Talk:Naked singularity

Undo (then redo) of large addition from a few days ago.
I just undid this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naked_singularity&diff=prev&oldid=1185401257 and the one before it, for a a number of reasons. First of all, approximately none of the text had anything to do with naked singularities; it appears to describe the process of stellar collapse. This is the wrong article for such descriptions. Another reason is that one of the two edits garbled the lede (failed to follow rudimentary WP style guidelines.) Finally, the edit made some dubious claims, suggesting that naked singularities happen all the time... which they don't. Perhaps there's some good content in there that could be moved to an article on stellar collapse, but I dunno. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Arghh. Maybe I did the wrong thing. After the third reading, its not so bad. It was the garbed lede that really messed things up. So I'm going to ... undo my undo. Sorry for the mess. Ooof. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You have ruined this article, please do not edit it if you don't have any idea of the field. I am a researcher working in this field and we have discussed with many professors before editing and mentioning this definition of naked singularities in the Wikipedia. This is the only precise definition of the naked singularity which can cover all types of naked singularities. If you don't have the idea of the types of naked singularities and then please read the first citation mentioned. Recently, Professor Penrose himself discussed the issue in an interview with the New Scientists where he clearly mentioned that collapse can end in black holes as well as naked singularities. If you need more popular or technical articles then please do ask us before editing the Wikipedia.
 * https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/naked-singularities-extreme-physics-special/
 * https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/naked-singularities-extreme-physics-special/
 * https://medium.com/@jayverma4455/what-is-at-the-centre-of-our-galaxy-tussle-of-the-black-hole-with-its-sibling-9d58778c640a
 * Please do read this pop-articles which can clear you understanding of the topic. Jayverma2210 (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * My apologies; I made a mistake. I left a note on your talk page explaining how I got to making that mistake (it was late at night). More or less all of you changes are just fine, but for one issue: Wikipedia has some strict standards for article style. I have tried to revise the lede so that it is both technically correct, and also conforms to the manual of style. If the lede still contains errors, I apologize; please do correct them. However, please also adhere to the proper style. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please tell me exactly which part you find is in against of Wikipedia standards... Jayverma2210 (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The Manual of Style states that the opening few sentences should state what the article is about. For this particular article, the opening paragraph should read something like this:


 * In general relativity, a naked singularity is a hypothesized singularity in the solution to the Einstein field equations that is not hidden behind an event horizon. Naked singularities were first proposed and discussed in 19xx by so-and-so X Y and Z. They are hotly debated, as future time-like geodesics leaving the singularity create issues with causality.

Or something similar to that. Perhaps you will find that what I wrote is not technically accurate -- please do fix it as needed.

This is a formulaic introduction: a 1-2 sentence description of what it is, 1-2 sentences about history, 1-2 sentences about the epistemic status. All wikipedia articles start with this kind of recipe. The remainder of the intro paragraphs are fine. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)