Talk:Vizing's conjecture

wikify

Re the wikify tag: I am familiar with <math> but it produces ugly incorrectly-sized bitmaps so I tend to avoid it where unicode suffices, as it does here. I don't see what is unwikified about the current markup, anyway. If you have some more specific complaint with the style, I think it would be more constructive for you to go ahead and edit the article for style rather than dropping templates onto it; it's not a very long article, so it shouldn't take you much effort. Without more detailed descriptions of what you find non-stylish, I can't read your mind and make the article more like what you want. —David Eppstein 06:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably know more about the math part than I do, but there are options besides the bitmaps. I see MathML, two HTML choices, and TeX. My main concern had to do with that it did not look like a Wikipedia article. You put 90% of the article into the introduction. -Will Pittenger 07:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the mathml version knows about \square. It's a very short article, which is why I felt uncomfortable separating too much of the content off into subsections, but I made a new examples section and moved one of the paragraphs there. Hope that suffices. —David Eppstein 07:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, you probably know more about the topic than I. I just felt the article did not fall within the standard layout guidelines. If you think you have it fixed, go for it. However, as noted, introductions are for introducing the topic only. Use the main article for the actual discussion. -Will Pittenger 07:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Lead section will help. -Will Pittenger 09:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion I thought of in bed last night was that the introduction needs to serve as your proof of notability. Am I actually helping? -Will Pittenger 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the number of publications available on the subject, as well as its prominent mention in books such as Imrich and Klavzar's, as the justification for notability. I suppose that could be stated explicitly in the intro, but I haven't seen many other math articles that do that. —David Eppstein 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the people deciding how notable your subject is probably won't be math geniuses. In fact, some may have done poorly. That is driving part of my thought process. Such users may not read past the first or second paragraph. Will (Talk - contribs) 21:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A possible proof has been put on the arxiv

A possible proof has been put on the arxiv. It can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0707 . Dorian in the skies (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This paper has been withdrawn by the author. Dorian in the skies (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]