== General discussion ==  

 USER PAR:: I am considering your revert of the overview an act of vandalism. My comments in the discussion should support this. This is a collective effort. Please contact me to discuss discrepencies in philosophy and do not merely revert again! Lagrangian 

 : A few points - 
 :# You have the wrong person. My edits to the overview corrected some errors, I did not revert. 
 :# The way it works is NOT that you make edits and everyone else begs you to change them on the talk page. If you make an error, then I or someone else will correct it. If you make an inappropriate edit, then I or someone else will revert it. If both parties can't come to an agreement, THEN we obtain a consensus on the talk page.  
 :Lets get to work on this page, I agree it can be improved.  

 I'd like to continue my work. Upon further study, this page needs some serious edits. At present it relies primarily on outside articles to describe the many aspects, i.e. the laws, the system, the history, etc. I would like to try to elaborate all of these aspects in this article, taken in a much more general view, and with a more scientific bent. If anyone has any objections or suggestions I would greatly appreciate them. Thank you. Lagrangian 

 I'd like to rewrite the overview. It has no relevance to thermodynamics as a subject, and dwells on thermodynamics as a college class. I will do this now, and if there is a problem with what I do, please let me know before reverting it. Thank you. I also find it odd that Gibbs is not mentioned at all in the history discussion? He was definitely the father of modern thermo. Lagrangian 

 : Regarding correction of errors in the overview 

 :* Thermodynamics does not "attempt to study" it studies. 
 :* A system is not separated from "the surroundings", it is separated from "its surroundings". There is no such place as "the surroundings" without reference to a particular system. 
 :* Introducing the concept of moles as a measure of the number of particles is not necessary at this point. It is a concept which is more likely to require explanation than the concept of "number of particles", and it is less universal. 
 :* The internal energy is not "formed" by pressure, temperature, etc, but it can be expressed in terms of these variables. 
 :* There are many more than just 4 thermodynamic potentials. To say there are only three plus internal energy is an error. 
 :* Can we just express a list as A, B, C, D, E, and F, rather than A, B and C, D and E, F? 
 :