Template talk:General relativity sidebar

Re the picture question

de:User:CorvinZahn can do GRT Ray Tracing. Perhaps we can ask him for something better than the NASA art which doesn't really fit.

Pjacobi 18:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is a great idea! Those pictures are very cool, and despite my very limited German it's pretty easy to figure out what they are. –Joke137 18:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Corvin has uploaded a nice sample and I've inserted it in our template. Perhaps some cropping is called for. --Pjacobi 11:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Bug in wikicode?

Hi all, this template is used in the "General relavity" article. This article happens to have a name which is shared by a category. Now take a look at the Category:general_relativity page. Note that several articles are listed under "asterisk" (before "A") and a few more are listed under "{" (after "Z"). I think this is a bug, yes? And I notice that the articles listed under "asterisk" correspond with the SUBTOPICS in this template. Can't see anything "special" about the two which wind up under "{". Any ideas what might be going on here? ---CH (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I can explain both. In brief, the astericks are my doing, while the "{" was due to a now-resolved bug in this template (which I should have posted some talk on yesterday when I found it but did not have time). Now the details:

The asterick entries are due to explicit category links in those pages. For example, the category link for general relativity is [[Category:General_relativity|*]]. This is called the "pipe trick". The "|" is called a "pipe" for historical/UNIX reasons. In a category link, instead of changing the displayed text (as for a normal link), it instead changes the text used to sort the entry in the category (which by default is the page name iteself). In the category, I wanted the core pages to appear first, as in done in other categories. In this template, I wanted them grouped together too, which is why they are subtopics of "general relativity".

In this template, there also is a category link reading [[Category:general_relativity|{{PAGENAME}}]]. Within a template, {{PAGENAME}} says to use the page name of the current entry (instead of the template name I guess). However, yesterday it read {{{PAGENAME}}}, which caused the inner braces to become part of the sorting text in the category. To remove this, the affected pages need to be editted so that they are resorted using the corrected template. (I started doing that, but as I mentioned above ran out of time before I could complete the job.) --EMS | Talk 15:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Removing the category link from this template

I am removing the category link from this template. Instead of being an aid, it is a nuisance.

• Item: A bug in this template missorted a number of these entries (as noted above)
• Item: The black hole page, which is the main page for Category:black_holes is forced to also be part of Category:general_relativity. However, that is made reduntant because the "black hole" category is a subcategory of "general relativity". This also violates a Wikipedia rule that the main page for a category should only be part of one category, and that is the category that it is the main page of.
• Item: This category link is being overridden for the core pages, which I have chosen to sort differently than by their page name.

It seems to me that navigation and categorization are two different functions and should not be mixed up. I see templates without navigation where you want to know what pages use it. In that case having a category for those pages which is populated by the template's use is helpful. However, this is a different situation.

They happen because you touch yourself at night —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.245.113 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are pages in the template which lack an explicity link to the general relativity category or one of its subcategories, then that should be remedied in the page itself.

BTW - This type of phenomenon is one of the reasons I decided that I did not like Template:cosmology being included in the general relativity page. --EMS | Talk 15:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Einstein equation or Einstein equations

I, personally, use the singular because when written in tensorial form, as it usually is, it is only one equation. Besides, the page it links to is Einstein's field equation. –Joke 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I roll my eyes at that page being misnamed, and will see about getting that fixed soon. However, I need to have a redirect at the correct name deleted first. If you really want to make the artlcle titles consistent, then go ahead and revert my change out pending the title change to the EFE article. --EMS | Talk 05:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal template?

As ever with vertical-format templates - it's messing with the formating of some articles and it's always difficult to work images in around them - can we reformat to a horizontal? --Joopercoopers 13:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the vertical template makes things look awkward. Where would you have a horizontal template go - above the article? Below? Below the lead? --Markus Poessel 13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the bottom of the article is the norm. --Joopercoopers 14:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW is the equation listed at the top of the box anything to do with relativity or is it just used as a generic equation for all physics articles? --Joopercoopers 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah - it's the field equation - got it. --Joopercoopers 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom would be OK. Even top would be OK with me, if the default is "hidden". I really like the box examples you and Awadewit posted on the "Introduction to gr" side, so yes, splendid, or, reverting to the local dialect, strong support for the idea. Many thanks for taking care of this. --Markus Poessel 15:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Afterthought: I don't know if EMS happens to have this page on his watchlist. From all I've seen, he's one of the reliable old relativity article hands around here, and apparently was involved with this template from (almost) the beginning, so it would be great if you could solicit his opinion before going forward with the change. I don't think he'll mind, but it would be courteous if you were to ask him directly. --Markus Poessel 16:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Markus, strong support. The template might be especially good at the bottom of the Intro to GR page, where it might act to draw readers into learning more, as in "but wait! there's more..." ;) If we put it at the top, I think it should be hidden by default, as Markus said, so that readers can dive right into the article. For flexibility with other pages and other editors who prefer the vertical mode, perhaps you could make the layout of the template tunable, by adding a "horizontal=yes" parameter or somesuch and then add a conditional to the template itself. Just a suggestion, Willow 19:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That last bit is beyond my technical expertise I'm afraid Willow, unless you have the knowhow - I'll have a stab at creating a new page with the horizontal version - that way editors have the choice. (but there's a little more work updating both) --Joopercoopers 16:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as I have been called on, I will comment a bit. Overall, this box started as a simple navigation tool based on template:physical cosmology, and to some extent the two have been developed in parallel. Part of the current problem is that it has grown quite a bit recently. If you go back to a previous version, yuo find a much smaller template that is much less disruptive.

At this point your options are to either shrink it back a ways so that it is less diruptive or change the format and move it to the bottom of the articles. For shrinking, the sections "Equations", "Advanced theories", and "Solutions" can be removed, with "Eintein Field Equations" and "Schwarzschild Solution" being moved up to "Key topics". A lot depends on where people want to go with this. Should this be a breif listing of the most important articles (in which case it is best being as a short, vertical, left-side box), or should it be a fairly comprehensive listing of the significant articles on the topic (in which case it becomes a larger listing kept in a horizontal box at the bottom of the articles)? --EMS | Talk 04:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the vulgar vandalism from the template title. I think it's from the same ex-user that was banned by the admins here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.201.47 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The picture should be of E=mc² instead of what it is now, because E=mc² is far more well-known. --J4\/4 <talk> 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the picture should be, but if the navbox is vertical, should be about as wide as the box rather than squished to the left ~1/2 of the top region. At least could make the denominator closer to the vinculum, which would allow the whole image to be enlarged to become wider-but-not-taller. DMacks (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please move the navbox to the bottom

Navboxes at the top of the article take up precious screen space that should be used for pictures relevant to the topic's article. They also imply that the article belongs to only one subject area (and therefore to one particular subset of the editors). They also make the article less readable by "stealing" the reader's attention from the head section (especially if the navboxcontains a canned picture, which the reader will have to look at before realizing that it has absolutely nothing to do with the article). Finally they seem to imply that the reader will want to jump to some other article of the series before reading the article he just got to.
So please change this navbox to a navbar and move it to the bottom of the article. (Indeed, please consider whether the navbox is worth the effort. Isn't its purpose already served by the relativity article? Wouldn't it be more effective to work on that article rather than on the navbox?)
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think both navboxes and navbars (and also categories) can be useful, depending on the circumstances. Which one(s) to use should be decided at each article. Some general guidelines on how to build and improve a consistent navigation system would of course be nice, and I'm not sure what exists to that end. But finding or changing a consensus about this will be a major process, and I don't think getting rid of all navboxes will be part of the result. — HHHIPPO 11:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As with template:tensors, I still disagree with Jorge Stolfi, and agree with HHHIPPO. Discussion and consensus is here. As for the navbox:

Best, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Unlabeled equation

What is the unlabeled equation? Is it supposed to mean something to the average reader?

It should be labeled with the name of the equation, or be a link to the page for the equation, or something useful.

As it stands, it's useless, expect perhaps as a shibboleth to identify those smart people who already know what it is.

2601:142:100:DDF5:0:0:0:9508 (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Putting a link to Einstein's field equations, or just the text (Einstein's field equations) under the equations might help, but on the other hand that could also distract the reader. As this is just a sidebar with an illustration and some links—one of which indeed pointing to the Einstein's field equations article—, and the equation is part of the illustration, i.m.o. it does not need to be labeled. Compare this with Template:Electromagnetism. Does the illustration by itself mean something to the average reader? Do we have to stick the label (solenoid) under it? - DVdm (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want to undo or add another label go ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:General_relativity_sidebar&diff=804285587&oldid=776094871 190.183.246.183 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen it. No problem. - DVdm (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)