Talk:Point source

Disambiguation page reformat and merge proposal

OK, I have reformatted this article as a proper disambiguation page, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). There are now many articles that link here, however. Two days ago, we had no inappropriate links to this disambiguation page. Another Wikipedian went through and changed many of them to point back here, and created many new ambiguous links as well, contrary to WP:D. He also created many little stub articles, one for each "type" of point source. It seems that we now have two options:

Adjust the links to this page to point to the appropriate individual articles on each type of point source, or
Merge some or all of the individual articles into a single article on point sources in general

I say "some or all" largely because of the pollution article. This topic is distinct enough from the other articles (all of which deal with physics) that it may benefit from being treated in a separate article. The kinds of things one might want to say about a "point source" of pollution are different from the things one might consider for point sources of light, sound, heat, etc. Or maybe it's not that distinct after all and could be covered in the same article. I'm a physicist, so I don't really know much about it.--Srleffler 05:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: If we merge all of these articles, we would eliminate the disambiguation page and just have dablinks between the two articles Point source and Point Source (company). If we only merge some of the articles, a disambiguation page would still be required as well as the merged article. We can discuss the appropriate names for those later.

If it seems like we're going in circles, it's because we are. The intent of this discussion is to stop the thrashing around, and get a consensus on how to move forward.--Srleffler 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it all makes sense scientifically now (it certainly didn't before). I would also be happy for all of the information to go on one point source page -- good luck in trying to do that though (I tried to do this before, but there was some of resistance from other editors). Changing the links is a little tricky, as the majority of links refer to point sources in general and not one specific type (e.g. they do not single out the case of light, radio or light pollution, but discuss waves in general which would include all of these, or e.g. they discuss the emission and tracking of a gas but do not state whether or not the gas is a pollutant). I will make these point to the general point source article. Rnt20 09:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments?

As an example of why the pollution topic may need its own article, user:Anlace just changed Point source (heat) to thermal pollution, apparently assuming that "point source" automatically meant a point source of pollution. I reverted and reorganized the list to put pollution at the top, in hopes of avoiding this confusion.--Srleffler 05:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the merger is probably the best idea, since the creation of all these stubs is of dubious value (e.g. point source (fluid) etc.) It doesnt seem likely some of these stubs will ever amount to useful articles. the thrust of point source should be to describe the theory of using the concept of point source and draw examples from the varous fields. i have just greatly expanded line source and feel this is a reasonable model for point and area source articles. regards Anlace 05:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the definition of a point source is not changed whether or not the gas / fluid / light / heat is considered a pollutant. I think the pollution case can be included on the same page by simply stating that the substance, waves (e.g. light, sound) or heat being emitted might be a pollutant for the case of pollution tracking (or not for the case of Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Optics etc). The same laws and mathematics apply whether the gas or smoke is labelled a pollutant or not, so why have a separate page? Rnt20 08:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe Point source (pollution) should be a separate article

Srleffler, I thought we had settled all of this in the preveious discussions yesterday. I think the re-organization edits made by Michael Hardy after those discussions were a good compromise. I also remind you that during those discussions yesterday, you were the first to suggest that Point source (pollution) be a separate article. And I remind you of what you posted on my talk page this morning:

You've still got Point source (pollution). That seems like a good title for your article. Why not work there?--Srleffler 02:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What changed your mind since you wrote that? I think perhaps you are bothered by Michael Hardy not having followed the Manual of Style (MOS) on disambiguation pages. In my opinion, the MOS is not meant to be so rigid as to be cast in stone. It is meant to be guidance. I must say that I am disappointed that you have, in a few short hours, changed your mind and suggested a merger that is not needed.

Anlace, if you think that a few of the stubs created after Michael Hardy's reorganization yesterday may not evolve into useful articles, then why not simply suggest they be deleted? I don't believe they should be a basis for the completely reversal of his re-organization, do you? -mbeychok 07:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]