Talk:Anti-laser

Hang on! I'm getting others involved. I'm not going to be able to write this by myself. Just wait and watch! I'm working on it! Chrisrus (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention!

At least glance at the references before you delete. This is a cooperative situation! I'm just getting something started, I'm not going to be writing it. Don't send me to "your first article" because this article isn't mine! I am just the first guy to create the space for it, a stub, it'll fill up nicly pretty quick if you'll just leave it alone for a bit. Chrisrus (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why it is suggested you build an article in you user space first. The user space is not as strict as the article space and allows for articles to grow and improve to meet the article space requirements.- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 03:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is poorly written. Even the word anti-laser is misspelled. But the references given by the author are quite enough for a new article. Thus I believe that efforts should be in that direction. After that this article can be deleted. Fιηεmαηη ^(talk) 03:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. I'm not going to be writing this article, I'm just starting it. I just want to create a lacuna and get others to write it. I was out inviting Wikiproject Physics people to get involved and had to come back to slam some kinda text in because you made the invitation link go red. But I shouldn't be writing this at all, I'm no expert. I just found a hole and I'm trying to get it filled. There's absolutely nothing wrong with working this way, I've gotten several articles created by working this way. Oh, and if you see a mispelled word, or something else wrong, FEEL FREE TO HELP! Chrisrus (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you will not be writing it on your own, but in your user space you can still invite other editors to look at it and help to develop it. When they think it is ready for the article space they then can have it reviewed and moved back to the article space or move it straight to the article space. All and all this saves the hassle and issue with the CSDs and prods on poorly written articles.- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 03:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude - I already created the userspace page for you! Develop there! -- Y not? 03:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, when it's on someone's userspace page, it's like you're working on someone else's page. This page has nothing to do with me other than I'm the person that noticed that it didn't exist and did something about it. I'm not particularly interested in or knowlegeable about this topic. It's a stub, and I want to get it started and walk away. What I have done tonight has improved Wikipedia, and if you'll just leave it alone and come back a year later there'll be a fine article here. Please mark it as a stub or improve it in any way you see fit. I'll go back to recruiting tomorrow night, I'm pretty much done for the day. Unfortunately, you made me add in a little bit of text to fend you off, and I hope it's good enough to hold the place until I can use this, what should be a big white space or black hole, really, with just references and such, so that I can use this lacuna to get someone qualified and interested enough to actually write a decent article about it. Now, just allow wikipedia to do what it does best and allow it to be an emergent property of many different editors and not talk about "My Article". If you force me to write more and fix more or you'll delete, I will but I hope that's enough wasting my time trying to do something I'm not the one to be doing, and let me get back to doing what I should be doing, which is getting things moveing, making things happen, and in this case, recruiting experts to do this by getting them to see that it needs doing and that they're the ones to do it, not me. It'll be fun for someone who doesn't even know this exists until I use this stub to point it out to them. Chrisrus (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what all the argumentation is about; some calm would help. The current article appears to be a stub; its got more than enough references. The vast majority of articles in physics & math are stubs, with far fewer references; so this article is hardly out of the norm. Personally, I've never heard of "anti-lasers", but it seems interesting, and if PRL published it, and all the various pop-sci magazines picked it up, it must be something reasonably notable. I don't have the time/inclination to research this, but presumably someone, some grad student, will show up & fill in the details before long. linas (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The anti laser now has a functional model. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/real-live-antilaser/

Scientists build world's first anti-laser (news based on Yale´s information)

To the main editors of this article:

You will probably have to rephrase some part of the article, given that it seems that anti-lasers are not anymore just theoretical devices. I´m not a physicist nor versed in the topic of lasers, that´s why I just give you this link to consider if my suggestion is valuable or not:

Scientists build world's first anti-laser (news based on Yale´s information).

BTW, I´ve just included a small subsection about anti-lasers in the lasers article, without stating there if anti-lasers are theoretical or not. In this way, this article is not an orphan anymore.

I included also a link to this article in the laser´s See also section.

Pmronchi (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Keep up the good work! Chrisrus (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There's also another article Coherent perfect absorber - these two should be merged

I created the Coherent perfect absorber article (CPA) some time ago (even more of a stub than this one alas) without noticing this one. They should be merged. I suggest that the term 'anti-laser' redirect to the CPA article because: the creators originally called it a CPA; and while 'Anti-laser' is a cute term, it could be used to denote other things, while Coherent perfect absorber is rather unlikely to be ambiguous. I will be happy to merge these articles myself (they are both very short, so the amount of work is trivial), but I thought I would give it a couple of weeks in case there are objections/suggestions. Pmokeefe (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged. Personally, I prefer articles be called by their common names, but I can see your point. As long as a person who searches for "anti-laser" can get here easily, that's what's important to me, because that's the term the popular science magazines and newspapers and radio and TV reports and such are calling it most often, so most people looking for it will probably search for it that way. I'm sure you'll use a redirect or some such to take care of that. The arguement for the technical name would be that it's the most proper and specific, but there are also recommendations in other areas, such as Wikiproject Biology, that, pretty reasonably to my mind, recommend that the article title be Lion, not Felis leo, for example, for obvious reasons that might apply by analogy here. But again, either way is fine with me, and thank you for your contribution to and interest in this article! Have at it! Chrisrus (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge away. Just remember to include the common name in the lead sentence..."also known as an anti-laser" which I somehow managed to not notice was already there. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

First attempt to merge the Anti-laser content can now be found at the Coherent perfect absorber article. I intentionally shed some of the Anti-laser references that seemed derivative given the references actually included. Please feel free to tweek/bash the CPA article with an eye to eventual merger/redirection. Thanks! Pmokeefe (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)