A new article on mathematician Nail H. Ibragimov has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to weigh in with your opinions at the AfD, but I have a different request. In the current version of the article, at the bottom in the "Further reading" section, there is a link to a three-page biography of Ibragimov, in Russian, published for his 70th birthday. I think it would be useful in expanding the text of our article, but I don't read Russian and (as an image of a printed document rather than web text) it's inconvenient to run through an automatic translator. Would someone who does read Russian like to give it a try? — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Geometry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Geometry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 23:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Should the article covering lemma and core model be merged? Neither has enough context that I can be sure I understand them, and both seem to make little sense without the other. I am a set theory expert, but am not good with large cardinals.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone interested in an international math community group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Math ? -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Several years ago there was a lengthy argument between myself (under my old username "SharkD") and another user ( User:Ag2gaeh) over the usage of terminology related to 3D projection and descriptive geometry, especially the terms " Axonometry" and " Axonometric projection". However there seems to be a difference in English sources versus European sources. For instance, I did two brief surveys of English language sources ( #1, #2), but the European literature seems to differ in many ways. I was wondering if someone could take a look into the topic. There also seems to be a language issue, in that the original author of Axonometry is not fluent in English, so I'm not clear exactly on how the literature differs, except that "axonometry" in Europe seems to include all types of parallel projection, not just a few types as is common (but not universal) in English sources. In general I am wondering if we should switch over to the European terminology. ➧ datumizer ☎ 09:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Datumizer: A minor note about 'steps' order dependency' in Axonometry#Principle of axonometry: the clause refers to three bulleted sub-steps inside the step 3, not to steps 1 through 4 – started from zero-zero you can go by x in the X direction, then by y in the Y direction or the other way, and you'll get to the same (x, y) point. Similarly you can make the Z step before, between or after X & Y steps and finally get to the same (x, y, z). -- CiaPan ( talk) 10:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In German textbooks
In English textbooks an axonometric projection seems to be always an orthographic (orthogonal)) projection.
Addendum: An essential practical improvement of the procedure Axonometrie is the "Einschneideverfahren" (or "Schnellriss"), which is due to the Austrian mathematican Ludwig Eckhart. It omits determining single coordinates and their foreshortenings and facilitates marking image points.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 14:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPM. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Captions#Formulas in captions that may be of interest to folks here. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I found this in the article titled Random variable:
It was coded like this:
I changed the code to this:
But ideally, one would like to see this:
This works in LaTeX, but it doesn't work here, in this software that people sometimes incorrectly call "LaTeX":
That same code, in genuine LaTeX, would yield something about like this:
But here we have to code that as follows:
I don't like doing that in lots of Wikipedia articles because some day this bug may be fixed and in fact people do learn how to code these things by looking at code that they find here.
I think this has been reported (I seem to recall having reported it a couple of years ago), and that means some time before the 29th century developers may get to it, or may not. Can anything be done to get this attended to besides hoping that developers who don't understand the need understand the need? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
\operatorname{\underset \omega {ess\ sup}} |X(\omega)-Y(\omega)|
The redirect ≘ (U+2258 CORRESPONDS TO) which currently targets Binary relation has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 18#≘, your comments in that discussion would be appreciated. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Please can someone review the few remaining links to dab Mathematical formalism and divert them to relevant articles or unlink? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 15:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! We have a similar problem with Correspondence (mathematics), which discusses specific types of correspondence and has now been tagged as a dab. Certes ( talk) 15:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a new page titled Gap-Hamming problem. On the theory that "gap" is being used here as a common noun, I set the initial in lower case. If it's actually someone's name, then the article should say who that is and the hyphen in "gap-Hamming" should become an en-dash. I found no links to this article at all and added one to the "See also" section of Hamming distance.
So further work is needed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Our article on Zero divisors may have some WP:NPOV problems, taking Bourbaki's choice to include 0 as a zero divisor as the "right" one, and being dismissive of those references that exclude it. In fact, in the four textbooks I checked (Gallian, Fraleigh, Rotman, and Dummit & Foote), every one of them excluded 0 in their definitions of zero divisors. I'm not sure of the best way to proceed, so I'll just leave this here, and anyone interested can take a whack at it. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 17:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
A new article on mathematician Nail H. Ibragimov has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to weigh in with your opinions at the AfD, but I have a different request. In the current version of the article, at the bottom in the "Further reading" section, there is a link to a three-page biography of Ibragimov, in Russian, published for his 70th birthday. I think it would be useful in expanding the text of our article, but I don't read Russian and (as an image of a printed document rather than web text) it's inconvenient to run through an automatic translator. Would someone who does read Russian like to give it a try? — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Geometry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Geometry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 23:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Should the article covering lemma and core model be merged? Neither has enough context that I can be sure I understand them, and both seem to make little sense without the other. I am a set theory expert, but am not good with large cardinals.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone interested in an international math community group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Math ? -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Several years ago there was a lengthy argument between myself (under my old username "SharkD") and another user ( User:Ag2gaeh) over the usage of terminology related to 3D projection and descriptive geometry, especially the terms " Axonometry" and " Axonometric projection". However there seems to be a difference in English sources versus European sources. For instance, I did two brief surveys of English language sources ( #1, #2), but the European literature seems to differ in many ways. I was wondering if someone could take a look into the topic. There also seems to be a language issue, in that the original author of Axonometry is not fluent in English, so I'm not clear exactly on how the literature differs, except that "axonometry" in Europe seems to include all types of parallel projection, not just a few types as is common (but not universal) in English sources. In general I am wondering if we should switch over to the European terminology. ➧ datumizer ☎ 09:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Datumizer: A minor note about 'steps' order dependency' in Axonometry#Principle of axonometry: the clause refers to three bulleted sub-steps inside the step 3, not to steps 1 through 4 – started from zero-zero you can go by x in the X direction, then by y in the Y direction or the other way, and you'll get to the same (x, y) point. Similarly you can make the Z step before, between or after X & Y steps and finally get to the same (x, y, z). -- CiaPan ( talk) 10:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In German textbooks
In English textbooks an axonometric projection seems to be always an orthographic (orthogonal)) projection.
Addendum: An essential practical improvement of the procedure Axonometrie is the "Einschneideverfahren" (or "Schnellriss"), which is due to the Austrian mathematican Ludwig Eckhart. It omits determining single coordinates and their foreshortenings and facilitates marking image points.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 14:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPM. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Captions#Formulas in captions that may be of interest to folks here. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I found this in the article titled Random variable:
It was coded like this:
I changed the code to this:
But ideally, one would like to see this:
This works in LaTeX, but it doesn't work here, in this software that people sometimes incorrectly call "LaTeX":
That same code, in genuine LaTeX, would yield something about like this:
But here we have to code that as follows:
I don't like doing that in lots of Wikipedia articles because some day this bug may be fixed and in fact people do learn how to code these things by looking at code that they find here.
I think this has been reported (I seem to recall having reported it a couple of years ago), and that means some time before the 29th century developers may get to it, or may not. Can anything be done to get this attended to besides hoping that developers who don't understand the need understand the need? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
\operatorname{\underset \omega {ess\ sup}} |X(\omega)-Y(\omega)|
The redirect ≘ (U+2258 CORRESPONDS TO) which currently targets Binary relation has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 18#≘, your comments in that discussion would be appreciated. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Please can someone review the few remaining links to dab Mathematical formalism and divert them to relevant articles or unlink? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 15:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! We have a similar problem with Correspondence (mathematics), which discusses specific types of correspondence and has now been tagged as a dab. Certes ( talk) 15:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a new page titled Gap-Hamming problem. On the theory that "gap" is being used here as a common noun, I set the initial in lower case. If it's actually someone's name, then the article should say who that is and the hyphen in "gap-Hamming" should become an en-dash. I found no links to this article at all and added one to the "See also" section of Hamming distance.
So further work is needed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Our article on Zero divisors may have some WP:NPOV problems, taking Bourbaki's choice to include 0 as a zero divisor as the "right" one, and being dismissive of those references that exclude it. In fact, in the four textbooks I checked (Gallian, Fraleigh, Rotman, and Dummit & Foote), every one of them excluded 0 in their definitions of zero divisors. I'm not sure of the best way to proceed, so I'll just leave this here, and anyone interested can take a whack at it. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 17:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)