This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Superseded theories in science and results in mathematics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The 2006 Featured Article review noted the absence of referencs in this article and since May 2010 it has been flagged for lack of citations; the problem has been subsequently discussed on the talk page ( now archived). Since little progress has made, I am providing below an example of what this page would look like if all items lacking "one or more references" were removed, in conformance with the Manual of Style, which requires that "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references)". I don't really want to make such a drastic edit without some comment, but since there has been no reaction to this policy issue for more than a decade, I am ready to perform such a drastic deletion. I hope the addition of sources to the list will make such a drastic edit unnecessary.
-- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 14:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Hello, thanks for your efforts to provide easy-access to science.
I just wonder if the first 3 paragraph will read better if the current 2nd and 3rd paragraph exchange. The current 3rd paragraph is talking about "totally discarded theory( phlogiston theory)" and "still-working theory (Newtonian physics)". The current 2nd paragraph is about more details of "still-working theory" in "Newtonian physics" and "flat Earth".
So it read better with first current 3rd paragraph of general introduction and then current 2nd paragraph of more details
Thanks
From user of Joyvario, but lost the log-in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.192.17.5 ( talk) 14:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me that this entry overstates the notion that classical physics has been "superseded" by quantum mechanics and relativity and incorrectly states that it has been "discarded". The parent article says this:
The notion that classical physics has been discarded by the scientific and engineering communities is absurd. This topic is well covered in the Theories now considered incomplete section, so no need to (erroneously) replicate it under Discarded theories section. I'm removing the entry. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 14:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Newton's sine-square law of air resistance is no longer red-linked. I invite editors here to improve what is more or less a stub at this point. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 18:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Superseded theories in science and results in mathematics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The 2006 Featured Article review noted the absence of referencs in this article and since May 2010 it has been flagged for lack of citations; the problem has been subsequently discussed on the talk page ( now archived). Since little progress has made, I am providing below an example of what this page would look like if all items lacking "one or more references" were removed, in conformance with the Manual of Style, which requires that "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references)". I don't really want to make such a drastic edit without some comment, but since there has been no reaction to this policy issue for more than a decade, I am ready to perform such a drastic deletion. I hope the addition of sources to the list will make such a drastic edit unnecessary.
-- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 14:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Hello, thanks for your efforts to provide easy-access to science.
I just wonder if the first 3 paragraph will read better if the current 2nd and 3rd paragraph exchange. The current 3rd paragraph is talking about "totally discarded theory( phlogiston theory)" and "still-working theory (Newtonian physics)". The current 2nd paragraph is about more details of "still-working theory" in "Newtonian physics" and "flat Earth".
So it read better with first current 3rd paragraph of general introduction and then current 2nd paragraph of more details
Thanks
From user of Joyvario, but lost the log-in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.192.17.5 ( talk) 14:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me that this entry overstates the notion that classical physics has been "superseded" by quantum mechanics and relativity and incorrectly states that it has been "discarded". The parent article says this:
The notion that classical physics has been discarded by the scientific and engineering communities is absurd. This topic is well covered in the Theories now considered incomplete section, so no need to (erroneously) replicate it under Discarded theories section. I'm removing the entry. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 14:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Newton's sine-square law of air resistance is no longer red-linked. I invite editors here to improve what is more or less a stub at this point. Mr. Swordfish ( talk) 18:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)