 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Please see Talk:Biological phenomenon. I think this article should be deleted. Similarly with the other articles "X phenomenon" that Fred added. --Larry Sanger
I disagree. This seems to be a perfectly decent bit of infrastructure, like the various 'list' pages. I can easily imagine finding it useful to make a link to this page from another site. Matthew Woodcraft
The best one so far is optical phenomenon. I think it shows both how interesting and useful this approach is. Fredbauder 17:30 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
You're ignoring my argument, guys. Look at the argument; don't make bald assertions to the contrary. --Larry Sanger
You mean 'this is redundant'? I disagree. It's useful infrastructure. Matthew Woodcraft
How is it "useful infrastructure," and what does that mean? How is it an improvement over biology, etc. Is there a special category of scientific subjects, namely the scientific phenomena, that need to be listed out as such and distinguished from--what, the non-phenomena? I don't see it. --Larry Sanger
By 'infrastructure', I mean pages which are useful to help people find their way around Wikipedia. Many of the pages linked to from this one aren't readily accessible from electricity or electromagnetism, and even if they were, I think a list like this has value in itself. The point isn't to distinguish 'phenomena' from 'non-phenomena'. This page seems is a useful place to start for someone who wants to read interesting things about electricity, but might find the electricity page intimidating. Matthew Woodcraft
Then you should favor a page titled introduction to electricity or how about cool entrees into electronics, because "x phenomena" does imply that the subject of the page are the x phenomena as distinguished from the non-phenomenal x (I guess). If it's an introduction you want, you'll be missing out on a lot of introductory topics if we list only the electrical phenomena, won't you? --Larry Sanger
introduction to electricity would be a very different page. Electronics is something different entirely, of course. You're right, the subject of this page is electrical phenomena, as opposed to theories of electricity, the equations governing electricity, the fundamental particles carrying electricity, experiments with electricity, the history of electricity, or the techniques and economics of electricity production (all of which would also make perfectly decent pages). But the point of the page isn't to clarify what is a 'phenomenon' and what isn't, it's merely to provide a list of such phenomena to people who might find it useful. Matthew Woodcraft
- The point of the page just isn't obvious to me, as I said; it isn't whatever you say it is, presumably. So, for clarity, if you want this page to serve the purpose you have decided it has, then call it list of electrical phenomena or some electrical phenomena. --Larry Sanger
There's certainly call for Electrical phenomenon to be a valid link, so we can write "x is an Electrical phenomenon...", but I agree with Larry's analysis: maybe it should redirect to "Electricity". -- Tarquin 20:28 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)
- At first that's what I thought was meant by "infrastructure"; that it made a handy link, but I think the case fails on those grounds because it's just as easy, and is clearer, more helpful prose, to write "In electronics, the phenomenon of X is..." or "In biology, X is..." as it is to write "X is an electrical phenomenon...". The other problem is that even if the page is just a collection of useful links, its existence still implies that it delineates a category of things, even if that's not the intent. --LDC
- We have a page called List of swords. That page isn't trying to define what is and isn't a sword, it's just providing useful linking tissue. I think this page is similar. If some people want to think that this page is delineating a category of things, I'm sure they're welcome to, but I don't see why it should be thought of as a problem. Matthew Woodcraft
- Excuse me for butting in, bone-head, but we don't have a page called "List of swords" -- I just moved it to Types of swords. So there. Nyaah! --Ed Poor
- See above. This page isn't called list of electrical phenomena, or even electrical phenomena, but electrical phenomenon. --Larry Sanger
- Would there be a problem if this page was called electrical phenomena (or "List of...")? If not, can we just move it and get on with something more useful. --Camembert
- Maybe, if there is a coherent category of "electrical phenomena" that actually would be usefully listed. I'd say move it or delete it. Preferably delete it. --Larry Sanger
I suggest revert the redirect. Examples of electrical phenomena should redirect to Electrical phenomenon. Jay 21:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the List of electrical phenomena page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "List of electrical phenomena" page.
