Talk:Energy (disambiguation)

TOC

The last edit put the table of contents in a better looking place, but the code is pretty weak. If you know how to do away with the 20 (or more) lines I put in there, please do it! -- MatheoDJ 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

As per my post at Talk:Energy, I have restored the history from the old pseudo-disambiguation page and placed it at Energy (Disambiguation). Please merge any and all necessary entries from that page and redirect it to this one. Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirection

As per the decision on the AfD, energy (chemistry), energy (biology), energy (earth science) and energy (cosmology) have been redirected to Energy, the earlier content of these pages has been moved to other articles. The new links have been incorporated because a redirect to the energy article serves no useful purposeHallenrm 05:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

order, primary meaning

it is questionable whether physical energy (the quantity measured in Joule) is the primary meaning of the term.

Actual primacy is with Aristotle's energeia, from which both physical, mental, and spiritual meanings derive. Likewise, in contemporary usage, the word is used in all of these contexts. A disambiguation page should have some sort of logical structure, grouping terms with cognate meanings, and separating merely coincidential homonyms. Also, common words used as titles or brand names should usually be listed further below than generic meanings. dab (𒁳) 15:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the new organizational paradigm will help readers find their intended target with a minimum fuss. MoS indicates that the unqualified article does not need a proper entry in the disambiguator since most people probably came from there. I like and support the current system where said article points to the conserved fundamental physical quantity, but might be persuaded that a different organization is more helpful. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question as the the primary topic for Energy should be discussed at Talk:Energy. As far as this dab is concerned, whatever topic is at Energy is the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"primary" in current usage perhaps, not primary historically, or in the interrelation of the various meanings this dab page seeks to convey. Whatever you do in terms of "primary meaning", how is it justified to remove perfectly valid links like that to actus et potentia, energeia or Essence-Energies distinction? If this is merely about placing Energy (physics) at the top, fine, there's a debate in that. But the removal of patently relevant links is just disruption. I reject your claim that this should be discussed at Talk:Energy. I am not trying to move Energy to a bracketed title, I am simply trying to give a sensible organisation to this page here. Discussion of this clearly belongs on this talkpage and nowhere else. JHunterJ, if you are at all involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, your apparent lack of tought about the topic does not bode well for that project. It seems that WP:D is in need of attention on the part of users who contribute content and who would like to arrange disambiguation of related topics (as opposed to mere accidental homophones) with some rhyme and reason. dab (𒁳) 15:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about what articles are relevant. Dab pages exists to resolve title conflicts. There is no such conflict between actus et potentia and Energy, since you would not expect the former to have the title of the latter. Taemyr (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, confine yourself to discussing the edits and refrain from personal "observations", such as what my involvement may mean or your inability to read my thoughts. Your apparent lack of understanding of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation is why the project needs editors who are involved with it. If you'd like to make a WP:LIST article, then make a list article, but stop trying to conflate the intentionally content-light disambiguation page with a content-full article. Disambiguation pages aren't articles. Putting a bunch of "content" in between the reader and the article they intended to read is a Bad Thing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Taemy, dab pages are for navigating between pages that may be intended when looking up the term, even if the term doesn't appear in the title. Thus, if someone had written a novel called "Energy", this page would need to point to the author's bio article even if no article dedicated to the novel itself had yet been created. Why do I have to point out such trivialities? JHunterJ, I ask you to give be the benefit of doubt that I know perfectly well what I am talking about, and the good grace that a disagreeing with you does not necessarily amount to being in error. Now if you are interested in addressing this case, pray show some appreciation of the semantig and terminological issues involved. No, I do not wish to "make a list article", thank you very much. I believe in providing disambiguation pages as an ordered list which make clear which meanings are dependent on one another and which aren't. Stop lecturing me about the point of disambiguation pages: I am fully familiar with their purpose. dab (𒁳) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann‎, stop attempting to instigate an edit war. Consensus is against you, both here and WT:MOSDAB#Clarification needed. Discuss, but do not make this into a battlefield. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On topic

"Energy" in the context of aristotelism refers to energeia. From this meaning, all others here listed are derived. "Energy" in a context of scholasticism means actus, discussed in actus et potentia. "Energy" in a context of Palamist theology refers to the question treated at Essence-Energies distinction. Now, before reverting my edit, and before lecturing me any further on the content of WP:MOS, can I ask the dab-vigilantes present to specify which part of the guideline says we should not link to these articles, or else refrain from reverting my edit again. As always on Wikipedia, if you have no inkling of an issue, you should refrain from edit-warring about it. I would welcome any informed argument how "energies" can not refer to actus within the context I mentioned. If you cannot provide such an argument, you have no business here. dab (𒁳) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

since there are no reactions to this, I take the points above for granted. --dab (𒁳) 07:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Even more on topic

Rather than allow you to sidestep the problems your approach has by claiming your section to be the "on-topic" one: "Energy" has a topic at the base name: Energy. Here on Wikipedia, disambiguation pages exist to direct readers to the article they sought when an ambiguous term is searched. The disambiguation pages lead with the primary topic, as determined not by aristotelism or scholasticism, but by simple naming: base name = primary topic. Can I ask the lone voice in this discussion specify why the primary topic Energy is not the primary topic here? As always on Wikipedia, if you have no inkling of the guidelines, you should read them before acting all pompous about it. The rest of us welcome any informed argument as to how Energy is not the primary topic of "Energy". If you cannot provide such an argument, of course you have business here; this is Wikipedia after all; but you can't demand that you get your way. (The other answer to your question is: pages that aren't in danger of being ambiguous with the topic phrase, "energy", aren't dabbed -- if you think that those pages are in such danger, discuss is before continuing your edit war.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the primary topic of Energy (dab) is Energy (article). But what does that have to do with listing other entries? "Energeia" is often translated "Energies". "Actus" is often translated "Act" but sometimes "Energy" or "Energies". Since Energies (redirect) points here, these should be listed too. Gimmetrow 12:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

But Energy (disambiguation) is not a page of topics that is related to Energy, nor is it a page of topics with titles that contain the word "Energy". It's a list of topics that could have had "Energy" as it's title. Taemyr (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a list of topics which could be called by the term "Energy". I'm glad you agree. Gimmetrow 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To take the single article of the above that is currently not on the dab page. Actus et potentia, what topic covered in this article would you give the title Energy? The closest I can get is that the article touches briefly on energy in the aristotelean sense, but that topic has a home in Energeia, currently linked. Taemyr (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Energeia was missing when I commented before. There is a proposal to merge energeia with the actus article. That would solve the problem, but there has been no discussion so it's hard to tell if it's going to happen. Gimmetrow 22:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

there has never been a problem in the first place. Not one of content, in any case, just one of user conduct. We can discuss, in peace, which topic is "primary", but there is no reason to remove the other entries from this page. Indeed, doing so is damaging this page's usefulness. I do argue that all items listed are 'topics which could be called by the term "Energy"'. What is more, all of these are so called by derivation from the Aristotelian concept. Where is the problem? dab (𒁳) 07:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the utter irrelevancy of the fact that these terms is derivations of the Aristotelian concept. Taemyr (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

primary meaning

For the question of the term's primary meaning, I suggest that in the spirit of WP:CITE, we turn to the most venerable dictionary of the English language, the OED. The noun energy is glossed as follows:

1. a. With reference to speech or writing: Force or vigour of expression.

2. a. Exercise of power, actual working, operation, activity; freq. in philosophical language.

3. Vigour or intensity of action, utterance, etc. Hence as a personal quality: The capacity and habit of strenuous exertion.

4. a. Power actively and efficiently displayed or exerted. b. pl. Individual powers in exercise; activities.

5. Power not necessarily manifested in action; ability or capacity to produce an effect.

6. a. Physics. The power of ‘doing work’ possessed at any instant by a body or system of bodies.

it is clear that energy is primarily a term in everyday language meaning "force, vigour, vitality, power". Secondarily, it has specialist meanings in philosophy, theology and physics. I am really not sure how this can be disputed, but if somebody would nevertheless like to dispute it, some minimal citation of some sort of source might be good practice. --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not about layman terminology. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately primary topic in terms of dab pages is a statement about wikipedia. The primary meaning of a dabbed term is the meaning that is at the unambiguated article name. Ie. the place that the user ends up at when entering the term into the search box. Taemyr (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

More on primary topic

The primary topic of a term, as far as dab pages is concerned, is the page you arrive at by stripping (disambiguation) from the title of the dab page. In this case for Energy (disambiguation) the primary topic is Energy. A readers arrival on the disambiguation page involves a conscious decision that this topic is the wrong topic. Again, for a reader to arrive at Energy (disambiguation) will typically involve one of the following;

1. The user types Energy(disambiguation) into the search bar, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%28disambiguation%29 into the address bar.
2. The user follows the for other uses notice on Energy
3. The user follows an other link in wikipedia to Energy (disambiguation)

In all these cases a conscious decision that the article Energy is not the one that is looked for is involved. In the first two cases this decision is taken by the reader, in the last by the editor that created the link. Since it is know that the reader is not looking for Energy this link should not be mixed in with the other links. At the same time the primary topic will be an important meaning of the term, so keeping the link of the dab page altogether will be an exercise in futility and probably not useful. Hence Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Linking_to_a_primary_topic. Taemyr (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent pruning.

I removed the following entries;

• Work

While measured in Joules work is the transfer of energy not energy itself.

• Heat

Heat is, like mass and other quantities, merely a form of energy.

• Actus et Potentia

As I have indicated above; insofar that this is an article about a topic that could be titled energy, the relevant topic is covered at energeia

• Energy medicine.

This is a specific application of Energy (spirituality)

From the see also section;

• International Energy Agency

Certainly an important institution. But better linked from the relevant Energy article, ie. Energy (society)

• Stress-energy tensor

Specific description of flux of energy in general theory of relativity, I can not imagine a reader looking for this article would start at energy.

I have changed the following entries;

• Essence-Energies distinction to Energies of God

Similar argument as for Actus et Potentia, if Energies of God is ever written that is a better target.

• Power to Power (physics)

Power is a disambiguation page, and IMO very few of the entries are relevant. Removal of this and Force might be better.

Taemyr (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Work is not "the transfer of energy", it is the energy transferred.

If Actus et Potentia is merely a subtopic of energeia, then Energy (society) is merely a subtopic of Energy, and indeed Energy is a subtopic of energeia. Can we please remember to WP:UCS here a little bit? --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article at Energy may be a sub-topic of the topic of the article at energeia, but the subject of the article at Energy is still the primary topic of the phrase "energy". We can remember WP:UCS and remember that disambiguation pages are navigational aids to help a reader find the article he or she was looking for, not educational articles to explain idea hierarchies. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not dispute the primacy of the Energy article. Even though the "phrase 'energy'" does not necessarily have the primary meaning of energy but possibly more often of energy (society) or even energy (psychological). Incidentially, I can also accept that Work and Heat remain unlisted. As for actus, this would be a valid entry, but the article should have been merged into energeia a long time ago anyway. Perhaps instead of wasting time here we could finally fix this. I agree that disambig pages are navigational aids. It is entirely common-sensical to arrange the possible referents hierarchically, as the page has always been trying to do, as in "toponymy", "music", etc. The problem is just that the division between the "in science" and "in philosophy" cannot be drawn. Common sense also dictates that Energy needs to be included in the list as long as its subtopic Energy (society) remains listed. --dab (𒁳) 11:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any consensus for the view that you claim is common sense, and I disagree that it is common-sensical. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you've at least skirted 3RR now. You're obviously aware of the guidelines on formatting links to the primary topic. Please edit within the consensus guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording of primary topic

User:Abtract argues here that it is preferrable to stick with the wording used in the lede of Energy. I see no particular reason that it is preferable to follow the wording in general. And feel in this specific case that, since the full sentence of that lede is not used, an inaccuracy is introduced. Namely that energy is not a property of any forces but rather of objects or systems. I would propose "Energy is a physical quantity that describes the amount of work that a system can perform."Taemyr (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In general it is preferable for the disambiguation blurb to echo the lede in the article. In this specific case, I think the phrasing of the lede in Energy is unclear. Does the phrase an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law modify the immediate antecedent "force" or does it modify the subject of the preceding phrase, "energy". older ≠ wiser 22:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It was for that reason, and because dab leads are best kept to the minimum needed for dabbing, that I just used the first part of the target article lead. If this is deemed misleading, then the energy article may need to be rewritten. imho. Abtract (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If Energy is considered as a look up word, like it is in other considerations than physics then you're doing fine. But in Physics the word Energy fits into the category of an estimate of a quantity of a theoretical entity related to the basic entities matter, space, and time. And the words force and work are not appropriate due to their a priori assumptions.WFPM (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC) And in Physics if the amount of supplied energy intensity is integrated over a period of time we get another physical quantity which is called Action, and which quantity is not mentioned in the article on Action.WFPM (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The primary meaning (both historically and semantically) is Energeia. Both Energy (physical) and Energy (psychological) are equally derived special meanings. It is not the case that "Energy (psychological)" is a metaphorical use of the notion of "Energy (physical)". The fact that the undisambiguated title Energy currently treats "Energy (physical)" is simply a (comparatively innocent) bias towards the sciences as the "default" worldview. I do not propose to change this, as long as it is understood that the situation does not prejudice the judgement of "primary topic" for the purposes of disambiguation. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The primary meaning (in Wikipedia usage, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) is Energy, because that is the article at the base name. If you wish to change the judgement of "primary topic" for the purposes of disambiguation, then you do need to propose to change this. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)