Talk:Bitangents of a quartic

Notability

I'm having a hard time seeing how this curve meets notability requirements (See WP:GNG) for an entry in Wikipedia. Most of the content concerns the general problem of finding a quartic with 28 bitangents, but this was solved many years ago by Plücker so the Trott curve is hardly the first known solution. All the references but one have dates before the curve was defined by Trott and all talk about the general problem or give a different solution. The Trott article is published in an organ of Wolfram Research with which Trott is associated, so it is not an independent source. There is some good material in here but it's independent of the subject indicated by article title and having it here gives a misleading impression of the importance the subject's importance.--RDBury (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor of moving the article to a title that refers more generally to quartics with many real bitangents, and rearranging the material so that Trott's variant is listed only after Plucker's and Shioda's; I think that would be better than just deleting the article. But I'm not sure what the title should be. Is there a standard phrase in algebraic geometry for "curve that has a maximum number of real bitangents for its degree"? Here's another reference that looks relevant: MR 2286821. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more along the lines of a merge or move rather than a delete myself. I especially don't want some of the images associated with the curve to be lost, but they should be given more of a generic title. More specifically, I was thinking the article could be merged with the Bitangent article which could stand some expansion anyway. Some of the material could go in the Harnack's curve theorem article as well. I don't have access to the article you referenced, the title looks relevant though.--RDBury (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we move this to bitangents of a quartic? Despite the seemingly specialized subject there seems to be plenty of literature on it: besides what is already cited here, see e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good title. Most of the basic research took place before 1900 and there is substantial coverage in textbooks in public domain.--RDBury (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the article has now been given a more suitable name and subject covered satisfies GNG.--RDBury (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bitangents of a quartic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110411132940/http://www.neverendingbooks.org:80/index.php/arnolds-trinities.html to http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php/arnolds-trinities.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]