Talk:Flux (disambiguation)

Flux, the openid-like social network

http://www.flux.com/ I've been on it for a while now, not quite as big as openid but still very noticeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.174.44.4 (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Primary topic definition

The primary topic description was recently changed to Flux is either of two separate simple and ubiquitous concepts throughout physics and applied mathematics. That is a pretty useless description so I have reverted it to the previous one. We wouldn't write Automobile is one of several different pieces of machinery in manufacturing would we? Now I know the flux article opens with that sentence and we would normally go with the definition in the target article for the dab page, but that is not actually the definition given in the article. The definition is in the following sentences. The previous description on the dab page was a fair summary of those two definitiions in my opinion. SpinningSpark 12:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark, that argument assumes the lede is incorrect about being a broadconcept / two concepts (a WP:SOFIXIT there not here, then we wouldn't have to fix it in two places). That is, however, incorrect:

Neither is good, so in the absence of a good option let's fix it...

Flux is a scientific term describing the rate of flow of something through a surface. only describes concept one, bad on the dab:

1. Describes the word not the concept, to be avoided per WP:ISAWORDFOR / WP:REFERS (note the dab example in REFERS is wrong and I've marked it as such. The correct per WP:DABINT is to style a primary topic per MOS:DABPRIMARY A school is an institution for learning. not A school is a term ... or a more appropriate WP:DABCONCEPT example A particle in the physical sciences is a small localized object to which can be ascribed physical properties.
2. The second definition is a surface integral. In what way is only including the first a fair summary of both?
3. Omits the field...it isn't quite specific enough about which area of science(s), so doesn't IMHO help readers disambiguate for the whole "Science (and technology)" section. e.g. as Flux (biology) has been split off (creating a secondary dabconcept IMHO), clearly biological transport is not included in the physics primary topic. That's the sole purpose of the dab descriptions. Further, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we assume they've rejected that entry anyhow, so I decided to go with the vague ("useless") lede as it's more useful on the dab, than the current misleadingly narrow one (which omits the field).
4. wikt:flux at least uses "(physics)" (physics) The rate of transfer of energy (or another physical quantity) through a given surface, specifically electric flux, magnetic flux. which is where such dict defs should go
5. The hatnote is better, keeping the field(s) This article is about the concept of flux in natural science and mathematics (but is inconsistent with the lede "the concept" vs "two")
   1. Britannica is of some use, A directory page in physics (compared with ours currently more of a dabconcept)

We're not trying to "define" the topic, just disambiguate it.

As for Automobile (disambiguation), I've changed it to An automobile or car is a kind of wheeled motor vehicle., which mirrors A car (or automobile) is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transportation. I'm sure you'll consider better than the previous mess there? The automobile example is a straw man, and irrelevant. Widefox; talk 12:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Proposal (TL;DR):

Flux is either of two separate concepts in physics and applied mathematics. Widefox; talk 12:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I am baffled by how you think that is in any way a helpful thing to write. There are many concepts in physics and mathematics. Which two is the reader supposed to pick? It does nothing to help the reader decide if that is the article they are looking for. It fails in the basic purpose of a dab page. I disagree that Flux is a scientific term describing the rate of flow of something through a surface only describes the first concept. The difference between the two concepts is that the first describes the phenomenon as an intensive property while the second describes it as an extensive property. Both are describing exactly the same phenomena so are open to being summarised in a single sentence. You write that I have assumed that the article lead is incorrect, but I have not. All I am saying is that that first sentence does not form part of the either the definition or description of the concept(s). It is simply not necessary for disambiguation purposes to say that there are two definitions/concepts (leave that to the article to say) and saying just that and nothing else says next to nothing.

I agree with you on the WP:REFERS issue. Flux in physics and mathematics describes the rate of flow of something through a surface would be better. SpinningSpark 13:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Glad we agree about REFERS, so we agree it's currently not good and should be fixed.

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is clear that we assume readers have been there and rejected the topic, the description shouldn't be wrong, but it is separate above for eliminating it for readers, hence given the dab constraints of being concise, deemphasizing the definition and emphasizing the fields aids distinguishing. Hope that explains why such a weak definition although non-ideal, isn't per se bad.

The hatnote has similar wording that details the field but without a definition, is that baffling too? The article has these two sections:

1. Flux as flow rate per unit area
2. Flux as a surface integral

The dab entry on Magnetic flux sums up the second meaning that presumably you're happy with the vague Magnetic flux, a measure of quantity of magnetism, rather than a rate of flow of something

Ditto Electric flux, a measure of quantity of electricity

As for the physics, although offtopic on a dab, I'm curious what flux you consider is an intensive property? [1] "Note we can only talk about fluxes of extensive properties, the flux of an intensive property would be meaningless". Constitutive equation defines the relationship for flux density and intensive property Flux (density) is proportional to a gradient, the constant of proportionality is the characteristic of the material.. The point being that I'd personally consider flux as a surface integral as a model, and all the dab should do is reflect that current broad scope of double definition. As there's extensive debate on splitting the two flux definitions on its talk page, I'd say it's useful to say that both are covered there, but in case I'm not clear, I just don't see this as that important as the reader has already come from there! They don't want it.

Now we've laboured the point, how about something like:

Flux is a rate of flow through a surface in physics, or related meaning in applied mathematics. Widefox; talk 00:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. I won't reply to the matters you raise on the physics and mathematics (other than to say it is not a matter of what I consider to be the intensive property). As you say, that is off topic here. I'm happy to explain the relationships on my talk page if you are still interested. SpinningSpark 09:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done although in my book they're both physics, so Flux is a rate of flow through a surface, or related meaning in physics and applied mathematics. is slightly better? Widefox; talk 10:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that they are both physics rather than mathematics, but I think it was you who said above FIXIT in the article first. I don't agree that your suggested wording is better. SpinningSpark 13:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes the current wording implies magnetic flux is mathematics so I'd prefer the wording above (or some better phrasing of it). Sorry, you prefer the current wording or the one directly above? Widefox; talk 10:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I mean I don't like the alt entry you suggested above. What is this "related meaning" in physics? What is it in mathematics come to that. We could strike "related meaning" altogether without any loss in intelligibility. SpinningSpark 12:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I've described it above. So, looking at it this way, if the "flow" description fits the broad concept, why don't the magnetic (and electric) entries in the dab (which are subentries of the primary topic) repeat the wording i.e. have such "flow" descriptions? I could understand the electric one having a flow description, but not the magnetic one. Does that clarify? Widefox; talk 17:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The flux article absolutely does correctly describe electric and magnetic flux. However, in those cases there is not a flow of anything physical. The flow is imaginary, or analogous. The terminology in those fields arises from an archaic view that believed there really was a physical electric/magnetic fluid at work. SpinningSpark 18:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to the wording of the dab entries, whereas you replied about the article. Widefox; talk 20:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)