There is an RfC at
Talk:Area of a disk#RfC article title: "Area of a circle" or "Area of a disk" that would benefit from the insight of members of WPM. Please direct your comments there.
Sławomir
Biały
17:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The article titled Selection principle could probably use some work in the intro section. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been looking at the "area of a disk"/"area of a circle" article...noticed it's rated "low importance"...was wondering why...it would seem it should be the exact opposite (that is, important for Wikipedia to have a good article on such a fundamental/elementary/and widely taught topic)...it seems the articles rated highly important are often of a very advanced nature (which may be fine, but less advanced though very important articles like this are also highly important)..I went to the pages on the ranking but it appears there has been no activity over there for many years...so posted here...are these ratings irrelevant at this point and of no consequence to anything? or should they be changed/done away with because they interfere with editorial activity? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for a "free" version of the image on the last page of this PDF:
[1]. I would like to use it in the new section at
pi, with a caption about Queen Dido and the isoperimetric problem. Does anyone know how we might find such a thing? (I was going to add: short of flying to Rome, but the irony is I actually will be in Rome. Still, let's not...)
Sławomir
Biały
22:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see: [ [2]]
73.4.14.51 ( talk) 14:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, so I don't know where the best place to post this is. I have this RFC that is highly applicable to this WikiProject that should be advertised here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryce ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Could I get some more eyes on our WP:BLP article on Japanese graph theorist Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi, please? Takahiro4 has been making a mess of it. It's not the only recent problem involving this editor; see User talk:David Eppstein#kawarabayashi article (or Takahiro4's contributions) for context. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Disruption continues at
pi. At some point, I think ANI is called for. I am convinced that the editor is just trolling. On the talk page, he requested a section on Fourier series, and now is intent on adding templates against policy. I think it's time this editor be blocked. He is wasting the time of productive editors.
Sławomir
Biały
15:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Just as one writes [[cat]]s so that the reader sees "cats" and clicks on it and sees the article titled "cat", someone typed [[arithmetic of quadratic form]]s in an article. That doesn't make sense and I changed it to [[arithmetic of quadratic forms]]. However, we currently have no article titled Arithmetic of quadratic forms. Should we? And can someone here start the article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
It was pointed out to me that the graph File:Champernowne_constant_logscale.svg used in Champernowne constant has a mistake: the dots corresponding to the 41-st digit is out of place (it should be at height 10^{2504}. Not sure how that happened! :/ Anyway, at the moment I don't have access to Maple, so it would be nice if someone could re-do the graph (the code should be just a couple of lines, one could also take the data from here). Notice that being the misplaced point much bigger than in the graph, this means that the graph is going to be really flat, I guess it's OK, but another option is to leave that point out of the graph (mentioning it in the caption), or to go for a double logarithmic scale.-- Sandrobt ( talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
We have a new article titled Chow group of a stack. In the first sentence, it links to Chow group, which redirects to Chow ring. Should it be left that way, or should Chow group perhaps be a disambiguation page, or should we leave Chow group intact as a redirect while also putting a hatnote atop Chow ring telling the reader that Chow group of a stack exists, or should something else be done? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article List of Laplace transforms was recently forked out of Laplace transform. Is this really necessary and helpful to likely readers of Laplace transform? Please comment at Talk:Laplace transform#List of Laplace transforms. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The page titled function theory redirected to function (mathematics). I had followed a link to that name from a new biographical article on a mathematician, in which I suspected the term has the first sense listed below. So I changed it to a disambiguation page, as follows:
See:
- Complex analysis, the study of holomorphic functions of a complex variable. Especially in works written during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, the term function theory often has this sense.
- Function (mathematics)
- This disambiguation page lists mathematics articles associated with the same title.
Quite possibly this could benefit from more eyeballs. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there any that should be moved to the main space? Grogamoco ( talk) 12:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in on what to do, here. Uncle G ( talk) 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Could someone who knows more about these things have a look at this? Obviously this title is incorrect... -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there any content worth saving in Matrix decomposition into clans? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
John von Neumann is being reviewed as a potential Good Article. Please participate in the review at Talk:John von Neumann/GA1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I occasionally see the phrase "advanced calculus". Sometimes it seems to mean introductory real analysis (e.g., sequences, continuity, what distinguishes the reals from the rationals) and sometimes it seems to mean topics in calculus that are usually introduced later rather than earlier in a sequence of calculus courses (e.g., trig substitution, multivariate calculus). Right now, Advanced calculus is a red link. What should we do with it? My first thought is to redirect it to Real analysis. — Kodiologist ( t) 15:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I once taught a course called "advanced calculus for engineers", consisting of topics needed as prerequistes to a fluid dynamics course, and about half of it was complex analysis, so "real analysis" might not be a perfect target for a redirect. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at
Talk:Area of a disk#RfC article title: "Area of a circle" or "Area of a disk" that would benefit from the insight of members of WPM. Please direct your comments there.
Sławomir
Biały
17:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The article titled Selection principle could probably use some work in the intro section. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been looking at the "area of a disk"/"area of a circle" article...noticed it's rated "low importance"...was wondering why...it would seem it should be the exact opposite (that is, important for Wikipedia to have a good article on such a fundamental/elementary/and widely taught topic)...it seems the articles rated highly important are often of a very advanced nature (which may be fine, but less advanced though very important articles like this are also highly important)..I went to the pages on the ranking but it appears there has been no activity over there for many years...so posted here...are these ratings irrelevant at this point and of no consequence to anything? or should they be changed/done away with because they interfere with editorial activity? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for a "free" version of the image on the last page of this PDF:
[1]. I would like to use it in the new section at
pi, with a caption about Queen Dido and the isoperimetric problem. Does anyone know how we might find such a thing? (I was going to add: short of flying to Rome, but the irony is I actually will be in Rome. Still, let's not...)
Sławomir
Biały
22:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see: [ [2]]
73.4.14.51 ( talk) 14:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, so I don't know where the best place to post this is. I have this RFC that is highly applicable to this WikiProject that should be advertised here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryce ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Could I get some more eyes on our WP:BLP article on Japanese graph theorist Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi, please? Takahiro4 has been making a mess of it. It's not the only recent problem involving this editor; see User talk:David Eppstein#kawarabayashi article (or Takahiro4's contributions) for context. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Disruption continues at
pi. At some point, I think ANI is called for. I am convinced that the editor is just trolling. On the talk page, he requested a section on Fourier series, and now is intent on adding templates against policy. I think it's time this editor be blocked. He is wasting the time of productive editors.
Sławomir
Biały
15:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Just as one writes [[cat]]s so that the reader sees "cats" and clicks on it and sees the article titled "cat", someone typed [[arithmetic of quadratic form]]s in an article. That doesn't make sense and I changed it to [[arithmetic of quadratic forms]]. However, we currently have no article titled Arithmetic of quadratic forms. Should we? And can someone here start the article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
It was pointed out to me that the graph File:Champernowne_constant_logscale.svg used in Champernowne constant has a mistake: the dots corresponding to the 41-st digit is out of place (it should be at height 10^{2504}. Not sure how that happened! :/ Anyway, at the moment I don't have access to Maple, so it would be nice if someone could re-do the graph (the code should be just a couple of lines, one could also take the data from here). Notice that being the misplaced point much bigger than in the graph, this means that the graph is going to be really flat, I guess it's OK, but another option is to leave that point out of the graph (mentioning it in the caption), or to go for a double logarithmic scale.-- Sandrobt ( talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
We have a new article titled Chow group of a stack. In the first sentence, it links to Chow group, which redirects to Chow ring. Should it be left that way, or should Chow group perhaps be a disambiguation page, or should we leave Chow group intact as a redirect while also putting a hatnote atop Chow ring telling the reader that Chow group of a stack exists, or should something else be done? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article List of Laplace transforms was recently forked out of Laplace transform. Is this really necessary and helpful to likely readers of Laplace transform? Please comment at Talk:Laplace transform#List of Laplace transforms. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The page titled function theory redirected to function (mathematics). I had followed a link to that name from a new biographical article on a mathematician, in which I suspected the term has the first sense listed below. So I changed it to a disambiguation page, as follows:
See:
- Complex analysis, the study of holomorphic functions of a complex variable. Especially in works written during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, the term function theory often has this sense.
- Function (mathematics)
- This disambiguation page lists mathematics articles associated with the same title.
Quite possibly this could benefit from more eyeballs. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there any that should be moved to the main space? Grogamoco ( talk) 12:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in on what to do, here. Uncle G ( talk) 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Could someone who knows more about these things have a look at this? Obviously this title is incorrect... -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there any content worth saving in Matrix decomposition into clans? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
John von Neumann is being reviewed as a potential Good Article. Please participate in the review at Talk:John von Neumann/GA1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I occasionally see the phrase "advanced calculus". Sometimes it seems to mean introductory real analysis (e.g., sequences, continuity, what distinguishes the reals from the rationals) and sometimes it seems to mean topics in calculus that are usually introduced later rather than earlier in a sequence of calculus courses (e.g., trig substitution, multivariate calculus). Right now, Advanced calculus is a red link. What should we do with it? My first thought is to redirect it to Real analysis. — Kodiologist ( t) 15:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I once taught a course called "advanced calculus for engineers", consisting of topics needed as prerequistes to a fluid dynamics course, and about half of it was complex analysis, so "real analysis" might not be a perfect target for a redirect. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)