Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic concepts of quantum mechanics (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Basic_concepts_of_quantum_mechanics_(2nd_nomination)

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 merge to Introduction to quantum mechanics. There's consensus that we do not need yet another article on this topic.  Sandstein  05:39, 1 December 2011 (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)

The page http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics include all information here. It looks like the duplicate of that page. So i think this page should be deleted. SavinSav (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that the Basic Concepts article is a simplified version of the Introduction article, in addition to not using any equations. I can see that a user who is a total physics novice, or who is put off by the appearance of equations might prefer the Basic Concepts version rather than the Introduction version, but I am not sure if we can support 2 versions of the same thing. I might delete the Basic Concepts and edit the Introduction to be simpler; the reader does not need to see the actual formulas Bohr used or know the details of the Rydberg formula and so on. Other, more advanced articles cover these things. --Marjaliisa (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Introduction to quantum mechanics. They may be covering the same ground but there's no reason to delete either of them as the article titles are useful for navigation and it is our editing policy to preserve the edit history. Warden (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Useful for those who fear mathematics. Incidentally, the definition given for "field" is incorrect (for this subject). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep—Specifically for those who can't deal with mathematics. The math in the senior article on quantum mechanics is far over the head of the inquiring high school student—or anyone else who is not a math of physics student at the college level. The reader with at least a high school knowledge of math does deserve to be offered as much as possible to enable understanding of this crucial topic, so the Introduction to quantum mechanics should not be dumbed down. On the other hand, there are frequently readers who object to being subjected to the difficulty of the subject. They may find a popularization of the subject enough to give them some idea of what quantum mechanics is talking about. The requirement for the Basic concepts article would then be to make sure that it does not contain misleading statements. (Einstein could write that kind of thing, but only because he knew all of the landmines he had to step around.)P0M (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Two questions:

1. Might it be better to merge this article with Wikipedia simple? The QM article there has more math than this one does.
2. Is this article likely to be found by someone who needs a simpler introduction? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Simple English articles are for people who are learning English, not for people who are necessarily short on math skills.

Maybe it should be given a special "math-free zone" medallion.

There is a general problem in English Wikipedia with articles that are "encyclopedic" but only work for readers who already pretty much understand what is being said. The article on the Plank constant just got a critique from a social scientist who read the lead paragraphs and still did not have any idea what that constant was all about. It's bad enough when an inquiring high school student cannot understand an article on a fundamental science issue, but when a social scientist cannot understand it either then it is even more clear that we all need to decide who the intended audience is.

Writing simply enough for high school students to understand has sometimes prompted outrage from more highly educated readers who feel they are being talked down to. Writing tersely enough to satisfy those who are professionals in a field is likely to leave all other readers feeling left out.

If all science article writers had the skill of Einstein they could write simply without laying landmines for readers just beginning their study of a question. But I think that even Einstein would have problems mixing higher math with his popularizations. Ordinary writers are lucky if they can handle a single level.

One of the really frustrating things about these three articles is that there are regular attempts to redo things, not because of any issue of validity of content, but because someone feels that an article should be more or less technical than it is. This kind of instability can result in the degradation of an article over time. I just compared one topic of the Uncertainty principle article and discovered that the current content is inferior to an explication that was given within a couple months of the article's being started nearly ten years ago.

I would prefer to keep things stable, and doing so requires keeping all three articles.P0M (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely correct to raise the issue of the level of expertise needed to understand a technical article. Too many are written by experts for experts and make insufficient attempt to introduce a less expert reader to the subject. The situation is even worse in mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It was news to me that there was even an Introduction to quantum mechanics, let alone an even more basic article. Now I find that articles with simpler introductions have Category:Articles with separate introductions and the template {{see introduction}}, as well as the hidden Category:Introduction articles (I don't understand why it is hidden). I think that there are some good issues being raised here that should really be addressed at a broader level. If a "Basic concepts of" article is needed for QM, it is probably needed for many other top-importance articles, and there should be a similar support mechanism. I am contacting some relevant wikiprojects. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Introduction to quantum mechanics. I frankly think it silly to have two — let alone three — versions of a given article. If Quantum mechanics has a poorly written introduction, it should be reworked, not split into multiple versions. ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Both Quantum mechanics and Introduction to quantum mechanics, at approximately 9000 words each, are at the upper end of the length recommended at Wikipedia:Article size. We need to be careful that any proposed merge doesn't result in a monstrously long article. Jowa fan (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be a problem because Basic concepts of quantum mechanics is pretty much an excerpt from Introduction to quantum mechanics. If they are merged, the real question would be what level to make the combined article. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until you get more deeply into this issue it will be difficult to understand how much complexity is involved. No math is one level. High school math is another level. But the math that is used professionally goes into stuff that was invented to deal with the new physics. It's not anything that a student with a year or two as a math major in college can deal with. The "Example" section of the simple English version was once almost the first thing the reader hit after a short history. (See http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&oldid=1408264). There is no way to get from "no math" to that stuff in one article. Originally I was opposed to the "Basic" article, but it seems to make for stability by satisfying the "afraid of math" people.P0M (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are some policy guidelines in Introduction to ... articles. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The guideline RockMagnetist has pointed out is pretty clear; a certain amount of content forking is allowable under special circumstances, but as Lhynard says it's hard to imagine that these circumstances could ever justify three version of an article. To the folks who say that we need a math-free version of the article I'd respond that quantum mechanics is inherently mathematical; if you think you understand it without knowing math then you're fooling yourself and an article that pretends to explain it without math is just feeding the illusion. There are some things that can be said about quantum mechanics that don't require math, such as what kinds of results are produced and enough of what some of the concepts are to get the jokes in the Big Bang Theory sitcom, but this can easily be put into the article lead and first couple of sections of an article. But this kind of "popular" explanation of a science like quantum mechanics really has no more scientific validity than an explanation of how a transporter or a warp drive works. I'm not going as far to say Merge or Delete though because I feel it would be rather pointless. There is a tendency at Wikipedia for articles to be "by graduate students for graduate students", and even articles that start out as well written for a general audience eventually have jargon added by editors who don't understand the difficulties of writing for about technical subjects for nontechnical people. So there is a further tendency to create nontechnical versions of these articles rather than attempt to repair the problems in the existing articles. So there are systemic reasons why this article was created and if it is merged or deleted it will only be a matter of time before someone creates a similar article. Maybe when the fourth or fifth version of the article is created the systemic issues will start to be addressed.--RDBury (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. One further observation: It is always desirable to go from the concrete to the abstract. For instance, a graph showing how classical physics predicted the levels of energy produced for each frequency of a black-body radiator, vs. how the curve really looks makes it clear just how huge the problem was. Adding the Wein approximation and the Planck law results will let readers understand how big an improvement quantum mechanics made. Then the reader will be able to accept the idea that some relatively complicated math was needed to get the right curve, and they will also probably be calm about skipping over the equations if they don't care to really investigate them.P0M (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Introduction to quantum mechanics – rationale here. ― A. di M.​  16:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with History of quantum mechanics. This idea was proposed in the previous AfD, and it makes sense. This article is mostly a history of quantum mechanics, and it is better written than History of quantum mechanics. The latter has a short essay followed by an enormous timeline that is more detailed than the "main" Timeline of quantum mechanics. Of course, before performing any such merge, the editors of those pages should be informed of the debate. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That idea sounds very good to me.P0M (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Introduction to quantum mechanics. Our "introduction" category is very useful for beginners and should be strengthened. If there is a way of making the current "introduction" even more accessible, we should pursue this. In fact, many more articles should have "introductions". Probably many wiki contributors are not aware of this possibility. Is there any way of making it known more widely? Tkuvho (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above about related categories and templates. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is there even any material in it that isn't in Introduction to quantum mechanics? From what I can see only the practical uses section. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge and redirect into the Intro article. There's especially nice shortcuts and simpler re-wordings. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Carefully merge. There's quite interesting discussion going on at the article talk-pages, and at WT:PHYSICS. It is often a lot harder to write something simple than to write something at a more sophisticated level one might personally feel most comfortable with. Three articles is definitely too many. But there is a lot to be said for keeping material as short and as simple as possible, but with very visible links to more detail. Unfortunately, the all-too-easy tendency over time is for articles to get longer and more inclusive, at the direct expense of succinctness and easy navigation. Succinctness and navigability is hard to achieve, and even harder to maintain. Therefore, by all means merge, but I suggest aim to make the result as far as possible more like this article Basic concepts of quantum mechanics than like Introduction to quantum mechanics. At every step, the question should be: Can we make this our introductory front-line article shorter? For each fact and each detail that might be added, can we rather leave it to a (well-signposted) alternative second-line article instead. The more the final merged article ends up looking like this article, the better.

There is also a very interesting suggestion at WT:PHYSICS that that merged article should be what Quantum mechanics directs to, with as much of the current QM article as possible also broken out into second-line spin-out articles. I think that has a lot to be said for it, as a whole-article level application of WP:TECHNICAL. But to make it work, that top-line article really will be as simple and as navigable as possible -- closer to the current "Basic concepts" article than to the current "Introduction" article. Jheald (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2011 (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.