Talk:Index of physics articles

Untitled

Article List of physics topics needs to be broken into at least 3 pieces; will this ruin the way current users use it? --Jerzy 11:07, 2003 Dec 10 (UTC)

NB the list of mathematics topics was broken into eight, when it reached about 120K.

Charles Matthews 11:10, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how breaking it up would ruin anything. theresa knott 11:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

It means that we can't use it to monitor activity in the field anymore, via "related changes". How about we make the original format available as well? -- Tim Starling 03:33, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Tim, guess i didn't wait long enuf before acting. Don't hesitate on my acct from just reverting it; i have no need for the short-pages version, but proposed it on general principles as i understand them. But maybe this needs to be added to a list of places where the 32K limit is a problem (here, and VfD that i'm aware of), to be thot about together. Hmm, what if the list of 32K problems goes over 32k [wink]? --Jerzy 05:18, 2003 Dec 13 (UTC)

length of these lists

These lists are getting quite long. Wouldn't it be better to format the mmore like the lists at list of mathematics topics to save on space? Karol 17:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Should there be an exception for indexes?

There's a discussion on what the reference requirements for lists like this one. The Transhumanist (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sortable tables...

...should make it easier to read, use and maintain. -- F = q(E + v × B) 14:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Forget it - didn't realize there is a bug with them... =( -- F = q(E + v × B) 16:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

new format

I would propose to list using numbers, in columns of 25 at a time to keep track of the number of articles. Its not easy to read if they're all mashed up in just a few lines... for instance:

A

1. Abbe number
2. Absolute zero
3. Accelerating universe
4. Acceleration
5. Acoustic theory
6. Action (physics)
7. Active laser medium
8. Adiabatic process
9. Aether theory
10. Agrophysics
11. Aharonov–Bohm effect
12. Alcubierre metric
13. Alembert, Jean le Rond d'
14. Alferov, Zhores Ivanovich
15. Alfvén, Hannes Olof Gösta
16. Alpha particle
17. Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory
18. Alvarez, Luis Walter
19. Amagat's law
20. Amorphous silicon
21. Ampere
22. Ampere model of magnetization
23. Ampère's law
24. Angular frequency
25. Angular momentum

26. Angular velocity
27. Annihilation operator
28. Antenna theory
29. Antiferromagnetism
30. Antimatter
31. Antiparticle
32. Application of tensor theory in engineering science
33. Applied mathematics
34. Applied physics
35. Archimedes' "mechanical method"
36. Area
37. Argand, Aimé
38. Argand, Jean-Robert
39. Arrhenius, Svante
40. Arrow of time
41. Aston, Francis William
42. Astronomy
43. Astrometry
44. Astrophysics
45. Atkinson, Robert
46. Atom
47. Atomic clock
48. Atomic electron transition
49. Atomic force microscopy
50. Atomic mass unit

51. Atomic nucleus
52. Atomic number
53. Atomic physics
54. International Atomic Time
55. Atomic units
56. Atomic weight
57. Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics
58. Avogadro, Amedeo

Any objections? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 20:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why the template?

The new TOCs in the lists of physics articles work well. So well, I don't see the need for {{Index of physics articles}}. Why not just put in another TOC? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• RockMagnetist, I'm going to T3 that template in a moment. It's not necessary anymore. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks great now! RockMagnetist (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Untitled 2

Isn't this what categories are for? PhantomTech (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is an alphabetical index that was too large to be contained on three articles. If you need reference to how this is being done, please look at Index of physics articles. Due to the fact that these list articles were almost a tenth of a megabyte in site, they needed to be broken down. Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I am just editing the already long list that is there. If you see an issue with this, please bring this conversation to Talk:Index of physics articles instead. This will get more attention there. Steel1943 (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

More why's

Why the split? OK, I can see that, the old lists were just too long and it looks much nicer now. But then, what are they actually doing apart from looking nice? Why the list? I was occasionally using it (or the three sub-lists we had the last months) to monitor activity via 'Related changes'. This use was also mentioned in the old thread at the top, but now this is not possible any more. Is there any other use for the lists? Would anybody looking for an article use or even find them, instead of just looking up the article directly in the search box? — HHHIPPO 07:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder that myself. I have created a couple of indices for projects, and my sole motivation was to provide a source for "Related changes". WikiProject Mathematics even automates that process. If someone would create a similar tool for other projects to use, it would be so much easier to monitor activity! RockMagnetist (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There was an RfC on indexes a few months ago, but in an obscure location. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

By the tool used by WikiProject Mathematics, do you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity? The 'recent edits' links there at the top are actually broken. I made a set of shortcuts for monitoring our indices on my user page, but it's cumbersome with so many links. There's also the WP physics watchlist on the toolserver [1], but I prefer the functionality (and the response time) of MediaWiki's related changes.

Thanks for the RfC link, will have a look. — HHHIPPO 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)