Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2018/Jun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Good Article" nomination of Cantor's first set theory article. Review is needed.

[edit]

This review page is for review of the nomination of Cantor's first set theory article for the status of a Good article. For instructions for reviewing the article, follow this link.

At this page one sees that this is currently one of four mathematics articles currently nominated for "Good article" status. Writing a review of any of them would be a contribution. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Langley’s Adventitious Angles

[edit]

Langley’s Adventitious Angles could use some more eyes. There's a new editor edit-warring to insert what looks like original research to me, but I'd welcome the opinion of other experienced editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. The first line of their argument is obviously wrong — the logic doesn't follow, and just looking at the figure, it can't even be close to right. It's like they're trying to apply the converse of the isosceles triangle theorem to a trapezoid. XOR'easter (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Truncated Normal Hurdle Model

[edit]

Should this be moved to mainspace? (or deleted?) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, the topic looks notable, appearing the different econometric and economic textbooks over the years. The draft is fairly rough with no lede or much context. But with sources already in the article and some technical content already in place, this could be a stub that others build on. I recommend it better to be put it in mainspace than outright deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I moved this to mainspace. It needs categories, which I am wholly unqualified to supply. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added cats and the start of a lede. --Mark viking (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expert advice on notability of a journal requested

[edit]
Draft:Journal_of_Commutative_Algebra describes a real, but niche journal, it's difficult for me outside of JCS access etc. to assess notability. Ping me if anyone has any thoughts about notability here. Thanks in advance, --joe deckertalk 21:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might also ask at the academic journals wikiproject: WT:AJ. --JBL (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing biography of Michael Rathjen

[edit]

We do not appear to have a biography of Michael Rathjen who appears to be an important person in mathematical logic. Please see [1]. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You spelled his first name one way in the section heading above and another way in the link. Putting the "e" before the "a" is rare. 2601:445:437F:FE66:E44E:27D1:2A2E:2EBF (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M22 graph

[edit]

M22 graph, currently a redirect to Mathieu group M22, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 2#M22 graph because it cause Draft:M22 graph to be declined. Editors who understand these topics are invited to contribute to the linked discussion where their input is likely to be significantly helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the draft to M22 graph, over the redirect. I think this episode is a good illustration of the uselessness of Wikipedia drafts — most regular editors of draft space view the whole idea of drafts as a trap to keep the spammers busy and away from actual articles, rather than a useful pathway for new content to be included in the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I will be perm-banned from Wikipedia by saying this but here is another example: Draft:fundamental groupoid (which was simply deleted with no discussion/review and it's not the one started by me). Basically these are the instances that Wikipedia has slowly been taken over by editors who are interested in other than building an encyclopedia. It is just not possible for them to distinguish between building an encyclopedia and disrupting Wikipedia, their playground. -- Taku (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One could make the argument that this draft simply reproduces content from the fundamental groupoid section of the fundamental group article. Personally, I feel that a separate article is warranted, but the way content is forked off of an existing article is not usually done through draft space. See WP:SPLITTING for the standard process. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Just so there is no misunderstanding I didn’t start the draft.) The issue I have is drafts like these are somehow invisible to the wider community and usually get deleted quietly. Another example is Castelnuovo's contraction theorem, which also got quietly deleted without a proper review. Forking a section of an existing article is allowed and the draftspace is a place to work that out. —- Taku (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m on this, I should mention User:R.e.b. stopped contributing presumably because, like me, he felt content development is no longer valued. —- Taku (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only way for an anonymous user to start an article is through the draftspace and that’s already the reason enough the community (math or otherwise) need to embrace the draftspace. (That’s actually a part of the reason I don’t want to just stay away from the draftspce, since that space need to be integrated to the Wikipedia proper and I can be a conduit.) —- Taku (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional curve

[edit]

The redirect Exceptional curve, which currently targets Exceptional divisor, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 8#Exceptional curve. Input from editors who understand the topic would be of significant benefit - please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immanant

[edit]

FYI, I started a requested move discussion at Talk:Immanant of a matrix. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft pages moved to mainspace

[edit]

The following are pages moved from the draftspace to mainspace by me:

Since I only skimmed the pages, it is possible that some may not be notable and in that case, they need to be nominated for deletion. (To repeat the above thread, these pages would have been deleted quietly; unfortunately, in current practice (not policy), that pages need some more work means deletion.) —- Taku (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an opinion about using the first person?

[edit]

I find that mathematics is often written in first person in a way that other subjects are not. It's something I like / have gotten used to (or at least is professional in a mathematical context), but I sometimes get told that it creates an inappropriate tone or violates neutral point of view policies.

Do we have a consensus on what I would assume is something that's been discussed here before? I would like to nominate Group testing for featured article (eventually), so I want to clear up any potential issues. –♫CheChe♫ talk 11:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an opinion about it: MOS:FIRSTPERSON: "Often rephrasing using the passive voice is preferable." That article clearly needs some work . - DVdm (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many discussion here, arguing against the editorial or noble "we". Paul August ☎ 12:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used to occasionally come across notices at the top of articles on mathematics saying the article is written like a personal reflection or essay, and I wondered why, since I didn't see anything in the article that looked like that. Ultimately I found out that it was because of things like this:

We define the Teichmüller space as blah blah blah blah

The word "we" was being construed literally by unthinking people who labeled article as essay-like for that reason alone and nothing else. You can't get much more inattentive than to do that. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think first-person should be vetoed in mathematics articles within regular prose. It starkly contrasts with the tone of the rest of the STEM articles around Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is not an academic journal or a conference, but an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias, even from other settings, do not use the first-person. By pronouncing "we," you also create an implied (but mostly superficial) personal tone to Wikipedia that I think is inappropriate for the setting. Stylistically, it just seems off -- not because first-person is used in a personal sense, but because it's connotation "smells" of personal sense. Atasato (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While it sounds fine to me in a mathematics paper, it definitely sounds wrong in an encyclopedia article. And it does not surprise me that these different venues should have different tones. Paul August ☎ 23:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say not using "we" is in doubt preferred due to sounding more "encylopedic" and matching the language use in most math encylopedias or lexicons. However if some editor uses it, it certainly isn't NPOV violation or big oroblem, but rather marginal style issue that other editors are free to fix if they feel strongly about it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like Michael Hardy, I object to using silly {{Essay-like}} cleanup templates if a mathematics article uses "we". I personally think it is generally preferable to rephrase the first person if possible. However, the first-person is a widespread stylistic convention in how reliable sources write about mathematics. So I think it is a valid stylistic choice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I recap a bit? (Sorry, I've recently been introduced to this symbol) Maybe there never was a time when using 1.pers.sing. was widely accepted (is heureka of this form?). "I, Gauß, princeps mathematicorum, declare herewith" some fundamental theorem, sounds a bit unacceptable. Majestic preponderance seduced to (let) invent the "pluralis majestatis" (We, by God's authority, declare blabla to be true). More equality-oriented publicists made this the "pluralis modestiae", and the Eds detected how embracing a socializing "we" might sound (we all now understand blabla), setting aside all the vulnerability of the Aspies, who were the only ones able to follow their lines of abstraction, and now feel pocketed by this subsuming. Consider also the hostile "WE have this and that Capitalized Acronyms after a colon ...", prominently used to rebuff values not along some imaginative guidelines of the ruling class (WE are the non-harassing, civil ones).
Thanks. I support the efforts of getting non-personal, and try to use the given methods. Purgy (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather argue that "we" shouldn't pester WP authors too much with rather marginal stuff.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something else occurred to me, after reading Purgy's comment. Apart from issues with the first person plural that some readers find problematic, mathematics is largely written in an imperative mood, such as: "Assume that X is a compact space." This seems unavoidable (and it's not clear that it should be avoided, even if someone devises a way to eliminate all imperative verbs). But I've seen editors seriously insist that this imperative mood is inconsistent with encyclopedic writing, and call mathematics articles "essay-like" for this reason alone. It may be worth pointing out somewhere that mathematics largely must be written in this way, and that the use of first person plural is compatible with that mood. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the imperative mood is unavoidable only in proofs. Otherwise, it may generally avoided, and this provides often a better style (that is easier to understand). In the above example, if the sentence that follows is the statement of a property, the phrase may be changed into ""If X is a compact space, then ...". D.Lazard (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with this. There are situations in mathematics writing where entire paragraph could begin with a sentence like "Let X be a compact space." That's true regardless of whether the paragraph is part of a proof, a theorem, or just a paragraph discussing specific results. But the real question is, even if imperative constructions could be avoided in principle, are they actually avoided in standard mathematical writing? That seems more important in dictating our practices here than whether it is possible to develop novel writing styles. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is not really about "standard mathematical writing", but rather standard encyclopedic writing, which is a different thing. Paul August ☎ 15:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but in that context math comes first and (preferred) encyclopedic style second.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so. I guess the question then should really be about standard mathematical encyclopedic writing ;-) The style appropriate for mathematical journal articles, and mathematical textbook writing, for example, (the kind which I presume most of us here are most familiar), should not necessarily be our guide here. Paul August ☎ 16:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think too much is made over the distinction between "encyclopedic mathematical writing" and "mathematical writing". I disagree that writing in shorter simple, declarative sentences in an imperative mood is at all incompatible incompatible with writing mathematics in an encyclopedia. Every encyclopedia I'm aware of uses the imperative mood freely to simplify the ecposition, just like a mathematics paper or textbook would. And, unless there is some specific style guide about writing mathematics encyclopedias that makes recommendations contrary to popular writing styles, our default position really ought to be to follow standard norms. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something is worse than the use of the first person, and is, nevertheless, widely used in Wikipedia. It is the use "must" with a mathematical object as a subject. For example, so "q must be one of the r's" instead of "so q is one of the r's". This example comes from Fundamental theorem of arithmetic#Proof, which contains several other examples. This use of "must" is so common in articles about elementary mathematics, that I had to look on only two articles for finding an example. D.Lazard (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the logical "must", not the normative "must". "John must understand the Riemann zera function, or he couldn't have written about it so clearly." That doesn't mean John has an obligation or need to acquire knowledge of the Riemann zeta function; rather it means there can be no doubt that he has such knowledge. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is bad about that usage? It emphasizes that the claim is a necessary truth, something that follows logically from previous assumptions, rather than merely being a contingent truth about some specific example that might have been chosen. Although this distinction between "is" and "must" is used in this context merely for emphasis, it is also a standard part of modal logic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And given that those articles are read by pupils, students or people with limited mathematical background, I don't see any issue with emphasizing here, on the contrary it might be helpful.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with David Eppstein here -- I think "must", although perhaps a little bit out of tone, is grounded in the sense that usage of the words can often have a 1:1 correspondence with the logical "implication" operator: (→). -Atasato (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Integrable system

[edit]

I recently encountered the article named by the above heading. Before long, I found my way to this Project and saw the FAQ, which quite well reflects several of my concerns about WP articles on technical subjects and mathematics. I am college-educated, but majored in English, not math or science. I placed tags on the Integrable article to call attention to the difficulty I believe all readers except those with math degrees will have understanding it. As I mentioned in my comment on the article Talk page, I can accept the highly technical nature of the text in the article body, but I firmly believe that the first sentence (or two) of the article can and should be written in plain English, so that even readers with nothing more than high school math (not including calculus) can understand what the article is about, even if they understand almost none of the details. I would like to invite any member of this Project to have a go at revising the article lead (lede)--even just the first sentence--in order to give the general reader a clear idea of the meaning of "integrable" as it is intended in the article. With such an improvement, I would be glad to remove the unpleasant 'incomprehensible' tag, which I added. Of course, anyone can remove it at any time, but I hope that will happen only after the first sentence is translated into a form of English that requires no specialized knowledge or prerequisites. DonFB (talk)

I agree. Moreover, the definition is based on a foliation, and the target article uses integrability for defining a foliation. So the definition seems to be circular. Although not a specialist of this subject, I'll add an intuitive definition in the first sentence. Not absolutely sure that is formally correct, but it will certainly better than the present lead. D.Lazard (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your effort to improve the lede. I did a little more research. Most internet searches led me back to various Wikipedia articles, but also a couple of Britannica articles. Using that information, I have revised the lede to provide a very brief opening explanation that I hope is technically correct. I'll likely hear about it if it's not. DonFB (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mean to be mean but the new lead doesn’t seem to be precise enough to me; I think it’s much better to have a link to Integrability conditions for differential systems. Saying Paris is city in Europe is true but not mentioning France at all is a serious omission, even when France is highly technical term. (I’m not an expert so it’s better if some experts can jump in). —- Taku (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TakuyaMurata, please see my comment on the article Talk page regarding your edit. DonFB (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If France is a highly technical term then "Paris is a city in Europe" is probably a better first sentence than "Paris is a city in France." Lead sections of articles consist of sometimes even several paragraphs; there is plenty of possibility to mention France some time after the first sentence. I don't think DonFB's attempt was perfect (it went from very accessible to heavily technical but skipped over a stage that might be appropriate for, say, an undergraduate math major), but the accessibility was a positive feature that we need more of in mathematics articles. --JBL (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(I will continue the discussion on the wording of the new opening sentences in the article talkpage). Here is a more general comment: I think this is a matter of the target audience. The article is intended for the audience who knows integration and differential equations; thus, there is no much value making the opening sentences accessible to those who do not have such a background. The accessibility is important but it is important to know "accessible" to who. -- Taku (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, "even readers with nothing more than high school math (not including calculus) can understand what the article is about". I disagree that every math article needs to meet this standard; Wikipedia is after all meant as a resource from which the readers can learn the topic quickly but with some depth, among the others (Wikipedia articles are also meant to be useful to those who know the subject already). -- Taku (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree about the right location for the more specific conversation. About the general point: there is no reason that an article whose details cannot be understood without a background in differential equations should not contain three sentences that are understandable by anyone. (Very many math articles on Wikipedia could be improved this way) --JBL (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After edit conflict: I do not think it should be impermissible for mathematics articles to include content for specialists. But I also do not think it should be impermissible for mathematics articles to include content for non-specialists. It is the second thing that is relevant here (but then we are back to the specifics). --JBL (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Specifics need to be worked out in the article talkpage. But, generally speaking, "I am" (the others might not) against the inclusion of general info peripheral to the topic itself; because the real estate in the lede is expensive and a better approach is to having links to background materials. -- Taku (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least my prognostication skills are fully functioning. --JBL (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "accessibility" is a real problem; if not, why do we constantly get this type of complaints? I (and the others) just don't agree with the solutions proposed thus far; e.g., the insertion of info amounts to defining France in the Paris article. A problem can exist without a solution (and we call ourselves mathematicians!) -- Taku (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, JBL, they are indeed. I plan to return to the issue, here and elsewhere. (Attack of the English majors!) DonFB (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Recurrence relations integration function

[edit]

Would someone mind giving Draft:Recurrence relations integration function a lookover. It is being deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Recurrence relations integration function. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kronecker graph

[edit]

Graph theory-savvy editors may wish to look at Kronecker graph, an article that has been expanded by a few SPAs (who may be operating together) with mostly copyright-infringing content. I've been chopping out the text that's directly copied from http://people.ee.duke.edu/~lcarin/Kronecker_Graphs.pdf for a few days now, but as a result the article has ended up looking very fragmented and written in shaky English. It's certainly an article that could use some improvement if anyone is interested. /wiae /tlk 15:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiJournal of Sciences

[edit]

A somewhat better version of our article "Space (mathematics)" is now refereed and published in WikiJournal of Sciences (and probably will be copied hereto). A precedent? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting this accepted in the inaugural issue of the WikiJournal. Its good to see a math article among the science articles there. I could see this as a useful alternative or adjunct to a GA run, with a little academic credit for your effort. How did you find the peer review process? --Mark viking (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The peer review process was excellent. Surely it was difficult to get refereed such article. Mathematicians are experienced to referee articles intended for mathematicians, not like this. However, Gaëtan Borot did it very good. His referee report is publicly available: v:Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Spaces in mathematics#Third review (and some more reports are also there). The three advanced sections by Ozob are written in response to reports of referees and the editor Sylvain Ribault. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also a printer friendly version (pdf file) is now available. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now copied from WJS to Wikipedia. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to Central limit theorem

[edit]

I just created these four redirect pages:

It seems surprising that they didn't already exist. Is more such work in order? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Countering systemic bias/Mathematics" at Miscellany for Deletion

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two meaning of monotonic matrix

[edit]

First definition is as same as wikipedia article of monotone matrix. The other definition is here

This monotonic matrix is a integer rectangular matrix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created monotonic matrix Done --Sharouser (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H-matrix about iterative method

[edit]

H-matrix is a matrix with its comparison matrix is M-matrix. It is useful in iterative method. We need an article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[2][3] See these articles. H-matrix is an important subject. --2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need an article about comparison matrix too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you are talking of iterative methods, I guess that you are talking of Hurwitz's stable matrix (H being an abbreviation of Hurwitz), and not of Hadamard matrix that has also been called H-matrix. If it is not the case, you are welcome for writing a lacking article. D.Lazard (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison matrix and H-matrix are created by me. --Sharouser (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In its present state, the article titled Comparison matrix is only a definition. If there's not more to say about it, then there's no reason for the article to exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Migration away from old texvc <math> engine

[edit]

There is now a project to migrate away from the texvc renderer for <math> expressions. This was the default a few years ago which produces PNG images, now we have a hybrid solution with uses MathJax in the backend to produce svg images and sometimes xml. There is still some legacy from texvc as it is used in the frist parsing step of the current engine. This means there are some idiosyncrasies in the syntax which differ from standard LaTex:

Current syntax Suggested replacement Comment
$ \$ redefinition would involve changing the character code
% \% redefinition would involve changing the character code
\and \land causes normal align environment to fail
\or \lor see [4]; causes teubner to fail
\part \partial acceptable if the document doesn't use sectioning with \part.
\ang \angle this only conflicts with siunitx package.
\C \Complex conflicts with puenc.def e.g. from hyperref package
\H \mathbb{H} conflicts with text command \H{0} which is ő.
\bold \mathbf
\Bbb \mathbb
\pagecolor remove not needed and not working anymore, done on en-wiki mainspace
<ce>...</ce> <chem>...</chem> Chemistry environment, done on en-wiki mainspace

The first step in the project will involve deprecating the old syntax and running a bot or semi-automated edits to change the syntax. These should not result in any visible change to the pages. The bot doing the work is User:Texvc2LaTeXBot which is currently seeking approval. Changes will also be made to the Visual Editor to produce the new syntax.

Subsequent stages in the project are discussed at mw:Extension:Math/Roadmap, these involve some more complex problems with the <chem> syntax. Eventually the texvc part will be removed completely and there may be some slight change to the rendered output. The main discussion of the project happens at T195861 and your input is welcome.--Salix alba (talk): 15:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Postnomial on Erdos

[edit]

I invite other editors' opinions on this edit. (The user in question has been unilaterally making this change over dozens if not hundreds of articles on scientists, and is very abrasive about it. It seems deeply wrongheaded to me to put the postnomial in the lead sentence of the article, and moderately wrongheaded to put it into the infobox, but more discussion is needed than just two of us reverting each other.) --JBL (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, both generally and very specifically in this case. Paul received many honors throughout his lifetime and it appeared to me that he didn't revel in any of them. To stick this postnomial in the lead seems to be saying much more about the Royal Academy than it does about Paul. I could see it in an infobox, listed under honors, but not immediately under his name as if this is the most important thing about him. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was my feeling exactly -- says much more about RS than about the recipients. Several other users (DVdm, Attic Salt) seem to agree as well and have undone some of the mess. Probably someone will have to go through systematically at some point to fully clean up. --JBL (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, in fact i dislike that template in general. If there is an important honour, that needs to be in the lead for some reason, then it should be written explicitly in regular text, instead of cryptic abbreviation in a special font. Moreover common practice is to handle such honours with templates & categories at the end of the article or in the infobox.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's great lot of similar edits. I don't have the time to fix them all, so I asked user Bueller 007 (talk · contribs) to stop adding it, and to help undoing. - DVdm (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I probably have removed most of them now (based on his recent edit history). However apparently there is at least one similar template for Canadian science society. So I'm wondering for what purpose those templates were created in the first place other then sticking them in the lead. If the lead was the only reason for their creation, they probably should get deleted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. Now there seems to be a new account created just in order to edit-war over this (!!?). --JBL (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bueller 007. - DVdm (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, looks like you are a bit quicker than I am :). --JBL (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "signature" section already gives all the postnomial letters that are necessary. :-) XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, I wanted to record the fact that the sock-puppet situation involved a disruptive troll, and in particular Bueller 007 was cleared. --JBL (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for discussion

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 25#Acoptic polygon. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bplus-Class mathematics articles has been nominated for discussion

[edit]

Category:Bplus-Class mathematics articles, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2018/Jun&oldid=850790944"