Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Application of WP:OR

Having read what DVdm, DickLyon and Blackburne have to say about WP:OR, I suggest that in their view the following sections of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) all are OR:

If I misconstrue how WP:OR is to be applied, according to these gentlemen, perhaps they can point out why these sections are acceptable, in their opinion? That would aid all editors in achieving a uniform application of WP:OR.

I encourage some Talk page discussion before these sections are deleted according to WP:OR, as not everyone may agree. Brews ohare (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I encourage Brews to very carefully read WP:POINT. DVdm (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Why? These are reasonable questions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but do have a look at this guideline. Brews's "invitation" looks like the perfect schoolbook example of WP:POINT: like "if they don't convince me that all these sections are OR, then they haven't convinced me that my section was OR to begin with, so I am free to include it; otherwise I will delete their sections." DVdm (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Trying to apply rules with some consistency seems to be a good idea to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead, try to apply rules with consistency. But, looking at the way he formulated the invitation and at his history, I think that, in order to avoid some kind of permanent ban, Brews should stay away from this kind of activity as far as he possible can, if not farther. DVdm (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pieter and DVdm: A pattern of behavior is emerging here. Rather than respond to requests for clarity or some detail about what is wanted, all such efforts are stonewalled with an It's obvious. Read the guidelines response. Obviously it's not obvious, look at the difficulties. When requests for particulars of these objections are made, in the hope of reaching some accord, the same stonewall non-response is made, and supplemented with advice to try no longer to obtain details of objection, apparently on the basis that it is bothersome for these editors to engage usefully. Brews ohare (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Obviously it's not obvious, look at the difficulties". The only difficulties we see, are the difficulties people experience explaining to you the most simple policy of Wikipedia. You seem to force people to make a choice between assuming no clue and assuming bad faith. DVdm (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruption on this page

We have a very simple issue here, namely that if some object is moving with no net forces acting on it then, in a rotating frame, there will be a fictious centripetal force which is the sum of the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force. This is almost primary school level physics, it can of course be cited, there is nothing controversial whatsoever with such a statement.

Then edits in this article which aim to illustrate this can still be criticised on various grounds (e.g. the text is too long, it reads to much like a textbook, or whatever), but raising OR and filibustering any real discussions leading to ever longer talkpage discussions about nothing, is disruptive. Simply put, what the OR policy says or doesn't say doesn't matter one iota for the issue at hand. This is actually similar as why invoking modern physics by Brews when discussing the definition of the metre was seen to be disruptive at a certain point after lengthy talk page discussions, when the core issue was very simple, i.e. that putting c = 299,792,458 m/s defines the metre in terms of the second.

So, I suggest we drop the OR issue and start discussing the section. Count Iblis (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Text is too long and reads like a textbook

I append below the pertinent commentary from above regarding these issues. Brews ohare (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  • My primary concern is that the edit in question completely fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Specifically, "It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples." IMO, the example appears to be more to instruct rather to inform. As others have said above, it is more appropriate for a lecture or textbook, but not for a WP article (perhaps it could be used at Wikiversity). I believe the current examples in the article are more than sufficient to inform (in fact I'd recommend removing one or two based on the same WP:NOT argument) the reader. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This objection is both more germane and more difficult to support. The theses are: (i) Other examples accomplish the same thing. Please indicate which examples do that. And (ii) The example instructs rather than informs. If that has a meaning, I'd say that this objection means the example serves to teach skills (like exercises to master the mechanical details) more than it serves to sharpen understanding of the concepts. I can believe that opinion may vary on that judgment. My own is that this example, by treating a straight-line motion in a rotating frame, the flip side to treating a straight-line motion in a stationary frame, shows the following: in this case, centrifugal force has to be physically counteracted by a thruster thrust, illustrating how real it is to the parachutist bird; on the other hand, in the dropped ball example, the centrifugal and Coriolis forces join up to produce exactly no need for any action. That illustrates the two faces of the fictitious forces, and is illustrative of the concept, not simply a teaching of manipulative skills.
Should we ultimately disagree about the impact of this example upon understanding, I'd opine that there is no need to drop the example inasmuch as it does have explanatory value, whether or not it has other benefits. Brews ohare (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is routine reasoning, but rather wordy for a -pedia. The sourcing requirement leads to invocations of somewhat absurd references, like the robotics text. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, insistence on verbatim sourcing means you have to look in strange places. Probably the example could be shortened, but even at its present length, DVdm and Blackburne have trouble understanding it. They think it is OR. Brews ohare (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What is clear on top of it being OR it fails [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK], which says "It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples". The article already has a number of (sourced) examples, with a couple overlong already. It does not need another (unsourced) one.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe my response to these arguments is contained in my response to FyzixFighter. Please suggest improvements that might make the example clearer and/or shorter. Brews ohare (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The example should not be made clearer and/or shorter. It should be sourced. DVdm (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
DVdm: What aspects should be sourced has been asked of you again and again; this thread is on a different aspect. Please take your arguments to the earlier threads where they have been repeatedly addressed in detail. Interruption of a thread to grind an old axe about a different topic is impolite and a violation of WP:Civil. Brews ohare (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Brews, I cannot help you, so I'm going to stop repeating myself. I'll leave it to others to repeat themselves for a while. DVdm (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Another section with original research

For obvious reasons I have removed another freshly inserted WP:OR sector by Brews ohare. DVdm (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

DVdm, please stop with imposing your ideosyncratic view on OR on everyone else. This is becoming disruptive. Count Iblis (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I notice that Count Iblis (talk · contribs) reinserted the removed section. The section is yet another case of Brews' creating new content from partly sourced bits and pieces. As such this is WP:SYNTH and thus another schoolbook example of WP:OR. The section does not belong here. It belongs in a textbook. Reasons amply given above. DVdm (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There are tons of Wikipedia aricles that do have such texts. Look, if most editors don't like the text, because it is too long or not necessary or whatever other reasons, then I won't oppose removal. But removal on the grounds of OR or SYNTH is in this case not justified. Count Iblis (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It most certainly is. If this line of reasoning is not original research or synthesis, then it should be very easy to find a source for it. As you certainly know, a defect in "tons of Wikipedia articles" is not a reason to introduce a defect into this article. Please remove the section again. DVdm (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
General citations to classical mechanics textbooks should be ok. Per common practice, it is not necessary to have a source that explains it in the precisely same way. But even such a general citation is pointless as the text aims to make a statement verifiable from first principles. Count Iblis (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no "per common practice". There are many WP articles with spelling mistakes, poor grammar or dead links, but that does not mean they are good to have too. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. There IS a core WP policy, no original research, which says "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." None of the sources do the latter for the material as presented.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

John Blackburne: Let's divide this question into three parts.

Part 1: Putting aside all WP policies, do you personally think there is anything debatable about the section Straight-line motions? I know your personal beliefs are not pertinent to WP, but I'd like to know your position: do you have to be persuaded, or are you in agreement yourself, personally?
Part 2: Do you believe that all material, even completely uncontroversial and correct material that raises questions from nobody, must be sourced to avoid violation of WP:OR?
Part 3: Do you believe that the sections listed earlier meet your criteria, or are they also in violation of WP:OR?

My feeling is that item 2 is too stringent and that the sections listed in item 3 must be taken as in violation of WP:OR if item 2 is the criterion. Brews ohare (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Brews, stop it. As it clearly says at WP:DISRUPTPOINT,
  • If you think someone unjustifiably removed "unsourced" content...
    • do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source
    • do not remove all apparently unsourced content on the page
So no, this is not about the other content on the page, stop trying to disrupt this talk page by trying to draw us into debating the whole page or into a debate about policy. Just properly source your contributions.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:POINT clearly says that one should be able to raise a point and then discuss it, just not act on it. It is not dispruptive to do so. Frankly this whole OR issue raised by you is leading to disruption because you are not addressing his points why the rather trivial statements are supposed to be OR here while they are not elsewhere in this article and in tons of other Wiki articles.
Because you can't motivate your OR objection, I would once again ask Brews to ignore your and DVdm's request. It seems to me that the other editors don't see an OR issue here so even if you are right WP:IAR can be invoked for this particular issue. That doesn't mean that there are no other reasons to object to Brews's edits. Count Iblis (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Status of proposed subsection "Dropping bird"

The proposed subsection has attracted the attention of DVdm and John Blackburne as being WP:OR. However, it appears that they are unwilling to support that assertion, and consider it to be so obvious a claim that absolutely no supporting details are needed. As the claim therefore is unsupported by both its originators and all other editors on this Talk page, is the paragraph ready for installation in the article, or perhaps another RfC should be posted? Brews ohare (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  • You are ignoring the results of the current RfC where six editors have issues with it: myself, DVdm, Pieter Kuiper, FyzixFighter, Woodstone, and Dicklyon. So a clear consensus against it. The main objections were that it's OR and that it's inappropriate for an encyclopaedia ("rather wordy", fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK). One editor indicated that it's "wrong": most I think including myself did not consider it's accuracy, but that it simply does not belong. Creating another RfC on the same subject because you did not like the result of the first would be entirely inappropriate.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
John, you are right that another RfC may not accomplish anything more than having interested parties register their opinions here. I wouldn't presume to put words in their mouths, but I don't think that you summarize their views correctly. In particular, the comment by Woodstone that the article is "wrong" was due to misreading the example as a spherical motion, a misconception avoided in the present version by clearly identifying the cylindrical geometry. In any event, the article has been amended in several ways, and I would like to hear the various editors' views upon the article as presently constituted. Brews ohare (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "wrong", "rather wordy" and the links to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK were all copied from other editors replies, not putting words in their mouths. As for your contention that Woodstone was incorrect, that's the problem with unsourced content. If it were properly sourced you could just point to a reliable source. If as you say Woodstone was incorrect then at best that makes the text unclear and difficult to understand – again not a problem if it's based on good sources.
I see you have removed the RfC tag from the RfC. WP:RfC says " If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run.", so I presume you are happy that consensus has been reached. If not the proper thing to do would be to let the RfC run for a while longer – they normally run for 30 days, this one only ran for three. Again, it would not be appropriate to start another one three days later on the same topic just because you don't like the outcome of the first.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I've been a bit precipitous in removing the RfC. I really don't know what the editors' present views are, so I thought a request for an update might help. Brews ohare (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You could try to make the text a bit shorter. You could even condens it to a few sentences right after the first example, e.g. simply say after the first example ends that if instead we are dealing with an object that moves in a straight line in the rotating frame (like your bird) that then you don't have the coriolis force. Then you finish the explanation in one or two sentences. Count Iblis (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've shortened it up somewhat, not as much as you suggest. Without a figure and a description of the paths, I don't think the example is clear. Brews ohare (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
You could get rid of the "dropping ball" section entirely, as it's simply a rehash of rotating spheres with an inertial motion superimposed along the rotation axis (which is unimportant since no forces act in that direction). We can think of any complicated motion we like and then look at it from a rotating frame and write a section on it, but there are only so many of these that are useful. I'd go for rest and for uniform straight line motion (which has been done). The "whirling table" section is just the rotating spheres again, but this time with a variable weight force in place of the fixed string in the spheres example. It doesn't teach much of anything extra, and whatever it does, needs to start with the long discussion in rotating spheres FIRST. Other than simple add-ons of some uniform motion (as with the dropping ball/bird, and the string with different tensions) it gets very complicated (with changing rotational rates, as for elliptical planetary motion). In the last case the Euler force comes into play, and perhaps it's best treated elsewhere. The "rotating reference frame" is usually assumed to be rotating uniformly. SBHarris 00:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Sbharris: Of course, all examples boil down to the basic principles. I don't think that means that the examples aren't helpful: it is not a question of whether one can construct the examples from others or from the principles, they are about bringing a clearer awareness of these connections. It's about illumination, not logical necessity or completeness. Textbook treatments have similar examples for the same purpose: exposition. Maybe that makes this article too much like a textbook? I don't think that is what WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is about: it is a caution about examples to develop facility with skills, not about examples to get the point across. Brews ohare (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
There isn't much difference, except that between texts that have exercises and problems at the ends of chapters, and those that do not. This may be an aesthetic judgement, but in my estimation this article contains too much information on ways of looking at the same problem. The basic idea of an encyclopedia is that it's a reference in which to look stuff up. Wikipedia is also an very almanac-type thing, despite saying it isn't at WP:NOT. What it really isn't, and really shouldn't try to be, is wikiversity. SBHarris 20:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest that if you delete most of the article in order to make it as succinct as suits you, that will make the topic opaque to many. You are seemingly unaware of the history of this article, which showed a rampant confusion over the whole concept, its being a fictitious force, its connection to the reactive form, the role of Coriolis force, and so forth. These problems were put to rest only by adding examples. It is likely that many readers are assisted by these examples, although you are not. That's why examples appear in every textbook explaining the subject. I'd say that the removal of examples to suit some "almanac aesthetic", or, as DickLyon says, "bloat", is (i) completely unnecessary, and (ii) contrary to aiding the reader, and (iii) unsympathetic to the very common misconceptions surrounding this topic. However, it is more than clear that your views are not only common, but that they will be enforced by administrative curtailment not only of article contributions, but of contrary opinions. Brews ohare (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the topic is scary to readers due to the article being so lloonngg... and that shortening it would not leave readers finding it to be "opaque." The rampant confusion that you refer to was a year-long diatribe between you and David Tombe, in which your attempts to address his confusion by adding more and more explanation and examples to the article did no good at all. Dicklyon (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure we'll not agree. However, for others who might read this exchange, I don't think a section labeled "Examples" scares anybody: you have fair warning that it is "Examples", and you can choose to read the ones you want, or none of them. They don't distract from the exposition in other sections, and there is no space limitation in WP. The article is not tailor-made for a particular audience or to fit a particular aesthetic; it is for a variety of readers and variety of backgrounds, and examples are helpful for some readers. You bring up the discussion between Tombe and myself just to throw a bit of mud about. The examples pretty much stand on their own, and should be judged that way. Brews ohare (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reorganizing this article?

I was wondering if we could move the section "Advantages of rotating frames" up to right after the lead. Then, you have more of an introduction before the math starts. You could even think of putting a simple example after that that doesn't require a detailed mathematical explanation.

Then I think we should also include an alternative derivation using the Euler-Lagrange equations (perhaps in an appendix). This is for many the preferred way of deriving such equations due to the invariance of these equations under general coordinate transformations. Count Iblis (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The formulation using Euler-Lagrange may introduce the complication that this formulation uses its own terminology and describes "centrifugal force" as an algebraic expression that in most cases is a not a Newtonian force, but a generalized "force". Brews ohare (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
See, for example, this discussion. Brews ohare (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there are some complications here, I'll think about that... Count Iblis (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is another discussion of this point. Brews ohare (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't revert removal of xkcd links

You need to give a reason for putting xkcd links in an article. Wikipedia isn't an xkcd fan-site. WeDon'tWantAny (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of cartoons like this to illustrate difficult topics has a long history in physics. As it happens whether this should be included or not, this question came up before, and the decision was that we actually want to include the cartoon in the article if at all possible. The cartoon is after all, technically accurate and penned by a professional physicist.- Wolfkeeper 13:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Please find the discussion for reference. Until then the link stays out of the article. I don't buy your reasoning (the comic explains nothing to the reader, and is simply an in-joke for people to feel pleased about getting). However, if you truly believe what you're saying, I'm sure you'll be happy to see the xkcd comic replaced with something I've scribbled on a piece of paper (it's a comic featuring stick-men explaining the principles of centrifugal forces). Being completely neutral about xkcd I'm sure you will be happy to see this included. WeDon'tWantAny (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to scribble stuff and upload, and I'm sure we'll treat it according to its applicability to the article. In the meantime the XKCD cartoon is actually notable in this context.- Wolfkeeper 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous, you even say yourself that the comic will probably get removed because of tone in that original discussion. Why not run with that feeling instead of rabidly defending its inclusion because *you like it*? WeDon'tWantAny (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The cartoon is on topic and entirely appropriate and to the point; indeed I want it in the article and this was agree by the other editors, and the only reason it isn't is because we haven't been able to negotiate a license. If you read the WP:EL guidelines, you'll find that makes it eligible for inclusion in the external links section; we are allowed to include references to things we are not able to include- that is correct linkage.- Wolfkeeper 22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
By that same token, I could point out that your link matches the profile of "Links normally to be avoided"; see points 1, 13 and possibly 11. WeDon'tWantAny (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Not a single one of those applies. 1- it actually is a unique reference. 11-It is not a blog, personal page (it's actually a commercial page) nor a fansite. 13- this particular link is directly related to the subject of the article.- Wolfkeeper 17:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
At the moment there are license issues, I did send a request to the copyright owner to see if he would agree to relicense it; I never got a reply, but I may ask this again though; apparently he gets swamped with emails, so he may not have read it.- Wolfkeeper 13:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
If it's something that we'd like to include in the article, but can't due to licensing issues, then that's what external links are for. Dicklyon (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Does a link to a web-comic belong in this article

Does a link to a web-comic that references the article material warrant inclusion in the article? WeDon'tWantAny (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the last version with it in I would say include it: it does illustrate the common (mis)understanding of the term. But it doesn't need a cute title. Something like "XKCD comic 123" is all that's needed. Those who want to be entertained, or find out what xkcd is, can follow the link. JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - While it is a 'webcomic' it's written by a professional physicist, is about physics, the cartoon is technically accurate and illustrates in a fun way the physics involved. I'm not hung up on the title, but it needs to describe in some sense what the link does for the user.- Wolfkeeper 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep xkcd offers a unique, often humorous view of physics topics we cannot easily integrate into an encyclopedia article. -Atmoz (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove I'm a fan of xkcd and the comic is entertaining, but it has as much to do with Goldfinger as with Centrifugal force. The criteria for inclusion of external links are pretty clearly spelled out in WP:EL and while it may be fun, the strip is does not have information that is not already in the article, nor does it constitute a unique resource. It's would tempting to link to many of the xkcd strips from corresponding wikipedia articles, but it's not encyclopedic to do so.--RDBury (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, we've found in the past that pointing people who were working on the article to it immediately reduced the arguments about the topic. It's a unique resource because the artist managed to get the key parts of whether 'centrifugal force' is "real" or not into just 4 small pictures and a tiny bit of text; and it's unique resource because it's copyrighted, and cannot be easily duplicated.- Wolfkeeper 15:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove Ditto RDBury. While it may possibly expose the misconception, that's not an adequate reason to have it linked per WP:EL. --Izno (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a decent illustration of a common misperception. That's an excellent reason to include the graphic. The external link is optional IMO... Yes, people can google XKCD for themselves, but why not save them a few clicks? That's the purpose of a hyperlink anyway, right? Plvekamp (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - the web comic is a valuable illustration of the concepts discussed in the artile. It is a "unique" resource in the sense of providing an accessible illustrating of the crux of the confusions in this area. A link to it seems appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove - The comic is fancruft. It doesn't serve to explain the confusion about centripetal and centrifugal forces because the comic requires you to know this in the first place in order to appreciate the joke. It could easily be replaced by one of many other sources. WeDon'tWantAny (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't found that to be the case at all; you can point people to other sources as much as you want; but it's a rare case of where the maxim "a picture is worth a thousand words" is really true.- Wolfkeeper 15:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's more a case of "I like xkcd and I want to keep it in the article". I really don't see how it is defensible. It's not reference material, its value is highly dependent on point of view, and it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to enrich people's lives with popular culture references. This should be discouraged as much as possible, otherwise we would end up with xkcd in every science article, as the comic's formula is making references to science topics. If you take your reasoning out of context you must see how ridiculous it is; by the same logic I should be adding "why did the chicken cross the road?" jokes to the Chicken article, to "illustrate the hazards of chickens in urban environments in an accessible way". As a side note, please don't tally up the votes from an RFC merely hours after it is opened and when no consensus is reached. The point of RFCs is not to "win votes", but to help people come to an agreement about content. WeDon'tWantAny (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Your point is both a facile view of the issue and deliberately deceptive, since 'why did the chicken cross the road jokes' are not really about chickens in any material way. It seems to me that the difference between 'cruft' and non 'cruft' is whether the material is really on-topic or not. In this case it really, is on topic; it really is about the difference between centrifugal force as a completely fictitious concept and something that appears in the equations and represents something that is real enough that it can actually kill you. In this way it adds to the topic, as opposed to adding to the subject of the cruft. If you really can't tell the difference, I would strongly recommend you not write any more for the Wikipedia.- Wolfkeeper 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
We could both keep moving the goalposts on this until the end of time, but that wouldn't change Wikipedia's actual policies, which have been laid out for you by three editors now. I suggest you read what the other pro-removal people have said and try to take it in objectively. Pretend it isn't about xkcd, but something you don't hold dear to your heart instead (as RDBury did). As you're now telling people that they probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia when their views differ from yours, I think you should probably step away from this issue until you have regained your cool. WeDon'tWantAny (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The only goalposts are the policies, and they aren't especially movable. If you believe this violates a policy, you will have to quote it for us; as I'm pretty sure there is no violation here; nothing you has said so far identifies any policy violation at all.- Wolfkeeper 00:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
WeDon'tWantAny : You asked for comment; you're getting it. This assumption that anyone who disagrees with removing the link must be a fan of XKCD is erroneous. I, for one, am no fan; I think most of his cartoons are banal and barely amusing. This particular one is on-topic and quite illustrative. If we can get a copyright release, I think we should include the graphic itself in the article. I note that the only edits you've made to the Wiki are for the purpose of removing XKCD links... Have you read WP:SPA? Plvekamp (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where I complained about comments being made. Could you please quote the text that implied this? I did complain about being rudely told that I probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, but that is not the same thing! Please read my talk page where I explain that I have simply noticed a lot of xkcd links that don't belong, and have been removing them. If you want to make accusations about my motives please go through an more appropriate channel where you can justify your reasons for doing so (such as getting the behaviour stopped), as otherwise it just looks like a snide attack. This is a RFC about the article, not about a user. I do see that I shouldn't be adding "mission statements" to my user page, so thanks for pointing that out. I wrote that I am removing inappropriate links from Wikipedia as an explanation of what I am currently doing per my routine, not to lay out a singular goal. If I have to suffer criticism for removing an easily identifiable body of cruft in a short space of time, so be it! WeDon'tWantAny (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove: fanboy cruft. 86.153.8.118 (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I can't think of a valid reason to remove it.Chhe (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Xkcd_in_popular_culture#Inappropriate_references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.124.158 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the license is ever compatible, I have no intention of adding it as popular culture, nor is it there now; it will be a proper diagram that is part of the text.- Wolfkeeper 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove. The comic is funny for someone who is familiar with the quasi-controversy it refers to, but it adds essentially no encyclopedic value. (Funny is not an encyclopedic value). If it had a compatible licence, I would support it as an inline image -- but that is different from an external link. –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove: The comic doesn't seem necessary and the website is commercial (sells the comic). TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you–in good conscience and without trying to twist reality–explain how the strip satisfies points 1-3 in this section?90.215.124.158 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That section is neither guideline nor policy; it is only an essay. You cannot claim it as authoritative. The comic illustrates a concept quite well in this article. Considering your incivil edit summary towards me ("grow a pair of balls, get cancer in them"), along with your contribution history, I'd suggest your apparent obsession on this issue is prejudicial against the case you're trying to make. Plvekamp (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but WP:ELNO#11 is guideline. What xkcd in pop culture does is explain when ELNO#11 is best to apply w.r.t. xkcd. If you can make a case against the three points that the IP makes, then you may have legitimate reasoning to keep the link. --Izno (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:ELNO#11 reads: 11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. This link is not a blog, personal web page, or fansite. It is simply a comic. Wikipedia:Xkcd in popular culture is an essay against indiscriminate spamming of xkcd into articles; this particular case is not spam, and the essay is not applicable. Further, this section of WP:ELYES item 3 reads:
What should be linked
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
This xkcd graphic, as noted above by several editors, cannot be integrated into the article due to a copyright issue. It is therefore incorporated as an external link according to this guideline. Several editors of this article with professional knowledge of the subject have expressed value for it above. Plvekamp (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
1) Its supposed value is entirely POV. Editors with professional knowledge of the field aren't the same thing as reliable outside sources 2) Not being a blog, fansite or personal web page (and you have purposely taken a narrow view of this criteria) doesn't mean that comics are fine. The page doesn't give extra information on the topic and it's not written by a recognised authority. 3) Why isn't it spam? Why do the rules not apply to this comic? Why is "it can't be embedded and so it is a valid external link" valid reasoning (you've twisted that guideline for your own purposes; it's only there for things that should be embedded content, and this most certainly shouldn't be)? Why do you think those three points you were asked to satisfy aren't a valid condensed form of the linking guidelines and why do you refuse to answer them?
It's important not to let Wikipedia get bunged up with things just because people like them. Go read an article about vampires and imagine if an excerpt from Twilight was added because somebody claimed it helped people understand the concepts, even though it obviously didn't. Would you be happy to see that stay? xkcd is no more golden than Twilight, and shouldn't be given preference in Wikipedia articles the way it is. Many people are of the viewpoint that xkcd's writing process involves the author scanning Wikipedia for concepts that will appeal to its fanbase and then basing comics around them in order to pander to them. We don't need this being fed back into Wikipedia. It's not a reliable source. 90.215.124.140 (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, have you thought about the precedent you would be setting? Can I now go and scour the Internet for my favourite comics that reference a subject and add those under the pretense that it makes the subject matter easier to understand, or is this just a special case for comics you like? You can't have a special rule for one thing. xkcd's entire basis is referencing scientific topics. If your addition is valid then we'll end up with xkcd on far too many pages, and it would be ridiculous and selfish. 90.215.124.140 (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You evidently didn't read my comments above. I said, "I, for one, am no fan; I think most of his cartoons are banal and barely amusing. This particular one is on-topic and quite illustrative. If we can get a copyright release, I think we should include the graphic itself in the article." An external link is a reasonable alternative to an embedded image, by guideline. This is not an "xkcd in popular culture"-type use; it is an "xkcd gives a useful image"-type use. I'm not about to go spamming links into any articles. Worries about precedent-setting are a bit paranoid, in my opinion.
Also, thanks for calming down the vitriol, and stating your reasons calmly. We may disagree, but at least now I can understand the motivation for your opinion. WP:CIVIL is just as important as WP:EL; probably more so. Plvekamp (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you stop putting the link back in with the edit summary "per talk", as if a consensus has been reached? I can't help but feel that you are trolling or trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with that one. You can't say "per talk" when an agreement clearly hasn't been reached!
If you let the xkcd link in then why should any other editor feel like they can't just add anything they've taken a liking to? And the question remains, how does this comic satisfy WP:EL? You *personally like the comic*; I really feel that this is the only reason anybody would keep it. Again, how does the link satisfy the the guidelines? It needs to do better than being "descriptive" (I don't believe it is even that). It needs to give information and to be a source of knowledge, not just to reference something that the article is about. This is supposed to be a repository of information, not an accessible, chummy textbook with little cartoons to keep students happy in class. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
And could you also stop removing the link, as if a consensus has been reached ? This is a tiresome argument. I personally do not like the comic, in general, only this one particular use, and most editors with knowledge of the subject have agreed with keeping it. An image is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes. I have no agenda, as some apparently do, I simply think this image is an improvement to the article. I won't edit-war; if someone else wants to put the link back in, great. If no-one else puts it back in, then perhaps the image isn't as valuable as I thought. Either way, I'm fine with it. Let consensus be shown by actions. Plvekamp (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a very good example, and I believe it can engage many readers to re-read (and actually understand :) the article. As has been said above, it would have been a great illustration for the article if it could have been included. PS! it is always useful to provide the link being discussed so non-involved editors can quickly understand what it being discussed, so here is the link to the comic: [1] Labongo (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Astute, to the point and highly on-topic. DVdm (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the link is appropriate in the article; it's just a joke related to the article's topic. (It might come under #13 of the WP:EL counter-examples.) What other articles should have XKCD comics linked? (I know of one page where it would have been just as relevant, but for obvious reasons I won't link it here.) I don't want to be revert-warring, so take my edit and this message as just my opinion, I won't press it any further. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much consensus for this (although I do respect your opinion). We would really much rather have the graphic image on the page instead of a link; I think most of the editors above agree it does help illustrate the difference between centrifugal and centripetal force. Without license to include it, however, we've deep linked to the graphic. Indeed, the last sentence of #13 says: "If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked." The intent was certainly not to spam XKCD, and thank you for not accusing anyone of such. Your civility is appreciated!! Plvekamp (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As the actual author of WP:XKCD, I'd say that it's more than applicable here. The comic is hardly the best way to represent what little descriptive material it has on centrifugal force; it most certainly does not "provide unique value to the article beyond that which the article would contain itself at FA class" (contrary to the gainsaying above). As such, it fails to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:EL, and people don't get to override that by a show of hands. I'll be removing this again in a couple of days, and if I see it being reverted back using popups in by editors who should know better (you know who you are) then I'll be taking it to the edit warring noticeboard. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove I'm here from ELN. I've dealt with a lot of EL issues, and this one is pretty obvious. I'm really suprised at all the non-policy-based "keep" opinions here since this link should most definitely be removed as per our WP:EL guidelines. It doesn't contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of centrifugal force at all, so it fails WP:ELNO point 1 which reads that Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. should be avoided. The site also isn't very informative about the subject matter, it's just a joke, so it fails WP:ELYES as it doesn't provide an encyclopedic understanding of the subject (don't get me wrong, I love xkcd, but its really not acceptible for linking unless the subject matter in the article directly relates to the comic strip). ThemFromSpace 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove. I am responding to the notice at WP:ELN. While IMO the link is not actually prohibited by WP:EL (thousands and thousands of links are not actually prohibited by WP:EL), although I understand the WP:ELNO #1 concerns that several editors have expressed, it does not add to my understanding any more than a single, plain sentence would. That is, as a non-specialist who has read (only) the comic and the lead, I learned nothing about centrifugal force from the comic that I didn't know after reading the lead to the article. It's cute, it's succinct, it's memorable, and it's kind of funny (and, oddly enough, I'm wearing #552 today), but it doesn't strike me as either encyclopedic or really useful to the reader. I would remove the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary of arguments

So it seems that people are going to keep edit warring unless there's a definite conclusion here.

The arguments against including the comic are:

  1. It's non-free. This means that it cannot be included in the body of the article, but only as an external link.
  2. It does not provide unique value in explaining the subject. (There's a lot of gainsaying about this above; I find it disingenuous to suggest that one could not draw a diagram which explains the science just as well as the comic.)
  3. The primary motivation behind its inclusion appears to be not that it clarifies the subject in a way that we could not do ourselves, but rather that it's amusing. This is not an argument grounded in our guidelines. Furthermore, the use of humour in articlespace is not generally in line with our guidelines on article tone.

If anyone wants to refute those points, be my guest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. As a matter of fact it is free. It's licensed with a non commercial GPL license; unfortunately it's incompatible with the Wikipedia's license.
  2. It's funny, which a 'diagram to explain the science' is extremely likely not to be.
  3. You do not appear to be assuming good faith. I added because it did actually clarify the subject, and I checked on the talk page here before adding it. I even tried to get it relicensed, but never got a reply from the author; I understand he has since declared email bankruptcy so it might be worth trying again.
- Wolfkeeper 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. CC-NC-SA isn't a "GPL" license; the GPL forbids non-commercial clauses as well. For Wikipedia's purposes it's non-free, even if it has additional rights beyond fair use. Were it to be available under CC-BY-SA then we could have it on Commons; as you say below, you've tried but haven't had any luck.
  2. Humour should not be a factor in considering the desirability of links. This isn't Digg.
  3. My characterisation of your motive for getting it included is exactly what you said in the response to point 2 above, so I can't see how I'm making assumptions which aren't correct.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There's no policy about humour in the wikipedia at all, and ignoring the humour aspect in fact nobody has managed to come up with a diagram that is nearly as succinct or nearly as clear. At the very least, until that happens this is a unique resource.- Wolfkeeper 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, this farce has gone on long enough; the poll has been running for almost exactly two months, normally RFCs run for just one month, and you've been totally unable to drum up enough 'cruft' deletionists to remove it, that alone should tell you something; in the meantime, this is an advanced physics article, and most of the editors with advanced physics support its presence. You have not been able to get consensus for its removal. It's time to close the poll.- Wolfkeeper 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The comic's actual artwork is irrelevant to the explanation (which is contained entirely within the text of the second panel), so it could (and indeed has to be) explained in the article body. Head counting is a non-argument, and appeals to authority from pseudonymous editors are even less compelling. This is not a "poll": it's a discussion, and it would be best if someone who wasn't vociferously on one side or the other judged the outcome. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It is made available under a CC licence so could be included: not that anyone is advocating that. The other points are much more subjective. I would say it does illustrate the different ways of thinking of it, in a way WP with its encyclopaedic writing style cannot, or at least cannot so easily. Subjective though I know. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, although it is a free license, it's the wrong license. I've requested the author relicense it for us. I really, really hope he does.- Wolfkeeper 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've requested editors who hang around WP:External links/Noticeboard to see if they have an opinion to give, as it currently appears to me a deadlock now (with some edit warring around the edges). --Izno (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

It's been another week, and Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs) (who for some time has been the only editor strongly in favour of the link) has deleted the discussion on his talk page while declining to respond further here. I think at this point there's consensus that the link does not provide enough value to warrant inclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am strongly in favour of the link, and so are others. I think we're just not prepared to repeat our arguments sixteen times. There is no consensus for removal, so it should really stay where it was. DVdm (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Your argument, quoted from above, was: "Astute, to the point and highly on-topic". This is no argument at all. I do wish people would also stop repeating the phrase "there is no consensus" as if it were an argument in itself. And the only reason you're being asked to repeat your arguments is that I'm not prepared to hit the undo button repeatedly when someone disagrees with me, which has thus far been the only reason this link has stayed on the page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
First, if you think that my comment was no argument at all, then perhaps I should have used "comment or vieuwpoint on the RFC with title Does_a_link_to_a_web-comic_belong_in_this_article?". So let me rephrase part of my previous reply as follows: I think we're just not prepared to repeat our comments or viewpoints on that RFC sixteen times.
Second, you stated that "...there's consensus that the link does not provide...". I don't think that there is such a consensus. That is not an argument, but a fact. Also note that if there is no consensus to change something (in casu removing a link), then generally the proposed change should not take place - at least I think I've read something along these lines in one of the guidelines or policies. DVdm (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm prepared to accept that I was premature here, but that's what happens when people are prepared to edit war until they get their way and then stop contributing to talk until prodded again. I'm taking things slowly to try to avoid that. As for inertia taking precedence in argument like this, I would note that the link has been removed by over half a dozen different editors over the last year, which would hardly seem to indicate that it was a stable element in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not prepared to editwar over anything. Furthermore, I think we can safely reduce this "over half a dozen different editors" to "a few editors", as it is clear that {90.220.88.171, 90.217.104.238, 90.215.124.158, 90.215.124.140, 90.214.85.123} belong to one and the same person. DVdm (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it is only one shy of that figure even if you dismiss the IPs altogether, and you could include me if I didn't have the patience to sit through a discussion about it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm also in favour. That you've not heard so for a long time is as this discussion has been going on for a long time and I've not seen the point in repeating myself, unless prompted to by something like this. My own view of the consensus is there's none, i.e. there have been contributions in support of both sides of the argument and no-one has really changed their views.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not a matter of people "changing sides". Consensus does not mean taking the original argument and see who does and does not agree with it; it' a matter of making arguments for one's position, figuring out what parts of those arguments we do agree on and working from that. In this case, there are good arguments and significant precedent in the guidelines not for including this as an external link (and indeed both of the editors contributing in the survey by way of the post at WT:EL agreed with this), and there has been no counter-response to suggest that there isn't broad agreement with the points made. On the other hand, the only part of the keep argument which people generally agree with is that it's a funny comic. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the summary of the above discussion is that there's no consensus for it's removal. You can't polish a turd, you guys lost.- Wolfkeeper 02:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of keeping the xkcd link, and for the record, I never understood the objections against it. It's just a cartoon that happens to be very relevant to the article topic and the confusion that sometimes accompanies it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
+1 to Dicklyon's comment. I find the comic insightful, and a potential mnemonic device. Also, anyone who can comprehend this article, is likely to be able to appreciate the comic. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no "losing" on Wikipedia, and anyone who thinks so is likely here simply to create a battleground atmosphere. That's hardly conducive to consensus. The default here is not to include the link (which is inline with WP:EL) if there's no consensus. You've now decided to re-add the link after the article has been stable without it for 6 months. That's half a damn year to decide that you want it back in the article, which is unacceptable behavior, and if I had half-a-mind, I'd report the edits for long-term edit warring. --Izno (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It's theoretically not a battleground, but some people (not AFAICT the people that want this link in the article) have used anonymous IPs to edit war, disposable accounts to harass people on their talk page, they used deceptive subject lines (essentially bald faced lies), they 'summarise' RFCs to state they say nothing of what they actually say, and then they threaten to 'report the edits for long-term warring', when the edits are reverted what had been essentially vandalised out of the article after an RFC specifically showed no consensus for their removal. They haven't been missing for as long as 6 months, and it wouldn't matter if it was 6 years, anonymous content removal vandalism is still vandalism and will be treated accordingly.- Wolfkeeper 17:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
In short, go right ahead, make my day.- Wolfkeeper 17:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to tread on the toes of an ongoing talk thread by reverting this, I didn't think to check. What exactly is the argument for the comic not triggering WP:ELNO? It looks like it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article", from here, and isn't even providing a resource beyond the current version of the article. What information is the comic providing that isn't already stated in the article body, other than the James Bond joke? --McGeddon (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems evident to me that a cartoon provides a form of exposition that transcends text and logic, and that is the whole point of a cartoon: it puts matters in a different context. Thus, it is indeed a "unique resource", just like political cartoons transcend the news report. The link is useful and illuminating and there is no reason for removing it. Brews ohare (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
But what use does it serve and what exactly does it illuminate for the reader? All I'm seeing is "some people say centrifugal force doesn't exist, but it can seen from a rotating frame of reference", which we can - and do? - say more usefully in the text of the article. Yes, it's funny that a spy would be pedantic about this and it's funny that the villain responds with the Bond quote, but these don't appear to add anything to the reader's understanding of centrifugal force. I could dash off duplicate (and "unique") comics for every article in the mechanics-of-physics category, for every article on Wikipedia, where stick-man Bond questions something, there is a quote from the article, and then the villain expects him to die, but these wouldn't enlighten a reader who had just read the article. They might make that reader laugh, but "may make reader laugh" doesn't overrule WP:LINKSTOAVOID. --McGeddon (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think your comment is similar to asking someone to explain Mozart: either you get it or you don't. If you don't, it doesn't mean that Mozart should be dropped; it just means some folks won't get it. Brews ohare (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Take the example of New Yorker cartoons: some of them strike me as hilarious (though I couldn't necessarily tell you why) and others I just don't understand at all. Brews ohare (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that it doesn't do something that the article does. It summarises a large amount of information in just 4 panels. People that read it tend to smile, and are more likely to understand the article. The primary aim of an encyclopedia is to summarise and educate, and this cartoon actually does that. And there is absolutely no rule against including or referencing humour in articles.- Wolfkeeper 21:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper: I don't know who it is you disagree with. Maybe you agree with my comments below? Brews ohare (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was simply disagreeing with McGeddon, that's why I wasn't indented further.- Wolfkeeper 04:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see how this gets past WP:ELNO's "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Yes, Wikipedia is here to summarise and educate - if the comic is making a useful point that the article currently lacks (if it's helpful to point out that it's incorrect to say that there is "no such thing" as centrifugal force, or if a man strapped into a centrifuge is a particularly illustrative example of the force) we can and should present that directly to the reader in the body of the article, rather than hoping they'll find it in an external link.
If Bond-in-a-centrifuge is widely accepted by teachers as a great way to convey some detail of centrifugal forces - great, put that in the article, give it a source, and explain why it's a useful model. But if it's just a funny webcomic where one line of dialogue repeats something already said in the article, we shouldn't waste the reader's time by linking to it alongside genuinely insightful animations and Java applets. --McGeddon (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As a nearly unrelated observation, the dispute here reveals that there are many who think the cartoon has a role to play in interesting readers and in illuminating the topic. That others don't find the cartoon that way does nothing to detract from the very clear fact that some do. Therefore, I'd argue that inclusion of a link will serve a purpose for some readers, and therefore adds to the article, regardless of the fact that there is a group for whom that is not true. Removal of useful content is inadvisable, even if it is not useful for everyone. Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason this should be linked to and links such as this should be removed at every opportunity. We do not link to "related topics" such as comic strips which briefly mention the article's subject just as we do not create trivia sections within articles which detail brief mentions. Our external links need to be directly related to the article's subject and we only link externally when an individual link extends a reader's encyclopedic understanding of the subject. This particular link does not enhance an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and it's inclusion is nothing more than a bit of trivia. I'm pretty shocked over the continued arguments over such a cut and dry case. As for policy, this doesn't meet any of the WP:ELYES points and not even any of the WP:ELMAYBE points. It clearly fails WP:ELNO point 13 as this article isn't about this particular xkcd cartoon. And WP:ILIKEIT has no place in this discussion. ThemFromSpace 02:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Listen to yourself you're repeatedly quoting a bunch of minor guidelines as if that overrides core policy. But there is no consensus to remove it, there's a majority against. If you don't in your heart of hearts believe in the core policy of WP:CONSENSUS what are you even doing in the Wikipedia??? This is just your ego; you're acting as if you're part of some kind of elite taskforce, that only you know what's best for the whole Wikipedia, that consensus against must be edit warred into the ground. That's just not the way it must be here. Removing external links is important, but not to this degree.- Wolfkeeper 04:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said at WP:VPP: Personally, I like the 4th/5th google result, and think it is just fine in our article. Heck, even google scholar links it showing 2 mentions in The Physics Teacher journal (2008 and 2010 - though I cannot determine what context from the snippets available, and one is probably just a brief mention). So that's my subjective 2¢ more. (on top of my comments above, that the illustration is concise, insightful, and memorable, all of which make it suitable for inclusion here). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some sort of response to the points I've raised just above, before the link is edited out. Just because Wolfkeeper has been briefly blocked for an unrelated issue, does not mean the rest of us (Dicklyon, DVdm, Labongo, Chhe, Atmoz, etc) have changed our minds. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Because it doesn't help the reader gain an encyclopedic understanding of the article's subject, which is the purpose of external links. No matter how many funny and memorable links we can find to illustrate our articles, none of them are appropriate unless they explain something that we can't through our text. We are an encyclopedia, not the Cartoon Network. ThemFromSpace 02:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
So do you believe The Physics Teacher, the journal of the American Association of Physics Teachers, was being (flippant? silly? inappropriate?) when they recommended that particular image? Both times?
Or, might they share the subjective-opinion that sometimes learning can be obtained or reinforced via humor? -- Quiddity (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Their inclusion of an image has no relevance to what is and is not a proper external link on Wikipedia. Tangentially-related cartoons just do not belong here, they clutter up the place and serve no purpose when they do not add material that can't be written into the article. This is, of course, my own opinion, but one that I feel is just common sense. This link doesn't come within a mile of the quality prescribed by WP:EL. ThemFromSpace 04:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm claiming the image is relevant as a pedagogical tool, hence the opinion/usage of the journal could be considered relevant. Different people learn in different ways.
I'm one of the editors who defends Thagomizer from a peculiar anon-editor creationist, who keeps trying to say that dinosaurs and humans might have coexisted. There is room for humor in science, education, life, and occasionally Wikipedia. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
That a link is "concise, insightful, and memorable" or "relevant as a pedagogical tool" does not currently exclude it from basic WP:ELNO guidelines, and I think we'd be opening a floodgate if we explicitly changed the policy on that. It would allow the inclusion of any cartoon or blog entry that managed to repeat something from an article in a memorably jokey way (without meeting WP:V requirements to merit a full mention in the article, as the Thagomizer cartoon does), to the point where political articles would need a whole "cartoons" section, and any webcomic that wanted a bit of traffic would just have to make an educational gag about a Wikipedia subject in panel two.
That a couple of academic writers have mentioned the cartoon doesn't seem that strong a support of it - Google Scholar shows about forty papers mentioning Larson's "blah blah Ginger" strip as an example of language usage or pet training, but it wouldn't help the reader to link to it from all relevant articles. --McGeddon (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
So are you saying that all comic links must and should be removed from the Wikipedia, because otherwise they will sweep through the whole Wikipedia? So if there's a political comic that was directly related to a politicians removal from power, that it mustn't be linked to from the Wikipedia?Rememberway (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Because if you're claiming that, then you're clearly out to lunch. And if you're not claiming that, then who gets to decide? Presumably consensus. But in this particular case, there's no consensus to remove this cartoon.Rememberway (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing approaching consensus to keep the cartoon. As IZNO states, the default is to keep the link out of the article. It really is as simple as that. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The link has been sitting here since the end of August 2010 and nothing more was said about it here since then, so the de-facto consensus has been to keep the link. Nothing has changed that consensus, so the default is keep. DVdm (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
And there was recently a 22-day period during which the link wasn't in the article. Which made-up rule wins? Could I suggest "neither", and that we use arguments that have some kind of validity within the framework of Wikipedia? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah well. I suggest we have a consensus that there is no consensus about doing anything. Let's agree to have a consensus to move on and keep what was here before you came along. DVdm (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my views are less valid because I didn't get here first(!) I would add further that given the comic is repeatedly added back into the article by its fans, its inclusion over time gives adds no validity to the case. Similarly, can I go and find any article with long-term blatant vandalism and claim that it is valid under the same terms? Surely--on top of all of this--you are aware that the article existed for several years without the comic included, and that you would have had to establish consensus for adding it to the article, rather than adding it and the claiming that consensus is needed to remove it? Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that "would have had to establish consensus" has no effect on what would be needed now. But anyway, there doesn't seem to be anything in the policies to forbid it (— otherwise it would have been gone a long time ago—), so why not give these "fans" what they like and move on? If you do indeed know of real long-term blatant vandalism in other places, then please concentrate on those, since that is likely where policies are violated. DVdm (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Because I consider people trying to sneak in the content they want using misdirection to be far more an issue than somebody writing "jon is gay" in the middle of an article. If you need a clue about why the link is clearly not supposed to be here I suggest you re-read this talk page. I don't think there is anything to be gained us discussing it any further because you're just coming up with excuses to keep it, and I'm clearly not going to be able to stop you from doing that. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be acting from an inherently bad-faith position here. Nobody, it seems to me is trying to do any sneaking in, but the people trying to remove it have been using sockpuppets, 'interpretation's of the results of polls, making up false guidelines that are directly opposed to the fundamental principles of the Wikipedia, numerous personal attacks, using false 'thin end of the wedge' arguments, mischaracterisation of the motives and various slanders on people as 'fans', in a way which is clearly intended to be derogatory. I have rarely seen anything as opposed to what the Wikipedia is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about collecting and linking to information appropriate to a given topic, not going on jihads to stamp out all links to comics or whatever; and for the record nobody here seems to be suggesting that comics should be sprinkled throughout the wikipedia, although this has been claimed. In short, I suggest you try and regain a sense of proportion on this, this is a single non-spam link in a single article in a vast body of work that is well over 3 million articles, but you're acting like it is deliberate spam as part of a vast vangard. This is simply a illusion in your head. Even if you think this link is defective, that's your right to believe that, but the Wikipedia is never going to be perfect, and most people here think the Wikipedia is better with this link, than without it. In short, for heavens sake, get a grip.Rememberway (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Bizarre. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier you should be filing complaints if you believe there is inappropriate behaviour. "the people trying to remove it have been using sockpuppets" for example is quite a big deal (particularly as most of the editors involved are well-respected and with a long editing history) and it really has no bearing on the actual issues. Please concentrate on the issues at hand instead or step away until you can calm down a bit. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centrifugal_force_(rotating_reference_frame)/Archive_17&oldid=1136602961"