Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:37, 7 August 2024

Archives

2006, 2007 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2009a 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2013d 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2020d 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2022d 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d 2024a, 2024b

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "New section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. For discussions concerning specific Misplaced Pages articles, please include a link to the article, and also a link to any specific edits you wish to discuss. (You can find links for edits by using the "compare selected revisions" button on the history tab for any article.)

Dehn invariant of a cube

The article Dehn invariant is somewhat technical and puzzled me whenever I'm trying to calculate the Dehn invariant of a cube. However, I could find a source 233–234, different than the article. Also, is there any meaning when the Dehn invariant of a cube is ${\displaystyle (0,0,0)}$? Does it tells something about its characteristics when being dissected? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Dehn invariant of a cube is zero regardless of basis. Because its dihedral angles, 90°, are rational multiples of π, they are eliminated from the calculation of the Dehn invariant and nothing is left. In the basis used for the Platonic solids described in the examples of the Dehn invariant article, it is (0,0,0). In other bases it would still be a zero vector but with a length equal to the number of basis elements used. Being zero means that it can be dissected to a cube, but it already is a cube! So the dissection has one piece. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Icosian game

The article Icosian game you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Icosian game for comments about the article, and Talk:Icosian game/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Move protection request

Can we get a move protection on Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh and its talk page? Every time I look up, or am about to look at something to discuss with the creator, it's moved again, and it doesn't belong in Drafts at this point in time due to WP:DRAFTNO as you had stated.
To be clear, Requesting a temporary Move protection only until the completion of the AFD discussion. Not seeking any edit protection level, as none is needed. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Kleetope

Thanks again for reminding me about the usage of . To be honest, the tag was used to remind readers that the source does not mention another fact, or probably needs to complete the fact from the previous one. In the case of Kleetope, I put to indicate other than Kleetope of regular icosahedron is not supported by the citation, so I hopefully ask for readers to find more sources, if they want to. Well, sadly, I have no idea about some alternative tags other than to do my action. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the tag you want is {{failed verification}} or maybe in this case {{verify source}} (because the source did actually mention all the facts attributed to it). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

ancient math problems - i do not agree

it is about PROBLEMS. read article first there is category Mathematical problem-->s<-- and i created category for ancient math problems. what is the problem with my edit? Ivan191navi (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

in school we solve problems. in uni we solve problems. i added ancient math problems. they are not unsolved problems but they are problems Ivan191navi (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

over 200 words "problem" included in those 3 article why do you think "article is not about proble" . of course it is not about one problme it is about multiple problems. Ivan191navi (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It is a bad category, badly named, and you should feel bad for making it. The articles you added it to were about ancient mathematics documents, not about the problems they describe. Also, "math" should have been spelled out as "mathematics", for one thing because the abbreviation is different in many other English-speaking countries than it is in the US. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

ok. fair enough. Ivan191navi (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

but would i approve if i named it "tasks" not problems ? ancient mathematics tasks ? Ivan191navi (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

but would you approve it if i named it "tasks" not problems ? ancient mathematics tasks ? Ivan191navi (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ancient mathematics problems might be an acceptable category name for article whose main topic is a problem, and whose study is ancient, such as doubling the cube. It is not an appropriate category name for an article about a document. Replacing words by their synonyms does nothing to change this issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"for an article about a document" - ok

but for GOOGLE company article we have category "2004 initial public offerings" BUT the article is not about IPO. the google artcile contains information about IPO but article is not about IPO... the same in my case. my article is about a document but it contains information about problems(problems = IPO in google) Ivan191navi (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

there are over 200 problems there! it is a huge piece of information. how would you name the category? Ivan191navi (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Cube

By the way, thanks for supplying some sources in the article Cube. While I have managed this article to promote to B-class, I wonder whether we could add some more facts about the polyhedron in its appearances. I have some couple things: popular culture, science, and architecture. The architecture has been discussed in WT:WPM, some of our members mentioned that we should not add them, but some other otherwise. Jacobolus' opinion seems gives good idea IMO—I have no idea about yours next—and this gives me one problem: should the architectural buildings merge into popular culture, or should they have own section but split them by their location? We have cubical buildings in Europe and Arabic countries, but I cannot put those Arabic buildings in popular culture. Science like cGh physics and cubic crystal system should be mentioned, but I'm aware that would probably been reverted. Daily life things such as sugar cube and ice cube can also be included as well, because I would also focus on the audience, especially for the kids or elementary school students; you know, the cube is a common thing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

re: Constructible number

re: your comment to me in your edit after my edit to constructible number, I was following {{sfnp}}/{{harvp}} Template documentation guidance (specifically section Template:Harvp#Adding additional comments or quotes.

I appreciate you reaching out to me. But in the future, please be polite, and don't rudely assume I'm just blindly reformatting, as you insinuated in the comment.  — sbb (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my point. The things you formatted as "additional comments or quotes" were not additional comments or quotes. They were section titles and should have been kept as part of the location parameters of the citation, not formatted as additional comments or quotes. If you had read the references you were reformatting (meaning, gone back to the original source, not merely read the Misplaced Pages citation) you should have noticed this. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Elongated tetragonal disphenoid

No sources ever mentioned about the elongated tetragonal disphenoid, supposedly known as the dual polyhedron of gyrobifastigium. I prefer to delete the redirect (as well as its talk page), but I think I need your assistance. RfD is somewhat complicated for beginners like me. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Mir Publishers

Often, what is not collected becomes lost or at least unappreciated. More so for esoteric academic disciplines such as math and esoteric countries such as the former superpower Soviet Union. (Generally it is one of the least understood parts of mathematics history of the twentieth century, to quote Charles Matthews). Since you are the author of many math textbook Misplaced Pages articles I wonder if you have any thoughts on this and you are willingly to expand the Mir Publishers article to include its published books similar to our article Springer's Graduate Texts in Mathematics. It can be of interest to high school students while preparing for the International Mathematical Olympiad. Solomon7968 12:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aspersions on your behaviour

FWIW: I don't think that comment was casting aspersions on your behaviour. I now think it was just a (more or less rhetorical) reply to your comment on sharing a block. I honestly don't think anyone wanted you, David Eppstein, to be blocked. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but Thebiguglyalien has had plenty of time to respond on their own, has been active editing other things in the meantime, and has not responded. And, not to discourage your laudable show of good faith, but what Thebiguglyalien was specifically complaining about was editors coming to other editors' defense, as you kind of just did. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024

Women in Red | August 2024, Volume 10, Issue 8, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 313, 314, 315 Online events: New: | Women in film and stage | Indigenous women Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) | Translation contest 2024 (July, August, September) | Women in Sports (July, August) Announcements from other communities TBD Tip of the month: Check your athlete's notability before researching and creating her bio. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Mathematics on stamps

Thanks for reviewing the new article Mathematics on stamps and adding the unsourced section tags. I have done some further research and have added ten more sources, doubling the original number of references. If you have time please take another look. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Piper Kelly

On 5 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Piper Kelly, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Piper Kelly secured her position as a competitor in speed climbing at the 2024 Olympics by reaching the final race at the 2023 Pan American Games, before winning the race? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Piper Kelly. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Piper Kelly), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Mariesa Crow

On 6 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mariesa Crow, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that electrical engineering professor Mariesa Crow raises alpacas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mariesa Crow. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mariesa Crow), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Jenya Kazbekova

On 6 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jenya Kazbekova, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jenya Kazbekova, a competition climber on the Ukraine's 2024 Olympic team, is the daughter and granddaughter of competition climbing medalists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jenya Kazbekova. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jenya Kazbekova), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

continued cruft-pushing brigading

Stop. Your edit summary "continued cruft-pushing brigading" is a personal attack. I am not cruft pushing. You're just not listening. Polyamorph (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I was also coming to this page to comment on the use of that term in edit summaries, which I saw as they were going by as well as seeing Polyamorph's complaints about them.

Misplaced Pages:Tag team has some good advice: "Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team. Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil."

In the vast majority of cases, multiple editors support a certain version of an article not because they are coordinating off-wiki in an attempt to force a change, but because they happen to agree on the merits of that version. It's possible to change minds by discussing the merits for and against in more detail than edit summaries that amount to "I changed it back". Especially in a complex case like this one, it's likely that editors who appear to constitute a monolithic faction when simply flipping an article back and forth actually have heterogeneous ideas, and some of them might end up being your allies on certain points in a new consensus if you break down the dispute in more detail.

Accusing certain editors of tag-teaming when they are independently coming to the same conclusions only makes it more difficult for them to hear reasonable arguments and thus to change minds. It may actually contribute to creating a unified faction when there wasn't one before by giving them a common enemy who appears to them to be acting unreasonably (by being conspiratorial instead of open to discourse).

I'm sure the question of what level of detail should be in number articles is tractable, and I hope that a more nuanced discussion can answer it to nearly everyone's satisfaction. -- Beland (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I am certainly on the same side as everyone else that wants to ensure we have good quality articles on integers, without pointless trivia and so-called "cruft". My reversions were not because I am "pro-cruft", but because of the damage that was done to genuine quality content. I have removed entire sections in integer articles myself. But I did so individually and justified each removal to ensure I was not removing quality policy-compliant encyclopaedic content. I have no issue if much of what was removed from those integer articles is removed again, provided sufficient care is actually taken. There is strong opposition at the numbers wikiproject for the manner in which the mass removal of content was undertaken. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this tag-team haranguing fully justifies my edit summary. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)