Talk:Fourth, fifth, and sixth derivatives of position

message: from jounce to fourth derivative of position.  This is against COMMONNAME, and was also undiscussed (here at least). Jounce is hardly a common term, but it is the common term used for this derivative of acceleration  (there's an argument to be made in favour of snap, crackle and pop too). I suppose we should be grateful it's not redirected to jerk any more (which is just plain wrong). 
As there seem to be AfDs etc. popping off all over the place, do we need some coherent single discussion to sort out all of these? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be helpful to reach a proper consensus on the organization of jerk and its derivatives. Thtatithticth (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert undiscussed rename 

message: These need to stop. Jounce was changed to a redirect to jerk (physics) after a short discussion, then restored and moved to Fourth derivative of position with no discussion, then a discussion was raised to revert it back to jounce but it was, instead, moved to Fourth, fifth, and sixth derivatives of position, with no discussion leading to the decision as far as I'm aware.
That's not to say I don't agree with this move; I think this is the best option, be it under this name or Snap, crackle and pop (physics). Regardless, the constant moving is both confusing and unnecessary, and should stop unless a there is an actual consensus for a target. Thtatithticth (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many undiscussed moves 

message: I removed it the other day because it's confusing, garish, and full of terms that are neither used in the literature nor explained in this article. It was apparently reintroduced during a content merge. I still think it's a detriment to the page overall, and I'd like to snip it out again, but I don't want to step on anybody's toes. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absurd, probably only a joke. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a joke, but not necessary worthy of inclusion either. I have the impression that it relates to work by Steve Mann and some of his colleagues. His work often comes across as less than serious, but there is more to it than it at first appears.--Srleffler (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, but I'd like to have an image explaining about 1st~6th derivatives of position because it makes easier for people to understand the context of this page (since this article contains 3 variables). But, it could be more simpler than the removed image... Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , : I've thrown together a simpler image  (and , but I prefer the first one). Do you think it's a suitable alternative? I'll gladly make changes if they'll help. As an aside, I'm wondering whether I should add a white background so that the image is visible for users with dark themes. Thtatithticth (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I prefer the first image better, and I guess you could update the image if you decide to put integrate sign or maybe r, v, a, j, s, c, p vector (since it is included in the article) Anyway, I like the image, and I would choose the best image if you suggest more options. Sorry that I couldn't help much with the image. Thanks, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think your first image is fine. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need that image in the intro? 

message: The article indicates that higher order derivatives "have little practical use."
Listen beginning at 5:20 of https://www.ted.com/talks/vijay_kumar_robots_that_fly_and_cooperate?language=en
Specifically, these autonomous drones use a "minimum snap trajectory".  That's a practical use!
I recommend softening the language in the article and/or pointing to the above (or voluminous other publications from Vijay Kumar at Penn).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.114.23 (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was almost exactly one year late, but I think I've addressed this now. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the phrase "little practical use" is too strong. I tried editing the article to soften the language and add some examples of practical uses of fourth-order dynamics, but my edits were flagged as "spam" and reverted. Not sure what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.153.200 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits weren't flagged as spam, but rather as a copyright violation. You can't use work that has been published elsewhere on Wikipedia unless it is properly licensed for us to use it. --Srleffler (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical use 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kmijares (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't want to discourage any additions you want to make, this particular page is very obscure and we almost deleted it recently. jerk, the 3rd derivative, is much more useful and interesting. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: 4A Wikipedia Assignment

message: In a recent edit @2600:1014:b087:1326:15d:a16c:b952:d188 claimed that even higher derivatives were common. If so there should be reliable references to that effect and in addition the significance of these derivatives needs to be explained. Merely claiming that they are named is not worth putting into the encyclopedia unless they are named as a consequence of their use. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims concerning the 7th and 8th derivatives.