Talk:Variety of finite semigroups

[Untitled]

I've just seen the template added to this article. Two questions

Regarding the additional references: I can certainly provide additionnal references. Those references would be the reference given by the only current reference (Pin's Mathematical Foundations of Automata Theory). Is it useful that I add to wikipedia other references, when those references can easily be found using the already given reference ?

Regarding inline citation. Can someone give me an example of inline citation in a definition ? Because this article is mainly about two equivalent definitions of the same objects. And since those two definitions are given in the same book, it seems that any inline reference would be a repetition of the same book over and over. At best, I could indicate the page for each part of the definition. Does it present any interest ?

Formally speaking, there are also examples in this article. However, even those examples come from the same book.

Note that the «expert needed» box requires «Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article». I won't add the reason myself, I don't know it. CASSIOPEIA (talk · contribs), since you did add this box, can you please add a reason to it ? Arthur MILCHIOR (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur MILCHIOR:, Hi I have answered your questions above at my talk page. Pls click talk after my name (orange colour) and it will lead you to my talk page or click here message to Arthur MILCHIOR. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to answer here, so that anyone coming later can see the answer. I fear that you did copy paste the rules without referring to the point I was making. Indeed, «official website» for example, makes no sens when considering a mathematical object. Furthermore, I didn't need technical help about how to insert inline citation. My point is that I do need examples. More precisely, I need similar examples. Everything can be found in the pages already indicated in the references. I indicated the 20 pages covering all of this. You have not answered one question I explicitly asked «At best, I could indicate the page for each part of the definition. Does it present any interest ?». This is not answered by your copy-paste of the rule. So, sorry, contrary to what you state on your talk page, I do not believe that you have answered my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur MILCHIOR (talk • contribs) 11:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]