Talk:Dynamical horizon

Formatting
To User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard who is upset over my attempts to improve the formatting of the article:

When I removed the phrase "The formal definition of a dynamical horizon is as follows:", you said "This explanatory prose was erased for no reason, leaving a bare quotation."

I removed it because the article is called Dynamical horizon and I made the definition into a section titled "Formal definition", which makes the sentence explaining that it is the formal definition of dynamical horizon redundant and unnecessary. So it was not for "no reason" and it wasn't left as a "bare quotation" since the title explained that it was the formal definition.

Sorry for putting an OR tag on the article, but I feel it was a reasonable assumption since there was only one source given; and the tag only says that there may be original research.

I don't understand why you had to revert my formatting changes. It is not necessary for every subsection in the references to have its own link from the table of contents most of them contain one or two bullets. I'm not going to change any of it back; I just thought I'd give you my reasoning for the changes since you seemed to think I did not have any. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)