Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:14, 16 October 2006

Archives
Complete 2002–03 Nov 02 – Dec 03 2004 Jan – Aug Sep – Dec 2005 Jan – Mar Apr – May Jun – Jul Aug Sep – Oct Nov – Dec 2006 Jan – Feb Mar Apr May June July August September

WAREL is back again

I wonder if anybody knowing the subject of the articles edited by WATARU could take a look at some diffs and see if it makes sense what he wrote. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think all changes but one have been corrected or removed. I don't know about Japanese sociologists. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But he doesn't stop, blocking him seems necessary.--gwaihir 23:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at policy under WP:DE (Disruptive Editing) I think WATARU is somewhere between steps 5 and 6 of the process. According to step 4, a 'Request for Comment or other impartial dispute resolution' should be opened. However this was done back in April '06 . We now seem to have 5, 'Editor ignores consensus'. The suggestions under part 6 are topic ban, site ban or probation. EdJohnston 00:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We reached point 6: 'Blocks fail to solve the problem.'  --Lambiam 01:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Still up to the same tricks. What's the next step? —David Eppstein 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked (along with his IP) for 48 hours for personal attack (against me). I have no objection to a community ban, including the IP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed reason to general disruption. The WP:NPA in editing my user page doesn't rise to the level required for a block, but the disruption is still valid. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Now Special:Contributions/Suslin --gwaihir 15:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

and Special:Contributions/MACHIDA (indefblocked; anyone changing the ja: wikilink on Field or Division ring deservices an immediate temporary block, at this point, and the other edits and style makes it clear what's happening.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

and Special:Contributions/MORI (indefblocked), but he seems to have killed the ja: articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fourier Transform

Some of us are discussing re-organizing the articles about the fourier transfrom, I thought this might be of general interest, so anyone interested should look at the Topology of articles discussion under the Continuous Fourier transform talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenub314 (talk • contribs) (Oops on my part Thenub314 00:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

That's not a good page name. How about Fourier transforms on the line? Charles Matthews 07:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also a multi-dimensional continuous version, which curiously is mentioned at Fourier transform but not Continuous Fourier transform.  --Lambiam 11:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The multidimensional version is in there under under a sub-sub-section Extensions. I like the idea of "Fourier Transform on the Line", I had suggested "Fourier Transfrom on R", but no one else seemed to like that idea. But I do dislike the term "continuous Fourier Transform". Thenub314 13:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Importance" and "vital" tags

I think we need to have a discussion about just what are the criteria for the various "importance" levels, and the "vital" tag, for the {{maths rating}} template. Right now they seem to be the opinion of the person adding the template, which I have no terrible argument with (I certainly don't want to add another level of process), but we need to be aware that there can be disagreements.

My attention was brought to this by Salix alba's addition of "Top importance" and "vital" to the decimal article, an article the need for which I think is frankly marginal, at least from the perspective of mathematics. (I agree it's a very important topic from the perspective of history of mathematics.) --Trovatore 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Vital relates to Misplaced Pages:Vital articles which is actually a cross-language grouping of the vital articles that every language should have. There are about 67 such mathematics articles, most of which are rather basic. The mathematician in this list is: Archimedes, Vladimir Arnold, Diophantus, Euclid, Leonhard Euler, Pierre de Fermat, G. H. Hardy, David Hilbert, Gottfried Leibniz, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, Henri Poincaré, Pythagoras, Srinivasa Ramanujan, which I find rather arbitary, and does not agree with the list we put together on the main maths assessment page. It is the same list as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies. The tag is there to have some cross coordination with other efforts.

Yes I wasn't quite sure on the importance of decimal, high importance for school age students, engineers, less important for pure mathematicians.

You do raise a good point about about it being only one persons view. Others may wish to change the ratings, which is fine, indeed encouraged. There have been a few changes in rating happen already. Edit summaries and article talk pages are probably the best places to discuss disputes in the ratings.

The overall definition of importance levels is probably best on the maths assessment page. So far we've only covered about 150 articles, a tiny fraction of the whole mathematics coverage. Quite where the lines should be drawn is still a good question. --Salix alba (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I see; I hadn't understood the exact meaning of the "vital" tag. Maybe the template should be clarified to indicate that. I considered putting "vital=Y" back, but decided to remove decimal from wikipedia:vital articles instead. We'll see how it shakes out. --Trovatore 21:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you notices how they have Proof listed under Number theory, I can't quite figure out the best place to put it though! --Salix alba (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As I recall there's a "logic" category there; any reason not to move it there? --Trovatore 22:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Misplaced Pages:Vital articles is supposed to be a mirror of Meta:List of articles every Misplaced Pages should have. However, I spotted quite a few discrepancies.

The following are listed here as "vital" mathematicians, but are not mentioned at Meta: Vladimir Arnold, Diophantus, Pierre de Fermat, G. H. Hardy, Henri Poincare, Srinivasa Ramanujan. Curiously enough, Pythagoras is listed, but in the category "Social scientists"!

The following mathematicians are listed at Meta but not here: Fibonacci, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Christiaan Huygens, Hypatia of Alexandria, Johannes Kepler, Pierre-Simon Laplace, Blaise Pascal, Bernhard Riemann. One could argue that Kepler should be in the category "Scientists", but he is not mentioned at all on our "Vital" list. Same for Pascal as also being a philosopher. Isaac Newton is listed in the category "Inventors and scientists".

Should we do something about these discrepancies, and if so, what is the appropriate approach?  --Lambiam 22:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies, it the place most worthy of our attention, as it has the highest profile, being a key part of the WP:1.0 project. The job of selecting just ten mathematicans seems quite arbitary.

Also worrying is the coverage of mathematics in WP:CORE just 5 out of 150 article

Algebra Geometry, Mathematics, Number and Statistics. (Calculus, Mathematical analysis and Non-euclidean geometries got booted off).

WP:CORESUP the suplement with 150 more articles, and only 5 more maths articles

Arithmetic, Equation, Mathematical proof, Theorem, Trigonometry

WP:V0.5 the first itteration of the 1.0 list, has

Georg Cantor, Carl Friedrich Gauss, David Hilbert, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal, Alan Turing, John von Neumann, Algebra, Calculus, Game theory, Linear algebra, Margin of error, Mathematics, Measurement, Trigonometric function, Pi, Fractal, Manifold, Matrix (mathematics).

Thats now closed, selection was based partially of GA/FA's and core topics, plus a few we put forward. There will probably be another iteration before the final 1.0 release.

Possibly the best thing for us to do is assemble of list of perhaps 50 mathematics articles, which are of high importance and good quality. We can then pass these lists onto the various other projects as sugestions for inclusion. The 0.5 people were quite responsive, although we didn't have much to offer them at the time. --Salix alba (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record... there are currently 76 top-class articles, of which 3 are FAs, 8 are A-class, 4 are GAs, 12 are B+ class, 27 are B-class, 19 are start-class, and none are stubs. These figures include mathematicians. Tompw 22:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the original point, which is basically asking how we decide what level of importance to give an article. I think several people (myself included) would naturally tend to equate importance with "importance in mathematics" - so something like the Pythagorean theorem would come out fairly low. However, the criteria given in the WP 1.0 subpage relate to an articles importance for a print encyclopedia. To me, this means we have consider importance to the readership as well as importance in mathematics. Consequently, the Pythagorean theorem comes out as top importance. In a nut shell, I give the artitcle an importance of Max{public importance, mathematical importance}. Because the grading of quality and importance is done by oen person, there will always be potential for disagreement. In that case, it's probably best to discuss it in the talk of the assessment page. Tompw 22:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a tendency to equate "mathematics" with "contemporary pure mathematics research", visible both here and in the new version of the Geometry article, that I think should be discouraged. As a formula for calculating distances from Cartesian coordinates, in the kind of mathematics that non-mathematicians are likely to use, the Pythagorean theorem is extremely important. —David Eppstein 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completly... the point I was trying to make (maybe needing a better example) was that we are trying to rate the importance of the article in an encyclopedia, not the importance of subject matter in mathematics itself. Tompw 22:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Tompw. The "importance" criteria should be something along the lines of, if you were in a math class that assumed you knew "x" and needed to look "x" up, might you try an encyclopedia, or would you try to find a more specific reference? For example, yesterday, I rated complex number as a Top importance article because it's a concept that is very common (yet often misunderstood) in mathematics and probably should be found in a general reference book. On the other hand, something like holomorphic function (trying to stick with the complex theme here) is very important to mathematics, but it is advanced to the degree that no one would try to look it up in a print encyclopedia. --JaimeLesMaths 04:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Core biographies importance ratings are helpful:

• Top - Must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations, and in the majority of the world. (snip)
• High - Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin.
• Mid - Important in their discipline.
• Low - A contributor to their discipline and is included in Misplaced Pages to expand depth of knowledge of other articles.

These are a little more objective, but need a little tweeking to better fit the needs of mathematics articles. So by these Pythagorean theorem is clearly top, whith a very large impact. holomorphic function has a smaller impact outside of mathematics.

Possibly another way of sorting articles would be when they would typically be taught, say primary (up to 11), secondary (11-16), advanced (16-18 and non mathmatics numerate degrees), maths degrees, post-grad. These could be called something other than the emotive importance, say academic level. Possibly also useful as the actual academic level could be compared with the writing style of the article indicating articles with too technical writing for the content. --Salix alba (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

New section in Pythagorean theorem should be expanded

I've hastily added a new subsection to Pythagorean theorem on the proof found in Euclid's Elements. Doubtless it could bear further elaboration (since it's not really the full proof, but rather an illustration with an accompanying explanation). Also, could someone who knows how to do such things help with the alignment of the illustration, so the reader can more easily tell which illustration goes with which section? Michael Hardy 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've worked over the illustration layout, introducing right-left alternation, standard thumbnail size, forced clears, and captions.

For those who have little experience with images, there is helpful information at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Graphics, and at Help:Images and other uploaded files.

Once an image has been uploaded, the standard right-floated thumbnail is produced by a line like the following.

]

It should immediately preceed the paragraph it accompanies. To force a break, use the following HTML.

<br style="clear:both" />

There's no rocket science here. The hard part is, as always, creating the images. --KSmrq 23:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve most math articles

What I've noticed, in my quick, probably statistically invalid sample of a few articles, is that they could be benfitted greatly from graphs. For example, Venn diagram is clearly illustrated, as is a bit easier to understand than, let's say, Comparison test. Comparison test could benefit from the image on Convergent series, for example... and similar. That, IMO, could help many math articles be a bit closer to FA status. Titoxd 03:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you'll be delighted to contribute to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics/Graphics.

Good illustrations don't just happen. Some mathematicians think in pictures, but many do not. So first, someone must have an idea for a figure. Then someone must design it. Then someone must create it. Then it must be uploaded (to Commons) and introduced into the article. You might be surprised how much time and effort can go into a single illustration.

We'd also like more articles, and better introductions for the general public, and more examples, and more references, and more ISBNs for listed books, and more web links, and so on. And, of course, more better writing. (And fewer vandals, and fewer clueless editors, and fewer drive-by "fixit" tags.)

In other words, we may agree with your sentiments, but Misplaced Pages places the power to make it happen in your hands. Do feel free to ask here, or at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Graphics, or at the Village Pump if you need assistance. --KSmrq 06:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Mathematics#I'm taking image requests.  --Lambiam 00:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

John Dee

John Dee is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Major reworking of Geometry

Geometry is just undergoing a major reworking. The previous article was just a history of the topic and has been moved to History of geometry. This now leaves Geometry as a stub, sugestions of how to structure the article welcome on the talk page. --Salix alba (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And this major move had how much discussion? 'Just' a history of geometry - would anyone care to weigh in with a non-historicist discussion of what geometry means? Charles Matthews 09:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, no discussion. I guess User:The Transhumanist was being WP:BOLD. Still I think its generally a good idea, as the history only approach was not the best way to structure the article. --Salix alba (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the earlier incarnation of the article was bloated and didn't give enough of a flavor of 20th century developments, but jettisoning the whole thing was a mistake. I am definitely leaning in the direction of revert. Michael Kinyon 10:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, plenty of edits since then. Let it not be said that we (OK, I) ducked the challenge. Charles Matthews 15:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I just assumed you meant the "royal we", Charles. :-) In any case, yes, I'm slowly being convinced this can work. Michael Kinyon 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can call me Prince. Charles Matthews 17:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Though Shing-shen Chern is deceased (so I guess he's not contemporary), it is very odd that he is not mentioned in this article. What is the definition of contemporary again. A fortiori, Cartan I guess would not be contemporary either. --CSTAR 17:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It needs a section just for differential geometry too, of course. Charles Matthews 18:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a very long list of topics (in its own article) of articles on Geometry, so I do not think that the main article needs to mention them. It already has a pointer to that list. I would suggest that the main article focus on the most modern concept of Geometry, i.e. David Hilbert's. As the History of Geometry article says "In geometry, there was a clear need for a new set of axioms, which would be complete, and which in no way relied on pictures we draw or on our intuition of space. Such axioms were given by David Hilbert in 1894 in his dissertation Grundlagen der Geometrie (Foundations of Geometry).". JRSpriggs 09:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Axiomatic geometry is interesting, but is only a small part of the subject known as geometry. The article works best as a survey, and seems to be evolving quite well right now. Michael Kinyon 09:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert's axioms are only 'state of the art' in a very restricted sense. The suggestion that we need a survey based on the contemporary scene is sound; though it shouldn't exclude other things on that page. As for axiomatics, Atiyah says some interesting things about those. I was trying to find where Weil discussed geometry, yesterday, so far without success. The way things are going, we should be finding more quotes to add to various articles. Charles Matthews 09:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert's axioms provide a great understanding of how mathematics develops and how mathematicians think; You can see that reading any good "mathematical education" textbook (quotes here are used to indicate my disdain for most specialists in education), e.g. Great Theorems of Mathematics: A Journey Through Genius (I forgot the author), that puts side to side Euclid's axioms and Hilbert's. They are a valuable addition to any article on geometry. --Lucas Gallindo 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The author is William Dunham. ISBN 0471500305. Gandalf61 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to ask how many contemporary papers in geometry are actually based on Hilbert's axioms. Charles Matthews 15:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, papers of real relevance, using Hilbert axioms... there are none! But I still think they are enlightening for the newcomer.--Lucas Gallindo 15:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also fair to ask how many contemporary papers are based on Euclid's axioms. I don't believe the study of facts about Euclidean geometry on the plane is a major topic in contemporary research. The things mentioned in Geometry about contemporary research in Euclidean geometry, such as geometric group theory, seem like a stretch. CMummert 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I take the point abouy geometric group theory, which has a more complicated set of inputs than the other areas mentioned in that section. Euclidean geometry now is the geometry of Euclidean space, or the Euclidean group, post-Klein. Charles Matthews 07:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Synthetic geometry should be more fully described; I know just enugh about it to be cautious of "Euclid-style" without being able to edit myself. Septentrionalis 04:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Numeric spiral

Just a word of warning: The page Numeric spiral was created today by User:Noluz. The same user listed it on List of curves and in the External links of Archimedean spiral, but I just reverted both since Numeric spiral has nothing to do with curves at best, and at worst is numerology. Michael Kinyon 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same or similar to the Ulam spiral? --Salix alba (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. It is similar, in fact, to at least one of the external links on that page. Michael Kinyon 01:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing described is not a Ulam spiral. It is a badly designed visual representation of partitioning the natural numbers into equivalence classes modulo 9 while marking the prime numbers. Putting them in the form of a spiral serves no particular purpose and does not help to bring to light any properties. I've listed this article for deletion.  --Lambiam 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is simply applying Casting out nines to calculate the equivalence class (as Lambiam said) and then treating the fact that primes (except three itself) are not divisible by three as some kind of magic. Really idiotic. JRSpriggs 05:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now that I finally thought to click on the figure to enlarge it. And only now can I decipher the nonmagical parts of the article. "Cabilist" indeed! :-) Michael Kinyon 07:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Gang Tian

Hi, it seems that a single-issue user (130.158.83.81) is keen to revert the controversy section of Gang Tian from my edits originally made here. His reversions are here and here.

My edits were intended to improve the quality of the writing of that section, to improve the wikilinks (for example, 130.158.83.81 insists on linking to Yau-Tian affair, which doesn't exist, rather than Tian-Yau affair), to improve the accuracy (according to my limited knowledge) and to add citation requests for unsupported assertions.

A later editor removed the controversy section altogether, after the 130.158.83.81s latest reversion. I have since restored the section for the time being, but perhaps removal is the best option. If we want to keep the section, then the version promoted by 130.158.83.81 seems objectively worse than my alternative. There is much room for improvement, but I just sought to make the section better than awful.

Anyway, I don't think that editor is breaking any rules, and I don't want to enter a daily edit war, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. All the best--Jpod2 08:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made a redirect from Yau-Tian affair, removing one minor bone of contention. The content should be very careful, and adhere to WP:LIVING, staying well away from any hint of defamation. We should also remember and respect the fact that these are important professional mathematicians. Charles Matthews 09:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to tone down some of the extreme and unusual language in my edit, or otherwise requested citations. I doubt that this version will stay there, though.--Jpod2 09:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think your edits helped to improve the section, and helped to remove POV from the article. Thanks. It may be that user Reb's solution of removing the unsourced paragraph may be best for now. Good luck, Lunch 15:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that might be the best solution for the moment. All the best--Jpod2 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a couple quick thoughts as my time editing is limited recently. 1) Per WP:BLP do not merely add "citation needed" tags to dubious, potentially libelous information; remove it immediately - do not move it to the talk page. 2) The intro is rather bad as it overemphasizes his recent monograph with Morgan; that is not his most notable achievement or why he is a titled professor at MIT. It should be moved and noted in some kind of contributions section, with a brief description of his specializations in the intro. Also, for some reason he is listed as being a full professor at Princeton in a section. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I had the impression he was at Princeton, so I did a little searching and it seems he is there now, although a few years ago he was at MIT and transitioning to Princeton. So this ought to be cleared up in the article. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 19:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sylvia Nasar

Besides the fairly well-patrolled Poincare conjecture, Grigori Perelman, Tian-Yau affair, Manifold Destiny, and newer Gang Tian, those with the inclination should keep an eye on S.T. Yau (which doesn't appear watched as much) and Sylvia Nasar (not watched very much either). Recently there has been a couple rather defamatory edits to the Nasar article (based on what appears to be sheer speculation and poor sourcing). --Chan-Ho (Talk) 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lie theory

The page use to redirect to Lie group but was changed into a small article which is pretty much barren.--Jersey Devil 10:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it should be merged into Lie (disambiguation); so I did. Septentrionalis 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation guidelines proposal support

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Citation guidelines proposal currently states: "... editors in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics want to clarify how these guidelines should be implemented for physics articles ...". Question: Can we change that to: "... editors in the WikiProjects Physics and Mathematics want to clarify how these guidelines should be implemented for physics and mathematics articles ..."?  --Lambiam 17:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would support that change. Madmath789 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Me too. I like the proposed guidelines a lot. Especially the new part about how simple examples and rederivations aren't WP:OR. —David Eppstein 17:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in. I like them, too. Michael Kinyon 18:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Editors of the mathematics article are setting citation guidelines for that article. It would be far better to follow more broadly accepted guidelines. --Jtir 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

<comment deleted -- I had said something about the 0.999... article, well I will not delete my comments again> :) --Vesal 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposed guideline gives no examples of book-cites at the page level, which are used extensively in ]. Another problem is that the example article-cites appear in a random order in the notes instead of alphabetically. --Jtir 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote some confusing stuff up there and deleted it, sorry about it... I will explain, at first I thought it was a citation style, but this is something much deeper, it's the verifiability guideline, and well as such I don't think it specifies any style at all. So let's discuss the guideline... I have a number of questions, maybe I will ask them on the guidelines talk page. --Vesal 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be the appropriate place for any and all comments on the draft. Putting them here makes them invisible to editors in other projects. Comments are welcome from everyone. CMummert 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just question to people in this project... has there ever been discussion or edit wars over the proofs or reasoning presented in mathematics articles? I have not seen any such discussion over mathematical details, so I would support the proposal... However, I would not mind, if all mathematics articles were as cited as 0.999.... I don't really see how such citations make reading or editing more difficult. I wonder what the people who worked on that article think about the excessive citing that was required to get it into FA quality. --Vesal 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Has there ever! You only have to check out the talk page of that article and its archives. The general consensus I perceive in hindsight is that mild OR is better than nothing, but I've encountered little resistance to the idea that cited material is better than OR. What do I think about the citing? I think it's hard but worthwhile. Not only does it keep you honest and stem accuracy disputes, the search for citations can lead you to the only really interesting material in an article. Melchoir 21:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added mathematics in. Seeing as it is a proposal, anyways, it can't hurt. A number of people on WP:CITE and WP:GA seem pretty happy with the proposal too, so I'm optimistic about the chances for this proposal to make an impact for the better. –Joke 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say I am really glad the difficulties physics and maths articles faced over WP:CITE and WP:GA are being addressed. Tompw 22:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the issue recognized. The unthinking insistence at Misplaced Pages:What_is_a_good_article? that all articles, whatever their structure or sources, must have in-line citations continues, however. The exception in the proposal is entirely reasonable. Septentrionalis 22:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything has been resolved at WP:CITE; this is at best a stopgap measure. And WP:GA applications are going to be a dead end for a while unless we get a large number of scientifically knowledgable good article reviewers. CMummert 00:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but I take the attitude that the articles that are best off without in-line citations are probably not articles that we really want to become "Good Articles" (or, heavens, Featured Articles). It's crucial to recognize that there is a difference between Good Articles and good articles: this is particularly so, and will likely remain so indefinitely, with physics and math articles. Articles such as the Littlewood-Richardson rule and Bianchi classification (these don't exist yet – hint, hint) could probably be quite easily be made into good articles. But it is not at all clear it would be worth the effort to make them into Good Articles. –Joke 00:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We should write good articles, not Good Articles. The more I see of that process, the less I like it. Septentrionalis 03:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

More good GA fun. Derivative was awarded GA today and then imediatly reviewed, inline cites being one of the issues. Folks might like to comment. --Salix alba (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with grading articles please?

Just a notice... it would be wonderful if more people could help grade maths articles in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0. Anyone can edit in additional important articles that should be included. It's *not* a job where an excessive number of cooks leads to inferior broth. Tompw 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Misplaced Pages 1.0 is a broken and misguided project, and should be abandoned or reformulated. No thank you. Septentrionalis 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's very nice, but totally irrelvant :-). Tompw 22:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not just about Misplaced Pages 1.0, its about having a good allround coverage of the mathematics articles. Grading helps us identify the strengths and weeknesses in our maths coverage: important articles which are week and need work to bring them up to speed, and also the better articles which could be put forward to GA or FA status. --Salix alba (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How do the comments in the tables in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0 relate to the comments in the {{maths rating}} box? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, week equality. The tables predate the math rating tag, serving as a sort of scratch pad, where we tried to build up a list of the most important topics. Much of the task at the moment is to go through the list there and adding tags to the talk pages. Eventially the automatically generated Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality will become the definative list. Mathbot uses the comments stored in say Talk:Blaise Pascal/Comments to fill in the comment in the list and also in the talk page, which will be a mechanism for ensuring consistancy of comments. I need to work out how to switch on including these comments in the list.

Slightly related is the field parameter to the tag. It currently does nothing but could be used as a mechanism to group the ratings by the particular topic area. --Salix alba (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Prime numbers

While looking into an OTRS ticket, I came across this edit. Does anyone know if this stuff is accurate? --bainer (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good nonsense. It has been reverted. Charles Matthews 10:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Graph invariant: a new category?

Graph invariant is a regular page. I propose to make it a subcategory of Graph Theory. Several pages would then belong to it:

• Algebraic connectivity
• Arboricity
• Betti number
• Clustering coefficient
• Colin de Verdière graph invariant
• etc.

Do you agree/disagree? pom 09:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On the point of grammar, Category:Graph invariants would be the usual style. Charles Matthews 10:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree (preferrably with the plural form) JoergenB 12:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note, I just made a subcat Category:Graph families yesterday. Probably several of the entries there could also be cross-listed under invariants, e.g. Dense graph defines density as an invariant. —David Eppstein 15:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the category. I am not really happy with the content of the old Graph invariant page, so I did not copy it. How should graph invariants defined within a more general article be categorized and/or listed in this category? pom 16:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable invariants should be worked into the main article as prose, as in Knot invariant. Later on, it may even be useful to complete the coverage with a list article, but not yet. Melchoir 16:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The future

There are several fairly active discussions going on about quality, citations and so on. The Project needs one more thing, really, which is an assessment of coverage and where it is going. At a moment when the coverage as a whole looks satisfactory, saying people should concentrate more on quality makes every sense.

We are not there yet, really. It is somewhat muddling to look at lists of articles, or of red links, and to try just from that to say how broad the coverage is. My gut feeling, though, is that 18 months ago we were mid-1950s, and now more like mid-1960s. That is, there is a historical way of thinking about this, and it is a helpful barometer. (In physics, the 1960s would be quarks and quasars, kind of thing, and it is not so odd there to ask about coverage in terms of what is adequately discussed in encyclopedia terms.)

Extrapolating, we might have a reasonably full coverage in about four years time. Don't groan: it would be an amazing achievement to say we had a survey that good. There are always going to be topics left out, but the criterion is that writing an article to fill a gap would not involve a long trail of red links to further concepts on which it depended. The basic vocabulary would be there.

Charles Matthews 10:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem edits on RH

I noticed a number of problematic edits by User:Karl-H on topics relating to the Riemann hypothesis. I tried fixing some, but am out of energy at the moment. I believe that the gist of what he's trying to say is mostly correct, but he is not a native English speaker, and he's not a mathematician, and he's writing up original interpretations of research papers he did not quite understand. The edits wreck to flow of the articles, the language is fractured, ungrammatical, mis-capitalized, and worst: the formulas are fractured, incomplete or wrong; see for example Chebyshev function, Hilbert-Polya conjecture, etc. I just can't get to this stuff in the next few weeks. linas 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See an awkward ongoing discussion about claims to have proved RH, on Talk: Hilbert-Pólya conjecture. I'm not rushing into anything, but there are unsupported statements about RH on the pages, not sourced, which may need to be removed as original research. There may also be an issue here about what is a 'reliable source' for rumours, how we treat 'non-withdrawn claims' over time, and so on. My view is that in most cases we can have an article with NPOV that ignores fringe claims; so that cutting out rumours is usually OK. Charles Matthews 09:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Order theory

Whereas I 100% agree with We should write good articles, not Good Articles, I want to bring to everybody's attention that the GA candidateship of Order theory is on hold for failing the criteria 2a, 2b,2c of It is factually accurate and verifiable. --Pjacobi 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a sad example of the prevailing lunacy. Despite the twisted mindset of some editors that "inline citations" = "accurate and verifiable", this article is well documented. Reputable sources given at the end suffice to allow the claims given in the article to be verified as accurate. Misplaced Pages must learn that mobs and footnotes are no substitute for editorial competence and diligence. --KSmrq 23:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Navigational templates

Trovatore drew my attention to the fact that there is a consensus against navigational templates in maths articles of any kind. I was completely unaware of this... could someone kindly explain why this is the case?

I always thought navigation boxes were one of things that made Misplaced Pages so much better than any print encyclopedia. Also, Calculus topics all have a box at the top right; and {{mathematics-footer}} exsists and is used, so the rule is clearly not applied in all cases.

This cropped up because I had begun implementing the contents of User:Tompw/maths templates. Tompw 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

<rant>No, hypertext makes Misplaced Pages so much better than any print encyclopedia. But not everybody got the concept of hypertext, so the "See also" section was invented. Then the attack of the web designers happened, and everything had to be be boxed, colored and templated. Or something like that.</rant> --Pjacobi 15:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I said "one of things"... I agree hyperlinks are definitely the single biggest thing that make Misplaced Pages wonderful. However, when I browse wikipedia, I want to know about related topics. If I'm looking at the History of Nunavut, I may want to read about the Geography of Nunavut. This wouldn't be linked within the text of the former, but is linked via the nav box. Also, such boxes draw your attention to topics you might have been unaware of. Tompw 15:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Calculus I think is allowed to be an exception: as a service to students, a box provides quick navigation between standard topics. Otherwise templates are much hated. For one thing, if you put both an algebra and a topology box on algebraic topology, you are starting a nasty build-up. This illustrates one point: boxes were used before categories existed, and categories are superior. For another thing, the choice of topics in a box is arbitrary in a potentially annoying way. Who would be able to make a definitive box for group theory? It again looks like subcategories is a better solution. Charles Matthews 15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I woudl disagree with the statement "templates are much hated"... more to the point, the advantage of nav boxes is that they are selective, whereas a category has to contain anything and everything taht is vaguely relevant. I agree such selectivity has the potential to cause disputes, but that does not means such disputes cannot be resolved. Tompw 15:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't mean they are worth having, either. That is a genuine reason for the dislike. Say there is a good selection to be made, for a student at a certain level. Who chooses the level, though? First course in topology, second graduate year in algebraic topology ... ? No end in sight. Charles Matthews 16:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very displeased by the {{Geometry-footer}} and {{Analysis-footer}} templates. They are huge, and this kind of things tend to only grow over time. I believe in general that navigational templates are bad, except perhaps by {{Calculus}} as mentioned by Charles and maybe {{mathematics-footer}}. Categories are much preferred. I would suggest these templates be deleted. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(Btw, I never intended to create these as finished products. I always knew that they would get changed, probably quite substantially from my intial creation. If people think they are too long/short/weird, then edit the thing. This is a wiki, after all :-) Tompw 15:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Those footers are awful ({{Geometry-footer}} & {{Analysis-footer}}). They are a bunch words strung together with no organization, not even alphabetical. And how is "Category:Geometry" a topic in geometry? IMO, a lack of hierarchical organization is a deficiency in many subject areas that makes it hard to take in the "big picture". The Encyclopædia Britannica has a Propædia that organizes all knowledge in a hierarchy. Since WP is electronic there can be several hierarchies. --Jtir 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment. ({{Geometry-footer}} is now much changed. Will do {{Analysis-footer}} in morning, assuming someone else hasn't got there first :-). Tompw 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

While hyperlinks are good we need to distinguish between inline hyperlinks and hyperlinks in lists/templates. For purpose of navigation inline links are not ideal, they require the user scan the whole text searching for a given link, they may occur in a narative order rather than a logical/hyerarchal order. I'd quite like to see important related topics in a see also section even though they already appear in the main text. It makes it easier for people to navigate.

Tompw raises a good point about categories in how they tend to get too full to allow the important items to be easily found. One solution is to actually expand the text in the category so a more organised list is displayed. This is what we've done at Category:Polyhedra.

The other approach to a nav box style is to follow the German scheme, where there is a standard configurable box, which may had fields like parent topics, sibling topics and child topics. Each page could then set these fields as needed, avoiding problems with the giant nav boxes. --Salix alba (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, can you provide an example? I couldn't find one on de.wikipedia.org. --Jtir 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a familiar precedent for displaying hierarchies: Windows Explorer. When collapsed, an entire hierarchy fills exactly one line. Indeed all modern computer file system browsers allow collapsing and expanding of any part of the hierarchy. The Nautilus file manager that is part of many Linux distributions is good example. --Jtir 17:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Example of German navboxes: DE:Halbgruppe. But they're not used consistently throughout math there. —David Eppstein 18:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks promising. Now if only those bullets were clickable so the subcategories could be displayed or hidden at will.

Could someone translate these headers? BabelFish doesn't do too well on them.

Here are the German headers with English translations:

• berührt die Spezialgebiete ("touches branches/areas ")
• ist Spezialfall von ("is a special case of")
• umfasst als Spezialfälle ("contains as special cases")

--Jtir 19:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as promising. I see it as promoting a view of math as a very rigid hierarchy, which conflicts with my view of math as a highly interlinked non-hierarchical graph of connections. E.g., to name two topics I've been working on very recently: Happy Ending problem is categorized as Category:Discrete mathematics while until very recently Erdős–Szekeres theorem was categorized only as Category:Ramsey theory — viewing things hierarchically, Discrete Geom => Geom => Math and Ramsey theory => Combinatorics => Math are very far apart. But they come from the same original paper and originally one was used to prove the other. I think a hierarchical view of the world as promoted through navboxes would downplay that connectivity as well as needlessly cluttering the pages and making it harder to find the actual text of the article. —David Eppstein 20:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Literal translation: "touches branches/areas ", "is a special case of", "contains as special cases".--gwaihir 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think each branch would need to be handled a bit different. Some things partition well, others don't. Some pages would have very short boxes, some could have longer. - grubber 21:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tossed around the idea with a couple other WPers about the idea of starting a project to develop some math templates like the ones used in the German[REDACTED] (see de:Gruppetheorie for an example). I think it would be nice to get together some people interested in this, and hash out some ideas and guidelines about what we could use in the English WP. If we were to let a template system grow organically, I think it will quickly get out of control and become inconsistent... being more of an annoyance than a help. But, if we can plan out from the start, I think we could set up a very nice, usable navigation aid that will not detract from the articles. How would you all feel about such a project (it could be a separate wikiproject or a subproject of this one)? - grubber 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The link de:Gruppetheorie leads to "Gruppetheorie ... Diese Seite existiert nicht", which I would roughly translate as "No such article". --Jtir 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

de:Gruppentheorie --gwaihir 19:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The boxes on German wp are incomplete, partly misleading, partly wrong. They originated in the (not uncommon) misconception that algebraic structures should be understood by comparison to "similar" structures. Of course, a given object like the integers has all the aspects of ring, abelian group, monoid. But group theory is not just abelian group theory without commutativity, and ring theory is again completely different from studying the additive and multiplicative structure separately. I do not update these boxes any more, nor create new ones. But I'll ask for other opinions on dewiki.--gwaihir 19:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want a copy of the German version either. But, I believe there is something between "no boxes at all" and "German-version boxes" (plus something new) that would work really nice. It will take a bit of time and debate and organization to hash it all out, but I think it's very doable. - grubber 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I quickly hacked together a demo User:Salix alba/Maths navbox shown on the right. It only supports two siblings and two children, but could be extended for more (I'd recomend no more than six for usability reasons). Its adapted from the taoxobox.

Code: {{User:Salix alba/Maths navbox|color=lightgreen|title=Group|parent=]|sibling1=]|sibling2=]|child1=]|child2=]}}

Yay! Lots of people are engaging in a mature and adult discussion about this idea. :-) More to the point, I'm not sure a parent/sibling/child box is the answer. The trouble is that one area of maths doesn't always relate to other areas in a hierachichal (sp) fashion. It's not like bilogy, where a genus is considered as a member of a fmaily, in comparison with that family's other genuses, and as collection of its species. So, the concept of sibling areas doesn't really hold. That said, the parent/children bit works far better. With groups, the parent is Algebraic Structures (and Alegbra in general), and the children are things like Abelian Groups, simple grouprs, quotients, products, sub-groups, major theorums etc. The trouble this leads to is a large number of children - see #3 below. People's complaints about my navigation boxes seemed to fallinto three categories:

1. Categories are better than navigation boxes: My reply is that both can co-exsist quite happily. If you want to to naviagte by category, then the exsistence of nav boxes doesn't prevent you
2. The layout/organisation/content is bad: This is a wiki. Change it. I created those boxes in the same was I create a stub article - for someone else to come along later and improve it.
3. What to include will lead to disputes and its cousin These boxes will get too large as people add more articles: The answer to this is a bit more involved. I was planning on creating navigation boxes to cover the next level of detail. For example, Group theory is just represented by two links in the Algebra box. I intended to create a nav box for gropu theory, containing such topics as Abelian Groups, simple grouprs, quotients, products, sub-groups, major theorums. (This deals with the problem mentioned above of excessivrt children). So, if a box gets too many items, simply split off a section into a new box. (Like splitting off History of XXX from the article on XXX). Now, if you think "This means some articles will ave loads of boxes", then you'd be wrong. At worst, an article (such as group theory) would have two navigation boxes - one covering sub-topics, and one cover super-topics (as it were). Tompw 22:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, some areas of math are more hierarchal. Abstract algebra breaks down into a tree pretty decent, but number theory may not. Further, if we designated a central area to organize the nav-box content, then all opinions can be collated and we can maintain some consistency. - grubber 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, categories and navigation boxes can co-exist. However, combined they take up even more space, distracting from the meat of the article. Let's take the navbox on groups demonstrated by Salix Alba above. When reading group, how important will it be to the reader that groups are studied in algebra, or that the concepts of ring and field are related? How many will follow these links? I'd say that these things are only of minor importance when compared to the other topics of the article. Therefore, I think the article is better off without such an attention grabbing box at the top. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't ever intedning to put the boxes at the top - I was intending to put them at the bottom. In fact, I don't like nav boxes at the top for precisely the reasons you give. Tompw 14:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am still left with the idea that those navigational templates are a bad idea. For example, {{Analysis-footer}} contains a random bunch of things, starting with calculus, going to harmonic analysis, then List of integrals and Table of derivatives, to finish with the entire Category:Calculus. Linkcruft basically.

I strongly disagree with any hierarchical navigational boxes as suggested above. That would basically duplicate the category system.

If anybody is full of energy, what this project trully needs is to work on categories containing a huge amount of articles, splitting them into smaller one by topic which would also make navigation easier. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is begining to get repetitive....If you don't like it, change it. Please. The argument is here is not about whether one particular nav box is good or bad, but over whether to use the things at all. Tompw 13:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Jitse and Oleg. The categories need work, so why use potentially different hierarchies in garish boxes at the top bottom of the article that just get in the way? VectorPosse 06:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"why use potentially different hierarchies..." actually, I would regard having an alternative hierachy as a good thing, to allow users the choice.

"...in garish boxes..." garishness is something that can be changed to accomadate tastes (You really these are garish? I'm surprised)

"that just get in the way". Why would they get in the way? It's not as though the exsistence of the box make it any harder to scroll to the bottom of the article where the category links are. Tompw 20:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so when I said "garish" I was refering more to the other sorts of boxes given as examples in the preceding discussion. (Lots of colors and somewhat more "in the way".) The boxes you showed are not exactly that, so point taken. Let me also clarify my comment about hierarchies. It is clear that there are two different types of hierarchies we are discussing. This has been discussed here at length and seems to be a matter of "top-down" versus "bottom-up" organization. I am merely asserting (as several others have done here) that both types are already present in articles in the context in which they are more natural. (And I agree that "natural" is a subjective word. I am basing my idea of natural on the standards that are currently in place in Misplaced Pages and seem to function well already.) Categories provide the bottom up approach of reading an article and using its category to go up to the higher level and understand the context in which the specific article functions. As for top-down organization, this is already present in the hyperlinks in the article that will refer to related concepts, and "See Also" sections that do exactly what you propose to do in an extra box. I agree with you when you say that users might want a choice to go "up" or "down" a hierarchy. I'm simply pointing out that such a choice already exists and that more boxes might be redundant. And yes, they would still be a bit "in the way" since they will be basically repeating a lot of the "See Also" section when it exists and appearing right next to a box of categories that might also be saying a lot of the same thing as well. VectorPosse 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the boxes could be partly redundent in some cases. (Although the exsistence of search and hyperlinks arguably makes categories redudent, but I digress). However, WP doesn't have space restrictions, so there is no reason not ave a belt and braces aproach. (The anology is apt - some people like belts, some people like braces. Me using one doesn't stop you using the other).

Where links in the "See also" section are duplicated, then they could be removed from the "See also" section. One of my pet peeves is a huge long list (e.g. Fluid_dynamics#See_also, especially before I put it columns). Also, a category link maens openign up the acetgory page, possibly going to a sub-category (or super-caetgory), browseing through a list organised alphabetically rather than by topic, and then (and only then) seclting a related article... and if you wish to browse through a series of related articles, then you have to repeat the process. A nav box means you can go to a related page in just one click. For those with slow connections or computers, this is defiante plus. Tompw 12:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See, now you're talking about, not only making the text harder to find by surrounding it with more boxes, and not only making the article harder to maintain by keeping redundant connectivity information in the text and in the boxes, but actually degrading the information in the text to support these useless boxes. Also note that a see also section could and maybe should (even though they often don't) have brief notes explaining why one might want to see also, while in the navbox all that textual context is lost and only the link information remains. And your belts-suspenders analogy implies to me that you are pushing for greater inconsistency of formatting in WP — articles maintained by people who like boxes being very different to navigate than articles maintained by people who don't I am strongly opposed to the suggestion of removing see also links from the main article to boxes, and I think due to that more strong in my opposition to boxes. —David Eppstein 14:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, while Misplaced Pages is not on paper, there is no point in making articles much less usable by cluttering them with boxes. The primary means of navigating between pages is links in the text; the right link at the right time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

<--- First up, I am not talking about "cluttering" aryicles with boxes. It's not like there will be hundreds of the things lurking round every paragraph, ready to pounce on and confuse some unfortunate reader. Also, this is *not* a choice between boxes and alternative methods of navigation. We can have both, so that people can choose whichever they prefer. Yes, I agree that inline links as the primary method of navigation, but that doesn't mean they are the only one. (Categories, the search engine, and the address bar being others that spring to mind).

David Eppstein mentioned adding prose to "see also" lists to add context, and preumsably then the list will probably (hopefuly) end up becoming a proper section on "related areas". That be would be wonderful, and I'd like to see that wherever apropriate. So, I have no problem with "see also" lists remaining. (That said, if they did get removed by somone, an editor could still draw on the nav box as a source for related areas). (Yes, I've changed my mind as a result of your argument). Tompw 16:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think boxes at the top and bottom would be appropriate on some pagss. Some information is "vertical" (like math->algebra->group->ring->field) and others are more of a "level set" (homomorphism, group action, types of groups, etc). - grubber 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That would go against the principles of Misplaced Pages where you connect to relevant related articles via links in text, and categories a the bottom. Such a "bottom-up" approach works much better than the suggested "top-down" approach of going through a lot of articles and making them have a box of related links. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Sideboxes are used quite often for that purpose: to show it relation to other similar things (German language, Dog), to show what its basic properties are (Cesium, Austin, Texas), or to show its position in a series (History of the United States (1918–1945)). Sometimes it is nice to have these types of relationships excised from the text and stated succinctly. - grubber 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to put too much pressure on the people who have so far proposed some templates but...I don't really like what I've seen thus far. I understand that these are works in progress, but unless I see a concrete example that I like, right now these navigation templates seem like more trouble than they're worth. They seem like the infoboxes on bios, which are often, in my experience, just cluttered or useless. I suppose people have been harping about similar things so I'll stop with that.

Let me just reiterate a "philsophical" argument, due to David Eppstein, which I believe has been missed as it is not listed, for instance, in the list of arguments above. I believe the desire to create this kind of hierarchical system is really unnatural for a lot of mathematics. For some areas, it may "work". But here "work" doesn't mean that it really reflects an inherent hierarchy of concepts, but someone's training. So, for example, with group theory, many in the U.S. learn group theory in this rather pedestrian (albeit elegant) way where one starts with the group axioms, proceeds Bourbaki-style, learning eventually about group actions, etc. But for people with a different background or philosophy, this is really quite strange. For example, I believe there are major Russian schools of mathematics that would not teach group theory this way. Ok, enough philosophizing.... --Chan-Ho (Talk) 08:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting. I think in Russia they start with groups as symmetries of some object or set, and define everything that way. (I remember reading an article by Vladimir Arnold complaining bitterly that the axomatic way of teaching group theory left students with no understanding about what was actually Going On.) But I digress. The point Chan-Ho Suh is making is that different groups of people will order things in different ways as a result of their own educational experience, and this applies especially in mathematics. However, I think this would be resolvable, in that there would be general consensus on what topics would be included under group theory (sticking with groups). Yes, people learn about the topics in different orders, but that doesn't stop them from grouped togther in a similar way.

Also, this is the English-language wikipedia, and as such, articles should be written and organised with the English-speaking world as a target audience. Tompw 13:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny to take Bourbaki as a representative anglophone. And Chan-Ho has some very good points about the Russians. We would benefit greatly by having more from their angle here. Charles Matthews 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll weigh in with the majority opinion, that nav-boxes are inherently evil. My complaint is that I find that they provide a distorted view of the world, echoing some structure that was fashionable three decades ago. They typically give prominence to some inane topic while completely snubbing something more important. A well-written article will already contain all of the needed links to all of the topics that need to be linked. The nav-box offers nothing more than a quick escape for those with a short attention span. linas 05:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think a given nav box is as you describe, then why don't you change it? Tompw 10:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing the navboxes only makes sense if one already agrees that navboxes are a good idea. Some of us do not so agree. —David Eppstein 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Circular argment... "Nav boxes shoudln't exsist because they are bad. But if they are bad they should be improved. But they shoudln't be improved because they shouldn't exist, because they are bad." Tompw 17:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a circular argument. We have three choices: (1) use the navboxes we have, (2) make the navboxes better, (3) don't use navboxes at all. All I'm saying is that some of us prefer (3) over the other two choices. —David Eppstein 17:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed {{analysis-footer}} and {{geometry-footer}} from articles. The discussion here shows that people would prefer not to have these nav-boxes. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the Categories in Mathematics

As stated in the section above on Navigation Boxes, the Category system is better. However, many categories are over-full, for example, Category:Set theory. In such cases, we should create more subcategories (and subsubcategories, etc.). And we should also remove excessive categories from the articles. A good example is Category:Large cardinals which is a subcategory of Category:Cardinal numbers with little or no overlap. Unfortunately, overlap is common in other cases. JRSpriggs 07:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Category:Set theory has nearly 250 articles. As a rule of thumb, I would say 100 articles in a category is quite enough.

The trouble can be that you may need an expert to make subcategories that really convince. I wouldn't necessarily trust myself to go into the set theory category and do the right thing for it. Charles Matthews 08:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(I think the discussion in the above section says that some people think the category systems better, while others think nav boxes are better.) If an article can be said to belong to a category and a sub-category, then it should just go in the sub-category. That's why Category:Mathematics doesn't contain every single maths article on wikipedia. Tompw 13:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to make that a cast-iron rule, though. There are going to be a few exceptions, and it is excessively tidy-minded to enforce it. Charles Matthews 15:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't poked around much through the Misplaced Pages math categories so this is a bit naive, but I have a question: how well do the categories comport with the Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC) of the AMS? Dave Rusin has a general overview here and uses it in his articles . The AMS has some descriptions of it here and here. I guess I'm thinking it's worthwhile to not re-invent the wheel. Lunch 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The AMS article has this to say: "... it is not always clear how to classify a mathematical paper or theorem, as these fields and subjects are far from disjoint." --Jtir 22:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell: they don't. The AMS classifications are different from the way the categories have evolved. (See Areas of mathematics for somethign more akin to the AMS classification). I did consider at one poitn drawing up a map from Misplaced Pages categories to AMS classes, but I don't think it would've been of much use for Misplaced Pages. The important thing to remember is that the AMS system classifies mathematical papers; the WP categories clasify encyclolpedia articles. Tompw 12:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Any fixed system of categories is going to suffer from sclerosis. It is basically very un-wiki to say 'here, use this already-fabricated classification'. Works for biology, perhaps, but in mathematics you are for example going to have areas of combinatorics that take on their own identity as things move ahead. Charles Matthews 15:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know the MSC is used for categorizing contemporary research papers. Yes, I know a fixed set of categories isn't going to cut it.

But the MSC has evolved. And it is the result of a bunch of professionals (experts?) who got together and said, "hey, this is a useful way of categorizing stuff in mathematics."

What I'm suggesting is that it is a useful reference point. That papers/articles often fall in multiple (sub)categories. And for anyone looking to improve the verbal descriptions of categories on their pages, or looking for ways to split large categories into subcategories, the MSC might help point a way.

I hadn't seen areas of mathematics before, thanks. Lunch 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there is a new Category:Systems of set theory. Check it out. Add or remove articles as appropriate. Once it settles down, I may remove the members of it from Category:Set theory of which it is a subcategory. Unfortunately, it is on the second page of subcategories (on my screen, at least). JRSpriggs 07:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is harder to check out right now, because the weird way subcategories are listed means it is on the second page of Category:Set theory... Categories really should not be allowed to go over 200 entries. You really need to refine categories on a page into one or more subcategories, not just add them, or this problem gets no better. Charles Matthews 09:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In the last day, Charles Matthews has made a Herculean effort to improve the organization of Category:Set theory and its subcategories. I hope you will all join me in expressing our profound thanks to him. JRSpriggs 07:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll comment that the biggest change was the creation of Category:Basic concepts in set theory, for the counting-on-your-fingers level of things like the union of two sets, and in fact all the standard concepts of naive set theory. Charles Matthews 16:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Proof by symmetry

The Proof by symmetry looks kind of encyclopedic to me. Any comments on that? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely you mean UN-encyclopedic. Inarticulate and probably OR as well is what I say. Nor is it about "proof" by symmetry at all, but about some more nebulous concept of symmetry in mathematical expressions. It seems to have about the same encyclopedic status as Michael Hardy's "three kinds of induction" that generated such huge debate and was eventually partially merged into mathematical induction. This is the sort of attractive heuristic that someone really skilled in metamathematics could spin into a paper on "equations of balanced symbolism" or some such, but that the author just decided to stick on Misplaced Pages since it's less work and more public. Ryan Reich 03:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Proof by symmetry was written by User:Aklinger. It refers to Patterns in numbers, written by a certain Allen Klinger, professor emeritus of the computer science department at UCLA. The manuscript is listed as a draft here. I'm thus PRODding it as OR (I assume that Oleg meant unencyclopedic). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did mean UN-encyclopedic. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The wiki article is rather vague; the linked Klinger preprint slightly less so. However, there is no reason to accuse either of 'original research' in mathematics as such. Both the article and the preprint stresses points that have to do with problem solving methods and with mathematical didactics, not the (IMO rather mediocre) mathematics.

Both present a somewhat exaggerated view of the difference between Klingon's approach and more normal ones. (However, the greatest error was the addition of Category:algebra to the article, to which User:Aklinger seems innocent.) The merits or lack of merits ought to be discussed in a more pedagogical context. Does en:wiki have such pages? Does there exist comments on Pólya's problem solving approach; or even information on the regular international mathematical olympic games and their outcomes? Actually, Klinger does not offer a simpler solution of the problem; but it may be argued that his 'pivot' approach yields yet another approach to the problem, and therefore could be of use e.g. in training high school math athlets. It is also worth to note that he does quote a few printed articles, but in Science and similarly, none in a clearly professional mathematical context.

Of course, pattern searching is important; for interested kids, for the adult layperson, for graduate students, and for established math pro's. Actually, there are patterns for the pythagorean triples, too, which Klinger doesn't mention. Instead, he writes

While students often learn about the Pythagorean theorem and some specific instances, neither the name nor the values in any such triple possess power to stimulate.

One should recall that data equivalent to the Pythagorean triples have been found on mesopotamian cuneiforms, and clearly indicate that the ancient author knew the pattern - and followed it for its own sake, far beyond any practical usage. However, it is correct that we seldom teach the pythagorean triples patterns - or encourage students to find them on their own. My conclusion is: We should have categories on mathematical puzzle solving, more serious problem solving, mathematical competitrions, and approaches in mathematical teaching. In such contexts, an improved version of the article (also based on the published pattern recognition papers) might have some merits; but not in the field of describing mathematics itself. JoergenB

A brief account for the mathematical lack of content: I stopped reading the preprint at page 2, sat down a couple of minutes, and solved the problem by an equation for 'the lowest number', instead of one for 'the pivot (central) number' as Klinger proposes. Then I read on, and found that Klinger's solution hardly differs in complexity. If we got the question at the reference desk, I think some might deny to answer, referring to the 'no home assignments' rule. Klinger does also discuss a few variants of the problem, and how the pivot method illuminates their similarities.

The first problem may be stated thus: Given a positive integer n, find a positive x, such that

${\displaystyle x^{2}+(x+1)^{2}+\ldots +(x+n)^{2}=(x+n+1)^{2}+\ldots +(x+2n)^{2}\!}$ . My solution was: Move all but the first l.h.s. terms to the r.h.s., pair ${\displaystyle -(x+i)^{2}\,}$ with ${\displaystyle (x+i+n)^{2}\,}$, and sum. This quickly yields ${\displaystyle x^{2}=2n^{2}x+2n^{3}+n^{2}\,}$ and ${\displaystyle (x-n^{2})^{2}=(n(n+1))^{2}\,}$.

Klingers solution: Instead, solve for x in

${\displaystyle (x-n)^{2}+(x-n+1)^{2}+\ldots +x^{2}=(x+1)^{2}+\ldots +(x+n)^{2}\,}$, by moving all but the last l.h.s. term to the r.h.s., and pairing ${\displaystyle -(x-i)^{2}\,}$ with ${\displaystyle (x+i)^{2}\,}$; proceed as before. This is not OR in pure mathematics. JoergenB 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A more pertinent question is whether "proof by symmetry" is a neologism, which[REDACTED] avoids (WP:NEO), or an established term. In the latter case, since several editors say they have never heard of it, a collection of in-print references would be helpful. CMummert 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested that it was the mathematics itself that was original. The OR referred to is indeed more along the lines of neologisms, etc. JPD (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So it may be. However, I think that is an abuse of the term 'original research' (possible a common use, still an abuse). An article that does not contain new mathematics could be righteously brandished in many ways, but not by the OR label.

I found some mathematical competition articles, but not (yet) articles on pedagogical aspects of mathematics, or on problem solving. Since IMO these are the only contexts in which any of the proof by symmetry content (duly migrated) might be of any encyclopædic value, I'd appreciate hints where to find them. JoergenB 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You could try Category:Heuristics in general, How to Solve It in particular. Charles Matthews 16:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Euclidean group

The article Euclidean group is a large amount of little factoids, which added together make, in my view, a pain to read. The article is primarily the work of User:Patrick. I like much more the original version by Charles Matthews (see current version and good old version). I would vote for a rewrite of the article using the older version or a revert. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Embedded list is relevant, I think. (I'm guilty of perpetrating lists sometimes as well, but that doesn't mean I think it's generally good style.) —David Eppstein 04:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I always support good writing over grab bags; please do revert and rewrite. --KSmrq 05:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I added a lot of useful content, in a very orderly way, not as an unorganized collection of factoids. Therefore I am against deleting that. We should be careful in changing lists into prose, it may become less readable (or if we do, keep both, and split off parts if the article gets too long). Constructive input from others would be nice, there has been little activity by others the last year.--Patrick 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The new version does have a lot more information, but when I read through it I found it to be very staccato. Some of the lists are clear, but for example the overview of isometries section is very difficult to follow. I don't think a revert is justified, just some editing to make the article flow better. Adding introductory paragraphs to some of the sectins would make the lists more clear, while other lists could be replaced with a series of subsections. CMummert 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done some work on the ordering of sections, and other tweaks. It shouldn't be too hard to put this into approved 'concentric' style. Charles Matthews 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC) OK, that should be somewhat better now. The only point of real concern I have is this: does the article really need the non-closed subgroups enumerated? I would have thought the closed subgroups were enough. Charles Matthews 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If the overview is restricted to closed subgroups this has to be mentioned, you cannot say the subgroups are all of type A, B, or C, when there is also a type D. However, to clarify the restriction you have to explain it, so you end up briefly explaining the additional kind anyway.--Patrick 22:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree: if it is thought of as a topological group, why not just explain the closed subgroups? I don't see the need for any more than that. Charles Matthews 12:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this all belong on the talk page Talk:Euclidean group? Let's take it there. CMummert 22:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I started the discussion here to attract attention, now that people got involved, the discussion can continue on the appropriate talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Erdős number categories on CfD

The categories Category:Erdős number 1 etc. (not to be confused with Category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 1) are nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion on this, comment on Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 8#Erdős number categories. You probably have to be fast, as the nomination was six days ago. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Maths rating}}

Do people think it would be a good idea if I had MetsBot tag all pages in Category:Mathematics with {{Maths rating|class=|importance=}}? —Mets501 (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you give some background? What would be the advantage of doing that? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh? How can a bot give meaningful ratings? And, for all of mathematics, how can you? If the ratings are not meaningful, they shouldn't be added. This kind of useless busywork would light up every page on our watch lists, which strikes me as a spectacularly bad idea.

But I'll tell you what a bot could do that would be an interesting exercise, if you want to crawl over all the mathematics pages. Use one of the mechanical tests of readability, such as SMOG, both on the article as a whole and on the intro alone. Report back what you find. We could improve the overall quality of our writing by having short lists of easy-to-read and hard-to-read articles. Of course, better still would be to go beyond that, to teach good writing. But that a bot cannot do. --KSmrq 07:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure tagging all pages will be a good idea, its something like 10,000 pages most of which will probably stay unrated. For me the real use in the maths rating is identifying and grading the most important articles, I guess about 500 articles. There is some good work a bot could do. Currently only about half the articles listed in subpages of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0 have a rating tag, so taging these pages would help. Further as we move away from these hand compiled lists to automated lists like Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Mathematics articles by quality the shear number of articles will be problematic. Hence a bot could use the field tag of the template to assemble lists for each field of mathematics.

Reply to Jitse. The mathematics article rating is part of a wider project grading much of wikipedia, WP:1.0. There are 135 participating project. The aim of WP:1.0 is to make a CD with the best of[REDACTED] for which they need wikiprojects to identify their best and most important articles. Grading will also help identify the better mathematics articles, and promote them to GA/FA status, find week spots in our coverage. Overall grading ties with Jimbo's talk at wikimania that we have to start changing the focus from quantity to quality. --Salix alba (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Portal:maths, there are over 14,000 maths articles. I'm not sure if this is based on articles in Category:Mathematics, or List of mathematics articles, but either way, the number includes a lot of articles that are only tangentally connected wih maths. A lot would probably come under the scoep of other wikiprojects, and for that reaosn alone, it is not worth tagging every single article. IOne of the main reasons for the tagging is to try and help prioritise efforts, by highlighting important articles that need improving.

Related note: Do people think it is worth having a list (either on the wikiproject main page or a subpage) of high-importance stubs and top-importance start-class articles? (There are now no top-class stubs :-) ). Tompw 10:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Tompw 10:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The number 14,000 is based on all the math articles listed in the list of mathematics articles. It is true that some of them are only somewhat mathematical, as this is a general purpose encyclopedia and the distinction between what is true math and what is math-related can be blurry.

I agree with Tompw's arguments above about not tagging all math articles by a bot. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Another empty category

There are currently no articles or subcategories in Category:Infinity paradoxes which is a subcategory of Category:Infinity. Possibly related articles are in Category:Paradoxes of naive set theory which is in Category:Basic concepts in infinite set theory which is in Category:Infinity. Does anyone want to put something in the empty category or shall we delete it? JRSpriggs 08:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I say nominate for deletion. Category:Mathematics paradoxes is a reasonable upper bound, and the Category:Paradoxes of naive set theory was deliberately created to sort out those relevant to infinite cardinality. Charles Matthews 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Emmy Noether

I observe that this article has (recently, I believe) become congested with umlauts. Unless, as we are not likely to, we change the spelling of Noetherian ring, this should be straightened out, with a reasonable allowance of "Noether"s for a mathematician who is usually so called in English, and who died on the faculty of Bryn Mawr College. Septentrionalis 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And, if I may add, the German Misplaced Pages also spells the name de:Emmy Noether. So do German libraries, like the catalogue of the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. And so did she herself. I'm copying this over to the talk page of the article.  --Lambiam 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebesgue measure argument

I came across this article recently, and actually made some edits on it. The Lebesgue measure argument (as defined in the WP article) proves the uncountability of the reals via measure theory. As best I can tell the purpose of the argument is that it avoids the use of Cantor's diagonal argument and can be considered constructive,although I haven't actually checked whether the argument is in fact constructive. Googling on Lebesgue measure argument (verbatim) I get only two hits, from[REDACTED] both. Though the argument is valid and interesting (if actually constructive), does this article not violate WP:OR?

Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.--CSTAR 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This general idea seems to be present in the introduction to Oxtoby, John C. (1980). Measure and Category (2nd ed. ed.). Graduate Texts in Mathematics, no. 2, Springer-Verlag. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); you could cite that as a source. —David Eppstein 18:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it violates NOR, but I also don't think it's a particularly useful article as it stands. The hard part of the argument is that the measure of R as a whole is not zero, and that's not even touched in the article. When you fill everything in, I don't think it's any more "constructive" than the diagonal argument (which is pretty constructive, looked at the right way; for example, it's an intuitionistically valid proof that there's no surjection from ω onto 2). The article also has a very unenlightening title. --Trovatore 18:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research. It's well-known. I saw it in the first course on measure theory I ever took. I assigned it as an exercise for undergraduates when I taught a probability course at MIT. Of course, Trovatore is right about the "hard" part. Both Cantor's diagonal argument, and also his original argument for uncountability (which is three years older) are of course constructive. Michael Hardy 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh---now I see that the argument given here is actually more complicated than the one I assigned. The exercise I assigned also avoided the "hard" parts, since the course assumed only first-semester calculus as a prerequisite (at MIT, first-semester calculus is about what first-year calculus is in most other places). See my comments on the talk page accompanying the article. Michael Hardy 20:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"History of numerical approximations of π" really weird edit war---mathematicians please help

Look at the recent edit history of history of numerical approximations of π. User:DavidWBrooks has inserted this bit of wisdom into the article:

("radius"! Sic.)

Of course someone came to clean up this nonsense, but here's what he (user:Henning Makholm) wrote:

Is there something remotely approximating some correct statement in that? If so, what is it? (Makholm left the ratio as circumference-to-radius rather than circumference-to-diameter.) Michael Hardy 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation guidelines proposal

Since the discussions seem to have abated for some time now, I am asking the Mathematics and Physics WikiProjects if they support the new citation guidelines that I (and others) have devised. The point of the guidelines is to establish an appropriate, sensible standard for referencing articles in our fields so that we are less likely to run into objections (such as those that have come up recently) when we try to write technical articles that others then tell us are impropoerly sourced. I think these guidelines are now well thought out enough that they can be added to the main pages of the two WikiProjects and perhaps linked from WP:CITE. I should also note that they seem to have attracted some encouragement from outside the WikiProjects, on their talk page, mine, and on WP:CITE.

One outstanding issue is where to move the page. I don't have any great ideas. Misplaced Pages:WikiProjects Mathematics and Physics/Citation guidelines is too cumbersome. We could just leave it under physics as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Citation guidelines or be BOLD and put it at Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines (presumably this would mean we would have to engage with the rest of the community to ensure there is consensus). I submit we should go with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Citation guidelines and once we have consensus here go to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biology and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chemistry (and wherever else seems appropriate) to solicit their opinions, and then move it out of the physics WikiProject. We could even eventually go ask the wider Misplaced Pages community what they think at WP:CITE but I think that should be left as a longer term project. –Joke 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

Object

Neutral/Comment