See Wikipedia:AN#User:_Moondyne_and_User:_Sarah and his talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pohta ce-am pohtit ( talk • contribs)
The article on the Errett Bishop-versus-Jerome Keisler confrontation of 1977 was nominated for deletion and is being debated at the following page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop–Keisler controversy.
You should not just say Keep, Delete, Merge, ( or whatever); rather you should state your reasons for you position.
I think there is some folklore concerning this. But that seems hard to document. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
AFD has closed with the result: complete trainwreck. -- C S ( talk) 07:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:Game theorists seems to conflate game theory with combinatorial game theory. For example, it lists John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern on the one hand, and John Horton Conway and David Gale on the other. — Dominus ( talk) 15:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete.
Do not just say Keep or Delete; give your arguments. The discussion so far is on the weak side in arguments. Lots of terse assertions; not enough arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Most of the regulars probably do. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Comparing articles is not a good way to establish notability (there is some famous wiki argument about pokemon). Perhaps all of those articles should be deleted. (Note: I have not read the article nor do I know much about complexity theory.) I feel proofs have a very limited place in encyclopedia articles, so it is reasonable if editors aren't happy with them. Keep up the good work improving the article, and good luck. Thenub314 ( talk) 18:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
AFD has been closed with the result of clusterf*ck (ya rly). In my opinion, a reasonable end to a reasonable discussion. David Eppstein has proposed on the article talkpage a way to proceed with the article. -- C S ( talk) 10:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed an entry on the "Beryl fractal" from List of fractals by Hausdorff dimension. We don't have an article on it; there is only one Google hit for this term; and this source provided by Prokofiev2 is self-published and in French. Prokofiev2 reinserted the entry, on the grounds that "this fractal has been studied under the control of mathematics teachers" and may have been published in TIPE, which appears to be a French students' magazine or journal.
I believe the source provided by Prokofiev2 is not a reliable source, and that the "Beryl fractal" entry is original research, and possibly also a neologism. I am not going to start an edit war, but please comment at Talk:List of fractals by Hausdorff dimension, so that we can determine consensus and take appropriate action. Gandalf61 ( talk) 12:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I am currently editing Ring (mathematics). Does anyone want to help out there (a section on the history of ring theory would be good; I am just adding the mathematical bits)? I am aiming to get it up to the standard of Group (mathematics) (seems impossible, but at least half that standard would be good).
Point-set topologist ( talk) 10:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added a some content to the article (not very much though), but I was wondering whether we could structure the article a bit better. For example, in the example section, there is something about subrings but the actual definition (of subrings) is not given until later in the article. So I was thinking of moving some of those examples. Please see the talk page for relevant comments. Point-set topologist ( talk) 11:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
How does the article look now?
Point-set topologist ( talk) 20:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I will mention that. But I was trying to get the article up to Group (mathematics) and if you notice, at the very top of Group (mathematics), it says: this article is about the basic concepts in group theory. Of course, spectra are very important! But first the reader has to know what a morphism is (the article was lacking the definition sometime ago!)...
Point-set topologist ( talk) 09:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
How does the article look now? I know that it is far from FA (as Jakob said) but is it close to GA, at least (what are the general opinions of editors?)? Point-set topologist ( talk) 21:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Salix alba! I appreciate your work. Could someone please work on the history too? I have spent a lot of time and effort on the article and would greatly appreciate it if others (apart from Jakob and Salix) could pitch in. Currently, the most important sections to be expanded are the 'motivation' and the 'history' (I don't know much about the history of ring theory). I will start improving the motivation... Point-set topologist ( talk) 10:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Point-set topologist ( talk) 10:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the image in the lede of ring (mathematics)? The image appears (nicely) but the description (which is important to someone who does not know the concept) does not seem to appear. I want the image (with the same size as it is now) along with the description.
Thankyou!
Point-set topologist ( talk) 12:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Please comment (and add input) there (for Wikipedia)! I am aiming to get this article to GA and then FA once citations are added and the history section is improved (these are the only two things that I cannot do).
Thanks!
Point-set topologist ( talk) 12:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I mostly (almost always) try to see the good in changes to an article. But the most recent changes have really degraded the article's quality. The previous version did need some cleanup, but so much? With such changes (non-minor but apparently all the recent edits were marked as "minor"), the article no longer looks good anymore. Therefore, I will "back out" the changes and add back the good edits (remember, group (mathematics) is featured and we need the article to be like that one). Please discuss "large changes" next time before implementing them (all my changes seem to have been undone). Point-set topologist ( talk) 17:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, User:Takuya Murata: I will back out your changes and add back the good ones now. Point-set topologist ( talk) 17:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I am currently engaged in an argument with an editor claiming to be Peter Luschny at Talk:Bernoulli number. The presumptive Mr. Luschny believes that I acted inappropriately when I replaced a bogus citation (Luschny 2007) in the text with a {{ citation needed}} tag. He feels slighted because he thinks that my edit did not give fair attribution to him. As far as I am concerned, I acted totally appropriately since there was no actual citation to verify the material against (and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Could someone please look into this? I think an outside perspective might help to defuse a potentially difficult situation. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 01:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't you know that Mr. Luschny (or more appropriately, Sir Luschny) is Bernoulli's great...grandson? I am disappointed that he is not taken more seriously. -- Point-set topologist ( talk) 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
When you're looking for a short break from the holiday festivities, please consider taking a look at the above article and its talk page. There has been a lot of work done on it in the last week. User: Point-set topologist is quite intent on achieving FA status and is specifically taking the FA Group (mathematics) as a model. Taku has also been working on it. While both editors have been productive, there has been some difficulty consolidating both of their contributions, to the extent that the article now links to an alternate version. It would be truly helpful to have some other ideas and (constructive, of course) comments on this article.
For my part, I'm not sure that FA is the holy grail: it stands for "featured article", not "fantastic article", and in my opinion Group (mathematics) is not a fantastic article, but rather a pretty good one. (It certainly is a very polished and well-referenced article, which I do think is good, but there is more to being a great article than that.) By way of comparison, I think both Emmy Noether and Emanuel Lasker are fantastic articles (and yes, it is easier to write a fantastic article about a person than an entire mathematical discipline).
My big complaint with Ring (mathematics) as it stands is that it has very little in the way of interesting results or interesting examples: it reads more like the first chapter in an undergraduate text on ring theory. The article on groups mentions the classification of finite simple groups and has some nice things on Lie groups and rotation groups; I couldn't find any comparable content in the article on rings. So I decided to start adding some more colorful stuff -- I inserted a new section on examples of (what amounts to) interesting functors from other categories to the category of rings. At the moment this is mostly functioning as an anti-depressant: exactly what material about rings is important enough to be included in a single survey article is an interesting, though daunting, question. Ideas? Plclark ( talk) 13:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Well really, we can't aim to include every concept there is (that would be ridiculous since there is so much!). For the advanced reader, we should create a section on "applications to other branches of mathematics" (as you have done of course) which should be a summary of the "advanced concepts" (by this I mean graduate level). Anyway, thankyou for helping out on the article! Taku seems to be in favor of my version so I think I will add some content from his version but basically keep the current version. The main problem is that his content is basically copied stuff from other articles. By the way, I may not be able to edit for the next few days; I am travelling (to Austria). So, I will respond to the comments later.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated the article Mayer-Vietoris sequence for Good article nominations a month and a half ago. Of the approximately 300 candidates, it is now the third oldest nomination with no activity. Would anyone give it a look? I will try to put better pictures in the coming days. GeometryGirl ( talk) 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said, there is no enthusiasm when it comes to topology (except for a few people of course and they compensate for the lack of enthusiasam by doing a lot of hard-work). I will look at the article later on, maybe by Wednesday. Topology Expert ( talk) 10:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. During NPP I ran across Parallelism, its Analysis, Design and Implementation by a General Method. I have no idea what is going on with the article, whether it needs to be rewritten or expanded or merged or deleted or what. Could someone from this project look it over and do whatever is necessary? Many thanks. // roux 07:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to reinvigorate the discussion we had going about proofs... please post something over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs, or here, and put your oar in! Try to read the archived talk page too... SetaLyas ( talk) 11:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I came across the article Series (mathematics). I found some parts of it in pretty bad shape, for an article described in the discussion page as "vital" and "500 most viewed". I feel that some work has to be done there. -- Bdmy ( talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If noone objects I plan on doing some major revising of the Tournament (graph theory) page. There are some very important conjectures concerning tournaments that aren't discussed, and the score sequence section isn't quite right. It is missing what is considered one of the most important theorems of tournaments which is Landau's Theorem.
Also I would like to add material to wikipedia concerning hyper-tournaments and multipartite-tournaments, however I do not know if I should start a new page concerning these or should I add it to the current tournaments entry.-- Damelch ( talk) 03:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
See Pu Baoming and talk:Pu Baoming and their edit histories. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated this page:
Don't just say Keep, Delete, Merge, etc. State your reasons and arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
7d Physics has been nominated for deletion ; article involves some 6-dimensional math. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 07:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The article was recently redirected by placing the last name first. What are the wiki standards in this area? Katzmik ( talk) 21:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted one irrelevant paragraph about Wu wenjun, and the following sentence force without ref and evidence, and changed tow sentences suspect &"Boshishengdaoshi". This changes are based on the published material written by his students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyi ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This page also didnot provide any proof for force and suspected. As for boshishengdaoshi, before 1982, China have no boshishengdaoshi.-- 刻意 13:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make the following points.
Jitse's bot is still doing daily updates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity but it no longer adds new mathematics articles to the list, as of several days ago. Mathbot stopped doing daily updates to the "list of mathematics articles" pages a week ago.
I've just notified Jitse and Oleg. Am I the only one noticing this and notifying those who may be able to do something? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
and there is the [ES] missing. What should I do? It works in other places. Thanks a lot for a hint -- hroest 21:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The vector space article has recently passed its Good Article nomination. I think it has a reasonable state and I'd like to get broader input, especially on accessibility, balance and completeness of the article for a possible FA nomination, so I am nominating it for Peer Review. Thanks for the review, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 14:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
...to normal, listing new articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
... or maybe it's not. The only "new articles" listed today are biographical ones—quite a large number of them. But for more than a week no new articles on mathematics have been added. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Disregard the earlier section heading. No new math articles for several days, except one I added by hand to the list of mathematics articles. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm nominating the article Mayer–Vietoris sequence for FA. GeometryGirl ( talk) 10:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:AN#User:_Moondyne_and_User:_Sarah and his talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pohta ce-am pohtit ( talk • contribs)
The article on the Errett Bishop-versus-Jerome Keisler confrontation of 1977 was nominated for deletion and is being debated at the following page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop–Keisler controversy.
You should not just say Keep, Delete, Merge, ( or whatever); rather you should state your reasons for you position.
I think there is some folklore concerning this. But that seems hard to document. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
AFD has closed with the result: complete trainwreck. -- C S ( talk) 07:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:Game theorists seems to conflate game theory with combinatorial game theory. For example, it lists John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern on the one hand, and John Horton Conway and David Gale on the other. — Dominus ( talk) 15:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete.
Do not just say Keep or Delete; give your arguments. The discussion so far is on the weak side in arguments. Lots of terse assertions; not enough arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Most of the regulars probably do. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Comparing articles is not a good way to establish notability (there is some famous wiki argument about pokemon). Perhaps all of those articles should be deleted. (Note: I have not read the article nor do I know much about complexity theory.) I feel proofs have a very limited place in encyclopedia articles, so it is reasonable if editors aren't happy with them. Keep up the good work improving the article, and good luck. Thenub314 ( talk) 18:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
AFD has been closed with the result of clusterf*ck (ya rly). In my opinion, a reasonable end to a reasonable discussion. David Eppstein has proposed on the article talkpage a way to proceed with the article. -- C S ( talk) 10:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed an entry on the "Beryl fractal" from List of fractals by Hausdorff dimension. We don't have an article on it; there is only one Google hit for this term; and this source provided by Prokofiev2 is self-published and in French. Prokofiev2 reinserted the entry, on the grounds that "this fractal has been studied under the control of mathematics teachers" and may have been published in TIPE, which appears to be a French students' magazine or journal.
I believe the source provided by Prokofiev2 is not a reliable source, and that the "Beryl fractal" entry is original research, and possibly also a neologism. I am not going to start an edit war, but please comment at Talk:List of fractals by Hausdorff dimension, so that we can determine consensus and take appropriate action. Gandalf61 ( talk) 12:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I am currently editing Ring (mathematics). Does anyone want to help out there (a section on the history of ring theory would be good; I am just adding the mathematical bits)? I am aiming to get it up to the standard of Group (mathematics) (seems impossible, but at least half that standard would be good).
Point-set topologist ( talk) 10:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added a some content to the article (not very much though), but I was wondering whether we could structure the article a bit better. For example, in the example section, there is something about subrings but the actual definition (of subrings) is not given until later in the article. So I was thinking of moving some of those examples. Please see the talk page for relevant comments. Point-set topologist ( talk) 11:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
How does the article look now?
Point-set topologist ( talk) 20:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I will mention that. But I was trying to get the article up to Group (mathematics) and if you notice, at the very top of Group (mathematics), it says: this article is about the basic concepts in group theory. Of course, spectra are very important! But first the reader has to know what a morphism is (the article was lacking the definition sometime ago!)...
Point-set topologist ( talk) 09:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
How does the article look now? I know that it is far from FA (as Jakob said) but is it close to GA, at least (what are the general opinions of editors?)? Point-set topologist ( talk) 21:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Salix alba! I appreciate your work. Could someone please work on the history too? I have spent a lot of time and effort on the article and would greatly appreciate it if others (apart from Jakob and Salix) could pitch in. Currently, the most important sections to be expanded are the 'motivation' and the 'history' (I don't know much about the history of ring theory). I will start improving the motivation... Point-set topologist ( talk) 10:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Point-set topologist ( talk) 10:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the image in the lede of ring (mathematics)? The image appears (nicely) but the description (which is important to someone who does not know the concept) does not seem to appear. I want the image (with the same size as it is now) along with the description.
Thankyou!
Point-set topologist ( talk) 12:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Please comment (and add input) there (for Wikipedia)! I am aiming to get this article to GA and then FA once citations are added and the history section is improved (these are the only two things that I cannot do).
Thanks!
Point-set topologist ( talk) 12:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I mostly (almost always) try to see the good in changes to an article. But the most recent changes have really degraded the article's quality. The previous version did need some cleanup, but so much? With such changes (non-minor but apparently all the recent edits were marked as "minor"), the article no longer looks good anymore. Therefore, I will "back out" the changes and add back the good edits (remember, group (mathematics) is featured and we need the article to be like that one). Please discuss "large changes" next time before implementing them (all my changes seem to have been undone). Point-set topologist ( talk) 17:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, User:Takuya Murata: I will back out your changes and add back the good ones now. Point-set topologist ( talk) 17:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I am currently engaged in an argument with an editor claiming to be Peter Luschny at Talk:Bernoulli number. The presumptive Mr. Luschny believes that I acted inappropriately when I replaced a bogus citation (Luschny 2007) in the text with a {{ citation needed}} tag. He feels slighted because he thinks that my edit did not give fair attribution to him. As far as I am concerned, I acted totally appropriately since there was no actual citation to verify the material against (and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). Could someone please look into this? I think an outside perspective might help to defuse a potentially difficult situation. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 01:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't you know that Mr. Luschny (or more appropriately, Sir Luschny) is Bernoulli's great...grandson? I am disappointed that he is not taken more seriously. -- Point-set topologist ( talk) 13:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
When you're looking for a short break from the holiday festivities, please consider taking a look at the above article and its talk page. There has been a lot of work done on it in the last week. User: Point-set topologist is quite intent on achieving FA status and is specifically taking the FA Group (mathematics) as a model. Taku has also been working on it. While both editors have been productive, there has been some difficulty consolidating both of their contributions, to the extent that the article now links to an alternate version. It would be truly helpful to have some other ideas and (constructive, of course) comments on this article.
For my part, I'm not sure that FA is the holy grail: it stands for "featured article", not "fantastic article", and in my opinion Group (mathematics) is not a fantastic article, but rather a pretty good one. (It certainly is a very polished and well-referenced article, which I do think is good, but there is more to being a great article than that.) By way of comparison, I think both Emmy Noether and Emanuel Lasker are fantastic articles (and yes, it is easier to write a fantastic article about a person than an entire mathematical discipline).
My big complaint with Ring (mathematics) as it stands is that it has very little in the way of interesting results or interesting examples: it reads more like the first chapter in an undergraduate text on ring theory. The article on groups mentions the classification of finite simple groups and has some nice things on Lie groups and rotation groups; I couldn't find any comparable content in the article on rings. So I decided to start adding some more colorful stuff -- I inserted a new section on examples of (what amounts to) interesting functors from other categories to the category of rings. At the moment this is mostly functioning as an anti-depressant: exactly what material about rings is important enough to be included in a single survey article is an interesting, though daunting, question. Ideas? Plclark ( talk) 13:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Well really, we can't aim to include every concept there is (that would be ridiculous since there is so much!). For the advanced reader, we should create a section on "applications to other branches of mathematics" (as you have done of course) which should be a summary of the "advanced concepts" (by this I mean graduate level). Anyway, thankyou for helping out on the article! Taku seems to be in favor of my version so I think I will add some content from his version but basically keep the current version. The main problem is that his content is basically copied stuff from other articles. By the way, I may not be able to edit for the next few days; I am travelling (to Austria). So, I will respond to the comments later.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Point-set topologist ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated the article Mayer-Vietoris sequence for Good article nominations a month and a half ago. Of the approximately 300 candidates, it is now the third oldest nomination with no activity. Would anyone give it a look? I will try to put better pictures in the coming days. GeometryGirl ( talk) 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said, there is no enthusiasm when it comes to topology (except for a few people of course and they compensate for the lack of enthusiasam by doing a lot of hard-work). I will look at the article later on, maybe by Wednesday. Topology Expert ( talk) 10:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. During NPP I ran across Parallelism, its Analysis, Design and Implementation by a General Method. I have no idea what is going on with the article, whether it needs to be rewritten or expanded or merged or deleted or what. Could someone from this project look it over and do whatever is necessary? Many thanks. // roux 07:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to reinvigorate the discussion we had going about proofs... please post something over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs, or here, and put your oar in! Try to read the archived talk page too... SetaLyas ( talk) 11:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I came across the article Series (mathematics). I found some parts of it in pretty bad shape, for an article described in the discussion page as "vital" and "500 most viewed". I feel that some work has to be done there. -- Bdmy ( talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If noone objects I plan on doing some major revising of the Tournament (graph theory) page. There are some very important conjectures concerning tournaments that aren't discussed, and the score sequence section isn't quite right. It is missing what is considered one of the most important theorems of tournaments which is Landau's Theorem.
Also I would like to add material to wikipedia concerning hyper-tournaments and multipartite-tournaments, however I do not know if I should start a new page concerning these or should I add it to the current tournaments entry.-- Damelch ( talk) 03:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
See Pu Baoming and talk:Pu Baoming and their edit histories. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated this page:
Don't just say Keep, Delete, Merge, etc. State your reasons and arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
7d Physics has been nominated for deletion ; article involves some 6-dimensional math. 76.66.198.171 ( talk) 07:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The article was recently redirected by placing the last name first. What are the wiki standards in this area? Katzmik ( talk) 21:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted one irrelevant paragraph about Wu wenjun, and the following sentence force without ref and evidence, and changed tow sentences suspect &"Boshishengdaoshi". This changes are based on the published material written by his students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyi ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This page also didnot provide any proof for force and suspected. As for boshishengdaoshi, before 1982, China have no boshishengdaoshi.-- 刻意 13:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make the following points.
Jitse's bot is still doing daily updates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity but it no longer adds new mathematics articles to the list, as of several days ago. Mathbot stopped doing daily updates to the "list of mathematics articles" pages a week ago.
I've just notified Jitse and Oleg. Am I the only one noticing this and notifying those who may be able to do something? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
and there is the [ES] missing. What should I do? It works in other places. Thanks a lot for a hint -- hroest 21:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The vector space article has recently passed its Good Article nomination. I think it has a reasonable state and I'd like to get broader input, especially on accessibility, balance and completeness of the article for a possible FA nomination, so I am nominating it for Peer Review. Thanks for the review, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 14:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
...to normal, listing new articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
... or maybe it's not. The only "new articles" listed today are biographical ones—quite a large number of them. But for more than a week no new articles on mathematics have been added. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Disregard the earlier section heading. No new math articles for several days, except one I added by hand to the list of mathematics articles. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm nominating the article Mayer–Vietoris sequence for FA. GeometryGirl ( talk) 10:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)