Talk:Thermodynamic temperature/Archive 1

Untitled
The Thermodynamic temperature article used to have a preamble, or hat statement, that read as follows:


 * This article deals with thermodynamic temperature and its underpinnings in heat energy and kinetic motions. It is intended to be suitable for a wide range of readers (such as high school students taking advanced science classes).  Whereas it wouldn’t be untrue to state that “temperature is the inverse of the derivative of entropy with respect to internal energy, and absolute zero is the point where this quantity becomes zero,” every effort has been made here to introduce complex thermodynamic issues while 1) using plain-speak, and 2) without sacrificing scientific rigor.

After discussion and debate (archived below), the preamble was deleted. Since the preamble is no longer featured in the current article and can no longer be the subject of debate, the associated discussion has been moved here.

Preamble
Loom91: You don't really seem to be "taking a break" from editing Wikipedia articles. The preamble to the article has been there for long time and you seem to be the only person who has a problem with it. Your user page says a lot about what you do (edit a lot of articles) and you seem to take pride in that. I don't. It's better to spend time on individual projects and get it right. A lot of other contributors to the thermodynamic temperature article spent time in the discussion page as issues over absolute zero and kinetic motion were hashed out. You have the self-esteem of someone who bypasses such niceties and rushes to judgment by deleting entire paragraphs and then leaving comments like "that's stupid" in your wake. You need to stop, read, and understand what you're doing before you do a "drive-by shooting" on an article because you've taken it upon yourself to decide what content you're in the mood to permit. The preamble in the article on thermodynamic temperature serves an important purpose. Too many contributors to Wikipedia tend to just throw a whole bunch of techno-babble and formulas into articles that they get out of their text books. The result is a hodge podge of poorly fitting text that is hard to read and serves only a narrow audience. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, stated on Friday, the first day of Wikimania, that "Although we've always had this goal of Britannica: ‘quality or better’, we're not there yet." “We can no longer feel satisfied and happy when we see these (article) numbers going up. We should continue to turn our attention away from growth and towards quality.” (my emphasis). He also said quality can be improved if entries were written less choppily, for example, or better identified their sources. That's pretty darn clear to me: to blazes with new articles; the quality of Wikipedia articles must improve. The preamble is there to avoid the same old crap that makes Wikipedia technical articles suffer. It helps to remind others who contribute to the article that the purpose of doing so isn't to demonstrate how one can quote passages from physics books such as Kittel and Kroemer, but is to effectively communicate to the widest possible audience and to do so without sacrificing scientific rigor. If one can do so in an interesting manner that sucks the reader in and keeps them engaged, better yet. Have you actually read the thermodynamic temperature article? It's one of the more visited technical sites on Wikipedia and has been linked to by a number of universities after I had been corresponding with the Ph.D.s on various issues on thermodynamics. Where do you think three of its six graphics came from(?); I created them and that takes a lot of time. What's your contribution? You delete stuff when you happen upon it. This is especially ironic since you state in your user page that “I hate POV-pushing, censorship and deletionist viewpoints above all else.”. How would you like it if I started visiting the sites where you've been editing and delete some of it—not because it is factually incorrect but only because I disagree with it—and leave only an explanation that I did so because it's "stupid." I guarantee you that if I scrutinize the work you've done, I can find fault with it, delete it, and—parhaps—replace it with something better. Think a bit more about things before acting. If you think the preamble serves a poor purpose and needs to be deleted, then raise the issue in the discussion page and get feedback from others until there is a consensus. And if you just go and delete it again, I'll consider it mindless vandalism and revert it. Greg L 16:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also don't like the hat note about accessibility. All articles are supposed to be as accessible as the subject matter permits; no articles, in my opinion, should really be written specifically considering the needs of high school students. We want a more complete Britannica, not a more complete World Book. The practice of dividing articles on the basis of "level" does not have a happy history.
 * Even if such a division were justified in this case, dividing it into articles called temperature and thermodynamic temperature makes little sense. What exactly is non-thermodynamic temperature? To the extent that I've ever used the terms distinctively, it would be in using the "thermodynamic" term specifically to mean the dU/d&sigma; definition, rather than say the ideal-gas version (though, really, the latter is also "thermodynamic"). --Trovatore 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You of all people Trovator. You're the one who's been doing much of the work on the formulas—the "Britannica" part—of the article.  You won't find formulas like that in World Book.  Wikipedia authors must be realistic about who the typical visitor is for any particular article.  Besides, if someone needs more, they can read the footnotes.  If they need still more, they can wade into the "derivations" section you've worked on.  An article that reads at the derivations level of difficulty from the beginning isn't much good.   However, I thought about this overnight and decided the preamble wasn't yet achieving my purpose, which is to help insure the article's introductory section is maintained in a manner that retains its appeal to the widest possible audience.  I've revised it accordingly.  Good point on negative values.  Thanks.  Greg L 16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What I object to is the hat note's existence, not the details of its content. Yes, of course the lead section should be as accessible as the subject matter permits; that's true in general, not just for this article. Explaining your goals for the article doesn't add anything to the encyclopedic content of the article itself.
 * What you seem to be doing is trying to convince other editors to follow a particular scheme for the article (EXACTLY, see below - Greg L), not assist the readers in understanding what it's for. That's not a legitimate purpose for a hat note (Of course it is - Greg L) (or indeed for any text that displays to readers). The only justification I know of for hat notes is helping readers find the article they were really looking for, if it wasn't this one. --Trovatore 17:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The notice is redundant and ugly. Articles should be accessible in general, not this one in particular. One does not state the goals of an encyclopedia article at the top unless it's something exraordinary. Loom91 18:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Loom91: I don't know your age, but your truly excellent command of English (for someone from India) and that fact that you are prone to quick-draw conclusionary statements like “…is redundant…” and “{is} ugly” leads me to believe you are young. How is the notice redundant? Do you mean to imply that because the article uses plain-speak, that other contributors will see this and will endeavor to do the same?  If so, you are sorely mistaken.  As I was writing this article, other contributors immediately resorted to the "business as usual" practice of quoting straight out of the text books (and putting that stuff in the first two paragraphs of the article!)  That isn't communicating clearly to a wide audience (which is tough); it's just an ego-boosting display to others of how one understands mathematics and fancy words under the guise of “writing for an expert audience”.  The preamble stopped that B.S. in its tracks.  Accordingly, the preamble is not redundant; it is necessary.  And how is it ugly?  That's awfully subjective isn't it?  An administrator came though a while back and indented the preamble (using a colon) but left the preamble in place.  Do you think you're ready to be a Wikipedia administrator?  One needs an open mind and wisdom.  You are however, entirely correct about “encyclopedias”  and how they don't state their philosophy of how they try to communicate subject matter.  But with regular encyclopedias (you pay real money for real experts and real editors), there is no need to either, is there? Wikipedia is in a unique class of its own and this presents unique challenges: anyone can edit an article.  Aggravating the problem for would-be contributors is there are too many poor examples of technical articles (like Heat capacity from a couple of weeks ago) that required a disclaimer about the lack of quality. Here's the current version. Can you spot the difference between the two?  In fact, there is zero difference except that some anonymous contributor from Bath, England (86.129.219.56) with zero prior documented history of making Wikipedia contributions took it upon himself to delete the advisory.  Perhaps the article was so wanting in quality, he thought the disclaimer was redundant;-)  Then there are all the marginal Wikipedia articles that aren't currently branded with the disclaimer (but probably should be).  Wikipedia has a long way to go to catch up with a big-bucks encyclopedia like Britannica. If you know of an easier way to make all the fat, dumb, and happy contributors stop and think before they barf out what's on their minds and actually read an article before jumping to the conclusion that they are qualified to contribute to it, please, do tell.    Greg L 00:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just not how we do things here. What goes on an article page is supposed to be directed at readers, not editors, with a few exceptions (like dispute tags) that are not intended to be permanent.
 * You've done some nice work on this article, Greg (the Z-machine photo, in particular, is a lovely touch) and I understand your desire to defend it. But you have to conform to the house style, and to policies like WP:OWN, which I see you grazing the edges of with this sort of note.
 * You aren't going to win the argument on the hat note, not a snowball's chance. It would be reasonable, I think, to put an HTML comment at the top of the source, which readers would not see, reminding editors of the appropriate policies at WP:LEAD. --Trovatore 01:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It also alerts the reader in a nutshell as to precisely what the article is about and what to expect. It's a welcome mat of sorts. Since you've used a phrase that implies that you're one of the chosen insiders (“This is just not how we do things here”), I'm going to contact an administrator and have him settle this. I agree with you to a certain degree: a preamble like this has a policy-like aspect to it. In the mean time, leave it in place so they can see what the disput is over. As regards ownership, I tried to edit "Temperature" and couldn't even write about how molecules have an internal temperature after absorbing internal kinetic energy.  The "owner" over there, wouldn't permit it. His reversions used frustrated language like "Augh!"  That's why I came over to Thermodynamic temperature and stayed.  This Wikipedia experience is both interesting and supremely frustrating. I've had a moron in a hurry change every damn reference of "273.16 kelvin" to "273.15 kelvin" because he saw the two values in the same article and assumed it must be an error. And now I'm being put in the position of having to justify a statement that is partially intended to prevent the crapy writing style that hurts Wikipedia the most.  The fact that universities professors are linking to this site after becoming aware of it should be proof enough that the end justifies the means. We'll see what an admin says. Greg L 02:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. I've contacted a mediator: User:Melchoir. I told him I would abide by whateve he says. I hope you find him unbiased and will also agree to abide by his judgement.  The guy isn't an administrator; he's someone who writes a variety of articles, including technical and math ones. I chose him because he takes the time to welcome new authors, makes them feel at home, and directs them with quick links to Wikipedia resources like guides to writing style.  Greg L 03:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what my age has to do with the matter. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that calling an administrator will 'settle' this. This is not so. Administrators are janitors, they do not have any more authority than regular editors in editorial disputes. We seem to be going around in circles, so let's try a more systematic approach. Loom91 10:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Issue
The issue under dispute is whether a preamble announcing that the article is intended for a general audience should be included at the top of the article.

Parties
Support Inclusion: Please sign with ~.



Oppose Inclusion: Please sign with ~.


 * 1) Loom91 10:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Debate
Question to Greg L: exactly what purposes do you claim the notice will serve? Please give a brief summary of the points. Loom91 10:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)