Talk:Negative-index metamaterial/Requested move

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was No consensus. — Please relist after further developing the article or reaching some consensus on the topic being addressed here.
— V = I * R (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope → ? — The current title is unwieldy and doesn't seem to have the right style for a Wikipedia article title. There must be a more appropriate name we can give this article. Suggestions? Srleffler (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone has altered my comment above. I did not propose Negative index metamaterials as the new name, and I oppose this name for the article.--Srleffler (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

since you originally movereq'ed the article, someone has moved it and then that move was reverted. There seems to be at least some consensus developing in support of using "Negative index metamaterials", so I would suggest jumping in to the discussion below.
— V = I * R (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I restored my original comment, and the original movereq tag, so that the text does not falsely attribute the name proposed below to me.

The title expresses the theme of the article. If you could sum up the article in a phrase, this would be itTi-30X (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative index metamaterials sounds good to me. Rich Farmbrough, 05:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Agreed, Negative index metamaterials is a much more reasonable title.
— V = I * R (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't like.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a compelling reasoning. If you have a legitimate concern with the proposal, now would be the time to state it.
— V = I * R (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the science, technology, development, and future application of negative refractive index theory ( and the sub theories, which this encompasses). There is no science in invisibilty. Invisibility is a science fiction term, and a term or description used by mass media. It would not be appropriate as a title for this article. Negative index metamaterials is a more appropriate title than invisibilty for this article. In fact, I have to agree that Negative index metamaterial is a very good title, Rich. Ti-30X (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: As the original author of the article, could I just go ahead and move the title to "Negative index metamaterials" ? Would anyone mind that? This is not easy, though. For some reason I like the orginal title, but maybe it is too glitzy. So let's do the change, and get it out of the way. Ti-30X (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would wait for a while. At the very least, you should give the proposer a chance to come back and see where the discussion is going. Besides, you never know, someone could come up with a great alternative... Which isn't to say that we should wait indefinitely. Give it a coupe of days to shake out, though. If I were you, I'd take this opportunity to try improving the article some (having just skimmed through it, I can say that it needs copy editing with an eye to grammar at the very least).
— V = I * R (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, too late now, I see... for future reference, I strongly recommend waiting at least a couple of days. Anyway, since you've gone ahead and performed the page move I've removed the movereq from the page.
— V = I * R (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I didn't like it was that the article doesn't seem to be on that subject. Note that there already is material on negative refractive index in the wikipedia Negative_refractive_index#Negative_refractive_index.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't too late, and I have duly undone the move. It is completely unacceptable to do these kinds of moves in the middle of a discussion like that without a shred of consensus.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

wow.. OK, thanks for creating an even bigger mess. Ugh. I've readded the movereq templates (at least now there's a good proposed name to use).

As for the "doesn't seem to be on that subject" comment... I'm not sure what to say really. Yes, it is, but I don't really expect you to take my word for it. The fact that there is a Negative refractive index article (or, at least, a section) actually suppots the proposal to use "Negative index metamaterials", here (the use of "negative index" is obviously established on Wikipedia).
— V = I * R (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, you moved the article to the wrong title. The original title was Stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope. You tacked "to Negative index metamaterials" onto the end. It looks like you copied and pasted the text from the history entry for the move, and got more text than you should have. The article can only be moved back to the original title by an administrator, but perhaps it can sit here while the discussion continues.--Srleffler (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the article seems to be on using negative refractive index materials for producing stealth. An article on negative refractive index materials would be on all uses of negative refractive index materials; some of the proposed uses include imaging things smaller than the wavelength of light for example. But, I'm going to go with consensus if that's what the consensus turns out to be, which right now there clearly isn't consensus, and I won't accept fait accomplis.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the distinctions that you are drawing above are your own artificial constructs... I won't allow this to be turned into an inter-personal issue though, so I'll just leave it at that. As for consensus, you appear to be the only actual opponent so far. Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees, necessarily. Regardless, this hasn't even been up for 24 hours, so I'm perfectly willing to let this continue for a while longer, at this point.
— V = I * R (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Electromagnetic invisibility???- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the name Negative index metamaterials for this article, because this article is on one specific application of such materials, not on those materials in general. This just wouldn't be an accurate title for the article. How about Electromagnetic cloaking or Metamaterial electromagnetic cloaking, based on titles of some of the article's references?--Srleffler (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... can you define what "cloaking" means, withing the real Physics world?
— V = I * R (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The terms "cloak" and "cloaking" are used in the article, and in the titles of references 26, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43 (as currently numbered). I'm not going to attempt to define it, but the evidence is that the editors of Science, Physical Review Letters, and Optics Express were satisfied that this term is a good description of this technology.--Srleffler (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not move the page. However, to another editor, I said that I wanted to make the move, get it out of the way, and move on. So, the other editor accomodated me. Personally, I don't want to Hem and Haw about this for the next seven days.Ti-30X (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose cloaking. It is a science fiction term, made up in the science fiction genre, no matter that some peer reviewed journals are using the term. Furthermore, the term cloaking is a term used by the mass media, to allude to things like Harry Potter. In other words the conotations are non-scientific, and trite. Harry's Potter cloak is pure fantasy. Star Trek is fantasy science fiction. This is not a mass media article, nor is it science fiction.

Also, if you notice, the word cloak is used once (or only twice) in the whole article. That was because I typed in there, by mistake, and intended to remove it. I conciously, and intentionally, made sure that I used physics, or physics related terms. If you want I can give a word count for this article and show you the ratio of the word "cloak". If the article is 2000 words then the ratio would be 1 in 2000 or 2 in 2000. If the article is 3000 words then the ratio would be 1 in or 2 in 3000. Using the word "cloak" in the title would be incogruous. It would not match the article at all. Ti-30X (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, at the time I wrote the comment above, the article used the words "cloak", "cloaked", and "cloaking" a total of twenty-one times, not counting the seven references that use it in their titles. I see that since then you have been removing this term from the article. Your reply above does not seem to reflect these facts. If you don't like the term "cloak" I'm fine with removing it from the article, but be up front about what you are doing.--Srleffler (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the count of the word "cloak". That was very sloppy of me. I didn't count it myself, and thought what I wrote was true. I actually had no idea. I was on edge when I wrote that, but it was still very sloppy of me. This has definitely been a good learning experince. Ti-30X (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ω (Omega) thank you for the advice. I think you are correct. This would be a good time to shape up the article. I will take a look at the grammar. Ti-30X (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative index metamaterials is appropriate for this article. Negative refractive index and Negative index metamterials go hand in hand. Metamaterials by definition, are materials not found in nature (artificial). In this article Metamaterials are used to produce negative refraction index, and this article discusses the fabrication, use, and theory behind metamaterials and, what is seen as negative index, as opossed to a conventional (positive) refraction, in accordance with Snell's Law. Ti-30X (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with having an article on negative index metamaterials, but such an article cannot focus exclusively on applications to stealth technology. If this article is going to remain at Negative index metamaterials, it will have to have its focus on stealth reduced, and be broadened to cover other applications of this technology. Alternatively, the current structure of the article could be kept, but it could be moved to a title that reflects that this is an article specifically on stealth applications of negative index metamaterials. I'm open to either option, but we must choose one path or the other.--Srleffler (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope everybody would agree that a title for this paper should be a compromise between scientific accuracy, brevity and being understood by non-specialists (the primary audience here). The current title is way too long and incomprehensible; there is a reasonable concern that "cloaking" is a jargon which is not yet popularized in the media; "negative index" has a problem that it implies that "index" is "refractive index" which is not evident at all, and indeed, the article is on science and its techniques, not on materials. I understand the concern of Ti-30X that invisibility sounds as a fiction, but believe this word suits here because it will be understood and because it reflects the described techniques - after all, they all aim at making the object invisible to eyes or devices. Therefore propose Science of invisibility or Science and technology of invisibility (a bit more awkward though). The proposal of Wolfkeeper "electromagnetic invisibility", sounds good to me as a scientist, but looking by Martian eyes of a non-specialist, I would say it is a bit unclear. Please vote. Materialscientist (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cloaking also suffers form Klingon associations. Key terms seem to be:

• Stealth
• Negative index
• Metamaterials (thee were once called composite materials (?), somewhat confusingly as that is also something else)

So maybe "Negative index stealthing" or "Negative index stealth applications" or "Negative index stealth" or "Negative index stealth with metamaterials"? Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

I like your line of reasoning here. If we don't find anything shorter, I would be satisfied with something like "Stealth applications of negative index metamaterials". It's not concise, but it is encyclopedic and accurately captures the subject matter of the article. --Srleffler (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with avoiding "cloaking" if others object to it, so long as we can come up with a title that accurately reflects the article's contents (or adjust the contents to correspond to the title). If the article is specifically on stealth applications, the title must reflect that. Negative index materials have applications beyond stealth, and if the title is going to be "Negative index metamaterials", focusing exclusively on stealth is giving undue weight to one application.

The use of the phrase "negative index" to refer to metamaterials with negative refractive index is pretty well established. I think it should be OK to use the former in the title, as long as the intro quickly explains what is meant. One of the problems with the intro at present is that it fails to quickly explain what the subject of the article is.--Srleffler (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Negative index is unclear (should be negative refractive index, which makes the title awkward again). I do not mind exchanging "stealth" and "invisibility", but why avoiding "invisibility" ? This is exactly what is aimed in the paper. Regarding "Metamaterials", if you look at their article (again by Ti-30X), they are wider than negative refractive index. That was what I kept in mind in my above proposal. Materialscientist (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Invisibility" may be too much of a peacock term in this case. It implies a degree of control over visible light that is not very realistic. A metamaterial layer that routes radar waves around a fighter jet is a good stealth technology; it is a stretch to call that "invisibility".--Srleffler (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really - (i) this article is not on the old stealth technology, but on its future expansions; (ii) invisibility is a broad term covering radars and microwaves too; I don't see anything fancy in it (an object may be invisible even if merely blends with the surrounding, like animals do). I might accept that "negative index" is becoming a common term, and I don't mind other ideas. "Stealth applications of negative index metamaterials" sounds Ok, but the current "Negative index metamaterials" might be acceptable after all. Materialscientist (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The concern I have with "Negative index metamaterials" is just what I have stated before: these materials have other applications. If we choose that title, this article will need to be broadened to cover other applications, and the focus on stealth correspondingly reduced. I think it would be better to keep this as an article on stealth applications of this technology, and choose a title that accurately reflects that.--Srleffler (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The circumstances surrounding this article is a joke, in every way. The name is inappropriate, the article is a duplicate of metamaterial, it covers the same ground, the article doesn't cover the topic it claims in the introduction, the article name is ambiguous. The admin that moved the article to this inappropriate name, contributed to the discussion. Basically, there is nothing whatsoever meeting consensus about any aspect of this article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Search statistics

Material scientist, I do appreciate your argument, but let me show you guys something: Looking at page view stats for the following articles: Metamaterials: July 20,005 views, June:13,032 and Metamaterials shows up at number 4 on the google search page after entering the "Negative index metamaterials" search term. When I use simply Negative index for my search term then the article Metamaterials shows up number 1 on the google search page. These statistics imply that there is a substantial audience who understand that Metamaterials and Negative index are something to look up. This shows awareness of these terms, and maybe awareness of some the concepts involved. I compare this with the stats, I looked up for Introduction to quantum mechanics, recently, which were over 16, 000 views for both June and July.

Now, I plug "negative refractive index" into the google search. Wala! Metamaterials is second, and Refractive index is third if we count the "google scholar links. Refractive index has 36, 568 views in July and 39,396 views in June. Relatively speaking, in the physics world, these are popular aritcles. "Refractive index" as a search term results in Refractive index as the first on the page. Surprisingly second on the page is List of refractive indices.

The stats for "Stealth technology" is 18, 004 views in July. Anyway you can see public awareness for terms such as "Negative Index materials". Not to mention that there are a list of these sites or articles running down the google page when these terms are entered into the search. I imagine people read these descriptions or terms in popular media Ti-30X (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Rich has some good search terms, no offense Materialscientist. Yours are good too, but I prefer his, at the moment. And the current name is good. BTW if you think the Break isn't good here go ahead and take it out. Ti-30X (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist - yes I wrote most of that first section (which was skillfully edited, by someone else). But, that was when I was into Dr. Kaku and the Physics of the Impossible. I was also learning (from a certain Materialscientist) the value of scientific journals, and the value of citation templates. These were not easy lessons to learn. So, in other words my point of view has shifted. I suppose it can't be helped. Uh oh, have I been brainwashed? Or did I just wash my brain? (There was also a certain Dr. Bologna and Dr. Cheese, involved there, if I remember correctly.)Ti-30X (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for undertaking the work here. While search results shouldn't be , they are suggestive. What I take away from the above is vindication of the view that we shouldn't "dumb down" more accurate verbiage based on some nebulous belief that "lay people won't understand it". If someone could present some sort of proof that less accurate terminology is in fact more understandable then I'll accept that, but seeing as how there are copious dictionaries and plenty of supporting articles on Wikipedia readily available to readers I don't expect that any such proof is available. Wikipedia should strive for accuracy. Where accuracy impacts understandability, the issue should be resolved through explanatory text, including the use of links to additional articles.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above. Article titles should use the most common terminology for the subject, but should not avoid technical terms if they are the most common description. Rather, the lead should explain what the subject of the article is and provide the necessary context and links to supporting articles. --Srleffler (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading all of the recent conversation here, it's clear to me that the title is actually the item of least concern here. What this article is, or is supposed to be, really needs to be settled before coming up with a name can be adequately addressed. I'm really wondering if this shouldn't be multiple articles, myself (some of which probably already exist). I have other editing concerns so I'm not going to get into this beyond the naming issue here, but I suggest tabling the name issue for now and coming back to readdress it once the content issues have been settled (and the lead rewritten).
— V = I * R (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved back

Previous mover broke the page move "Stealth technology as a pliable electromagnetic envelope to Negative index metamaterials" was the title. Moving it back is not even an endorsement of where I moved it to (except for it being better than where it has been), if you guys find a better title, then move it there by all means, and if you have a problem I will help move it. Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

You should not have moved the article while the discussion is ongoing and lacks consensus. Moving it to this title creates problems, since this title is not an accurate description of the current article's content. This title would seem to mandate reducing the article's focus on stealth as an application of negative index materials, and broadening the focus of the article to cover other applications. It would probably be better to keep it as an article specifically on stealth applications of this technology, and choose a title that reflects this.--Srleffler (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please understand Rich Farmbrough. What he did was housekeeping, merely reverting the questionable previous move. We are all positive here and just need to build up a solution. This stage is transitional, and the title is to be agreed upon. Please read my note above and vote. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

B******. As part of the move he used CSD G6: uncontroversial deletion. He very deliberately moved it to the one place that we were arguing it definitely should not be! This is literally abuse of administrative privileges. He could have moved it practically anywhere else.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, he should have moved it back to where it started.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, I understand your frustration, and I apologize that you havent' been heard. Let's work togther, to resolve the issues that have come up. Please see my paragraph below - the last entry at this time. Let's move back to cooler heads. I react quickly too, so I completely understand!!Ti-30X (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.