Talk:Affine involution

Comment

Patrick restored the text I deleted with the comment: "rv deletion, not clear where info was moved to, if at all". I guess I should have clarified better why I deleted it.

But first, I would like to say that there is nothing wrong with deleting text. Actually, sometimes it is highly useful. It is like pruning a tree, you remove information sometimes which is not essential, or not well written, so that the remaining text is of overall better quality.

The section ==Affine involutions== in the article is badly written. It starts with general characerizaton of affine involutions, it goes to characterization of isometric involutions, and jumps back to the characterization of affine involutions in 3D. Three pieces of information with unclear transitions between each other, and inconsistent with the title of the section. The text starting with "The other isometries are inversion" goes into a much more level of detail than everything else in that section, which is bad style (one loses track of the overall spirit of the section when getting bogged down into details).

That is to say, this section is an amalgam of information which is correct in individual pieces, but fitting rather badly together. The only solution I was able to come of with is trim some stuff, so that what is left is better written. If you can come up with a better solution, please do so. If you fail to come up with a solution, I will trim the text again. Again, one should not sacrifice the general scructure and readability of an article for the sake of putting all kinds of true information. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You deleted info about an important special case. That is very inappropriate. If you think the info fits better in another existing article or in a new article than you should move it.--Patrick 11:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought I made my point above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You mix up two questions: whether it is useful info, and if so, where it can best be put.--Patrick 11:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right of course. That's why I asked for a better arrangement above. Glad you did it eventually. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)