Talk:Classical Mechanics (Goldstein)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work. Physics: Relativity / Publications Mid‑importance Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the relativity task force. This article is supported by Publications Taskforce. Mathematics Mid‑priority Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Errata

The link to the authors collection of errata, listed under "External Links", is 404. I have not been able to find this collection myself. If anyone else finds it, please add a corrected link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.45.116.144 (talk)

An archived link has been added. Nerd271 (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate deletes

An anonymous editor deleted a large part of Classical Mechanics (Goldstein). @Nerd271 restored it, then another anonymous editor reverted that restore. I reverted and again anonymous reverted.

The deleted content has been in the article for sometime. Once it was restored the delete should be discussed in the talk page before any reverts. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the value you perceive in a table of contents with no editorial commentary or significance? What exactly makes you believe that the guideline saying such things should not be included somehow doesn't apply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-34048-87 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: It turns out that fellow has a habit of stirring up trouble. Please see his talk page. Nerd271 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary suggests that they are BKFIP. Searching the drama-board archives indicates that they've been on this kick for years. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the deletes have been reverted and the editor banned. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

an exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included. ~2025-34645-14 (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]