This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Would anyone mind if I went ahead and removed the one item in "Further reading", per suggestion in last edit summary by Izno, and also convert the Taylor harv refs to the style of the rest? Do we really need the page numbers, for all these refs to the chapter "Mechanics in Noninertial Frames", or can I just say the chapter and page range? Or does someone have a better way to specify pages? Dicklyon ( talk) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would mind the latter suggestion only for the fact that I'm the one who switched to that style for that set. It was done with the intention of making it easier to read the references list and consolidate the text cited (do we really need the repetition of the full source information?…). Anyway, I'm not sure it's desirable to consolidate refs with such a large range of page numbers—somewhere in the range of 20 pages would make it difficult to verify the specific information in each of those sentences, though feel free to disagree… I think it might instead be more desirable to see if we can consolidate our use of references; there are currently 35 different texts and web pages cited, when this topic could and should probably be cited to 5-10 textbooks (with possible use of Harvard citation) as necessary. I'm sure that we would have plenty of texts to add to the "Further reading" section then. :^)
On a different note, do we really need so many "examples"? -- Izno ( talk) 03:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I won't mess with the refs, unless someone points out a better way to combine them in the ref style and still give page numbers. On the examples, that's the bloat I'm talking about. Brews made up and illustrated all those in his attempt to explain CF to David Tombe about two years ago. It was worse than comical; quite painful to see, and now to have to clean up, actually. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the "Centrifugal couple" and the "Whirling table" sections as adding little to the discussion. We might think to merge the information in the "couple" section to Balancing of rotating masses, which looks to be a new article (which we should definitely have an article on!) and could probably use some loving or possible merging with Tire balance as the concepts in both a tire balance and the more general rotating mass balance are the same.
The "Banked turn" section is probably a good one to keep, though not in so much detail, as this is probably one of the points of confusion among the general populace. The "Dropping ball" section has an actually useful illustration which is doubled by the YouTube link in the external links section, so I think we might keep that (though it would be nice to see it cited). I think also that Earth and Planetary motion should be kept in their current condition. Thoughts? -- Izno ( talk) 14:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)