Talk:Wave

message: I really can't see how gravitational waves are important enough, uncontroversial enough or explanatory enough to be right up at the top. Especially not with the qualyfier "Researchers believe..." If somebody feels the need for advanced physics in the introduction of the concept of waves, why not bring up the central concept of quantum mechanic wave functions instead of the peripheral and hypothetical gravitational wave idea? 
Niffe (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gravitational waves

message: the gif with Dispersion has been removed. will be placed as a hyperlink in text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlp17 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispersion 

message: Paul August reverted my edit to restore the language "air molecules" where I had changed it to "gas molecules." I am not intending to get into an edit war on this, but there is no such thing as an air molecule and it degrades WP's credibility to use such an inaccurate term, whether or not it is the custom. Altaphon (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context (see my revert)  I take "air molecules" to mean any of the several gas molecules which collectively constitue the air (e.g. N2, O2,  are all "air molecules") see for example this Google Books search. Paul August ☎ 12:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air vs gas 

message: Currently the only mention of transverse vs longitudinal is the last paragraph of the intro.  Should we have sections on the features of these types?  RJFJR (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  transverse vs longitudinal  

message: In the first paragraph, the definition for 'wave motion' is said to be " Wave motion transfers energy from one point to another, which displace particles of the transmission medium — that is, with little or no associated mass transport." But this makes it look like wave motion can only occur when there is a transmission medium. Should be changed. I changed the main definition for a wave from " a wave is an oscillation accompanied by a transfer of energy that travels through a medium (space or mass)." to "In physics, a wave is an oscillation accompanied by a transfer of energy from one point in space to another." as a wave can travel even without a medium 
Someone can still frame the main definition for a wave better than I did and change the definition of wave motion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.208.214 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wave Motion definition 

message: The 1st 2 sentences:
"In physics, a wave is an oscillation accompanied by a transfer of energy. Frequency refers to the addition of time."
These 2 sentences, especially the 2nd one, can only be understood by people who already know most of what is in this article. Hence they are useless to 90% of readers. Something like "Disturbance/oscillation that moves/propagates through elastic matter or in case of electromagnetic waves even through vacuum." would be more useful, even if not so rigorous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.146.157.136 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, I hope . No such user (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro sentences useless 

message: This does not merit it's own section--it is a mechanical wave.
In fact, the most common form of gravity waves are water waves, a subsection of above.
71.29.185.235 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravity waves 

message: wide overlap fgnievinski (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: After nine months with no opposition, I think you are clear if you want to complete the merge. Joyous! | Talk 05:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Dawnseeker2000 04:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Wave propagation]] into [[Wave]] 

message: There are several animations in this article that don't adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines for accessibility. Specifically this guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Animations The animation at the beginning of the section Waves in elastic medium, the one in Amplitude and Modulation and two in Phase Velocity and Group Velocity. The guidelines state: "To be accessible, an animation (GIF – Graphics Interchange Format) should either: Not exceed a duration of five seconds (which results in making it a purely decorative element) or Be equipped with control functions (stop, pause, play)" There are people with various learning or cognitive disabilities (e.g., me) that find these types of never ending animations extremely distracting and they almost make it impossible for such people to read the text. I don't know how to edit graphics or I would be bold and change these, but I encourage someone who knows how to change all the graphics in this article to adhere to the accessibility guidelines. I realize this is very different for different users and many people don't find such animations distracting but a non-trivial number of Wikipedia users do find them extremely distracting which is why the guidelines say that if you have an animation it either should only last 5 seconds or it should have a control where the user can stop the animation if they so desire. 
18:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely support that.  I find animations to be exceedingly distracting.  A lot of them run faster than my brain. Constant314 (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animations Don't Adhere to Accessibility Guidelines  

message: Why are vortices classified here as part of the mechanical waves in the lead of the article? In most mechanical waves the particles of the medium oscillate about an equilibrium position, more or less. There is dominantly a transport of energy associated with the mechanical wave, not mass. A vortex has a lot of mass transport associated, and particles do not return to -- or oscillate about -- en equilibrium position. A vortex may or may not propagate, but a spinning top also may propagate and is not classified as a wave phenomenon. Are there relevant secondary sources qualifying vortices as waves? -- Crowsnest (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are vortices waves?