Talk:georeactor

I submitted a precise definition for georeactor and a precise short definition. Subsequently, the long definition disappeared and the short definition was changed, becoming incorrect. What is happening here? J. M. Herrndon mherndon@san.rr.com

This is a dictionary - simple definitions are what we need, with links to Wikipedia for entries that need it. SemperBlotto 06:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing attention to this. I agree that this revision has not been given enough attention. Resolving the disparities is a role to big for my shoes, but I will do what I can and make sure that your work is preserved in the Wikipedia, where the detailed description is more appropriate and references are eagerly welcomed. Davilla 17:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

BP discussion moved here

georeactor

I posted a scientifically precise long definition of "georeactor" as well as a precise summary. An hour or two later, I discovered that the long definition had disappeared and only a different, and INCORRECT summary definition was in its place. What is happening here? J. M. Herndon mherndon@san.rr.com

Okay, to address your points. The reason why your long definition was removed in favour of something else is that it was too long, as well as not conforming to our formatting conventions. Normally, someone would come along and merely format the page accordingly, but when a definition appears to be encyclopaedic, it has to be fixed. In other words, much of the information you added would perhaps be better placed on the corresponding Wikipedia article, here.

As for the matter of correctness, I can't really answer that one. SemperBlotto clearly got his information from somewhere, whereas you use the definition you coined, obviously. We try to record actual usage here, so perhaps it is a case of two (slightly) different meanings of the same word. I'm sure Semper can answer this for himself.

In the meantime, I would encourage you to register an account (makes it easier for us to get in touch with one another, gives you an identity beyond just a number, &c.) should you wish to continue contributing here, and perhaps to familiarise yourself with our formatting conventions. If you would like any assistance or advice, just ask. --Wytukaze 23:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to draw a clearer distiction here between writing a definition and coining a term. Instead of saying that Dr. Herndon "[used] the definition [he] coined", I would pay more tribute by saying that he wrote a definition of the term that he coined, whereby coined means that he is the original source of the term as established in the literature. In fact, I found it a bit difficult to locate uses of the word online that did not refer to Dr. Herndon's theory (apart from Wikipedia, which haphazardly mentioned both). There are in fact other perhaps ad-hoc uses, but at the same time a single definition is oversimplification.

Furthermore, it was improper, in my opinion, to delete that content without moving it to Wikipedia, especially considering that that page had an {{attention}} tag even at the time of SemperBlotto's revision. Davilla 20:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

One may coin a word, phrase or even a definition by using it the first time. If Herndon's use of the word in 1993 represents the first use of that word, then he indeed coined it. Coining a word may happen by giving it an explicit definition, or by using it in a way that makes the definition implicit. A definition would be coined when a word already has one, and we choose to give it an entirely new definition.

There is no such thing as an {{attention}} tag. A person's duty to move deleted material to Wikipedia or any other Wiki project is limited. We are all volunteers here, but I don't think we volunteer to do other people's homework. Such moves can involve a lot of work, especially if the receiving project already has material on the topic that differs from what we are moving. The primary duty to put material in the right place must remain with the contributor. Unless the article in question is completely deleted, it is important to remember that all former versions remain accessible through the page history if a person wants to move it elsewhere. For complete deletions, there is a request for deletion process, where I at least try to keep anything that might be debatable for at least a week after the last comment has been made. Where there is a deletion I will try to keep the discussion there for a further week so that others will have the opportunity to comment. Eclecticology 23:29:03, 2005-07-25 (UTC)

It was the Wikipedia article, where I presume SemperBlotto got his information, that had an {{attention}} tag. If there was another source then I apologize for the implication. I would actually be interested to know if there is some collection of information online with regard to the more general meaning, as my search could have been easily biased by my choice of words.

In any case it was right for the original author to have raised a flag, even if he was unaware of the policy. I do not mean that I back his position, only that he was right to raise a question and thus bring attention to the issue. Otherwise the precious contents now hidden in the history would have gone unnoticed. Davilla 09:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Fundamental differences

There is a fundamental difference between a slow fission reactor in the crust and the (presumably fast?) one at the core proposed by Dr. Herndon. First of all, geology rarely concerns itself with the core. The georeactors studied in the Discover article were in the Earth's crust, and they were tiny pockets in comparison to the nuclear reaction that would have to take place to produce the Earth's entire magnetic field. Davilla 21:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)