Talk:Open quantum system: Difference between revisions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale.

At the beginning I ‘fixed’ ‘bath’ to ‘both’. But I see from the Quantum dissipation article that ‘bath’ is possibly correct. If so the wording needs clarification.

It’s called “bath” in physics. —Glentamara (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rronk96, Jleamer1. Peer reviewers: Dylanhecht, Wadams3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further reading is too long. Any source on the list that is useful here is should be summarized in the article. This deep technical topic should not have further reading.
• Sourcing is terrible (related to abuse of Further reading).
• History mixed up with discussion. The date-annotated material should be gathered in one section, History.
• The second paragraph of the intro implies an Applications section which does not exist.

Johnjbarton (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading can always be trimmed or removed, if somebody cares then that person will re-add whatever is important. Sourcing is terrible because this started from a terrible article. History should be its own section. Again this article was a mess that was shortened to make it less of a mess, it still is a mess.–ReyHahn (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my page: User:Harold Foppele/sandbox-2 as per suggestion of @Johnjbarton I rewrote the article. After having bad expirience wtih edit wars, i did all edditing in the sandbox. If yall agree to that version i copy it to the original page. Or delete the sandbox if no consensus is reached. Cheers Harold Foppele (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree to such a replacement. There has been no suggestion or proposal that this page is so bad that complete replacement is needed. This is not how Wikipedia improvements are made. I would revert such a large undiscussed change immediately and I believe other editors would back me up.

The pageUser:Harold Foppele/sandbox-2 is not a suitable alternative to the current article. The way you find out what is suitable is to make a small self-contained edit with a short clear edit summary and let other editors review it. If they disagree, they may revert your change with an explanation. Try not to get disheartened or enraged, but rather open a polite discussion topic in the Talk page. Alternatively you can suggest a small change in the Talk page first. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am i glad it is only in my sandbox. Your comments on Sept, 14, ReyHahn Sept.15 looked like it should be sorta re-editted. I am not disheartened nor enraged, just want to understand whats the scope is of the remarks above. Trust me, i shall never endup in an edit war again. Thats is exactly why i did put it in my sandbox. Any suggestions of part(s) that could be merged? This is what you asked me to do: “I would like to propose a challenge to you: set your draft aside and fix an existing article, for example Open quantum systems.” So i tried 🙂 Harold Foppele (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested working on an existing article as a way to avoid your previous experience. The vast majority of Wikipedia editing is one small change at time, ideally a self-contained change. I gather you have experience programming computers. You must have noticed that debugging or improving large computer programs goes more smoothly if one makes small changes that compile, run, and test, followed by more small changes. Team programming add reviews by others on top, so each small change can be checked. That is how Wikipedia works. All-at-once, take-it-or-leave-it tactics are not helpful. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok 🙂 I did among other things HP Business Basic back in 1976, so no compile needed, maybe thats why 🙂 But i hear you and am very much willing to learn. In the page itself it says “Lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations“ that is one of the major things i did. How about i start there? It does not change the text, just add to it. Harold Foppele (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a small edit. I edited the first paragraph and added an info box. Please comment 🙂Harold Foppele (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the infobox for two reasons: 1) it links WP:User space and 2) I don’t think it is helpful and it’s not a common practice. We could discuss the value of a non-user space infobox, but I guess {{Quantum mechanics}} might be appropriate if the article is eventually strong enough to include it. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you removed the info box. Is that not allowed? Or improperiate ? Harold Foppele (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]