Talk:Quasiperiodicity

The term in question

I find this a curious article.

It offers a single source, which apparently makes no reference to "quasi periodic."

The article itself says the term "doesn't have a precise definition."

One might like a source for this non-definition, and some better sense that this ill-defined term may be nonetheless useful (is used) -- and is somehow noteworthy.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slight improvements

A little better. But why is article focused on climatology, when the term is more broadly used and useful?

Further, one still gets no sense of why term notable enough to have its own article....

Isn't there a guideline about Wikipedia being other than a dictionary?? By the way, Webster's presents the word as "quasiperiodic."

"almost but not quite periodic; especially : periodic on a small scale but unpredictable at some larger scale."

--That works for me! Calamitybrook (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me too. I've broadened the scope of the entire article. A better relation between the term and the articles quasiperiodic motion, quasiperiodic function, etc. needs to be drawn, but I am not the man to do that.--Father Goose (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorin et al. (submitted 2009)

Doesn't appear to be accepted yet. The statement it references doesn't seem to be controversial though. Dorin used proxies to extend their ENSO analysis back ~1000 years. But since "modern period" isn't defined, we could use something a little more accepted like Torrence and Compo (1998). Thoughts? -Atmoz (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]