Talk:Wave period: Difference between revisions
grumble, grumble |
changes |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
----- |
----- |
||
It's totally useless to show all possible permutations of a formula...must be changed IMHO. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 04:26 25 Jul 2003 (UTC) |
It's totally useless to show all possible permutations of a formula...must be changed IMHO. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 04:26 25 Jul 2003 (UTC) |
||
:I've made a lot of changes. I hope it doesn't piss anyone off, but there was a tonne of redundancy in the article as it was. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 04:40 25 Jul 2003 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:40, 25 July 2003
Does this page really need to exist? All it says is that period is the inverse of frequency, which is already stated in the period article. The rest of the article is a list of formulas like "period = 1 / frequency" and "frequency = 1 / period" which are the same formula restated and can be found in the reciprocal article, talk about some SI units (Hertz and seconds), and another list of formulas like "wavelength / time = velocity" that are restated 6 times. Seems like a pointless article to me. Opinions? HN 22:10 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It is fairly light, content-wise. Conceiveably it could be revised to change that, but I'm not up to it today. Michael Hardy 22:13 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It's totally useless to show all possible permutations of a formula...must be changed IMHO. dave 04:26 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I've made a lot of changes. I hope it doesn't piss anyone off, but there was a tonne of redundancy in the article as it was. dave 04:40 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)