Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of physics articles (!$@): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:16, 9 March 2013

Revision as of 12:20, 9 March 2013

Line 40:

* '''Keep All''' - While I wouldn't advocate anyone commit the massive amount of time necessary to create and maintain such an apparatus, it is clear that this is very well done and fulfills a valid navigational function, which is the key thing. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 21:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' or possibly meld into one [[Index of physics articles]] article. Indices of science-related articles on Wikipedia are numerous; [[:Category:Indexes_of_science_articles]] lists 37 of them. Why pick on physics? If it is because the index is broken into separate articles, we could meld them into one. If it is not the physics index articles in particular, but indices in general that you think are useless, then this is something to bring up on a policy forum, not AfD. As a side note, there is no AfD notice on the 'A' page. --[[User:Mark viking|Mark viking]] ([[User talk:Mark viking|talk]]) 22:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

::Note that these indexes appear to have originally existed as a single index named "Index of physics articles", but was apparently split in an attempt to make it more easily readable and maintainable. The common objection to these indexes is not related to the number of articles they take up, but to the huge maintenance overhead that they entail. If indexes like this exist and are approved by consensus, then article creators should be duty-bound to add their new article to the index, which becomes maintenance creep. Also what defines "Physics-related" as the appropriate point in the category nesting to create a flat list? Why not "Science-related"? Alternatively why not "Quantum Physics-related" and "Computational Physics-related" and..... ? A far better solution would be an addition to the MediaWiki software that allows any category to be viewed in flat-form with one button click. —[[User:Gorgan almighty|gorgan_almighty]] ([[User talk:Gorgan almighty|talk]]) 12:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

*'''Undecided'''. As they stand now, the lists don't do anything better than categories. There are also several problems just from a cursory examination. Physicists don't need to be included individually when there is already a [[List of physicists]], and they definitely shouldn't be ordered by first name. Also, articles like [[zinc sulfide]] and [[zirconium alloy]] really belong in the [[Index of chemistry articles]] (which also lists scientists by first name). [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science|list of Science-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 00:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)</small>