Talk:Entropy (disambiguation)

message: I removed some items.  The general idea is that an item should only be on a disambiguation page if a user is likely to expect it on looking up "entropy".  Because of the length of this page, I applied these criteria for removing items, to ensure the page was no longer than it needed to be:
*Remove if there is no reference to entropy in the destination page, or
*Remove if it is a small part of a topic that it is reasonable to expect a user to begin or continue his search with the wider topic (for example, a character in a video game), or
*Remove if there is no associated article on Wikipedia, or
*Remove if it is not generally referred to as simply "entropy".
There is some judgement involved, but if necessary, the restoration of items should be done with care -- entries should be short and only there if there is substantial risk of confusion.  See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) for further information. Neonumbers 09:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neonumbers' comment referred to this edit (Oct 2006) -- Jheald 19:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Seconded. I'm willing to remove more entries from the current list, actually: this is a disambiguation page, not an exhaustive discussion of uses of the word. Chris Cunningham 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the recent changes by Chris Cunningham ("Thumperward") are steps in the wrong direction, and I would prefer this revision.  I have put up requests for comment at WikiProject Physics and WikiProject Maths. Jheald 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Replying over there, though I don't feel that putting links up on WikiProject talk pages (which are necessarily biased towards their own domains) is a good way of resolving copy edit issues. Chris Cunningham 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some items 

message: In my view, somewhat ironically, removing Introduction to entropy from the dab page was actually the most sensible of the changes made! Introduction to entropy is linked, from Entropy, as an introductory article to the subject, and there is no place for such an article on a dab page. On the other hand, combining articles on thermodynamic entropy and information entropy into a single list is utterly confusing. The two meanings should be separated. Geometry guy 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another view 

message: Leaving your question aside, but talking about the specific issue of the section mergers, I would like to back out your changes.
These sections were specifically introduced by Thumperward in order that there should be a Table of Contents at the top of the article that would make it easier to jump to meanings of entropy other than those directly associated with thermodynamic entropy.  Specifically, the ToC at the top of the article made it easier to find Entropy (computing), which he had recently edited, and which he felt was 'buried' in a list the reader would have to plough through line by line.  Hence the careful sectioning.  Similarly, for somebody wanting to jump straight to (say) the Hip Hop album.
Unfortunately your change has had the effect of removing the ToC altogether, making this no longer possible; and the merged sections are less identificatory, making them in any case less useful.
I therefore think your change has made this page less effective; so, unless people weigh in to the contrary, I would propose to back your changes out.  Jheald (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to force a ToC (I believe there are several techniques for doing this), I will have no objection—in fact, I think that is a valid point; I will do that now.  ToCright is generally preferred on dab pages but in this case, there are so many right-aligned templates that ToCleft might work better.  Also, if you wish to split the science and technology section into two, so there are four sections (I concede it's a bit long), I will have no objection.  However, I must protest to having eight sections.  Too many sections (yes, even five) means a long ToC to sift through, and if it's counterbalanced by there only being one (or two) articles per section, isn't it just more efficient to have one list?  The correct section of a group of articles must be identifiable at a glance (not a read).  Neonumbers (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section mergers 

message: I have removed several redlinked items and instances of evanscent meaning (songs called "entropy" which do not have dedicated articles at WP), in the spirit of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Arcfrk (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the entries include a blue link which covers the "Entropy" portion, they should be disambiguated.  Things that have no blue links or only blue links to articles that do not cover "Entropy" should be removed. That is the discriminating criterion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the red links is a good start. Every title in this version seems to contain the word "entropy" and is blue. Are there titles in that version that anyone disagrees with including here? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me ... I suggest the "sister projects" tag is removed and any relevant article put into "See also". Abtract (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: I repeat something I wrote before that no one reacted to.
The essence of WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic is as follows. If the term Title has a "well-known meaning", for which it is unlikely that users are looking when they type in the search term "Title (disambiguation)", the guideline recommends to place the link back to that "primary topic" at the top, and to not "mix it in" with the other links.
Applied to the title Entropy, the assumption of the rule is that a user will only reach the dab page by entering "Entropy (disambiguation)" in the search box. I submit that it is actually rather unlikely that a user types that in; if they reach this page it is much more likely they were following a link such as "entropy" on the pages Complexity and Kipple, or the link in the hatnote of Information entropy. Thus, in my opinion, the rationale for the MOSDAB rule does not apply here.  --Lambiam 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bearing in mind that there should be no piped links to a dab page, the main way a reader should arrive here is by typing "entropy", discovering that it was the wrong article and then clicking the link to the dab page in that article. Of course there will be some particularly savvy readers who might guess that there is a dab page and come straight here. I am amazed that it hasn't become clear that the primary topic problem can be made to go away only by the (simple) device of moving Entropy to Entropy (thermodynamics) and this page to Entropy ... there would then be no primary meaning! Abtract (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Woof! I'm with Abtract here, the current article called entropy utterly fails to discuss the concept in the whole, and is very narrowly focused on thermodynamics. I put in a page-move request for this, I hope it doesn't get bogged down with goofiness. linas (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Step one is taken here. Talk:Entropy#Survey. Lets get this out of the way, then we can copy the bulk of this page to Entropy, and be done with it. linas (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing out that option, Abtract, and thanks, Linas, for doing the legwork.  I pointed out the option when this brouhaha started, but no one was willing to do the legwork then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for MOSDAB rule does not apply here 

message: At this point, I suggest we do a survey to solve this dispute. How's that sound? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.  A survey can facilitate discussion, but can't solve the dispute. There are already two possible solutions presented: WP:IAR (current version) or replace (not delete) the links to the categories with links to the categorized articles or a link to a list of the categorized articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A third options is a new article, List of entropy topics, which links to the categories (and other random things related to the subject) and can be placed in a See also section. This keeps this page strictly for disambiguation, while allowing the subject full coverage on its own article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the "link to a list of the categorized articles" in the second option. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Can I suggest that in the lead definition it is particularly useful to start
:Entropy, in thermodynamics, is
as has been stable on this dab page for well over two years.
The point is that the article linked to addresses the meaning of entropy in one very particular context; this fact should be signalled as clearly as possible to anybody happening on this page.
That is achieved much more clearly with the form:
:Entropy, in thermodynamics, is ...
rather than
:Entropy is a thermodynamic property that is...
The latter statement is only true of entropy in thermodynamics -- not entropy in general.  The target article signals that with a hatnote, that makes its scope very clear.  But on this dab page we don't reproduce that hatnote, therefore we need to move that indication into the definition line -- as the suggested form does.
Secondly, can I object strongly to 
:"is a measure of the energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process."
Entropy (or more specifically the product TR S, where TR is the temperature of the coldest available heat sink) is a measure of energy not available to do useful work tout court.  Hence a preferred suggested alternative:
:"a measure of the energy in a thermodynamic system not available to do useful work."
Finally, can I suggest it is sensible to stick close to a wording which has survived pretty much unchanged the best part of two years, rather than slavishly changing to the lead-of-the-week at Entropy, which hasn't remained stable for more than a few weeks any time in the last five years.  Jheald (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to suggest that you tone down your rhetoric. People at the dab page normally come through the base name article. The lead is a placeholder there to reflect that origin point. It does not need "in thermodynamics" -- entropy (unqualified, the base name) is the thermodynamic topic. The easiest (not slavishest) way to handle the lede is to copy the text from the base name page, and periodically (but not slavishly) update it to the base name's version. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that for a lot of people "entropy" (unqualified) is not thermodynamic entropy -- for many "entropy" (unqualified) is information entropy.  We have chosen thermodynamic entropy for our base-name article, and there were some good reasons for that.  But for some people using entropy (unqualified) to mean thermodynamic entropy will seem surprising, unnatural, even wrong.  For that reason it is a good idea to make very clear up-front as soon as possible that it is entropy (in thermodynamics) that we have chosen for our base-name article, not information entropy, nor a general survey of different possible/related meanings of the word.  Jheald (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Entropy, in thermodynamics..." 

message: The two entries
*Entropy (package manager), a Sabayon Linux package manager
*Entropy (anonymous data store), a discontinued project to build a computer network designed to be resistant to censorship
should not be in the section "Interdisciplinary applications of entropy". Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In computer science 

message: A former excellent classification of the several uses of the term entropy in physics and mathematics has been removed, amid some controversy, on the grounds that it was too detailed for a disambiguation page.  That may be true, but it should be put somewhere, because now there seems to be nowhere in Wikipedia where these related concepts are listed, let alone the relations among them explained.   As several editors have noted, the word entropy is used about equally often in information theory and thermodynamics, and the meanings in these two fields, and others (e.g. dynamical entropy, algorithmic entropy) are so closely related that the relation should be explained in an accessible place. Ideally a categorization such as the one in the former disambiguation page should appear at the beginning of the main Entropy article.  But the current Entropy article,  like the Introduction to entropy article, is limited to thermodynamic entropy.CharlesHBennett (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Except this is a disambiguation page, not a page to explicate the various meanings of the term.  It is simply a pointer to existing articles that are ambiguous with the term.  There already exists a full article on entropy as well as Introduction to entropy. older ≠ wiser 17:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communicating the coherence of several related entropy concepts in physics and mathematics 

message: This article is confusing, but it seems to fail at effectively disambiguating topological entropy in particular.  Can someone please create a disambig page for topological entropy (disambiguation), so that the Topological entropy in physics article is more findable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.254.117 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig for topological entropy? 

message: There are three categories in a separate box at the top which "might" be used by an interested reader. This violates WP:NAMELIST which excludes links to mere lists. In addition, not all the names in the list contain the keyword "entropy." This violates WP:PARTIAL, as well. Student7 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of categories violates  WP:MOS