This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
15:38, 20 April 2009
R'n'B (
talk·contribs) deleted "Talk:Classical treatment of tensors" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: was a redirect to talk page of a different article)
What, if anything, was there before the redirect, I do not know. Nor do I know to what page it was redirected. However, I felt that it was necessary to have a talk page for this article, so I recreated this page.
JRSpriggs (
talk) 07:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)reply
No. I have not encountered him before, so I did not feel comfortable asking him. If you feel comfortable asking him, please do so.
JRSpriggs (
talk) 07:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The article has only two sections. All of the information pertains to co(ntra)variance and Einsteinian notation. The present section in the main article for the latter provides almost no useful information, and for the former it doesn't even exist.
It's easy to merge.
It has a logical place to merge to, and that place should logically contain that information.
So why hasn't it been merged yet, and who agrees that it should be?
LokiClock (
talk) 22:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)reply
You did not say to what you want to merge it.
Although this article does not provide as much information as one might desire, such information as it does present might be lost after merger into articles which describe tensors in a fundamentally different way. Personally, I prefer this article to the others. So leave it alone.
JRSpriggs (
talk) 14:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry. To the main article,
Tensor, as the merger template says. See
Talk:Tensor for a merge proposal regarding all the articles. Multiple perspectives on the thing can be included in the same article. You don't need to split them to describe things differently. And if that's the issue, that's a POV fork on top of a content fork. It's unlikely that any info will be lost from this article in being merged, because the only uncategorized information is the single sentence, "A tensor is a system of quantities that satisfies a multi-dimensional transformation law when passing from one coordinate system to another. It takes the form: [...]"
LokiClock (
talk) 21:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
15:38, 20 April 2009
R'n'B (
talk·contribs) deleted "Talk:Classical treatment of tensors" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: was a redirect to talk page of a different article)
What, if anything, was there before the redirect, I do not know. Nor do I know to what page it was redirected. However, I felt that it was necessary to have a talk page for this article, so I recreated this page.
JRSpriggs (
talk) 07:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)reply
No. I have not encountered him before, so I did not feel comfortable asking him. If you feel comfortable asking him, please do so.
JRSpriggs (
talk) 07:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The article has only two sections. All of the information pertains to co(ntra)variance and Einsteinian notation. The present section in the main article for the latter provides almost no useful information, and for the former it doesn't even exist.
It's easy to merge.
It has a logical place to merge to, and that place should logically contain that information.
So why hasn't it been merged yet, and who agrees that it should be?
LokiClock (
talk) 22:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)reply
You did not say to what you want to merge it.
Although this article does not provide as much information as one might desire, such information as it does present might be lost after merger into articles which describe tensors in a fundamentally different way. Personally, I prefer this article to the others. So leave it alone.
JRSpriggs (
talk) 14:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Sorry. To the main article,
Tensor, as the merger template says. See
Talk:Tensor for a merge proposal regarding all the articles. Multiple perspectives on the thing can be included in the same article. You don't need to split them to describe things differently. And if that's the issue, that's a POV fork on top of a content fork. It's unlikely that any info will be lost from this article in being merged, because the only uncategorized information is the single sentence, "A tensor is a system of quantities that satisfies a multi-dimensional transformation law when passing from one coordinate system to another. It takes the form: [...]"
LokiClock (
talk) 21:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply