Talk:Rotation around a fixed axis

If a translating artillery shell is considered as an example of a rotation around a fixed axis, the explosion of same would result in a change in the moment of inertia of the components, and result in a very complex calculation as to the final location of the far flung components, but with the less massive components getting the most kinetic energy and being flung the furthest, due to the law of conservation of momentum.WFPM (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations

This long ago edit introduced large chunks of material copied from at least three books: [1], [2] and [3]. The least two of those are only shown by Google as snippets, but it would probably be safest to regard the whole of that edit as plagiarized from copyrighted material.

The material plagiarized is generic, and can be replaced. I started to rewrite it in place, but am not sure that that is the best approach; in any event it might take me a while since I have other things I am doing. Cardamon (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Stability of the rotation

I've noted that in many places the article implicitly assumes that the rotation around a fixed axis is stable, such as that a torque produces an angular acceleration. Rather than change every single instance i've added a note in the introduction that the article assumes this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.170.129 (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the (rotational) concept of "Axis" requires it's own definition

As above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjalexand (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, “it's” an abbreviation of “it is”. The “[subject] requires it is own definition” phrase is a bit ungrammatical. The 3rd person singular possessive pronoun is written “its”, without an apostrophe – do not ask me why, as I am not an Englishman.

There aren’t may things to say about axes “in general” aside of rotation and angular velocity articles: not any term requires a separate article. I see no problems about axis of rotation redirecting here, where a WP:hatnote provides a disambiguation to axis–angle representation. But I wouldn’t object if one changes the redirect to some section in “rotation”, and/or add here a link to relevant section. I indeed object against hyperlinking “axis of rotation” while it redirects here: “circular links through a redirect” are discouraged (unfortunately I did not find anything better than a brief mention in WP:MOSLINK #Notes). Also, I do not deem linking the “hypothesis” word (with its subtle context-depending meaning) was a good thing, especially if the link produces a WP:sea of blue. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)