Talk:Introduction to special relativity

message: The motivation for this article is a superb one. However the execution is too technical. I learned these ideas 40 years ago from a book titled The Universe and Dr. Einstein by Lincoln Barnett. This entry should be pitched at the same level as that book, with aiming a tiny bit higher being forgiven! For my generation, the classic university intro to special relativity was a nice little paperback by Wheeler and Taylor, titled Spacetime Physics.
I had thought that special relativity was now a settled area of physics, but to my 
considerable surprise, this is not so. Mitchell Feigenbaum has recently shown how to derive special relativity as a careful extension of Galilean relativity, without making any assumptions about the speed of light. See his: "The Theory of Relativity - Galileo's Child," arXiv:0806.1234 .
The citation and referencing system is also eccentric and must be changed. Adding a Further Reading section is an imperative.123.255.28.117 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I.m.o. this article should not even be here. Everything that must be said in an introduction to the subject should be said in one (1) paragraph in the main article. DVdm (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I never understood why special relativity should be open for lay people and why there should be an article "to jump right in". Approaching an advanced topic in physics with "with no previous background in science"? No, I really cannot imagine that. Physics-, math- and engineering students usually don't get special relativity before their third year, and there is very good reason for that as well. These same students learn about Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics before they learn about relativity. Have a look at these articles, and try to imagine an introduction allowing a person with no previous background to jump in.Of course in the case of special relativity, there happens to be a demand for jump-in-introductions. So we find many in the literature. Unfortunaly, most are just rubbish and merely present the author's misconceptions and misunderstandings about the subject. The more correct you want the treatment of an advanced  subject to be, the less accessible it will be for the lay person. That is why, in my opinion, this article should not be here. It will never serve its purpose. DVdm (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I removed your contribution some 45 minutes after you made it because it was incomplete and finished mid sentence. I see someone else has since reverted it again for the same reason. If you want to add a long contribution it may be worth writing it in something like Microsoft Word and then copying and pasting it in. You can retrieve your original text by clicking on "history" then clicking on "cur" next to your contribution. Then just highlight your text and copy and paste it. Richerman (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

text: ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2 \,
The truth is that this is just NOT A METRIC in any ordinary sense.  Neither is its negative. It is such points, never clearly admitted in books, that lead to misunderstanding.  Any clear thinking is glossed over to support the conventional (rather rickety) theory of space-time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFB80 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is too technical 

message: I think this article is close-to-useless "as an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject." It mentions concepts such as affine spaces and fibre bundles that even most undergraduate students have no idea of, and say incredibly little of how special relativity came to be. Therefore I'd propose to completely rewrite the article according to the following structure:
* A lead section, summarizing the article;
* An two-paragraph explanation of Galilean relativity, as you would explain it to an average (or below-average) student in their last year of high school;
* A two-or-three paragraph explanation of how Galilean relativity is in contraddiction with electrodynamics, including the Michelson–Morley experiment, and how the experimental data favours the latter;
* Stating how Einstein was able to derive special relativity by keeping the Galilean principle of relativity, but replacing the assumption of absoluteness of time with that of absoluteness of the speed of light; stating that the results of special relativity are extremely close to that of Galilean relativity at speeds much less than that of light;
* Showing in more detail how that implies relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, and length contraction (the classic examples of two flashes at the ends of a moving train, the light pendulum, etc., using as many pictures as practically possible; even if Aunt Tillie can't understand what ct and  exactly mean, she will understand that the latter is longer by looking at the picture.
* Maybe, a mention of four-momentum and mass–energy equivalence? After all, E = mc2 is one of the most famous formulas in the world ...
* An informal explanation of Minkowski space (Minkowski diagrams would be very useful here);
* A brief mention of paradoxes of special relativity and their resolution (about two paragraphs per paradox), such as the twin paradox, the ladder paradox, etc.
* A mention of experimental tests of special relativity and some of its consequences to everyday life (gold is yellow, GPS works—but that also requires general relativity, there is a split-second delay in intercontinental telecomunications due to finite speed of light, etc.).
* A one-paragraph mention of general relativity.
What do you think? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs reorganising/rewriting but all those references to Galilean Relativity and trains in "popular" introductions to the subject confuse students.  Relativity is the discovery that the universe is a four dimensional space-time manifold. See the Wikibook on SR for a really good intro to this subject. 86.4.193.88 (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has been debated to death why we should be using a geometrical approach instead of the old and unintuitive (speed of light is constant OMG) approach. The battlefield of this talkpage is soaked with blood from mjany such wars. Please don't open the issue again. It was agreed that the geometric approach is more intuitive to introduce SR to the uninitiated, and there's no point in going back to the unwieldy and inelegant Einsteine's postulate approach. 117.194.34.216 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A radical reorganization of this could be useful 

message: I'm not suggesting an AfD or a merge, but doesn't this page conflict with WP:NOTTEXTBOOK? I presume there was discussion at the main article which led to invoking WP:IAR for this page. A link to the debate and conclusion there at the top of this talk page could help avoid misunderstandings. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "intended as an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject", but I agree that right now it fails to be one. --___A. di M. 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  My problem is not with the current state of the article. It's moot now anyway, I think I misread WP:NOTTEXTBOOK here. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article was supposed to be a non-technical introduction for the main Special Relativity page. But what keeps happening is that physics students come here and add technical details until it is unreadable by non-mathemeticians. Eventually it will just be a dupe of that page. Someone needs to strip out most of the equasions and simplify this immensely. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Again, I completely agree. Unfortunately, there are many books out there with the title "Introduction to special relativity", and they are all essentially useless for people who don't have a grasp of  mathematics and physics beyond a high-school level. Books with this title are used by university students in physics and maths, and these students do have such a grasp. The consequence of this is simple. No physicist out here will allow an article with this title to be simplified to the extent that it will serve the purpose you have in mind. I think that is the reason why the discussion about fixing this article has gone on for so long, and why it will continue to do so.It is also the reason why I keep repeating that this article should not be here, as it merely raises false  expectations. I.m.o whatever is here, should be moved into the main article. I think that our only chance of ever having a truly lay-intro to the subject, is by using another article title, like, why not, for instance, Special relativity for the layman.  That might work, and it might prevent the main authors of this article to be so demanding. DVdm (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many good points, but I think the article very much belongs. I think articles on Wikipedia should be accessible and understandable by everyone. This is one of those topics that is inherently a long, involved, and difficult one, but unlike others, I think there's a sizable number of average folks who would like to learn the basics.Merging this article with the main article will accomplish nothing; presumably, everything here is in there anyway. Why eliminate this instead of making it better? That's like saying "Learning to walk on a balance beam is too difficult for these students, so let's make them all walk tightropes instead."I think you have an excellent point with renaming the article. But will that keep the experts from ruining it? Is the problem that the best stuff has already been incorporated into the big article, so they keep beefing this one up because it's the only place they have to show what they know?I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know that having a simple article written in layman's terms without piles of equations would be very valuable to the average person. Right now, an average person visiting the article on special relativity would be completely overwhelmed. And when he finds an easier article, an "introduction" to special relativity, he no doubt will feel relieved -- until he actually sees it.I think your title idea makes the most sense. Using the word "layman" should make it clear that simplicity is all that is wanted.And finally, in order to actually WRITE a simple, layman's-terms article about this, we pretty much need at least one sympathetic expert in the field who actually understands what we mean. Any high-school-physics teachers out there? Indy (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for this page 

message: In the argument for the space-time interval, the argument is made that length is fundamentally different from time intervals and therefore you need to introduce the factor c. However, this is a bogus argument. Particles follow world lines in space-time. While special relativity implies constraints here, that's not evidence for time being fundamentally different from space. Quite the opposite, I would say. Also, many theoretical physicist use natural units in the literal interpretation of c = 1 being dimensionless.
Physics can be formulated in a completely dimensionless way, so the whole idea that "dimensions" as used for units, constants etc. are fundamental properties of Nature, is unfalsifiable nonsense. Count Iblis (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem: it is a topic that can be described in many different ways, and the way its written seems valid if not especially rigorous. Which parts in particular do you think are wrong?--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length and time are not fundamentally different, at least there is no evidence for this 

message: I read this article about 4 years back and thought well done!
The article back then was a bit mathematical but it got over the main points which were that:
1. Spatial length is not invariant
2. In a 4D coordinate system there is indeed an invariant quantity, the space-time interval
3. Equating the formulae for the space time interval between coordinate systems gives you time dilation, length contraction, relativistic phase using no more than simple algebra.
I can still see remnants of this approach in the current article but it is obvious that many of the contributors dont understand the modern approach to Relativity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.30.2 (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has lost the plot 

message: this orphaned Section Heading is unsigned and innappropriate imo.  References should
 be made in the article itself or against the section in the Talk page concerned. 
 LookingGlass (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: I would recommend that contributors read http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Special_Relativity_V2.11.pdf Wikibooks Special Relativity Introductory Text before changing this article

message: I have flagged this article as imo it reads like a magazine article instead of an encyclopedia.
The article currently veers between elementary examples (eg passengers on a train) and mathematical proofs.  While these two styles are suited to text books, though for widely separated age/competency classes, they are insufficient in style and gradation to satisfy the needs of an encyclopedic article.  IMO this is an article that is oriented to a general audience rather than towards a technical one.  While the mathematical theorems may be appropriate on wiki (even if to me they seem out of place), in any event I believe that in an encyclopdic entry they should be secondary to the general explanation of the thesis concerned.  This would mean that a progression, from everyday examples (passengers on a train) to progressively more complex thought experiments, such as the relativity of simultaneity (the Andromeda paradox), should be followed.  These should all be set out in general not mathematical terminology, and with as little recourse to the latter as possible.  Extended mathematical proofs could be added as the equivalent of appendices in later sections.
LookingGlass (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the "mathematics" is problematical because modern special relativity is simply the four dimensional form of Pythagoras' Theorem.  The article could say "The square on the hypotenuse equals the some of the squares on the other four sides" but would that be clear?  The real issue is whether or not people understand Pythagoras Theorem, if they can understand h^2 = x^ + y^2 they can, with a bit of reflection, understand s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2. The "passenger train" derivations are definitely not easier than Pythagoras' Theorem and lead people to ponder dynamical explanations for why the speed of light is constant - does the light slow down then speed up?, are the clocks wrong?, does time not exist?.  There are no dynamical explanations because Special Relativity is a geometrical theorem, not a dynamical postulate. 86.4.193.171 (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Excellent explanation Anonymous, and good points, but different I think to the one I am trying to point at.  The formulae are generally quite a bit more complex than Pythagoras' theory, but more importantly do not relate to any "legend" ie a drawing or description to explain their terms.  The issue for me is that the article currently is a demonstration of the quantity of knowledge of the authors more than the quality of the attempt to communicate that knowledge to readers.  Take the opening paragraph as an example:  unless the reader is already well versed in the subject it is, to all intents and purposes, useless, however if the reader is well-versed they probably have no need of reading the article at all.  The article is a reasonable "holding" page for notes on the subject but imo not a good article.  The theory is of Einstein but further historical notes shouild surely come under an historical section rather than bloat the introduction.  Einstein arrived at the idea via thought experiments, not calculation - so why not proceed from a general outline of those thought experiments and thence to the mathematics, if required.  The whole should then be referenced to detailed technical articles elsewhere.  I believe that it is unhelpful for any general audience seeking a reference/introduction to the theory, perhaps having come across it several times and now wanting a little more clarity. LookingGlass (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not encyclopedic  

message: The article states that Aristotle thought that all objects tended to cease moving and came to rest if there were no forces acting on them. This is the common view but actually it is not true: he said that they would continue in motion because there was no reason why they should stop (i.e. he originated "Newton's first law of motion"!). I cannot give the exact reference just now -it is in his book on the heavens. When I can I will correct the article. JFB80 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2013 (UtTC)
Later: It is in his work on physics, not the heavens. In book 4 section 8 on motion in a void there is found the quotation
Further, no one could say why a thing once set in motion should stop anywhere; for why should it stop here rather than here? So that a thing will either be at rest or must be moved ad infinitum, unless something more powerful get in its way.JFB80 (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Aristotle said 

message: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html
--Jerome Potts (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another external link 

message: Not sure how to add another talk subject, so I'll add it to this one: the concept of relativistic mass is quite dated and proves no real use in the understanding of special relativity. (D.J. Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles, Chapter 3, p90)
Although anecdotal, my professor reacted almost annoyed when I asked if γm corresponded with relativistic mass. All in all it is confusing and counterintuitive to define mass as such, since the gamma-factor is rather a consequence of the properties of four-space than an intrinsic property of a point-like particle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatronBernard (talk • contribs) 12:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In order for mass and energy to be truly equivalent, any type of energy must have a corresponding amount of mass.  E=mc^2 relates the rest energy to the rest mass; it also relates the total energy of a system to the total mass of the system, which we can simply call the total mass, but in the case where the total energy includes some due to relativistic motion, this is often called the relativistic mass.   Did the professor and the textbook make it clear that, for example, the rest mass of a galaxy as a whole (its mass in the galaxy's center of momentum frame where it's at rest) is greater than the rest mass of all its individual bodies, because part of the galaxy's mass is due to the relativistic motion of some of those bodies!  This isn't just theoretical -- this mass of the galaxy is the one that determines the inertia of the galaxy as a whole (the m in F=ma for the galaxy) and its mutual attraction with other galaxies!   Also, if we ignore the total mass (and only talk about rest mass) then we make it easy to ignore the fact that light has mass in spite of the fact all of light's mass is due to its (relativistic) motion (since none of it is rest mass), whether you call this relativistic mass or not.  See [Energy-mommentum relation] to see how light (zero rest mass) is just a special case of relativistic mass in general.  I agree with you and your professor to the extent that we should emphasize that it's the total mass, whether or not its also called "relativistic mass" in a given situation.  But in the case of a body moving at relativistic velocities, it's hard to understand why the mass that you would get for the body if you actually measured it at these velocities would be greater than its rest mass, without pointing out in some way that part of this mass is due to the relativistic motion.  DavRosen (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass-energy equivalence

message: Since there is already an article on Special Relativity, which includes an introduction, why do we also need a separate article on "Introduction to Special Relativity"?  This article is almost entirely unsourced.  It seems to be just a place where people can come to present their own personal ideas about special relativity.  I don't think there's anything in this article that isn't already in the article on special relativity (other than some things that don't belong in Wikipedia at all).
Shouldn't this article be proposed for deletion?Urgent01 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see my comments in sections #Article is too technical and #Rationale for this page. - DVdm (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be possible to convert this article to something like a survey of published introductory expositions of special relativity, similar to the Wikipedia pages on subjects such as “TV Westerns”, “Mystery Fiction”, and so on.  This would keep the article focused on actual sourced material, eliminate the novel narrative, and wouldn't be so redundant to the article on special relativity.  The unique content of this article would be its exhaustive survey of this popular genre of books.  If an editor’s pet introductory explanation of special relativity has already been published in a reputable source, he can just cite it here.  If it hasn’t, then it doesn’t really belong in Wikipedia.  It could be broken down by decades, such as 1900-1909, 1910-1919, etc.  It might actually be an interesting and useful article (unless this is already covered elsewhere).  Probably best to focus on the popular expositions in the secondary literature - which is already a huge number of books.Urgent01 (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, we should get rid of this article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

text: it's an essay, which has some virtues and some of its material should be incorporated into the main article. But the essay is completely unencyclopedic. CecilWard (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

text: It's been about 1 1/2 years since I last looked at this article, and it hasn't improved any. It is far too technical for poets and middle schoolers, and it offers nothing that is not covered better in the main article on special relativity. I am tempted to put an Afd tag on it, recommending that what little of value exists in the article be merged into the main article. Alternatively, I am considering a bold rewrite. Either course of action will probably meet with considerable opposition. Can I have a straw poll of opinion? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, move a few relevant bits (if any) to a little section in Special relativity and then Afd what remains here. - DVdm (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Does This Article Exist?  Pure Original Research 

message: Paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of Introduction to special relativity with Special relativity. 
Section                                                         	Paragraph                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	Comment
Lede                                                            	In physics, special relativity is...Einstein postulated that the speed of light...The predictions of special relativity...(list) Relativity of simultaneity...Special relativity predicts a non-linear...As Galilean relativity is now considered...                                                                                                                                                               	Nothing is here which is not already inthe main Special  Relativity article.Would be redundant in a merge.
Reference frames andGalilean relativity: aclassical prelude     	A reference frame is simply...One oft-used example... Consider the seats... The distances between these objects... An observer standing on the platform... Why can't we select one of these frames...                                                                                                                                                                                                              	Unsourced EssayViolates WP:NOTTEXTBOOKHowever, there are interesting bits andpieces. Possibly there may be somethings worth keeping in a merge?
Classical physics and electromagnetism                          	Through the era between Newton...As electricity and magnetism...Under the classic model...Designing an experiment...These experiments all showed...The development of a suitable...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                	Unsourced EssayBorderline Violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOKMost is already covered in the main article, and would be redundant in amerge.
Invariance of length:the Euclidean picture                      	In special relativity, space and time...In everyday experience, it seems...The length of a line...One of the basic theorems...This is invariant under all...Note that invariance of length...Note that rotations are...                                                                                                                                                                                            	Unsourced Essay Violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK
The Minkowski formulation:introduction of spacetime             	After Einstein derived special relativity...The concept of a four-dimensional spaceA path through the four-dimensional...In the same way as the measurement...But there is a problem; time is...There are two major points...In Minkowski spacetime the spacetime...Now comes the physical part...Since by definition rotations must...With the statement of the Minkowski metric...As has been mentioned before...	Almost completely unsourced EssayViolates WP:NOTTEXTBOOKThis is the crucial section: Doesthis tutorial essay succeed inteaching poets and middle-schoolersthe essence of relativity, or does thisessay, which tries to be both textbooktutorial and at the same time anencyclopedia article, fail in its mixedpurpose? This section liberally dropsterms such as "rotations in Minkowskispace", "Galilean transformations","Lorentz transformations", "Maxwell'sequations and Dirac's equation"without adequate explanation. I do notsee how an uninitiated reader caninterpret this section as anything otherthan mysterious mumbo-jumbo.
Reference frames andLorentz transformations:relativity revisited	Changes in reference frame...Maxwell's equations are written...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    	Unsourced Essay Violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOKAs with the previous section, this sectiondrops terms such as "Schrödingerequation", "four-vectors" and "manifestlycovariant form" without explanation.As a result, these last two sectionsreally explain nothing at all to anuninitiated reader.
Einstein's postulate: theconstancy of the speedof light         	Einstein's postulate that the speed...Proposition 1...Proposition 2...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	In this section, we see a drawback ofshared authorship. The lede was mostlywritten by editors who took a classic"two postulates" approach towardsunderstanding special relativity, whilethe intervening sections were dominatedby editors who preferred an approachstarting with Minkowski spacetime.This section, which shows that the 2ndpostulate arises naturally from theMinkowski formulation, is confusingbecause the distinctiveness of theseapproaches was not made clear enoughin the lede. The next-to-last section The postulates of special relativity alsopresents the two postulates, addingto the confusion for an uninitiated reader.
Clock delays and rodcontractions: more onLorentz transformations	Another consequence of...John observes the length...The spacetime interval...So, if John sees a clock...In special relativity...Similarly it can be shown...These two equations...The above formulas...Alternatively, these equations...A consequence of...                                                                                                                                                        	Unsourced, but accurate so far as I cansee. Non-controversial material doesn'talways have to be sourced.However, violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOKThe question is, is this presentationany more understandable over theequivalent material in the main article?I would say, yes, just a bit more so,at the cost of being non-encyclopedic.
Simultaneity and clockdesynchronisation                         	The last consequence...Observers have a set of...The net effect...Great care is needed...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	This section is very unsatisfactory. Itreads as a set of unjustified assertions.It is not well integrated with theaccompanying figure. Overall, inferior tothe equivalent section in the mainarticle.
General relativity:a peek forward                               	Unlike Newton's laws of motion...One says that the Minkowski metric...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	What is this doing in an Introductionto Special Relativity?
Mass–energy equivalence                                         	As we increase an object's energy...Any object that has mass...Similarly, the total of amount of energy...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         	Essentially nothing here that is notalready covered in the main article.
Applications                                                    	There is a common perception...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    	A number of inaccuracies. The yellowcolor of gold ia not an "application".CRTs were designed empirically. GPSrequires general relativity to enablecoordination of the control and spacesegments.
The postulates ofspecial relativity                             	Einstein developed special relativity...Special relativity can be derived...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       	As I stated previously, this articledoes not do a good job of explainingthat although Einstein's original 1905derivation began with two postulates,modern pedagogy prefers alternateapproaches to teaching this subject.Having this as a last section is ratherconfusing, since the main body of thearticle has concerned itself with theMinkowski spacetime approach tounderstanding special relativity.
I will expand this comparison over next few days to encompass the entire article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
I do not want to be the person performing the merge. That would be setting myself up as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, which is too much of a role for me to take. If somebody else agrees with my analysis and, in performing the merge, decides that nothing is worth saving, I will back him/her up. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Excellent job. Any opposition to deletion should have manifested itself by now. I would gladly create an AFD, but I have no idea what they mean in part III of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion, so unless I understand that, I will not go for parts I and II. - DVdm (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge analysis 

message: How is any of this even remotely acceptable as a wikipedia entry?  No citations, all original thought.  Shouldn't this be flagged with about 6 different problems?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.13.66 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How?