Wikipedia talk:Coverage of Mathworld topics
Notes
[edit]- Needs updating - the "0" page has 71 entries compared with 77 on Mathworld
- I don't agree that every article should link back to Mathworld. WP has in many respects passed MW. If we already have good references and external links, then unless the MW article is special, there's no point adding the link. Compare, for example, Mathematical fallacy and Fallacy at Mathworld].
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC).
- I stumbled across this page, and I thought it a rather good idea to keep track of the math articles against MathWorld ones (among others), so this way we can have a decent handle on how well the math areas get covered. A cursory browsing shows that there are so many articles yet to be written. No surprise there, as I indeed go to MathWorld website on numerous occasions to find some information, which obviously should be in Wikipedia (after all, we want Wikipedia to be the world's best encyclopedia on math, right? <smile>). Further browsing reveals that there are numerous Wikipedia math articles that lack {{mathworld}} tags. I am tempted to update such articles to use that template. But, as you noted above, some WP articles now exceed the MathWorld ones in terms of quality. So, my big question is: what is the best approach to dealing with that? Thanks! --TheBlueWizard (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)