Jump to content

Talk:First observation of gravitational waves: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Suggested split: another editor offered some relevant ideas
Line 104: Line 104:
:::Neither I nor the RM closer assessed whether there is consensus to split. That's what this section is about investigating. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 17:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Neither I nor the RM closer assessed whether there is consensus to split. That's what this section is about investigating. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 17:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
::An article on that topic seems an excellent idea to me. Good lateral thinking. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 17:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
::An article on that topic seems an excellent idea to me. Good lateral thinking. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 17:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

:::FYI, y'all, another editor, [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo]], offered what seems to me to be some pretty decent options and analysis when the topic came up [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=811184328&oldid=811182865 on his talkpage]. Here's just his concluding thoughts (less lead up analysis):
:::{{quote|I would personally consider at least two alternate solutions: first to rename the article "First direct observation of gravitational waves". This seems to resolve both your objection, and the desire that the title be one that readers will find comprehensible and context-setting for what they are about to read.<br><br>Another solution might be to have an article about the "event of discovery" which focusses on the history of the team, the cultural impact, the scientific implications, etc., and to have another article "GW150914" which has the scientific details only, similar to GW151226. I immediately see both advantages and disadvantages in this approach.}}
:::A fellow editor, --[[Special:Contributions/75.188.199.98|75.188.199.98]] ([[User talk:75.188.199.98|talk]]) 21:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:21, 20 November 2017

Why does the graph start at time = 0.3 seconds?

Why do all the graphs start at time = 0.3 seconds, roughly? Why not at zero? I am guessing this is because the wall-clock time was hh:mm:ss.30 in UTC, so they are using wall-clock time, but (1) this is not explained and nobody has been able to answer this question for me, and (2) what are the values of hh, mm, and ss, in UTC? I see the date, but not the time. Thanks.146.115.179.89 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The times on the horizontal axes in the observation figure are relative to 09:50:45 UTC. This is mentioned in the caption of Fig. 1 in the discovery paper. The UTC time is given in the article here. Gap9551 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Observations of gravitational waves

Now that a second one has been confirmed, are we going to create Second observation of gravitational waves? Or merge it (pardon the pun) with this page and rename it Observations of gravitational waves or Direct evidence of gravitational waves? Tayste (edits) 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first observation is historic. Since all subsequent observations/detections will be useful to science, we may create a sub-section on a "list" at Gravitational wave of other detections. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need list of black hole mergers or list of gravitational wave observations if they go beyond black holes and nothing. We donb't need an article called "second", but the official designation could be the title of the article if it is notable, which I suspect it is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First observation of gravitational waves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Head count roughly split and both sides have reasonable arguments which centre around different naming criteria (consistency for those in support, recognisability for those in oppose). Splitting is an editorial decision outside the scope of RM and can be followed up on in the section below. Jenks24 (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


First observation of gravitational waves → GW150914 – When we last discussed this back in February 2016, we only had this case of a gravitational wave, and it wasn't clear if that would remain the case or not. We now know that these are regularly-detectable events rather than a one-off, and we have a series of articles on them, titled GW151226, GW170104, GW170814, and GW170817. This one doesn't match that pattern. As such, I think this is worth re-discussing whether we should move this to GW150914 (while keeping the current name as a redirect). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Last time I voted Oppose, but things have changed. The entire section Gravitational waves (providing context) could then possibly be removed, or partially relocated in the articles that are linked to as 'main articles'. Gap9551 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those hits are probably from astronomical and other scientific sources. From the essay Wikipedia: Readers first "Use common words, phrases and styles rather than less common words, phrase and styles". Any longish set of letters and numbers will be less familiar than a clear description, which the present title provides. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The page should have the same name as the event itself, not a description of it. The existing page name can redirect there. Nothing wrong with page titles that are the official coded names for astronomical objects/events. It would be silly, for example, to move NGC 4993 to The galaxy where the merging of neutron stars was first detected, for example. Tayste (edits) 23:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the less recognizable name would not be an improvement. A potential alternative is to split the content, with one article on the first observation, the other more specifically about the event. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to WP:POVNAME, which is policy, actual names are preferable over descriptions, so Tayste's comment is absolutely correct. As an example, it lists Octomom, which is a redirect to the name of the woman almost nobody remembers or even recognizes anymore. If I want to find the First film by George Lucas on Wikipedia, I go to George Lucas and take it from there, and link to the actual name of the film. That is how it should be. There, as here, the actual name is something forever memorized by all geeks of the relevant persuasion, and instantly forgotten by anyone else.
And yes, the current name is POV or worse, incorrect. Hulse and Taylor (and Weisberg) are generally regarded as making the first indirect observation of gravitational waves, while LIGO has made the first direct observation. And yes, this distinction is considered a slightly sensitive issue in some circles, even though the debate has long been settled. There were, for example, internal debates about whether to say "First Direct Observation" in the title of the discovery paper, they settled for doing so in the abstract.
In short, this discussion should not even exist: policy says we must change to the official and neutral name. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So far as the official name is concerned, policy says nothing of the sort, but it's a very common misconception, which is why I originally wrote that essay! (Which now has more than 500 incoming links and growing daily.)
See also wp:correct, a more recent essay on another common misconception also reflected in the long post above. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These essays have nothing to do with my comment. We are discussing an official name versus a less than accurate and less than neutral description, and I cited the relevant policy. Actual names are allowed to be inaccurate and non-neutral. Invented descriptive phrases are not. In fact, I would oppose this description being kept as a redirect, it should be a dab.
I'm perfectly happy with unofficial names, like Hulse–Taylor binary instead of the redirect PSR 1913+16. Not on the table are "LIGO/Virgo G184098" (the original name, used on GCN Circulars) or "The Event" (as it was known amongst the insiders at the time), simply because the names are unknown, not because they are unofficial. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These essays have everything to do with your comment. If you think they misrepresent policy, fine, but I don't think they do. Yes, you have cited policy, but inaccurately IMO. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per common name and common sense. My goodness what on earth does this random string of numbers even mean? No. If there is something easy for people to know and understand, that is what we name it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the point of this request is that the current title of this page is not name at all, let alone a common one. It is a description of the subject. Moreover, as shown above, there is actually very little evidence that this particular description is even more common than the actual proper name of the event. The meaning of this proper name can be easily explained in the first line of the article, and should therefore lead to little or no confusion.TR 07:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: "GW" = gravitational wave, "15" = year (2015), "09" = year (september), "14" = day (Monday in this case ;-) ). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes it a very good scientific name but an absolutely horrible name for letting people know what it is, which is one of the key factors in our naming conventions. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, which is policy. Five criteria are listed regarding article titles, of which "GW150914" is clearly the winner for three of them (precision, conciseness, consistency), the loser for one of them (naturalness), and arguable regarding one of them (recognizability). The cited policy recognizes this kind of conflict happens, and asks us to weigh them all and seek consensus. Getting all excited about one of the criteria and ignoring the rest isn't very helpful. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of our naming policies, yes, and the best part of them is that it realizes that these things are in tension and it is the job of RM participants to weigh their merits. I've considered all the others: there is nothing preventing having the official name in the text of the article. We primarily weigh, however, the most recognizable name for a subject, and there needs to be a strong reason on the other fronts to ignore that. The tension here is primarily between COMMONNAME and CONSISTENCY, of which I think the winner in this specific case is COMMONNAME. I think its also telling that most of the regular RM participants who don't have a scientific background here are opposed to the move: it gives an idea as to how an outside editor who is familiar with the naming conventions think they apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But GW150914 is, in fact, the closest there is to a COMMONNAME under discussion here. The existing alternative is not a name. It is a not quite accurate and not quite neutral descriptive phrase and thus violates policy.
I suspect that those without a scientific background have no idea that there is a several-decades-long and sometimes controversial backstory regarding the "First observation of gravitational waves" assertion. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some interesting points and valid. If you would stop cluttering the discussion with rubbish such as The existing alternative is not a name then perhaps we could discuss them logically. Andrewa (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment the main issue here is that we have to first decide what the scope of the article is. If it's the first observation, then we need history, background, previous searches, experimental techniques, and so on (e.g. more or less this article), which ultimately culminates in the discovery of GW150914. If it's the article is about the event, then it's about the GW150914 event/system itself, its physical properties, with a description of the significance of the event to science/astrophysics at large. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you are calling the main issue is actually a complete non-issue. Both "first observation" and "event" can share the same article, regardless of what the title is, and the relative emphasis depends on RS and editor effort, which can change over time. If it proves to be too much material overall, the article can be split. 129.68.81.81 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They can share an article, but in this case it makes a lot of sense to split. Too much material is not the only criterion for splitting. Andrewa (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. Andrewa (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested split

There seems support for a split above, the only opposition I can see is on the grounds that the article isn't big enough to need splitting, which doesn't seem to me to be a valid reason for not splitting.

If we're going to split as proposed, then the proposed move is pointless anyway. (Disclosure: I'm against the move in any case.)

That now struck out comment was of course originally part of the RM, but this section was rightly moved out of the RM by the closer. Just to explain the apparent non-sequitar. Andrewa (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments? Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the current name while splitting off the GW event seems like a bit of a dead end - the amount of content for it won't particularly grow over time. Would something like Interferometer observations of gravitational waves have a better scope for future expansion? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that the title solution is to split the content, and I disagree that was the consensus. Just name it First observation of gravitational waves (GW150914). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the most logical and inclusive way to go, Support First observation of gravitational waves (GW150914). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither I nor the RM closer assessed whether there is consensus to split. That's what this section is about investigating. Andrewa (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An article on that topic seems an excellent idea to me. Good lateral thinking. Andrewa (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, y'all, another editor, Jimbo, offered what seems to me to be some pretty decent options and analysis when the topic came up on his talkpage. Here's just his concluding thoughts (less lead up analysis):

I would personally consider at least two alternate solutions: first to rename the article "First direct observation of gravitational waves". This seems to resolve both your objection, and the desire that the title be one that readers will find comprehensible and context-setting for what they are about to read.

Another solution might be to have an article about the "event of discovery" which focusses on the history of the team, the cultural impact, the scientific implications, etc., and to have another article "GW150914" which has the scientific details only, similar to GW151226. I immediately see both advantages and disadvantages in this approach.

A fellow editor, --75.188.199.98 (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_observation_of_gravitational_waves&oldid=811316967"