This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
There's been some talk that sections such as "Internal friction"
"Entropy production" , "Stress relaxation" ect are POV forks. POV forks of what? The only obvious candidate I can see would be deformation (engineering) and deformation (mechanics). Now to some extent these concern the same topic – but they approach it at a different level of abstraction. The two other articles are more about the exterior change and how its measured and why it matters in engineering - while this article concerns the internal processes and the internal properties of an object that governs the process. Unless Im missing something theres no hint of a POV fork in this excellent article! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The rationale has been explained at the article's deletion discussion page. I'll ask you to look at my comments there rather than duplicating them here. In the meantime, I will semi-revert your last edit to preserve your changes to the lead while removing the POV fork material. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the introduction, you have removed the article in its entirety. What are you planning on doing with it ? -- logger9 (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following up by email with logger, per his request. NW(Talk) 22:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. Having reviewed Glass transition this still doesnt look like a POV fork. It would be a fork if the articles were presenting conflicting theories and interpretations with different emphases. In this case it looks like Paula (correctly IMO) insisted that Logger's sections were tangential to the Glass transition article and so removed them as in the absence of exceptional editing they wont help the average reader to understand that topic. But logger's sections are relevant to this article, represent an excellent distillation of the relevant literature and will be helpful to science students and others seeking to better understand the topic. Unless anyone can explain why the sections are a POV fork Im planning to restore them in the next few days, hope this is okay? FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, since Paula has abandoned Wikipedia in frustration, Logger9 is now editing the Glass transition article almost entirely by himself, so it remains to be seen whether other editors will agree with his edits. It has also come to light that there's an article that is, if not the exact same topic, then at least very closely related to that one, and the two may require merging. The existence of two other deformation articles complicates matters as well, since all three of those may need to be merged too. It seems to me that it would better to work out that situation before spending too much time building a separate article here that may need to be combined with two existing ones. What I would say at this point is that as long as there is no duplication, it is probably fine to reinsert information in this article (although that's not what I would advise given the potential merge situation), but all five articles will need to be carefully watched so that we don't end up with another Miss USA 2009 debacle (in which we ended up with about half a dozen articles about the same thing). I also think that all the science people really need to get together to work out this whole glass situation, which sounds like an utter nightmare. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its most unfortunate Paula has left. Ill wait a few days before putting the material back then , though per my comments on the deformation merge discussion Im hoping we can keep the 3 separate articles. With deformation / transition , some of the same properties of glass are relevant to both, if its decided both articles should go into enough detail to mention central phonon peaks etc it might be an idea to create a "Properties of glass like atomic structures" or similar which both articles can refer to , which then avoids duplication? FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're having what looks to be a productive discussion on the merge page concerning defining scope for the different articles, but it didn’t help that logger had a merge link to the full version of this article to a page in his user space from article space. So I took the liberty of restoring the missing sections a little early so hopefully he wont feel he has to do that. Thanks for the good suggestions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that this article has been moved or merged with Plasticity (physics). This REDIRECT was left behind. I'm not sure this article redirect adds value to searches on the topic. I will try to find & update any existing links to this REDIRECT, then submit a request to delete this article. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
