What is a scalar force At the start of the current article there appears a list of pointers to other article and the last item on the list says For the scalar force that appears in polar coordinates see the article on polar coordinates I checked the article on polar coordinates and the word scalar doesn t appear there So what exactly IS a scalar force And why does the article point to another article for explanation of something that isn t even mentioned in the other article Surely something is amiss 63 24 61 29 Of course you are correct in pointing out the absurdity of a scalar force This pointer should be removed altogether but I have only edited it to remove the absurdity The history of this article shows that this pointer was a concession to a long drawn out battle that apparently exhausted all parties and led to this compromise Any single dimension is a scalar a scalar is simply a single number There s nothing absurd about a scalar force any more than there is about a scalar acceleration What is 9 81 m s 2 WolfKeeper Talk I don t understand the corrected version The acceleration component that it refers to i e the one that arises in stationary polar coordinates is explicitly described and given the name centrifugal force in countless reputable references including 1 An Introduction to the Coriolis Force By Henry M Stommel Dennis W Moore 1989 Columbia University Press 2 Methods of Applied Mathematics By Francis B Hildebrand 1992 Dover p 156 3 Statistical Mechanics By Donald Allan McQuarrie 2000 University Science Books 4 Essential Mathematical Methods for Physicists By Hans Jurgen Weber George Brown Arfken Academic Press 2004 p 843 This has been pointed out previously with the relevant quotations I don t think there can be any dispute of the fact that this particular acceleration term is indeed among the terms that are called in contemporary reputable sources centrifugal force Needless to say it s entirely a matter of convention as to what names we give certain terms appearing in certain equations but since Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect verifiable facts from reputable sources I can t see any justification for excluding this particular fact from the article I think any discussion of the contemporary let alone the historical concept of centrifugal force is incomplete if it doesn t include this There are also other concepts that go under the name centrifugal force but that are not yet mentioned in this article And conversely there are lots of things discussed at length in this article that are only indirectly related to the concept of centrifugal force I understand that much of this material has been added as part of a tutorial on general physics being given to placate some of the editors here but ultimately I think it detracts from the readibility and relevance of the article Overall I think the present article has evolved into a lengthy set of notes that various people have made as they clarified in their own minds certain aspects and implications of the centrifugal force as they responded to challenges from certain other editors Sort of learning on the job That s a commendable exercise but it doesn t make for a very coherent article and frankly the