Editing Talk:Speed (section)

== Merge proposal ==

I propose merging [[Tangential speed]] with [[Speed]].

Tangential speed is equivalent to speed. Tangential velocity is equivalent to velocity. By the [[Frenet equations]], a curve's unit tangent vector is in exactly the same direction as the [[velocity]], hence the tangent velocity is exactly equivalent to the velocity. Hence, the magnitude of the tangent velocity, that is, the tangent speed, is equivalent to the magnitude of the velocity, that is, the speed. Hence, the tangent speed is equivalent to the speed.

The page on tangential speed only provides an example of speed for rotational motion along with a snippet about tangential acceleration. I will do all the work and already attempted a merger, but now require consensus.

Originally, the pages had been together, however they were split, most likely due to the presence of the term in the book,
* {{cite book | last=Hewitt | first=P.G. | title=Conceptual Physics | publisher=Pearson Education | year=2007 | isbn=978-81-317-1553-6 | url=https://books.google.com.br/books?id=A5HylF_5tLEC | access-date=2023-07-20}}
However, seeing as I cannot find the term on either page 131 or 132 as suggested in the references, and seeing as no other serious physics text references such a term as either "tangential speed" or "tangential velocity", I maintain that the existence of the page is erroneous.

[[User:Nwparris|Nwparris]] ([[User talk:Nwparris|talk]]) 15:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|LuniZunie|Magnosaturno|Fgnievinski}} Notifying relevant contributors to the articles. [[User:Nwparris|Nwparris]] ([[User talk:Nwparris|talk]]) 16:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks! I'm going to take a step back from this just because I helped set it up (or at least direct you on how), I will notify wikiprojects in a bit. <i style="font-family:cursive,Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #f008;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#fb0,#f0b);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:#0000">– [[User:LuniZunie|LuniZunie]]</i><sub>([[User talk:LuniZunie|talk]])</sub> 16:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:{{comment}} [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics|WikiProject Physics]] has been notified of this discussion. <i style="font-family:cursive,Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #f008;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#fb0,#f0b);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:#0000">– [[User:LuniZunie|LuniZunie]]</i><sub>([[User talk:LuniZunie|talk]])</sub> 16:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
:*'''Oppose'''. There is nothing wrong with having tangential speed as a separate article. The page [[speed]] covers some other aspects. The merge proposal here may also not the place for this.
:*'''Comment''' both [[speed]] and [[tangential speed]] could do with some cleanup and better sourcing. IMO that should be a much higher priority than any merge.
:[[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 16:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
*Would it make sense instead to merge this into [[Circular motion]]?--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 18:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
*'''Merge per Nom: See comments below.  --  [[User:Otr500|Otr500]] ([[User talk:Otr500|talk]]) 16:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:{{comment}}(s) Some editors dislike merging for what seems to me to be no real reason. I am in a different camp. When Wikipedia was fledgling, it needed articles, articles, articles. Now that it is established, it makes sense to combine stub or start articles that would benefit. Both of these articles have different authors. This article is a C-class with 5431 B (962 words of "readable prose"). In the "Tangential speed" subsection, it states, "This section is an excerpt from Tangential speed." The "Excerpt" is what looks to be an exact copy. We might consider this [[WP:plagiarism|plagiarism]]. Tangential speed is a start-class with 4151 B (707 words) of "readable prose". There may not be anything wrong with having separate articles, but why not make improvements when we can?
:Destination: Almost four years ago, I reassessed [[Circular motion]] to C-class. The entire article is full of technical content and graphs, which are mostly unsourced. For some reason, I didn't tag the article, which I will now, but it only has two sources and four "External links, that hopefully are misplaced "General references". The article likely involves one or more violations, which may be plagiarism, very likely [[Wikipedia:close paraphrasing|close paraphrasing]], if not [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violations]]. For these reasons, I think everyone should consider not merging anything there. Tangential speed has one reference, as two instances of the same source count as one for [[WP:notability|notability]], and apparently one misplaced "General reference". That the page might be ''erroneous'' is one term; however, it might not survive [[WP:AFD|AFD]] without a major [[WP:HEY]]. An AFD might result in a merge anyway as [[WP:ATD|ATD]]. Merging here, with one trimmed, would still be lacking adequate sourcing per the requirements, but would be an improvement over separate articles, which are two levels below horrible. --  [[User:Otr500|Otr500]] ([[User talk:Otr500|talk]]) 16:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
::You seem to be mixing up a bunch of things that are not related. I'm not going to dig through that mess, but I will point out that the "tangential speed" section looks like an exact copy because it is generated with [[:Template:Excerpt]], which is ''designed'' for this purpose. That's not plagiarism. 
::The current quality of an article is not a large factor in whether it should be deleted or merged. See [[Wikipedia:There is no deadline]]. The thing to think about in deciding whether to delete or merge Wikipedia articles is whether it makes sense to have an independent article about the topic, or whether it makes sense to cover the topic as part of some other article. Either way, we can work on the quality of the content separately from the decision about where that content should be located. There's no rush.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 18:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)