User talk:Srleffler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Oct. 2005–Mar. 2006 Mar. 2006–Jul. 2006 Jul. 2006–Dec. 2006 Dec. 2006–Mar. 2007

Hi, feel free to leave me a message. Kindly leave messages on new topics at the bottom of this page. Srleffler

Contents 1 Red links 2 Thanks for your answers 3 St. Lucy 4 message 5 notability tags removed 6 Caustic optics 7 Language policy? 8 Spam reverts 9 Tyndall effect vs. crepuscular rays 10 Rays incident on medium 11 Polarization wording 12 Copyright violation in Fancy cut 13 Thank you 14 Image:lenticular.svg 15 for "Cutting defects" 16 Re: Talk:Aspheric lens 17 Numerical aperture 18 A message re: Planck's Law, radiance vs radiant intensity 19 Numerical aperture / f-number confusion 20 Thanks for fixing up Laser Beam Profiler page 21 ANSI 22 AfD nomination of Your Black Muslim Bakery 23 Problem with the gravia lamp 24 About those capital letters... 25 AfD nomination of Cypress Village, Oakland, California 26 Light dispersion 27 problem with the gravia lamp 28 GGB reflection in raindrops 29 Thanks for Laser beam profiler and Beam diameter 30 Guardian angel 31 Vision 32 Valence band 33 optics 33.1 optics???? 34 Core theories 35 Mistake 36 Re: Welcome 37 If the comment fails in Laser maybe we should obstruficate ?. 38 Postal history vs postage stamps 39 Zemax

[edit] Red links

Thanks for the information and education about red links. Sorry if I caused any inconvenience. -cyberscribe

So, um, yeah! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noobycheese (talk • contribs) 09:59, May 17, 2007.

[edit] Thanks for your answers

About Vanic Radiation, if you could ask your peers if they know anything about it. I saw it on a documentary on discovery science, the closest thing I can find to info about it is this

http://www.derkeiler.com/Newsgroups/sci.crypt/2005-06/1478.html

About lasers, you said "If you have a laser that produces a 1 watt beam, the power is the same regardless of whether the beam is IR or UV. The laser that burns the best is the one that is absorbed the best in the target. Some materials absorb IR better, others absorb UV better"

I thought, though, that the closer it is to the gamma ray end of the spectrum, the more energy the photons have, that an X-ray photon's electrons drop further and carry a lot more force than a radio wave's photon's for example. The snare 02:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Lucy

Hi, Srleffler. I made some revisions to the Saint Lucy article and commented on the Talk:Saint Lucy page on them, to answer your objection about the antiquated quotes in the article text. Initially I just referenced the quotes, but after some further looking I found another source to use, which hopefully you will find an improvement. Just thought you'd like to know. Thanks. --MollyTheCat 09:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] message

I have never contributed content to Wikipedia. Someone has been using Wikipedia using my IP. I'm sorry for any inconveniences, is there a good way to report IP address abuse to the wiki mods?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pafufta816 (talk • contribs) 20:25, July 7, 2007

[edit] notability tags removed

What does it mean for a notability tag to clear not apply? I thought every article had to have support in the form of significant coverage in independent external sources, as evidenced by citations. Was I mistaken? Anyway, I think these little articles are not needed, and should be covered within focus (optics) or photographic lens or some such place where they can have some context. Dicklyon 04:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caustic optics

Hello, I wonder what do you think about adding this image to the article . Thank you--Mbz1 21:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, for the same reason I raised before: It's a beautiful photograph, but a poor illustration of optical caustics. The article is much too short to support more than a few images (which it already has). The best place to collect images of caustics is in the Commons page on caustics.--Srleffler 22:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language policy?

You left a note on my page commenting on my changing the variant of English used on an entry, and saying that I should respect other variants of English. First, it would have been helpful had you left a link to the page that you're commenting about, although I believe you're referring to the Bluetooth article, which I edited on 9/4/07. Second, assuming I've guessed the article you're referring to, I still think I did the right thing. Rather than changing an all-British-English page to all-American-English, I was editing a page that mixed the two, using both "metre" and "meter". It had more American spellings than British spellings, so I regularized it to all American. Surely you can't think it good to mix "metre" and "meter" in the same article, so that it's wrong in both traditions? (P.S. This is a very awkward way to have a conversation; is there a better way on Wikipedia?) Dan Griscom 01:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam reverts

Thanks for fixing the spam reverts that I messed up on. Dicklyon 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyndall effect vs. crepuscular rays

Hi, srleffler! I'm still not fully convinced why these two articles shouldn't be merged, despite your comment "One page is the atmospheric phenomenon, the other is a more general physical effect." As I understand it, crepuscular rays is a Tyndall effect. Even if the two articles shouldn't be merged, maybe you could make it clear by saying a few lines within the articles how and why both articles differentiate? Thank you, --Abdull 16:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

555nm - hello, I find the fact that luminous efficacy depends vastly on wave length more relevant than those 3 extra decimals. With eyes adapted for lower light that value can be yet higher (up to 3x), so I wouldn't even consider the number itself as important as its dependancy with wavelength. The unfamiliar can soon find more, which is better than clear but incomplete. A hint may help. Maybe you could add 'and occurs for green light'. The whole photometry is a bit vague anyway, so I guess I'll let things be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.92.152 (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rays incident on medium

Thanks for pointing that out, got a bit mixed up there - bit annoying that I got it wrong after I got an "A" on an exam about it a while back! :) As for the name, it shouldn't really matter too much: it is clear that only one ray is incident by looking at the annotations (only the incident one is labelled as such), and the image's slightly erroneous title is not itself used, other than in linking to the image, so a reader is unlikely to be misled. I have altered the angle of refraction appropriately and revised the file. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the article, I apologise - I had made the same mistake in the image caption - I mustn't have been concentrating at the time, thanks for putting that right. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polarization wording

I admit that "movement" is not perfect, but the word "evolution" is simply wrong in this context. This is a scientific article, so when you use scientific words, they should be used properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.251.147 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I missed your point, or if you just don't understand the meaning of the word "evolution". As far as I can see, the word is used properly.

Excerpt from dictionary.com:

ev·o·lu·tion, noun

...

4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.

--Srleffler (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If somewhere in this article was a section about a "theory" involving polarization, but the word was used with the common meaning of "guess" instead of the scientific meaning, it would quickly be changed. "Evolution" has the same problem. It has an exact scientific definition as well as common definitions (like the definitions you would expect to find in a dictionary after the better, more scientific ones have been given). In a scientific sense to evolve means the gradual change due to a selective pressure, and only that. Your use matches the COMMON usage definitions, and would be fine to go with in a COMMON article. But this is a scientific article, and evolution is simply not the right word here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.251.147 (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If this were a biology article, I might agree with you. The usage seen here is not unusual in physics, however. Something that changes gradually and progressively from one state to another is properly described as "evolving" from the first state to the later one.

This discussion really should be at Talk:Polarization. I will copy it there. If you want to reply, please reply there. I'll see your response.--Srleffler (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation in Fancy cut

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fancy cut, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fancy cut is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fancy cut, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I just read your welcome message, thank you for your good advice that I will implement them as soon as possible. Thanks again. Bernard SOULIER (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:lenticular.svg

Hello Srleffler,

I have made some modifications to the lenticular diagram, let me know what you think of the newer version. I have tried to make the ray-diagram more physically realistic. User A1 (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] for "Cutting defects"

Hello Srleffler, Comments that can be added if it seems useful:

In the printing press sheets are positioned in the same place relative to the leaf edge and the impression too. If a cut of the leaf is not always the same place relative to the first lenticule, the impression is not also in phase.Bernard SOULIER (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "leaf" here? Are sheets and "leaves" two different things? Are you considering direct printing on the back of the lens array, or printing on a medium to be laminated to the lens array?--Srleffler (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a plastic sheet and this is print directly on the verso of the sheet.

I'm French, my English is not very good, I am sorry. I do my best. Is it more clear as this?

"In the printing press sheets are positioned in the same place relative to the border sheet and the impression too. If a cut of the sheet is not always the same place relative to the first lenticule, the impression is not also in phase." Bernard SOULIER (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. I got distracted by other things and didn't come back to this. I'm planning to take another look at that article soon, but don't have time today. I think I see what you are getting at: the press registers the image (pas "impression" en Anglais) relative to the edge of the sheet of material. If the sheets aren't cut precisely relative to the lens pattern, the lenses end up misaligned with respect to the image. I'll rephrase the text in the article when I have a chance.--Srleffler (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:Aspheric lens

New to Wikipedia. What's the best way to tag an article that needs more information?

Garvin (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numerical aperture

If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia articles are not considered valid sources for other Wikipedia articles. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A message re: Planck's Law, radiance vs radiant intensity

The symbol in the equations is I which stands for intensity and the units for I(lambda) are W/nm*steradian, so I expect that the accompanying discussion *should* be about differential(flux) per differential(solid-angle)and bandwidth. Flux within a solid-angle is .. well the definition of intensity, per the SI fundamental unit candela in photometry, among other applications of the word (see ANSI/IESNA RP-16, Nomenclature for Illumination Engineering.) I understand that I may have removed "radiance" when I should have been removing "radiant flux" - but quite simply the discussion is .. unclear at best! The symbol I and word intensity are misused (if one means radiance then do use R, and do not say intensity or use I) and most particularly, the units in the equation did not balance (no steradians in any of the elements listed for the right side of the equation, and the infinitesimal mentioned was *area*) and the confusing reference to pi (which "carrys" the steradian unit and is not just a numerical factor) all needed some refinement. Still does - I see one mention of infinitesimal solid angle (I recall adding it in two places) remains, but the infinitesimal area that is part of the definition of radiance is now missing entirely. Really the discussion could be about spectral hemispherical radiation, spectral intensity *or* spectral radiance - but right now it reads like an unfortunate hodge-podge of all three - and dimensional analysis indicated the discussion was (and apparently still is) flawed. I would rather correct the page once than correct all my students' homeworks and then the page as well - but I can now use it as an example of the errors found in plain sight when one uses dimensional analysis to check what is presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.26.233 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have copied this text and my response to Talk:Planck's law since other editors may also be interested.--Srleffler (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numerical aperture / f-number confusion

Hi Srleffler, I'm having trouble figuring out the right way to describe the relationship between numerical aperture and f-number, in particular in the case of macro photography. I've described the confusing part here, and thought maybe you'd have some useful insight into it. Thanks! ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fixing up Laser Beam Profiler page

Thank you for your welcome message and fixing up the page on laser beam profilers. Wiggydo (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANSI

Thanks for your input on the ANSI issue. The ANSI standard Z136 (as well as FAA order 7400.2f for laser safety around airspaces) for *laser safety* uses the cross-section width at 1/e=0.368 of the peak intensity. It doesn't specify where to take the cross-section in the beam. This is usually taken at the centroid or peak values, but is a bit ambiguous. The ANSI standard for beam width measurements, ISO-11146, on the other hand, uses the the second moment or D4sigma definition of the beam width. The two standards were probably put together by different folks. Wiggydo (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Your Black Muslim Bakery

An editor has nominated Your Black Muslim Bakery, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Black Muslim Bakery and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "I have to add that this proposal is so skewed that it is difficult to assume good faith on the part of the proponent." in the AfD. I agree - I just couldn't come up with a concise way to say that when I was writing my reply. Good writing!—Mrand ^{Talk • C} 19:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[edit] Problem with the gravia lamp

hello, I am having difficulty understanding the ability of this new "Gravia" lamp to function as promised. I was hoping that I could leave you a message here. They claim the lamp will give 600 - 800 lumens of light for four hours. The gravia lamp site can be found at:

http://www.core77.com/competitions/greenergadgets/projects/4306/

the problem is as follows:

You give the maximum allowable lumens per watt as 683 lm/Watt in your article on lumens.

To make the calculation simple we can assume that the operator of the lamp places 100 Kg at the top and it falls through a distance of about one meter. 1000 newtons of force multiplied by one meter of distance gives about 1000 joules. If we have one joule per second that gives about 1000 seconds of operation for the lamp because of your constraint on the lumens per watt given above.

1000 seconds is only about 15 minutes, not 4 hours like they promise!! Can you help me with this by answering here or directing me to the appropriate email address or web page?

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russel54321 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your analysis seems right: something doesn't add up here. According to the website the masses are actually 50 pounds, so about 23 kg. It's a floor lamp, so the distance the mass falls is probably more than 1 m. They say the mass is drawn downward over a period of 4 hours, so it's not that you raise and lower the mass several times to charge a battery. Supposing the mass actually falls 2 meters, the generator should produce about 32 mW, which could produce at most 21 lm (which would then have to be monochromatic green light). --Srleffler (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not the first to notice this. There is some blog chatter about the impossibility of this lamp. It does not seem to be a real product, but rather a second-place winner in an industrial design competition. Design is about the look and concept of a product, not about the technical details. In this case, they seem to have overlooked the complete bogosity of the lamp.--Srleffler (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

One online source suggests that the designer forgot that the SI unit of mass is the kilogram, not the gram. Given reasonable assumptions about the efficiency of the generator and diodes, with that error one gets numbers something like those suggested in the design.--Srleffler (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About those capital letters...

Interesting argument, Srleffler, about the capital belonging on the Luminous efficacy article. I think you're right though, because the sentence is referencing the article directly, rather than using that term as a part of the sentence. As you say, when you use "See X", then you capitalize it. The sentence is a bit awkward, then, because it contains no information on its own, just a reference to another article. That type of 'see also' reference is usually separated from the main prose of the article. Could we use a sentence like: "Luminous efficacy refers to the portion of emitted light usable for human vision."?

P.S. What's the proper etiquette, should i respond on your talk page, or on my own, below your comment? — Fudoreaper (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Cypress Village, Oakland, California

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cypress Village, Oakland, California, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypress Village, Oakland, California. Thank you. Icamepica (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Light dispersion

The wave version of this image was fixed as requested. Thanks for the feedback! — Kieff

[edit] problem with the gravia lamp

Thanks, I sent my calculation with some changes, over to physorg.com as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russel54321 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GGB reflection in raindrops

Hi, Srleffler, I'd like to thank you for letting to stay in the article. May I please ask you a question? Do you believe that this image adds a value to lens article? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on it. Images on Wikipedia should not be merely decorative, but should illustrate concepts relevant to the article. There is a strong tendency for photographers who are proud of their work to want to post their favorite photos everywhere they can on Wikipedia. Many of these are great photos—real works of art—but do not add value to the article. I think your picture is not a good photo for the rain or Golden Gate Bridge articles. It works better for the lens and refraction articles because it is an interesting illustration of a natural lens.--Srleffler (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking your time to respond my question. The picture was never inGolden Gate Bridge article. Surely it does not illustrate Golden Gate Bridge at all. At first I only posted it to Rain article, but then I decided it would make sense to post it to lens article too. I'm very glad that you agreed to let it stay there. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Laser beam profiler and Beam diameter

Trying to come up to speed on a project that involves computer programs that use laser beam profiles. You seem to be the primary contributor to the articles, so, thanks! Also, by any chance are you the Sam Leffler that was/is closely associated with the LibTIFF TIFF library? (Use my Wikipedia email link if you don't want to reply publicly). Dpbsmith (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the beam profiler article was mostly written by Wiggydo. I did a lot of cleanup and wikification—lots of edits, but little addition of content. No, I am not that Sam Leffler, and I don't know him. --Srleffler (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian angel

Srleffler: I watched Atomic de Broglie microscope and atomic mirror; I see, again, you are after me with corrections. I appreciate. (Every writer needs to have at least one careful reader). Thanks! dima (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vision

Thanks for your welcome message (as others have thanked you before). I accept your removal of my notes added to the article on the Luminosity function and thank you again for teaching me the "needs a reference" principle for articles. I see you've moved my comments to the discussion pages for the article instead and I'm satisfied with that - perhaps someone can complete the step from speculation to cited research, but alas it is unlikely to be me (I was formerly a professional astronomer, now a happier amateur!). Cheers, P.r.newman (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Srleffler, Thank you for the warm welcome to Wikipedia. I am very new to this but trying to learn as fast as possible. I hope my additions to 'lenticular printing' and 'picture discs' have been helpful. It is hard to reference everything I write as so much before the internet was never recorded. Most of what I have added is from first hand knowledge but I have done my best to add reference where possible. Thank you for your help and suggestions. Mark Hanau (aimulti) (P.S. I cannot find the symbol for inserting the user name on my keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimulti (talk • contribs) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valence band

Dear Srleffler, if you would like to remove the {{Unreferenced}} and stub tags, kindly discuss it in the talk page first and only when a consensus is reached should it be removed it. Thx Venny85 18:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have removed the unreferenced tag. The stub tag required no discussion. A stub is an article only a few sentences long; certainly less than one screenful of text. Articles that grow beyond this length are no longer stubs and the stub tag should be removed. See WP:STUB for more information.--Srleffler (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Np! We are all loving wikipedians! Now lets get back to making more articles! Venny85 00:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] optics

perhaps we should call it a sub-branch of physics or something refering to electromagnetism, as ive said before there are no fundemental laws of optics its all based on electromagnetism soooooo, so that should be incorporated somewhere there, plus on the physics page its not listed as a branch of physics/core theory but merely a sub-branch of electromagnetism. I've also been lookin around and its very rarely reffered to as a branch in itself sooooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Optics#Branch of physics?.--Srleffler (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] optics????

am not really sure about this response of urs, all u ve done is linked me to a section of talk page that i wrote about not referring to optics as a brnach of physics????? how does that settle the dispute?????? proving that am right????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Check back there. I wrote a reply. It takes time to write something thoughtful! I moved the discussion because changes to the text of an article are best discussed on that article's talk page, not on user talk pages. That way multiple editors can more easily participate and other editors with an interest in the subject can join in.

It wasn't about "settling the dispute", it was about starting a conversation.

By the way, when you post on talk pages (but not in articles), you need to sign your comment, so people know who wrote what. You do that by putting four tilde characters ("~~~~") in a row at the end of your post. When you save the page, the software automatically converts this into your username and the time. --Srleffler (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

what am saying is that although optics is definately a field of study its not considered a branch of physics but a sub-branch of electromagnetism, its actaully listed as such on the intro. to optics anyways and is considered as such on the physics page as well, so i think its more appropriate to kind of link it with electromagnetism rather then just listing as a seperate category, which it is clearly not. when one studies optics or topics in it, one is really studying the theory of electromagnetism, cause thats what light is, so it seems like optics is really more a field of study rather then a core theory or branch of physics(which everone may prefer). Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

i decided that instead of putting branch, it would be reasonable to put the science dealing with etc. whats ur take on this???Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My take on this is that this needs to be discussed on the article's talk page, and we need to get a consensus of editors on this issue. You've raised an interesting point and I will be interested to see what other people have to say about it.--Srleffler (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Core theories

since u seem to know ur science well unlike many of the people that claim to know and write absolute nonsense, especially about the history portion, do u think it is appropriate that classical mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum, etc should be called branches of physics, or core theories, for a long time it was branches then someone changes it to core theories, and well now i put it as branches of physics, but am having serious reservations about calling it that, but then like putting core theories just doesnt sound right, i mean all these fields consist of many theories, whats ur take on the matter. Ive posted on the talk page but i dont see many takers soooo.Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like "branches of physics" for these. As I wrote at talk:physics I think of "branches" of physics as areas of research such as nuclear physics, molecular physics, solid-state physics, etc. Classical mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism and relativity are the essential bodies of theory on which most of the rest of physics is based. To put that another way, most of the "branches" of physics use all of these essential bodies of theory. I don't know if "core theory" is the best name for that. Perhaps there is a better name, but I can't think of one.--Srleffler (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

I did not mean to delete the portal links. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Welcome

Thanks for the welcome, and a heads up on plural stuff. I will have a read.—Preceding unsigned comment added by StewartMH (talk • contribs) 08:42, April 18, 2008

[edit] If the comment fails in Laser maybe we should obstruficate ?.

I've been changing it back to the correct word for the past 6 months (you did remove my comment text ;) . If it gets changed again then I suggest we obstruficate the word (see this edit for example). Ttiotsw (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would hate to resort to that. Hopefully a simple edit comment will do the trick. I don't get why people keep changing it, though. Is reading comprehension that big a problem?--Srleffler (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Postal history vs postage stamps

Actually, no, postal history is distinct from the study of stamps - the one focusses on rates and routes, the other focusses on design, production, and use of the little pieces of paper. So yes, the portmanteau titles are unwieldy, but anything less does not accurately represent the article's content. See Category:Postal history by country, Category:Postage stamps by country to see that it's not just an NSW thing. Stan (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I moved the article back. I think this naming convention is stupid, but the change should be made globally on all of the articles (with consensus), rather than on one article at a time.--Srleffler (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If it's any consolation, I got the original idea from the titles in my philatelic library (Boggs' book for Canada etc), so WP is following a bit of tradition here. Stan (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zemax

I went ahead and restored this thing. I doubt anyone will object- you made a good case for us having an article on this topic. Friday (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)