Talk:Physics/wip/Archive1

message: Rationale: Over the last 3 or 4 months the Physics article has suffered from a significant decrease in quality and focus.  Some of the article has been left relatively intact, but other parts of it have endured multiple edit storms.  The Wiki philosophy is very much that this is how things should naturally evolve, but unfortunately that is not what has happened here.  When multiple edit storms occur over pieces of complex text and fundamental layout then the result is usually a mishmash of undirected, unfocussed work.  This page is here to allow all interested editors to work on developing a single, focussed, Consensus driven article.  Traditionally this would be done on the main article, and that consensus would be reached on the main article talk page - unfortunately there are a number of factors which has proven to make this difficult.  There are one or two editors who are highly resistant to discussing any aspect of changes made, preferring to simply revert others hard work without a care (and also using multiple accounts to do so).  The complex and lengthy nature of the article also makes working on it difficult, as discussion may be continuing and then someone browses by and simply changes something that was recently agreed upon (and the longer and more complex an article is the more likely that is going to happen).  Hence it was decided to attempt to work through all aspects of the article at this WIP page, where discussion on each aspect can take place, consensus be reached, then the content be implemented into the WIP article.  Once the process of review is completed then hopefully the outcome should be an article that is of much higher standard than it currently is (and it can then be copied over to the main article page).
Contributions are welcomed from all editors who are prepared to respect the Consensus process.  The basic point of this effort must be that consensus is reached on each point/structure/layout/text before it is implemented across - if editors simply come in and edit this WIP article to make it read as they wish then all we will be left with is the same mess and problems that we have on the main article page (i.e. no focus, and nothing but revert wars).  The more editors we can get on board whom are prepared to become part of the effort then the more valuable the final outcome will be. SFC9394 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Physics Improvement Page WIP

message: Is this a good idea?  Does it have the backing of other editors?  If not what should be done to improve a failing article? SFC9394 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any other way forward.  We may have to semiprotect the finished article when it is copied to physics, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. --Michael C. Price talk 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I also don't see any other way forward... after returning to wikipedia after a wikivacation, I was astonished on how much worse the state of Physics had become. Karol 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've placed what I felt was the last good version at Physics/wip.  --Michael C. Price talk 23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed that.--Srleffler 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion

message: I propose that the History section should be much abbreviated, with much of the history of physics covered in the separate article History of physics, as per Wikipedia:summary style. This suits the way readers are likely to approach the material. Someone reading an article on physics is likely to be interested mainly in what it is, what sort of problems are studied, etc. Someone who is interested in the history of physics, is likely to want the greater depth that can be best provided in a separate article. The topic is too big to be handled well in a subsection of the main article.--Srleffler 23:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  --Michael C. Price talk 23:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since that article already exists, this article needs not more than a very short section - or even just a sentence with a bold-faced pointer. If it's just a sentence, it can be placed rather high up on the page, just after the lead section. See Special relativity wich similarly points to History of special relativity. Harald88 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I have on several occasions done what I call a "major revert" wherein I revert an article to the state that it was in months before.  The idea is to reset things if an article has gone in the "wrong direction", and to break the "inertia" present after such a thing has happenned.  Obviously this is not to done lightly, but if you can honestly say that the article was in substantially better shape at a previous time, then this is an option worthy of consideration.
Going back three weeks is actually not all that major of a revert in any case.  I have gone back over six months at times.  BTW - Do not worry about the efforts of other editors being "lost".  Anything worthwhile will quickly be restored to the article.  The goal here is to get a reasonable baseline to work from.  Also do be advised that all of my major reverts have had the support of a consensus of editors, and half the time even have the support of the editor(s) who "degraded" the page.
I will not do a major revert myself as I am new here, and it is important that whoever does the major revert be ready, willing, and able to stand behind it.  (After all, the other half of the time there is a short but boisterous edit war before the major revert "sticks".)
Finally, this is not to preclude any other changes that people may agree on (such splitting off the history of physics into a seperate article).  Rather, it may permit those changes to be done from a better base, and also to be discussed in talk:Physics itself. --EMS | Talk 04:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, and think a major revert (the version at Physics/wip is OK) is a better way to start than semiprotection. With a censensus, we should be able to build on the reverted version and bring the positive changes since that revision. If that fails, then semiprotection should be considered, but not before trying the major revert. A revert is also quicker, so the article will improve fast - in my view the support of about 10 regular contributors to the article should be enough to go ahead with the revert... I'm willing to do it myself. Karol 11:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the Wikipedia way is not to have a hidden article that suddenly will pop up out of nothing, without public discussion. That said, this page may nevertheless be useful to prepare such a public discussion / listing of motivations, and it may of course serve as sandbox. Harald88 21:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revert? 

message: The attempt to settle structure early is one part of the effort to work from the large to the small: from the general to the particular, from governing principles down to the eventual details. I agree with those who want to address these broad questions first, and I disagree with those like Harald88, who seems happy to move on to content straight away ("...I guess that most people here are more concerned with the contents").
Even before we look at structure, though, I think we should look at the goals of the article, and how we want it to fit into the whole suite of Wikipedia articles covering the sciences. If structure and these other general matters are not addressed here, we cannot achieve a consensus that all of us will want to defend against partisan, arbitrary, or ill-considered alteration: and that is paramount, I would have thought.
Myself, I am most concerned with getting a consensus for the early part of the article. By now it should be obvious that definition and broad principles are highly contentious, and that little else can be resolved if we don't first work together with great patience and care on these. I propose that we do that!
I further propose that, after a short lead-in, there be a section headed "Foundations", or something like that. It could include a sketch of the beginnings of thought about physics, an instructive etymology (yes, that's both relevant and revealing, going beyond the Greek to a Proto-Indo-European root), the most encompassing and unexceptionable definition, with consequent treatment of relations with the other sciences (and with metaphysics and mathematics, perhaps), and finally something on method and limits (to cover, for example, whether physics is essentially an empirical science, or whether that is just an entrenched preconception, doomed to fail in any case as physics extends its scope further beyond the middle-sized observables of the world). We don't have to do everything! Generalising from the remarks of an editor contributing to discussion weeks ago, some things about physics are true for all of the natural sciences, so that some things ought to be sorted out there, and as usual in Wikipedia well-chosen links will work wonders.
Getting all of this foundational work right would necessarily involve philosophical expertise. Some will be able to contribute with this, others will not. Conversely, some will be able to fill in detail in the remainder of the article, and others (like me) will hold back in that phase of the development.
That's my view of a way forward, anyway. Noetica 22:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say I see a need to dive into the problematic depths of proto-Indo-European etymology.  Also I like the idea, mentioned earlier, of all historical matters hived off into the exant history of physics.  I think etymology is more suited in that article.  This article should reflect physics as it is today (and, yes, that would include a statement that it is an empirical science).  --Michael C. Price talk 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not "take exception" but I do disagree and I shall continue to until you persaude me otherwise.  How I can disagree with someone who claims much more knowledge?  Quite easily, I'm afraid.  Experience shows that the degree is learning claimed is poor indicator of veracity.  I agree with your position as stated above re empiricism and consensus.  --Michael C. Price talk 00:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A "top-down" strategy

message: I propose that any anonymous or apparently-new user who does any of the following should have their entire sequence of edits reverted on sight:
*Removes content and replaces it with content of obviously inferior quality, or empty sections
*Reverts to a version of the article with a radically different structure or organization
*Changes the introductory image of the article without discussion
*Reverts the wording of the introduction to a form that has previously failed to achieve consensus
(This list is incomplete; feel free to add to it.)
Drastic times call for drastic measures. If physics is to survive as a good article, it must be defended. Much of the discussion above has been about reaching some consensus on an ideal structure for the article. That is fine, but does not address the other side of the problem. Much of the recent degradation of the article has been due to a particular style of editing, rather than the specific content or structure. We need to identify the hallmarks of the behavior that is ruining the article and prevent such edits from sticking. --Srleffler 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse the manifesto.  Instant and ruthless reverts!  Since we are talking about the main article, are you going to post this credo on its talk page as well?  --Michael C. Price talk 07:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ruthless response to ruthless edits? Sounds also reasonable to me. Harald88 20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I will certainly enforce these rules if I ever see that happening. Meanwhile, Michael, do you want to start with your bottom-up approach? Krea 13:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, also. Karol 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I too have been thinking that it is not necessary for the Physics article to be so long that it is unmanageable and an easy target for vandals.  As in a computer program, duplicated material is always a maintenance problem.  There are already more specific articles, usually several levels down.  David R. Ingham 20:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manifesto for the edit war

message: ::: Just to jump back in after a few days away on business - I think this [Referring to what I say in the section above, I believe. Noetica 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, SFC9394. Perhaps to manage that sort of measured and orderly discussion, we ought to have someone functioning as a moderator. Someone to keep track of proposals that come up: to see that they get a proper airing; to call for votes (when that seems appropriate); to maintain a register of decisions that are taken, and of decisions yet to be concluded. There is plenty of goodwill among the talented editors contributing to this discussion, and they are all keen to get to work on improving the article. But even talented editors need such moderation when the task is as sensitive and complex as this one. If people think this is a good idea, I would nominate you, SFC9394, for that "secretarial" role. Noetica 01:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that that is the logical approach to take. Concerning the history section, we will reach the same conclusion independent of the means by which it is decided, but to do so through this ordered approach would be the wisest course to follow. So, let's decide who should moderate: I have no objections to SFC9394. Krea 03:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the consensus is for a moderator, fine.  Anyone who's particpated here would be okay with me.  Re the history off-loading suggested -- the idea was mooted awhile ago and I've seen no dissent.  Even Noetica agreed, so what's the problem?  Apart from me not having started yet?  :-) --Michael C. Price talk 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I am happy to take on a secretarial role to keep things organised if all other editors are happy with that.  Ultimately it is probably something that suites me fairly well on this one - I have no real super strength views on specific content with regard to this article - my main concern is simply trying to improve it and get something that represents a quality piece of work (listening to the download of the Jim Giles talk at the wikimania conference, mp3 here, reminded me that we have a duty to get things in order, as this is one of the principle science article pages that gets read, and there is no excuse for it not being as good as possible). SFC9394 19:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is all healthy. I hope that SFC9394 will feel free to establish a sequencing of decision-making and decision-implementation from now on, and that it will be respected so that we can all work in the same general direction. One thing I'm just a little concerned about is the flow of text on this page. It's only procedural, and it's easily fixed if we pay attention to such things as apt indentation, clear indication of points that we are addressing (which? and whose?), etc. For example, Michael's neat link (see his post at 06:56, 12 August) to something I had said was unambiguous and direct, and did not interfere with the flow, for anyone not wanting to be sidetracked. Incidentally, Michael, I think we may not disagree too much. Sure, I said that a great deal belongs more in the history article than in the core article. But I also suggested, and still do, that we need something on history, and more crucially on what I call foundations, in the core article. We may disagree on the details of that, but it can now be worked out. I now await directions from our moderator. Noetica 23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: David, I think this page is a good idea. Ideally a talk page should be a sufficient forum, but experience proved that it wasn't working and was unlikely to start working. There are many competing broad orientations (historical, contemporary–practical, philosophical, etc.) in this very general topic Physics, and a clash is inevitable. Here we can work it all out, and get a consensus that we'll all want to defend – which I continue to stress as the overall goal. (By the way, MichaelMaggs: it was thoughtless of me to refer to "Michael" earlier as if there were only one Michael. Good to see you here, too!) Noetica 02:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think the discussion should all should happen here, SFC9394. Do people agree that the moderator can simply make such decisions? Then we can indeed move things along. Noetica 23:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am happy to go along with what others think - the mod. tag is something I am not really comfortable taking.  Secretary or something like that, but ultimately I am not elected or in any sort of proper position, so while I am happy to move things on, "condense" the debates and add some structure I am just an ordinary editor and I don't want to be in a position of making executive decisions. SFC9394 23:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I advise against having a seperate cabal here.  I understand the need for people to step back, get their bearings, and make some plans for moving forward.  Certainly as a sandbox for a joint rewrite this is also a useful place.  However, the main "action" in terms of the decision-making on the srticle itself should be done in talk:physics itself.  At some point, this group has to reintegrate itself into the overall community of editors of physics, and IMO the sooner the better.  This is an extension of my "fight the edit war" advice above:  You need to engage with Wikipedia community as a whole, and not set yourselves apart. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The idea of a "moderator" is somewhat un-wiki, and having a physics cabal is a bad idea. This page is appropriate if the goal is to thrash out a new article from scratch, but probably isn't appropriate for discussion of how to edit or restructure this article.--Srleffler 03:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind the "moderator" business.  If people wish to look to someone to finalize decisions for the group, that is good, especially if the moderator is looking to the group for input and direction.  After all, noone is under any obligation to listen to anyone else here.  If SFC9394 does a good job of creating a community gestalt, then that editor will be listened to and respected.  If not, then the moderator role will simple unmake itself, and that will be that. --EMS | Talk 03:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Subject to anything SFC9394 may suggest (and I'll happily go along with anything proposed), I believe it would be best to stay here and work up a completely new article, section by section, from scratch. SFC9394 could guide us by telling us which bit to work on at any one time.  When it's done, we then replace the whole of the existing page and move back to the main Talk. Of course, any one who wants to contribute constructively will no doubt be welcome here, so we're not actually a closed group.--MichaelMaggs 13:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why don't you tell us what you'd like us to do, and we'll all (I hope) show our spirit of co-operation by going along with it.--MichaelMaggs 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The need for patient planning, and possibly for a ''moderator'' (continued)

message: This belongs to applied physics, not particle physics.  David R. Ingham 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Accelerator physics"