User talk:Econotechie

Wikification

Hey, rather than move “Hypograph” just to create a consistent list in “Contour set”, what you could have done is changed the mark-up in the “See also” section of “Contour set” to

*[[Epigraph (mathematics)|Epigraph]]
*[[Hypograph]]

which would produce

(with the desired linkage to “Epigraph (mathematics)”), or to

*[[Epigraph (mathematics)|Epigraph]]
*[[Hypograph|Hypograph (mathematics)]]

which would produce

(with the desired linkage to “Hypograph”). I think that the former is the better choice. —SlamDiego_←T 09:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Im still coming up to speed on what is possible and the syntax of a lot of what is used in Wikipedia, so I did not know this. But admittedly, I didnt think too hard this time since there the page was recently created and there was only one link to it, which I had made. So consistency in page naming seemed to have a small price. (I would never have moved Epigraph, tho, for example.) Is there any reason why a move is a bad idea under these kind of circumstances? (Econotechie (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well, these parentheticals in titles are supposed to distinguish, rather than simply to tag. Note that in the established cases where there is an article whose name is of form

X (y)

(as with “Epigraph (mathematics)”) there is some other article on a different subject whose name has the same X but an alternate or absent y. (In the case of “Epigraph (mathematics)”, there is presently both a disambiguation page with the title “Epigraph” and an article entitled “Epigraph (literature)”. In some other cases, the most common use may get an article with title X, with a link to another article or to a disambiguation page whose title has y of “disambiguation”.) As far as I know, there is no non-mathematical use of “hypograph”, so there is no need to distinguish the mathematical concept from some other of the same name.

In order for users who just enter “Hypograph” to be well-served, there must be a page of just that name. If all articles were tagged by parentheticals identifying subsuming fields, then users would have to know the subsuming field in order to get directly to the article.

Under ordinary circumstances, a move creätes a redirecting page, and indeed there is now a page named “Hypograph” which redirects to “Hypograph (mathematics)”. But (if there were a persuasive reason to have an page of name “Hypograph (mathematics)”) you could have left “Hypograph” unaltered, and creäted a page named “Hypograph (mathematics)” to redirect to it. In that case, the sole content of the latter would be

#REDIRECT [[Hypograph]]

—SlamDiego_←T 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. That makes more sense, that you would not want to need to tag every article with a parenthetical. Didnt know how it worked at the time and I will keep that in mind in the future.

As for other Hypographs, I did not know at the time, but a quick search brings up a software product by that nameas well as something in World Of Witchcraft. So maybe we should leave it as is. (Econotechie (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well, if the other hypographs are notable, then we may want the math article to be entitled “Hypograph (mathematics)” or we may want to handle the situation thus:

creäte “Hypograph (disambiguation)”, which will link to two or three pages
place a notice on Hypograph that reads ‘This article refers to a mathematical concept. For other uses of “Hypograph”, see Hypograph (disambiguation).’

If either (or both) of these other Hypographs is notable, then I (for one) am comfortable with having “Hypograph (mathematics)” be the math page, but I just wanted to note another possible arrangement. —SlamDiego_←T 23:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just reälized that, the WoW case, “hypograph” was surely just a misspelling of “hippogryph”; a check shows that WoW does indeed have a hippogryph, and the reply to the query on that page refers to the hippogryph. That of course still leaves the possibility that HypoGraph (the software product) is sufficiently notable for its own article, but I'd like to check this thought (or see it checked by someone else). —SlamDiego_←T 01:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the page for HypoGraph, I discover that there is no such product! That page, and all others for Hypothetical Software at SiteMech.com are actually just mock-ups to promote SiteMech. There is a disclaimer:

This site designed for demonstration purposes only. All information has no real significance. Any matches with real names or products are unpremeditated.

So we may disregard these pages as evidence for anything named “hypograph”, “Hypograph”, or “HypoGraph” needing its own article. —SlamDiego_←T 09:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I didnt see that. But even then, someone may want to document that there was a "hypothetical" piece of software called Hypograph. Like widgets. As for the Wow case, there are lots of people calling it a hypograph. Try searching on hypograph and wow. I also ran across a few more: something in Harry Potter movie, Something having to do with an ancient papyrus loan document and a hypercard stack built by someone at Stanford referenced several other places on the internet. (Econotechie (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, I'm convinced by the use of “hypograph” in palaeography, though it's not a word that is used very much. (I was a member of ΗΣΦ without encountering it.) I'm dubious about disambiguation pages just to handle spelling errors, but so long as there will be a disambiguation page for other reasons, it should probably pick-up the spelling error. I'd also be skeptical about the actual software, because it stalled-out a dozen years ago, before a version 1.0. But I think that we can mention it on the disambiguation page even if it doesn't get its own article. The hypothetical software is simply not “notable”. (Wikipedia doesn't aspire to contain all knowledge, and I encourage you to read “On Exactitude in Science” by Borges when you get a chance.) —SlamDiego_←T 16:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a guess as to what the palaeographic hypograph is, but I don't want to put a guess on the disambiguation page. I've also found the term showing-up in reference to analysis of ideograms, analysis of verbal expressions, and art theory. Again, I don't know exactly what the significances are. So the disambiguation page that I've created is pretty weak right now. —SlamDiego_←T 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Economics census

[edit]

Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

Invitation to WikiProject Electrical engineering

[edit]

Hi fellow editor,
You are invited to join the WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of electrical engineering. If you'd like to join, add also your name to the member list.
Thanks for reading! SchreyP ^(messages) 19:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]