Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 2#Category:ICM Plenary and Invited Speakers by year and contribute to the discussion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Since Jitse's bot stopped updating the new articles list on the current activities page I've participated a lot less in Wikipedia. He said in an email to me not long after the situation arose that he'd look into it. The last new-articles update was on the 15th of June. Is it possible for others to take over the bot --- perhaps for everyone who knows how to run it to be permitted to contribute to running it? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This AfD has been relisted for the second time. Please, comment there in order to reach a sufficient consensus. D.Lazard ( talk) 08:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I've suggested at Template talk:Convert that {{ convert}} support conversion between units of angle (ie. degrees of arc, arcminutes, radians, gradians, etc) ; what do you guys think? -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
expr|value/pi}}
and then formatting with the appropriate markup; the fraction would still be decimalized --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 05:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)The latest version of the <math> extension now supports a <math display="block">...</math>
mode to display equation in a display rather than inline style. Visual Editor is offering this mode and does not seem to allow the :<math>...</math> formatting which is the standard here.
Currently this mode centres the equations and hence clashes with the standard single indent style used in this wiki and most of the other wikis I've checked.
I've a bit of CSS
.mwe-math-fallback-image-display,
.mwe-math-mathml-display {
margin-left: 1.6em !important;
margin-top: 0.6em;
margin-bottom: 0.6em;
}
.mwe-math-mathml-display math {
display: inline;
}
which seems to make these equations display left aligned indented one space so it matches the other equations. I've checked this in PNG/SVG and MathML modes on a mac but not on mobile. We could potentially add this to MediaWiki:Common.css or possibly make it the global default in ext.math.css.
I've raised this at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Indentation for mathematical equations and created a task T111712 (which someone has helpfully closed).-- Salix alba ( talk): 17:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Template:Cite doi allows editors to generate a citation from a digital object identifier. There is a discussion about whether to deprecate this template. Since doi's are used the sciences and this is a science WikiProject, I am inviting anyone here to comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a group of related concepts involving fast-growing arithmetic functions, for which our article seems to be at hyperoperation (I am not sure how standard this name really is, but that's not my immediate concern). There are lots of different notations detailed there.
Anyway, there's an IP editor, editing as User:101.14.227.116 and User:101.14.37.226 (and perhaps other addresses but I haven't seen them), who seems to have decided that one particular notation, the ASCII version of the "box notation", is the one that should be used. That notation appears in the references of the hyperoperation article with references no earlier than 2005, whereas other notations are dated much earlier. I see no evidence that the box notation has become standard (particularly in its ASCII variant).
I want to emphasize that I have nothing particularly against the box notation. It does seem a bit "neater" visually than the Knuth up-arrow notation that Wikipedia seems to have favored up to now. But I doubt that it is very much used in the wild (I would be interested to hear evidence either for or against this proposition), particularly in its ASCII variant. And procedurally, I don't think we can allow an editor to come in and make a broad change of notation without discussion. -- Trovatore ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
As a follow up to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2011/Jul#WP:JCW_and_mathematics, and the recent update to WP:JCW, here are the top-cited missing journals of mathematics.
Main page | Discussion | Content | Assessment | Participants | Resources |
Top-cited missing journals:
Like previously mentioned in the old thread, there's also Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society which currently redirects to London Mathematical Society, but should really get it's own article. Same for the Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society and the Journal of the London Mathematical Society, which also redirect there. Journal of Algorithms seems to have a less-than-boring history, considering the board resigned en-masse at the behest of Donald Knuth as a way to protest the Elsevier prices. They went on to establish the ACM Transactions on Algorithms. See [1] [2] for some sources on this, as well as the current content in the Elsevier article.
See WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide for guidance, and don't forget to add them to List of mathematics journals once they are created. Many thanks for all the help you can give us. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The list of WiMAX networks included Spectral Networks, which offers services near the Iowa–Missouri border in both states. Clicking on that, one found the article titled Spectral Networks, on a topic in Riemannian geometry. I moved that to Spectral network with a lower-case initial "n" and no final "s" (and did some obvious copy-editing), and then changed Spectral Networks with a capital "N" and a final "s" into a very very stubby article about the company, with a disambiguating hatnote linking to the geometry article. Hence the geometry article is now an "orphan" with no other articles linking to it. So one problem is: which other articles should link to it?
But more generally: what should we do about the fact that lots of new math articles are orphans? Mathematicians doing the one and only Wikipedia edit of their lives create a new article and almost always [no pun intended] it does not occur to them that other articles should link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
template:PlanetMath has been proposed fro deletion -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 06:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Both of these article are short, similar, have clear overlap, and the references are even similar. Any good reasons not to merge?
Another triplet to consider is row space, column space, and row and column spaces. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 19:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Please help review Draft:Kinds of abundant numbers. If you don't wish to, or don't know how to, do a formal AFC review please post your comments on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Is the new (and currently orphaned) article titled Integer complexity worth having? (It has a page in OEIS, but I think that alone is not enough evidence of notability.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Is the new "popular culture" section of Platonic solid justified to include, and does it actually report neutrally and accurately on the popular-culture aspects of platonic solids? Another editor and I have a disagreement. — David Eppstein ( talk) 14:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
In its current form, it's not good enough to include, but I suspect with some library research one could write a reasonable "popular culture" section in that article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The article on Cohen the mathematician was moved in 2006, unilaterally/inappropriately. I have started a requested move, see Talk:Paul Cohen (mathematician)#Requested move 21 September 2015. Solomon 7968 18:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The article
Jacob Barnett is back. This time, an IP is arguing there that sources like the BBC breakfast, which place a Nobel Prize in the young Barnett's future, are reliable sources for theoretical physics. Please comment at
Talk:Jacob Barnett.
Sławomir
Biały 19:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
>eat lamp
You forcefully shove a lamp down your throat, and start choking.
You are dead.
You have scored 0 out of a possible 90 points.
See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_September_27#Sucharit_Sarkar. Solomon 7968 20:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Our article on mathematician Andy Liu recently survived a deletion discussion, but now there's a discussion on what content to include in the article that could use additional participation. See Talk:Andy Liu for details. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The Euclidean space article is popular, ( [4]) important and is fairly long. However, it is still not verified at least since 2013. Perhaps we should start working on it and add the inline citations for verification. I had the idea to come here to warn you guys about that issue after reading the edit summaries.
I would add the citations myself but I'm definitely going to need some help... Huritisho ( talk) 22:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of Sucharit Sarkar is proposed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 2#Category:ICM Plenary and Invited Speakers by year and contribute to the discussion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Since Jitse's bot stopped updating the new articles list on the current activities page I've participated a lot less in Wikipedia. He said in an email to me not long after the situation arose that he'd look into it. The last new-articles update was on the 15th of June. Is it possible for others to take over the bot --- perhaps for everyone who knows how to run it to be permitted to contribute to running it? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This AfD has been relisted for the second time. Please, comment there in order to reach a sufficient consensus. D.Lazard ( talk) 08:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I've suggested at Template talk:Convert that {{ convert}} support conversion between units of angle (ie. degrees of arc, arcminutes, radians, gradians, etc) ; what do you guys think? -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
expr|value/pi}}
and then formatting with the appropriate markup; the fraction would still be decimalized --
70.51.202.113 (
talk) 05:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)The latest version of the <math> extension now supports a <math display="block">...</math>
mode to display equation in a display rather than inline style. Visual Editor is offering this mode and does not seem to allow the :<math>...</math> formatting which is the standard here.
Currently this mode centres the equations and hence clashes with the standard single indent style used in this wiki and most of the other wikis I've checked.
I've a bit of CSS
.mwe-math-fallback-image-display,
.mwe-math-mathml-display {
margin-left: 1.6em !important;
margin-top: 0.6em;
margin-bottom: 0.6em;
}
.mwe-math-mathml-display math {
display: inline;
}
which seems to make these equations display left aligned indented one space so it matches the other equations. I've checked this in PNG/SVG and MathML modes on a mac but not on mobile. We could potentially add this to MediaWiki:Common.css or possibly make it the global default in ext.math.css.
I've raised this at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Indentation for mathematical equations and created a task T111712 (which someone has helpfully closed).-- Salix alba ( talk): 17:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Template:Cite doi allows editors to generate a citation from a digital object identifier. There is a discussion about whether to deprecate this template. Since doi's are used the sciences and this is a science WikiProject, I am inviting anyone here to comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a group of related concepts involving fast-growing arithmetic functions, for which our article seems to be at hyperoperation (I am not sure how standard this name really is, but that's not my immediate concern). There are lots of different notations detailed there.
Anyway, there's an IP editor, editing as User:101.14.227.116 and User:101.14.37.226 (and perhaps other addresses but I haven't seen them), who seems to have decided that one particular notation, the ASCII version of the "box notation", is the one that should be used. That notation appears in the references of the hyperoperation article with references no earlier than 2005, whereas other notations are dated much earlier. I see no evidence that the box notation has become standard (particularly in its ASCII variant).
I want to emphasize that I have nothing particularly against the box notation. It does seem a bit "neater" visually than the Knuth up-arrow notation that Wikipedia seems to have favored up to now. But I doubt that it is very much used in the wild (I would be interested to hear evidence either for or against this proposition), particularly in its ASCII variant. And procedurally, I don't think we can allow an editor to come in and make a broad change of notation without discussion. -- Trovatore ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
As a follow up to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2011/Jul#WP:JCW_and_mathematics, and the recent update to WP:JCW, here are the top-cited missing journals of mathematics.
Main page | Discussion | Content | Assessment | Participants | Resources |
Top-cited missing journals:
Like previously mentioned in the old thread, there's also Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society which currently redirects to London Mathematical Society, but should really get it's own article. Same for the Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society and the Journal of the London Mathematical Society, which also redirect there. Journal of Algorithms seems to have a less-than-boring history, considering the board resigned en-masse at the behest of Donald Knuth as a way to protest the Elsevier prices. They went on to establish the ACM Transactions on Algorithms. See [1] [2] for some sources on this, as well as the current content in the Elsevier article.
See WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide for guidance, and don't forget to add them to List of mathematics journals once they are created. Many thanks for all the help you can give us. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The list of WiMAX networks included Spectral Networks, which offers services near the Iowa–Missouri border in both states. Clicking on that, one found the article titled Spectral Networks, on a topic in Riemannian geometry. I moved that to Spectral network with a lower-case initial "n" and no final "s" (and did some obvious copy-editing), and then changed Spectral Networks with a capital "N" and a final "s" into a very very stubby article about the company, with a disambiguating hatnote linking to the geometry article. Hence the geometry article is now an "orphan" with no other articles linking to it. So one problem is: which other articles should link to it?
But more generally: what should we do about the fact that lots of new math articles are orphans? Mathematicians doing the one and only Wikipedia edit of their lives create a new article and almost always [no pun intended] it does not occur to them that other articles should link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
template:PlanetMath has been proposed fro deletion -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 06:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Both of these article are short, similar, have clear overlap, and the references are even similar. Any good reasons not to merge?
Another triplet to consider is row space, column space, and row and column spaces. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 19:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Please help review Draft:Kinds of abundant numbers. If you don't wish to, or don't know how to, do a formal AFC review please post your comments on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Is the new (and currently orphaned) article titled Integer complexity worth having? (It has a page in OEIS, but I think that alone is not enough evidence of notability.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Is the new "popular culture" section of Platonic solid justified to include, and does it actually report neutrally and accurately on the popular-culture aspects of platonic solids? Another editor and I have a disagreement. — David Eppstein ( talk) 14:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
In its current form, it's not good enough to include, but I suspect with some library research one could write a reasonable "popular culture" section in that article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The article on Cohen the mathematician was moved in 2006, unilaterally/inappropriately. I have started a requested move, see Talk:Paul Cohen (mathematician)#Requested move 21 September 2015. Solomon 7968 18:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The article
Jacob Barnett is back. This time, an IP is arguing there that sources like the BBC breakfast, which place a Nobel Prize in the young Barnett's future, are reliable sources for theoretical physics. Please comment at
Talk:Jacob Barnett.
Sławomir
Biały 19:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
>eat lamp
You forcefully shove a lamp down your throat, and start choking.
You are dead.
You have scored 0 out of a possible 90 points.
See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_September_27#Sucharit_Sarkar. Solomon 7968 20:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Our article on mathematician Andy Liu recently survived a deletion discussion, but now there's a discussion on what content to include in the article that could use additional participation. See Talk:Andy Liu for details. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The Euclidean space article is popular, ( [4]) important and is fairly long. However, it is still not verified at least since 2013. Perhaps we should start working on it and add the inline citations for verification. I had the idea to come here to warn you guys about that issue after reading the edit summaries.
I would add the citations myself but I'm definitely going to need some help... Huritisho ( talk) 22:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of Sucharit Sarkar is proposed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)