Here's a proposed deletion up for discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Lemma. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent
Here's another deletion discussion.
It appears to me that the nominator has misunderstood with astonishing completeness what the article is about.
Click on the linked page and post your opinion. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Did anyone ever think about running a bot on Wikipedia to improve mathematical citations based on math databases? Specifically an MR bot/ Project Euclid bot of sorts?
For instance, searching PE by DOI reveals that
is an entry for it. This is a closed access link, but it does lists
doi:
10.3150/17-BEJ959,
MR
3788173,
Zbl
06869876 as identifiers. The bot could add
MR
3788173,
Zbl
06869876to citations with
doi:
10.3150/17-BEJ959 in them.
Likewise, instance
MR
0334798 lists
[1] which is listed as "Full-text: Open access" and there is also
Zbl
1125.83309 listed as an identifier. The bot could add |url=
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103858973
and |zbl=1125.83309
to citations with
MR
0334798 in them.
There are other links than PE in the MR database, but the general idea would be the same. Query various math databases by various identifiers, give the other identifiers when found, and open access links when found.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to hear the community's opinion about these changes. For my own part, I think "famously" is quite applicable, and in academic writing, full names aren't necessary (and can even sound overly familiar). Thoughts? XOR'easter ( talk) 14:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP blocked. - DVdm ( talk) 21:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
FYI, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 4#Graphs by vertex and edge count, an old nomination which seems to have not been closed and just recently got attention again. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This WikiProject's § Things to do section contains a table of suggested activities, with columns What and Where. Wanting to notify project members that a certain page – Monoidal t-norm logic – is too technical, I followed the first entry in the table, which links to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists. Imagine my surprise to read there – at the top of the page – that "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference" and a suggestion to "seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump". Yet the page contains a score of sections, each listing many items needing attention for various reasons. One of those sections and reasons is the Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists § Articles that are too technical. So I've dropped an entry in that list, and used the {{technical}} template in a section of the subject page, viz. Monoidal t-norm logic § Motivation, but thought that perhaps this talk page might be a more appropriate "forum".
Please tell me where WikiProject Mathematics contributors go to request action or chew the fat with each other, if not on the pages pointed to by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics page??? Wherever the preferred hangout is, that's where the WikiProject should point people – not to an "inactive" page. yoyo ( talk) 15:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to draw your attention to a Simon's problems draft article. The reviewing process appears to have been done by individuals with little or no science knowledge. I know the subject is notable and even German wikipedia has beaten us to it ( see article here). Any help pls? Thankx! Ema--or ( talk) 01:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Can some editors from the project look into and help resolve the discussion at the Lindelöf hypothesis article's talkpage? Thanks. Abecedare ( talk) 04:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone solve the edit war over there? RandNetter96 ( Talk) ( Contributions) 20:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Just stumbled across Krassimir Atanassov, a biography of a mathematician. The only thing resembling a source is an external link to his website. The multiple mentions of Smarandache caught my attention. Should it be an article? -- 2601:142:3:F83A:F5C6:4523:71E3:A4A7 ( talk) 16:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Per a question at the ref desk: is the implication correct? Both articles formerly claimed it was, but an editor has removed the claim from Fermat-Catalan conjecture. - 2601:142:3:F83A:9D73:4BE:2A07:E50A ( talk) 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We seem to have this new article: Square root of 4.
I don't think we need to be informed of the first hundred digits after the decimal point in the principal real square root of 4. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Deacon Vorbis: : That content was in the edit history of the article that got deleted years ago. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It has become clear that there are a number of rather fervent mathematics-focused editors who have not actually bothered to read Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and who think that they get to determine whether or not to apply post-nominals in the lead of an article (and who are feverishly deleting these honours). These editors appear to be individuals who come from non-Commonwealth countries (e.g., the United States) who have no knowledge of how post-nominal letters are applied for various honours systems or royal societies. For the record, Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that post-nominals (e.g., OC FRSC) should be included in the lead of an article after the subject's name. See: MOS:POSTNOM Bueller 007 ( talk) 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
A next discussion about graphs categories takes place here. Your comments are welcome. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
MathXplore has been adding a bunch of links to references via the website arxiv-vanity.com, rather than direct links to the arXiv. I am having difficulty using the search to determine exactly how widely this site is linked from WP. Has this been discussed here before? Do people have thoughts about whether this is good/bad/not important? -- JBL ( talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC){{
cite arxiv|arxiv=}}
/ {{
cite journal|arxiv=}}
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Someone suggested that Bott–Samelson resolution and Bott–Samelson variety be merged back in July 2015. However no one made a case and it was closed last October, but then reopened by the original person who said they didn't make a case for merger because it was clear the two articles discuss the same thing. I don't really understand the merge process, could someone take a look at these and merge them if they should be merged? JustOneMore ( talk) 05:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, there are two interlinked discussions about the graphical representation of vertex figures for polyhedra, and especially uniform polyhedra, at Talk:Vertex figure#Illustrations and Talk:Archimedean solid#Images. These diagrams are used in a large number of infoboxes and tables in polyhedron articles and so it is important to build consensus on their appearance. More contributors to the discussion/s would be helpful, as they are getting bogged down. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) [updated 05:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)]
They may be fine, but the editor is the author of fringe self-published books and busy promoting himself here. That's not an issue for the project, but I'm not sure how competent he is. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
In the one-way functions article, under the Candidates for one-way functions section there is a subsection for "Discrete exponential and logarithm" and "Elliptic curves". Now I don't know much at all about this area, but isn't it specifically the "elliptic curve discrete logarithm function" which is a candidate as a potential one-way function? If so should the elliptic curve subsection be merged with the discrete exponential and logarithm section? JustOneMore ( talk) 04:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
This deletion discussion for a mathematics journal may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, could anyone here help fix a few links to disambiguation pages?
Bolza surface has a link to Perturbation, Finsler manifold has a link to Minkowski norm and Simplicially enriched category has a link to Simplicial category.
I don't know whether there is a good target article for the links in question, or whether the link should be removed, as my level of Mathematics is not advanced enough to understand these topics. Thanks for your help. Iffy★ Chat -- 12:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's a proposed deletion up for discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Lemma. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent
Here's another deletion discussion.
It appears to me that the nominator has misunderstood with astonishing completeness what the article is about.
Click on the linked page and post your opinion. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Did anyone ever think about running a bot on Wikipedia to improve mathematical citations based on math databases? Specifically an MR bot/ Project Euclid bot of sorts?
For instance, searching PE by DOI reveals that
is an entry for it. This is a closed access link, but it does lists
doi:
10.3150/17-BEJ959,
MR
3788173,
Zbl
06869876 as identifiers. The bot could add
MR
3788173,
Zbl
06869876to citations with
doi:
10.3150/17-BEJ959 in them.
Likewise, instance
MR
0334798 lists
[1] which is listed as "Full-text: Open access" and there is also
Zbl
1125.83309 listed as an identifier. The bot could add |url=
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103858973
and |zbl=1125.83309
to citations with
MR
0334798 in them.
There are other links than PE in the MR database, but the general idea would be the same. Query various math databases by various identifiers, give the other identifiers when found, and open access links when found.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to hear the community's opinion about these changes. For my own part, I think "famously" is quite applicable, and in academic writing, full names aren't necessary (and can even sound overly familiar). Thoughts? XOR'easter ( talk) 14:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP blocked. - DVdm ( talk) 21:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
FYI, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 4#Graphs by vertex and edge count, an old nomination which seems to have not been closed and just recently got attention again. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This WikiProject's § Things to do section contains a table of suggested activities, with columns What and Where. Wanting to notify project members that a certain page – Monoidal t-norm logic – is too technical, I followed the first entry in the table, which links to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists. Imagine my surprise to read there – at the top of the page – that "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference" and a suggestion to "seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump". Yet the page contains a score of sections, each listing many items needing attention for various reasons. One of those sections and reasons is the Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists § Articles that are too technical. So I've dropped an entry in that list, and used the {{technical}} template in a section of the subject page, viz. Monoidal t-norm logic § Motivation, but thought that perhaps this talk page might be a more appropriate "forum".
Please tell me where WikiProject Mathematics contributors go to request action or chew the fat with each other, if not on the pages pointed to by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics page??? Wherever the preferred hangout is, that's where the WikiProject should point people – not to an "inactive" page. yoyo ( talk) 15:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to draw your attention to a Simon's problems draft article. The reviewing process appears to have been done by individuals with little or no science knowledge. I know the subject is notable and even German wikipedia has beaten us to it ( see article here). Any help pls? Thankx! Ema--or ( talk) 01:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Can some editors from the project look into and help resolve the discussion at the Lindelöf hypothesis article's talkpage? Thanks. Abecedare ( talk) 04:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone solve the edit war over there? RandNetter96 ( Talk) ( Contributions) 20:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Just stumbled across Krassimir Atanassov, a biography of a mathematician. The only thing resembling a source is an external link to his website. The multiple mentions of Smarandache caught my attention. Should it be an article? -- 2601:142:3:F83A:F5C6:4523:71E3:A4A7 ( talk) 16:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Per a question at the ref desk: is the implication correct? Both articles formerly claimed it was, but an editor has removed the claim from Fermat-Catalan conjecture. - 2601:142:3:F83A:9D73:4BE:2A07:E50A ( talk) 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We seem to have this new article: Square root of 4.
I don't think we need to be informed of the first hundred digits after the decimal point in the principal real square root of 4. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Deacon Vorbis: : That content was in the edit history of the article that got deleted years ago. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It has become clear that there are a number of rather fervent mathematics-focused editors who have not actually bothered to read Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and who think that they get to determine whether or not to apply post-nominals in the lead of an article (and who are feverishly deleting these honours). These editors appear to be individuals who come from non-Commonwealth countries (e.g., the United States) who have no knowledge of how post-nominal letters are applied for various honours systems or royal societies. For the record, Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that post-nominals (e.g., OC FRSC) should be included in the lead of an article after the subject's name. See: MOS:POSTNOM Bueller 007 ( talk) 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
A next discussion about graphs categories takes place here. Your comments are welcome. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
MathXplore has been adding a bunch of links to references via the website arxiv-vanity.com, rather than direct links to the arXiv. I am having difficulty using the search to determine exactly how widely this site is linked from WP. Has this been discussed here before? Do people have thoughts about whether this is good/bad/not important? -- JBL ( talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC){{
cite arxiv|arxiv=}}
/ {{
cite journal|arxiv=}}
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Someone suggested that Bott–Samelson resolution and Bott–Samelson variety be merged back in July 2015. However no one made a case and it was closed last October, but then reopened by the original person who said they didn't make a case for merger because it was clear the two articles discuss the same thing. I don't really understand the merge process, could someone take a look at these and merge them if they should be merged? JustOneMore ( talk) 05:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, there are two interlinked discussions about the graphical representation of vertex figures for polyhedra, and especially uniform polyhedra, at Talk:Vertex figure#Illustrations and Talk:Archimedean solid#Images. These diagrams are used in a large number of infoboxes and tables in polyhedron articles and so it is important to build consensus on their appearance. More contributors to the discussion/s would be helpful, as they are getting bogged down. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) [updated 05:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)]
They may be fine, but the editor is the author of fringe self-published books and busy promoting himself here. That's not an issue for the project, but I'm not sure how competent he is. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
In the one-way functions article, under the Candidates for one-way functions section there is a subsection for "Discrete exponential and logarithm" and "Elliptic curves". Now I don't know much at all about this area, but isn't it specifically the "elliptic curve discrete logarithm function" which is a candidate as a potential one-way function? If so should the elliptic curve subsection be merged with the discrete exponential and logarithm section? JustOneMore ( talk) 04:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
This deletion discussion for a mathematics journal may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, could anyone here help fix a few links to disambiguation pages?
Bolza surface has a link to Perturbation, Finsler manifold has a link to Minkowski norm and Simplicially enriched category has a link to Simplicial category.
I don't know whether there is a good target article for the links in question, or whether the link should be removed, as my level of Mathematics is not advanced enough to understand these topics. Thanks for your help. Iffy★ Chat -- 12:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)