Is numerical modelling the same as mathematical modelling? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)numerical modellingbut it seems to be in the specific context of a climate model, possibly using numerical techniques to solve a box model. Certes ( talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Currently, we have two articles: correspondence (mathematics) and binary relations. Set-theoretically speaking, there is no essential difference. Wikipedia insists a correspondence is an ordered triple (A, B, f) where f is a subset of , while a relation is just f or rather what f determines. While I can (a sort of) understand the difference, I don't think the distinction is enough for separate articles; basically the difference is like a difference between a function and the graph of a function (in fact, " binary relation" seems to be a bit confused about whether it wants to discuss a correspondence or a relation; see Binary relation#Is a relation more than its graph?). So, I'm inclined to just merge the two into one, except algebraic geometry bit in " correspondence (mathematics)" feels quite out of a place at " binary relation" and best to split off to correspondence (algebraic geometry). Thoughts? -- Taku ( talk) 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article and assessing it? It was created by someone hired by Pazy's family and it was not submitted for review via WP:AFC. I've done a bit of minor clean up, but there's still some issues that need sorting, particularly with respect to the sourcing (it seems that most of them are to documents, etc. uploaded to Commons). I'm assuming the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC and is notable for an article to be written, but some serious trimming/rewriting might be needed to bring the article more inline with current policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a dispute as to whether map (mathematics) should be a disambiguation page or not; i.e., should redirect to map (disambiguation). Note the content of the page has already merged with function (mathematics). To resolve the conflict, inputs from more editors are needed; the main objection is from an editor who claims “a function is not a morphism in the category of sets.” —- Taku ( talk) 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
To add some context, I guess I just don’t see a point of an article explaining *terminology* as opposed to *concept* in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place to explain concepts, at least when math is concerned; terminology note is important, sure, but is of a secondary importance. For me, thus, this page is a disambig page in an effective sense since the concepts of a map are already discussed at other places like function (mathematics), morphism (category theory), homomorphism, etc. It doesn’t help that those “terminology” articles tend to be of low quality and low information ( #Correspondence vs. binary relation above is another instance). Not to mention, our readers often complain about those article... —- Taku ( talk) 19:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Map_(mathematics)#Suggestion to dedicate this article to the use of Map as a concept in mathematics when it is not a synonym of function. -- Taku ( talk) 23:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I’m probably sounding repetitive but here, a very similar type of an article: embedding. While there is a certainly a general concept of embedding, I don’t think it’s useful to use a “single article” to cover embedding in topology as well as those in other fields. Is there any benefit of doing (instead of having separate articles) that I’m not seeing? —- Taku ( talk) 20:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Trovatore, yes, functions are not defined as the arrows of **Set**. Functions are defined, and then **Set** is defined as an emergent concept. This shouldn't be news to anyone. Now, the other thing that happens is that there are two types of references: (1) Those that (modulo wording) define functions as correspondences (<- beware User:TakuyaMurata has been vandalizing this page too.) with the 'unique image property' and (2) Those authors who define (modulo wording, although in this case they tend to be more explicit) functions as relations with the 'unique image property'. There is a third in which they explicitly state (2) and then hand-waving-ly add the codomain to the function. Those are essentially in (1). As a result, reliable sources have two positions, one in which there is a function for each arrow of **Set** and one for which there are many. It looks like it has to be reminded, specially to User:TakuyaMurata, that Wikipedia works by presenting what is contained in reliable sources, not what random editors imagine the concepts should be in Mathematics. Cactus0192837465 ( talk) 13:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
To other editors, we (Cactus and I) need a tie-breaker for [1]. Please note we have Correspondence (algebraic geometry) and the rest in binary relation; my edit thus doesn’t mean any information loss. -- Taku ( talk) 17:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Root 2 and Root two are currently redirects to Square root of 2 and List of numbers respectively. They have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Root two where your comments are invited. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently expanding WP:CRAPWATCH (a project to detected predatory/unreliable sources) with various sources that document unreliable journals in various fields of research. Are there any such list mathematics for mathematics? Preferably externally sourced to reliable people, rather than personal opinion. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Assistance handling an WP:SPA at k shortest path routing and a related talk would be helpful. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics includes a table of articles tagged as probability and statistics with the {{
maths rating}}
template. But the table shows no articles. Can someone here take a look and fix it? Thank you.--
76.14.38.58 (
talk)
22:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Here I need to point out a conspicuous elephant in a room, but maybe that particular room doesn't get a lot of attention. Our article titled Wishart distribution contains this assertion:
[I]f n ≥ p, X has a Wishart distribution with n degrees of freedom if it has the probability density function
where is the determinant of and Γp is the multivariate gamma function defined as
Anyone who wants to understand that or make any use of it or do anything at all with it will instantly wonder how in Hell we're supposed to integrate a thing like that, i.e. with respect to which measure is this a density, or to put it another way, with respect to which variables over which set are we integrating? Observe that the argument is a positive-definite matrix and we may denote its entries by for . So a naive guess is we're talking about
so it would be just Lebesgue measure. But that raises question: since is symmetric, should we have or the like? So Lebesgue measure on a space of dimension And what are the bounds of integration? The bounds may seem messy, but I think I may know a way to deal with that neatly. But is that what is meant, or is there some standard measure on the space of positive-definite symmetric matrices that anyone who knows about it would expect to be used here, or what? In any case, answers to these questions ought to be in the article.
Same problem in Inverse-Wishart distribution.
So maybe tomorrow I'll go to the library and look some things up, but maybe someone here knows something off the top of their head. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Now added to the article. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Legacypac was wondering if this draft is "useful/fixable" (I have no idea). So, is it useful? already covered in mainspace? -- Taku ( talk) 00:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
(but not Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition)I do not know anyone who types en-dashes into search bars rather than hyphens. So I will create the other redirect. -- JBL ( talk) 17:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've significantly expanded numerical linear algebra. Where can I request an assessment of it to revise its Stub Class label? - Astrophobe ( talk) 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
In our system of mathematical notation coding, which is not LaTeX although people call it that, and is not actually TeX either, I found this in Barnes G-function:
I changed it so that it says this:
You see the difference on the second line: in the first version, the space between the minus sign and the z is what is normally followed when the minus sign is used as a binary operation symbol, rather the smaller amount of space that normally appears when it's a unary operation, thus:
I tried the same code in genuine LaTeX and (as expected) this problem of incorrect spacing did not occur. The way I fixed the problem is that I changed this line of code:
to the following:
I found three instances of the same bug in the same section of that article and fixed them all the same way.
I don't recall that I've noticed this bug before. I'd hate to think that I'd encountered it without noticing, it, but such unpleasantenss can actually happen. How long has this been with us? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Our WP entry for the site describes it as inactive and apparently they moved their content last year to GitHub with the original website currently somewhere between dysfunctional and not maintained (and I suspect it being ditched in the future). Does anybody have any background on PlanethMath's exact status and planned future? We still have that collaboration project listed on our project page, but that seems to be inactive/dead for years now as well. Should we remove that? Do we still have an overlap of active editors or anybody doing work on the collaboration?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 02:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
{{planetmath reference|id=3485|title=Axiom of Foundation}}
{{PlanetMath|urlname=axiomoffoundation|title="Axiom of foundation"}}
.Based on the discussion so far I removed PlanetMath from the project page now. As for the PlanethMath-Links in articles it might be best as suggested above to handle them individually on an article basis. Links that for now still works (at least most of the time) may be kept for now and those that hsve become completely dysfunctional/unavailable can be removed or replaced by copies on archive.org.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 10:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot script to perform a few article assessment–related tasks and would appreciate your feedback.
Qzekrom (
talk)
08:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I've done approximately this same reversion three times, and I wonder if the user who added this stuff may persist. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of a new article titled Gadi Moran has been proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadi Moran. Opinions can be posted on the latter page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Geometry of roots of real polynomials is not a new article it as been proposed for deletion for the second time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry of roots of real polynomials. Opinion of editors that are competent in mathematics would be useful there. D.Lazard ( talk) 20:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
If you would like to contribute to reaching a consensus on whether Infobox mathematical statement should be included in Fermat's Last Theorem, please see this talk. — MarkH21 ( talk) 05:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
New portals have been added in the "see also" section of several of our articles such as in e (mathematical constant), algebra, circles. There are more than twenty such automatically created portals. Please, participate to the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals. Should we nominate for deletion all these portals that are related to mathematics? D.Lazard ( talk) 15:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Even the most advanced automated content creation is dangerous. [1] [2]User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ( talk) 18:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
References
There is a sparsity of mathematical infoboxes and I think that one for mathematical statements (broadly construed, e.g. theorems, conjectures, propositions, lemmas, etc.) could be very useful on many particularly important mathematical articles. I've drafted a very simple one. Would other editors here welcome such a infobox? Feedback on its usage as well as its implementation (e.g. possible additional fields) would be very welcome as this is my first attempt at an infobox template! MarkH21 ( talk) 06:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Contested
or just omit the field altogether until consensus is reached. A non-logic example would be the
abc conjecture. I'm not sure evidence for/against validity would be a viable infobox field though.I've thought about this some more, and I'd like to respond to the points brought up. The heart of the opposition seems to be that any infobox is a trivialization of the subject. However, the infobox neither detracts from the material of the articles for the knowledgeable nor expert reader, who may glance past the infobox just as one would for any biographical article. Meanwhile, the majority of articles on mathematical statements are too technical for the general reader (or even knowledgeable reader) to whom we should strive to make the articles more accessible. In particular, while basic details such as its history and its logical connections to other statements perhaps should be easily accessible in the lead (although I disagree for many cases), the fact of the matter is that they usually are not.
An implementation of the template, in great moderation and keeping the MOS purpose in mind, should add value to these articles – particularly for the general reader casually looking up math on Wikipedia. — MarkH21 ( talk) 10:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Bumping thread for 21 days. Referred to in a TfD listing –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
05:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Is numerical modelling the same as mathematical modelling? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)numerical modellingbut it seems to be in the specific context of a climate model, possibly using numerical techniques to solve a box model. Certes ( talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Currently, we have two articles: correspondence (mathematics) and binary relations. Set-theoretically speaking, there is no essential difference. Wikipedia insists a correspondence is an ordered triple (A, B, f) where f is a subset of , while a relation is just f or rather what f determines. While I can (a sort of) understand the difference, I don't think the distinction is enough for separate articles; basically the difference is like a difference between a function and the graph of a function (in fact, " binary relation" seems to be a bit confused about whether it wants to discuss a correspondence or a relation; see Binary relation#Is a relation more than its graph?). So, I'm inclined to just merge the two into one, except algebraic geometry bit in " correspondence (mathematics)" feels quite out of a place at " binary relation" and best to split off to correspondence (algebraic geometry). Thoughts? -- Taku ( talk) 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article and assessing it? It was created by someone hired by Pazy's family and it was not submitted for review via WP:AFC. I've done a bit of minor clean up, but there's still some issues that need sorting, particularly with respect to the sourcing (it seems that most of them are to documents, etc. uploaded to Commons). I'm assuming the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC and is notable for an article to be written, but some serious trimming/rewriting might be needed to bring the article more inline with current policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a dispute as to whether map (mathematics) should be a disambiguation page or not; i.e., should redirect to map (disambiguation). Note the content of the page has already merged with function (mathematics). To resolve the conflict, inputs from more editors are needed; the main objection is from an editor who claims “a function is not a morphism in the category of sets.” —- Taku ( talk) 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
To add some context, I guess I just don’t see a point of an article explaining *terminology* as opposed to *concept* in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place to explain concepts, at least when math is concerned; terminology note is important, sure, but is of a secondary importance. For me, thus, this page is a disambig page in an effective sense since the concepts of a map are already discussed at other places like function (mathematics), morphism (category theory), homomorphism, etc. It doesn’t help that those “terminology” articles tend to be of low quality and low information ( #Correspondence vs. binary relation above is another instance). Not to mention, our readers often complain about those article... —- Taku ( talk) 19:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Map_(mathematics)#Suggestion to dedicate this article to the use of Map as a concept in mathematics when it is not a synonym of function. -- Taku ( talk) 23:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I’m probably sounding repetitive but here, a very similar type of an article: embedding. While there is a certainly a general concept of embedding, I don’t think it’s useful to use a “single article” to cover embedding in topology as well as those in other fields. Is there any benefit of doing (instead of having separate articles) that I’m not seeing? —- Taku ( talk) 20:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Trovatore, yes, functions are not defined as the arrows of **Set**. Functions are defined, and then **Set** is defined as an emergent concept. This shouldn't be news to anyone. Now, the other thing that happens is that there are two types of references: (1) Those that (modulo wording) define functions as correspondences (<- beware User:TakuyaMurata has been vandalizing this page too.) with the 'unique image property' and (2) Those authors who define (modulo wording, although in this case they tend to be more explicit) functions as relations with the 'unique image property'. There is a third in which they explicitly state (2) and then hand-waving-ly add the codomain to the function. Those are essentially in (1). As a result, reliable sources have two positions, one in which there is a function for each arrow of **Set** and one for which there are many. It looks like it has to be reminded, specially to User:TakuyaMurata, that Wikipedia works by presenting what is contained in reliable sources, not what random editors imagine the concepts should be in Mathematics. Cactus0192837465 ( talk) 13:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
To other editors, we (Cactus and I) need a tie-breaker for [1]. Please note we have Correspondence (algebraic geometry) and the rest in binary relation; my edit thus doesn’t mean any information loss. -- Taku ( talk) 17:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Root 2 and Root two are currently redirects to Square root of 2 and List of numbers respectively. They have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Root two where your comments are invited. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently expanding WP:CRAPWATCH (a project to detected predatory/unreliable sources) with various sources that document unreliable journals in various fields of research. Are there any such list mathematics for mathematics? Preferably externally sourced to reliable people, rather than personal opinion. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Assistance handling an WP:SPA at k shortest path routing and a related talk would be helpful. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics includes a table of articles tagged as probability and statistics with the {{
maths rating}}
template. But the table shows no articles. Can someone here take a look and fix it? Thank you.--
76.14.38.58 (
talk)
22:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Here I need to point out a conspicuous elephant in a room, but maybe that particular room doesn't get a lot of attention. Our article titled Wishart distribution contains this assertion:
[I]f n ≥ p, X has a Wishart distribution with n degrees of freedom if it has the probability density function
where is the determinant of and Γp is the multivariate gamma function defined as
Anyone who wants to understand that or make any use of it or do anything at all with it will instantly wonder how in Hell we're supposed to integrate a thing like that, i.e. with respect to which measure is this a density, or to put it another way, with respect to which variables over which set are we integrating? Observe that the argument is a positive-definite matrix and we may denote its entries by for . So a naive guess is we're talking about
so it would be just Lebesgue measure. But that raises question: since is symmetric, should we have or the like? So Lebesgue measure on a space of dimension And what are the bounds of integration? The bounds may seem messy, but I think I may know a way to deal with that neatly. But is that what is meant, or is there some standard measure on the space of positive-definite symmetric matrices that anyone who knows about it would expect to be used here, or what? In any case, answers to these questions ought to be in the article.
Same problem in Inverse-Wishart distribution.
So maybe tomorrow I'll go to the library and look some things up, but maybe someone here knows something off the top of their head. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Now added to the article. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Legacypac was wondering if this draft is "useful/fixable" (I have no idea). So, is it useful? already covered in mainspace? -- Taku ( talk) 00:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
(but not Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition)I do not know anyone who types en-dashes into search bars rather than hyphens. So I will create the other redirect. -- JBL ( talk) 17:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've significantly expanded numerical linear algebra. Where can I request an assessment of it to revise its Stub Class label? - Astrophobe ( talk) 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
In our system of mathematical notation coding, which is not LaTeX although people call it that, and is not actually TeX either, I found this in Barnes G-function:
I changed it so that it says this:
You see the difference on the second line: in the first version, the space between the minus sign and the z is what is normally followed when the minus sign is used as a binary operation symbol, rather the smaller amount of space that normally appears when it's a unary operation, thus:
I tried the same code in genuine LaTeX and (as expected) this problem of incorrect spacing did not occur. The way I fixed the problem is that I changed this line of code:
to the following:
I found three instances of the same bug in the same section of that article and fixed them all the same way.
I don't recall that I've noticed this bug before. I'd hate to think that I'd encountered it without noticing, it, but such unpleasantenss can actually happen. How long has this been with us? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Our WP entry for the site describes it as inactive and apparently they moved their content last year to GitHub with the original website currently somewhere between dysfunctional and not maintained (and I suspect it being ditched in the future). Does anybody have any background on PlanethMath's exact status and planned future? We still have that collaboration project listed on our project page, but that seems to be inactive/dead for years now as well. Should we remove that? Do we still have an overlap of active editors or anybody doing work on the collaboration?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 02:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
{{planetmath reference|id=3485|title=Axiom of Foundation}}
{{PlanetMath|urlname=axiomoffoundation|title="Axiom of foundation"}}
.Based on the discussion so far I removed PlanetMath from the project page now. As for the PlanethMath-Links in articles it might be best as suggested above to handle them individually on an article basis. Links that for now still works (at least most of the time) may be kept for now and those that hsve become completely dysfunctional/unavailable can be removed or replaced by copies on archive.org.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 10:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot script to perform a few article assessment–related tasks and would appreciate your feedback.
Qzekrom (
talk)
08:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I've done approximately this same reversion three times, and I wonder if the user who added this stuff may persist. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of a new article titled Gadi Moran has been proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadi Moran. Opinions can be posted on the latter page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Geometry of roots of real polynomials is not a new article it as been proposed for deletion for the second time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry of roots of real polynomials. Opinion of editors that are competent in mathematics would be useful there. D.Lazard ( talk) 20:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
If you would like to contribute to reaching a consensus on whether Infobox mathematical statement should be included in Fermat's Last Theorem, please see this talk. — MarkH21 ( talk) 05:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
New portals have been added in the "see also" section of several of our articles such as in e (mathematical constant), algebra, circles. There are more than twenty such automatically created portals. Please, participate to the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals. Should we nominate for deletion all these portals that are related to mathematics? D.Lazard ( talk) 15:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Even the most advanced automated content creation is dangerous. [1] [2]User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ( talk) 18:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
References
There is a sparsity of mathematical infoboxes and I think that one for mathematical statements (broadly construed, e.g. theorems, conjectures, propositions, lemmas, etc.) could be very useful on many particularly important mathematical articles. I've drafted a very simple one. Would other editors here welcome such a infobox? Feedback on its usage as well as its implementation (e.g. possible additional fields) would be very welcome as this is my first attempt at an infobox template! MarkH21 ( talk) 06:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Contested
or just omit the field altogether until consensus is reached. A non-logic example would be the
abc conjecture. I'm not sure evidence for/against validity would be a viable infobox field though.I've thought about this some more, and I'd like to respond to the points brought up. The heart of the opposition seems to be that any infobox is a trivialization of the subject. However, the infobox neither detracts from the material of the articles for the knowledgeable nor expert reader, who may glance past the infobox just as one would for any biographical article. Meanwhile, the majority of articles on mathematical statements are too technical for the general reader (or even knowledgeable reader) to whom we should strive to make the articles more accessible. In particular, while basic details such as its history and its logical connections to other statements perhaps should be easily accessible in the lead (although I disagree for many cases), the fact of the matter is that they usually are not.
An implementation of the template, in great moderation and keeping the MOS purpose in mind, should add value to these articles – particularly for the general reader casually looking up math on Wikipedia. — MarkH21 ( talk) 10:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Bumping thread for 21 days. Referred to in a TfD listing –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
05:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)