Introducing the PF Library!

[Greg Bernhardt]

Some words are simply not suitable for auto linking.

The word "square", for example, comes up far more often in its non-rectangular sense, as in …

where the auto linking even gives it a capital S although it was not typed like that!

And does any user of this forum really need a library entry whose entire wording is "A square is a plane rectangle with four equal sides and four right angles"? Or an entry for "triangle"?

True, those were kinda test entries, I will likely delete them.

 

[CRGreathouse]

True, those were kinda test entries, I will likely delete them.

Similarly, on a recent thread, I saw "surreal numbers" linked to "real numbers".

This may be unavoidable when there is no article for (in this case) the surreals. But if there was an article there, would the algorithm know to link only the longest match?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This may be unavoidable when there is no article for (in this case) the surreals. But if there was an article there, would the algorithm know to link only the longest match?

Ok noted for future fixes, thanks

 

[Redbelly98]

When I browse subtopics, it would be nice if my Search choices would remain intact. For example, I select "Physics", then select "Classical Optics", then select "Diffraction". Perhaps I would next like to look at other subtopics under Classical Optics, but I must reselect "Physics" and "Classical Optics" all over again before selecting my next subtopic. If "Physics" and "Classical Optics" stayed as the active selection, I could do this more quickly.

Thanks for putting this together!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

When I browse subtopics, it would be nice if my Search choices would remain intact. For example, I select "Physics", then select "Classical Optics", then select "Diffraction". Perhaps I would next like to look at other subtopics under Classical Optics, but I must reselect "Physics" and "Classical Optics" all over again before selecting my next subtopic. If "Physics" and "Classical Optics" stayed as the active selection, I could do this more quickly.

Thanks for putting this together!

Good idea, noted!

 

[Helical]

It might just be me, I'm kind of a neat freak, but I think that the article writers should be able to turn off information sections (i.e. Definition/Summary, Equations, Scientists, etc.) which don't apply so there aren't empty sections. Some things just aren't going to be "In the News."

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It might just be me, I'm kind of a neat freak, but I think that the article writers should be able to turn off information sections (i.e. Definition/Summary, Equations, Scientists, etc.) which don't apply so there aren't empty sections. Some things just aren't going to be "In the News."

"In the News" will be changed into something else shortly.

 

[mathwonk]

so far the few entries in the library i've read are not exactly likely to bring me back for more reading.

to me they just display symbols without insight, not the kind of thing i think anyone needs except maybe as a way for the posters to spend their excess energy.

of course maybe wiki looked like this too at first. hopefully all the enthusiasm here will translate gradually into higher quality treatments.

 

[Kurdt]

I think once people get used to the features and the bugs are ironed out the quality of the entries will increase. Of course you're free to add to any entries yourself mathwonk

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think once people get used to the features and the bugs are ironed out the quality of the entries will increase.

Just to spite you, I'm going to define all 26 letters of the alphabet.

"Q: The rational numbers, or a constant or variable. In number theory, an unknown prime number."

j/k :rofl:

 

[benabean]

Seeing as not everyone is able to edit, how can we report something needing editing?

see here
'Equations' box, 2nd one down, has a typo.

b.

 

[cristo]

Seeing as not everyone is able to edit, how can we report something needing editing?

see here
'Equations' box, 2nd one down, has a typo.

b.

Hit the "report item" button on the menu on the left hand side of the screen (although there's no need to do it for this one, since I've just edited it! )

 

[benabean]

Hit the "report item" button on the menu on the left hand side of the screen (although there's no need to do it for this one, since I've just edited it! )

thanks for that!
keep up the good work.

b.

 

[Eric Belcastro]

A great idea - though members might want to consider not recreating entries needlessly that are explained well in wikipedia. It's not hard to find endless arrays of physical and mathematical concepts explained there.

 

[Hootenanny]

A great idea - though members might want to consider not recreating entries needlessly that are explained well in wikipedia. It's not hard to find endless arrays of physical and mathematical concepts explained there.

I would hope with the system that we have in place that our entries will be far more reliable than Wikipedia. Not that I am suggesting that either the PF library or Wikipedia should be used as a primary study reference.

 

[benabean]

A possible addition to the right hand side menu could be 'recommended texts and books / further reading' for each entry.?

b.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

A possible addition to the right hand side menu could be 'recommended texts and books / further reading' for each entry.?

b.

Sort of what the "see also" section is for

 

[benabean]

Sort of what the "see also" section is for

Ahh I would've taken the see also section to contain links to other Library entries,
ie 'Magnetism' would have a link to the library entry to 'electricity' for instance.

After a while there maybe a substantial list to other see also's, which wouldn't be good for organization of links.

 

[Diffy]

Perhaps those who are not members can submit "recommended edits" then those who have access can approve. I would like to edit some of the entries but alas do not have the ability to do so.

 

[_Mayday_]

Quadratic Equation

 

[_Mayday_]

Looks good to me!

 

[Kurdt]

Perhaps those who are not members can submit "recommended edits" then those who have access can approve. I would like to edit some of the entries but alas do not have the ability to do so.

As has been stated above you can report things you think need editing.

 

[Eric Belcastro]

I would hope with the system that we have in place that our entries will be far more reliable than Wikipedia. Not that I am suggesting that either the PF library or Wikipedia should be used as a primary study reference.

I see what you mean. It would be nice for a community forum to go at it. Lot's to teach, lot's to learn...

 

[Hootenanny]

I see what you mean. It would be nice for a community forum to go at it. Lot's to teach, lot's to learn...

The only draw back is that we have a much smaller pool of potential authors than Wikipedia, which means that populating the library is going to be a slow process. However, the advantage we have over Wikipedia is that for any given topic, there is likely to be a moderator who is considered proficient in that field. So once an entry has been moderated and published here on PF you can almost guarantee that it is going to be scientifically accurate, whereas you can't say the same for Wikipedia.

 

[_Mayday_]

Hey Everyone!

It seems a bit weird that whenever you write something like circle, you are linked to it's definition. Has anyone thought of having something like a latex code thing, where the key words could be coded, and then the link provided? A mathematical explanation for a circle isn't really needed in General Discussion, unless people just ignore it.