Template:Did you know nominations/Bouncing ball


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Mifter Public (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Bouncing ball

 * ... that the physics of a bouncing ball can be used to understand supernovae? Source:
 * ALT1:... that the physics of a bouncing ball can be used to understand gravitational slingshot manoeuvres? Source:
 * ALT2:... that the physics of a bouncing ball can be used to understand supernovae and gravitational slingshot manoeuvres? Source: as above.
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Allen (gridiron football)

Created by Headbomb (talk). Self-nominated at 20:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC).


 * Comment: I think you want either "supernovae" or "supernovas"; the double pluralisation "supernovaes" is wrong. Mind  matrix  22:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There's an eligibility issue – see Articles for deletion/Bouncing ball dynamics. That earlier page was created over 10 years ago. The nominator seems to have worked around this by moving the page which is now bouncing ball (music) and then speedy deleting the redirect so that his new draft could be moved into mainspace using the vacated title. Perhaps this new page would qualify as a 5x expansion but I don't like it being claimed as a wholly new topic when there has been some prior work. Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Bouncing ball dynamics was originally created at Bouncing Ball, which then got moved to Bouncing Ball Simulation System and then Bouncing ball dynamics. That article covers the very narrow topic of a ball driven to bounce by a sinusoidally driven table in chaos theory (and originally, its simulation via a very specific computer program), which bears little relation to this article. To me, this would pretty much be like withholding a DYK credit for Gravity because someone created an article about gravitational assist at that original location, which later got moved to physics of gravity, and then using physics of gravity as a proof that the topic is not wholly new. Or using the prior existence of a non-primary topic (e.g. Gravity) at the same location as the actual topic to deny a DYK credit.
 * Because whatever happens to bouncing ball dynamics or bouncing ball (music), they certainly won't be moved back to bouncing ball. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still figuring out the long history of this. My impression that that bouncing ball dynamics started as Bouncing Ball and has been moved around to several titles.  I reckon a history merge with the current bouncing ball would be appropriate.  The fact that Headbomb's version is bigger and better doesn't mean that we should eliminate the history of earlier attempts.  I like the topic and think that it would make a good DYK but the proprieties should be observed. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A histmerge is innapropriate, since these are not the same topic and histmerges are used to repair copy/paste moves for attribution purposes. That Bouncing ball dynamics existed at Bouncing Ball in the past is irrelevant. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed by someone else. Regardless of what the old article may have been, it was 501 prose characters, and regardless of whether the new article is considered completely new or a follow-on to the other one, it would need to be only 2505 prose characters to meet the 5x requirement—and I stopped counting after I hit 3774 (DYKcheck choked on the equations, so I copied and pasted into Word to count). This should never have been marked with an X; after that, I think Andrew D. should recuse himself and allow someone else to review here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing the two inline equations to let the script work yields "13 kB (2230 words) readable prose size" on the current version, or roughly a 25x expansion if you use that other article as a baseline. It's been expanded a bit since the DYK nom, when it was around "10 kB (1837 words)" though (or a roughly 20x expansion). Not that I agree that the other article should be used as a baseline in the first place. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough, as I understand the situation. The hook facts have inline citations and any of the hooks could be used, the image is appropriately licensed, the article is neutral, Earwig found no substantial problems and neither did I. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * reviewed the article? Where/when was this? Off-wiki conversation? Just asking out of curiosity here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this useful tool for checking for copyright violations. I judged hat the phrases highlighted in pink were acceptable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)