Talk:Classical treatment of tensors

Recreation of talk page

The earlier talk page of Classical treatment of tensors was deleted

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)

Have you asked RnB? (TimothyRias (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

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)

I have asked about it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked into it. When The Anome moved this page over to Intermediate treatment of tensors, the existing talk page was also moved over there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that Talk:Intermediate treatment of tensors contains some material which would be more appropriate here? JRSpriggs (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Apparently this entire article was WP:MOVEd to Intermediate treatment of tensors, and the talk page was moved along with it, to Talk:Intermediate treatment of tensors. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been merged with Tensor already?

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.

1. It's easy to merge.
2. It has a logical place to merge to, and that place should logically contain that information.
3. The treatment articles represent content forking.

So why hasn't it been merged yet, and who agrees that it should be? LokiClock (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)