181
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 102:
Line 102: + + + +
Talk:General theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 03:39, November 15, 2009
, 03:39, November 15, 2009→Yay! New intro!: capitalization, charter/scope
I support all the suggestions y'all have floated here; it all sounds good to me. As I wrote the section today on calculating the stress-energy tensor of an ideal dust, I kept asking myself, "If I were a freshman and somebody was telling me about this, what would I want them to ''omit?"'' I'm not saying you guys should stick to that guideline too, just sharing what mine was for the edification of all. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:52, 14 November 2009 (EST)
I support all the suggestions y'all have floated here; it all sounds good to me. As I wrote the section today on calculating the stress-energy tensor of an ideal dust, I kept asking myself, "If I were a freshman and somebody was telling me about this, what would I want them to ''omit?"'' I'm not saying you guys should stick to that guideline too, just sharing what mine was for the edification of all. --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:52, 14 November 2009 (EST)
:OK, I'm convinced. While I was writing that, I kept thinking "Why am I capitalizing this all over the place? Because that's how it's done in other places. But it's kind of dumb." So the policy ought to be: special rel and general rel are lower case, but article titles are upper case. I think. Is that the CP policy? Title case? Initial case? I'll look around. And I'll fix it. Give me a few minutes.
:As far as "CP can't explain", I meant this in the sense of "It's out of the scope of CP to cover this at the full postgrad level." I think an encyclopedia ''could'', in principle, give a full treatment, but I doubt that even Britannica does so. Could someone come up with a way of saying "it's out of the scope/charter of CP" without appearing to have CP diss itself? [[User:PatrickD|PatrickD]] 22:39, 14 November 2009 (EST)