Talk:Conoscopic interference pattern

I know there is A LOT more that needs or can be added to this, but I wanted to get it started. For optic sign, I'm not sure if it is better here or on a separate page. --Qfl247 (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is technical, not even with all the details it needs, and I am not sure how to make it less technical.

If you have some published peer-reviewed journal articles add the references and we'll see what we can do. Williamborg (Bill) 02:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, an optical mineralogy text would do it. The one I have is Nesse's Intro book, and I also have some class notes from my optical class, but I was hoping someone who was less rusty could do this article. I do not know of the explanation of this in a journal article, only the application, and even that is rare since it is used more to identify minerals than study them.--Qfl247 (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Term confusion

I reverted "interference figure" back to Conoscopic interference pattern instead of Interference (wave propagation)#Interference patterns because this is a specific term used in geology for a specific technique used with petrographic microscopes. If it is important that this term directs users to interference patterns in general, than this page should be turned into a disambiguation page. The reason for both terms is the fact that some people (I think UK geologists) use Conoscopic interference pattern, and others (US geologists) use interference figure. --Qfl247 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Interference figure is a generic term for any interference patterns. Put yourself in the shoes of a non-geologist, say a optician or a high-school student; Would you expect to be taken to Conoscopic interference pattern? I think a better solution would be to add a {{See also|Conoscopic interference pattern}} at the top of Interference (wave propagation)#Interference patterns. Would that be OK? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I, for the most part, agree with what you are saying. However, let me tell you about how I cam to create the redirect and the Conoscopic interference pattern page in the first place. I was looking for a page on interference figures, and could not find it. I only found a red link to "Conoscopic interference pattern" on the optical mineralogy page. I looked in some texts, saw that they appeared to by synonyms, so I created the page I was looking for on the topic of "Interference figures" on the page redlinked "Conoscopic interference pattern" on the optical mineralogy page, a redirected "interference figures" to it. Now, interference figure is the only way I had ever heard it termed, and would not know where to find it if it was not directed there. So, I guess I disagree that an interference "figure" and "pattern" are exact synonyms. I guess what I am trying to say is, if someone is typing into wikipedia "Interference figure", I don't think a student of physics person will be doing it, most likely they would type in "interference pattern" instead, and only geologists would type in that exact wording. How about adding an italic "For general information about interference, see Interference (wave propagation) or Interference patterns" at the top of the page? --Qfl247 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)