Talk:Equilibrium temperature

This item is not an article. It is a point for redirection. But the redirection is not helpful because the phrase "equilibrium temperature" is not part of the language usage of the articles to which the redirections lead. Thus this present item is just a waste of everyone's time who touches it, with no benefit. So I suggest that this item be deleted.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I am ashamed to say that I am totally defeated by the vast documentation of how to propose an article for deletion, and by reading it, I have gained no idea how to do it. But I hope someone who knows how to do it will come to the rescue.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

On further thought, what is needed is not deletion, but, rather, appropriate redirection.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the """""correct""""" redirect? Best simply to delete this redirect item

Equilibrium temperature is not a term with special status in the area of thermodynamics or heat transfer. That is not to say that the phrase is not used, but is to say that it is not a specially defined term. On the other hand, the term 'equilibrium temperature' is a customarily used term in present-day climate science. I do not think it an improvement to put the redirect back to Thermal equilibrium. More comments from me at Talk:Thermodynamic equilibrium#redirect. My current conclusion: simply delete this redirect item. Chjoaygame (talk) 10:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"Equilibrium temperature" is definitely a term used in many regular texts on thermodynamics. I wouldn't recommend deletion of this redirect since someone searching Wikipedia using that term will end up wandering too much before getting to the correct article. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 17:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  A longer discussion on this redirect can be found at Talk:Thermodynamic_equilibrium#redirect.

  "Equilibrium temperature" is a term used in many regular texts on thermodynamics (as a concept of physics).
Thermodynamics texts that use 'equilibrium temperature':

1. "A text book of engineering thermodynamics". By John Joseph Flather. pp. 446. (url)
2. "Principles of physics: a calculus-based text", Volume 1. By Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett. pp. 500. (url)
3. "A text book of thermo-chemistry and thermodynamics". By Otto Sackur. pp. 5. (url)
4. An example from a Wikipedia article: See the definition of entropy in Second law of thermodynamics.

There are a lot more references I can keep providing. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 20:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Equilibrium temperature has nothing to do in specific with the climate. It is a general concept in physics. There can be a equilibrium temperature for a refrigerator, the human body, a piece of rock, a pressure vessel, etc. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 20:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It is good to see some reliable sources. Thank you.

In general, I do not think that a Wikipedia article can qualify as a reliable source on a question such as this. In the particular case that you cite, the use of the phrase 'equilibrium temperature' there is not a properly defined term as it appears in your other cited sources, and is an example of the looseness of the meaning of the phrase. The sentence you cite is not as you assert a definition of entropy. The 'equilibrium temperature' examples that you quote (refrigerator, piece of rock, pressure vessel) are not just intrinsic properties of the items that you cite, but depend on their current internal states and surrounding conditions as well, to which you do not point. Wikipedia is not a textbook to cover every phrase that one may encounter, so as to necessarily demand an entry for a phrase such as 'equilibrium temperature'. People coming from talk of climate 'equilibrium temperature', such as the editor who started this discussion by inappropriately putting a table of planetary 'equilibrium temperatures' and other things into the Thermodynamic equilibrium talk page, will probably continue wander for a while before reaching the specific usage they are looking for; that may do them no harm. I will not dispute the matter further.Chjoaygame (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

more suitable title

On thinking about it, my feeling is stronger, and accordingly I have re-directed to a more suitable title.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)