Talk:Pop (physics)

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

no consensus, 25 May 2016, see discussion.
no consensus, 4 July 2015, see discussion.

Requested move 17 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Ultimately unopposed and SMcCandlish makes a good argument for why it would not be ambiguous. Jenks24 (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pop (motion) → Pop (physics) – Another very closely related concept crackle has a page 'Crackle (physics)'. These two closely related physics concepts should use the same disambiguation word -- 'physics'. Also the current page Pop (physics) which is a redirect page should be superseded. Meng6 (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. First we should try to get a consensus and then move. Anyway as velocity, acceleration, jerk, jounce and crackle are each physical quantities, also pop must be. There is no doubt about it. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have concerns the proposed title might be confused with pop physics (ie. pop science, pop culture) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto comment. Same concern as previous comment; isn't there a better dab in this case? we are not obliged to make short dabs when there is a problem: Pop (derivative of position vector) would be a lot more helpful in avoiding readers ending up at an article they are unlikely to want. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine too. I would not mind if the name of the article was more descriptive. On the other hand, all these (jerk, jounce, crackle and pop) are derivatives of position and the naming should be uniform. I think that the articles of lower derivatives of position (velocity and acceleration) do not need such a description in their names. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The present title appears to refer to a dance move. If parenthetical disambiguation of the form Foo (bar) were every readily confused with Foo bar, we would have abandoned parenthetical disambiguation a decade ago, in favor of something like Foo – in bar or whatever, but we did not; QED. The "derivative of position vector" disambiguator is non-concise and not recognizable to anyone but a physics major. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Broken link in citation

There's a link in the citation that is broken. I found a mirror on Justus Learning, but that's hardly as citable a source as the original AIAA journal (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics).

Is a web archive link acceptable as a citation?

66.74.69.222 (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]