Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special relativity for beginners
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP (4 votes) MERGE(4) TRANSWIKI (1) RENAME(2) DELETE(0). loxley 10:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Special relativity for beginners
- See also A 5 minutes explanation of Relativity (AfD discussion), Quantum Mechanics - simplified (AfD discussion), and Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.
All articles should be approachable by laymen, or even high school students. This is the current Wikipedia policy: include as much details as possible, but explain them in the main article in simpler language. You move off details by topic, not move off simpler language by difficulty! This article is being used as a crutch for editors on its parent article special relativity to continue writing about their formulas without providing context. In short, it is an excuse in order to continue editor laziness. I love the content. It is a good explanation, a good approach/analogy. However, it needs to be merged. The article title isn't even formal. Merge and redirect. Also needs to be merged with the Simple English version. Natalinasmpf 16:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. I couldn't agree with the nominator more, not only for this topic, but for the precedent that its existence sets. DV8 2XL 17:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect specifically Merge to Special Relativity, transwiki to simple:Special Relativity (currently blank), and redirect if possible to simple:Special Relativity, and if not possible to Special Relativity with that standard interwiki link to the Simple English article. Note to closing admin: I believe the GFDL will require the article's History page to be copied to the Talk pages of the articles to which it is moved. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 18:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- By the way simple:special relativity exists (the R isn't capitalised), but yes, it will do better with this article's info in. ;-) Natalinasmpf 19:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - I have just looked at simple:special relativity and it is probably the right level of treatment for that section. loxley 11:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC) I did say the following but have changed my mind: Move to a new title (according to whatever Wikipedia rules apply such as moving to simple:special relativity). .. The main Special Relativity article is an excellent whistle-stop tour of the subject that covers much of the field but does not actually explain it. In my experience the stumbling block for students is the raw assumption that the speed of light is constant so I introduced the geometrical understanding of Minkowski and others to help explain why c is constant. According to the Talk Page the article seems to have helped a few people to get the idea of SR. This explanation of the geometry of SR usually occupies half a page or less in advanced textbooks and is normally seen as an amusing 'aside' for those who are about to meet four vectors and tensor maths. In the same way it really is an 'aside' to the main SR article, but an indispensable aside if the subject is to be understood. The main SR article is well structured and has a global coverage so the problem with actually merging this text with the main article is it would damage the existing structure and detract from it as an overview of the field. loxley 19:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wikibooks, or possibly move to new title per Loxley. Special relativity looks fine to me. Encyclopedia articles should be as accessible as reasonably possible, but they're reference material, not instructional courses. I absolutely disagree that all material needs to be accessible by high-school students; that's effectively a ban on discussion of advanced topics. By the way Special relativity for beginners looks quite nice; it introduces complex topics without dumbing them down or succumbing to the popularizers' temptation of making vague and grandiose claims. But I think it's a better fit at Wikibooks, with a prominent link from the WP article. --Trovatore 20:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- When I meant "accessible to high school students", I really meant, the argument of every page should be accessible. For example, the points made (that is, the laws, the effects) should always be accessible; you can include the formulas and elaborate explanation of causes, that won't be understood, but that should not be the only thing the article contains. For example, if I wanted to know about the sun, all the basic detail, it works by nuclear fusion, it generates solar wind, should be there. If I needed to know about Parker spirals et al, then I would read more. But the basic explanation should not be replaced with advanced material, they should be supported by the detail. -- Natalinasmpf 02:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's not always possible. It probably is possible for special relativity, but frankly I'm not convinced special relativity isn't already accessible. That's not to say some improvements couldn't be made, but they would be minor tweaks, not a wholesale expansion by pedagogical (rather than reference) material. --Trovatore 03:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- When I meant "accessible to high school students", I really meant, the argument of every page should be accessible. For example, the points made (that is, the laws, the effects) should always be accessible; you can include the formulas and elaborate explanation of causes, that won't be understood, but that should not be the only thing the article contains. For example, if I wanted to know about the sun, all the basic detail, it works by nuclear fusion, it generates solar wind, should be there. If I needed to know about Parker spirals et al, then I would read more. But the basic explanation should not be replaced with advanced material, they should be supported by the detail. -- Natalinasmpf 02:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep or rename. This article and special relativity are more useful if they are separate. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible; there are unresolved difficulties in making all articles accessible to laypeople, and we should avoid hastily deciding in favor of one side of the issue. ‣ᓛᖁ
.gif)
ᑐ 21:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC) - Keep within Wikipedia's main namespace, and rename Space-time invariance, since that is what the article describes. (Article names such as "Introductory special relativity", which are more plausible candidates that readers might type in, can redirect to it). This is an article on an independently encyclopedic topic. My own feeling is that the problem lies with the lack of thought in the special relativity article. Merging this fine article would dilute it's strength (a considered explanation of physical reality) without adding a thing; special relativity can include a link to it. Sliggy 23:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, but the thing is special relativity is supposed to NOT be like that in the first place. If this article's existence is an excuse for special relativity not to be improved, then I'd rather have it deleted. We have the option of merging. The point is not "dilute its strength", this is an encylopedia. You write separate articles based on topic. These two articles' topics are the same. Similarly, I'm not even considering adding to this on the side, this could possibly be part of the introduction of the page. -- Natalinasmpf 02:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia structure is excellent because we can explain the relations of terms with sentences such as: "Use the Lagrangian to find the null geodesic". The problem with this hyperlink approach is that although it explains "Lagrangian" and "Null Geodesic" it does not provide clear information on how to use the Lagrangian to find the null geodesic. What would be needed is another article on the technique. Should Wikipedia allow "Use the Lagrangian to find the null geodesic (See Using Lagrangians to find null geodesics)" ? or should it insist that all articles expand explanations such as: "Use the Lagrangian to find the null geodesic. A Lagrangian is...., Action is...., extremal curves are.... etc..." ? In fact "SR for beginners" is a specific explanation of a small part of SR and should, technically have been called "Space-time invariance and four dimensional manifolds in the early evolution of Relativity Theory" or "Minkowskian Relativity" for short, the problem is that this title would not have tipped off the high school reader to the fact that this is an essential stepping stone to understanding Relativity Theory (which, with general covariance, actually leaves this approach behind(!)). It is interesting to reflect that had the article been called Minkowskian relativity and a hyperlink been hidden in the text of the Special Relativity article this vote for deletion would not be happening. But would this have helped explain SR?loxley 11:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, but the thing is special relativity is supposed to NOT be like that in the first place. If this article's existence is an excuse for special relativity not to be improved, then I'd rather have it deleted. We have the option of merging. The point is not "dilute its strength", this is an encylopedia. You write separate articles based on topic. These two articles' topics are the same. Similarly, I'm not even considering adding to this on the side, this could possibly be part of the introduction of the page. -- Natalinasmpf 02:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as-is. The two articles compliment each other very well. Special Relativity for Beginners bridges the gap between the more technical presentation of special relativity and classical mechanics. As a seperate article, it avoids placing into the special relativity article a lot of detailed introductory material that would make the parent article overly long and highly tedious. This is an excellent arrangement and should be retained. (If any change is to be made, I would support transwiki-ing this article to Wikibooks.) As for simple:special relativity, I built that up as a simple broad-brush presentation of special relativity, and referenced BOTH the parent article and the subject article in it. I really feel that the best presentations on this subject in Wikipedia are the ones that are not under the restrictions of simple English. --EMS | Talk 05:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I see that no-one so far, not even the nominator, wants an administrator to delete this article. Even Trovatore has only expressed the desire for this article to be renamed. Unless someone who actually wants this article to be deleted comes forward within the next 12 hours, I will be closing this discussion as a unanimous keep. Discussions of mergers, rewrites, and renamings are what Talk:Special relativity for beginners is for. This is Articles for deletion. Uncle G 10:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the other purpose of AFD is to have a formal process to determine consensus over whether an article should exist as a separate article, is it not? I want this article to be "deleted" in the sense that the content is moved somewhere else, and then the original namespace is no longer a separate article. -- Natalinasmpf 11:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- The purpose of Articles for deletion is to determine whether there is consensus for an article to be deleted. You don't want the article deleted at all. Article merger and article renaming do not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 12:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, of course, about merging, renaming, and redirecting, but what about transwikying? That does seem to require use of admin tools, whether you call it "deletion" or not. --Trovatore 18:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Transwikification doesn't even require that one have an account, let alone that one be an administrator. I was performing transwikifications long before I became an administrator, and I still perform them today using an account, User:Uncle G's 'bot, that does not have administrator privileges. Transwikification is complex, but it requires no special privileges at all. Uncle G 21:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe we're using the word "transwiki" to mean different things, or if not, maybe you could point me to a ref that explains how to do it. What I had in mind (in the hypothetical case that this article were transwikied to Wikibooks) is that the article would be there—together, ideally, with its history—and would not exist on English Wikipedia. Is that what you meant, and if so how do you do it? --Trovatore 18:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia:Transwiki log and the explanation of the process that it links to. Transwikification alone does not imply deletion. Uncle G 12:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe we're using the word "transwiki" to mean different things, or if not, maybe you could point me to a ref that explains how to do it. What I had in mind (in the hypothetical case that this article were transwikied to Wikibooks) is that the article would be there—together, ideally, with its history—and would not exist on English Wikipedia. Is that what you meant, and if so how do you do it? --Trovatore 18:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Transwikification doesn't even require that one have an account, let alone that one be an administrator. I was performing transwikifications long before I became an administrator, and I still perform them today using an account, User:Uncle G's 'bot, that does not have administrator privileges. Transwikification is complex, but it requires no special privileges at all. Uncle G 21:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, of course, about merging, renaming, and redirecting, but what about transwikying? That does seem to require use of admin tools, whether you call it "deletion" or not. --Trovatore 18:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- The purpose of Articles for deletion is to determine whether there is consensus for an article to be deleted. You don't want the article deleted at all. Article merger and article renaming do not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 12:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the other purpose of AFD is to have a formal process to determine consensus over whether an article should exist as a separate article, is it not? I want this article to be "deleted" in the sense that the content is moved somewhere else, and then the original namespace is no longer a separate article. -- Natalinasmpf 11:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but Rename to: Special relativity for mathematicians - that would express better that this corresponds to the popular geometrical interpretation of Minkowski, and that those with a mathematical background will find this most easy. Harald88 12:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can we wind this up? whilst the article has deletion box on it it appears to be unreliable. It is not unreliable so we need some way to move on. My suggestion is to rename the article as "Minkowskian interpretation of relativity" and redirect "special relativity for beginners" to this OR to leave the article as it is. loxley 15:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
