Talk:Disclination
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Page is weak
[edit]It misses the majority of the work in the area and does not have general refs. Needs work. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Rewritten the intro so it is more general. Perhaps @FuzzyMagma and @NeedsGlasses would like to add a bit more mechanics. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Categorization issues
[edit]@Ldm1954 Some of the categories you added, like Category:Physics, are extremely high-level categories that should be diffused as much as possible, by sorting the articles in subcategories and only leaving the most generic ones (e.g., Physics, Modern physics, and Portal:Physics). To quote the category banner: Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories.
If the topic of disclination is relevant to multiple subfields of physics and chemistry, it is best to categorize it in all of these subfields (and please do so!), rather than in an extremely generic category that is unhelpful for direct article navigation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Disclinations occur in:
- Nanoparticles Fiveling -- Chemical Physics
- Liquid crystals -- Chemical engineering, Materials Science, Physics
- Grain boundaries and deformation -- Materials science, Mechanics
- Topology -- Mathematical Physics
- Cant think of it now, I know there are more.
- Many topics are not simple subtopics of one field, and cutting the categories you have been doing for some I monitor is not accurate. Accuracy has to come first. What you did for computational chemistry was fine, but not all others. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- If disclinations occur in many subfields of physics, they should be categorized in all of these subfields, not in a generic category that is intended to be diffused. I am not saying that they are only in one subfield, but that the most accurate approach is to categorize them in all the appropriate subfields. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954 If we are still in disagreement about the proper way to categorize a topic in multiple subfields of a very high-level category, may I suggest WP:3O or another form of mediation to resolve this? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The physics was already moved to an appropriate subcategory by a different editor. The other areas are not subfields of physics; I can provide numerous sources if asked. I feel you are trying to put science into tight boxes, one or two for each. While that was once true, it disappeared many years ago. Now mechanical engineers routinely use computational chemistry tools; material scientists develop applied math algorithms; biologists develop new physics imaging tools etc. 21st century science is Venn diagrams not boxes. While appropriate diffusing (e.g. solid-state physics) is appropriate, blanket is not and never will be for interdisciplinary science, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954 There's been a misunderstanding, I was not saying I wanted to put things into "one or two tight boxes" (I very much acknowledged that it occured in many different subfields), but categorizing more precisely in which of all of these overlapping fields it belonged in, rather than lumping it all into one high-level category. If you're okay with it being diffused away from the Physics category like the other editor did, I don't believe we're in disagreement anymore. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, he picked the correct physics. Time to go to a party! Ldm1954 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954 There's been a misunderstanding, I was not saying I wanted to put things into "one or two tight boxes" (I very much acknowledged that it occured in many different subfields), but categorizing more precisely in which of all of these overlapping fields it belonged in, rather than lumping it all into one high-level category. If you're okay with it being diffused away from the Physics category like the other editor did, I don't believe we're in disagreement anymore. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The physics was already moved to an appropriate subcategory by a different editor. The other areas are not subfields of physics; I can provide numerous sources if asked. I feel you are trying to put science into tight boxes, one or two for each. While that was once true, it disappeared many years ago. Now mechanical engineers routinely use computational chemistry tools; material scientists develop applied math algorithms; biologists develop new physics imaging tools etc. 21st century science is Venn diagrams not boxes. While appropriate diffusing (e.g. solid-state physics) is appropriate, blanket is not and never will be for interdisciplinary science, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)