The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
better to just use {{WikiProject Japan}}, since this template will not pass any additional options to the parent.
Frietjes (
talk) 23:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I propose to delete
Template:Physics equations navbox along with both its sub-templates,
Template:Physics equations and
Template:Physics equations (eponyms). This template is a grab-bag of links to completely unrelated topics. Putting this template on a page is even less sensible than putting "See also:
Category:Physics" or "See also:
Physics" on a random physics page. Yes, I do want readers to be able to browse different physics articles, but there are
15000 total physics articles! These 100 are NOT by any means the 100 most important or the 100 most basic out of 15000, they are essentially 100 random ones out of 15000. (The fact that they are "equations" does not make them a separate category in any meaningful or useful sense. Almost every phenomenon in physics is associated with an equation.) I don't see the purpose of presenting readers with 100 links to random physics articles. A link to
the physics portal is already on many physics pages, and serves the same purpose in a much more successful way, i.e. it introduces readers to the many physics resources on wikipedia.
Steve (
talk) 14:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)reply
indifferent, but if it is deleted we should have a category. if it is kept, we should remove the graphic.
Frietjes (
talk) 15:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)reply
reply For what it's worth, I do not strongly object to having a "Physics equations" category. --
Steve (
talk) 03:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not have any of the advantages of a good navbox (see
WP:NAVBOX). Takes up a lot of space, but few of the links would be relevant to any given article. Contributes to
template creep. More focussed navboxes like {{Physics operator}} are useful, but most equations don't need an equation navbox.
RockMagnetist (
talk) 16:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fair enough. There are the categories [[Category:Equations]] and [[Category:Theoretical physics]] anyway. z =z²+ c 21:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment you should properly tag the two subtemplates with deletion banners as well, since they are full templates and can potentially be used separately. --
76.65.131.160 (
talk) 01:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Revise. There is plenty here to salvage. I don't buy the "completely unrelated topics" rationale, and I doubt anyone else does either. Perhaps these templates can be turned into an article?
75.166.200.250 (
talk) 02:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
reply I wish you wouldn't speculate on what other people think. You can speak for yourself. My question: If you turned these templates into an article, what might be its title? What might be its first sentence or two? --
Steve (
talk) 03:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete There is probably a useful way of organizing this information, but this template is not it. -- SelketTalk 15:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)reply
{{physics equations}} (which is transcluded by this template) is probably sufficient for general navigation in the genre. The eponyms navbox is potentially useful for the specific pages it navigates, though I'm prone to thinking it's overreaching. We don't need a wrapper for the pair of them.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk) 09:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per Steve's reply below. the wrapper template, but
Keep the two sub-templates which could be used independently as needed, or both included on an article if appropriate. If the some of the topics are unrelated, then fix the templates rather than delete them. The existence of a category does not preclude the existence of a template - see
WP:CLNIllia Connell (
talk) 05:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Illia Connell (
talk) 13:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)reply
reply I am arguing that the articles in the subtemplates are related in a superficial way that is useless for navigational purposes, i.e. a reader looking at one article in the template will have no special interest in viewing another article in the template afterwards. I am arguing that the templates are analogous to
Template:Physics articles whose titles have eleven letters. If that is the problem--and you can agree or disagree--then it is impossible to "fix the template". Fix it how?
The criterion of one subtemplate is "physics articles with the word "equation" (or a synonym) in the article title". The criterion of the other subtemplate is "physics articles with the word "equation" (or a synonym), plus the name of one or more humans, in the article title." Why are these random and superficial?
Because the articles with the word "equation" or "law" in the titles is just a tiny fraction of the articles that are about equations or laws. For example, the
torque article has about six major "equations" or "laws" of physics in it (equation relating torque to force, torque to angular momentum, torque to moment of inertia, torque to power, etc.). But the article is not included on either template because these title is just "torque", not "torque equations". Ditto with
friction,
electroweak interaction,
entropy,
numerical aperture, and on and on. To include all "physics equations", the template would be at least 10 times larger. Moreover, all physics equations were discovered by humans (duh), and it is random chance that led some laws to be named after the people who discovered or popularized them, while others were not. --
Steve (
talk) 12:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.