Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic concepts of quantum mechanics Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Basic_concepts_of_quantum_mechanics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I don't feel there's even a consensus for merging. It can still be brought up outside AFD; if problems occur, remedy with dispute resolution. MuZemike 23:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic concepts of quantum mechanics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose this article be deleted (and redirected to Introduction to quantum mechanics to avoid breaking incoming links) for many, many reasons: First, it is a WP:FORK of Introduction to quantum mechanics by GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs). For a long while, the entire article was completely written by this user, and he has reverted all non-trivial changes by others (violating WP:OWN). Several editors have suggested that this page be merged with Introduction to quantum mechanics on the talk page. One of the main problems is that this page doesn't even present an introduction to quantum mechanics in any way. It's more like a history lesson. There are no "concepts" of quantum mechanics on this page. The article also has several technical inaccuracies. The Introduction to quantum mechanics is a far better article, which actually explains quantum mechanics. Finally, do read the talk page for opinions of other editors on this page. Robin (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just redirect it without deleting it? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a very pertinent question, and I'd also like to know the answer.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess that would just cause an edit war with the creator of the article, who is against a redirect/merge. --Robin (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, maybe the creator should read some of the guidelines, particularly WP:WAR, WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. I'll point these out to him/her if s/he hasn't been informed yet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to say WP:CFORK.--RDBury (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think some of your criticisms were valid two months ago, but aren't any more. GeorgeLouis hasn't edited the article for 6 weeks, and I have made quite a few improvements (IMHO) to the article by now. I hope that I have removed most of the technical inaccuracies in the sections I've worked on (which were generally the ones with the worst issues). I definitely disagree with your description of the page as having no concepts of quantum mechanics - there are sections on Planck's law of black body radiation, photons, the Bohr model, wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, etc. Looking at the historical development is quite a common pedagogical approach to QM, and for good reason - naive physics is classical physics, and it's only because the real world turned out not to be well described by classical physics that it was necessary to develop QM. There is a wider discussion to be had about what level Intro articles should be aimed at, whether it's OK to have "really simple intro" and "not so simple intro", etc. Back in July I proposed merging this article with the Intro article. As I said when I withdrew the proposal, I don't think either of these articles are yet ready to be merged to create the perfect introductory article. While the Intro to QM article has many good points, it goes offputtingly far beyond being an introduction in places. Hopefully continued work on both articles will get them to a state where they can either be usefully brought together, or to the point where it becomes clear that they should both continue separately to serve different functions. Djr32 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, the problem here is that we've got two competing articles that do the same thing: provide an introduction to basic quantum mechanics. That's not a good state of affairs, and I don't think it's acceptable to leave the matter as it stands, because it creates needless confusion for the encyclopaedia's end-users. But, this content doesn't have to be a competing article per se, and I think there are various ways of retaining the content.

  One option would be to redesign this as a list and call it List of concepts in quantum mechanics; because lists and articles can co-exist, serving complementary functions (see WP:CLN).

  Another option is the new WP:OUTLINE project. I haven't yet decided whether I like the idea of outlines, but I thought I'd raise it for discussion; could this form an Outline of quantum mechanics?

  I think I'd be happy with any solution that means there aren't two competing introductory articles on the subject.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you on this. As long as there aren't two articles with the same purpose, it should be fine. I'm not sure which solution is the best though. I think maybe just a merge with the other intro article might be best. Or a selective merge with the History article and Intro article. --Robin (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not desirable to have two different "introductory" articles on quantum mechanics. This one should be merged into the pre-existing one. I don't think that a deletion is required, but merge is a valid AFD outcome and it is the outcome I would favor here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Merging may result in another edit war.

Nearly four years ago to the day a contributor to Wikipedia from Great Britain began what is now called Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. He observed that the physics articles seemed to be written by physicists for physicists, and therefore offered no way of entry for the reader who did not have professional qualifications. He proposed that bright students and interested readers without the benefit of a couple years of college-level physics and calculus be offered some way to learn about these subjects. He did not propose talking down to these readers.

The current Matrix mechanics article might serve as an example of the challenge such articles pose to non-professional readers. The first several hundred words give an introduction that could probably be turned into something that would not pose a problem for the average well-informed reader. Then math is brought in, and those same readers would be faced with:

${\displaystyle \int _{0}^{T}PdX=nh.}$

and

${\displaystyle X(t)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }e^{2\pi int \over T}X_{n}}$

just for starters.

The fact that some math is beyond the level of the average well-informed reader is not evidence for the conclusion that all math should be banned from an introductory article. The question should be whether people with a high school education can handle the math, and whether there is anything preventing those who do not find equations helpful from skipping over them.

Some kind of fig leaf could be put over the math in the Introduction to QM, but what purpose would that serve? Are equations really offenses to community standards or something? Is it not more important to give those anxious to learn what they need to make real progress?

If there are elements in the Basic concepts article that could improve the explications of the current Intro article, please bring the matter up on the discussion page for the Intro article.

A couple of contributors with professional math/physics backgrounds have kept an eye on the Intro article. However, if after all their work there are still any inaccuracies in this article, please report them on the Intro discussion page.

When Mr. Louis deleted all content from the Intro article and replaced it with his own, I tried to work with that material in the spirit of compromise. All changes were reverted with the exception of one, and in that case he "accepted" the change and then revised it to reintroduce one of his original errors. His response to interventions by senior editors (e.g. Sarek of Vulcan) after that point was to create his own fork.

I will gladly support inclusion of any language in the fork that substantially improves the Intro to QM article, but I fear that an edit war against the Intro to QM article would follow any move to delete the Basic concepts article. P0M (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Both articles seem to have useful content but there is a lot of overlap and both articles purport to do the same thing. Content forks are against WP policy and trying to avoid an edit war is no reason to break it. Having two articles means twice the effort to accomplish the same thing and will confuse people who actually want to read about the subject. If merging the articles is going be so acrimonious then it's sounds like what we're really talking about is POV fork, which is even more against WP policy than a content fork. Plus, if we start accommodating policy to keep a few people form getting upset then we're just opening the door for people to put anything they want to here, all they have to do is raise a stink if someone objects. Wikipedia is supposed to be for the benefit of readers, not editors. See also WP:EFFORT.--RDBury (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I don't really understand the previous "Keep" comment which seems to think that merging content from this article into that will destroy good material. This is not the aim of any merge, and don't see it happening in this case. In any case, having essentially the same thing in two different places is wrong for many reasons, not the least of which is it is against Wikipedia policy and it is confusing to the casual reader, so a merge is ideal.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 06:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (content forks are bad, etc.) with the following reminder: "Merge" does not mean "delete the whole text of one article and replace it with the whole text of the other", which is what I fear some editors will take "merge" to mean. Currently, Introduction to quantum mechanics has more or less the right content but is terribly, terribly written: it's poorly organized, poorly formatted, lacks clear explanation, and in places has a tone which seems to suggest that "layman" should be synonymous with "idiot". Basic concepts of quantum mechanics is well-written and has clear explanation, but lacks any substantial treatment of quantum mechanics: mathematics and precise, technical discussion are absent, much like with popular science books that leave the reader with nothing but a fuzzy understanding of the topic. I'd like to see an article with the tone, clarity, and style of "Basic concepts of quantum mechanics" with the content level of "Introduction to quantum mechanics". As for possible edit warring, we should probably ask administrators to patrol the page for some time after any merge. Strad (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Introduction to history of quantum mechanics. Let's call a spade a spade, and I don't see why such an article couldn't be useful. Brisvegas 10:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as suggested above. As more people have become involved in the Intro to QM article, the math content of that article has increased. I do not object to that, personally, but many earlier critics of that article have wanted no math. P0M (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No math" is, frankly, a ludicrous requirement for an article on quantum mechanics. Simply because some critic tries to impose such a requirement does not mean we should try to acquiesce. Moreover, forking an article solely over this sort of thing violates WP:POVFORK. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment The approximate consensus now is that the article should not be kept in its present form. The alternatives are the following:

• • merging to the introduction article
  • renaming to List of basic concepts (or similar, since this is in fact an elaborate list)
  • merging to the History of QM article (what this article in fact covers)

I don't think deletion is the case here just because there was some edit warring some weeks ago. I am relisting the debate so that while the debate is active, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn. I know this is a usual practice to do it at the talkpage so if any admin thinks this is more appropriate, this debate can as well be closed. --Tone 20:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: rename if necessary. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Introduction to quantum mechanics. Transwiki to Simple if you like, but these two articles are treating substantially the same topic, and intro is the better title. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. As a totally non-scientific reader, I was confused by the lead of Introduction to quantum mechanics and attracted to the title of Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. However, the latter article does not deliver, being more of a history article. Merging it with Introduction to quantum mechanics would make an overlong tome, and probably inspire a few edit wars. I would suggest renaming the Basic concepts of quantum mechanics article as History of discoveries in quantum mechanics, and removing the explanatory clauses in favor of just historical discoveries, to serve as a companion piece to Introduction to quantum mechanics. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have History of quantum mechanics. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Then my vote would be to merge. Hopefully the different editors can work it out civilly. Yoninah (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the merged article would be too long then it can always be split up again along more rational lines than one guy wrote one version and a different guy wrote the other version. You can find my rant about edit wars above. I like the way you're thinking though, if there's a way to draw a distinction so that the articles are actually about different things then there could be two. But I think the result would be no better than if you merged the articles and then split them up again based on something logical.--RDBury (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i propose this article be left as it is. quite useful for beginners

• Keep A vibrant and informative article, with flair as well as technical excellence. This is what Wikipedia should be, and so often fails to be, particularly in the area of science, which is cursed with dribbles from amateurs and floods from experts who do not know how to write for entry-level readers. I have copied it, to work on if it does not pass the AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't seem like we're reaching consensus. Although we all mostly agree that the article should not just be deleted, we don't have consensus on what to do. I have a proposal, which might make everyone happy.

1. First, the History of quantum mechanics article is almost entirely a list, and has very little prose. The "Timeline" section of that article (which is about 75% of the article) is very similar to the Timeline of quantum mechanics article. I propose that the "Timeline" section of History of quantum mechanics be merged with Timeline of quantum mechanics to have one comprehensive timeline of QM.
2. Now that the History of quantum mechanics has lost its timeline section, it is a really short article. What it really needs is a timeline of QM, but written in prose. Like a story. Just like it's done in Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. So lets merge Basic concepts of quantum mechanics with it at this point.

So in conclusion, I propose: History of quantum mechanics#Timeline merges with Timeline of quantum mechanics and Basic concepts of quantum mechanics merges with History of quantum mechanics. Comments? --Robin (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like as good a plan as any; avoids content forks and keeps the existing material.--RDBury (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, too. Yoninah (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. P0M (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the timelines should be merged, but the deficiency of 'History' after the timeline is removed is that it is not a complete summary of the timeline articles. 'History' should be a summary of the history, and 'Basic' is quite rightly an introduction to the subject, and stands on that merit; its nomination as a PoV fork is erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchangel (talk • contribs)

'Basic' is not at all an introduction to quantum mechanics. It is completely a history article. It is an historical overview of the developments in quantum mechanics, written for the person who wishes to understand how QM came into existence. An Introduction to QM explains quantum mechanics: It talks about wave-particle duality, wavefunctions, interference, superposition, Schrodinger's equation, matrix mechanics, Hilbert spaces, and things like that. And such an article has math which explains this. For example, see Introduction to special relativity. It actually explains concepts and has equations/math! --Robin (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And the peer review of the Intro to QM article of a couple of years ago makes many of these same points. P0M (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2009 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.