User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2014/March

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Association of Variable Star Observers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David B. Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Faraday's law/electromagnetic induction

I don't necessarily disagree with demerging, I just want a square understanding of what exactly is supposed to go where.

At the moment Hogbin has moved less than half of the history of Faraday's law into one article and left the rest where it was; and he is pretty adamant that that is how it should be, although he's been unable to explain why; he's got vague thing about separating theory and practice, but so far a I can see most of both articles are actually theory.

Also the simple Faraday equation:

${\mathcal {E}}=-N{{d\Phi _{B}} \over dt}$

has mysteriously disappeared from Electromagnetic induction and I have no idea why, whereas the Maxwell-Faraday equation is still there; he's just left it dangling; I pity anyone trying to read the article right now. It's a right mess, he's broken lots of stuff.

If you read the talk page at Talk:Electromagnetic induction there's a truce called while we work out what the hell is going on.

Given that Would it be possible for you to follow the truce and revert back right now? At least we have everything in one place, nothing is missing and it's readable?

I think if you don't do it, you may personally be WP:3RR, there's some odd wording in that policy right now so that not even groups of people can revert war any article more than 3 times and you just knowingly pushed it over.GliderMaven (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me you are not interested in the least in productive editing here. You revert the demerging, then say, after quite a vocal opposition on the talk page and on WT:PHYS to that merge, that you aren't opposed to the merger. Then you flaunt WP:3RR at anyone disagreeing with you. Go wikilawyer elsewhere, or start focusing on content rather than people and behaviour, because if you keep at it, you are much more likely to be on the receiving end of whatever disciplinary actions are taken than me, or anyone else that commented in the matter.

But if indeed you are interested in the topic, the key point is that EM induction is concerned about the phenomena of induction (i.e. how it was discovered, where it's applied, how it's used, etc.), while Faraday's law is the mathematical treatment of this phenomena (who made contributions to the understanding of induction, the mathematical details, how it relates to the Maxwell equations, how it's analogous to other physical laws, etc...). There is some overlap between the topics since one's the phenomena, and the other is the mathematical treatment of the phenomena, but that is no different than e.g. Newton's law of gravitation vs gravitation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Trojans

What consensus, huh? I see several people (the most vocal of whom is you) who want all capitalized, I see several people who want everything in lowercase (includes myself), and I see several people who'd rather capitalize only those of Jupiter. And you claim "consensus" to capitalize everything? Right. Anyway, because the page will currently remain at Jupiter Trojan, I won't oppose writing it as such (I've written as much in my edit summaries). But pushing your own preference to capitalize everything and claim consensus does not reflect the reality of the Requested move. Oh, and threatening with blocks is counter to the Wikipedian spirit and is WP:THREATEN. --JorisvS (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

By what kind of twisted perverse logic would one capitalize Jupiter Trojan, but uncapitalize Mars trojan, especially in the same article? Consensus is for the capitalized versions, and I'll soon start discussions for making all other Trojan-related articles follow sources. You have no case, and consensus is against you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

By the logic of 'following sources' we would have to capitalize "centaur" and "plutino", too. This is not a matter of following sources, but of a house style. Would you really try to push to make Wikipedia's capitalization that illogical? --JorisvS (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Centaur is a common noun and plutino is not a demonym (which would be Plutonian). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So, you're not really proposing to blindly follow sources? --JorisvS (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

We follow grammar, as backed by sources. If sources had an overwhelming majority of trojans over Trojans, we would do that, because it would demonstrate that trojan, as used in astronomy, is a common noun. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Because one can say "a trojan", it is a common noun, not a proper noun. Now, that is not enough to settle the issue, because some common nouns are also capitalized, notably those that have a direct semantic and etymological link to a proper noun. The connection of trojans with Troy is rather tenuous: only because the Jupiter trojans have long history of being named after characters of the Trojan War. Because the connection is so tenuous and because we're dealing with a class of objects, it makes more sense to write it in lowercase. --JorisvS (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

People can write 'an american' or 'a new yorker'. It doesn't make that correct usage, or 'american' and 'new yorker' common nouns. If the overwhelming majority of sources used 'trojan', you'd have a case, but the majority of sources follow correct grammar and write Trojans.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And, as an aside, the connection is no looser than in the capitalizing of Jupiter in Hot Jupiters. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, "American", "Canadian", "New Yorker" are capitalized common nouns when they refer to people. When they refer to the specific form of English, they are proper nouns. Compare "an American" (which is grammatical) with "an American (English)*" (which is ungrammatical on its own). Note that Wiktionary properly notes when "Canadian" is a proper noun or a common noun (the latter denoted by "noun"): wikt:Canadian (no, not my editing). --JorisvS (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What was/is wrong with Paul's article at vixra.org (Was: Mass–energy requirement: unreliable source)?

I'd like to understand what was/is wrong with Paul's article at vixra.org? Even if not mainstream physics the article its self seems to be correct. If you do not accept Paul's conclusions you may also remove the references of Sonny's experimental attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werner Fink (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Vixra is a repository for cranks and quacks. E.g. http://vixra.org/author/jesus_christ. This isn't to say that Hoiland is himself a crank or a quack, but this article was not peer-reviewed, and isn't uploaded where moderation exists, and therefore does not constitute a reliable sources as required by our policies. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

> Vixra is a repository for cranks and quacks. E.g. http://vixra.org/author/jesus_christ. This isn't to say that Hoiland is himself a crank or a q)

The question is: do you have *read* the article? Beside some nutcase on vixra.org you also find some authors which uses vixra.org due to the fact that in many cases arxiv.org does not accept an article. I can remember Fernando Loup which had this trouble in past because he had dare to cite a wikipedia article. IMHO both is a kind of racism, isn't it? Please stop this black or white approaches and *read* such articles to find out if there is real physics therein or some esoteric bullshit. Nevertheless Fernando's article had been accepted not by arxiv.org but at http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00760456/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werner Fink (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The answer is it doesn't matter, we require reliable sources. Articles published on viXra cannot be considered reliable, and are not appropriate to use as sources in Wikipedia, per our policy on the use of reliable source in Wikipedia. We want reliable sources, preferably peer-reviewed, or published by high-reliability publishers (e.g. John Wiley & Sons, Cambridge University Press, etc...) because they are subject to vetting by independent 3rd parties. Mind you, using sources from the arXiv is very often not acceptable, and for the same reason, i.e. they are very often not peer-reviewed. But because the arXiv is moderated (i.e. there is a filter against cranks), it can be used in some cases, when the authors are recognized experts in their field, with an established publication record, or when the article was published, and that the arxiv version is just a free version of the article, without the fancy formatting from the journal. viXra does not have that moderation, and thus counts as a self-publication, and cannot be relied upon. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)