Talk:Physics/wip/Archive1

Physics Improvement Page WIP
Rationale: ''Over the last 3 or 4 months the Physics article has suffered from a significant decrease in quality and focus. Some of the article has been left relatively intact, but other parts of it have endured multiple edit storms. The Wiki philosophy is very much that this is how things should naturally evolve, but unfortunately that is not what has happened here. When multiple edit storms occur over pieces of complex text and fundamental layout then the result is usually a mishmash of undirected, unfocussed work. This page is here to allow all interested editors to work on developing a single, focussed, Consensus driven article. Traditionally this would be done on the main article, and that consensus would be reached on the main article talk page - unfortunately there are a number of factors which has proven to make this difficult. There are one or two editors who are highly resistant to discussing any aspect of changes made, preferring to simply revert others hard work without a care (and also using multiple accounts to do so). The complex and lengthy nature of the article also makes working on it difficult, as discussion may be continuing and then someone browses by and simply changes something that was recently agreed upon (and the longer and more complex an article is the more likely that is going to happen). Hence it was decided to attempt to work through all aspects of the article at this WIP page, where discussion on each aspect can take place, consensus be reached, then the content be implemented into the WIP article. Once the process of review is completed then hopefully the outcome should be an article that is of much higher standard than it currently is (and it can then be copied over to the main article page).''

Contributions are welcomed from all editors who are prepared to respect the Consensus process. The basic point of this effort must be that consensus is reached on each point/structure/layout/text before it is implemented across - if editors simply come in and edit this WIP article to make it read as they wish then all we will be left with is the same mess and problems that we have on the main article page (i.e. no focus, and nothing but revert wars). The more editors we can get on board whom are prepared to become part of the effort then the more valuable the final outcome will be. SFC9394 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
''Is this a good idea? Does it have the backing of other editors? If not what should be done to improve a failing article?'' SFC9394 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any other way forward. We may have to semiprotect the finished article when it is copied to physics, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. --Michael C. Price talk 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also don't see any other way forward... after returning to wikipedia after a wikivacation, I was astonished on how much worse the state of Physics had become. Karol 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be helpful if the proponent would provide a link to the version of the article that he/she feels was the last one before the edit storms reduced the quality. Alternatively, I notice that the article was previously rated as a "Good Article", and subsequently was rated "A Class" on the Wikipedia 1.0 assessment scale. Perhaps the state of the article at the time one of those ratings was given would be a good "benchmark" against which to compare the current state of the article.--Srleffler 23:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've placed what I felt was the last good version at Physics/wip. --Michael C. Price talk 23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that.--Srleffler 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

History section
I propose that the History section should be much abbreviated, with much of the history of physics covered in the separate article History of physics, as per summary style. This suits the way readers are likely to approach the material. Someone reading an article on physics is likely to be interested mainly in what it is, what sort of problems are studied, etc. Someone who is interested in the history of physics, is likely to want the greater depth that can be best provided in a separate article. The topic is too big to be handled well in a subsection of the main article.--Srleffler 23:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Michael C. Price talk 23:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since that article already exists, this article needs not more than a very short section - or even just a sentence with a bold-faced pointer. If it's just a sentence, it can be placed rather high up on the page, just after the lead section. See Special relativity wich similarly points to History of special relativity. Harald88 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Major revert?
I have on several occasions done what I call a "major revert" wherein I revert an article to the state that it was in months before. The idea is to reset things if an article has gone in the "wrong direction", and to break the "inertia" present after such a thing has happenned. Obviously this is not to done lightly, but if you can honestly say that the article was in substantially better shape at a previous time, then this is an option worthy of consideration.

Going back three weeks is actually not all that major of a revert in any case. I have gone back over six months at times. BTW - Do not worry about the efforts of other editors being "lost". Anything worthwhile will quickly be restored to the article. The goal here is to get a reasonable baseline to work from. Also do be advised that all of my major reverts have had the support of a consensus of editors, and half the time even have the support of the editor(s) who "degraded" the page.

I will not do a major revert myself as I am new here, and it is important that whoever does the major revert be ready, willing, and able to stand behind it. (After all, the other half of the time there is a short but boisterous edit war before the major revert "sticks".)

Finally, this is not to preclude any other changes that people may agree on (such splitting off the history of physics into a seperate article). Rather, it may permit those changes to be done from a better base, and also to be discussed in talk:Physics itself. --EMS | Talk 04:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree, and think a major revert (the version at Physics/wip is OK) is a better way to start than semiprotection. With a censensus, we should be able to build on the reverted version and bring the positive changes since that revision. If that fails, then semiprotection should be considered, but not before trying the major revert. A revert is also quicker, so the article will improve fast - in my view the support of about 10 regular contributors to the article should be enough to go ahead with the revert... I'm willing to do it myself. Karol 11:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Wikipedia way is not to have a hidden article that suddenly will pop up out of nothing, without public discussion. That said, this page may nevertheless be useful to prepare such a public discussion / listing of motivations, and it may of course serve as sandbox. Harald88 21:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Structure
Hello. I had come to the conclusion that any effort to improve the physics page was ultimately futile, but since SFC9394 so kindly asked me to contribute to this page, I have decided to make one last focused attempt. I think it will involve much more work, but will ultimately be better to start over rather than paint over the cracks. In this way, we can first discuss what we want the article to achieve and how to go about it before expressing our own opinions. So, shall we start from first principles and begin by discussing the structure of the article? How about the following sections:
 * Definition - preferably as general as possible with as little conditions set upon nature as possible.
 * Introduction - the definition will probably be quite short, relatively abstract, and esoteric to the lay reader; so this section should flesh-out what general ideas we believe to be true, how physics is generally conducted etc.
 * History - it was once said that, "a person who keeps one eye on the past is blind in one eye, whereas one who keeps both fixed on what is ahead is blind in both."
 * Major principles - the article should also, to an extent, educate. Thus, some brief discussion about major ideas should possibly be added.
 * Future(?) - There are many interesting ideas that cannot yet be confirmed to be true but nevertheless interest the public. We should perhaps explain a little bit about these ideas in a section of their own.
 * Misconceptions(?) - I'm not sure about including this section myself, but there are many ideas that the public completely misunderstand (classic example: ZPE).
 * Links and Suggested Reading - Providing links to national academies is probably the best way to finish the article of. I'm less sure about the "suggested reading" though because it will probably just degenerate to a list of any old personally interesting books that some particular editor read. If this bit is included, we should just keep to the core texts (Landau, Jackson etc).

Let's first decide if we should include any more, or kill any of these sections, and then decide what specifically should go in them (some of them are probably already done and so will require little work). Krea 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like you disagree with the general structure of the article as it is. I personally think that the existing structure isn't bad, and I guess that most people here are more concerned with the contents. Harald88 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It may well be a good idea to restructure the article, but that requires prototyping the changes in a sandbox or user subpage first. Looking forwards a little ways, this may be a good idea, but for now the issue is how to get the article back into the shape that it was and to defend it.  So I support working with the current structure in the short term, but do feel free to experiment off to the side along the lines that you are suggesting.  As for the proposed sections:
 * "Major Principles" may be a good idea, but you will need to keep any discussions breif and leave the details to the articles on the various principles themselves.
 * You don't want a "Future" section, but a "Current controversies" section and/or a "Recent discoveries" section may be useful instead. After all "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball".
 * I have serious doubts about the "Misconceptions" section. I doubt that you can create a coherent treatment of the many, many misconceptions that exist.  Ceratinly as a section in a broad-brush article like this one you will most likely find that you have no space for it.
 * Finally, you may want to look at Gravitation, where much material was off-loaded into related articles. This may provide a way to expand the coverage on this topic without having the article become a monstrosity. --EMS | Talk 21:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, I agree: I think that we are all itching to concentrate on the content; but, I also think it would be irresponsible for us to do so. With patience, we have a fantastic opportunity to vastly improve the article. Take, for example, sections 2 and 3 titled, "Classical, quantum and modern physics" and, "Branches of physics" respectively. In my humble opinion, those two sections overlap significantly and can thus be structured better. Ems57fcva, I also agree with what you say, but I took it that the point of this article was to place emphasis on improvement rather than defence, as SFC9394 says below. I agree with every one of your suggestions above, but, as Noetica rightly says in the section immediately below, we should discuss what the aims of this whole page and article are first, just so that we are all singing from the same hymn book. So, let me continue below... Krea 00:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A "top-down" strategy
The attempt to settle structure early is one part of the effort to work from the large to the small: from the general to the particular, from governing principles down to the eventual details. I agree with those who want to address these broad questions first, and I disagree with those like Harald88, who seems happy to move on to content straight away ("...I guess that most people here are more concerned with the contents").

Even before we look at structure, though, I think we should look at the goals of the article, and how we want it to fit into the whole suite of Wikipedia articles covering the sciences. If structure and these other general matters are not addressed here, we cannot achieve a consensus that all of us will want to defend against partisan, arbitrary, or ill-considered alteration: and that is paramount, I would have thought.

Myself, I am most concerned with getting a consensus for the early part of the article. By now it should be obvious that definition and broad principles are highly contentious, and that little else can be resolved if we don't first work together with great patience and care on these. I propose that we do that!

I further propose that, after a short lead-in, there be a section headed "Foundations", or something like that. It could include a sketch of the beginnings of thought about physics, an instructive etymology (yes, that's both relevant and revealing, going beyond the Greek to a Proto-Indo-European root), the most encompassing and unexceptionable definition, with consequent treatment of relations with the other sciences (and with metaphysics and mathematics, perhaps), and finally something on method and limits (to cover, for example, whether physics is essentially an empirical science, or whether that is just an entrenched preconception, doomed to fail in any case as physics extends its scope further beyond the middle-sized observables of the world). We don't have to do everything! Generalising from the remarks of an editor contributing to discussion weeks ago, some things about physics are true for all of the natural sciences, so that some things ought to be sorted out there, and as usual in Wikipedia well-chosen links will work wonders.

Getting all of this foundational work right would necessarily involve philosophical expertise. Some will be able to contribute with this, others will not. Conversely, some will be able to fill in detail in the remainder of the article, and others (like me) will hold back in that phase of the development.

That's my view of a way forward, anyway. Noetica 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't say I see a need to dive into the problematic depths of proto-Indo-European etymology. Also I like the idea, mentioned earlier, of all historical matters hived off into the exant history of physics.  I think etymology is more suited in that article.  This article should reflect physics as it is today (and, yes, that would include a statement that it is an empirical science).  --Michael C. Price talk 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael, there is nothing problematic about the Proto-Indo-European. I claim that it is relevant and revealing. If you have not researched the matter, as I have, how can you take exception? I agree with you that many matters belong in history of physics, and not in the primary article on physics. But to discuss the foundations of physics (in the broad sense of "foundation"), we do need to touch on history, including the history of terms. Finally, I note your insistence that physics must be declared an empirical endeavour. I say, once more, that this needs revisiting. In the end, we don't have to make any declaration for or against. It is an easy matter to give coverage to the dominant conception of physics as thoroughly empirical, while at the same time showing that there have been, and are again recently, differing views. If we insist on establishing a "party line", we will always have dissent. And there will never be consensus or progress. Noetica 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not "take exception" but I do disagree and I shall continue to until you persaude me otherwise. How I can disagree with someone who claims much more knowledge?  Quite easily, I'm afraid.  Experience shows that the degree is learning claimed is poor indicator of veracity.  I agree with your position as stated above re empiricism and consensus.  --Michael C. Price talk 00:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

May I rudely interrupt? We have already lost our focus: let us first decide, as Noetica says, upon what the point of this article should be. Let us quibble with the details when the time to do so presents itself. SFC9394 has made his opinion on this matter known below, so shall we continue there? Krea 01:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading in Physics Today that students tend to come out of elementary physics classes thinking that physics is about memorizing and plugging numbers into various unrelated formulas. The unity of physics, which is so clear to experts, needs to be explained somehow to the non-mathematical. This article seems to be the main place to attempt that. It also needs to serve as an index to the next level physics articles. David R. Ingham 21:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

24 Hours of Air Time
As the person who got the ball rolling on this one I should address a few points (taken from pieces of discussion above) now that the idea has had 24 hours of airing.

Firstly, and above all else, the idea of this subpage was not to hide away with a small cabal of 2 or 3 editors to create their article then move it across without asking anyone. If this idea is going forward a dab on the physics page (and talk page) letting readers/editors know that this review is taking place, and that their input and participation would be greatly received would be an obvious way of ensuring that as many as possible can get involved. The more involved in the discussion process the more agreeable (and likely to stick) the final result will be.

Obviously with most other articles that could just be done on the main page and there would be no problems. A quick look at the last 24 hours of the main article history details the problem - editors are trying to improve things and tighten up what we have and we have blanket anon. reverts with "No. This is right. Older contains too many mistakes" as the edit summary. I doubt very much that a clear and 100% consensus driven improvement will be successful if we have things being reverted all over the shop by folks not interested in talking about it. Quick example - we spend a week or so working on what everyone agrees is a good, well-rounded and detailed introduction - then anon. comes in and just reverts back to what he/she wants. Obviously we can just revert back - but what happens once we have around half the sections at consensus level? Basically the whole thing is going to become a never ending game of Whac-A-Mole which we waste a lot of time playing instead of getting on trying to improve. That sort of sums it up for me - I am very happy to spend a good deal of time trying to improve this physics article – then defend those improvements as required (the wiki philosophy should obviously not be lost - if someone makes changes that are an improvement then they should evidently be welcomed). What I don't have near as much time and patience for is to spend time trying to improve and defend at the same time. Doing that is just swimming against the tide - and I can't really be bothered exerting a lot of effort in discussions if it is all just getting wrecked by storms every single day.

Basically the point of this WIP process was to discuss each area/section of the article, reach broad agreement on what it should included/discluded, and then implement. With working on the main article there is too much clutter and it is too easy for someone to just bypass the "consensus before editing" approach and simply change it all.

The original idea was, as Krea succinctly put it:

''to make one last focused attempt. I think it will involve much more work, but will ultimately be better to start over rather than paint over the cracks. In this way, we can first discuss what we want the article to achieve and how to go about it before expressing our own opinions''

I would add to that that I think there is no reason that content we have can’t be reused – but everything should be reviewed and agreed upon rather than just changing to odd bit here and there to “hold the old crumbling house up” that is not going to really make much of a long term difference.

My view is that if this just gets switched back to main page talk then we will just fall back towards the situation as it existed over the last couple of months - which when you read down the talk page looks like a dog chasing it's own tail rather than moving forward. We need to have a clear consensus (!) on whether this idea is a yay or a nay before discussions get too deep on actual article content. Comments welcomed. SFC9394 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I completely agree with SFC9394: I also do not want to defend an article that I hope will be replaced by a superior article here engendered through our combined efforts. I hope that I have understood SFC9394 correctly in that I agree that we must first decide on what our aims are before any implementation. The first question that we must ask ourselves is this: What is our ultimate aim? Do we wish to keep the existing article and amend it as agreed by consensus, or do we wish to create a new article (that may be based on the old one if necessary, and will begin with a discussion of its structure)? I propose a simple vote: "Yay" to amend the existing article, and "Nay" to create a new one. Shall we leave voting open until midnight Staurday 12th August? In any case, I shall cast my vote. Krea 01:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Krea 01:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC) - NAY
 * I don't really see these as alternatives nor as an "ultimate aim". But if you want the answer to what seems like an ill-formed question -YAY --Michael C. Price talk 01:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I always feared this would happen: a vote for whether the vote is reasonable! Ok, forget the vote: what do you suggest? Krea 01:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My "ill-formed" question essentially asked whether the structure of the article was adequate or not; so, how about this as the first question that needs addressing: Does the structure of the article need revision? Krea 01:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah! Yes - revise.  I liked the suggestion of merging sections 2,3,4,5 (some of the divisions seriously overlap) -- although I'm open to suggestions as to the final structure. --Michael C. Price talk 02:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fight the edit war
SFC9394 wrote above:


 * Quick example - we spend a week or so working on what everyone agrees is a good, well-rounded and detailed introduction - then anon. comes in and just reverts back to what he/she wants. Obviously we can just revert back - but what happens once we have around half the sections at consensus level?

This is an example of a time when you hunker down and fight an edit war. If you are not willing to stand up for your edits, then the cranky anons will walk all over you. In fact, your being willing to be cowed by the anons is why this discussion is here to begin with. I assure you that if there is a group of editors working to get an article into good form by consensus, and someone else come along and starts opposing the existing consensus results, then in general all of the editors in the consensus effort band together against the interloper even if they agree with some of the new edits. Please realize that a single editor cannot win an edit war against a group, nor can two or three win against a much larger group.

I assure you that I have been involved in numerous edit wars. What I have learned is that people get discouraged very fast when their edits do not stick, and then either adjust or cease to edit the page. If someone suffers a 3RR violation or otherwise gets blocked they are often "defanged" by the slap in the face that a block is. So please do not underestimate the power of the revert, or of administrative action when it is needed and justified. I know that edit wars are not pretty, but when you are in the right it is imperative that you fight them. At the least, they bring the contrary editors to the table, or at least the talk page, where the issue can be setled. Also, if talking does not work, then it sets the stage the WP:RfC's and WP:RfAr's to come. --EMS | Talk 04:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with EMS: we must have some sort of solidarity. I wrote above concerning the need for a consensus that all of us will want to defend against partisan, arbitrary, or ill-considered alteration. This means that any one of us would defend the consensus article, even if we disagree amongst ourselves on details. We will always disagree about details, after all! But we should be able to get a consensus about what range of views we present in the article, and how we present them. I am reminded of a simple but instructive parallel: the absurd unending war over the spelling of "colour" (see talk:Color). I did a lot of work on that article, and though elsewhere I always spell the word "colour", I staunchly use and defend the consensus spelling in that article. A more complex example is Serial comma, where passions run high but editors of goodwill strive valiantly against their own prejudices. Noetica 06:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with EMS and Noetica. --Michael C. Price talk 07:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. But the question still remains: what is this page for? Do we defend the old article, or create a new one and defend that instead? Krea 12:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll admit that, contrary to my gloomy predictions, the edit war seems to be going well -- my vote now would be for just making the changes directly to physics as we agree them (after agreeing the overall direction first etc etc), but I'll go along with what ever the consensus decides. --Michael C. Price talk 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just realised how stupid I am: why don't we do both (to an extent)? We should change the physics article directly (and defend those changes) when it is appropriate to do so, and develop anything else here first that may be too complex to add directly to the physics article. In this way, we will develop an article here that is focused and well structured, whilst immediately seeing some of these benefits on the actual physics article. Any opinions? Krea 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's pretty simple: if anyone feels they want to change this page before they change the actual Physics page, then they can. In general, I see no reason to do so. If there were an all-out edit war, however, this page (or any other) can serve as a temporary workplace. In any case, you don't have to worry about the fate of this page... if it becomes unused it will get deleted.Karol


 * Krea - You can use this subpage as the sandbox for a rewrite of the article if you like.  It makes little difference where the rewrite is drafted as long as it is not done in Physics itself.  Standard protocol is that the rewrite gets drafted elsewhere and then presented to the editors of the page.  After that it gets considered, debated, and even editted a ways by the group.  If a consensus develops that the new page is ready for "prime time" and is better than the existing one, then it is moved (or rather copied) to the article itself.
 * Karol - There is no need to use this as an archive location. The edit history alreay has everything archived.  You need to use the tools that Wikipedia already has available to you rather than trying to generate your own. --EMS | Talk 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. So this page is in principle needless. And this discussion should have been done at Talk:Physics, where it is harder to miss. Karol 18:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Shall we begin? Krea 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need anyone's persmission to begin. (This is Wikipedia after all.)  Just choose a place for doing the draft (here is OK if noone objects) and show us your vision for this article. --EMS | Talk 14:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just that I didn't want to be the one who started! Noetica suggested we should first clarify our goals and decide how the article would fit within the other scientific articles so I suppose that is where we should start. I'd personally like the article to be accurate foremost and then accesible to the lay. I'd prefer to tell people nothing rather than something wrong or misleading (this might spark a debate!). Finally, like probably everybody else here, I would like to see parts of the article that are covered elsewhere to just be linked to with a sentence or two for an introduction (or whatever is appropriate) and keep most of the article explaining what physics is, how it's done, how the individual topics relate to each other within the general framework of physics etc. Krea 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with your point about off-loading stuff onto appropriate subsidary articles. In fact I think we can start there immediately (a bottom-up approach).  When that is complete it will be much easier to see what should remain in physics and how to structure it.  --Michael C. Price talk 19:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Manifesto for the edit war
I propose that any anonymous or apparently-new user who does any of the following should have their entire sequence of edits reverted on sight:
 * Removes content and replaces it with content of obviously inferior quality, or empty sections
 * Reverts to a version of the article with a radically different structure or organization
 * Changes the introductory image of the article without discussion
 * Reverts the wording of the introduction to a form that has previously failed to achieve consensus

(This list is incomplete; feel free to add to it.)

Drastic times call for drastic measures. If physics is to survive as a good article, it must be defended. Much of the discussion above has been about reaching some consensus on an ideal structure for the article. That is fine, but does not address the other side of the problem. Much of the recent degradation of the article has been due to a particular style of editing, rather than the specific content or structure. We need to identify the hallmarks of the behavior that is ruining the article and prevent such edits from sticking. --Srleffler 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I endorse the manifesto. Instant and ruthless reverts!  Since we are talking about the main article, are you going to post this credo on its talk page as well?  --Michael C. Price talk 07:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ruthless response to ruthless edits? Sounds also reasonable to me. Harald88 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I will certainly enforce these rules if I ever see that happening. Meanwhile, Michael, do you want to start with your bottom-up approach? Krea 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, also. Karol 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I too have been thinking that it is not necessary for the Physics article to be so long that it is unmanageable and an easy target for vandals. As in a computer program, duplicated material is always a maintenance problem.  There are already more specific articles, usually several levels down.  David R. Ingham 20:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

History of physics
...Meanwhile, Michael, do you want to start with your bottom-up approach? Krea 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll start moving the history stuff to history of physics. --Michael C. Price talk 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait! Do we think that, on the basis of a quick exchange between Krea and Michael, we are ready to start making radical changes that have even the remotest chance of enduring? Would such changes represent the consensus that this page was set up to achieve? I suggest more discussion here, first. On the other hand, it can do no harm at all to improve related articles, with a view to linking to them eventually. That's always going to be valuable – and the timing of such work is not critical. When we contemplate the role that the core physics article is to play among all of the science articles, we might consider two extremes:
 * Maximalism. The article Physics is huge and all-embracing, so that for example thermodynamics is treated almost as fully in it as it is in the article Thermodynamics.
 * Minimalism. The article Physics is a mere skeleton, with many links to other articles that provide the flesh.


 * I think both extremes are ill-advised. We should, I think, work towards a "middle way" solution, which may include substantial overlap in coverage between the core article and what could be called its satellites. No harm in that. But any such solution should be determined explicitly, with discussion from all interested editors. Patience! It's impatience that led to the current difficulties. Noetica 00:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Noetica, I agree with your call for caution overall, but I think the history section may be a particularly clear-cut case. Before we proceed with the discussion, though, may I suggest that you read Summary style? This process is not as arbitrary as your comments suppose. There is a clear consensus-generated guideline for when to move material out of a major article, what to move, and what to replace it with. The history section seems like an example of something to which we can apply summary style with little debate, and deal with that section up front while we proceed in parallel to discuss the structure of the rest of the article. Note also that it wasn't just a quick exchange between Michael and Krea. I proposed the idea above, another editor agreed and no one objected. I think we may be pretty close to consensus on this one section.--Srleffler 02:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood, Srleffler. But it is hard for any of us to grasp just what has been agreed upon and what is still to be debated, if we don't have more order in this discussion at least. For this reason, I urge restraint; and I urge people to consider the suggestions in the next section. Noetica 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with only a short summary of the history of physics in the main artcle. David R. Ingham 21:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur that the history section should be a broad, shallow summary. Beyond that change though, I think it would be good to discuss the article structure (at Talk:Physics) before revising section content. -Serapio 09:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The need for patient planning, and possibly for a moderator (continued)

 * Just to jump back in after a few days away on business - I think this [Referring to what I say in the section above, I believe. Noetica 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)] is a valid point. The discussion so far has flowed along on specific points here and there.  I still get the feeling we are poking and pulling through the bale of straw rather than picking the whole thing up and moving it.  If all editors want to get involved then we are going to need to set out some structure.  The main page redesign project, as hellishly long and convoluted as that was (and I am not suggesting we go for anything as bogged down in detail as that) is a good standard.  Set out the aims, set up a point for discussion - discuss it - after a suitable period drawn the discussion phase to a close - start to outline what the consensus/compromise line is - settle on the final consensus - repeat for next point.  For some points this will be a simple matter of which everyone is in agreement, for others not so and we may have to spend a bit of time.  We have got enough decent editors on board here, so this should be possible to get a good process going. SFC9394 00:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, SFC9394. Perhaps to manage that sort of measured and orderly discussion, we ought to have someone functioning as a moderator. Someone to keep track of proposals that come up: to see that they get a proper airing; to call for votes (when that seems appropriate); to maintain a register of decisions that are taken, and of decisions yet to be concluded. There is plenty of goodwill among the talented editors contributing to this discussion, and they are all keen to get to work on improving the article. But even talented editors need such moderation when the task is as sensitive and complex as this one. If people think this is a good idea, I would nominate you, SFC9394, for that "secretarial" role. Noetica 01:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that that is the logical approach to take. Concerning the history section, we will reach the same conclusion independent of the means by which it is decided, but to do so through this ordered approach would be the wisest course to follow. So, let's decide who should moderate: I have no objections to SFC9394. Krea 03:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the consensus is for a moderator, fine. Anyone who's particpated here would be okay with me.  Re the history off-loading suggested -- the idea was mooted awhile ago and I've seen no dissent.  Even Noetica agreed, so what's the problem?  Apart from me not having started yet?  :-) --Michael C. Price talk 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am happy to take on a secretarial role to keep things organised if all other editors are happy with that. Ultimately it is probably something that suites me fairly well on this one - I have no real super strength views on specific content with regard to this article - my main concern is simply trying to improve it and get something that represents a quality piece of work (listening to the download of the Jim Giles talk at the wikimania conference, mp3 here, reminded me that we have a duty to get things in order, as this is one of the principle science article pages that gets read, and there is no excuse for it not being as good as possible). SFC9394 19:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just butting in here to say I've been following this discussion with interest. The main article was and still is going downhill fast, and this seems like a very good way forward. If I may, I'll pop in every now and then and perhaps add a comment or two from a physicist's perspective. --MichaelMaggs 19:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As our newly-appointed moderator (congratulations!), perhaps SFC9394's first role could be to decide whether there's yet enough of a consensus to move the history section out. I'd go along with the suggestion, as it is pretty much a self-contained chunk of text.--MichaelMaggs 20:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is all healthy. I hope that SFC9394 will feel free to establish a sequencing of decision-making and decision-implementation from now on, and that it will be respected so that we can all work in the same general direction. One thing I'm just a little concerned about is the flow of text on this page. It's only procedural, and it's easily fixed if we pay attention to such things as apt indentation, clear indication of points that we are addressing (which? and whose?), etc. For example, Michael's neat link (see his post at 06:56, 12 August) to something I had said was unambiguous and direct, and did not interfere with the flow, for anyone not wanting to be sidetracked. Incidentally, Michael, I think we may not disagree too much. Sure, I said that a great deal belongs more in the history article than in the core article. But I also suggested, and still do, that we need something on history, and more crucially on what I call foundations, in the core article. We may disagree on the details of that, but it can now be worked out. I now await directions from our moderator. Noetica 23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't really see what this page is for. Why isn't this discussion going on on the Talk:Physics page? Isn't it just making the redundancy problem worse? David R. Ingham 21:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * David, I think this page is a good idea. Ideally a talk page should be a sufficient forum, but experience proved that it wasn't working and was unlikely to start working. There are many competing broad orientations (historical, contemporary–practical, philosophical, etc.) in this very general topic Physics, and a clash is inevitable. Here we can work it all out, and get a consensus that we'll all want to defend – which I continue to stress as the overall goal. (By the way, MichaelMaggs: it was thoughtless of me to refer to "Michael" earlier as if there were only one Michael. Good to see you here, too!) Noetica 02:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It could go on the physics talk page, but why not place the discussion in the same article in which we will be making our revisional changes to the physics article? The concern of redundancy will not be factor: the useful editors, such as yourselves, will edit and discuss here, while the not-so-useful editors will continue to ruin the physics article and disrupt the physics talk page. Right now, it is my humble suggestion to wait until SFC9394 provides us with a plan to proceed and refrain (as difficult as that is for all of us due to our eargerness!) from making any structural or informational suggestions. Krea 12:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I have been out for a few days. All is now quiet on the western front and I should be back around everyday to hopefully get things moving.  I am happy to set out a structure and encourage debate along specific lines at a time; that is the only way we are going to be able to tackle such a large and complex article.  Whether the debate takes place here or on the main talk page is 50/50.  If things were to move to the main talk page then it needs to be archived so we can start afresh (it contains quite a bit of unfocused circular discussion ATM and is 151kb - way over a sensible size).  Ultimately the physics/wip article page will still be needed as a sandbox to float the ideas for discussion - there is no way we can get useful work done if we have to refer to the ever fluid main article.  If we can get clarification on whether the discussion should remain here (where it is connected to the wip page), or over on the main talk page (where it is more accessible and easily contributable) then we can get started. SFC9394 23:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the discussion should all should happen here, SFC9394. Do people agree that the moderator can simply make such decisions? Then we can indeed move things along. Noetica 23:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am happy to go along with what others think - the mod. tag is something I am not really comfortable taking. Secretary or something like that, but ultimately I am not elected or in any sort of proper position, so while I am happy to move things on, "condense" the debates and add some structure I am just an ordinary editor and I don't want to be in a position of making executive decisions. SFC9394 23:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that there are enough intelligent people here to justify any decisions made and, therefore, I think that the discussion should happen here. Krea 00:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I advise against having a seperate cabal here. I understand the need for people to step back, get their bearings, and make some plans for moving forward.  Certainly as a sandbox for a joint rewrite this is also a useful place.  However, the main "action" in terms of the decision-making on the srticle itself should be done in talk:physics itself.  At some point, this group has to reintegrate itself into the overall community of editors of physics, and IMO the sooner the better.  This is an extension of my "fight the edit war" advice above:  You need to engage with Wikipedia community as a whole, and not set yourselves apart. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The idea of a "moderator" is somewhat un-wiki, and having a physics cabal is a bad idea. This page is appropriate if the goal is to thrash out a new article from scratch, but probably isn't appropriate for discussion of how to edit or restructure this article.--Srleffler 03:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the "moderator" business. If people wish to look to someone to finalize decisions for the group, that is good, especially if the moderator is looking to the group for input and direction.  After all, noone is under any obligation to listen to anyone else here.  If SFC9394 does a good job of creating a community gestalt, then that editor will be listened to and respected.  If not, then the moderator role will simple unmake itself, and that will be that. --EMS | Talk 03:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Srleffler has hit the nail precisely on the head: this page will only be justified if creating a new article from scratch. But, it was my impression that this was practically what some of us intend to do. I thought that the goal was to completely revise both the structure and content of the article beyond superficial changes, and for this it would be folly to involve too many editors. Some may call this unwiki-like, but I believe it is true that too many cooks spoil the broth. The creation of the article will be unwiki-like, but its further evolution will not be, and that is the most important thing in any democratic and open system. Krea 12:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Subject to anything SFC9394 may suggest (and I'll happily go along with anything proposed), I believe it would be best to stay here and work up a completely new article, section by section, from scratch. SFC9394 could guide us by telling us which bit to work on at any one time. When it's done, we then replace the whole of the existing page and move back to the main Talk. Of course, any one who wants to contribute constructively will no doubt be welcome here, so we're not actually a closed group.--MichaelMaggs 13:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The fun of the wiki world! Looks like we are about split between those than want to start afresh here and those that want to work on a more revisional basis from the main page. Rock, Paper, Scissors? !! SFC9394 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you tell us what you'd like us to do, and we'll all (I hope) show our spirit of co-operation by going along with it.--MichaelMaggs 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like our moderator has some work to do! Let's just make a list of reasons to keep the discussion here and a list of reasons to move the discussion back to the physics talk page and have a straight vote after considering both cases. Krea 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Accelerator physics"
This belongs to applied physics, not particle physics. David R. Ingham 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's do it!
All right, we have a moderator (or secretary, if that designation is preferred). Not everyone will accept that move, but it doesn't matter. Those who wish to form a bloc, with someone recording and marshalling the intentions of that bloc, are perfectly free to do so. If in future the bloc chooses to defend some decision or other that has been made under this arrangement, that's fine. If anyone else wants to oppose the results of such a consensus (and possibly have their edits more rapidly reversed than might otherwise have happened), that too is all part of the rich tapestry that is Wikipedia. Can we get on with it, then?

A suggestion for action:

I move that we work here (not at the Physics article itself), starting with a structure we initiate from scratch, with sufficient discussion and deliberation on that structure before we move on to filling it with content, bearing in mind that anything we value in the stock of existing structure and existing content may of course be kept.

Who's for? Who's against? Who wants to modify that motion before we go further? Moderator, please manage the discussion that I have just proposed. Noetica 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For the motion to remain here: for
 * For the motion to start from scratch: for
 * Krea 11:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have let things lie fallow for a week, and nobody has raised any objections - here was the place to do it and nobody has bothered. While I am happy for this to be done from scratch I think we can do that while still using the old material (obviously junk can be junked).  I don't think a complete disregarding of what we have is really in keeping with the wiki philosophy, after all there is 3/4/5 year’s worth of content that folks have worked on in there somewhere.  I shall let this comment float for 24 hours then set the wheels in motion to get this started: archive this discussion for reference, setup the first discussion point on the article, (namely it's chapter structure and what each chapter should contain) and add dabs to the main article and it's talk page letting people know that a full review is taking place and they are welcome to join in. SFC9394 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, disregarding previous material would be wasteful. --Michael C. Price talk 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds a fine plan--MichaelMaggs 19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)