I find it alleged that nearly all of our queueing theory articles begin with "In queueing theory, . . .".
That is bad. It makes no attempt to inform the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about.
The following are appropriate:
The following are NOT appropriate:
The lay reader has not heard of those things. (As an undergraduate, I was surprised to find that some literate people hadn't heard of topology. But it's true.)
If an article is titled "Mathematical induction" or "Fundamental theorem of algebra" or the like, then the title alone obviates the need for such an initial context-setting phrase.
So, shall we fix all our queueing theory articles? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the emphasis on boilerplate in place of creative solutions for context-setting (as promoted by e.g. Hardy) has been extremely harmful to the quality of our prose. It leads to atrocities like "In mathematics, in the field of additive combinatorics, Kneser's theorem, named after Martin Kneser, is a statement about set addition in finite groups." In this encyclopedia, we are in the English language, not German, with its tendency to many clauses at the start place and to the verbs to the end hold back, writing. Stilted prose makes for a difficult reading experience. Context is necessary but not at the expense of readability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd say eponyms should usually be identified in the first paragraph, and often, but not always, in the first sentence. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
This article recently got accepted by WP:WikiProject Articles for creation
It looks more than a bit dodgy to me. The four refs that discuss the concept all share a common author; what's presented seems very vague; and I do find this non-Shannon entropy pretty dubious and of questionable notability, unless some pretty strong evidence is forthcoming for its significance (which, at least in the article, it seems to me so far hasn't been).
Am I being over-sensitive and over-suspicious here, or do others agree? Second opinions would be appreciated. Jheald ( talk) 23:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I created Lists of unsolved problems in mathematics a while ago. Now I am no longer sure whether a particular one of the entries should be kept in the list or not. Do you think Unsolved Problems on Mathematics for the 21st Century fits into the scope of the list, or should it be removed? Thanks for any feedback. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hoax? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Could any of you have a look at this? Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if people involved in that WikiProject _ever_ exercise any judgment about editing the title of the article rather than just going with whatever the draft has. If I write such a draft and call it "GirafFe", about animals with long necks living in African plains, will they approve it and move it to the article space with the title "GirafFe"? Someone moved the draft to Aggregative games. So I moved it from there to Aggregative game and fixed the link. I've seen lots of previous instances just as glaring. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I think there may be a structural issue in that AfC submissions are in talk name space and there is no obvious place to leave comments on them. So when these submissions are brought to the attention of this project, the discussion happens here, but then subsequent AfC reviewers may well not find it here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to {{ Afc comment}} — I didn't know about that one before and have just used it on the Brauner space submission, I hope correctly. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The triannual discussion of tau is in full blast here: Talk:Tau_(2π)#Tau_deserves_its_own_article. Tkuvho ( talk) 08:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
What should be the fate of the new article titled Frame graph? Are there any results of interest that should be included in the article, rather than a mere definition? Is the topic worthy of an article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
People often complain that mathematics articles are particularly difficult to understand because the experts writing the articles have a completely different level of understanding of the topic than the typical reader, who might be for example a high school student. Has the community considered including the level of the article in the mathematics assessment, i.e. whether an article is intended to be at for example high school, undergraduate, or graduate level? Isheden ( talk) 06:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
For anyone who hasn't seen the discussion and is interested, recent edits to the Polynomial article are beiong discussed at Talk:Polynomial#Recent edits. Gandalf61 ( talk) 12:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous editor at Chain rule is claiming that "there are massive inconsistencies (and outright errors) in notation" in the article. He seems to be proposing wide changes; we have already reverted each other over the statement of the chain rule in the lede several times (though I think it might be best at this point to simply change the statement). See Talk:Chain rule#Notational consistency/rigor. Ozob ( talk) 14:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
So the Topological_skeleton begins with a link to shape analysis, which sounds like it would be connected with a geometric-topological study of shapes, but rather the link is a redirect to Shape analysis (program analysis) which does not seem to be what was desired. I'm not familiar with any branch of mathematics called shape analysis, but if someone knows what it is and can create a stub I'd like to redirect. Otherwise, I would try to reword the lead of Topological Skeleton a bit. Rschwieb ( talk) 15:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello mathematicians! Here's one more submission at AfC that may be of interest. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Those with an interest in groups, Lorentz transforms and mathematical generalizations might like to add a comment at Talk:Gyrovector space#Proposed deletion. I'm mentioning here because this is unlikely to be watchlisted by many. — Quondum 07:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
For the past few weeks, I've been working to bring the article AdS/CFT correspondence to FA status. It's obviously not a math article, but I have a feeling that there may be editors here who could help me out. If you're interested, please take a look at the article, and let me know what you think. You may support, oppose, or leave a comment at this page. Thanks. Polytope24 ( talk) 19:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I have found these articles from "See also" section of Irreducible fraction. A superpartient number is simply an irreducible fraction greater than one. A superparticular number is a fraction of the form I do not know if this pedantic terminology is notable. Superpartient number is poorly sourced and almost an orphan (linked only from "See also" sections and user pages). The other article is better sourced and is linked (ouside of "See also" sections) from several articles about music theory, but it is not clear from these articles if the terminology is notable. Should they be prodded or proposed for AfD? D.Lazard ( talk) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't yet shown up on our current activity page, but Sbornik: Mathematics has been proposed for deletion. I suspect "the oldest mathematical journal in Russia" should be enough to meet the WP:NJournals criterion "The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history" but our article needs some help. For one thing, it is written in a way that makes it appear to be about the translation into English, rather than the original Russian journal itself. And for another it has no reliable sources. If someone here is interested in and/or knowledgeable of Russian mathematical literature, this might be a good one to work on. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Liz is promoting vast numbers of mathematicians and historians to the "philosopher" list. Is this activity beneficial? Tkuvho ( talk) 17:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
So, should Alexander S. Kechris be excluded from Category:Greek philosophers? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 07:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have had to revert a few of Liz's recent edits, but on the whole, the overwhelming majority are just fine. What I think Liz doesn't realize is that being called a "philosopher" is apparently a huge insult to mathematicians, which is to completely misunderstand what a philosopher is. I have tried very hard to remove all the pseudophilosophy from the philosophy category tree and project (religion, esotericism, mysticism, and people handing out photocopied pages with no margins and tiny fonts on street corners, etcetera) and I have tried very hard to limit the category and project to scholarly and academic subject matter. However, even this is not good enough for some because there is deeply felt disrespect for even scholarly and rigorous philosophy as an academic field.
As far as categories are concerned, I believe we are at a fairly developed point to where we can categorize articles specifically without offending anyone. If a person is a set theorist, go ahead and put them in the set theorist category, and don't cry too much about the supracategory two levels up that puts logicians under philosophers. If we have specific catgeories, the problem solves itself. With that said, I am wondering what this group would prefer: Categegory:Recursion theorists or Category:Computability theorists? Greg Bard ( talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Just returning to this discussion to see whether I needed to revert my categorization and am surprised to see it already archived. This is one of the more lively WikiProjects I've come across. I intended to do all of the reverts necessary but it sounds like the consensus was that each person needed to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and Greg Bard has already done this. Thank you, I didn't mean to create any extra work for anyone.
Needless to say, I will leave Category:Logicians alone from now on, I had no idea that this was a contentious area and I'm kind of shocked that a mathematician would be insulted to be thought of as working in an area of philosophy. Having worked through almost the entire category, I'd say that the mathematician/philosopher split in Logicians category is around 60/40 or 50/50.
To be honest, I think the average person (say, me) will see "logic" and think of the philosophy of logic, not mathematical logic. So, if there is such disdain for philosophy, in the future, categorize mathematicians as Category:Mathematical logicians, not Category:Logicians. Again, thanks for clearing this up! Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians: I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this or if the physics experts should be notified instead. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested we have an article google-translated from the Dutch and German wikipedia articles. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I find it alleged that nearly all of our queueing theory articles begin with "In queueing theory, . . .".
That is bad. It makes no attempt to inform the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about.
The following are appropriate:
The following are NOT appropriate:
The lay reader has not heard of those things. (As an undergraduate, I was surprised to find that some literate people hadn't heard of topology. But it's true.)
If an article is titled "Mathematical induction" or "Fundamental theorem of algebra" or the like, then the title alone obviates the need for such an initial context-setting phrase.
So, shall we fix all our queueing theory articles? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the emphasis on boilerplate in place of creative solutions for context-setting (as promoted by e.g. Hardy) has been extremely harmful to the quality of our prose. It leads to atrocities like "In mathematics, in the field of additive combinatorics, Kneser's theorem, named after Martin Kneser, is a statement about set addition in finite groups." In this encyclopedia, we are in the English language, not German, with its tendency to many clauses at the start place and to the verbs to the end hold back, writing. Stilted prose makes for a difficult reading experience. Context is necessary but not at the expense of readability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd say eponyms should usually be identified in the first paragraph, and often, but not always, in the first sentence. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
This article recently got accepted by WP:WikiProject Articles for creation
It looks more than a bit dodgy to me. The four refs that discuss the concept all share a common author; what's presented seems very vague; and I do find this non-Shannon entropy pretty dubious and of questionable notability, unless some pretty strong evidence is forthcoming for its significance (which, at least in the article, it seems to me so far hasn't been).
Am I being over-sensitive and over-suspicious here, or do others agree? Second opinions would be appreciated. Jheald ( talk) 23:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I created Lists of unsolved problems in mathematics a while ago. Now I am no longer sure whether a particular one of the entries should be kept in the list or not. Do you think Unsolved Problems on Mathematics for the 21st Century fits into the scope of the list, or should it be removed? Thanks for any feedback. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hoax? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 13:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Could any of you have a look at this? Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if people involved in that WikiProject _ever_ exercise any judgment about editing the title of the article rather than just going with whatever the draft has. If I write such a draft and call it "GirafFe", about animals with long necks living in African plains, will they approve it and move it to the article space with the title "GirafFe"? Someone moved the draft to Aggregative games. So I moved it from there to Aggregative game and fixed the link. I've seen lots of previous instances just as glaring. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I think there may be a structural issue in that AfC submissions are in talk name space and there is no obvious place to leave comments on them. So when these submissions are brought to the attention of this project, the discussion happens here, but then subsequent AfC reviewers may well not find it here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to {{ Afc comment}} — I didn't know about that one before and have just used it on the Brauner space submission, I hope correctly. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The triannual discussion of tau is in full blast here: Talk:Tau_(2π)#Tau_deserves_its_own_article. Tkuvho ( talk) 08:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
What should be the fate of the new article titled Frame graph? Are there any results of interest that should be included in the article, rather than a mere definition? Is the topic worthy of an article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
People often complain that mathematics articles are particularly difficult to understand because the experts writing the articles have a completely different level of understanding of the topic than the typical reader, who might be for example a high school student. Has the community considered including the level of the article in the mathematics assessment, i.e. whether an article is intended to be at for example high school, undergraduate, or graduate level? Isheden ( talk) 06:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
For anyone who hasn't seen the discussion and is interested, recent edits to the Polynomial article are beiong discussed at Talk:Polynomial#Recent edits. Gandalf61 ( talk) 12:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
An anonymous editor at Chain rule is claiming that "there are massive inconsistencies (and outright errors) in notation" in the article. He seems to be proposing wide changes; we have already reverted each other over the statement of the chain rule in the lede several times (though I think it might be best at this point to simply change the statement). See Talk:Chain rule#Notational consistency/rigor. Ozob ( talk) 14:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
So the Topological_skeleton begins with a link to shape analysis, which sounds like it would be connected with a geometric-topological study of shapes, but rather the link is a redirect to Shape analysis (program analysis) which does not seem to be what was desired. I'm not familiar with any branch of mathematics called shape analysis, but if someone knows what it is and can create a stub I'd like to redirect. Otherwise, I would try to reword the lead of Topological Skeleton a bit. Rschwieb ( talk) 15:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello mathematicians! Here's one more submission at AfC that may be of interest. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Those with an interest in groups, Lorentz transforms and mathematical generalizations might like to add a comment at Talk:Gyrovector space#Proposed deletion. I'm mentioning here because this is unlikely to be watchlisted by many. — Quondum 07:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
For the past few weeks, I've been working to bring the article AdS/CFT correspondence to FA status. It's obviously not a math article, but I have a feeling that there may be editors here who could help me out. If you're interested, please take a look at the article, and let me know what you think. You may support, oppose, or leave a comment at this page. Thanks. Polytope24 ( talk) 19:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I have found these articles from "See also" section of Irreducible fraction. A superpartient number is simply an irreducible fraction greater than one. A superparticular number is a fraction of the form I do not know if this pedantic terminology is notable. Superpartient number is poorly sourced and almost an orphan (linked only from "See also" sections and user pages). The other article is better sourced and is linked (ouside of "See also" sections) from several articles about music theory, but it is not clear from these articles if the terminology is notable. Should they be prodded or proposed for AfD? D.Lazard ( talk) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't yet shown up on our current activity page, but Sbornik: Mathematics has been proposed for deletion. I suspect "the oldest mathematical journal in Russia" should be enough to meet the WP:NJournals criterion "The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history" but our article needs some help. For one thing, it is written in a way that makes it appear to be about the translation into English, rather than the original Russian journal itself. And for another it has no reliable sources. If someone here is interested in and/or knowledgeable of Russian mathematical literature, this might be a good one to work on. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Liz is promoting vast numbers of mathematicians and historians to the "philosopher" list. Is this activity beneficial? Tkuvho ( talk) 17:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
So, should Alexander S. Kechris be excluded from Category:Greek philosophers? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 07:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have had to revert a few of Liz's recent edits, but on the whole, the overwhelming majority are just fine. What I think Liz doesn't realize is that being called a "philosopher" is apparently a huge insult to mathematicians, which is to completely misunderstand what a philosopher is. I have tried very hard to remove all the pseudophilosophy from the philosophy category tree and project (religion, esotericism, mysticism, and people handing out photocopied pages with no margins and tiny fonts on street corners, etcetera) and I have tried very hard to limit the category and project to scholarly and academic subject matter. However, even this is not good enough for some because there is deeply felt disrespect for even scholarly and rigorous philosophy as an academic field.
As far as categories are concerned, I believe we are at a fairly developed point to where we can categorize articles specifically without offending anyone. If a person is a set theorist, go ahead and put them in the set theorist category, and don't cry too much about the supracategory two levels up that puts logicians under philosophers. If we have specific catgeories, the problem solves itself. With that said, I am wondering what this group would prefer: Categegory:Recursion theorists or Category:Computability theorists? Greg Bard ( talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Just returning to this discussion to see whether I needed to revert my categorization and am surprised to see it already archived. This is one of the more lively WikiProjects I've come across. I intended to do all of the reverts necessary but it sounds like the consensus was that each person needed to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and Greg Bard has already done this. Thank you, I didn't mean to create any extra work for anyone.
Needless to say, I will leave Category:Logicians alone from now on, I had no idea that this was a contentious area and I'm kind of shocked that a mathematician would be insulted to be thought of as working in an area of philosophy. Having worked through almost the entire category, I'd say that the mathematician/philosopher split in Logicians category is around 60/40 or 50/50.
To be honest, I think the average person (say, me) will see "logic" and think of the philosophy of logic, not mathematical logic. So, if there is such disdain for philosophy, in the future, categorize mathematicians as Category:Mathematical logicians, not Category:Logicians. Again, thanks for clearing this up! Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians: I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this or if the physics experts should be notified instead. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested we have an article google-translated from the Dutch and German wikipedia articles. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)