The article Beal's conjecture has been the recent target of a crank who refuses to get the point. It probably needs to be watched by more people and/or temporarily semi-protected. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Bayesian hierarchical modeling. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Some time ago I created Template:Hardy and Wright to save myself and others time. It would be nice to be able to add the edition as a parameter, and select the appropriate bibliodata, but unfortunately I'm not fluent in template-speak. Is anyone willing to expand it? The data I have for other editions is
Deltahedron ( talk) 11:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
OK I've added an edition parameter so
{{
Hardy and Wright}}
gives
{{
Hardy and Wright|edition=5th}}
gives
{{
Hardy and Wright|edition=4th}}
gives
Hope that OK.-- Salix alba ( talk): 18:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Multiple factor analysis. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 22:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Polynomial transformations is being discussed for possible deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polynomial transformations. -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I posted a suggestion at Talk:Glossary of category theory but realised that it would apply more generally. Many but by no means all of the glossary articles in Category:Glossaries of mathematics list entries in alphabetical order. It seems to me that for those ordered by subtopic, the reader who doesn't know exactly what a concept is has to scan the article: the editor who can't fit an entry into an existing subtopic has difficulty placing it. Would uniformly alphabetical order be preferable? Deltahedron ( talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Any salvageable content? Draft:Coins in a fountain. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this concept notable? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 05:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this arithmetic Algebraic Geometry researcher notable? Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 19:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Input from mathematics editors may be helpful. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 29#Quotient Space. This is a deletion debate for the redirect, but it might also be kept as a redirect to Equivalence class, Quotient space (topology) or something else. The term Quotient space gets more than 100 incoming links from math articles, so it may be important to handle it correctly. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Is anyone getting odd LaTeX error messages of the form Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert))? I'm seeing them on Bott–Samelson resolution, for example, where X_{\overline{w}} seems to work but
does not
Deltahedron ( talk) 08:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Mathematics is now a wiki supported by Springer-Verlag. The text from Springer remains copyrighted to Springer but any new articles added and any changes made to existing articles will come under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike Licence. The articles need work because the formulae in the Springer version now exist only as PNG and the TeX source needs to be recreated. However, every article renewed in this way comes under the new licence, and so is presumably compatible with Wikipedia.
Is there any appetite for an effort to recreate these articles and bring them into Wikipedia? Deltahedron ( talk) 20:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, any change to an existing article renders the article to be under cc-by-sa. The logic is like this: licensing doesn't work word-by-word. Say, you added a single word to the original eom article; it's not like that that single word is licensed under cc-by-sa and the rest is not under cc-by-sa. In a case of math, sometimes, contributing a single word can be a substantial contribution (e.g., you added "complete" to metric space.) In other words, by editing an article, you created a "new" article and any new article will come under cc-by-sa. If you like an analogy, it's like editing a picture. You don't license the picture by pixel-by-pixel; that's just absurd. -- Taku ( talk) 23:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at List of Italian mathematicians to see which ones were red linked and needed articles. I tried Ugo Barbuti by chance, and noticed that, even though he is red in English, he is already listed in the Italian Wikipedia. I decided to check the list to see which ones were available in English and which in Italian. I did the list in two parts, one for the red links and one for the blue, just in case. All of the red links seem to be available in the Italian Wikipedia. Could these all be automatically redirected?
I don't know about other people, but even though my parent language is English, I use Chrome for my browser and right click to translate when I run into any other language. It gives OK English, mostly readable. As a service to visitor could we give them the Italian link for now?
Is there a translation project for these pages? Could a simple page be created for each in English that points to the Italian page and mark it as a stub? What about automatic translation, as poor as it might be, and put a banner at the top to say it was auto translated and needs a human editor? That way if someone finds it through Google or other search, they might be prompted to edit someone they know, or were looking for.
RC711 ( talk) 05:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Those Linked Red
Those Linked Blue
I found that Fibonacci was not on this list! I added him. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As you know, Wikipedia is notorious for long lists of little importance. My problem is just the opposite. This excellent (and mercifully short) list,
is buried on a not-so relevant page. I think it belongs on Algebraic equation or perhaps Algebraic expression. Perhaps someone should write a template or something?-- guyvan52 ( talk) 14:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
In this article there is a link for a random math article. It points to http://tools.wmflabs.org/jitse-bot/rpim but seems to be broken. I would like to look at random articles in a general category like mathematics. I presume it is looking at the list of articles and selecting from that. Can that be done for any subject?
RC711 ( talk) 03:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Jimbo Wales posted the following in response to a question about WMF plans for mathematics software development:
Perhaps participants here may care to work on a response. Deltahedron ( talk) 20:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't rule out WYSIWYG editors. There's one I have that works pretty well for simple equations, the one built into Apple's Grapher (in the Utilities folder on any modern Mac). You can do a suprising amount with it. It's keyboard driven rather than mouse, so you're typing and using shortcuts to place things rather than manually placing them but that works well as it means the app does all the layout, LaTeX like. There's also a toolbar for inserting things you don't know how to type, much like our edittools.
I would question the assertion that most new math editors know LaTeX. I didn't pick it up while doing maths at school or as an undergraduate, only later, and I imagine this is fairly common at undergraduate level, where at least in maths your main tasks are to learn things to pass exams. An equation editor though would help non-mathematicans more; right now you need LaTeX for things like matrices, all but the simplest of formulae, even when they appear in non-maths articles.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Besides obvious bug fixes and performance improvement, what I want are (1) the support for commutative diagrams (I've heard the topology coverage here is less satisfactory than, say, algebra one and this might explain this.) (2) the support for simple figure drawing like circles and triangles. In terms of latex, both can be achieved by installing appropriate packages and thus there shouldn't be a technological hurdle. One more thing: the ability to use mathcal fonts that became standard among topologists such as J. Lurie. (I'm thinking of mathcal O or L that are not default ones; I can elaborate if I'm not making sense.) -- Taku ( talk) 00:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Since the discussion that started this has been removed from User talk:Jimbo Wales, I thought it worth making a copy for reference for editors who came here from another direction. Deltahedron ( talk) 21:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The notice below saying "This discussion has been closed" refer to the discussion below, seen when you click on "show", not to the discussion above. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||
A couple of weeks ago some comment were made here by editors concerned about the development of mathematics rendering and editing. The point was made that currently WMF allocates essentially no resources to this and it continues entirely on volunteer effort, which is made less effective by the way it is not integrated into WMF development. At that time I asked [1] what plans WMF had for developing mathematics-based text. Unfortunately neither you nor anyone else was able to answer before the question was aged off [2]. However, just recently I received an answer to my question from User:Jdforrester (WMF) who confirmed [3] in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#VisualEditor_math_formulae that the assessment of another editor [4] that WMF has 0 and no plans on Math was entirely correct. This is very disturbing. Mathematics support is a key component of writing a serious encyclopaedia and it is quite unacceptable that WMF should devote no resources to its effective development and have no plans to do so. Please would you ask the WMF to reconsider its policy on this matter, and allocate a suitable proportion of its resources to the maintenance, sustainability and development of mathematics rendering and editing? Deltahedron ( talk) 08:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Many of the math articles we have are very useful to people who actually need to know something about the topic. Some years ago Sean Carroll wrote on his blog that he was doing a computation away from his usual workplace and he needed to know the explicit form of some spherical harmonics, and he found them on Wikipedia. The problem with math really is that the general audience is math illiterate and generally not really interested to learn about the topic. It's therefore pointless to aim too much at the general audience, as we cannot make up for a deficient educational system here. What we can do is present the material in such a way to make it as useful as possible. This means that we relax the Not Textbook rule a bit and write up articles such as Methods of contour integration or Rational reconstruction (mathematics) that are very useful to people who are already into these topics who need to learn more. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Would anyone like to summarise? I will if no-one else does, but I have definite opinions. Deltahedron ( talk) 06:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
About 1% of Wikipedia's 4.5 million articles are assessed as being in "Mathematics and Logic". Probably a similar number are in theoretical physics and in computer science. So in about a hundred thousand articles, the ability to render mathematics is indispensible to the reader: the ability to write and edit mathematics is indispensible to the author and editor.
Currently the predominant mathematics markup system in all forms of document preparation is some flavour of LaTeX. It may be presumed that any serious mathematics content contributor will be thoroughly familiar with LaTeX. LaTeX is rendered on web pages in a variety of ways: currently Wikipedia uses two of the more popular methods, rendering formulae as PNG images and rendering dynamically using MathJax. There are deficiencies in the current implementation of each of these methods.
The stability and usefulness of current mathematics rendering is reduced by the following
We are reliably informed that WMF has no plans for development of mathematics rendering and editing. That is, there is no plan to coordinate volunteer effort; no plan to integrate volunteer effort into existing products; no plan to ensure the sustainability of mathematics rendering and editing through major changes to the software and user interface.
As a consequence of the lack of plans, there is no allocation of WMF developer effort to the maintenance, sustainability or enhancement of mathematics rendering and editing. It is assumed that volunteer developers will undertake any tasks that are necessary, even though there is no plan to coordinate those efforts.
It is reasonable to say that there is considerable expertise and experience in mathematics rendering and editing in the existing editor communities. There is no explicit mechanism to capture that experience and make use of it in planning, development or review. Such efforts as have been made to do so are limited in extent and driven by the user community rather than WMF. The role of Community Advocates in linking the editor community and WMF planning and developers in this context has not been effective.
Please comment here. Deltahedron ( talk) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this topic notable? If so, it could use an assessment. If not, it could use a trip to WP:AFD. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 05:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
See this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Master_stability_of_the_synchronized_state Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Rainbow coloring. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just done some work on Constructibility, a disambiguation page. Perhaps others can contribute something as well. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of Dao six-point circle is being discussed. Possibly OR? Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as notability is concerned, the German Wikipedia for instance considers any (math) subject notable, that has been published in established journal or a properly published textbook. However that approach may not quite comprise the nuance Quondum is asking for above. Nevertheless i think it is good rule of thumb, which seems to be implicitly followed in en.wp as well anyhow.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Please help me restore Dao six point circle again, because the circle will appear in a journal in next month (October 2014)-- Eightcirclestheorem ( talk) 08:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RFC:_Naming_of_one_and_two_digit_numbers_and_years Pam D 14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Which articles ought to link to the now orphaned article titled Master stability function? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Notability of Dao–Moses circle might bear some discussion. The concepts is mentioned in a reliable but quite inclusive source. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the new article titled Markushevich basis would benefit from having one or more additional contributors. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Please will someone who can speak mathematics review this article? Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Beal's conjecture has been the recent target of a crank who refuses to get the point. It probably needs to be watched by more people and/or temporarily semi-protected. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 18:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Bayesian hierarchical modeling. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Some time ago I created Template:Hardy and Wright to save myself and others time. It would be nice to be able to add the edition as a parameter, and select the appropriate bibliodata, but unfortunately I'm not fluent in template-speak. Is anyone willing to expand it? The data I have for other editions is
Deltahedron ( talk) 11:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
OK I've added an edition parameter so
{{
Hardy and Wright}}
gives
{{
Hardy and Wright|edition=5th}}
gives
{{
Hardy and Wright|edition=4th}}
gives
Hope that OK.-- Salix alba ( talk): 18:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Multiple factor analysis. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 22:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Polynomial transformations is being discussed for possible deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polynomial transformations. -- Bejnar ( talk) 00:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I posted a suggestion at Talk:Glossary of category theory but realised that it would apply more generally. Many but by no means all of the glossary articles in Category:Glossaries of mathematics list entries in alphabetical order. It seems to me that for those ordered by subtopic, the reader who doesn't know exactly what a concept is has to scan the article: the editor who can't fit an entry into an existing subtopic has difficulty placing it. Would uniformly alphabetical order be preferable? Deltahedron ( talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Any salvageable content? Draft:Coins in a fountain. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this concept notable? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 05:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this arithmetic Algebraic Geometry researcher notable? Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 19:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Input from mathematics editors may be helpful. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 29#Quotient Space. This is a deletion debate for the redirect, but it might also be kept as a redirect to Equivalence class, Quotient space (topology) or something else. The term Quotient space gets more than 100 incoming links from math articles, so it may be important to handle it correctly. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Is anyone getting odd LaTeX error messages of the form Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert))? I'm seeing them on Bott–Samelson resolution, for example, where X_{\overline{w}} seems to work but
does not
Deltahedron ( talk) 08:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Mathematics is now a wiki supported by Springer-Verlag. The text from Springer remains copyrighted to Springer but any new articles added and any changes made to existing articles will come under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike Licence. The articles need work because the formulae in the Springer version now exist only as PNG and the TeX source needs to be recreated. However, every article renewed in this way comes under the new licence, and so is presumably compatible with Wikipedia.
Is there any appetite for an effort to recreate these articles and bring them into Wikipedia? Deltahedron ( talk) 20:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, any change to an existing article renders the article to be under cc-by-sa. The logic is like this: licensing doesn't work word-by-word. Say, you added a single word to the original eom article; it's not like that that single word is licensed under cc-by-sa and the rest is not under cc-by-sa. In a case of math, sometimes, contributing a single word can be a substantial contribution (e.g., you added "complete" to metric space.) In other words, by editing an article, you created a "new" article and any new article will come under cc-by-sa. If you like an analogy, it's like editing a picture. You don't license the picture by pixel-by-pixel; that's just absurd. -- Taku ( talk) 23:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at List of Italian mathematicians to see which ones were red linked and needed articles. I tried Ugo Barbuti by chance, and noticed that, even though he is red in English, he is already listed in the Italian Wikipedia. I decided to check the list to see which ones were available in English and which in Italian. I did the list in two parts, one for the red links and one for the blue, just in case. All of the red links seem to be available in the Italian Wikipedia. Could these all be automatically redirected?
I don't know about other people, but even though my parent language is English, I use Chrome for my browser and right click to translate when I run into any other language. It gives OK English, mostly readable. As a service to visitor could we give them the Italian link for now?
Is there a translation project for these pages? Could a simple page be created for each in English that points to the Italian page and mark it as a stub? What about automatic translation, as poor as it might be, and put a banner at the top to say it was auto translated and needs a human editor? That way if someone finds it through Google or other search, they might be prompted to edit someone they know, or were looking for.
RC711 ( talk) 05:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Those Linked Red
Those Linked Blue
I found that Fibonacci was not on this list! I added him. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As you know, Wikipedia is notorious for long lists of little importance. My problem is just the opposite. This excellent (and mercifully short) list,
is buried on a not-so relevant page. I think it belongs on Algebraic equation or perhaps Algebraic expression. Perhaps someone should write a template or something?-- guyvan52 ( talk) 14:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
In this article there is a link for a random math article. It points to http://tools.wmflabs.org/jitse-bot/rpim but seems to be broken. I would like to look at random articles in a general category like mathematics. I presume it is looking at the list of articles and selecting from that. Can that be done for any subject?
RC711 ( talk) 03:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Jimbo Wales posted the following in response to a question about WMF plans for mathematics software development:
Perhaps participants here may care to work on a response. Deltahedron ( talk) 20:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't rule out WYSIWYG editors. There's one I have that works pretty well for simple equations, the one built into Apple's Grapher (in the Utilities folder on any modern Mac). You can do a suprising amount with it. It's keyboard driven rather than mouse, so you're typing and using shortcuts to place things rather than manually placing them but that works well as it means the app does all the layout, LaTeX like. There's also a toolbar for inserting things you don't know how to type, much like our edittools.
I would question the assertion that most new math editors know LaTeX. I didn't pick it up while doing maths at school or as an undergraduate, only later, and I imagine this is fairly common at undergraduate level, where at least in maths your main tasks are to learn things to pass exams. An equation editor though would help non-mathematicans more; right now you need LaTeX for things like matrices, all but the simplest of formulae, even when they appear in non-maths articles.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Besides obvious bug fixes and performance improvement, what I want are (1) the support for commutative diagrams (I've heard the topology coverage here is less satisfactory than, say, algebra one and this might explain this.) (2) the support for simple figure drawing like circles and triangles. In terms of latex, both can be achieved by installing appropriate packages and thus there shouldn't be a technological hurdle. One more thing: the ability to use mathcal fonts that became standard among topologists such as J. Lurie. (I'm thinking of mathcal O or L that are not default ones; I can elaborate if I'm not making sense.) -- Taku ( talk) 00:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Since the discussion that started this has been removed from User talk:Jimbo Wales, I thought it worth making a copy for reference for editors who came here from another direction. Deltahedron ( talk) 21:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The notice below saying "This discussion has been closed" refer to the discussion below, seen when you click on "show", not to the discussion above. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||
A couple of weeks ago some comment were made here by editors concerned about the development of mathematics rendering and editing. The point was made that currently WMF allocates essentially no resources to this and it continues entirely on volunteer effort, which is made less effective by the way it is not integrated into WMF development. At that time I asked [1] what plans WMF had for developing mathematics-based text. Unfortunately neither you nor anyone else was able to answer before the question was aged off [2]. However, just recently I received an answer to my question from User:Jdforrester (WMF) who confirmed [3] in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#VisualEditor_math_formulae that the assessment of another editor [4] that WMF has 0 and no plans on Math was entirely correct. This is very disturbing. Mathematics support is a key component of writing a serious encyclopaedia and it is quite unacceptable that WMF should devote no resources to its effective development and have no plans to do so. Please would you ask the WMF to reconsider its policy on this matter, and allocate a suitable proportion of its resources to the maintenance, sustainability and development of mathematics rendering and editing? Deltahedron ( talk) 08:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Many of the math articles we have are very useful to people who actually need to know something about the topic. Some years ago Sean Carroll wrote on his blog that he was doing a computation away from his usual workplace and he needed to know the explicit form of some spherical harmonics, and he found them on Wikipedia. The problem with math really is that the general audience is math illiterate and generally not really interested to learn about the topic. It's therefore pointless to aim too much at the general audience, as we cannot make up for a deficient educational system here. What we can do is present the material in such a way to make it as useful as possible. This means that we relax the Not Textbook rule a bit and write up articles such as Methods of contour integration or Rational reconstruction (mathematics) that are very useful to people who are already into these topics who need to learn more. Count Iblis ( talk) 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Would anyone like to summarise? I will if no-one else does, but I have definite opinions. Deltahedron ( talk) 06:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
About 1% of Wikipedia's 4.5 million articles are assessed as being in "Mathematics and Logic". Probably a similar number are in theoretical physics and in computer science. So in about a hundred thousand articles, the ability to render mathematics is indispensible to the reader: the ability to write and edit mathematics is indispensible to the author and editor.
Currently the predominant mathematics markup system in all forms of document preparation is some flavour of LaTeX. It may be presumed that any serious mathematics content contributor will be thoroughly familiar with LaTeX. LaTeX is rendered on web pages in a variety of ways: currently Wikipedia uses two of the more popular methods, rendering formulae as PNG images and rendering dynamically using MathJax. There are deficiencies in the current implementation of each of these methods.
The stability and usefulness of current mathematics rendering is reduced by the following
We are reliably informed that WMF has no plans for development of mathematics rendering and editing. That is, there is no plan to coordinate volunteer effort; no plan to integrate volunteer effort into existing products; no plan to ensure the sustainability of mathematics rendering and editing through major changes to the software and user interface.
As a consequence of the lack of plans, there is no allocation of WMF developer effort to the maintenance, sustainability or enhancement of mathematics rendering and editing. It is assumed that volunteer developers will undertake any tasks that are necessary, even though there is no plan to coordinate those efforts.
It is reasonable to say that there is considerable expertise and experience in mathematics rendering and editing in the existing editor communities. There is no explicit mechanism to capture that experience and make use of it in planning, development or review. Such efforts as have been made to do so are limited in extent and driven by the user community rather than WMF. The role of Community Advocates in linking the editor community and WMF planning and developers in this context has not been effective.
Please comment here. Deltahedron ( talk) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this topic notable? If so, it could use an assessment. If not, it could use a trip to WP:AFD. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 05:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
See this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Master_stability_of_the_synchronized_state Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Rainbow coloring. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just done some work on Constructibility, a disambiguation page. Perhaps others can contribute something as well. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of Dao six-point circle is being discussed. Possibly OR? Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as notability is concerned, the German Wikipedia for instance considers any (math) subject notable, that has been published in established journal or a properly published textbook. However that approach may not quite comprise the nuance Quondum is asking for above. Nevertheless i think it is good rule of thumb, which seems to be implicitly followed in en.wp as well anyhow.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Please help me restore Dao six point circle again, because the circle will appear in a journal in next month (October 2014)-- Eightcirclestheorem ( talk) 08:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RFC:_Naming_of_one_and_two_digit_numbers_and_years Pam D 14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Which articles ought to link to the now orphaned article titled Master stability function? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Notability of Dao–Moses circle might bear some discussion. The concepts is mentioned in a reliable but quite inclusive source. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the new article titled Markushevich basis would benefit from having one or more additional contributors. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Please will someone who can speak mathematics review this article? Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)