Talk:Conformal Killing vector field
Latest comment: 17 years ago by MarSch in topic Context
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Context edit
--killing sparrows 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)This was tagged for context previously and the tag removed. Could someone add a sentence of the use or importance of this to the article before removing the tag again?
- It is a _stub_. The context is already crystal clear. Yes, it would be great if someone expanded this article, but having wrong tags on it won't make that happen sooner. --MarSch 11:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well it may be clear to a mathematician, but it's not 'crystal clear' to me! Could you say something like, 'Killing's equation is used in isomorphic analyses of problems related to the Ratzberger theorem of gravitational whateverthehell?' Then it would have some context. Wikipedia articles should have something to hang on for the average reader, this isn't Mathworld. Thanks. --killing sparrows 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I totally agree. It needs better context. Wee it's an Equation! Well, the title tells me that much. So what's it for? That why it needs context. --Lendorien 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well it may be clear to a mathematician, but it's not 'crystal clear' to me! Could you say something like, 'Killing's equation is used in isomorphic analyses of problems related to the Ratzberger theorem of gravitational whateverthehell?' Then it would have some context. Wikipedia articles should have something to hang on for the average reader, this isn't Mathworld. Thanks. --killing sparrows 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I may be wrong, but on stubs I interpret the context template as saying that it is not clear from the context what the article is about. For example if you couldn't deduce from the article that the conformal Killing equation is some mathematical equation. The fact that there is currently very little content is a different issue. What little content there is is clear, there is just too little of it. Maybe you should have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. --MarSch 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)