Talk:Tetrad formalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Relativity  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Relativity Taskforce.


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. Unfortunately the destination article was never tagged, so given the lack of response it seems likely that some interested editors were simply not aware of this proposal. NukeofEarl (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Cartan formalism should be merged here. The title should be "tetrad f.." rather than "cartan f.." because the former has slightly (~40%) more google hits and 3+ times more book search results. (Certainly shouldn't be some far less common german equivalent term.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
How do you get 'no consensus' if 100% of the contributors shared a single view? Isn't it unconstructive to close a discussion thread for no other reason than lack of response? Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion thread was not closed "for no other reason than lack of response"; it was closed because it's over three years old and merge discussions are supposed to be closed after one month, per WP:Merging. I already explained why the discussion was closed as "no consensus", but if you insist, I'll rephrase it in more blunt terms: You did not make a reasonable effort to inform interested editors of the proposal, neglecting even the most basic step of tagging both the relevant articles, so a consensus to merge based on there being no response is obviously invalid. Speaking of unconstructive editing though, I can't help but notice that you've tampered with another editor's talk page posts and reverted an edit without justification, both of which are nonconstructive.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I would support a merge under the name Cartan formalism as the more general case, but I don't think that the dominant special case (tetrad formalism) warrants a separate article of its own. —Quondum 01:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)