Talk:Curved spacetime

Latest comment: 3 days ago by GeogSage in topic Why the split from Spacetime?

Why the split from Spacetime?

edit

My main objection to the split is that authorship has been completely lost. In 2017, under my former user name of Stigmatella aurantiaca, I wrote almost the entirety of this section's text. Now there is no clue that I had anything to do with its writing. As a result of your splitting out of this section, the Authorship page for Spacetime, which previously showed 85% authorship under my former and current user names, now shows only about 70% authorship.

I admit to being motivated by a bit of vanity. I like knowing that after I'm gone in just a few years, a major part of what readers continue to learn about Special relativity and Spacetime will be from material that I've written, even though my identity is hidden. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The loss of authorship is definitely frustrating. If you read the page Wikipedia:Splitting it will likely give you some idea about why a split was done here. I didn't see a vote or discussion on the matter, but would have voted in favor if I did. The page Spacetime currently has 10,955 words. The new page Curved spacetime is 3,115 words. According to the general guidelines about article length on the page for splitting, articles around 9,000 words "Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material," and articles around 15,000 words "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed." Unfortunately, the page for spacetime was just too long, and as it sits now could probably be edited to be a bit shorter. It sucks that you're authorship statistics are not accurately represented, but 70% is still ALOT of text. I'll add a post on this talk page that mentions the split for posterity. Edit histories are recorded, anyone interested can still look back and see what was written by who. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply