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 doesnt appear there So what exactly IS a scalar force And why does the article point to another article for explanation of something that isnt even mentioned in the other article Surely something is amiss   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 Theres nothing absurd about a scalar force any more than there is about a scalar acceleration What is  ms  WolfKeeper    I dont understand the corrected version The acceleration component that it refers to ie the one that arises in stationary polar coordinates is explicitly described and given the name centrifugal force in countless reputable references including   An Introduction to the Coriolis Force By Henry M Stommel Dennis W Moore  Columbia University Press   Methods of Applied Mathematics By Francis B Hildebrand  Dover p   Statistical Mechanics By Donald Allan McQuarrie  University Science Books   Essential Mathematical Methods for Physicists By HansJurgen Weber George Brown Arfken Academic Press  p    This has been pointed out previously with the relevant quotations I dont 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 its 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 cant 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 doesnt 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 Thats a commendable exercise but it doesnt make for a very coherent article and frankly the