Talk:Physics/wip/Archive2

2. Article Structure - Layout & Chapter Focus
The first area of discussion, let's get the basic foundation of the building right before we start putting on the roof. The current layout (of the WIP - I think it would be a good idea that current always refers to the WIP page unless a link to a specific version is given) is detailed below. What stays? What goes? I think the basis here should be to work out what structure we want and a brief (i.e. one or two sentences) outline of what each chapter should be focussing on - detail will come later when each section is looked at and discussed in depth.

* 1 Introduction * 2 Classical, quantum and modern physics * 3 Branches of physics o 3.1 Central theories o 3.2 Major fields of physics * 4 Theoretical and experimental physics o 4.1 Fringe theories o 4.2 Phenomenology * 5 Applied physics * 6 History * 7 Future directions * 8 See also * 9 Notes * 10 Further reading o 10.1 Popular Reading o 10.2 University Level Textbooks + 10.2.1 Introductory + 10.2.2 Undergraduate + 10.2.3 Graduate + 10.2.4 History * 11 External links o 11.1 General o 11.2 Organizations

Thoughts, points, discussion and ideas welcomed. SFC9394 22:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Might it make sense to start from the version of the article that was rated "A-class" and "Good article"? How was the current WIP version chosen? Gnixon 01:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest what the starting WIP article is doesn't matter a huge amount. We are not just going to review it.  All it is doing is acting as a basis from which we can make major changes.  If there is something from another version that should be included then just link to it when making a point.  Obviously content from the past versions will be reused, but just because that version is on the WIP page doesn't make it any more important than content from another version which is not on the WIP page.  The point is that we are going to decide what goes in the article by reviewing it all and discussing it.  I am also a little unclear how the A-Class rating was given anyway.  The grading scheme gives an idea of what is required.  The process doesn't seem to include a full peer review stage (such as would be required to get an article to featured status). SFC9394 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Following my suggestion, I would have advocated starting from either the "Good Article" version:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&oldid=35157806


 * or from the "A-Class" version:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physics&oldid=53718884


 * but looking at them now, I'm surprised they were given those tags. I think the version at this page is somewhat better.  Gnixon 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The title "4. Theoretical and experimental physics" will have to change -- I mean that is all of physics isn't it? Similarly with "Classical, quantum and modern physics": perhaps should be separate chapters of "branches of physics"? --Michael C. Price talk 01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed on both points. It would make most sense, after we have introduced what physics is, to detail the various divisions of the subject - divisions between theoretical and experimental and divisions between classical, quantum and modern (what is modern being defined as - just current physics that doesn't necessarily involve QM?).  These divisions would be best detailed in a Areas of Physics type zone. SFC9394 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The reference structure is evidently horrible; so, how about this: Krea 00:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Definition - which should be as general as possible
 * 2) Introduction - which should explain how physics is conducted, how it relates to the other sciences, et cetera
 * 3) History - just a very brief introduction and whatever else is necessary to indicate the historical importance of physics.
 * 4) Principles - the current theories and the relastionships between them (also brief if links to specific topics exist)
 * 5) Current Topics - Current major conjectures and hypotheses (also brief if required)
 * 6) Links and Suggested Reading

A proposal
I think it might be useful to have something specific to get our teeth into, so here's a suggestion for the article structure. When considering what the headings should be, we should, I suggest, work to the following principles:

1. The article should be fairly simple and introductory, with links where needed to main articles elsewhere. 2. We should stick to the main points, and deprecate the addition on this main page of peripheral or obviously contentious material.
 * For example, we should mention Optics and Electromagnetism as separate basic concepts, and not leap straight into a discussion of the fact that 'of course' they are really the same thing, along with electroweak theory.
 * The page should be useful to an 11 year old who wants to know, in a nutshell, What is this thing called physics anyway?

THE PROPOSAL:

0. Lead para and definition of physics

1. Introduction General background, and how physics relates to other disciplines.

2. Basic concepts in physics Very brief introduction, with links to main articles, including
 * Classical mechanics
 * Thermodynamics
 * Optics
 * Electromagnetism
 * Quantum mechanics
 * Relativity
 * Particle physics

3. Major fields of current research General discussion, with reference to
 * Condensed matter physics
 * High energy physics
 * Astrophysics
 * Atomic, molecular and optical physics
 * Low-temperature physics
 * Theoretical physics

4. Applied physics General discussion of the applicability of physics to a variety of disciplines, including
 * Medical physics
 * Geophysics
 * Instrumentation
 * Environmental physics

5. History of physics Very brief introduction, with links to a separate main article.

6. References

7. External links

I suggest we remove the existing sections:
 * Future Directions
 * Should form part of the Current research section.


 * Booklist
 * This is, in my view, really unhelpful in its present form. It's unencyclopedic to include long lists of school textbooks. Very few readers of the article will have access to such books, and the presence of such a list encourages students simply to add whichever textbook their teacher is currently recommending. There are hundreds, if not thousands of such texts. We should I suggest restrict ourselves to sources that are needed to back up statements made in the article. All of these can then go in the References section.


 * Fringe theories
 * This is really asking for trouble. Unfortunately, physics attracts more than its fair share of crackpots, and we shouldn't encourage the listing of generally non-accepted theories here just because an individual or group says they count as physics. There's also the problem of dealing with theories such as Cold fusion which, although put forward by proper researchers, are not now generally accepted by the physics community. To avoid the article becoming overburdened with such issues, I propose we are rigorous in excluding them from this page, although we could of course link to a separate page called something like Discredited theories in physics.

I'm going to be away on holiday for the next ten days, so I won't be able to follow the discussion for a while, but I look forward to seeing where this has got to on my return. --MichaelMaggs 10:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should also add sections such as Influence on Modern Society? It would be a shame to merely discuss academic matters. Anyway, concerning the "academic matters", I think that what has been said is fine: I can't think of anything else to add (except details to the sections themselves). Pre-empting any objection as to the similarity of sections 2,3, and 4, I would say that they clearly show the core physical topics that serve to educate the modern student of physics (section 2: Basic concepts in physics), the areas of physics that will educate future generations (section 3: Major fields of current research), and the influence of physics onto other disciplines that will not, in general, be taught to future generations of aspiring physicists (section 4: Applied physics): I think that this is a logical way to structure the details of the subject. Krea 13:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly with the principle of keeping the article as bare-bones as possible, with copious links for further reading. By the nature of the subject and its appeal to Wikipedians, the Physics article will always have a tendency to grow into a sprawling, incoherent mess without careful supervision.  Physics makes a very good test article for the scalability of Wikipedia as it becomes more popular.  Gnixon 16:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I quite like this proposal. I do think the history section should be given greater prominence. In fact, I think it should be after the Introduction. Aside from that, I like the outline. I do hope we can get rid of the two long tables (I hate them, they add nothing to the article). As for the influence on modern society, I don't think it is necessary to have a section – why not discuss it in context? Discuss the bomb when mentioning relativity, or the technological impact in the applied physics section, the cultural impact in history etc... ? I also very much agree with removing future directions (crystal balls and all that), the booklist and fringe theories. –Joke 01:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the tables were a good way of providing many relevant links in a compact fashion. Keep them.  --Michael C. Price talk 05:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that the tables link to, e.g., major theories (for the first one), and fields/subfields in the second one. But I've found the "major subtopics" and "concepts" columns to be worse than useless, as are the "major theories" and "concepts." The choices of what to link in these sections are arbitrary, and nobody is likely to click on these links unless they already know what they mean. The reader would be better off going to the article for a major field (or subfield), such as physical cosmology, and clicking on the navigation banner, in which the links have usually been carefully thought out by the people involved in editing those groups of articles. When links start to get too dense, their usefulness diminishes substantially. I imagine we can incorporate most of the higher level links with "main" and "seealso" templates, that that will leave little need for the tables, and that most the work of navigating through the dense hierarchy of physics articles can be effectively shunted to subtopic articles. –Joke 14:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think having the histroy section right after the introduction would be more logical and I agree that it is a very important section of the article (in a way, more so than the section major fields of current research): after all, that is where I originally wanted to place it in my suggested structure. I'm no expert (or even remotely knowledgeable) on the interations of society, but I imagine it is not a negligible relationship. Thus, if I am correct (and this will need to be checked by someone more knowledgeable than myself) I would prefer to have the discussion in its own section rather than scattered all over the article. Brief mentions of, for example, the bomb in relativity are more than welcome, but a wider discussion would be more appropriate in solitude. Again, we need somebody to check if what I am saying is not utter b******s because I, myself, am just conjecturing. At worst, somebody will have to educate themselves, and then the rest of us, on the issue. As for the tables, if section 2: Basic concepts in physics survives as a list with a few introductory lines, the necessity of the tables would surly be negated. In effect, the tables will just become more elaborate (minus the useless concepts column I hope, and without the actual tabulation of course!). Krea 12:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. If we can find someone with the expertise to write a good, coherent section, then that would be great. By the way, "major fields of current research" should just be "major fields of research". Current seems redundant: is the reader really likely to think we're talking about major fields in the 19th century? –Joke 14:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Joke, I take it that you are agreeing with Krea that the history section should come just after the introduction, right? I agree with this also. But I propose now, as I did earlier, that rather than being simply a history section it should be a section headed Foundations. Why a simple history section? It risks being trivial and slight on the one hand (given the need to keep things tight, with many links to other articles), and redundant on the other (given that there is a whole article already devoted to history of physics). I would include in this brief Foundations section these elements:
 * Origins of physics (in ancient philosophy, etc.), closely connected with
 * detailed etymology (which in the case of physics just happens to be quite instructive), leading naturally enough to
 * a sketch history of physics and adjacent sciences, which pretty inevitably then calls for
 * a broad and philosophically literate consideration of the nature of physics (its scope and limits); which can then culminate tidily in
 * a working definition (one that respects both ideal and practical concerns).
 * I do not think that this should be aimed at a bright eleven-year-old. For that, let there be a article called Physics for children – or perhaps a whole Wikipedia for bright eleven-year-olds. I am competent and ready to coordinate the development of the section I propose, and I'll do this if our consensus allows for it, and if people want me to. If our consensus does not allow for it, I will not work towards it, nor press for it any more than I have just now. There are many other useful things to engage my time and effort. (I'm sure, by the way, that there are others who are also competent and ready to be involved in working up such a section.)
 * Foundations of physics ought to be covered somewhere or other, in any self-respecting encyclopedia. What better place for it than in the core Physics article? And what more appropriate content for any article bearing the simple title Physics? – Noetica 04:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's already a history of physics. --Michael C. Price talk 06:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly, Michael: there is already a history of physics. Perhaps there is already just about everything, somewhere or other. But what is your view of the detailed suggestions, accompanied by detailed reasons, that I make above, concerning Foundations? – Noetica 06:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's an excellent proposal; partly because it will cover topics that any good encyclopedic article should contain: as we all know, there is more to physics than it being merely a list of theories. Concerning the issue of comprehensibility, I would like to see the article as comprehensible as possible, but not at the expense of accuracy. Thus, if parts of the article cannot be understood by "bright eleven year olds" then so be it. So, as consensus is required, I will say right now that I agree to the Foundations section superseding the History of physics section, and I am happy to let Noetica begin it. Also, yes Joke, "current" is perhaps a little redundant! Krea 10:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics driven by physics?
One of the most important contributions that the field of Physics has made to the world is the copious amount of mathematics (integral calculus, anyone?) that have been invented with the original intent of solving cutting-edge physics problems. I think that this legacy is something that a lot of people that don't know much about physics are not really aware of, and a very important part of the field's effects on society. I'm not sure how this should be presented, but I'd say that it's least as important as direct applications of physics, as these mathematics are used throughout all scientific fields, and even some less-scientific fields, like economics and sociology. - JustinWick 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * True, physical problems have on many occasions created new mathematical insights and this should be mentioned in the article. Thus, I suggest that the subsection theoretical physics of section 3: Major fields of current research should be changed to Mathematical and theoretical physics to incorporate this relationship. Also, since nobody has objected to Noetica's proposal for over a week, are we ready to assume no objection is extant? Krea 13:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Heading towards some conclusions?
Some very good points there. Perhaps I could jump back in with my own thoughts before we ask our Moderator to sum up? Taking the issues in the order they've been mentioned over the last week or so:

1. Adding a section called Influence on Modern Society? I can understand the intent, but am a little concerned we'd inevitably end up with a very POV essay. Physics is pretty all-pervasive, actually, and such an essay could and probably would get very long and amorphous. Perhaps we could cover these concepts generally within the Applied physics section, after changing its name to something more generic like Applications of physics.

2. Moving up the History section to come after the intro?  Personally, I feel it's better coming later on. A reader looking at this page and wanting to understand what physics is can then browse the Basic concepts in physics section, before getting bogged down in historical detail. Some of the history stuff - "natural philosophy" etc - is likely to be pretty confusing to a reader who doesn't (yet) have a grasp of even the basics.

3. Delete 'current' from Major fields of current research.  Agreed.

4. Tables. Not part of this discussion, yet. To be dealt with when we are addressing content.

5. Foundations section?  Noetica's suggestions are good but unless I've misunderstood the structure proposed seems rather to cut across several other sections. Let's broaden things out a bit by renaming the History section as Historical foundations of physics.


 * 1. Origins of physics (in ancient philosophy, etc.)
 * Fine. Include in Historical foundations
 * 2. detailed etymology
 * Fine. Include in Historical foundations
 * 3. a sketch history of physics and adjacent sciences,
 * Fine. Include in Historical foundations
 * 4. a broad and philosophically literate consideration of the nature of physics
 * Not sure what's intended here. Isn't that covered by the Basic concepts in physics section?
 * 5. a working definition
 * Let's see how that fits in. It may turn out to be simplest to include the working definition up-front, as part of the lead paragraphs.

6. Comprehensibilty by eleven year olds. I'm quite content if we can aim for that, but to allow for the fact that it may not always be possible.

7. Mathematics driven by physics? This is an interesting idea that deserves an article in its own right. We don't want to get into too much detail in this general article, particularly mathematical detail, and my suggestion is that we should include brief notes on this topic in the Historical foundations section, with cross-references to a more comprehensive article (once somebody has written one).

Are we getting close to some sort of consensus? --MichaelMaggs 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're getting close, however I'd also like to add that it just occurred to me that one influence (rather than application) of Physics has been its interactions with Philosophy. Because of relativity, quantum physics, string theory, and even cosmology, accademic and lay philosophers think of things differently now. Parallel universes, different frames of reference, the "fluidity" of space, and even fundamentals of philosophy like free will, determinism, and consciousness have all been affected deeply (mainly promoting a rise in forms of relativism and an increased interest in traditionally Eastern concepts in the west), and even if this is not fully covered here, it deserves some mention, and probably its own article (or several, as the different parts of physics had wildy different effects). Sorry to add more fish to the kettle (whatever that means), but I thought I'd toss this out there! - JustinWick 11:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Points in need of clarification
To Attempt to round all this into one series of points for folks to reach consensus on. The sections:

1. Definition

2. Background, relation to other sciences

?. History

4. Principles/Concepts - The basic areas, with relatively contained explanation and linkage to each full article

5. Current Topics/Current Research - An outline of the current areas of principle research (ie. dividing along most normal overall research group lines).

6. Refrences, Further reading, External Links etc (ie. the "usual")

So the current things we need to conclude (based on discussions above) are:


 * 1. Does the history section read as purely a "historical look back" or does it broaden to include a bit of etymology, metaphysical detail and thus become Historical Foundations?


 * 2. Dependent on point 1, where does this "history" section go? After the intro or after the concepts and research sections?


 * 3. As an overall aim which affects the whole article - who should this article be aimed at - kids, tennagers, adults, physists? WP philosophy tends to suggest we shouldn't be writing something that is unintelagible to those without a physics degree.  Nothing procludes all bases being covered here - starting off basic and increasing complexity as the reader progresses.


 * 4. The current reserch (5) section. What does this aim at?  The scope and contents of each major area, the specific current research in each area, or both?


 * 5. Should there be a Influence on Modern Society section? Does this require a section or is it likely that this can be touched upon in the intro or foundations/history section?


 * 6. A.O.B.

SFC9394 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, taking up a couple of SFC9394's points for discussion, I'll make some observations about recent moves. First thing to say: there are very few recent moves! I think it's a pity there is not more participation here. Ideally, this would be seen as a page where consensus is developed, so that if people have objections to the way things are shaping up they should "speak now or forever hold their peace." But there is reason to doubt that many editors see it that way. I call on editors who are genuinely interested in the Physics article's future to participate actively here, and respond to the questions that are posed.

Myself, I am especially interested in what I call Foundations. I see that Krea endorses my proposal, and Michael Maggs has analysed it in some detail. I'll respond to some of what Michael says, with his text quoted in italics:


 *  5. Foundations section?  Noetica's suggestions are good but unless I've misunderstood the structure proposed seems rather to cut across several other sections.  Let's broaden things out a bit by renaming the History section as Historical foundations of physics. 


 * The renaming would not be completely satisfactory. It's more than historical foundations. A better alternative might be History and foundations. (The word physics itself would be redundant, in the context.)


 * 1. Origins of physics (in ancient philosophy, etc.)
 * Fine. Include in Historical foundations 
 * 2. detailed etymology 
 * Fine. Include in Historical foundations 


 * Relations between physics and philosophy have also been raised by Justin Wick (see above, 8 September). The connection is complex and deep, and Justin has mentioned modern manifestations of it, where I had been concerned with the very roots of physics as a science. And these are to found in early philosophical speculation. The same might be said about the roots of other sciences, of course; but the place of physics is unique, since it claims universality and a central role among the sciences. For that reason it is profitable to examine the connection not just as a matter of historical accident, but as revealing something about the essence of physics. (Etymology can be a kind of "history-of-ideas" record of such connections.) So again, it isn't just a question of "historical foundations"; that term suggests that accidents of history fully determined how physics evolved, rather than stressing the appeal of physics as a universal study, with its own autonomous motivations and its own power to initiate changes in other areas of inquiry.


 * 3. a sketch history of physics and adjacent sciences,
 * Fine. Include in Historical foundations 
 * 4. a broad and philosophically literate consideration of the nature of physics 
 * Not sure what's intended here. Isn't that covered by the Basic concepts in physics section?


 * No, basic concepts in physics are basic concepts within physics! A consideration of the nature of physics itself must be managed from outside physics. It is essentially and unavoidably a philosophical exercise. There is no harm whatsoever in conducting such an exercise in a general introduction to physics, in a serious encyclopedia that aims to be a respectable work of reference. Some relevant questions are: How comprehensive is physics? Can all sciences be reduced, in theory at least, to physics? Must all knowledge in physics be empirical (and if so, in what sense)? What is a law of physics? And so on, including some of the matters that Justin has raised. The article needn't deal in much detail with any of these things; but some treatment of them would help in forming a rounded conception of the place of physics in human intellectual endeavour.


 * ''5. a working definition
 * Let's see how that fits in. It may turn out to be simplest to include the working definition up-front, as part of the lead paragraphs.


 * O, in fact I agree: you'd need a definition earlier. But We could show, in Foundations, how that definition is supportable.

In summary, I still think we need such a section. I think it should be called Foundations or History and foundations, and I think it should come quite early in the article. I am still happy to coordinate (not write, by myself) development of such a section. But I will only do so if there is a more representative disussion here, with issues more fully treated, towards a durable consensus. – Noetica 00:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure many people are reading this page and keeping an eye on its progress. However, the lack of any real input is slightly discouraging: perhaps they feel nothing else needs to be said - we shall see. SFC9394 has made a list of points that need to be covered, but I will only address three of these right now.

i) The concern that the impact of physics on society discussion becoming a POV essay should not prevent us from attempting to include it. If in fact we feel the quality of the discussion deteriorate, we can simply axe it. I do like the idea of including it in a more general Applied physics section though by perhaps renaming it to Applications and Influence.

ii) I am still happy with Noetica's proposed additions to the former History section. Also, the current state of the relationship between physics and philosophy can be covered in the proposed Applications and Influence section.

iii) Regarding the positioning of the History and Foundations section (I agree with Noetica: "historical" should adjective "physics" not "foundations of physics"), conversely, any reader interested in the origins of physics would feel bogged down by the concepts. We cannot make assumptions on what the average reader wishes to know and use that as a basis for our structure. The history section, regardless of topic, usually comes before the section on the current state of that particular topic.

Krea 11:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If the table is on the chopping block then I hope that rows like Particle physics etc. will be retained, if not all the columns. Might then these items have a place in the TOC? --Ancheta Wis 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that particle physics will stay as a subsection of its own. The proposal above refers to it as 'high energy physics'; the terms are synonymous.--MichaelMaggs 12:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Is Unsolved problems in physics also to be deleted from the article? 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussion hasn't formally moved towards the specifics of what will be retained/removed/added etc., but I imagine that, whilst the tables will disappear into the aether, the major sections, such as particle physics, will remain in one of the sections currently being discussed. Again, decisions on the inclusion of the aforementioned unsolved problems in physics must wait until we have decided on the structure of the article. If the section Major fields of current research survives, I think that this would currently be the most logical place for it; so keep an eye on the article and bring the issue up again when we get to that section. Krea 23:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I add a few more thoughts on the "Points in need of clarification" mentioned above by SFC9394? I'll use the same numbering.

1. I now understand what Noetica has in mind for the proposed History and Foundations section, and if we are able to keep it fairly brief, and not let it run away with us as a major philosophical article in its own right, the general idea seems fine. My contributions will probably be from the 'within physics' viewpoint, as I'm sure others may be more qualified than I am to deal with external philospohical viewpoints.

2. I don't really care where the History and Foundations section goes. I think more readers will come to the article to find out about physics qua physics: ie what are its basic principles? But other editors have disagreed, and I'll go with the flow.

3. I doubt there is actually any real dispute about the level of the article. I said above that the the article should be "useful" to an 11 year old, not that the entire article should be addressed to a child. I simply meant that we should avoid starting off at some highly technical level. See for example Mass, where the opening definition presupposes without explanation some familiarity with the relativistic equivalence of mass and energy.

4. Current research. It would probably be too much detail to cover the specific current research in each area (there is often a lot of it, and short of reading original research papers it's virtually impossible easy to keep up to date with). Suggest a simple overview of the scope and contents of each major area.

5. Influence on Modern Society section? For the reasons given above, I'm not in favour of this as a separate section, but we could, as Krea suggests, incude some discussion in an Applications and Influence section.

MichaelMaggs 12:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That all seems fair and reasonable to me: is there anything else that anybody wants to add or object to; or have we forgotten anything? Krea 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus Proposal
Ok, the discussions seemed to have reached a natural equilibrium. I have purposefully left plenty of time to let anyone who browsed by here from the article dab contribute. Base on the discussions, the proposal below is put to other editors as a consensus outcome. If you support the proposal, vote Support, oppose vote Oppose (reason must be provided for opposition). If you wish to comment on the proposal, suggest minor alterations or wider changes then you can do so by Comment:.

Proposal - Article Structure - Layout & Chapter Focus
1. Definition

2. Introduction - Background, relation to other sciences

3. History & Foundations – History of the subject, origins, detailed etymology, philosophical considerations

4. Principles/Concepts - The basic areas, with relatively contained explanation and linkage to each full article

5. Current Topics/Current Research – A brief outline of the current areas of principle research

6. Applications and Influence – Where physics is used, how it is used and how that use impinges on the world

7. References

8. Further reading

9. External Links

Editors' Views

 * Support - Covers all the points, provides a nice all round framework to build content around. SFC9394 00:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Very good, except that 'further reading' (ie the old booklist) seems to have sneaked back in. Above, I said that:
 * This is, in my view, really unhelpful in its present form. It's unencyclopedic to include long lists of school textbooks. Very few readers of the article will have access to such books, and the presence of such a list encourages students simply to add whichever textbook their teacher is currently recommending. There are hundreds, if not thousands of such texts. We should I suggest restrict ourselves to sources that are needed to back up statements made in the article. All of these can then go in the References section.


 * No-one seems to have disagreed, and I think we should therefore dispense with the Further reading section. --MichaelMaggs 11:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Further reading was, I think, A "See also" type section, with wiki links, rather than a huge screed of text books. Although there will be plenty of wiki links in the body of the text it would also be handy to have a section with links for folks to continue reading - it can be changed to "See Also" if that avoids any confusion. SFC9394 11:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - The old booklist was a little pointless, but this further reading or See also type section could actually be of some use because it would serve to direct the reader to any links or books that also discuss the nature of physics, its relationship with other sciences etc. Krea 14:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A "See also" section, with Wikilinks, would be fine, but not a more-or-less random list of books for 'further reading'. Any important volume should appear in the References section anyway, referencing a fact or two in the main article.--MichaelMaggs 19:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll agree with that. Krea 23:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - with "Further reading" replaced by Wikilinks in a "See also" section.--MichaelMaggs 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - The section "Applications ... where physics is used, how it is used and how that use impinges on the world" might read strangely to students of physics, as Newton's System of the world covers the world. A critique of logical positivism or other philosophical position might then be the statement of the boundaries of physics. That would be unfortunate, in my view. I would have no argument if the clause "and how that use impinges on the world" were left out. It might be pertinent to note how a subject originally considered in physics then specializes into a subfield with smaller scope, and how others then work in that subfield. There are many examples, with scientists of many nations. The "world wide web" is such an example. arXiv.org is another. The integrated circuit is another.  --Ancheta Wis 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * if the phrase how it is used and how that use impinges on the world means "the thinking style of a physicist" then I would have no problem with it, but propose rephrasing the program. For example the use of free and bold approximation (the contribution of Newton), the use of orders of magnitude in a calculation (as in a Fermi problem), the insistence on logical constructs which are not based on occult quantities (the contribution of Galileo), the reliance on scientific community to solve a problem, the willingness to use mathematics to contruct a model of nature, etc. then if that what is meant, perhaps a rephrase might be appropriate. --Ancheta Wis 01:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The description of that particular section is, necessarily, too vague to argue of its "detailed" intentions right now. Whilst I generally agree with the point that you are trying to make – and it is a valid one – it is not yet the place to do so. I imagine that the words in question where to give only a general idea of what each section would possibly contain, and what would really be appreciated right now is your opinion on the proposed structure: do you support it, or are there any "fundamental" changes (such as an objection that two section should be merged, that one should be separated etc.). Only after this should we discuss the "details" – where your opinions would be greatly welcome. Krea 23:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well what about "6. Applications and Influence – Where physics is used and how it is used and how that use impinges on the world ". That is not quite as constraining. --Ancheta Wis 00:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * True. "And how that use impinges on the world," is not really required for the purposes of giving a general idea of what the section will contain, so I agree that it would probably be best if we leave it off and let it be for now. Krea 02:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The title of section 6 will be "Applications and Influence". The wording "...where physics is used, how it is used and how that use impinges on the world" is by way of explanation. It is not part of the proposed section title.--MichaelMaggs 07:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support and Comment:Sections 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, 7&8&9 form 4 groups, each of which have different focus. Some people's thinking styles put 2 before 1, 4 before 3, 6 before 5. A beginner might well not understand the concepts in 1, but might understand 2 more easily, as it would be more introductory. An adult learner tends to emphasize 6 because adult learners tend to think "what's in it for me" where an academician might start in 7&8&9 to see what contributions have been mentioned in the article. --Ancheta Wis 11:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it is coincidence that the 4 distinct groups fall like that. It is probably a useful thing, as it allows people to find their "area and level of interest" rather than having to extract it from a more jumbled structure.  As for the discussions above on the A&I section, Michael covered the point nicely - basically the latter text was just thrown in by me to give a very rough idea of the area that the chapter would be looking at - "Applications and Influence" is the only text that will actually be used, the by-line was just used by me to fill out the picture a little based on tentative discussions above.  Once the chapter is up for full discussions then the pro's and con's of exactly how the section should be handled can be debated - at the moment we are simply saying there does need to be a section on broadly A&I. SFC9394 12:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, different people will approach the article in different ways depeneding on what they see as more important for them, but, as I have said before concerning the interchanging of 3 and 4, we should keep the structure in a "traditional" order because we should not try to second guess what a reader will want to know. Anyway, navigating to the section that you want to read shouldn't be too much hassle! Krea 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, more or less I really like this proposal for sections 1-7. My only comment is, to echo the above, that I have a hard time seeing that "further reading" would be a useful section. I also feel that "external links" doesn't make much sense as it is -- I can't see how external links are helpful in such a high-level article. The point ought to be to direct readers to the sub articles, through internal links, not to direct them out of Wikipedia. Since this is a high-level article which will, presumably, link to more exhaustive daughter articles in the sections, it strikes me that having something that works as a "see also" section is also of limited usefulness.


 * In my experience, having "see also", "further reading" and "external links" in such a high level article is rarely useful and often seems like nothing more than an invitation to bloat. I realize I am probably in the minority on this, though, so I'm happy with whatever the consensus is. –Joke 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good to me. Best of luck dealing w/ odds and ends.  - JustinWick 01:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, and comment. I think the section headings are good indicators of proposed content, but their precise wording will need work. (I added an apostrophe to the heading for this section. Sorry: expect more of that!) – Noetica 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support : I especially like the "applications and influence part" . delton 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Further reading and External links
Everybody who has reacted to the proposal has generally showed support for all of the sections except these two (8: Further Reading, and 9: External Links); thus, I suggest we discuss the inclusion or expulsion of these sections here.

MichaelMaggs and Joke have both argued against the usefulness of the Further Reading/See Also section, to which I also agree: a list of what is essentially all physics texts is pointless, and important works on topics that actually are relevent can go in the 7: References section. Remember, this is an encyclopaedic article: books have Reference and Further reading sections, whereas good articles should have the former and no need for the latter.

Joke has also argued against the External Links section based on the argument that a high-level article should either cover all aspects of the subject in question or at least provide internal links for this purpose. To this, I would say that providing alternative points of view on any subject is never a bad thing. I would personally like to see both a few links to other encyclopaediac articles on physics (but not on any specific subtopics), and links to national and international physical institutions (at least the major ones like APS, IoP, RS...). To argue for the latter, I think readers who are interested in physics but not aware of these societies would really find the links useful.

Krea 00:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What about a single link, to a list or compendium of links, both internal and external. If this works for the physics article, then other major overview articles such as Religion or Philosophy might be able to address this problem in the same way. (Yes, they have lists in abundance, as well.) This would address the problem with an arbitrary limit, such as only 7 links to external sources. Such a link might be welcome on the Physics portal, as well. --Ancheta Wis 00:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see both sides of the argument here. As someone who spends plenty of time here at WP typing edit summaries containing nothing but "rv linkspam by xyz" I do acknowledge the problem of both spam links and unuseful links.  However, I also think there are plenty of useful web resources for physics outwith WP, and don't really see why we should be denying that information to readers.  Hyperphsics, for example, is a great visually mapped guide down through the physics structure tree.  It would always be nice to say "but we can/should be doing that here at WP" - but sometimes resources don't really fit well within the encyclopedic/mediawiki style. SFC9394 20:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And for each nice picture we might have to add appropriate commentary, e.g. "Ilya Prigogine points out that in every dissipative system we also need to account for the 'irreversible flows' as well as that 'local decrease of entropy'." 22:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Which might become another constraint as well. And that would be true for every Dyson sphere around a star. Which leads us to Olaf Stapledon and outside physics. Thus we might draw the line at mentioning Dyson spheres in the picture's caption. Possible rule: avoid the link leading to the that first link outside physics. Counter rule: include that link. Ancheta Wis


 * Not really too sure what your concern is - I was just suggesting linking to the hyperphsics front page - not to loads within it. Basic point - until WP 1.0 (frozen/stable immediately publicly visible page and freely editable development sub page) we are not really in a position to create something which is really trustable - we need to source and link and provide plenty of further reading and links to allow folks to decide for themselves where the land lies.  In summary - currently WP is occupying a position where it is a "great place to start out" - I don't think creating something that has no external resources is that good an idea.


 * What do folks want to do here - settle this point now so we have a full structure - or leave it up in the air until the end and review the decision once we have a completed article to reflect off of? SFC9394 20:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, we should avoid discussing the details of what links to include, how many, and whether to put them on a separate page, etc. until later. Right now, all we should be talking about is whether this section should exist in some capacity or not. I will take the current situation as being this: there will be no Further Reading section (I don't recall there ever being any support for this section), but there will be an External Links section (whose existence has been argued in favour for by several people against only one person's objection). Further objections or support welcome. Krea 21:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There are indeed two separate issues, which we shouldn't confuse: (a) should we have a Further Reading list? and (b) should we have a section called External links?   Nobody (I think) has strongly argued that they want (a), but some have argued for retaining (b). I would propose that we agree now to exclude Further Reading and that we leave External links open as an option until later, when we can see the sort of links that editors might suggest adding. --MichaelMaggs 22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; unless anybody has anything further to add... Krea 23:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For the archive record - the conclusions of the discussions for Article layout were:

1. Definition

2. Introduction - Background, relation to other sciences

3. History & Foundations – History of the subject, origins, detailed etymology, philosophical considerations

4. Principles/Concepts - The basic areas, with relatively contained explanation and linkage to each full article

5. Current Topics/Current Research – A brief outline of the current areas of principle research

6. Applications and Influence – Where physics is used, how it is used and how that use impinges on the world

7. References

8. External Links - inclusion left open pending review after article completed

SFC9394 10:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)