Talk:List of plasma (physics) articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Physics (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Indexes
WikiProject icon This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.
 

Plasma physics plus plasma technology and applications sources and help by changing article name[edit]

This article can have plasma technology and applications sources equations and anything dealing with plasma physics. Try to avoid putting to many plasma scientist names unless if there notably famous. Does anyone think that I should change the name does it match? Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the added value of this of Category:Plasma physics?[edit]

What is the added value of this of Category:Plasma physics? I don't see it and, am tempted to send this to AfD.TR 13:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this really a category plasma article. It looks similar but this article has all Plasma physics article types technology applications plasma equations. Plus in the category physics you cant locate it in the search bar tool. And they usually dont allow it to get to big. Should I change the name and add technology with it or something. Whats really wrong with it. Look at a list of optical topics or index of solar energy articles they are the exact same except plasma has more articles and is just as vital maybe even more vital in the future. You have nothing to lose from this article and a lot to gain. People would love to see all types pf plasma sources equation applications. Its kinda like global warming, You have to know all the element forces that drive global warming. You could even find a subcategory in it that is similar and leads to a whole new topic area. No one has a list of plasma physics articles yet. And plus i still can add about at least 200 to 300 more articles right now. How do i get this article approved to see it on the search bar. Plus Plasma physics and category plasma physics does not offer all the plasma fields and diverse sources and applications as List of Plasma (physics) articles does all the full package. Die hard plasma fans would benefit from this article because it will help them find there specific plasma field passion or they could choose most or all of the plasma fields. Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts for Shawn:
  1. I think you are misunderstanding Categories - they only have 200 entries visible, but there is no limit on how big they can become (there will be a "next 200" link for further browsing), though categories are often split to include subcategories for ease of browsing/finding information.
  2. You should add a lead section to the list, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists.
  3. You don't have to get the list "approved" to be in the search bar - it is already in main space. If it's not showing up on the search bar, the software may just need time to catch up.
  4. Finally, please indent replies with a ":" (or if replying to an indented comment by using one more ":" than the previous editor did) - this makes it easier to tell where one comment ends and another one starts. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually meant that the category list sometimes has a limit to what wikipedia allows to have like max capacity in adding new word articles to the category, they don't want the article to get too big which is kinda wrong. Plus categories dont really get linked from other articles so it's harder to find. And kinda difficult to edit categories. My bad on my writing style it's not in pristine order as yours.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel that this is not a good alternative to the category. Firstly, who is going to update it with every new article in the field that is created? Secondly, if you find a relevant article that is not in the category, add the category to the article (see Wikipedia:CATEGORIES if you don't know how). I feel that this list should not exist. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 05:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories do not allow to get to big especially if You wanna name almost every plasma physics source. Plus there's no way of finding plasma category in the search bar. This List of plasma (physics) applications articles is not in the way of any plasma physics article. Look at index of wave articles or other articles that have both sources one in category the other as a regular article. Do u mean updating by adding new plasma physics articles to this list than i will do that. I tried to add articles to category but I did not know how before but know I do.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Shawn, I don't think you understand how categories work. There is no limit on the size of a category, and no good reason why one should search for one in the search bar. You're free to create a list of plasma physics articles if you like, but to a lot of us this just seems like a total waste of time. Categories do everything useful that your list does, and articles get added to appropriate categories as a matter of course, with no need for someone to find this index and add new articles to it manually. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates asserts that it is fine to make redundant indexes and lists, so if this floats your boat go right ahead. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes.--Srleffler (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I seen the page view statistics Wikipedia article traffic statistics on Category:Plasma physics and its very low around 400. That's not very sky high especially if it has article links in it that the user can click on and than go back to Category:Plasma physics which adds 1 point to the page view statistics. You can't find category plasma physics in the search bar and on Google search no one will type that, but they might type in List of plasma (physics) articles especially plasma physicist. Editors might not want to put every source of plasma in the category . Sometimes there is a limit look at Category:Thermodynamics. And I added almost all plasma related articles to it so far. Hopefully in the future You will think this list of plasma boat floats and not sink like the titanic.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
You can't search for a category because it makes no sense to do so. If one wants to learn about plasmas, one searches for "plasma", finds Plasma (physics), reads that, and follows links to other articles. If one wants an index of related articles, one goes down to the bottom of Plasma (physics) and clicks on Category:Plasma physics, which gives a nice, categorized index of plasma physics articles. Page view statistics for categories are low because Wikipedia does not have a strong need for indexes of any type. The primary way to find articles is by following links from other articles; a secondary way is by searching. Indexes are critical in print publications; much less so in a hyperlinked, searchable, online encyclopedia. Even when an index could be useful, an uncategorized alphabetical index of everything even peripherally related to a subject is not the ideal way to present the material.
There is no limit on the number of entries in a category. The guideline at Category:Thermodynamics is about better organizing the material, not fitting within some software constraint. Organization into subtopics is often better than having a single huge alphabetical listing, especially when the topic is broad. People can find things quicker by drilling down to the subtopic in which they are interested and finding a shorter list of more-relevant articles there.--Srleffler (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about the whole list thing. It takes a lot of time but if editors are willing to do that they do add something useful. Compared to categories lists can also include people or items that are not worthy enough to have their own article but might be very important in the context of the list. This list has red links where articles might be needed. One might argue such requests can be made elsewhere but this is where people are looking, it was why the wiki was a good idea.

  • [1]Category:Plasma_physics has been viewed 473 times in the last 30 days. (10:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC))
  • [2] List_of_plasma_(physics)_articles has been viewed 851 times in the last 30 days. (10:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC))

I would argue those are not competitive views but additional ones. Almost 200% overunity. The at first so cargocultish hypothesis that the list would attract physicists seems validated. 279 views in 1 day while the category high-score for December 2011 was 31 views in a single day. Exactly COP 9 peak performance. The experiment is a success. I think that means if the guidelines say it shouldn't be we should change those guidelines so that others to whom it appertains may use the same. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you (and Shawn, if you are different editors) are paying way too much attention to page views. The comparison above is meaningless, because this page was only recently created. Most of the page views are Shawn returning to the page to edit it, and traffic drawn to the page by the addition of new links to it in other articles (i.e. the list is not attracting physicists looking for information, but rather editors and new-page patrollers who see it on their watchlists). If you want a fair comparison, try again a month or two after Shawn finishes working on the page.
I certainly agree that the ability to include red links on lists can be useful, as can the ability to organize material differently from how the category system does. I am skeptical, however, about the merits of a broad, uncategorized, alphabetical list.--Srleffler (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I just like the List of plasma (physics) articles to show up on Google search bar. Half the people don't even know about categories especially if it's at the way bottom. If your on plasma (physics) article and you click to go to a certain plasma link and than go back to plasma (physics) it kinda loads longer than List of plasma (physics) articles. Categories subtopics are great with breaking it down to related plasma topics. Maybe one day List of plasma (physics) articles will have like a space plasma article with space related plasma's like sub categories of space plasma's does. If you look at Plasma processing that is linked from plasma (physics) it has a few hundred extra statistics stats than category plasma physics. Probably because it's linked to plasma (physics) witch has about 100,000 views a month. Category plasma physics has potential to have more but a lot of people don't know about it if they did it would be more popular. Plus List of plasma (physics) articles has like magnetic braking magnetic cloud and a lot of magnetic beginning words that all you have to do is read the braking and cloud part and not the magnetic part or plasma part, so it's faster to read and scan. Plus if you type in any plasma article that is on category plasma physics it does not show up on Special:Search which is the fourth most statistics views site. It's good to have both list of something in alphabetic order and categories that people can go to.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It took about 10 to 15 hours total to find articles relating to plasma (physics). I wish the red link articles where real plasma articles but in due time it would. Thanks 84.106.26.81 for fixing the {New unreviewed article source by viewing it. Hopefully this List of plasma (physics) articles becomes notable and a decent pristine article.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is just me and another different editor. Your right the statistics view is kinda over rated since someone could just look at a article 10 times a day. I have been contributing to most views by putting list of plasma (physics) articles under see also plasma related articles hopefully that will spike up its popularity and attract more plasma physics college students. It probably has attracted editors from other plasma articles since I add it to see also, there just probably curious and skeptical of this new article. Maybe one day it will be ordered in its category like industrial plasma's, universal space created plasma, plasma equations and so on. Iv'e just added about 15-20 more articles yesterday so its getting pretty close to being finished. Spacequake was a new plasma article that I found it was just created this year awesome mechanism. Found more red links like plasma vortices I just gotta find more science facts references for it somewhere. It is getting broad probably can add at least 20 or more plasma articles this year. I even thought about making a list of laser articles which I already have a colossal list of it. Looks like your a expert in lasers and optics what do You think about that. You can right if You want on my talk page since this is probably just for plasma's.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Listcruft notwithstanding, links to list of plasma (physics) articles should not be added indiscriminately, for example to electron,[3] atom,[4] quasar,[5] virial theorem,[6] etc. In general, wikilinks should not be added to articles simply to drive page views. Per WP:SEEALSO, links in this section should be the links that will ultimately be present in the body of a comprehensive article. In most cases, plasma-related articles should have links to the parent article plasma (physics), preferably in the body rather than the see also section. --Kkmurray (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

View statistics just gives me a boost of excitement to know how many people are looking at the article. I only want people to know more about plasma and not just have a lot of views. I only link it if it is related to plasma more than half. I will choose more wisely on what to link it with.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)