The fundamental group of a plane minus a point (bold) consists of loops in this area.
Criterion 2 aside, sandwiching, in my eyes, looks awkward and, subsequently, is a disruption to the flow of the prose. Additionally, as someone who often reads Wikipedia on an iPhone, I find sandwiching more so disruptive on small screens. My experiences aside, I don't think this is a deal breaker and is certainly not something that would warrant holding up and otherwise fine article. I do, however, believe that alternative solutions may be possible (see right). Does that multiple image template setup seem reasonable (it can be done vertically, as well)?
Эlcobbolatalk 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Discussion could be moved from FAC to here, since the FAC is already so long.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Note pls review the dab finder at the top of this page; there are three dab links that need repair.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
This point was already raised above by Randomblue. As it is, the dab pages provide in these three cases the page we need. For example
Janko group is a dab for the four Janko groups, but we don't want to point to either of the four, but to the general class. In this case it's better to link to the dab page instead of not linking, right?
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 17:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The
Janko group page, as it currently stands, is no longer a dab page; it's trying to be an article and includes many elements that don't belong on dab pages (see
WP:MOSDAB), which is because we probably need the article more than a dab page. In the other two cases, by linking to a dab page, we're asking the reader to sort out which definition is intended, an unnecessary burden. We shouldn't point readers to dab pages, although I can't find a specific guideline at the moment.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I fixed the Janko situation myself.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 17:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
And in the meantime, the Janko dab pages have been undone again. Can you all get clear on the difference between a dab page and an article? I found three dab pages already existed (!!!), changed
Janko group to an article, and redirected the second dab page (
Janko group (disambiguation)) to the third dab page at
Janko. Now, a dab page is redirected to an article page, again. Pls see
WP:MOSDAB on how to sort all this out; at any rate, this article no longer has any dabs, so we're settled here.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Is the current revision of
Janko group MoS-compliant? I disagree that it attempts to be an article.
What should be done about
Template:Group navbox? Is it MoS compliant to point to a disambiguation page here? If not, the best solution is probably to list all four Janko groups, since unlike the Conway groups, Mathieu groups, etc., they have nothing in common, so
Janko group can never have actual content.
For the moment I'm going to step back and let others try to resolve this.
User:SandyGeorgia and I have been working at cross-purposes, and rather than have us annoy each other I think it's best for me to stay away for the moment.
Ozob (
talk) 00:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The only issue here is that we still have this article pointing to a dab page; what was wrong with the
Janko group article that JackSchmidt had created?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The fundamental group of a plane minus a point (bold) consists of loops in this area.
Criterion 2 aside, sandwiching, in my eyes, looks awkward and, subsequently, is a disruption to the flow of the prose. Additionally, as someone who often reads Wikipedia on an iPhone, I find sandwiching more so disruptive on small screens. My experiences aside, I don't think this is a deal breaker and is certainly not something that would warrant holding up and otherwise fine article. I do, however, believe that alternative solutions may be possible (see right). Does that multiple image template setup seem reasonable (it can be done vertically, as well)?
Эlcobbolatalk 17:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Discussion could be moved from FAC to here, since the FAC is already so long.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 01:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Note pls review the dab finder at the top of this page; there are three dab links that need repair.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
This point was already raised above by Randomblue. As it is, the dab pages provide in these three cases the page we need. For example
Janko group is a dab for the four Janko groups, but we don't want to point to either of the four, but to the general class. In this case it's better to link to the dab page instead of not linking, right?
Jakob.scholbach (
talk) 17:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The
Janko group page, as it currently stands, is no longer a dab page; it's trying to be an article and includes many elements that don't belong on dab pages (see
WP:MOSDAB), which is because we probably need the article more than a dab page. In the other two cases, by linking to a dab page, we're asking the reader to sort out which definition is intended, an unnecessary burden. We shouldn't point readers to dab pages, although I can't find a specific guideline at the moment.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I fixed the Janko situation myself.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 17:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
And in the meantime, the Janko dab pages have been undone again. Can you all get clear on the difference between a dab page and an article? I found three dab pages already existed (!!!), changed
Janko group to an article, and redirected the second dab page (
Janko group (disambiguation)) to the third dab page at
Janko. Now, a dab page is redirected to an article page, again. Pls see
WP:MOSDAB on how to sort all this out; at any rate, this article no longer has any dabs, so we're settled here.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Is the current revision of
Janko group MoS-compliant? I disagree that it attempts to be an article.
What should be done about
Template:Group navbox? Is it MoS compliant to point to a disambiguation page here? If not, the best solution is probably to list all four Janko groups, since unlike the Conway groups, Mathieu groups, etc., they have nothing in common, so
Janko group can never have actual content.
For the moment I'm going to step back and let others try to resolve this.
User:SandyGeorgia and I have been working at cross-purposes, and rather than have us annoy each other I think it's best for me to stay away for the moment.
Ozob (
talk) 00:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The only issue here is that we still have this article pointing to a dab page; what was wrong with the
Janko group article that JackSchmidt had created?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)reply