edits were reverted; and he has now earned himself a permanent ban from even commenting on physics-related topics.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wolfkeeper tried to pull rank on those "outsiders" previously as well: it was as poor an argument back then as it is now. The whole point of the RfC process is to draw input from the wider community anyway, so it would be absurd to raise an RfC and then reject the outcome because it came from "outsiders". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * True. But it would be nice to also see the opinions of those who work on the article.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone familiar with the history wouldn't mind briefly outlining why this issue has been discussed over a very long period (December 2009 in archive 17). My vague recollection from last time I looked at this was that most article maintainers wanted the link, while others who support WP:EL wanted the link removed. If a consensus among those maintaining the page wanted the link removed, surely there would be no discussion? Or is this just another case of the disruptive discussions that have occurred in this topic? Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to appreciate the fact that this is an RfC, a specific request has been made for outside opinion. Of course it would be nice if all major contributors contributed to the discussion but at the end of the day no one owns this article and there has been plenty opportunity for anyone interested to comment. If there is consensus from "outsiders" that the link is unsuitable then that consensus should be followed. Even if the major contributors of the article disagree. Let's not forget this discussion is about one single external link, it is not real article content and really quite an insignificant part of the 36,434 bytes the major editors have contributed. Polyamorph (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that because I am an outsider who commented. It's just that my view is that unless there is some disruption occurring here (for example, if one or two enthusiasts keep promoting the xkcd link while others do not want it), then there is no reason for we outsiders to overrule the very capable editors who maintain this quality article (I am well aware that general consensus overrules local opinion, I'm just saying that in this case there is no reason to do so). Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well what you mention is exactly what was happening, there was disruptive behaviour with respect to some editors repeatedly including the link and others repeatedly removing it which ultimately led to the page being FULLY protected on more than one occasion. Polyamorph (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Inertial frame of reference
There are some instances in this article where two terms are used in this article interchangeably to describe the frames of reference. One is stationary and rotating frames and the other is the inertial and rotating frames. I think we should define the terms "stationary" and "rotating" frames as inertial and non-inertial frames of reference, respectively, at the beginning of the article (with wikilinks to the appropriate article) and then for consistency (and simplicity for less experienced readers) use only the terms stationary and rotating frames in the rest of the article. Does this sound ok? Polyamorph (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, non-inertial is too vague. We need rotating.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I agree that rotating is the best term to use. My point was that there is a lack of consistency in the article. We need to be clear by defining "rotating" as non-inertial and "stationary" as inertial? I just wanted to make sure that the rotating frame can be described as a non-inertial frame and a stationary frame can be described as an inertial frame before making the necessary changes. Then we can use the terms "stationary" or "rotating" where appropriate once they are defined correctly. Polyamorph (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have it right. Inertial includes stationary and non-inertial includes rotating.  The more general terms are sometimes preferred, but for talking about CF, the rate of rotation is the key thing.   Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok I have made the change here. However I think that an inertial frame isn't necessary stationary, so perhaps it would be better to change all instances of "stationary frame" to "inertial frame". Provided it's defined at the top of the derivation which it now is. Polyamorph (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could just leave it as is and just state that although it is denoted the "stationary" frame, it isn't necessarily stationary, as alluded to in the lead.Polyamorph (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Single United Centrifugal Force Article
I've made a proposal here for a single united centrifugal force article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Centrifugal_force#Single_Centrifugal_Force_Article Such a united article shouldn't need any cartoon if the issues and controversies are adequately explained. David Tombe (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)