| Revision as of 10:58, 31 January 2015 editTomruen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers119,879 edits →Star polygons being saturated with images: Star_polygon#Star_figures← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:29, 31 January 2015 edit undoSteelpillow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,153 edits Undid revision 644969937 by Tomruen (talk) do not change another editor's post. Add your correction in your own comment beneathNext edit → | ||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
| == Star polygons being saturated with images == | == Star polygons being saturated with images == | ||
| Hi, I could use some help at ]. {{User|Tomruen}} added a big block of images that I felt breached ] and ]. I removed it and he began warring over it. After I opened a discussion on the talk page at ], he continued adding more. I have posted a more detailed history of the warring there. Could some more eyes come and determine whether I am just being a grumpy old git or is Tom debasing our encyclopedia? — Cheers, ] (]) 10:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC) | Hi, I could use some help at ]. {{User|Tomruen}} added a big block of images that I felt breached ] and ]. I removed it and he began warring over it. After I opened a discussion on the talk page at ], he continued adding more. I have posted a more detailed history of the warring there. Could some more eyes come and determine whether I am just being a grumpy old git or is Tom debasing our encyclopedia? — Cheers, ] (]) 10:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:29, 31 January 2015
 This is a discussion page for WikiProject Mathematics |
|
|
| Please add new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
See also: Using Misplaced Pages for mathematics self-study Why are Misplaced Pages mathematics articles so abstract? Abstraction is a fundamental part of mathematics. Even the concept of a number is an abstraction. Comprehensive articles may be forced to use abstract language because that language is the only language available to give a correct and thorough description of their topic. Because of this, some parts of some articles may not be accessible to readers without a lot of mathematical background. If you believe that an article is overly abstract, then please leave a detailed comment on the talk page. If you can provide a more down-to-earth exposition, then you are welcome to add that to the article. Why don't Misplaced Pages's mathematics articles define or link all of the terms they use? Sometimes editors leave out definitions or links that they believe will distract the reader. If you believe that a mathematics article would be more clear with an additional definition or link, please add to the article. If you are not able to do so yourself, ask for assistance on the article's talk page. Why don't many mathematics articles start with a definition? We try to make mathematics articles as accessible to the largest likely audience as possible. In order to achieve this, often an intuitive explanation of something precedes a rigorous definition. The first few paragraphs of an article (called the lead) are supposed to provide an accessible summary of the article appropriate to the target audience. Depending on the target audience, it may or may not be appropriate to include any formal details in the lead, and these are often put into a dedicated section of the article. If you believe that the article would benefit from having more formal details in the lead, please add them or discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Why don't mathematics articles include lists of prerequisites? A well-written article should establish its context well enough that it does not need a separate list of prerequisites. Furthermore, directly addressing the reader breaks Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic tone. If you are unable to determine an article's context and prerequisites, please ask for help on the talk page. Why are Misplaced Pages's mathematics articles so hard to read? We strive to make our articles comprehensive, technically correct and easy to read. Sometimes it is difficult to achieve all three. If you have trouble understanding an article, please post a specific question on the article's talk page. Why don't math pages rely more on helpful YouTube videos and media coverage of mathematical issues? Mathematical content of YouTube videos is often unreliable (though some may be useful for pedagogical purposes rather than as references). Media reports are typically sensationalistic. This is why they are generally avoided. |
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Mathematics and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73Auto-archiving period: 15 days  |
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used
Citing a preprint
(I am posting this here rather than at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Polyhedra because that project is pretty well inactive.)
Johnson, N.W.; Geometries and transformations (2015) is actively being cited in many articles on polyhedra and related topics, in a sudden flurry of activity. Tomruen (talk · contribs) writes on his talk page that it currently exists only in PDF preprint form but it has been accepted for publication. I have in my possession an earlier draft which was circulated many years ago, and just a couple of weeks ago began removing references to it which had appeared in many of these articles. Suddenly, these are being supplanted by references to the anticipated 2015 publication. Based on past history, I am not confident that the wait for publication will in fact be a short one. Are we happy to accept Tom's word on this? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've had PDF access to the manuscript since 2011 with its final draft submitted in March 2014, and accepted in September 2014, and is in process of being reformatted with minimal content changes. I agree a preprint is problematic on verifiability. I take full responsibility if there are delays in print dates, and I'll update all reference usages as needed on final publishing. I've tried to include exact references on specific facts, and sections and titles should be fixed, but cited page numbers will likely shift a bit. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see not so much a problem with citing a preprint to an expert, but rather that the preprint doesn't seem to be publicly accessible. A link to it might be a valuable addition, but not a reference that is only in private circulation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've looked into this a little more, and I don't think things are quite that simple. See, for instance, 8-demicubic honeycomb. This reference has been there for a number of years, so presumably Tom Ruen relied on it to write the article. Only recently does it seem that he has updated the dates on that reference, presumably in anticipation of its imminent publication, although we can't really be sure. In an academic setting, it is necessary and appropriate to cite the sources that one uses, whatever their publication status. That seems to conflict slightly with WP:V in this case. However, I think we should allow the reference to stay there to avoid any appearance of plagiarism. Hopefully it truly will be published soon, and this whole affair will become a non-issue. Anyway, just my 2c, so YMMV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I have the suspicion that a lot of the references on our polyhedra pages are pro forma "cite something generic on polyhedra because a Misplaced Pages article needs to have citations" rather than being specific to the subject of the article and the information they are supposedly sourcing. E.g. we have a lot of references to Coxeter's Regular Polytopes (a fine and relevant book) but without any page numbers or other identifying information that would tailor the reference to the article it appears in. So a preprint with a generic title that nobody can access is especially problematic, regardless of the reliability of its author. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree entirely. I have noticed too that any challenge to some fanboy's favorite factoid tends to result in a flurry of such citations, typically also to self-published web material. There is much that needs attention. Now that we learn that Johnson's book is not yet in its final form but still being "reformatted with minimal content changes", I am even less happy about pretending on most every polytope page that it will be published this year. And what on Earth does it mean for a Misplaced Pages editor to "take full responsibility"? Whatever happened to biding one's time? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure if this is a preprint, or just a draft submitted by the author last year - the final, corrected draft is not due until the Summer and there appears no definitive publication date. Meanwhile Tomruen (talk · contribs) continues to add new material based on this MS, including various neologisms such as adding "ditel" here. He says above that he "takes responsibility" for this, but that is meaningless because he can wait another fifteen years for it to appear if he wants to. Who is to call that "responsibility" in? Is this situation really acceptable? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, I answered your fact challenge with an explicit reference (Regular polytopes, p. 129) And in adding ditel, I referenced a published paper by Professor Johnson. I'm not interested in bias or special treatment for Johnson's terms over any other possibilities. I'm simply giving readers an alternative term besides 1-polytope. If dyad or ditelon or any other terminology exists in usage, and reference can be made, I'd support including those as well. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your reference for "ditel" appears to be an unrefereed conference paper of dubious reliability. In any case, copying a term that is used in a single publication, and writing the article in such a way as to imply that this term is in general usage, was a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, I answered your fact challenge with an explicit reference (Regular polytopes, p. 129) And in adding ditel, I referenced a published paper by Professor Johnson. I'm not interested in bias or special treatment for Johnson's terms over any other possibilities. I'm simply giving readers an alternative term besides 1-polytope. If dyad or ditelon or any other terminology exists in usage, and reference can be made, I'd support including those as well. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, Here's an example of the type of referencing I consider problematic. This edit adds three non-inline sources to the references section of an (already adequately-referenced) article; the one I can most easily check (Grünbaum and Shephard's book Tilings and Patterns) is a book reference without page numbers (see a recent discussion on this type of problem at Misplaced Pages talk:Scientific citation guidelines) but I have the whole book and while it does have a few pages on star polygons they do not include any mention of the specific subject of the article; I am very skeptical that the other two references contain nontrivial content about the subject either. Basically, it seems to miss the point of adding references: to make it possible to verify that the claims within the article are true and known. These references neither support any claims, nor provide any additional information about the subject of the article; they appear to be there only as a form of decoration, to make it look like the article has references. I reverted the edit for this reason but many similar sets of bad references exist in our other polygon/polyhedron/polytope articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
AfC request
Could someone please give the page at User:Inezzzzz/sandbox a look over? I've asked at two other wikiprojects as well, but I can't even begin to understand what is happening at this article. --TKK! bark with me! 23:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to be a notable enough topic, but the wiki presentation is poor. In a (mathematical) nutshell: "Indicator kriging is ordinary kriging of indicator variables for several cut-offs." On the other hand there are several books detailing it, including psedudocode etc., so that a sub-article may be justified. But don't ask me to write it. 86.121.137.79 (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Finite volume methods...
This came up on the current activity page, not new but newly categorised.
and looking I found two more very similar:
- Finite volume method for one-dimensional steady state diffusion
- Finite volume method for two dimensional diffusion problem
It's outside my area so I can't do much to them. They clearly need cleaning up but then what? Are they even notable, or just worked examples of the finite volume method? Or should they be merged, they certainly have a lot in common, not just names but similar content, similar extended links sections. Created by three different accounts, perhaps someone logging in after forgetting a password, perhaps lots of copy and paste.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 02:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Please evaluate an AFC draft
Please evaluate Draft:Laver property for acceptability into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- The key sentence needs to be expanded or explained more. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is the expansion of that sentence essential for the article to pass WP:Notability? If not I can accept it into mainspace now so that normal maintenance can take care of it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I do not know. I never heard of the Laver property before. If the Shelah reference is real, I would let it in, but I do not have his book so I cannot check it. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Draft reviews
Hey all - I posted these here last month, but was hoping if I could get more eyes on these drafts that have potential:
Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sum
A discussion of what to do with the redirect Sum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the name of the article summation is occurring at talk:summation -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sum. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Ihor Voloshyn (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Navbox for "classes" of matrices?
Given that we have this neat navbox for prime number classes, I wonder if we should create a similar one for different types of matrizes. However, I'm not a mathematician (just an economist ;-) ), so apart from the ones commonly seen in economics, I don't know which of these matrices are important, let alone how to categorize a navbox. Is it a good idea though? --bender235 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I made Template:Prime number classes but don't think I know enough to make a proper version for matrices. I like the idea though. List of matrices may help with the grouping if somebody wants to give it a go. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- On second thought, I will make a crude version based on just copying most of List of matrices. I will post later when a draft is ready. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have created {{Matrix classes}} based entirely on copying every link (including red links and links with the same target) in List of matrices. Others are very welcome to make improvements. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think the template needs a little more focus. Right now it has too many different kinds of matrices; most of the entries have no relationship to each other besides the fact that they're matrices. A comprehensive navbox would be too big, and a suitably sized navbox is necessarily more focused. I think it would useful to have a template that discussed types of matrices that are generally of interest within linear algebra proper (sparse, banded, Hermitian, idempotent, etc.) and left out matrices which are of interest because they arise in applications (DFT, Bezout, adjacency, etc.). Ozob (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- And it looks like this:
| Matrix classes | |
|---|---|
| Explicitly constrained entries |
|
| Constant | |
| Conditions on eigenvalues or eigenvectors | |
| Satisfying conditions on products or inverses | |
| With specific applications |
|
| Used in statistics | |
| Used in graph theory | |
| Used in science and engineering | |
| Related terms | |
- To give a perspective, the box looks too large, to me. I suppose it is probably hard to decide on what to include and what to exclude. (The choice would likely reflect editor's background.) -- Taku (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Compact finite difference
Compact finite difference is a new article that could use some cleanup, if indeed it ought to exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Star polygons being saturated with images
Hi, I could use some help at Star polygon. Tomruen (talk · contribs) added a big block of images that I felt breached WP:GALLERY and WP:NOTGALLERY. I removed it and he began warring over it. After I opened a discussion on the talk page at Talk:Star polygon#gallery in the article, he continued adding more. I have posted a more detailed history of the warring there. Could some more eyes come and determine whether I am just being a grumpy old git or is Tom debasing our encyclopedia? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)